NationStates Jolt Archive

Wednesday, at the “Take Back America Conference” for liberal activists, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton introduced George Soros with effusive praise.

Then in his remarks Mr. Soros--the billionaire supporter of John Kerry and MoveOn.org--equated the attacks of September 11 to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse and went on to say, “The war on terror has taken more innocent victims than the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

Unbelievable.

Abu Ghraib was bad and the soldiers involved are rightly being punished, but for Democrats to say that the abuse of Iraqi fighters is the moral equivalent of the slaughter of 3,000 innocent Americans is outrageous.

Recently, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called President Bush “an incompetent leader,” and said the President has “no judgment, no experience and no knowledge” and that he has the deaths of thousands of soldiers “on his shoulders.”

The hatred of the President by the San Francisco/Boston Democrats--led by John Kerry--is fueling a blame America first mentality that is troubling, and voters will reject it in November!

But their anger won't slow a growing economy, it was announced Thursday that 248,000 new jobs were created in May, meaning more than 1.1 million new jobs have been created this year! Thanks to the President’s leadership our economy is strong, and getting stronger

:shock:



Everybody here loves Soros.


*Ducks behind a rock*

How many innocent Iraqi civillian have been killed by bombs falling on them?

Or In afghanistan, when a wedding party was bombed, by mistake, and all 5o attendants were killed.

You need to do some more research.


But then again..your going to see all of this up close and personal, wont you?

You'll see.

How many innocent Iraqi civillian have been killed by bombs falling on them?

Or In afghanistan, when a wedding party was bombed, by mistake, and all 5o attendants were killed.

You need to do some more research.


But then again..your going to see all of this up close and personal, wont you?

You'll see.
what was the intent of the soldiers and airment in Iraq and Afganistain? Their intent was not to kill women, children, and civilians, but the terrorists on Sept. 11th intended to kill as many civilians as possible.

Hopefully I will not have to see any dead Americans or Iraqis at all when I am over there.

Since I will be in a tank, this will be the closest thing to a dead Iraqi I will see after a suicide attack attempt on my track...

http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/dumb_bomber.jpg

How many innocent Iraqi civillian have been killed by bombs falling on them?

Or In afghanistan, when a wedding party was bombed, by mistake, and all 5o attendants were killed.

You need to do some more research.


But then again..your going to see all of this up close and personal, wont you?

You'll see.
what was the intent of the soldiers and airment in Iraq and Afganistain? Their intent was not to kill women, children, and civilians, but the terrorists on Sept. 11th intended to kill as many civilians as possible.

Hopefully I will not have to see any dead Americans or Iraqis at all when I am over there.

Who cares about intent?

Im talking about body counts of innocent people.
Not all Iraqi's are terrorists..in fact hardly any of them are....
Most of therm are just people who want all the shooting to stop.

I hope you dont have to see any of that either....but, you just may see some aftermath of it all....

Wether or not anyone INTENDED to kill them..theres a lot of dead Iraqi people.
and we did it.

How many innocent Iraqi civillian have been killed by bombs falling on them?

Or In afghanistan, when a wedding party was bombed, by mistake, and all 5o attendants were killed.

You need to do some more research.


But then again..your going to see all of this up close and personal, wont you?

You'll see.
what was the intent of the soldiers and airment in Iraq and Afganistain? Their intent was not to kill women, children, and civilians, but the terrorists on Sept. 11th intended to kill as many civilians as possible.

Hopefully I will not have to see any dead Americans or Iraqis at all when I am over there.

Who cares about intent?

Im talking about body counts of innocent people.
Not all Iraqi's are terrorists..in fact hardly any of them are....
Most of therm are just people who want all the shooting to stop.

I hope you dont have to see any of that either....but, you just may see some aftermath of it all....

Wether or not anyone INTENDED to kill them..theres a lot of dead Iraqi people.
and we did it.
I am not debating the fact that innocent people die in war. that is nothing that is isolated to this war. innocent people have always died in wars, no matter who is fighting.

Septmeber 11th was a terrorist attack, those people in the WTC and Pentagon were not in a war zone. that is the differance

Soros is being cast as a liberal icon? :lol:

OK, now I really have heard everything.

Soros is being cast as a liberal icon? :lol:

OK, now I really have heard everything.\

who called him an Icon?

I'm so sick of this attack on liberals.. did liberals lie to go to war in Iraq? No.. the right did. End of story in my books. We all know who the liars are. In this time in history it's the Republican party.. more pointed, The White House. All arguments that say different have been discredited. They lied. Deal with it. Should it be cleaned up, of course, it is the responsibility of America and as dictated by the Geneva Conventions.

You want to practice preemptive war.. you better be freaking right. This sadly was not the case. The buck stops at the top. Not any where else. That's responsible government. We have seen no such thing in the last 3+ years in the United States of America.

So....

I gotta ask....

whats the difference wether or not innocents get killed in a bombing campaign....or a jet flying into the WTC?

Either way.....innocents got killed.

I'm so sick of this attack on liberals.. did liberals lie to go to war in Iraq? No.. the right did. End of story in my books. We all know who the liars are. In this time in history it's the Republican party.. more pointed, The White House. All arguments that say different have been discredited. They lied. Deal with it. Should it be cleaned up, of course, it is the responsibility of America and as dictated by the Geneva Conventions.

You want to practice preemptive war.. you better be freaking right. This sadly was not the case. The buck stops at the top. Not any where else. That's responsible government. We have seen no such thing in the last 3+ years in the United States of America.
In summary...

The right always lies
The right always starts wars
I guess Clinton was a republican, because he lied about his affair.

I guess LBJ was a republican, because he started a war.

Anything you can dispise about one side, the other side is guilty of as well.

So....

I gotta ask....

whats the difference wether or not innocents get killed in a bombing campaign....or a jet flying into the WTC?

Either way.....innocents got killed.
innocent dead people are still innocent dead people. the differance was that the citizens of many nations were murdered while going to work on that day in an area that was not a combat zone. The innocent people killed in Iraq were in a war zone.

So....

I gotta ask....

whats the difference wether or not innocents get killed in a bombing campaign....or a jet flying into the WTC?

Either way.....innocents got killed.
innocent dead people are still innocent dead people. the differance was that the citizens of many nations were murdered while going to work on that day in an area that was not a combat zone. The innocent people killed in Iraq were in a war zone.

Yes..but it was only a war zone becuase of OUR agression.

Those people were sleeping in thier beds while we bombed them back to the stone age.

So....

I gotta ask....

whats the difference wether or not innocents get killed in a bombing campaign....or a jet flying into the WTC?

Either way.....innocents got killed.
innocent dead people are still innocent dead people. the differance was that the citizens of many nations were murdered while going to work on that day in an area that was not a combat zone. The innocent people killed in Iraq were in a war zone.

Yes..but it was only a war zone becuase of OUR agression.


thats a matter of personal opinion, not fact.

You want to practice preemptive war.. you better be freaking right. This sadly was not the case. The buck stops at the top. Not any where else. That's responsible government. We have seen no such thing in the last 3+ years in the United States of America.
Saddam was just misunderstood and should still be in power, right? :roll:

I guess Clinton was a republican, because he lied about his affair.

I guess LBJ was a republican, because he started a war.

Anything you can dispise about one side, the other side is guilty of as well.

First, I would like it if you didn't misuse quote tags to quote some thing I nevr said. I'm talking about here and now. The lies that were told to the world at this moment in history. You can argue stawmen arguments about well "so did they" Well first of all Clinton's blowjob didn't get any one hurt or killed.

Lying about facts to go to war that have now taken the lives of over 800 American kids and thousands of Iraqi's can hardly be compared to a god damn blowjob. That argument is so weak it's not even funny.

I also don't believe LBJ lied to go to war.. even though I don't agree with what LBJ did.. and it was such a waste.. at least he didn't outright lie to do it.

So....

I gotta ask....

whats the difference wether or not innocents get killed in a bombing campaign....or a jet flying into the WTC?

Either way.....innocents got killed.
innocent dead people are still innocent dead people. the differance was that the citizens of many nations were murdered while going to work on that day in an area that was not a combat zone. The innocent people killed in Iraq were in a war zone.

Yes..but it was only a war zone becuase of OUR agression.


thats a matter of personal opinion, not fact.

Okay....

So we killed thousands of innocents on PERSONAL OPINIONS then.

Not fact.

You want to practice preemptive war.. you better be freaking right. This sadly was not the case. The buck stops at the top. Not any where else. That's responsible government. We have seen no such thing in the last 3+ years in the United States of America.
Saddam was just misunderstood and should still be in power, right? :roll:

o0o0o0o you got one man.. at what cost? To what end? For all you know Iraq will emerge worse then before and why? Because Bush had no plan .. because Bush is the worse leader in modern history for a free nation. They lied, they had no plan and now.. who knows what will become of Iraq. Nothing is to say they won't end up worse then they were. Yes, it is possible.

I guess Clinton was a republican, because he lied about his affair.

I guess LBJ was a republican, because he started a war.

Anything you can dispise about one side, the other side is guilty of as well.

First, I would like it if you didn't misuse quote tags to quote some thing I nevr said. I'm talking about here and now. The lies that were told to the world at this moment in history. You can argue stawmen arguments about well "so did they" Well first of all Clinton's blowjob didn't get any one hurt or killed.

Lying about facts to go to war that have now taken the lives of over 800 American kids and thousands of Iraqi's can hardly be compared to a god damn blowjob. That argument is so weak it's not even funny.

I also don't believe LBJ lied to go to war.. even though I don't agree with what LBJ did.. and it was such a waste.. at least he didn't outright lie to do it.
If you are talking about "here and now" than get over what Bush did over a year ago. The present problem is how to get Iraq into a democracy and how to get our troops out as fast as possible without disregarding Iraq's well-being.

Since we went to war, it has been proven that Bush did not lie to the world. He just relayed bad intelligence to us. He was fooled by it the same way the world was.

At least Bush didn't lie under oath like Clinton did.

Okay....

So we killed thousands of innocents on PERSONAL OPINIONS then.

Not fact.
i said the fact that the war was caused because of our agression was a matter of your personal opinion.

I guess Clinton was a republican, because he lied about his affair.

I guess LBJ was a republican, because he started a war.

Anything you can dispise about one side, the other side is guilty of as well.

First, I would like it if you didn't misuse quote tags to quote some thing I nevr said. I'm talking about here and now. The lies that were told to the world at this moment in history. You can argue stawmen arguments about well "so did they" Well first of all Clinton's blowjob didn't get any one hurt or killed.

Lying about facts to go to war that have now taken the lives of over 800 American kids and thousands of Iraqi's can hardly be compared to a god damn blowjob. That argument is so weak it's not even funny.

I also don't believe LBJ lied to go to war.. even though I don't agree with what LBJ did.. and it was such a waste.. at least he didn't outright lie to do it.
If you are talking about "here and now" than get over what Bush did over a year ago. The present problem is how to get Iraq into a democracy and how to get our troops out as fast as possible without disregarding Iraq's well-being.

Since we went to war, it has been proven that Bush did not lie to the world. He just relayed bad intelligence to us. He was fooled by it the same way the world was.

At least Bush didn't lie under oath like Clinton did.

Woah woah woah....

Lest not turn this into a Bush vs Clinton thread..becuase Bush would LOSE big time.'

Trust me.

This is about the death of innocents in Iraq, and comparing them to the victims of 9/11....

Okay....

So we killed thousands of innocents on PERSONAL OPINIONS then.

Not fact.
i said the fact that the war was caused because of our agression was a matter of your personal opinion.

Right.

and the belief that Saddam had WMD's was too.

You want to practice preemptive war.. you better be freaking right. This sadly was not the case. The buck stops at the top. Not any where else. That's responsible government. We have seen no such thing in the last 3+ years in the United States of America.
Saddam was just misunderstood and should still be in power, right? :roll:

o0o0o0o you got one man.. at what cost? To what end? For all you know Iraq will emerge worse then before and why? Because Bush had no plan .. because Bush is the worse leader in modern history for a free nation. They lied, they had no plan and now.. who knows what will become of Iraq. Nothing is to say they won't end up worse then they were. Yes, it is possible.
The lack of a set policy for how Iraq will be shaped is the only thing I disagree with as far as Bush's policies in regards to it go.

However, if he had a set idea for how he would help form a new govt., you'd just be bashing him for engaging in "nation building", something he has said he is not doing in the M.E.

So, he has two choices. Be as vague as possible and have people like you bitch at him for being vague. Or, reveal his plans and have you people bitch about those. By being vague he attracts attention away from what he is actually doing, giving him more freedom to do things without being accused of various things.

Woah woah woah....

Lest not turn this into a Bush vs Clinton thread..becuase Bush would LOSE big time.'

Trust me.

This is about the death of innocents in Iraq, and comparing them to the victims of 9/11....
I am saying politicians are politicians. Politicians will always lie, no matter what party they are from.

If you cannot see the differance between the "murders" of 3,000 people on Sept 11th and the "negligable homicide" of Iraqis you are blind.

(edit: 1000th post! YEA, I GOT MAIL!!!!)

Okay....

So we killed thousands of innocents on PERSONAL OPINIONS then.

Not fact.
i said the fact that the war was caused because of our agression was a matter of your personal opinion.

Right.

and the belief that Saddam had WMD's was too.
correct.

You want to practice preemptive war.. you better be freaking right. This sadly was not the case. The buck stops at the top. Not any where else. That's responsible government. We have seen no such thing in the last 3+ years in the United States of America.
Saddam was just misunderstood and should still be in power, right? :roll:

o0o0o0o you got one man.. at what cost? To what end? For all you know Iraq will emerge worse then before and why? Because Bush had no plan .. because Bush is the worse leader in modern history for a free nation. They lied, they had no plan and now.. who knows what will become of Iraq. Nothing is to say they won't end up worse then they were. Yes, it is possible.
The lack of a set policy for how Iraq will be shaped is the only thing I disagree with as far as Bush's policies in regards to it go.

However, if he had a set idea for how he would help form a new govt., you'd just be bashing him for engaging in "nation building", something he has said he is not doing in the M.E.

So, he has two choices. Be as vague as possible and have people like you bitch at him for being vague. Or, reveal his plans and have you people bitch about those. By being vague he attracts attention away from what he is actually doing, giving him more freedom to do things without being accused of various things.

Yeah, I suppose that's a good a speculation and or guess as any one's..

You want to practice preemptive war.. you better be freaking right. This sadly was not the case. The buck stops at the top. Not any where else. That's responsible government. We have seen no such thing in the last 3+ years in the United States of America.
Saddam was just misunderstood and should still be in power, right? :roll:

o0o0o0o you got one man.. at what cost? To what end? For all you know Iraq will emerge worse then before and why? Because Bush had no plan .. because Bush is the worse leader in modern history for a free nation. They lied, they had no plan and now.. who knows what will become of Iraq. Nothing is to say they won't end up worse then they were. Yes, it is possible.
The lack of a set policy for how Iraq will be shaped is the only thing I disagree with as far as Bush's policies in regards to it go.

However, if he had a set idea for how he would help form a new govt., you'd just be bashing him for engaging in "nation building", something he has said he is not doing in the M.E.

So, he has two choices. Be as vague as possible and have people like you bitch at him for being vague. Or, reveal his plans and have you people bitch about those. By being vague he attracts attention away from what he is actually doing, giving him more freedom to do things without being accused of various things.

Yeah, I suppose that's a good a speculation and or guess as any one's..
He really is smarter than you Liberals give him credit for. All politicians who rise to a moderately high level are clever. They survive years of political intrigue and avoid years of scandal to get to those offices. Clinton was a horn dog, and a liar, but he was clever too, i'm the first to admit that.

Woah woah woah....

Lest not turn this into a Bush vs Clinton thread..becuase Bush would LOSE big time.'

Trust me.

This is about the death of innocents in Iraq, and comparing them to the victims of 9/11....
I am saying politicians are politicians. Politicians will always lie, no matter what party they are from.

If you cannot see the differance between the "murders" of 3,000 people on Sept 11th and the "negligable homicide" of Iraqis you are blind.

(edit: 1000th post! YEA, I GOT MAIL!!!!)

Look at this way....

19 People hijacked some planes and flew them into some buildings to try and kill as many people as they could.

Thats murder.

later...

Person A, dropped a lot of bombs on Iraq.

Although he was aiming for person B, he ended up killing.....persons C through Z....

it would be the same as this....

If I were drving my car on the sidewalk, to try and run you down....(personj A)
and I ended up killing 12 other people as well....(B-M)

Is that not murder?
Would I not be just as responsible for thier deaths?

He really is smarter than you Liberals give him credit for. All politicians who rise to a moderately high level are clever. They survive years of political intrigue and avoid years of scandal to get to those offices. Clinton was a horn dog, and a liar, but he was clever too, i'm the first to admit that.

Oh, I don't think we all think he's per se stupid, as much as dangerous. Bad policy and bad ideas. I don't think you become the President of the USA by being a total idiot, that's for sure.

I find it troublesome though when people start comparing Clinton getting a blowjob and lying about it to that of a war. First of all, in a free society Clinton should of never had to even answer those questions, except maybe to his wife. It's night and day... not even close to the same thing.

I do wonder though if people will still be blaming Clinton for their current President's short-comings in 2050... :|

Woah woah woah....

Lest not turn this into a Bush vs Clinton thread..becuase Bush would LOSE big time.'

Trust me.

This is about the death of innocents in Iraq, and comparing them to the victims of 9/11....
I am saying politicians are politicians. Politicians will always lie, no matter what party they are from.

If you cannot see the differance between the "murders" of 3,000 people on Sept 11th and the "negligable homicide" of Iraqis you are blind.

(edit: 1000th post! YEA, I GOT MAIL!!!!)

Look at this way....

19 People hijacked some planes and flew them into some buildings to try and kill as many people as they could.

Thats murder.

later...

Person A, dropped a lot of bombs on Iraq.

Although he was aiming for person B, he ended up killing.....persons C through Z....

it would be the same as this....

If I were drving my car on the sidewalk, to try and run you down....(personj A)
and I ended up killing 12 other people as well....(B-M)

Is that not murder?
Would I not be just as responsible for thier deaths?
But what if person A were a dangerous maniac who had plans of killing persons B1-Z5000? Are not a few lives worth saving hundreds or thousands?

He really is smarter than you Liberals give him credit for. All politicians who rise to a moderately high level are clever. They survive years of political intrigue and avoid years of scandal to get to those offices. Clinton was a horn dog, and a liar, but he was clever too, i'm the first to admit that.

Oh, I don't think we all think he's per se stupid, as much as dangerous. Bad policy and bad ideas. I don't think you become the President of the USA by being a total idiot, that's for sure.

I find it troublesome though when people start comparing Clinton getting a blowjob and lying about it to that of a war. First of all, in a free society Clinton should of never had to even answer those questions, except maybe to his wife. It's night and day... not even close to the same thing.

I do wonder though if people will still be blaming Clinton for their current President's short-comings in 2050... :|

I think Bush got lucky.

Hes not stupid....but hes not exactly the caliber of intelligence that weve seen in presidents over the years.
He had the right father.
and the right people who were willing to play very dirty to get him elected.
and a cabinet of the same people.

But....his luck will run out in five months.

Woah woah woah....

Lest not turn this into a Bush vs Clinton thread..becuase Bush would LOSE big time.'

Trust me.

This is about the death of innocents in Iraq, and comparing them to the victims of 9/11....
I am saying politicians are politicians. Politicians will always lie, no matter what party they are from.

If you cannot see the differance between the "murders" of 3,000 people on Sept 11th and the "negligable homicide" of Iraqis you are blind.

(edit: 1000th post! YEA, I GOT MAIL!!!!)

Look at this way....

19 People hijacked some planes and flew them into some buildings to try and kill as many people as they could.

Thats murder.

later...

Person A, dropped a lot of bombs on Iraq.

Although he was aiming for person B, he ended up killing.....persons C through Z....

it would be the same as this....

If I were drving my car on the sidewalk, to try and run you down....(personj A)
and I ended up killing 12 other people as well....(B-M)

Is that not murder?
Would I not be just as responsible for thier deaths?
But what if person A were a dangerous maniac who had plans of killing persons B1-Z5000? Are not a few lives worth saving hundreds or thousands?

Who can place a value on a human life?

Not me.

If..If....

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

and your assuming he DID have those plans.wich by the looks of it...he didnt.

I guess Clinton was a republican, because he lied about his affair.

I guess LBJ was a republican, because he started a war.

Anything you can dispise about one side, the other side is guilty of as well.

First, I would like it if you didn't misuse quote tags to quote some thing I nevr said. I'm talking about here and now. The lies that were told to the world at this moment in history. You can argue stawmen arguments about well "so did they" Well first of all Clinton's blowjob didn't get any one hurt or killed.

Lying about facts to go to war that have now taken the lives of over 800 American kids and thousands of Iraqi's can hardly be compared to a god damn blowjob. That argument is so weak it's not even funny.

I also don't believe LBJ lied to go to war.. even though I don't agree with what LBJ did.. and it was such a waste.. at least he didn't outright lie to do it.
If you are talking about "here and now" than get over what Bush did over a year ago. The present problem is how to get Iraq into a democracy and how to get our troops out as fast as possible without disregarding Iraq's well-being.

Um, no, that is part of the "here and now," because we're talking about the conflict that began a year ago and who started it, as opposed to the Clinton bit which deals with nothing relevant. The present problem is also what to do with the yahoo who got us into this mess.

Since we went to war, it has been proven that Bush did not lie to the world. He just relayed bad intelligence to us. He was fooled by it the same way the world was.

Uh huh, I figured that getting a few guys in his regime to take the fall would be enough for some people. I'm not so easily swayed, and you can cry "conspiracy theorist!" all you like about that.

At least Bush didn't lie under oath like Clinton did.

How trite...that's such a stupid statement, it's not even funny. But...

Let's see...Clinton's lie killed...no one.
Bush's vague deception killed...well, here we are, back where we started. How to derail us from the obvious conclusion this time, NA?

He really is smarter than you Liberals give him credit for. All politicians who rise to a moderately high level are clever. They survive years of political intrigue and avoid years of scandal to get to those offices. Clinton was a horn dog, and a liar, but he was clever too, i'm the first to admit that.

Oh, I don't think we all think he's per se stupid, as much as dangerous. Bad policy and bad ideas. I don't think you become the President of the USA by being a total idiot, that's for sure.

I find it troublesome though when people start comparing Clinton getting a blowjob and lying about it to that of a war. First of all, in a free society Clinton should of never had to even answer those questions, except maybe to his wife. It's night and day... not even close to the same thing.

I do wonder though if people will still be blaming Clinton for their current President's short-comings in 2050... :|


But....his luck will run out in five months.

As an International observer, I think I can safely say I speak for the free world when I say, I certainly hope so. Given the majority of people in the free world hate him to the core for what he's done.

He really is smarter than you Liberals give him credit for. All politicians who rise to a moderately high level are clever. They survive years of political intrigue and avoid years of scandal to get to those offices. Clinton was a horn dog, and a liar, but he was clever too, i'm the first to admit that.

Oh, I don't think we all think he's per se stupid, as much as dangerous. Bad policy and bad ideas. I don't think you become the President of the USA by being a total idiot, that's for sure.

I find it troublesome though when people start comparing Clinton getting a blowjob and lying about it to that of a war. First of all, in a free society Clinton should of never had to even answer those questions, except maybe to his wife. It's night and day... not even close to the same thing.

I do wonder though if people will still be blaming Clinton for their current President's short-comings in 2050... :|
In 2050 either...

A) Conservatives will have control, and not care about what Clinton did because they're happy with being in control.

B) Liberals will be in control, and point to Clinton as some sort of Rolemodel.

C) We'll have the same squabbling with have now, in which, Conservatives will blame modern and historical Liberals, and vice versa.

He really is smarter than you Liberals give him credit for. All politicians who rise to a moderately high level are clever. They survive years of political intrigue and avoid years of scandal to get to those offices. Clinton was a horn dog, and a liar, but he was clever too, i'm the first to admit that.

Oh, I don't think we all think he's per se stupid, as much as dangerous. Bad policy and bad ideas. I don't think you become the President of the USA by being a total idiot, that's for sure.

I find it troublesome though when people start comparing Clinton getting a blowjob and lying about it to that of a war. First of all, in a free society Clinton should of never had to even answer those questions, except maybe to his wife. It's night and day... not even close to the same thing.

I do wonder though if people will still be blaming Clinton for their current President's short-comings in 2050... :|


But....his luck will run out in five months.

As an International observer, I think I can safely say I speak for the free world when I say, I certainly hope so. Given the majority of people in the free world hate him to the core for what he's done.

As someone who lives a mere hour away from your country....
If his luck doesnt fade...'
Im moving in.

I dont eat much..and I like Hockey.

He really is smarter than you Liberals give him credit for. All politicians who rise to a moderately high level are clever. They survive years of political intrigue and avoid years of scandal to get to those offices. Clinton was a horn dog, and a liar, but he was clever too, i'm the first to admit that.

Oh, I don't think we all think he's per se stupid, as much as dangerous. Bad policy and bad ideas. I don't think you become the President of the USA by being a total idiot, that's for sure.

I find it troublesome though when people start comparing Clinton getting a blowjob and lying about it to that of a war. First of all, in a free society Clinton should of never had to even answer those questions, except maybe to his wife. It's night and day... not even close to the same thing.

I do wonder though if people will still be blaming Clinton for their current President's short-comings in 2050... :|


But....his luck will run out in five months.

As an International observer, I think I can safely say I speak for the free world when I say, I certainly hope so. Given the majority of people in the free world hate him to the core for what he's done.
Majority of people in the free world supported Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policies. That doesn't mean they were right.

Majority of people in the free world supported Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policies. That doesn't mean they were right.

Perhaps, but there is little doubt this time. We know we were lied to. That's been proven. You can argue among yourselves exactly who it was who gave Bush the lies.. but there is no mistake that they were lies. As well, The White House had no problem exaggerating those lies.. sad when you really think about it. It wasn't playing politics so much that bothers me. It was those lies have cost so many lives. So many innocent lives, when it never had to happen.

Majority of people in the free world supported Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policies. That doesn't mean they were right.

I'll give you credit for this as a good point as soon as you can show me evidence that Saddam's Iraq was anything close to the powerhouse that was Hitler's Germany. Til then, I'm left wondering why you would draw such a parallel, except to merely point out the obvious - that a majority can be wrong.

Woah woah woah....

Lest not turn this into a Bush vs Clinton thread..becuase Bush would LOSE big time.'

Trust me.

This is about the death of innocents in Iraq, and comparing them to the victims of 9/11....
I am saying politicians are politicians. Politicians will always lie, no matter what party they are from.

If you cannot see the differance between the "murders" of 3,000 people on Sept 11th and the "negligable homicide" of Iraqis you are blind.

(edit: 1000th post! YEA, I GOT MAIL!!!!)

Look at this way....

19 People hijacked some planes and flew them into some buildings to try and kill as many people as they could.

Thats murder.

later...

Person A, dropped a lot of bombs on Iraq.

Although he was aiming for person B, he ended up killing.....persons C through Z....

it would be the same as this....

If I were drving my car on the sidewalk, to try and run you down....(personj A)
and I ended up killing 12 other people as well....(B-M)

Is that not murder?
Would I not be just as responsible for thier deaths?
But what if person A were a dangerous maniac who had plans of killing persons B1-Z5000? Are not a few lives worth saving hundreds or thousands?

assuming that the 'terrorists' in iraq are in fact iraqis that are just opposing a foreign invasion (al qaeda was not in iraq, well at least no before the invasion but i doubt they are there now) then none of these 'terrorists' had any intention of going to america and cause another 9/11. so person B would have never killed those you are 'protecting'.

if the killing of person B-Z by person A caused enough anger in person A1-Z10 to develop plans to kill person A11-Z100000, would it not be very very irresponsible to kill person B? this is what happened in iraq, you just drove hundreds, if not thousands persons over the edge and made sure you'll have a hard time 'protecting the citizens of america'.

Majority of people in the free world supported Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policies. That doesn't mean they were right.

I'll give you credit for this as a good point as soon as you can show me evidence that Saddam's Iraq was anything close to the powerhouse that was Hitler's Germany. Til then, I'm left wondering why you would draw such a parallel, except to merely point out the obvious - that a majority can be wrong.
Saddam was one dark jewel in the crown of despotism. One we had a grudge against for the last time when we were not allowed to remove him. Maybe he's not dangerous, as an individual. The idea of an "Axis of Evil" is not that far fetched. Countries with grudges against the U.S. could decide it's in their best interests to band up and hate us together, with results that I doubt would be good.

Another idea which ties in is whether or not it is a good idea to destroy dictatorial governments. I must say it is. When one dictator dies in time of peace, he is invariably replaced with another. That cycling needs to stop. We need to create governments that are stable, democratic, and self-sufficient in countries that today suffer under the will of despots.

Bush has taken the first step towards this future, and I support him in it. He had two options when moving down this road. A) State his full intentions, hope the U.N. doesn't call him a whack job. B) Give the best semi-legitimate excuse for removing Saddam he could find. He chose B because he felt it would be his best chance for getting support from the U.N. for removing these evil men. He underestimated just how distrustful, perhaps even hateful, the rest of the world is towards the U.S.

In 50 years, if the course of this tactic runs, I can see a better world.

Countries with grudges against the U.S. could decide it's in their best interests to band up and hate us together, with results that I doubt would be good.

True.

but then again...

Whats good for America, tends to be good for the U.K, Canada, and most other Democratic/capitalistic nations as well........generally.

So to "band together" against the U.S, is to band against those nations as well..

Thats gets you invaded.
and probably killed.

In the case of Iraq......everyone went along willingly until the world found out Bush was full of it....then backed off.

If a TRUE "axis of evil" showd up....

What do you think would be the result?

Majority of people in the free world supported Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policies. That doesn't mean they were right.

I'll give you credit for this as a good point as soon as you can show me evidence that Saddam's Iraq was anything close to the powerhouse that was Hitler's Germany. Til then, I'm left wondering why you would draw such a parallel, except to merely point out the obvious - that a majority can be wrong.
Saddam was one dark jewel in the crown of despotism. One we had a grudge against for the last time when we were not allowed to remove him. Maybe he's not dangerous, as an individual. The idea of an "Axis of Evil" is not that far fetched. Countries with grudges against the U.S. could decide it's in their best interests to band up and hate us together, with results that I doubt would be good.

Another idea which ties in is whether or not it is a good idea to destroy dictatorial governments. I must say it is. When one dictator dies in time of peace, he is invariably replaced with another. That cycling needs to stop. We need to create governments that are stable, democratic, and self-sufficient in countries that today suffer under the will of despots.

Bush has taken the first step towards this future, and I support him in it. He had two options when moving down this road. A) State his full intentions, hope the U.N. doesn't call him a whack job. B) Give the best semi-legitimate excuse for removing Saddam he could find. He chose B because he felt it would be his best chance for getting support from the U.N. for removing these evil men. He underestimated just how distrustful, perhaps even hateful, the rest of the world is towards the U.S.

In 50 years, if the course of this tactic runs, I can see a better world.

For three paragraphs, it's surprising how little you said - you entirely skirted proving that appeasing Saddam was in any way similar to appeasing Hitler. All you've thrown at me, instead, are some speculations and your personal justifications for why you think this war was right. Not only do these not give me the information I asked for, but they show just how weak your case is. If you actually had a strong argument here, you wouldn't need to go off in three different directions when asked to prove one comparison valid.

Saddam was not Hitler, the circumstances are not even vaguely close.

Majority of people in the free world supported Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policies. That doesn't mean they were right.

I'll give you credit for this as a good point as soon as you can show me evidence that Saddam's Iraq was anything close to the powerhouse that was Hitler's Germany. Til then, I'm left wondering why you would draw such a parallel, except to merely point out the obvious - that a majority can be wrong.
Saddam was one dark jewel in the crown of despotism. One we had a grudge against for the last time when we were not allowed to remove him. Maybe he's not dangerous, as an individual. The idea of an "Axis of Evil" is not that far fetched. Countries with grudges against the U.S. could decide it's in their best interests to band up and hate us together, with results that I doubt would be good.

Another idea which ties in is whether or not it is a good idea to destroy dictatorial governments. I must say it is. When one dictator dies in time of peace, he is invariably replaced with another. That cycling needs to stop. We need to create governments that are stable, democratic, and self-sufficient in countries that today suffer under the will of despots.

Bush has taken the first step towards this future, and I support him in it. He had two options when moving down this road. A) State his full intentions, hope the U.N. doesn't call him a whack job. B) Give the best semi-legitimate excuse for removing Saddam he could find. He chose B because he felt it would be his best chance for getting support from the U.N. for removing these evil men. He underestimated just how distrustful, perhaps even hateful, the rest of the world is towards the U.S.

In 50 years, if the course of this tactic runs, I can see a better world.

For three paragraphs, it's surprising how little you said - you entirely skirted proving that appeasing Saddam was in any way similar to appeasing Hitler. All you've thrown at me, instead, are some speculations and your personal justifications for why you think this war was right. Not only do these not give me the information I asked for, but they show just how weak your case is. If you actually had a strong argument here, you wouldn't need to go off in three different directions when asked to prove one comparison valid.

Saddam was not Hitler, the circumstances are not even vaguely close.
So Saddam didn't really kill ethnic minorities and invade neighboring countries?

Appeasement is appeasement. Despots deserve death, not concessions.

I don't think you're using the word appeasement correctly. Appeasement means that someone is in a position of power and in order to save your own ass from being attacked, you give him what he wants. Saddam wasn't in a position of power and hadn't been a threat for 11 years, so it's factually incorrect to say that the US was appeasing him by not deposing him. The US contained Saddam.

Now you can argue all night about whether or not Hussein needed to be deposed--but you can't realistically say that the US was appeasing him.

So Saddam didn't really kill ethnic minorities and invade neighboring countries?

Not by far on the scale Hitler did.

Appeasement is appeasement. Despots deserve death, not concessions.

Depends on what works best; what will cause the least amount of chaos and death.

I don't think you're using the word appeasement correctly. Appeasement means that someone is in a position of power and in order to save your own ass from being attacked, you give him what he wants. Saddam wasn't in a position of power and hadn't been a threat for 11 years, so it's factually incorrect to say that the US was appeasing him by not deposing him. The US contained Saddam.

Now you can argue all night about whether or not Hussein needed to be deposed--but you can't realistically say that the US was appeasing him.
I'm using appeasement mostly in regards to terrorism and terrorist organizations. Saddam was contained, but that doesn't mean we didn't need to oust him.

Appeasement is Spain withdrawing from a war of freedom in response to a terrorist attack. Appeasement is ignoring islamic terrorism in places like the Phillipines in the hopes that the problem will go away. Every time we allow it to continue, it is a concession.

Also, that we were appeasing Saddam wasn't my original arguement, just that leaving him in power is a bad idea the same way appeasing Hitler was a bad idea. Sure, on a smaller scale, but still a bad idea.

So Saddam didn't really kill ethnic minorities and invade neighboring countries?

Not by far on the scale Hitler did.

Appeasement is appeasement. Despots deserve death, not concessions.

Depends on what works best; what will cause the least amount of chaos and death.
Freedom is worth a little chaos and death. Freedom is the most cherished idea of every western country (unless Europe has become more Socialist than I think). Every human being deserves the freedoms western nations have, and we have the means to destroy that which is keeping them from being free. Why shouldn't we use them?

I'm using appeasement mostly in regards to terrorism and terrorist organizations. Saddam was contained, but that doesn't mean we didn't need to oust him.

Appeasement is Spain withdrawing from a war of freedom in response to a terrorist attack. Appeasement is ignoring islamic terrorism in places like the Phillipines in the hopes that the problem will go away. Every time we allow it to continue, it is a concession.You're still using it incorrectly in terms of Hussein. You might be able to make an argument in terms of al Qaeda assuming you can prove cause and effect.

In terms of Spain's elections, there was no cause and effect. The socialist party was within the margin of error before the vote took place, and they had campaigned on a platform of withdrawing from Iraq. Add in that the ruling party lost credibility by insisting that the attacks were from ETA and not al Qaeda, and it's no wonder that the Socialist party picked up the 6 percentage points they needed to take control of the government. And as has been argued numerous times before, the war on al Qaeda and the war in Iraq are not the same thing, and have never been the same thing.

As far as the Philippines are concerned, we've probably not done enough there largely because we're trapped in this boondoggle in Iraq. You want to call it appeasement, fine, but make sure you name the appeaser--George W. Bush.

So Saddam didn't really kill ethnic minorities and invade neighboring countries?

Appeasement is appeasement. Despots deserve death, not concessions.

Yes, let's reduce everything to black and white. It doesn't matter that there was a vast difference in power between Hitler's Germany and Saddam's Iraq, because that doesn't support your argument. It doesn't matter that Hitler posed a direct threat to GB, while Saddam did not pose a direct threat to the US, because that also does not support your point. Nor does it matter that Saddam was not actively engaging in genocide as Hitler was and would be on a grander scale, because, well, you know the rest.

Again, this just shows what a weak argument you have, because your points obviously do not stand up unless you blur the details sufficiently. No one is arguing that Saddam should have remained in power, or that he was a good guy. The argument is that the course of action taken was wrong and that Bush is a poor leader and decision maker, how about you actually get around to arguing your case for that?

So Saddam didn't really kill ethnic minorities and invade neighboring countries?

Appeasement is appeasement. Despots deserve death, not concessions.

Yes, let's reduce everything to black and white. It doesn't matter that there was a vast difference in power between Hitler's Germany and Saddam's Iraq, because that doesn't support your argument. It doesn't matter that Hitler posed a direct threat to GB, while Saddam did not pose a direct threat to the US, because that also does not support your point. Nor does it matter that Saddam was not actively engaging in genocide as Hitler was and would be on a grander scale, because, well, you know the rest.

Again, this just shows what a weak argument you have, because your points obviously do not stand up unless you blur the details sufficiently. No one is arguing that Saddam should have remained in power, or that he was a good guy. The argument is that the course of action taken was wrong and that Bush is a poor leader and decision maker, how about you actually get around to arguing your case for that?

Quick little interjection...

While Saddam may not have been a direct threat to the US, as Hitler was to GB..'
Saddam was exterminating the Kurds, in mass numbers.
Much like Hitler and the Jews, but on a smaller scale.

So Saddam didn't really kill ethnic minorities and invade neighboring countries?

Appeasement is appeasement. Despots deserve death, not concessions.

Yes, let's reduce everything to black and white. It doesn't matter that there was a vast difference in power between Hitler's Germany and Saddam's Iraq, because that doesn't support your argument. It doesn't matter that Hitler posed a direct threat to GB, while Saddam did not pose a direct threat to the US, because that also does not support your point. Nor does it matter that Saddam was not actively engaging in genocide as Hitler was and would be on a grander scale, because, well, you know the rest.

Again, this just shows what a weak argument you have, because your points obviously do not stand up unless you blur the details sufficiently. No one is arguing that Saddam should have remained in power, or that he was a good guy. The argument is that the course of action taken was wrong and that Bush is a poor leader and decision maker, how about you actually get around to arguing your case for that?
Lincoln was realtively nutty and very dictatorial in his handling of the civil war. He made the WWII/Cold War security paranoia look like a sneaking suspicion. He still got the job done, and did many good things.

Name me another course of action the Internationals would have supported? No matter what, the U.S. was going to get flak for hating on Saddam, "Daddy's war" and all that. So, he might as well have done it in the quickest way possible.

You view his decisions as bad because you're in favor of leaving the middle east alone. I think they're good because I don't. So whether his choices have been good or bad is a matter of perspective, which gives you no real grounds for calling his decision making skills poor.

I find it troublesome though when people start comparing Clinton getting a blowjob and lying about it to that of a war. First of all, in a free society Clinton should of never had to even answer those questions, except maybe to his wife. It's night and day... not even close to the same thing.

I do wonder though if people will still be blaming Clinton for their current President's short-comings in 2050... :|

If a giant meteor were to hit the Earth tomorrow, if aliens invaded Earth, if zombies started to rise and eat everyone, or if Godzilla turned out to be real and started dancing on Tokyo, the Right would blame all that on Clinton. They use him as a convenient scapegoat/bogeyman for any major missteps they make.

:roll:

Quick little interjection...

While Saddam may not have been a direct threat to the US, as Hitler was to GB..'
Saddam was exterminating the Kurds, in mass numbers.
Much like Hitler and the Jews, but on a smaller scale.Actually, the Kurds had been protected by the northern no-fly zone for the last 1o years. They've developed their own governmental structure and are doing the best of the people in Iraq, largely because of the way they've been allowed to progress without interference. Hussein was trying to wipe them out prior to the first Gulf War, but hadn't been able to lay a glove on them at all for the last ten years.

Quick little interjection...

While Saddam may not have been a direct threat to the US, as Hitler was to GB..'
Saddam was exterminating the Kurds, in mass numbers.
Much like Hitler and the Jews, but on a smaller scale.

Quick little interjection of my own, Saddam had not gassed the Kurds since the 80's. Just thought I'd throw that in, in case you didn't know.

Quick little interjection...

While Saddam may not have been a direct threat to the US, as Hitler was to GB..'
Saddam was exterminating the Kurds, in mass numbers.
Much like Hitler and the Jews, but on a smaller scale.Actually, the Kurds had been protected by the northern no-fly zone for the last 1o years. They've developed their own governmental structure and are doing the best of the people in Iraq, largely because of the way they've been allowed to progress without interference. Hussein was trying to wipe them out prior to the first Gulf War, but hadn't been able to lay a glove on them at all for the last ten years.

And we must not forget that saddam has gassed the kurds, well at least 5000 of them, with our gass that we gave him as saddam was our friend in those days, remember. We even let him gass the kurds without invading him, the same goes for the sjiits. the only reason why we invaded iraq the first time was because he tried to grab oil, and that is a huge attack on freemarket and corporate rights, euuh, freedom and human rights. Saddam is the enemy because the government/media made him the enemy. the government/media demonised him while before he tried to grab more oil he was a friend, we even looked away when he gassed kurds.

Quick little interjection...

While Saddam may not have been a direct threat to the US, as Hitler was to GB..'
Saddam was exterminating the Kurds, in mass numbers.
Much like Hitler and the Jews, but on a smaller scale.

Quick little interjection of my own, Saddam had not gassed the Kurds since the 80's. Just thought I'd throw that in, in case you didn't know.

Right.

No gassing.
Not since like 83 or so..

But bullets are cheaper.
and that happened up until the first Gulf war.

While Bush is clearly the aggressor in this case, the Hilter/Saddam comparison does have a bit of merit.

Quick little interjection...

While Saddam may not have been a direct threat to the US, as Hitler was to GB..'
Saddam was exterminating the Kurds, in mass numbers.
Much like Hitler and the Jews, but on a smaller scale.

Quick little interjection of my own, Saddam had not gassed the Kurds since the 80's. Just thought I'd throw that in, in case you didn't know.

Right.

No gassing.
Not since like 83 or so..

But bullets are cheaper.
and that happened up until the first Gulf war.

While Bush is clearly the aggressor in this case, the Hilter/Saddam comparison does have a bit of merit.

Well I am not sure of that Squatch, I mean to be realistic, Hitler was attempting to commit genocide yes? Was Saddam? I don't think so. It's of course not to say he wasn't a horrible despot, he was. However, I don't think it had any thing to do with "ethnic cleansing" If said Kurds were to go to Turkey far worse would be-fallen onto them and Turkey is a member of NATO.. perhaps a red herring argument..given your earlier argument on intent. However, I believe intend is important. Intent is the bases of all of our law.. (USA & Canada) Now, I don't really agree with your "intent" argument.. what I would say though was more a case of knowledge. If we drop "x" number of bombs here, we KNOW we will be killing innocent civilians.. make more sense? Or no?

Quick little interjection...

While Saddam may not have been a direct threat to the US, as Hitler was to GB..'
Saddam was exterminating the Kurds, in mass numbers.
Much like Hitler and the Jews, but on a smaller scale.

Quick little interjection of my own, Saddam had not gassed the Kurds since the 80's. Just thought I'd throw that in, in case you didn't know.

Right.

No gassing.
Not since like 83 or so..

But bullets are cheaper.
and that happened up until the first Gulf war.

While Bush is clearly the aggressor in this case, the Hilter/Saddam comparison does have a bit of merit.

Well I am not sure of that Squatch, I mean to be realistic, Hitler was attempting to commit genocide yes? Was Saddam? I don't think so. It's of course not to say he wasn't a horrible despot, he was. However, I don't think it had any thing to do with "ethnic cleansing" If said Kurds were to go to Turkey far worse would be-fallen onto them and Turkey is a member of NATO.. perhaps a red herring argument..given your earlier argument on intent. However, I believe intend is important. Intent is the bases of all of our law.. (USA & Canada) Now, I don't really agree with your "intent" argument.. what I would say though was more a case of knowledge. If we drop "x" number of bombs here, we KNOW we will be killing innocent civilians.. make more sense? Or no?

I think it does.
Of course...the "Shock and Awe" campaign was comprised mainly of "smart" technology, wich were designed to be very accurate,a nd minimize innocent casualties....

So why were there so many?

Intelligence.

You can send a missle into the third story window of an apartment building these days and only kill everyone on that floor, if you want to.

But you have to get the right building first of all.

and making sure the guy who your looking for is home is a good idea too.

This whole operation is about one bad intelligence report after another.

So what does this change?

Deliberate cold blooded murder, as in the case of the WTC...
Or..

Negligent homicide, as in the case of bombing innocent civilians.

Is the one any better than the other?

Wednesday, at the “Take Back America Conference” for liberal activists, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton introduced George Soros with effusive praise.

Then in his remarks Mr. Soros--the billionaire supporter of John Kerry and MoveOn.org--equated the attacks of September 11 to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse and went on to say, “The war on terror has taken more innocent victims than the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

Unbelievable.

Abu Ghraib was bad and the soldiers involved are rightly being punished, but for Democrats to say that the abuse of Iraqi fighters is the moral equivalent of the slaughter of 3,000 innocent Americans is outrageous.

Recently, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called President Bush “an incompetent leader,” and said the President has “no judgment, no experience and no knowledge” and that he has the deaths of thousands of soldiers “on his shoulders.”

The hatred of the President by the San Francisco/Boston Democrats--led by John Kerry--is fueling a blame America first mentality that is troubling, and voters will reject it in November!

But their anger won't slow a growing economy, it was announced Thursday that 248,000 new jobs were created in May, meaning more than 1.1 million new jobs have been created this year! Thanks to the President’s leadership our economy is strong, and getting stronger
Do you have a link to this article?

In regards to the economy, the unemployment rate remains stalled at 5.6% since Dec. 2003.

So....

I gotta ask....

whats the difference wether or not innocents get killed in a bombing campaign....or a jet flying into the WTC?

Either way.....innocents got killed.
innocent dead people are still innocent dead people. the differance was that the citizens of many nations were murdered while going to work on that day in an area that was not a combat zone. The innocent people killed in Iraq were in a war zone.

Yes..but it was only a war zone becuase of OUR agression.


thats a matter of personal opinion, not fact.

Okay....

So we killed thousands of innocents on PERSONAL OPINIONS then.

Not fact.

indeed. not to mention that those people in Iraq are just as dead as the people we lost in 9/11. they aren't going to be picky about motives...all they know was a bomb hit them and they are dead now, and the reasons why that happened don't make a damn bit of difference to them at this point.

whether or not you believe that the deaths in the War on Terror are justified is not relavent here. the original statement made was that more innocent lives have been lost in the War on Terror than on 9/11, and that is a FACT. more innocent people have been killed as a result of our occupation of Iraq than were killed when the towers fell. you can say their deaths were justified while those of 9/11 were not, but that doesn't disprove the original statement. more innocent people have died as a result of our actions than as a result of the original (NON-IRAQI) terrorists. you can say we are right to do it, or that it's the necessary cost of our righteous war against evil, and that's actually kind of poetic...you will be saying exactly what the terrorists were saying as they flew into the World Trade Center.

Wednesday, at the “Take Back America Conference” for liberal activists, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton introduced George Soros with effusive praise.

Then in his remarks Mr. Soros--the billionaire supporter of John Kerry and MoveOn.org--equated the attacks of September 11 to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse and went on to say, “The war on terror has taken more innocent victims than the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

Link? Context? No offense, but given your rabid right-wing support, I'm highly disinclined to credit this as what you say it is without some sort of background information.


Abu Ghraib was bad and the soldiers involved are rightly being punished, but for Democrats to say that the abuse of Iraqi fighters is the moral equivalent of the slaughter of 3,000 innocent Americans is outrageous.

The problem is that a majority of these "Iraqi fighters" were not fighters at all, but innocent civilians randomly picked up and then tortured and abused systemically. Also, don't equate Soros with all Democrats and assume because he said what he said the rest of the party is in agreement.


Recently, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called President Bush “an incompetent leader,” and said the President has “no judgment, no experience and no knowledge” and that he has the deaths of thousands of soldiers “on his shoulders.”

Sounds like Pelosi was right on the money.


The hatred of the President by the San Francisco/Boston Democrats--led by John Kerry--is fueling a blame America first mentality that is troubling, and voters will reject it in November!

Blame America First? Well, who else should we blame? Iraq was doing nothing and we invaded and then acted surprised when they actually fought back and continue to do so. Now, over a year after hostilities officially ended, we have a higher body count than we suffered during the war and God knows how many civillians dead or with their lives destroyed and there is still no exit plan or even a final price tag on how much this little venture is costing the tax payers. So I think it's less "Blame America" and more "Blame Bush". The two aren't the same and, if you look at the polls, far from rejecting this, Pelosi only seems to be publicly articulating the sentiment of a growing majority of voters.


But their anger won't slow a growing economy, it was announced Thursday that 248,000 new jobs were created in May, meaning more than 1.1 million new jobs have been created this year! Thanks to the President’s leadership our economy is strong, and getting stronger

Read the other thread where I debunked this number. It's good, but not the godsend that the Bush administration would like it to be and it has nothing to do with Bush's tax cuts from last June. And your numbers are off. New job creation for the year is slightly under 1 million, certainly not over it. According to Bush's June tax cut of last year, we are supposed to have over 5 million new jobs by the end of this year. Given that we are now six months into the year, we are far behind that schedule. Also, since February, over 500,000 new workers have entered the work force, bringing total unemployment up to 8.2 million and the unemployment rate in April remained unchanged at 5.6%. So we're barely making enough new jobs to handle the influx of new workers, let alone get people who've been out of work for 20 weeks or more in many cases back to the job. Furthermore, these new jobs are not of the same quality as the ones lost. They pay less, or are temporary/seasonal/part-time.

So yeah, liberals are angry. You should be too, but not at liberals. Rather, at a corrupt administration with no domestic policy and nightmarishly bad foreign policy.

Wednesday, at the “Take Back America Conference” for liberal activists, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton introduced George Soros with effusive praise.

Then in his remarks Mr. Soros--the billionaire supporter of John Kerry and MoveOn.org--equated the attacks of September 11 to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse and went on to say, “The war on terror has taken more innocent victims than the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

Unbelievable.

Abu Ghraib was bad and the soldiers involved are rightly being punished, but for Democrats to say that the abuse of Iraqi fighters is the moral equivalent of the slaughter of 3,000 innocent Americans is outrageous.Maybe he was referring to this (www.iraqbodycount.net)

what was the intent of the soldiers and airment in Iraq and Afganistain? Their intent was not to kill women, children, and civilians, but the terrorists on Sept. 11th intended to kill as many civilians as possible.

Thats true but

“The war on terror has taken more innocent victims than the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

Is that statement untrue?

The right always lies
The right always starts wars
I guess Clinton was a republican, because he lied about his affair.

I guess LBJ was a republican, because he started a war.

Anything you can dispise about one side, the other side is guilty of as well.How is that even remotely relevant? How is that even vaguely connected with this? Yes everyone lies. But as lies go, this was a real whopper. With real consequences for innocent people. Clinton lies about an affair, who gets hurt? Him, Hilary, Chelsea and Monica. Bush lies, who gets hurt? Just a few of them are listed here.

Hashim Kamel Radi
Jalal al-Yussuf
Ibrahim al-Yussuf
Family of Metaq Ali
Ahmed Al-Rahal (al-Bath in some accounts)
Sufian al-Batayneh
Abdullah al-Ababneh
Ahmad al-Enezi
Omran al-Serihaine
Salima Hashem
Bashar Hashem
Ali Kadem Hashem
Reni Hashem
Hamadi Hashem and 7 other family members
Iyad Jassim Ibrahim
Fateha Ghazzi
Nada Abdallah
Khowla Abdel-Fattah, a sister of Thamur Sheikel; also his 2 nephews
Sahar Khalil and mother-in-law
Mawra Kassim
Gufran Kassim
Mohammed Kassim
Zainab Kassim
Abu Iyad Zaitun Zaki
Samad Rabai
Faris El Baur
Saif El Baur
Tajir (young man)
Sons of Said Shalish
Marwa Abbas
Tabarek Abbas
Safia Abbas
Qassem Moussa (teacher)
Muhammad Hamza
Father, two uncles and cousin of Haider Musafer, 22
Thamer Abdel-Wahid
Nijah Abdel-Ridda
Mother, sister-in-law, sister (9), and cousin of Said Adel Abed Qasim
Brother of Sajad Mohammed, sister of Saja Jaafar
Najia Hussein
Valantina Yonan or Salloe
Haytham Rafi
Rahad Septi
Arij Haki
Miad Jamal Abbas
Hussein Ibrahim
Sa'ad Sha'ban
Bassam Ghali
Arkan Daif
Bakhat Hassan's family
Family of Razek al-Kazem al-Khafaji
Mohammed Hussein
Mohaned Hussein
Ahmed Abdul Hussein
3 brothers of Sejad Ali, also wife of Ali Abed
Hussam Jasmi
Muhammad Mun'im Muhammad
Walid Shaker
Abdul Rasul family
6 children and husband of Alia Mukhtaff, wife and 2 children of Majeed Djelil
Hilal Faraj Silo
Manal SaadAllah Matti
Mahroosa Jarjis
Valentina Bashar Faraj
Father and 2 uncles of Zahraa Hashem
Mohammad Ahmed
Wife of Khalif Abdel
Samar Hussein
Hussain ‘Abbas
17 members of family of Abud Sarhan
Wife and 3 children of Mahmoud Ali Hamadi
Nadia Kalaf
Zeena or Zaina Akram Hamoodi
Mustafa Akram Hamoodi
Zain El Abideen Akram Hamoodi or Zain al-Adidin Akram
Zainab Akram Hamoodi
Hassan Iyad Hamoodi
Amaar Al-Huda Saad
Noor Al-Huda Saad
Wissam Abed or Wisam ‘Abid Hassan Hamoodi
Dr. Ihab Abed or Ihab ‘Abid Hassan Hamoodi
Khairiah Mahmoud or Khairiyya Shakir Hamoodi
As'ad ‘Abd al-Hussain al-Tayyar
Qarar As'ad al-Tayyar
Haidar As'ad al-Tayyar
Saif As'ad al-Tayyar
Intisar ‘Abd al-Hussain al-Tayyar
Khawla ‘Ali al-Tayyar
Hind ‘Ali al-Tayyar
Bilal Abdul Muhed
Radwan Muhammad
Kamaran Abdurazaq Muhamed
Duaa Raheem
Abbas family
Sister of Eman Alshamnery, son and husband of Bakis Obeid
Yas family
Sa'la al-Mousai
Alaa-eddin Khazal
Wadhar Handi
Bashir Handi (brother of Wadhar)
Safa Karim
Parents of Ali Najour, aged two
Members of family of Sader Hamzeh Moussawi
Sahar Sarhan (wife of Mohammed Ali Sarhan) and their unborn son
Qasim Ali
Sena Hassad
Rana Hassad
Maria Hassad
Sama Sami
Lana Sami (daughter of Sama)
Miriam Sami (daughter of Sama)
Lava Sami (daughter of Sama)
Salma Amin
Mohammed Amin (son of Salma)
Saif Amin (son of Salma)
Shama Amin (daughter of Salma)
Sister of Saeed Muhamad Salman
Zaid Ratha Jabir
Rana Jabir
Mina Jabir
Mulkiyya Jabir
Zahida Jabir
Adhra Jabir
Sami Osama
Tareq Ayoub
Taras Protsyuk
Jose Couso
Vatche Arslanian
Hanna Fatah
James Kachadoorian
Nicolas Kachadoorian
Edmund Kachadoorian
Wael Sabah (mother of Noor and Abdul)
Noor Sabah
Abdul Khader
Brother, sister-in-law, 2 nephews, 2 nieces of Khali Abbas Ali
Hamsa Mohammed Omar
Jasim Omar
Ali Ramzi
Abu Salam Abdul Gafir
Rowand Mohammed Suleiman
Helal family
Haithem Tamini
Nora Tamini
Arkan David Belu
Khansa'a Thaib
Muhammed al-Barheini
Rashid Majid
Ghassan Majid
Arkan Majid
Uday al Shimarey
Dana Ali
Lamiya Ali
Abdullah Abdul-Majeed al-Sa'doon
Salman Abu al-Heel
6 members of Khazal Suber Hassoon's family, also sister of Mohammed Khazal
Family of Tamir Kalaal
Tuamer Abdel Hamid
Hussein Rashid
Waleed Saleh Abdel-Latif
Cousin of Salah Abdullah Hamid
Brother of Edtesam Shamsudeim
Uncle of Ahmed Muthana
Ather Karen al-Mowafakiaon
Sa'aleh al-Jumaili
Ghanam al-Jumaili
Wife of Khalif Abdel, 82; son of Jabar Abdullah
Father of Abbas Habib
Abid Slewa
Allaa Mohamed Hassan
Ali Salim
Raeed Amar
Khaled Lahoumi Ahmed
4 members of family of Muhammad Keun Jiheli, 16
Falah Dulaimi
Jaafer Hashim Majeed
Wissam Hadi Duair
Daoud Qais
Muslim Aziz Issa
Hadi Jabar Jasim
Mohammed Aggar
Ahmed al Rifaai
Nour Khalaf
Ghazal Khalaf
Hasaneen Jewad
Haifa Aziz Daoud
Hamid Hussein
Mehmid Mutlag
Mehdi Ali Jassim
Jassem Al-Jubari
Hashim Mohammed Aani
Salam Muhammad
Ali Jassim al-Khazraji
Qassim Zubar
Hamza Ali Jassim
Abd Ali Jassim
Amir Ali Jassim
Alaa Jassem
Tareq Mohammed
Sadia Abdullah Hussain
Ghazi Musa Hassan
Muhammad Subhi Hassan al-Qubaisi or al-Kubaysi
Mazen Antoine Hanna Noraddin
Qahtan Hashem
Jeremy Little
Laith Khalil
Brother of Abdul Rahman Abdel Kareem
Abdul Halim Haloum
Same Haloum
Shaaker Mahmoud Moklef, wife and son
Anjad Bassam
Richard Wild
Ibrahim Himoud
Hussain Ashur
Uday Ahmed Mustafa
Ali Ghazi
Anas Basil Hamed
Mustafa Hussein (Saddam Hussein's grandson)
Nadisha Yassari Ranmuthu
Mushrak al-Ibrahim or Zaid ‘Imad Ghazal Ibrahim al Ruba'i
Klemantine Salim ‘Abd al-Karim
Tamir Alber Alias Kasira
Mazen Alber Alias Kasira
Haider al-Shihlawi
Haider Hanoon
Izar or Ezhar Mahmood Ridha
Kameela al-Tumaymi
Hamad Antar
Saif Ra'ad Ali Sa'id as-‘Azawi
Ali Salman
'Adil ‘Abd al-Karim al-Kawwaz
Haidar ‘Adil ‘Abd al-Karim al-Kawwaz
‘Ula ‘Adil ‘Abd al-Karim al- Kawwaz
Mirvat ‘Adil ‘Abd al-Karim al-Kawwaz
Muhammad Hilal Nahi
‘Ala Ali Salh
Dakhail Qassem Shelab
Obaid Sa'ad
Mazen Dana
Waleed Fayayi Muzban
Raid Hadi Al Musawi
Farah Fadhil al-Janabi
Marwan Muhammad Hassan
Omar Saad Jassem
Afrah Abdul Moneem
Hasan Mahmoud Abbas
Hassan Ali Ahmad
Sami Hassan Saref
Sufyan Daoud al-Kubaisi
Baha Salim Musa
Saad Mohamed Sultan
Ali Khalaf Mohammed Jumaili
Saadi Fayad Jumaili
Salem Ismail Jumaili
Mazen Shoukr
Adel Ismail
Dureid Hassan Alwan
Zamal Jamil al-Jumaili
Amal al-Jumaili
Beijah or Biajia al-Jumaili (mother-in law)
Khalil Jadduh al-Jumaili
Fahad Salman
Jabbar Ali Mohammed
Hussein Dakhil Ahmad
Dunya Jassim
Widad Sa'ad
Fatima Ala'a
Ahmed Abdel al-Sattar
Raed Kamel Mahdi
Sa'ad Mohamed
Haidar Sabah
Haidar al-Baaj
Alaa Abdel Kader
Jihan Omran
Aziz Taha, Majida Taha
Marwan Hayad al-Issawi
Nazem Baji
Muhammad Kahdum al-Jurani or Jawrani
Hamdia al-Jurani or Jawrani
Hamid Haadi al-Ay'bi
Furis Abdul Razzaq al-Assam
Husband of Zuhair Abdullah
Shamar Abbas and 1-year-old daughter
Doniya Abbas
Omer Ahmed Hashem
Mahammed Hasan
Ahmed Shawkat
Bassim ?
Ziad Yass Abbas
Sami Shakir al-Safar
Asaad al-Shareeda
Hanan Shmailawi
Aidan Ezzedin
Mustafa Zaidin al-Khaleefa
Salman Yass
Arkan Yass
Daoud Yass
Mohan Jaber al-Shoueili
Hussein Ahmed Shehab
Ismail Yousef
Muhammad Abdul Ridha Salim
Wife of Yunis Ibrahim Hatim
Mohannad Ghazi al Kaabi
Ali Mohammed Zibari
Majed Khalifa al Munwar or al-Jumaidy
Khalid Majed Khalid al Munwar or al-Jumaidy
Walid al Munwar or Hisham al-Jumaidy
Wissam al-Jumaidy

...the President has “no judgment, no experience and no knowledge” You are forgetting "No class" -(Rotovia 2004)

Woah woah woah....

Lest not turn this into a Bush vs Clinton thread..becuase Bush would LOSE big time.'

Trust me.

This is about the death of innocents in Iraq, and comparing them to the victims of 9/11....
I am saying politicians are politicians. Politicians will always lie, no matter what party they are from.

If you cannot see the differance between the "murders" of 3,000 people on Sept 11th and the "negligable homicide" of Iraqis you are blind.

(edit: 1000th post! YEA, I GOT MAIL!!!!)Negligible homicide, what a lovely euphamism. Now, lets go back to your original accustaion again shall we? It is said that "more innocent people have died because of the war on terror that died in 9/11". You dispute this, and you bring in things like murder, negligible homicide, warzones, personal opinions etc etc etc, none of which have the least amount of impact on the claim. Were the people who died in Iraq and Afghanistan innocent? Yes. Did they die? Yes. Were there more that 3000 killed? Yes. Is there any other protest you still have that the statement isn't true?

At least Bush didn't lie under oath like Clinton did.
Ah yes, its alright that he lied, because he wasn't promising to tell the truth at the time.

Is it not a fairly reasonable assumption that a President tells the truth? Well, given our run of presidents, possibly not. But isn't it a fairly good idea to want a president to tell the truth? I think that it is.

[quote=New Auburnland]At least Bush didn't lie under oath like Clinton did.

Ooo, let's look at that.

Strike #1:

On 3/17/03, Bush said the following in a release directly from the White House (President Says Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 hours:

The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

And, Bush said the following while condemning the Bali attack:

"And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."

To date, no link with Al Qaeda has been established. Not only is this true now, after a year of us being over there looking for them, it was true before we went into the whole mess in the first place.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727471.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/Iraq.Qaeda.link/

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030723-064812-9491r


Strike #2:

In his 1/28/03 State of the Union address, Bush said the following:

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

and

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."


This was later exposed for the lie that it was and the White House themselves even admitted it.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070903A.shtml


Strike #3:

At a speech in Texas, on 11/4/02, Bush said:

"Not only has he got chemical weapons, but I want you to remember, he's used chemical weapons."

At a speech in Iowa, Bush said:

"We not only know he's got chemical weapons, but incredibly enough he's used chemical weapons."

Finally, on remarks about Iraq on 10/7/02, Bush said the following:

"After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more."

and

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

To date, no stockpiles of WMD have been found, biological, chemical or otherwise.

http://www.sundayherald.com/39487

http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/iraqintell/home.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0605-13.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/



He may not have lied under oath (yet), but he most certainly lied and lied frequently.

Three strikes.

He's out.

Which Bush are we talking about? The one who vomited on the Japanese Prime Minister in the early 90's, or the cocaine-adicted, drunk driver who refuses to come under oath to testify absolutely anything?

Lincoln was realtively nutty and very dictatorial in his handling of the civil war. He made the WWII/Cold War security paranoia look like a sneaking suspicion. He still got the job done, and did many good things.

Who brought Lincoln into this? Please stop reaching out for loosely related examples. We're dealing with "the here and now," and you've yet to provide a scenario which directly supports your point, and this is the weakest you've provided so far.

Name me another course of action the Internationals would have supported? No matter what, the U.S. was going to get flak for hating on Saddam, "Daddy's war" and all that. So, he might as well have done it in the quickest way possible.

:lol:

"The Internationals," that's really priceless. Again, black and white, us versus them, with us or with the terrorists. Would "the internationals" be the rest of the world, who are rightly not selfishly looking out for American interests? Really, how dare they?

How about, oh, I don't know, listening to them and working with them? Are you that utterly lacking in perspective to consider the rest of the world to be the opposition which needs to be evaded, misled, and cheated so the US can get what it wants?!

You view his decisions as bad because you're in favor of leaving the middle east alone. I think they're good because I don't. So whether his choices have been good or bad is a matter of perspective, which gives you no real grounds for calling his decision making skills poor.

I view his decisions as bad because Bush's planning was sub-par, his actions were brash and arrogant, and we can easily see how they've turned out. Just because your mind operates solely on what you believe is right or wrong doesn't mean the rest of us cannot evaluate a situation somewhat objectively. Do not try to box me into one of your simplistic little generalizations.

Quick little interjection...

While Saddam may not have been a direct threat to the US, as Hitler was to GB..'
Saddam was exterminating the Kurds, in mass numbers.
Much like Hitler and the Jews, but on a smaller scale.

Quick little interjection of my own, Saddam had not gassed the Kurds since the 80's. Just thought I'd throw that in, in case you didn't know.

Right.

No gassing.
Not since like 83 or so..

But bullets are cheaper.
and that happened up until the first Gulf war.

While Bush is clearly the aggressor in this case, the Hilter/Saddam comparison does have a bit of merit.

I acknowledge that there is some merit to the claim, and that's why I originally said that Saddam wasn't actively doing it at the time (as Hitler was), nor on the same scale.

Abu Ghraib was bad and the soldiers involved are rightly being punished, but for Democrats to say that the abuse of Iraqi fighters is the moral equivalent of the slaughter of 3,000 innocent Americans is outrageous.

Recently, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called President Bush “an incompetent leader,” and said the President has “no judgment, no experience and no knowledge” and that he has the deaths of thousands of soldiers “on his shoulders.”

The hatred of the President by the San Francisco/Boston Democrats--led by John Kerry--is fueling a blame America first mentality that is troubling, and voters will reject it in November!

The wrong soldiers are being Punished. Im Surprised you didnt know this stuff goes on. I can certainly believe that they were ordered to and managed to justify it to themselves. And why shouldnt america be blamed first? That term would seem to ultimately insinuate that America should never be blamed at all.

the problem is

IRAQ WASNT RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11

we invaded an innocent country and killed both soldiers and civilians

how is it anything but state sponsored murder?

They were collatoral damage. Get your P.R jargon Right.

Then in his remarks Mr. Soros--the billionaire supporter of John Kerry and MoveOn.org--equated the attacks of September 11 to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse and went on to say, “The war on terror has taken more innocent victims than the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

It's true. Numbers-wise.

They were collatoral damage. Get your P.R jargon Right.Hang on, hang on. If they're collatoral damage, which ones are the illegal combatatants?

Not dead Collatoral Damage.

Not dead Collatoral Damage.

Not dead Collatoral Damage.Right. And which ones are the damn dirty foreign devils and terrorist-supporters? Oh yeah, thats the French.

Sorry, I get very confused over my BushSpeak vocabulary.

Freedom is worth a little chaos and death.
Are you in a position to offer up YOUR life for this just cause, or will it have to be someone elses sacrifice?


Freedom is the most cherished idea of every western country (unless Europe has become more Socialist than I think).
What is "freedom" for you might not be "freedom" for another?

Every human being deserves the freedoms western nations have, and we have the means to destroy that which is keeping them from being free.
Have you ever considered that some people just don't like what is happening within some of these "free" western societies, and want no part of it. Would it not be there "free" choice to reject your vision of "freedom"?

Why shouldn't we use them?
1. It was illegal to attack Iraq.

2. Do you think the Iraqis are happy that you took over their country?

3. Do you believe that your country has the right to invade sovereign countries?

4. Do you think America has "destroyed" the Iraqis' will to be whatever they choose to be?

3. Do you believe that your country has the right to invade sovereign countries?
I'll quote Ayn Rand (from 'Collectivized "Rights"' in The Virtue of Selfishness):
Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation has the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent "rights" of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.
This right, however, is conditional. Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of dictatorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society in the conquered country.
A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them. Therefore, the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justified only when and if the conquerors establish a [i]free[i] social system, that is, a system based on the recognition of individual rights.

How many innocent Iraqi civillian have been killed by bombs falling on them?

Or In afghanistan, when a wedding party was bombed, by mistake, and all 5o attendants were killed.

You need to do some more research.


But then again..your going to see all of this up close and personal, wont you?

You'll see.

The whole "wedding party" thing happened in Iraq.

Why is it that at this "wedding party," these Arabs were shooting semi automatic rifles into the sky between 2-3 in the mourning?

Why did they immediately begin to bury the bodies of these "civilians" without medical examinations and/or have a legitimate funeral?

Funny how they arlready had an Arab standing by reciting condemnations of the United States just like in the Nick Berg video, huh?

Interesting how this all took place near the Iraqi/Syrian border, a known "smuggling" area where terrorists have been coming from Iran and Syria to enter Iraq and kill Americans. You silly liberals are always so willing to believe anything the terrorists tell you to.

AYN RAND!>!!?!?!11

And despite your assumptions either way If it were militiamen they would be even less likely to dispose of the bodies in an unreligious manner.

I dont think it sounds entirely implausable that it was a wedding.

The whole wedding bombing seems a bit like the Jenin "massacre" to me.

AYN RAND!>!!?!?!11
??//?/?

I thought the Bodgy punctuation was derisive enough, But I'll elaborate.
Ayn Rand is Lame, just ... Lame

3. Do you believe that your country has the right to invade sovereign countries?
I'll quote Ayn Rand (from 'Collectivized "Rights"' in The Virtue of Selfishness):
Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation has the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent "rights" of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.
This right, however, is conditional. Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of dictatorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society in the conquered country.
A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them. Therefore, the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justified only when and if the conquerors establish a [i]free[i] social system, that is, a system based on the recognition of individual rights.
So Ayn Rand writes books of fiction, it doesn't give her the right to make laws. Since Ayn Rand has no credence as an international law maker perhaps she should stick to topics which are in the realm of realism rather than fairt tales.

The whole "wedding party" thing happened in Iraq.

actually it happened in both. it's like some sort of policy or something.

I thought the Bodgy punctuation was derisive enough, But I'll elaborate.
Ayn Rand is Lame, just ... Lame
Oh. Well in that case you must be right. I bow to your rhetorical skills!

"Lame... just lame."

Actually, I'm a little stupid. Could you elaborate?

How many innocent Iraqi civillian have been killed by bombs falling on them?

Or In afghanistan, when a wedding party was bombed, by mistake, and all 5o attendants were killed.

You need to do some more research.


But then again..your going to see all of this up close and personal, wont you?

You'll see.

The whole "wedding party" thing happened in Iraq.

Why is it that at this "wedding party," these Arabs were shooting semi automatic rifles into the sky between 2-3 in the mourning?

Why did they immediately begin to bury the bodies of these "civilians" without medical examinations and/or have a legitimate funeral?

Funny how they arlready had an Arab standing by reciting condemnations of the United States just like in the Nick Berg video, huh?

Interesting how this all took place near the Iraqi/Syrian border, a known "smuggling" area where terrorists have been coming from Iran and Syria to enter Iraq and kill Americans. You silly liberals are always so willing to believe anything the terrorists tell you to.
Well this happened in Afghanistan AND Iraq.

It is THEIR country, and THEIR custom to fire bullets in the air.

It is also THEIR custom to bury THEIR dead immediately, same as the Jewish people.

Because it was a known smuggling area, does that make them guilty? What kind of democracy are you trying to import into Iraq? NO EVIDENCE, NO TRIAL, AUTOMATIC GUILTY, and INSTANT DEATH PENALTY.

Who is willing to believe anything? Anyone who believes Bush.

I thought the Bodgy punctuation was derisive enough, But I'll elaborate.
Ayn Rand is Lame, just ... Lame
Oh. Well in that case you must be right. I bow to your rhetorical skills!

"Lame... just lame."

Actually, I'm a little stupid. Could you elaborate?

As well you should Padawan.

She (I assume she is a She) .... Isa no good.

She (I assume she is a She) .... Isa no good.
I must be having a bad day, I still don't get it. Could you explain why she was "lame" or "no good", perhaps in the context of what I quoted?

She's ...not good...

I thought it was intrinsic to the nature of reality....
Didnt cosmologists prove it back in 1984 or something

I guess Clinton was a republican, because he lied about his affair.

I guess LBJ was a republican, because he started a war.

Anything you can dispise about one side, the other side is guilty of as well.

First, I would like it if you didn't misuse quote tags to quote some thing I nevr said. I'm talking about here and now. The lies that were told to the world at this moment in history. You can argue stawmen arguments about well "so did they" Well first of all Clinton's blowjob didn't get any one hurt or killed.

Lying about facts to go to war that have now taken the lives of over 800 American kids and thousands of Iraqi's can hardly be compared to a god damn blowjob. That argument is so weak it's not even funny.

I also don't believe LBJ lied to go to war.. even though I don't agree with what LBJ did.. and it was such a waste.. at least he didn't outright lie to do it.
If you are talking about "here and now" than get over what Bush did over a year ago. The present problem is how to get Iraq into a democracy and how to get our troops out as fast as possible without disregarding Iraq's well-being.

Since we went to war, it has been proven that Bush did not lie to the world. He just relayed bad intelligence to us. He was fooled by it the same way the world was.

At least Bush didn't lie under oath like Clinton did.

Nice last quotes. It has not been proven that he didn't lie. He simply passed the buck. So what do you think of Tenet quitting? Maybe a "liberal" influence?
Bush refuses to get into a situation with anyone so he will have to be under oath. Nail jello to a wall. "National security". Don't know how you missed that part. For anytime the heat gets on and he's gonna get nailed he WAFFLES. Got it? Enough with it being Clinton or Kerry or ANYONE else's problem. The thread you start and endure is the thread you deserve.

She's ...not good...

I thought it was intrinsic to the nature of reality....
Didnt cosmologists prove it back in 1984 or something
I must have missed the memo. Do you always get people to do your thinking for you? Her books are in good libraries and bookstores. You don't have to read her, but you should probably refrain from making assertions about her "goodness" or "lameness" if you are ignorant about her. I don't demand that you read her to respond to my quote of course... just read the quote itself and examine it for soundness.

Its not sound.

Lincoln was realtively nutty and very dictatorial in his handling of the civil war. He made the WWII/Cold War security paranoia look like a sneaking suspicion. He still got the job done, and did many good things.
Who brought Lincoln into this? Please stop reaching out for loosely related examples. We're dealing with "the here and now," and you've yet to provide a scenario which directly supports your point, and this is the weakest you've provided so far.
You're a sad, unhappy little man, aren't you? Only someone with a big chip on their shoulder could be so petty. It's called a historical reference. It shows a leader making brash and controversial decisions that turned out to be for the best, like those of Bush.
Name me another course of action the Internationals would have supported? No matter what, the U.S. was going to get flak for hating on Saddam, "Daddy's war" and all that. So, he might as well have done it in the quickest way possible.

"The Internationals," that's really priceless. Again, black and white, us versus them, with us or with the terrorists. Would "the internationals" be the rest of the world, who are rightly not selfishly looking out for American interests? Really, how dare they?

How about, oh, I don't know, listening to them and working with them? Are you that utterly lacking in perspective to consider the rest of the world to be the opposition which needs to be evaded, misled, and cheated so the US can get what it wants?!
You turned it into "us vs. them". They had the chance to join us, they didn't. They had the chance to support freedom, they ignored it.

Listen and wait while a bunch of Euros try to lure us into a dick measuring contest over who has moral superiority? Frankly, fuck that. The goal is to get the job done, not talk about getting it done and never doing it.
You view his decisions as bad because you're in favor of leaving the middle east alone. I think they're good because I don't. So whether his choices have been good or bad is a matter of perspective, which gives you no real grounds for calling his decision making skills poor.
I view his decisions as bad because Bush's planning was sub-par, his actions were brash and arrogant, and we can easily see how they've turned out. Just because your mind operates solely on what you believe is right or wrong doesn't mean the rest of us cannot evaluate a situation somewhat objectively. Do not try to box me into one of your simplistic little generalizations.
Ah, so only people who agree with you are objective? I had no idea. Again, perspective, kid, perspective. Yes, you've earned that name, by repeating yourself, acting childishly, and attempting to insult me and my convictions in order to lure me into some sort of pissing contest. Sorry, mission failed. Enjoy your nap. Have a nice day :D

Freedom is worth a little chaos and death.
Are you in a position to offer up YOUR life for this just cause, or will it have to be someone elses sacrifice?
I was denied entry into the Marines. I wanted in, and was denied for health reasons. I would have been behind a desk in cryptology, but they still wanted completely able soldiers. Had I been given the opportunity, I would have gladly risked my life to help remove bastards like Saddam from power.

Freedom is the most cherished idea of every western country (unless Europe has become more Socialist than I think).
What is "freedom" for you might not be "freedom" for another?

Every human being deserves the freedoms western nations have, and we have the means to destroy that which is keeping them from being free.
Have you ever considered that some people just don't like what is happening within some of these "free" western societies, and want no part of it. Would it not be there "free" choice to reject your vision of "freedom"?

Freedom is freedom, are you daft? The basic human freedoms as described in the writings of Classical Liberal texts are the basis for the idea of a "free world", and there is no one that can dispute that as a whole, these writings are correct in describing individual freedom and a free society. Plenty of people resisted the Republican revolutions in Europe, and what has come of it? Greater freedoms, richer and more prosperous societies. Once people get a taste of freedom, apprehension and stupidity die down a bit. Bite me, btw, for making that stupid crack about people not wanting freedom. Freedom of speech at work, lovely, isn't it?

Why shouldn't we use them?
1. It was illegal to attack Iraq.

2. Do you think the Iraqis are happy that you took over their country?

3. Do you believe that your country has the right to invade sovereign countries?

4. Do you think America has "destroyed" the Iraqis' will to be whatever they choose to be?
1. I don't see anyone trying to stop us, makes illegal moot, doesn't it? Laws don't exist if no one enforces them.

2. Yep, plenty were cheering as the tanks rolled in. Plenty are happy now, American business in rebuilding their country is giving many Iraqis economic opportunities that wouldn't have existed under Saddam. They'll be much happier once they have control of their own free society, though.

3. Yep.

4. Nope, and they'll decide that, once they form their own government.

What about the Draft?

Seriously though, Did you pull that from the debating the War on terror handbook? I would comment on that but its sort of a contradiction to deconstruct rhetoric.

What about the Draft?
What about it?

Conservatives will drive their kids to the recruiting station or pull out their check books.

Liberals will head for Canada.

Canada is welcome to them.

:Zing:

Its not sound.
Oh. What about it isn't sound?

Its not sound.
Oh. What about it isn't sound?

Maybe you didnt include what became before that excerpt. The part that all that is actually based on.

Leader of the sewer Mutants: Over there is our library.
Bender: Nuthin but Crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
- Futurama: I second that emotion

Seriously though, Did you pull that from the debating the War on terror handbook? I would comment on that but its sort of a contradiction to deconstruct rhetoric.

Maybe you didnt include what became before that excerpt. The part that all that is actually based on.

Leader of the sewer Mutants: Over there is our library.
Bender: Nuthin but Crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
- Futurama: I second that emotion
I think he's wasting our time, Ascencia.

On a side note, that was a good episode of Futurama.

/me runs into the thread, high on PCP and cocaine, heads towards the nearest concentration of posters and releases the dead man's handle on the 80lb C4 jacket he's wearing.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

*boomsplat*

Lincoln was realtively nutty and very dictatorial in his handling of the civil war. He made the WWII/Cold War security paranoia look like a sneaking suspicion. He still got the job done, and did many good things.
Who brought Lincoln into this? Please stop reaching out for loosely related examples. We're dealing with "the here and now," and you've yet to provide a scenario which directly supports your point, and this is the weakest you've provided so far.
You're a sad, unhappy little man, aren't you? Only someone with a big chip on their shoulder could be so petty. It's called a historical reference. It shows a leader making brash and controversial decisions that turned out to be for the best, like those of Bush.

No, people who have seen one poor historical "example" trotted out after another get pretty petty after a while, too. Not htat there's anything petty about pointing out the weaknesses in someone's debate, seeing as that's what debate is about. If you're going to try for a historical example, maybe you ought to shoot for a remotely similar situation.

Name me another course of action the Internationals would have supported? No matter what, the U.S. was going to get flak for hating on Saddam, "Daddy's war" and all that. So, he might as well have done it in the quickest way possible.

"The Internationals," that's really priceless. Again, black and white, us versus them, with us or with the terrorists. Would "the internationals" be the rest of the world, who are rightly not selfishly looking out for American interests? Really, how dare they?

How about, oh, I don't know, listening to them and working with them? Are you that utterly lacking in perspective to consider the rest of the world to be the opposition which needs to be evaded, misled, and cheated so the US can get what it wants?!
You turned it into "us vs. them". They had the chance to join us, they didn't. They had the chance to support freedom, they ignored it.

Listen and wait while a bunch of Euros try to lure us into a dick measuring contest over who has moral superiority? Frankly, f--- that. The goal is to get the job done, not talk about getting it done and never doing it.

Yes, by showing the gaps in your logic, I have made is "us versus them." Maybe you ought to face that your philosophy is that simplistic now and then. Again, what an utter lack of perspective. "They had the chance to join us [in our illegal war with our highly dubious intelligence and motives], they didn't. They had the chance to support freedom {my new buzzword for rampant death and chaos], they ignored it." I agree, how could they pass off such an offer? Since it's the US, they should feel honored!

Why don't you tell us just what "the goal" was and why, and also just why the current mess in Iraq was better than actually not having the rest of the world hate us. Meanwhile, I'l going to start rounding up my new band, "Dick Measuring for Moral Superiority!"

Tell me, is it important to you that you win dick-measuring contests?

You view his decisions as bad because you're in favor of leaving the middle east alone. I think they're good because I don't. So whether his choices have been good or bad is a matter of perspective, which gives you no real grounds for calling his decision making skills poor.
I view his decisions as bad because Bush's planning was sub-par, his actions were brash and arrogant, and we can easily see how they've turned out. Just because your mind operates solely on what you believe is right or wrong doesn't mean the rest of us cannot evaluate a situation somewhat objectively. Do not try to box me into one of your simplistic little generalizations.
Ah, so only people who agree with you are objective? I had no idea. Again, perspective, kid, perspective. Yes, you've earned that name, by repeating yourself, acting childishly, and attempting to insult me and my convictions in order to lure me into some sort of pissing contest. Sorry, mission failed. Enjoy your nap. Have a nice day :D

Well, let's see. By your generalization of me, bearing in mind that generalizations are logical to the person making them and as such are quite telling of one's worldview, it's pretty clear that you're basing this point in your opinion. You state as much, and reach your conclusion with the assumption that I'm doing the same. It's also pretty funny how this is the second time that you've referred to pissing contests and dick measuring. Do you feel you have something to prove?

I know this might be over your head...perhaps you ought to try to talk to me like some n00b again. It's clearly gotten you very far, much farther than critically reading my arguments and addressing them as an adult. I know I have such respect for you now. :wink:

If you don't like what you're hearing, perhaps you ought to ty refuting some of it. Off you go now.

Both sides ought to stop hashing over details and look at the big picture.

George W. Bush has not been a positive experience for this nation. He launched a war in Iraq under the pretext of an imminent threat from a weapons-of-mass-destruction-wielding Saddam. No such weapons stockpile has ever been found. We also invaded under the claim that Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda, but that ALSO has no corroborating evidence. If we had such evidence, you can rest assured Bush would have trumpeted it to the entire world by now to support his current position. Furthermore, his unilateral actions for an apparently unjustified war which has killed over 800 American soldiers and over 10,000 Iraqi civilians have isolated the United States on the world stage. All the support we garnered after the 9-11 attacks has been squandered. The worldwide fight against terrorism has been imperiled because other nations are now reluctant to work with us.

Bush STILL has a net loss of over one-million jobs on his watch thus far. Some economists are predicting that this "recovery" we are seeing is merely a summer growth spurt. Many companies are clearly worried about their third-quarter returns, and are hedging their bets accordingly.

George W. Bush has presided over some of the most comprehensive rollbacks in environmental regulation in American history. Be advised, I am not a fanatical "tree-hugger" as some conservatives might accuse me of being. But people rely on the environment...there are studies that suggest that growing epidemics of asthma and autism are being fueled, in part, by the continuing and worsening degradation of our environment. If you cannot breathe the air, drink the water, or harvest food from the soil, what then will you do? If you desire specific examples, I can provide them. Back in 2001, Bush tried to strip away new Clinton-era protections that were designed to keep arsenic out of your drinking water. He has rewritten the clean air act in such a way as to encourage the power industry to keep old, dirty plants operating rather than building new, cleaner ones to replace them.

This is also the same president who, rather than developing alternative energy resources to reduce our dependency on foreign (Middle East) oil, has instead said, "Conservation is a personal virtue" and encouraged drilling in national wildlife refuges instead. Mind you! Oil is a finite, limited resource. It seems to me to be an act of sheer idiocy to base our entire economy on a resource which is fast being depleted.

This is a president who has engineered an astonishing rollback in civil liberty! Too many Americans get up on the Fourth of July and wave tiny flags and yell, "We're free!" without taking a moment to reflect on what "free" really means. Bush is currently arguing that he has the right to hold anyone, even American citizens, as "enemy combatants"....he claims the right to hold these people indefinitely, without access to legal counsel or trial by a jury of their peers. While this might seem at first to be acceptable (Eh, they're terrorist scum anyway!), how long will it be before INNOCENT citizens are caught by Bush's massive net? And don't say it cannot happen here in the United States...back in World War 2, we systematically moved all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast into the American equivalent of concentration camps based SOLELY on their ethnicity (Not a SINGLE one of those internees was ever proved to have done anything disloyal to the United States). And the Supreme Court gave the thumbs up to it at the time! It -can- happen here. It HAS happened here, and it -will- happen again unless the public shakes off the chains of apathy and takes responsibility for watching what their public officials do and voting them out of office when they break the social contract between elected representative and elector.

I could go on at length like this, for I have a long memory when it comes to George Bush's actions. I know that some of you out there will probably agree with Republican National Committee chairperson Ed Gillespie and label me as the "Blame/Hate America crowd".

I do not see myself as a "Blame America" person.

A true patriot, as the distinguished Frederick Douglass once said, is a man who fiercely loves his nation and yet will hold it up to the fires of scorn and mockery. In other words, a true patriot, as I see myself, loves the ideals and being of the United States...but does not excuse its' sins in the name of country. God bless America, but also give us the wisdom to see our OWN role in the problems of today as well as the roles of others. And give us the courage to admit our mistakes publicly, learn, and move on.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penned by Tarumigan, Shalrirorchia
VOTE KERRY 2004!!

Go George Soros.

Bush's record speaks for itself.
Anyone can easily make the correlation that his term in office may just be the worst of any president ever, and keep any political bias out of that statement.

The only hope for this country is a new leader.

If this were any other job, Bush would have been fired.

And why the devil do we consider the world "liberal" to be unclean? I am a liberal-minded person. To be liberal is to be innovative, to be tolerant of new ideas. I am angry, to be sure. But it is not the irrational rage that Bush and his people paint. I have very specific reasons why I feel upset. And I will remember those reasons when I vote him out of office in November. I have not missed an election yet, and I do not mean to now...especially when the stakes are so terribly high.

And why the devil do we consider the world "liberal" to be unclean? I am a liberal-minded person. To be liberal is to be innovative, to be tolerant of new ideas. I am angry, to be sure. But it is not the irrational rage that Bush and his people paint. I have very specific reasons why I feel upset. And I will remember those reasons when I vote him out of office in November. I have not missed an election yet, and I do not mean to now...especially when the stakes are so terribly high.

Liberal has become an evil word to frighten children.

the television news media like Fox News, wich is so corrupted, and right biased has basically done this themselves.
Of course, liars and swine like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Bill "I Lie-lly" help out a lot as well.

I think the reason people dislike liberals is because they're too tolerant. In fact, certainly where I am (the UK), the liberals are tolerant of anything and anyone - black gang violence, mothers who keep dropping kids for the Government allowance, rapists, terrorists, muggers, violent little teens who need a good beating and discipline - except ordinary, decent, white middle-class people who just sit there, carrying on with their lives, not screwing everything in sight, demanding compensation for having done a job they knew was dangerous/slipping ona wet floor three seconds beforw a bloke got there with a seventy-foot neo n sign powered by a nuclear reactor and visible from space saying "CAUTION: THIS FLOOR HAS A HIGH LEVEL OF MOISTURE ON IT'S SURFACE, claiming they're being racially/sexually slurred when someone calls them black/female/homosexual, blowing people up, beating people up or just whingeing. That's why I don't like liberals. Sorry, tangent there. :)

As for Bush: The entire situation's a lousy mess. I don't like Bush much, he doesn't seem hugely competent for his job, and is convinced, it seems, that America can do no evil. Iraq is the prime example: he went storming in with no idea what he was getting into and with little if any intel to support him, and now people on both sides are dying utterly needlessly.

And that's a crying shame. I've read Coulter's columns...she's an idiot and a rabblerouser. I can only dream at how many problems in this nation could be solved if people would stop and THINK critically for several minutes a day. To quote a poster that hangs over one of my former bosses' desk... "YOU'RE NOT A MINDLESS FOOL!" :D

Who was it addressed to? Can't have been me anyway :lol:

She's ...not good...

I thought it was intrinsic to the nature of reality....
Didnt cosmologists prove it back in 1984 or something
I must have missed the memo. Do you always get people to do your thinking for you? Her books are in good libraries and bookstores. You don't have to read her, but you should probably refrain from making assertions about her "goodness" or "lameness" if you are ignorant about her. I don't demand that you read her to respond to my quote of course... just read the quote itself and examine it for soundness.

I like Ayn Rand and think she has some interesting ideas. However, while the quote you provided was interesting, what leads her to this conclusion, other than her rabid opposition to communisim? An interesting writer (I hesitate to say good because her prose is terribly overwritten) does not necessarily make a good politician or even a human rights advocate. Ayn Rand was also firmly anti-violence and another quote of her's from The Virtue of Selfishness, "The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence." I can think of no greater intimidation than a massive invasionary force striking against a country and predicating that strike upon lies and "faulty intelligence".

I think the reason people dislike liberals is because they're too tolerant. In fact, certainly where I am (the UK), the liberals are tolerant of anything and anyone - black gang violence, mothers who keep dropping kids for the Government allowance, rapists, terrorists, muggers, violent little teens who need a good beating and discipline - except ordinary, decent, white middle-class people who just sit there, carrying on with their lives, not screwing everything in sight, demanding compensation for having done a job they knew was dangerous/slipping ona wet floor three seconds beforw a bloke got there with a seventy-foot neo n sign powered by a nuclear reactor and visible from space saying "CAUTION: THIS FLOOR HAS A HIGH LEVEL OF MOISTURE ON IT'S SURFACE, claiming they're being racially/sexually slurred when someone calls them black/female/homosexual, blowing people up, beating people up or just whingeing. That's why I don't like liberals. Sorry, tangent there. :)

As for Bush: The entire situation's a lousy mess. I don't like Bush much, he doesn't seem hugely competent for his job, and is convinced, it seems, that America can do no evil. Iraq is the prime example: he went storming in with no idea what he was getting into and with little if any intel to support him, and now people on both sides are dying utterly needlessly.
Your interperetation of liberlals could not possibly be more jaded.

I'm a very, very jaded fellow. You wouldn't happen to be a Brit too?

I'm a very, very jaded fellow. You wouldn't happen to be a Brit too?

No.

But I do enjoy a good cup of Earl Grey, and Monty Python...

does that count?

Quite so old boy! *Sips tea ina genteel manner*. Or of you prefer, Ee! Tha's a proper Englishman now lad! Tha comin' down t'Cow an' Calf fer a pint o' bitteh lateh?

Quite so old boy! *Sips tea ina genteel manner*. Or of you prefer, Ee! Tha's a proper Englishman now lad! Tha comin' down t'Cow an' Calf fer a pint o' bitteh lateh?

If your offering me a beer......great!

Aye lad, aye! Gotta love the Pub names here too..."the Spread Eagle" is my current favourite :D

Aye lad, aye! Gotta love the Pub names here too..."the Spread Eagle" is my current favourite :D

So..If your quaffing a pint of rye beer..do you put lemons in it?

Nope...Lemons in beer? :shock:

Nope...Lemons in beer? :shock:

No joke.

Apparently.....with rye beer..your supposed to put lemons in it.....

Who makes up these rules?

'tain't me, that's for sure. *looks longingly at a pack of guinness*

I like Ayn Rand and think she has some interesting ideas. However, while the quote you provided was interesting, what leads her to this conclusion, other than her rabid opposition to communisim?
She was against totalitarianism, and she was an individualist, not a collectivist. If that makes her "rabid", and not simply "uncompromising" in your view, so be it. Obviously I'm not going to quote the entire essay, and I think the quote stands by itself. If you have the book feel free to reread the whole thing.

An interesting writer (I hesitate to say good because her prose is terribly overwritten) does not necessarily make a good politician or even a human rights advocate.
She was more a philosopher than a writer. Rights were central to her philosophy, and are what she wrote about.

Ayn Rand was also firmly anti-violence...
She was against the initiation of violence.

...and another quote of her's from The Virtue of Selfishness, "The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence." I can think of no greater intimidation than a massive invasionary force striking against a country and predicating that strike upon lies and "faulty intelligence".
That's not "the argument from intimidation" which as you know by reading it is a moral pressure, an insinuation of immorality by the person bringing up the argument. It's "the Emperor's New Clothes". I actually thought it was being used against me earlier in this thread by xxx (which amused me), though in fact it was a more straight-forward ad hominem fallacy he used (the two are closely related).

Rand's definition of "The Argument from Intimidation":
"The psychological pressure method consists of threatening to impeach an opponent's character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate."

The example from the essay:
"Aristotle?" My dear fellow-" (a weary sigh) "if you had read Professor Spiffkin's piece in-" (reverently) "the January 1912 issue of Intellect magazine, which-" (contemptously) "you obviously haven't, you would know-" (airily) "that Aristotle has been refuted."

The American invasion of Iraq was not an argument. It was an invasion against a regime with no legitimacy. It was a war of choice. America had no obligation to overthrow the Baathists. But America did have the right.

Original Post
What your Describing sounds a lot more like the Influence of political correctness rather than Liberality.

Sounds Like Ayn Rand was the Perfect All American Cold war Philosipher.
I still dont see what the hell any of her stuff is based on. She's Bland, and sounds like a bit of a tool of the governement.

Iraq WAS a soverign nation. And If The U.S can go off and invade one nation that it convinces its citizens has no right to exist. Who's to say it wont do it again and again. And even get into the realm of States that have done nothing wrong for Its own imperial purposes?

But I agree with you completely. Technically America did have the right. After all America can invade any country that cant defend itself. Might makes right. Would ole' Ayn'ie agree with that?

She was against totalitarianism, and she was an individualist, not a collectivist. If that makes her "rabid", and not simply "uncompromising" in your view, so be it. Obviously I'm not going to quote the entire essay, and I think the quote stands by itself. If you have the book feel free to reread the whole thing.

The quote doesn't stand by itself any more than any quote stands by itself, however, this isn't a thread on the merits of Objectivisim.


She was more a philosopher than a writer. Rights were central to her philosophy, and are what she wrote about.

Very true. However, I've always found it slightly amusing that for someone so set on the value of individual excellence, her prose was so awful. Great stories. Wonderful ideas. Poor execution.


...and another quote of her's from The Virtue of Selfishness, "The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence." I can think of no greater intimidation than a massive invasionary force striking against a country and predicating that strike upon lies and "faulty intelligence".
That's not "the argument from intimidation" which as you know by reading it is a moral pressure, an insinuation of immorality by the person bringing up the argument. It's "the Emperor's New Clothes". I actually thought it was being used against me earlier in this thread by xxx (which amused me), though in fact it was a more straight-forward ad hominem fallacy he used (the two are closely related).

Rand's definition of "The Argument from Intimidation":
"The psychological pressure method consists of threatening to impeach an opponent's character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate."

The example from the essay:
"Aristotle?" My dear fellow-" (a weary sigh) "if you had read Professor Spiffkin's piece in-" (reverently) "the January 1912 issue of Intellect magazine, which-" (contemptously) "you obviously haven't, you would know-" (airily) "that Aristotle has been refuted."

The American invasion of Iraq was not an argument. It was an invasion against a regime with no legitimacy. It was a war of choice. America had no obligation to overthrow the Baathists. But America did have the right.

The problem is you have now effectively divorced philosophy from real world practice and rendered it impotent. How, exactly, does America have the "right" to overthrow a foriegn government and what do you base your concept of "legitimacy" on?

So....

I gotta ask....

whats the difference wether or not innocents get killed in a bombing campaign....or a jet flying into the WTC?

Either way.....innocents got killed.

You are standing ten feet away from me. I have a gun, and I shoot you with it because I don't like your father. You die.

Trying again

You are standing ten feet away from me. I have a gun, and shoot at the guy sneaking up behind you with a knife. The bullet passes through you, but kills him.

which is worse?

Freedom is worth a little chaos and death.

Are you in a position to offer up YOUR life for this just cause, or will it have to be someone elses sacrifice?

I was denied entry into the Marines. I wanted in, and was denied for health reasons. I would have been behind a desk in cryptology, but they still wanted completely able soldiers. Had I been given the opportunity, I would have gladly risked my life to help remove bastards like Saddam from power.
I guess I will have to take your word for it. Do you believe that Saddam was “threatening” your “freedom”?

Freedom is the most cherished idea of every western country (unless Europe has become more Socialist than I think).

What is "freedom" for you might not be "freedom" for another?

Every human being deserves the freedoms western nations have, and we have the means to destroy that which is keeping them from being free.

Have you ever considered that some people just don't like what is happening within some of these "free" western societies, and want no part of it. Would it not be their "free" choice to reject your vision of "freedom"?

Freedom is freedom, are you daft?
Do you honestly believe that the Iraqi people are “free” now?

The basic human freedoms as described in the writings of Classical Liberal texts are the basis for the idea of a "free world", and there is no one that can dispute that as a whole, these writings are correct in describing individual freedom and a free society.
From what I understand of the Islamic doctrine, Allah is “everything”. The fundamentalists of the Islamic faith tend to view the “free society” of the western world as being corrupt and driven by pagan instincts. If you study the long history of this part of the world (Iraq), you will notice many attempts by such “free societies” to intercede in their jurisdiction, yet nothing is ever changed. They enjoy “freedom” to practice their faith. Do you believe that this latest attempt by the “free” western societies to change their circumstances will succeed?

Plenty of people resisted the Republican revolutions in Europe, and what has come of it? Greater freedoms, richer and more prosperous societies. Once people get a taste of freedom, apprehension and stupidity die down a bit.
One would argue that these greater freedoms, riches, and prosperity were obtained by inflicting injustices to other jurisdictions i.e. slave trade, slave labour, and annihilation of the Indians in North America. What “freedoms” do these people have today? Many minorities within the USA are still treated as second class citizens.
Bite me, btw, for making that stupid crack about people not wanting freedom. Freedom of speech at work, lovely, isn't it?
Freedom of speech is absolutely a wonderful possession, however it is unfortunate when people misuse it.

Why shouldn't we use them?
1. It was illegal to attack Iraq.

2. Do you think the Iraqis are happy that you took over their country?

3. Do you believe that your country has the right to invade sovereign countries?

4. Do you think America has "destroyed" the Iraqis' will to be whatever they choose to be?
1. I don't see anyone trying to stop us, makes illegal moot, doesn't it? Laws don't exist if no one enforces them.

2. Yep, plenty were cheering as the tanks rolled in. Plenty are happy now, American business in rebuilding their country is giving many Iraqis economic opportunities that wouldn't have existed under Saddam. They'll be much happier once they have control of their own free society, though.

3. Yep.

4. Nope, and they'll decide that, once they form their own government.[/quote]

1. So America is above International Law because no one can enforce them?

2. Most polls of Iraqi citizens seem to say that they eagerly await your departure, so that they can go back about THEIR business.

3. If you agree that your country has the right to invade “sovereign” countries then you can’t truly believe in democracy.

4. We agree on something. I do believe that the Iraqis will embrace their religion with even more passion, once the US leaves. I believe that the US has given the people more reasons to hate the US.

So....

I gotta ask....

whats the difference wether or not innocents get killed in a bombing campaign....or a jet flying into the WTC?

Either way.....innocents got killed.

You are standing ten feet away from me. I have a gun, and I shoot you with it because I don't like your father. You die.

Trying again

You are standing ten feet away from me. I have a gun, and shoot at the guy sneaking up behind you with a knife. The bullet passes through you, but kills him.

which is worse?

Either way, you'd still be responsible for my death.
Killing is killing, no matter how you word it.
Killing 3000 people in the WTC was wrong...turns out..so was killing 10,000 Iraqis when we only had a real problem with the worst dozen or so of them.

My take on the Iraq/postwar situation:

I think it is odd that Bush talks about fighting terrorism in this war. The war in Iraq is detrimental to the "war on terrorism," because Saddam Hussein was a strong anti-islamist, secular ruler within an area surrounded by fundamentalism, who basically kept the Al-Qaeda style of terrorists out of his country in ways that America will not be able to do, and the American occupation of Iraq has actually brought more terrorists IN to the country than were there before. In addition, the huge world-wide anti-American reaction to the war would further encourage the formation of new terrorist cells and strengthen those already existing. Terrorism cant be fought with bombs and bullets, much like racism. It needs to be stopped with education and understanding, but that doesnt win votes does it?

What most people don't understand is that you cannot force democracy or revolution, which is why Iraq is so volatile. As painstaking as it is to see the nation suffer under a Dictator, the only way true freedom can be attained is through a citizen led revolution. It is a sad truth that it would cost many lives, but many less than the repercussions of what the US is doing. And when you do try to force Democracy, results are catastrophic.

Look at Iraq. When...or if...the US leaves, the Sunni's and Shi'ite's will have no dictatorship in place to keep them tame, and no occupying force for them to unite against. That means the two groups are likely going to have a bloody "Holy" war with a good possibility of attempted or even fully accomplishable Genocide. Don't forget the Kurds in the north either. And what about Democracy? Have these people any idea how to do it? Remember, under Saddam they were sealed off from the world and injected with Soviet-era level propaganda. What they know is likely distorted. Also, pertaining to an election: Because many people are very religious, it is likely when an Iraqi election does happen, the candidate from the largest religious group will be elected, meaning more religious violence and hatred.

You see, the US intervention and forcing of Democracy on a people unprepared for it is only throwing things into chaos, and what we're seeing now isn't even the worst of what's to come. Not even close. Things would’ve still been bad under Saddam, but there would have been a people’s revolution which is the ONLY WAY democracy can come about properly. Now, Bush has pretty much guaranteed a constant state of chaos in Iraq for years, whether the US leaves or not. And they'd be good to go soon.

Like i said, it hurts to see a nation suffer, but what Team Bush has done here will make the suffering prolonged, and now its going to effect the families of American Soldiers too. We can only pray the draft legislation doesn't go through. Though, maybe this is the peoples Revolution after all. The anger and unity against a common enemy (in the Fundamentalists yes: America) is there. Who knows. Either way, the streets are running Red courtesy of the White House; and guess what folks, Republican or Democrat doesn't matter here.

I'm so sick of this attack on liberals.. did liberals lie to go to war in Iraq? No.. the right did. End of story in my books. We all know who the liars are. In this time in history it's the Republican party.. more pointed, The White House. All arguments that say different have been discredited. They lied. Deal with it. Should it be cleaned up, of course, it is the responsibility of America and as dictated by the Geneva Conventions.

You want to practice preemptive war.. you better be freaking right. This sadly was not the case. The buck stops at the top. Not any where else. That's responsible government. We have seen no such thing in the last 3+ years in the United States of America.
In summary...

The right always lies
The right always starts wars
I guess Clinton was a republican, because he lied about his affair.

I guess LBJ was a republican, because he started a war.

Anything you can dispise about one side, the other side is guilty of as well.

Thank you for that. I have been saying the same thing all along. There is little difference between the two because all politicians lie. They are pros at it.

SHL

I guess Clinton was a republican, because he lied about his affair.

I guess LBJ was a republican, because he started a war.

Anything you can dispise about one side, the other side is guilty of as well.

First, I would like it if you didn't misuse quote tags to quote some thing I nevr said. I'm talking about here and now. The lies that were told to the world at this moment in history. You can argue stawmen arguments about well "so did they" Well first of all Clinton's blowjob didn't get any one hurt or killed.

Lying about facts to go to war that have now taken the lives of over 800 American kids and thousands of Iraqi's can hardly be compared to a god damn blowjob. That argument is so weak it's not even funny.

I also don't believe LBJ lied to go to war.. even though I don't agree with what LBJ did.. and it was such a waste.. at least he didn't outright lie to do it.

Read some of the Gulf of Tonkin history and you may find that is where the lying started and then you will find a few more odds and ends in The Pentagon Papers. The whole Viet Nam war was a facade and a farce. Tens of thousands died - for what? How many actually physically survived the battlefield to be victims of Agent Orange - which LBJ lied his ass off over and turned his back on the men who suffered all manner of injury from that stupid waste of presidential authority in service to corporate profits.

SHL

Woah woah woah....

Lest not turn this into a Bush vs Clinton thread..becuase Bush would LOSE big time.'

Trust me.

This is about the death of innocents in Iraq, and comparing them to the victims of 9/11....
I am saying politicians are politicians. Politicians will always lie, no matter what party they are from.

If you cannot see the differance between the "murders" of 3,000 people on Sept 11th and the "negligable homicide" of Iraqis you are blind.

(edit: 1000th post! YEA, I GOT MAIL!!!!)

Look at this way....

19 People hijacked some planes and flew them into some buildings to try and kill as many people as they could.

Thats murder.

later...

Person A, dropped a lot of bombs on Iraq.

Although he was aiming for person B, he ended up killing.....persons C through Z....

it would be the same as this....

If I were drving my car on the sidewalk, to try and run you down....(personj A)
and I ended up killing 12 other people as well....(B-M)

Is that not murder?
Would I not be just as responsible for thier deaths?

There is a huge difference between homocide and the unintentional killing of civillians in a war. Name one case where such deaths have been prosecuted. There is a generally accepted difference and you are out of step with the rest of the world, and the law as written and as practiced.

SHL

He really is smarter than you Liberals give him credit for. All politicians who rise to a moderately high level are clever. They survive years of political intrigue and avoid years of scandal to get to those offices. Clinton was a horn dog, and a liar, but he was clever too, i'm the first to admit that.

Oh, I don't think we all think he's per se stupid, as much as dangerous. Bad policy and bad ideas. I don't think you become the President of the USA by being a total idiot, that's for sure.

I find it troublesome though when people start comparing Clinton getting a blowjob and lying about it to that of a war. First of all, in a free society Clinton should of never had to even answer those questions, except maybe to his wife. It's night and day... not even close to the same thing.

I do wonder though if people will still be blaming Clinton for their current President's short-comings in 2050... :|

Regarding the knobber I agree. Who cares? It was ridiculous.

But Clinton's failing do not lie in his comissions as much as his omissions. Certainly it is much easier to judge with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight but ole Bill did the nation harm by cutting the military rather than redefining the international priorities and adjusting to them.

As for 2050, we might just be starting to see what was truly know by whom and when they knew it by that time. It will be a chore for our grandchildren to untie that knot - if it even matters by then.

SHL

DP GDS

He really is smarter than you Liberals give him credit for. All politicians who rise to a moderately high level are clever. They survive years of political intrigue and avoid years of scandal to get to those offices. Clinton was a horn dog, and a liar, but he was clever too, i'm the first to admit that.

Oh, I don't think we all think he's per se stupid, as much as dangerous. Bad policy and bad ideas. I don't think you become the President of the USA by being a total idiot, that's for sure.

I find it troublesome though when people start comparing Clinton getting a blowjob and lying about it to that of a war. First of all, in a free society Clinton should of never had to even answer those questions, except maybe to his wife. It's night and day... not even close to the same thing.

I do wonder though if people will still be blaming Clinton for their current President's short-comings in 2050... :|


But....his luck will run out in five months.

As an International observer, I think I can safely say I speak for the free world when I say, I certainly hope so. Given the majority of people in the free world hate him to the core for what he's done.

As a person who deals with people from many nations on a daily basis I must say you manically overstate your portfolio. You are not the voice of anything but yourself, as I am my own voice. There is a much broader range than you suspect.

As the kids say, "Keep it real!"

SHL

Countries with grudges against the U.S. could decide it's in their best interests to band up and hate us together, with results that I doubt would be good.

True.

but then again...

Whats good for America, tends to be good for the U.K, Canada, and most other Democratic/capitalistic nations as well........generally.

So to "band together" against the U.S, is to band against those nations as well..

Thats gets you invaded.
and probably killed.

In the case of Iraq......everyone went along willingly until the world found out Bush was full of it....then backed off.

If a TRUE "axis of evil" showd up....

What do you think would be the result?

If I follow what you are asking (& I might have missed it) You are asking what if an overt attack, by say North Korea shooting a few nukes at California and having an out and out war, actually happened then I believe you would see a unified response from our allies - including France. Nobody would want that kind of dislocation. In a world economy all would suffer horribly as a result.

SHL

He really is smarter than you Liberals give him credit for. All politicians who rise to a moderately high level are clever. They survive years of political intrigue and avoid years of scandal to get to those offices. Clinton was a horn dog, and a liar, but he was clever too, i'm the first to admit that.

Oh, I don't think we all think he's per se stupid, as much as dangerous. Bad policy and bad ideas. I don't think you become the President of the USA by being a total idiot, that's for sure.

I find it troublesome though when people start comparing Clinton getting a blowjob and lying about it to that of a war. First of all, in a free society Clinton should of never had to even answer those questions, except maybe to his wife. It's night and day... not even close to the same thing.

I do wonder though if people will still be blaming Clinton for their current President's short-comings in 2050... :|


But....his luck will run out in five months.

As an International observer, I think I can safely say I speak for the free world when I say, I certainly hope so. Given the majority of people in the free world hate him to the core for what he's done.

As a person who deals with people from many nations on a daily basis I must say you manically overstate your portfolio. You are not the voice of anything but yourself, as I am my own voice. There is a much broader range than you suspect.

As the kids say, "Keep it real!"

SHLAmerica is hated around the world for their overwhelming influence in everything, their standar of living being so much higher, and their undiminshed military might, which is transferred by people on this board and many other into a hatred of Bush.

Sounds Like Ayn Rand was the Perfect All American Cold war Philosipher. I still dont see what the hell any of her stuff is based on. She's Bland, and sounds like a bit of a tool of the governement.
You don't see what her stuff is based on? What have you read? Maybe I can point you to stuff that fills in the blanks. Bland? Is she more or less exciting than Marx? Tool of the government? She advocated the dismantlement of all government except for the military, police, and courts.

Iraq WAS a soverign nation. And If The U.S can go off and invade one nation that it convinces its citizens has no right to exist. Who's to say it wont do it again and again. And even get into the realm of States that have done nothing wrong for Its own imperial purposes?
Iraq had no national rights because it was a slave state. I hope the U.S. does do it again and again. There are a lot of slave states left. Of course if the U.S. invades a country that is not a slave state it is doing wrong.

But I agree with you completely. Technically America did have the right. After all America can invade any country that cant defend itself. Might makes right. Would ole' Ayn'ie agree with that?
No, I don't agree with that and neither does Rand. America has the right to invade any country that does not respect the individual rights of its own citizens. That's it. Whether they can defend themselves or not.

The problem is you have now effectively divorced philosophy from real world practice and rendered it impotent. How, exactly, does America have the "right" to overthrow a foriegn government and what do you base your concept of "legitimacy" on?
An earlier passage from the same essay explains how America or any free nation has the right to overthrow a illegitimate foreign government, and what is illegitimate.

A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation - a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens- has the right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defence).
The citizens of a free nation may disagree about the specific legal procedures or methods of implementing their rights (which is a complex problem, the province of political science and of the philosophy of law), but they agree on the basic principle to be implemented: the principle of individual rights. When a country's constitution places indvidual rights outside the reach of public authorities, the sphere of political power is severely delimited- and thus the citizens may, safely and properly, agree to abide by the decisions of a majority vote in this delimited sphere. The lives and property of minorities or dissenters are not at stake, are not subject to vote and are not endangered by any maority decision; no man or group holds a blank check on power over others.
Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations.
But this right cannot be claimed by dictatorships, by savage tribes or by any form of absolutist tyranny. A nation that violates the rights of its own citizens cannot claim any rights whatsoever. In the issue of rights, as in all moral issues, there can be no double standard. A nation ruled by brute physical force is not a nation, but a horder - whether it is led by Attila, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Khrushchev or Castro. What rights could Attila claim and on what grounds?
This applies to all forms of tribal savagery, ancient or modern, primitive or "industrialized." Neither geography nor race nor tradition nor previous state of development can confer on some human beings the "right" to violate the rights of others.
The right of "the self-determination of nations" applies only to free societies or to societies seeking to establish freedom; it does not apply to dictatorships. Just as an indvidual's right of free action does not include the "right" to commit crimes (that is, to violate the rights of others), so the right of a nation to determine its own form of government does not include the right to establish a slave society(that is, to legalize the enslavement of some men by others). There is no such thing as "the right to enslave." A nation can do it, just as a man can become a criminal- but neither do it by right.

It makes me angry that a rich American like Mr. Soros would turn his back on a President who has worked so hard for him. This just proves that the liberal propaganda machine exists in all facets of society, and therefore must be fought in all facets of society. I say we get some patriot businessmen to run this Soros guy out of business.

DP

Quick little interjection...

While Saddam may not have been a direct threat to the US, as Hitler was to GB..'
Saddam was exterminating the Kurds, in mass numbers.
Much like Hitler and the Jews, but on a smaller scale.

Quick little interjection of my own, Saddam had not gassed the Kurds since the 80's. Just thought I'd throw that in, in case you didn't know.

For the sake of factual accuracy.

There were no documented chemical/biological attacks. However genocide continued unabated. The 1991 crushing of a southern Shi'ite revolt. The 1991 crushing of Kurdish insurrection and crimes against all sectors of the population during the entire period of Baath rule (up to the US invasion) are larger examples.

As for his use and possession of both the US had some hand in that. Of course that is a double edged sword argument, as it then lends support to their having awareness of Hussein's capability in producing and using such weapons. It may even be argued that, to some extent, this was a ham handed attempt to put worms back into the can.

SHL

I guess I will have to take your word for it. Do you believe that Saddam was “threatening” your “freedom”?
I believe in the freedom of the Iraqis the same way I believe in the freedom of my American brothers and sisters.
From what I understand of the Islamic doctrine, Allah is “everything”. The fundamentalists of the Islamic faith tend to view the “free society” of the western world as being corrupt and driven by pagan instincts. If you study the long history of this part of the world (Iraq), you will notice many attempts by such “free societies” to intercede in their jurisdiction, yet nothing is ever changed. They enjoy “freedom” to practice their faith. Do you believe that this latest attempt by the “free” western societies to change their circumstances will succeed?
Liberals have spent months arguing that Middle Eastern nations are not controlled by fundamentalists, and that fundamentalist Islam is not how the majority of Arab Muslims choose to practice... Finally going to admit that Fundamentalist Islam is a rabid and growing philosophy that needs to be stopped?
One would argue that these greater freedoms, riches, and prosperity were obtained by inflicting injustices to other jurisdictions i.e. slave trade, slave labour, and annihilation of the Indians in North America. What “freedoms” do these people have today? Many minorities within the USA are still treated as second class citizens.
In a free society, bad things happen, it's what we do about these bad things that matters, and how we stop them. Slavery is outlawed in western nations, get over it. Amerindians are a part of American society, welcome to all the rights and privilages pertaining thereto.

I agree, they are treated as second class. Affirmative action policies and politically correct drivvel have turned these people into perpetual victims instead of free individuals.

The Philosophy of White Guilt is dead, please don't bring it up again, embarassing yourself does not further your cause. :wink:
Bite me, btw, for making that stupid crack about people not wanting freedom. Freedom of speech at work, lovely, isn't it?
Freedom of speech is absolutely a wonderful possession, however it is unfortunate when people misuse it.
Ah, people should only exercise their freedom of speech to agree with you, hm, I guess it isn't really freedom then, is it?

1. So America is above International Law because no one can enforce them?

2. Most polls of Iraqi citizens seem to say that they eagerly await your departure, so that they can go back about THEIR business.

3. If you agree that your country has the right to invade “sovereign” countries then you can’t truly believe in democracy.

4. We agree on something. I do believe that the Iraqis will embrace their religion with even more passion, once the US leaves. I believe that the US has given the people more reasons to hate the US.
1. Yes, it is. America is International Law. We are the only ones who ever enforce it, so we will choose when and where to enforce it. No one else has the conviction.

2. Yes, isn't it lovely? They want to be self-governing and free now that Saddam is gone. June 30th draws ever closer.

3. Because a nation exists does not mean it has the right to continue existing. Sovereignity does not equal virtue.

4. Good for you, hate America more, it makes our continued domination of the planet sweeter.

Sounds Like Ayn Rand was the Perfect All American Cold war Philosipher. I still dont see what the hell any of her stuff is based on. She's Bland, and sounds like a bit of a tool of the governement.Stuuuuuuuuuuf

Heh the more you tell me the lamer it sounds. A lot of what you are telling me still seems rather baseless. And the terms she uses are arrogant. Slave state? Slave to what? That sounds like the government is a slave, not the people. Which is ironic because there is a lot of that about. Your job is more important than your government. Money is what gives one freedom. The more you have the more your "Slave master" will be friendly to you. Because you can enrich him. That is the way a "Slave state" works. All dictators have to tiptoe around people power. If they get too angry at him they will overthrow him. And I'f he is really unskilled, the Military will turn against him also and then all he'll have to protect him is his German Mercenaries.

You think that just because your system of government is called Democracy that you arent a Slave. You are a slave to the Majority. The difference is you dont realise you arent as free as you think. A governemnt only allows its citizens so much freedom. And I'm not talking about freedom to rob and steal and that. If you muck up the encumbent regime's power and it can get rid of you without calling attention (assuming he doesnt believe his own rhetoric) He will. And you'll deserve it, because you played the game, unskillfully and lost. All leaders are charasmatic and can bring the populace round to their "way of thinking", Case in point: Iraq. The difference between A dictatorship and a Democracy is that in a democracy the majority of Citizens may be able to select which Dictator they get.

You think that just because your system of government is called Democracy that you arent a Slave. You are a slave to the Majority. The difference is you dont realise you arent as free as you think. A governemnt only allows its citizens so much freedom. And I'm not talking about freedom to rob and steal and that. If you muck up the encumbent regime's power and it can get rid of you without calling attention (assuming he doesnt believe his own rhetoric) He will. And you'll deserve it, because you played the game, unskillfully and lost. All leaders are charasmatic and can bring the populace round to their "way of thinking", Case in point: Iraq. The difference between A dictatorship and a Democracy is that in a democracy the majority of Citizens may be able to select which Dictator they get.
Okay I'm pretty much done talking to you. I'll just close by saying that democracy isn't the secret of the American recipe, merely the cherry on top. The real secret is the sanctification of rights: serious limitations of the power of government, society, or any other gang over sovereign individuals.

Bye New Astrolia.

It makes me angry that a rich American like Mr. Soros would turn his back on a President who has worked so hard for him. This just proves that the liberal propaganda machine exists in all facets of society, and therefore must be fought in all facets of society. I say we get some patriot businessmen to run this Soros guy out of business.

Blagh blah blah.....there is no liberal bias in the media.
Period.

Name one main stream media source that has a liberal slant and Ill name three that have very conservative ones.
Or do you actually think that Fox News is "Fair and Balanced?"
Or the Washington Post?

Since more people get thier news from television, than any other source...name me ONE Liberallly biased televison network.

You think that just because your system of government is called Democracy that you arent a Slave. You are a slave to the Majority. The difference is you dont realise you arent as free as you think. A governemnt only allows its citizens so much freedom. And I'm not talking about freedom to rob and steal and that. If you muck up the encumbent regime's power and it can get rid of you without calling attention (assuming he doesnt believe his own rhetoric) He will. And you'll deserve it, because you played the game, unskillfully and lost. All leaders are charasmatic and can bring the populace round to their "way of thinking", Case in point: Iraq. The difference between A dictatorship and a Democracy is that in a democracy the majority of Citizens may be able to select which Dictator they get.
Okay I'm pretty much done talking to you. I'll just close by saying that democracy isn't the secret of the American recipe, merely the cherry on top. The real secret is the sanctification of rights: serious limitations of the power of government, society, or any other gang over sovereign individuals.

Bye New Astrolia.

I win

How many innocent Iraqi civillian have been killed by bombs falling on them?

Or In afghanistan, when a wedding party was bombed, by mistake, and all 5o attendants were killed.

You need to do some more research.


But then again..your going to see all of this up close and personal, wont you?

You'll see.

Reports are in that that wedding was around 2:45 in the morning... yeah, sure a wedding that late...

Not good enough? it was on the bored of Iraq and Syria.. who lives there? NO ONE! Besides, the choppers were being fired upon and they returned fire the way most US military people do... effectively.

Even if it was somehow an innocent gathering, how stupid can you be to shoot guns into the air when armed US military choppers are patrolling the area? First rule the Iraqi populace was given when we got there: Don't shoot at us or else.

I thought It wasnt THE wedding but wedding celebrations. A reception of sorts.

How many innocent Iraqi civillian have been killed by bombs falling on them?

Or In afghanistan, when a wedding party was bombed, by mistake, and all 5o attendants were killed.

You need to do some more research.


But then again..your going to see all of this up close and personal, wont you?

You'll see.

Reports are in that that wedding was around 2:45 in the morning... yeah, sure a wedding that late...

Not good enough? it was on the bored of Iraq and Syria.. who lives there? NO ONE! Besides, the choppers were being fired upon and they returned fire the way most US military people do... effectively.

Even if it was somehow an innocent gathering, how stupid can you be to shoot guns into the air when armed US military choppers are patrolling the area? First rule the Iraqi populace was given when we got there: Don't shoot at us or else.

Reports are in that that wedding was around 2:45 in the morning... yeah, sure a wedding that late...

Youve never been to a real party before have ya?

Besides, the choppers were being fired upon and they returned fire the way most US military people do... effectively.

Incorrect.
The gunfire was the participants firing rounds into the sky, a traditional middle eastern custom.

It makes me angry that a rich American like Mr. Soros would turn his back on a President who has worked so hard for him. This just proves that the liberal propaganda machine exists in all facets of society, and therefore must be fought in all facets of society. I say we get some patriot businessmen to run this Soros guy out of business.

Blagh blah blah.....there is no liberal bias in the media.
Period.

Name one main stream media source that has a liberal slant and Ill name three that have very conservative ones.
Or do you actually think that Fox News is "Fair and Balanced?"
Or the Washington Post?

Since more people get thier news from television, than any other source...name me ONE Liberallly biased televison network.

Ok, good challenge. But I'll win for TV media becuase you liberals are the majority in TV media munbers, however conservatives enjoy a larger audience in FOX News...

3 Liberal TV Media stations:
CNN
CBS
MSNBC

Ding ding, I win.

He really is smarter than you Liberals give him credit for. All politicians who rise to a moderately high level are clever. They survive years of political intrigue and avoid years of scandal to get to those offices. Clinton was a horn dog, and a liar, but he was clever too, i'm the first to admit that.

Oh, I don't think we all think he's per se stupid, as much as dangerous. Bad policy and bad ideas. I don't think you become the President of the USA by being a total idiot, that's for sure.

I find it troublesome though when people start comparing Clinton getting a blowjob and lying about it to that of a war. First of all, in a free society Clinton should of never had to even answer those questions, except maybe to his wife. It's night and day... not even close to the same thing.

I do wonder though if people will still be blaming Clinton for their current President's short-comings in 2050... :|


But....his luck will run out in five months.

As an International observer, I think I can safely say I speak for the free world when I say, I certainly hope so. Given the majority of people in the free world hate him to the core for what he's done.

As a person who deals with people from many nations on a daily basis I must say you manically overstate your portfolio. You are not the voice of anything but yourself, as I am my own voice. There is a much broader range than you suspect.

As the kids say, "Keep it real!"

SHLAmerica is hated around the world for their overwhelming influence in everything, their standar of living being so much higher, and their undiminshed military might, which is transferred by people on this board and many other into a hatred of Bush.
Hey, Goliath, your "undiminished military might" doesn't seem to be doing much good for you in Iraq, eh?

It makes me angry that a rich American like Mr. Soros would turn his back on a President who has worked so hard for him. This just proves that the liberal propaganda machine exists in all facets of society, and therefore must be fought in all facets of society. I say we get some patriot businessmen to run this Soros guy out of business.

Blagh blah blah.....there is no liberal bias in the media.
Period.

Name one main stream media source that has a liberal slant and Ill name three that have very conservative ones.
Or do you actually think that Fox News is "Fair and Balanced?"
Or the Washington Post?

Since more people get thier news from television, than any other source...name me ONE Liberallly biased televison network.

Ok, good challenge. But I'll win for TV media becuase you liberals are the majority in TV media munbers, however conservatives enjoy a larger audience in FOX News...

3 Liberal TV Media stations:
CNN
CBS
MSNBC

Ding ding, I win.

MSNBC? Liberal??

Hardly.....Moderate MAYBE....

CBS?? Not even.

CNN?

I dont think so.

Lets try radio....

Other than "Air America"..name another Liberally biased show, or network.

Reports are in that that wedding was around 2:45 in the morning... yeah, sure a wedding that late...

Youve never been to a real party before have ya?

Besides, the choppers were being fired upon and they returned fire the way most US military people do... effectively.

Incorrect.
The gunfire was the participants firing rounds into the sky, a traditional middle eastern custom.[/quote]


Yeah.... but weddings that late? Nope. possibly a reception, but I doubt it was held at the border of Syria and Iraq. If my country was occupied by a military force patrolling the country, I wouldnt fire a weapon into the air even if it was custom. Would you?

Yeah MSNBC? Get real! Unless you think that anything that Isnt conservative is Liberal. And uhh, does NPR count there BS?

Yeah MSNBC? Get real! Unless you think that anything that Isnt conservative is Liberal. And uhh, does NPR count there BS?

Not really....possibly, if you ignore that they recieve funds from Conservative sources as well as Liberal ones.

Reports are in that that wedding was around 2:45 in the morning... yeah, sure a wedding that late...

Youve never been to a real party before have ya?

Besides, the choppers were being fired upon and they returned fire the way most US military people do... effectively.

Incorrect.
The gunfire was the participants firing rounds into the sky, a traditional middle eastern custom.


Yeah.... but weddings that late? Nope. possibly a reception, but I doubt it was held at the border of Syria and Iraq. If my country was occupied by a military force patrolling the country, I wouldnt fire a weapon into the air even if it was custom. Would you?
Of course, you wouldn't! Submitting to a foreign occupation is a patriotic thing to do. And toilet plunger up the bum is not that bad at all --provided you lube well :twisted:

Does PBS count. Or does anything intelligent not nessicerally count as liberal

Yeah MSNBC? Get real! Unless you think that anything that Isnt conservative is Liberal. And uhh, does NPR count there BS?MSNBC--any network that hired Michael Savage and still airs Joe Scarborough can't be considered liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

And a recent article in Newsdaypoints out (http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/ny-flnpr3818138may25,0,2746922.story) that Despite a perception that National Public Radio is politically liberal, the majority of its sources are actually Republicans and conservatives... So not even NPR is really liberal.

Does PBS count. Or does anything intelligent not nessicerally count as liberal

Public
Broadcasting
System.

They recieve grants and donations from all sorts of different viewers.

Yeah MSNBC? Get real! Unless you think that anything that Isnt conservative is Liberal. And uhh, does NPR count there BS?MSNBC--any network that hired Michael Savage and still airs Joe Scarborough can't be considered liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

And a recent article in Newsdaypoints out (http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/ny-flnpr3818138may25,0,2746922.story) that Despite a perception that National Public Radio is politically liberal, the majority of its sources are actually Republicans and conservatives... So not even NPR is really liberal.

LOL. They probably listen to it waiting for "Biased" slipups/

I'm kinda disappointed Shrub didn't proclaim liberation/democratisation of Muddle East (rather than the non-existant WMDs) as THE main reason for rolling into Iraq. Given the numbers of neocons out here waxing poetic about their undying desire to bring freedom to the oppressed masses everywhere, surely Shrub would've had no trouble rallying the nation (and precipitating a rush of volunteers to the enlistment offices) for the let's-free-the-downtrodden expedition. :wink:

I think the reason people dislike liberals is because they're too tolerant. In fact, certainly where I am (the UK), the liberals are tolerant of anything and anyone - black gang violence, mothers who keep dropping kids for the Government allowance, rapists, terrorists, muggers, violent little teens who need a good beating and discipline - except ordinary, decent, white middle-class people who just sit there, carrying on with their lives, not screwing everything in sight, demanding compensation for having done a job they knew was dangerous/slipping ona wet floor three seconds beforw a bloke got there with a seventy-foot neo n sign powered by a nuclear reactor and visible from space saying "CAUTION: THIS FLOOR HAS A HIGH LEVEL OF MOISTURE ON IT'S SURFACE, claiming they're being racially/sexually slurred when someone calls them black/female/homosexual, blowing people up, beating people up or just whingeing. That's why I don't like liberals. Sorry, tangent there. :)

As for Bush: The entire situation's a lousy mess. I don't like Bush much, he doesn't seem hugely competent for his job, and is convinced, it seems, that America can do no evil. Iraq is the prime example: he went storming in with no idea what he was getting into and with little if any intel to support him, and now people on both sides are dying utterly needlessly.

I consider myself a moderate. Depending on where one stands they will label me otherwise. To a right winger I am a lousy liberal New Yorker. To some liberals I am a conservative neanderthal and can't possibly be an 'enlightened' New Yorker.

I would love to argue your points above but I find you have done a very decent job of identifying the image problem the US Democrats have. The average person is very sick and tired of hearing that whatever they think it is up for redefining. The average person is simply trying to get along, maybe raise decent children with a decent education but increasingly it seems a hallow quest. The Democrats used to be the defender of the working class. Now their all embracing policies degrade the working class and dismiss their values. As they have swung increasingly to the left they lost that base. They have pursued policies that have had dire impact on this very old guard base.

Irony of ironies, this bloc has voted for the very party that downgrades the value of their work, outsources their jobs, wants to classify the making of fast food as 'manufacturing' jobs and makes getting a higher education increasingly difficult and may soon be something that only the upper classes can afford. The Republicans have played a good game of talking the WC values while selling them out time and time again.

The Dems could run the whole show if they were a little more aware that this neglect is what is costing them elections. Why they fail to do so is a mystery to me.

I am wary of Kerry. He strikes me as a J.A.P. - Just Another Politician. But Mr. Kerry has one charm that Bush & Co. do not. People are sick of Bush. Kerry needs to press that advantage by way of coming out as a decisive leader of vision. He needs to talk about where he wants America to go. What values he wants to restore. How foreign affairs must be handled with greater respect for our friends.

Bush has done the better part of his work for him. Now he needs to either drive it home or leave us with the worrisome prospect of further degradation.

SHL

The term "Shrub" is surely the "Klin-ton" of this presidential term. At least it's an easy way to slot the IQ of the poster.

Irony of ironies, this bloc has voted for the very party that downgrades the value of their work, outsources their jobs, wants to classify the making of fast food as 'manufacturing' jobs and makes getting a higher education increasingly difficult and may soon be something that only the upper classes can afford. The Republicans have played a good game of talking the WC values while selling them out time and time again.

That's about as cogent a deconstruction as I've ever seen on these boards, and dead-on accurate. Your follow-up points are just as correct.

As to why Democrats don't get it, I'll give you one big reason--Bill Clinton.

DLC Democrats think they can triangulate issues like Clinton did, but they forget one major point--they're not Clinton. Clinton was a political genius, able to literally seduce anyone in the room with him. I lived in Arkansas for four years while in grad school and most of my teachers knew him personally--the stories they told about his runs for Governor would boggle your mind.

That's not to say that Clinton was bad for the party--in the end he did more good than harm. The problem is that the Joe Liebermans of the party think that appeasement and conservatism is the same as triangulation, and it isn't. The failure is theirs, not Clinton's.

Calling him by his real name would afford him a modicum of respect.

And I dont get the Klin-ton thing, unless its a Simpsons refernce.

So.now that we can conclude that NEITHER MSNBC, CNN, or ABC have liberal biases......

what does that tell us...that there are no major television news networks wioth one either.

How about Newspapers?

Well....we all know that The Washington Post is certainly right leaning....

okay..so how about radio...?

Rush Limbaugh....O reilly..hannity...Savage...all have talk shows, or did at one time or another....

Air America is about the only one I can think of.

looks like it leans to the right doesnt it?

Well Squatch, I don't think you're truly accounting for the influential nature and overwhelming power of The Nation and Mother Jones, as well as that potent and supercharged Utne Reader. Why, they singlehandedly counterpunch Limbaugh and all his wannabes.[/snark] :lol:

No one really forces it down your throat unlike radio.

Wait, that makes absolutley no sense.

Well Squatch, I don't think you're truly accounting for the influential nature and overwhelming power of The Nation and Mother Jones, as well as that potent and supercharged Utne Reader. Why, they singlehandedly counterpunch Limbaugh and all his wannabes.[/snark] :lol:

Your right...I didnt account for them.

But..thats becuase Ive never....heard..of them..... :?

Many minorities within the USA are still treated as second class citizens.

It's all about money - ask OJ.

SHL

Many minorities within the USA are still treated as second class citizens.

It's all about money - ask OJ.

SHL

He really is smarter than you Liberals give him credit for. All politicians who rise to a moderately high level are clever. They survive years of political intrigue and avoid years of scandal to get to those offices. Clinton was a horn dog, and a liar, but he was clever too, i'm the first to admit that.

Oh, I don't think we all think he's per se stupid, as much as dangerous. Bad policy and bad ideas. I don't think you become the President of the USA by being a total idiot, that's for sure.

I find it troublesome though when people start comparing Clinton getting a blowjob and lying about it to that of a war. First of all, in a free society Clinton should of never had to even answer those questions, except maybe to his wife. It's night and day... not even close to the same thing.

I do wonder though if people will still be blaming Clinton for their current President's short-comings in 2050... :|


But....his luck will run out in five months.

As an International observer, I think I can safely say I speak for the free world when I say, I certainly hope so. Given the majority of people in the free world hate him to the core for what he's done.

As a person who deals with people from many nations on a daily basis I must say you manically overstate your portfolio. You are not the voice of anything but yourself, as I am my own voice. There is a much broader range than you suspect.

As the kids say, "Keep it real!"

SHLAmerica is hated around the world for their overwhelming influence in everything, their standar of living being so much higher, and their undiminshed military might, which is transferred by people on this board and many other into a hatred of Bush.

I wasn't commenting on Bush per se. But when a poster declares "As an International observer, I think I can safely say I speak for the free world when I say, I certainly hope so." it just might be an overreaching statement. :wink:

SHL

As an international observer, I can say that most other international observers don't know how great a debt they owe America. Thanks.

DP?

TP

QP

Who are such a postcount ... whore.

see

Who are such a postcount ... whore.

No, just no damn delete button - the server kept saying no such thread ( or whatever) so I kept trying.

Besides I don't have the legs for fishnets and a micro mini, a flat ass and no boobs to speak of.

SHL

No, just no damn delete button - the server kept saying no such thread ( or whatever) so I kept trying.


I always ctrl-c copy my text before posting here, and then go ahead and post. Then I check to ensure it got posted. If it hasn't I'll paste my text again. Most of the time the post goes through even if there is immediately an error or time out.

No, just no damn delete button - the server kept saying no such thread ( or whatever) so I kept trying.


I always ctrl-c copy my text before posting here, and then go ahead and post. Then I check to ensure it got posted. If it hasn't I'll paste my text again. Most of the time the post goes through even if there is immediately an error or time out.

Thank you for the thought. I generally do the same (block & copy) but sometimes the program is so ornery that it does not show up at all. Then after several attemps I'll see multiple posts. Then it's back to cleaning up the mess.

I appreciate your lack of comment on the other aspect of that post. :lol:

SHL

The man is a loose cannon. He's ignorant of what the broader world is like. This is not necessarily his fault...when you've been born into wealth like Bush was, when you don't have to worry a day in your life about being well-off, you literally lack a frame of reference to compare the rest of America against. Bush has demonstrated with his actions that he does not understand it when ideology fails. Rather than learning from the failure and adapting his policies accordingly, he just tries to push through ever stricter versions of that ideology in the hopes that one day, it'll work contrary to all prior knowledge.

Who are such a post count whore?