NationStates Jolt Archive

Pelosi Calls for Iraq Withdrawal (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,81712,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)


Associated Press | December 01, 2005
WASHINGTON - House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday embraced a call by a prominent member of her rank-and-file to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, two weeks after she declined to endorse it.

"We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make American safer, to make our military stronger and to make Iraq more stable," Pelosi said. "That is what the American people and our troops deserve."

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., accused Pelosi of playing politics with the war. "This war and the safety of the American people is simply too important for flip-flopping or indecision. We cannot afford to retreat," he said in a statement.

[ This article is continued. To read the rest of the article, go here (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,81712,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl). ]

Nancy Pelosi is a partisan hack of the umpteenth degree. If it would hurt George Bush, she'd eat a dead baby on national television. :rolleyes:

And I LOVE how some of the Democrats claim to "support our troops" and say they know so much, yet they completely ignore our Commanders on the ground, who are in agreement that pulling out early should NOT be an option.

I'm sick to death of these people. There ought to be a law against idiot congressmen and congresswomen. :rolleyes:

You left out the key part:

Two weeks ago, Murtha called for U.S. troops to begin returning home and said a complete pullout could be achieved in six months. He introduced a resolution in the House that would force the president to withdraw the 160,000 troops "at the earliest practicable date."

Murtha, a Vietnam combat veteran and Marine, voted in 2002 to give President Bush the authority to go to war. He has been a strong supporter of the military and an influential voice on defense issues during his three-decade House career - and his position switch set off a firestorm on Capitol Hill.

Combat veterans and military experts are increasingly turning away from the Bush Administration's bumbling of the Iraq war.

Nancy Pelosi is a partisan hack of the umpteenth degree. If it would hurt George Bush, she'd eat a dead baby on national television. :rolleyes:
I was just thinking something similar...........weird:eek:




*except instead of dead baby I was thinking eat a live puppy

You left out the key part:

Two weeks ago, Murtha called for U.S. troops to begin returning home and said a complete pullout could be achieved in six months. He introduced a resolution in the House that would force the president to withdraw the 160,000 troops "at the earliest practicable date."

Murtha, a Vietnam combat veteran and Marine, voted in 2002 to give President Bush the authority to go to war. He has been a strong supporter of the military and an influential voice on defense issues during his three-decade House career - and his position switch set off a firestorm on Capitol Hill.

Combat veterans and military experts are increasingly turning away from the Bush Administration's bumbling of the Iraq war.
And just who are these "military experts" whom you say think it's a good idea to give a public timetable for our operations that the enemy has access to?

Please Please Please say Wesley "the NATO disaster (http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html)" Clark so I can laugh in your face. :D

I was just thinking something similar...........weird:eek:




*except instead of dead baby I was thinking eat a live puppy
HE HE HE :D
Pelosi just seems like the "eat anything to get ahead" type! :D

HE HE HE :D
Pelosi just seems like the "eat anything to get ahead" type! :D
ROFLMAO! :D

Nice sig, BTW. :D

ROFLMAO! :D

Nice sig, BTW. :D
Thanks ;) I need to work out some more room for Stormin Norman, Tommy Franks, and I know you don't like him, but Oliver North. :eek:

Combat veterans and military experts are increasingly turning away from the Bush Administration's bumbling of the Iraq war.
Oh? Not that I've noticed, other than the occasional off-the-wall, "Gee, I'm so sorry I was a soldier" types. :rolleyes:

And just who are these "military experts" whom you say think it's a good idea to give a public timetable for our operations that the enemy has access to?

Please Please Please say Wesley "the NATO disaster (http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html)" Clark so I can laugh in your face. :D

Wesley Clark is widely reviled by both officers and enlisted in the Army today. They regard him as an effete idiot and shameless self-promoter.

At the Command and General Staff School, he is used as an example of what not to be.

Wesley Clark is widely reviled by both officers and enlisted in the Army today. They regard him as an effete idiot and shameless self-promoter.

At the Command and General Staff School, he is used as an example of what not to be.
And add to that, he almost started World War 3 with Russia in Kosovo, and was fired as the commander of NATO for, and I quote, "because of matters of character and integrity"

He's such an ass. :rolleyes:

I was just thinking something similar...........weird:eek:




*except instead of dead baby I was thinking eat a live puppy

Not really, you guys all get the same brainwashing, so when you hear similar setups you have similar knee-jerk reactions.

Some examples of the "Conservative" hive-mind:

"If we set a timetable for withdrawl, then the enemy will just lie low until we leave," which means "if we set a timetable for withdrawl then the enemy will not be able to recruit new terrorists because the people who are on the fence will think 'eh, they're just going to be going home soon, why blow ourselves up over it.' And if that happened then Iraq would be able to build its strength and wouldn't need us anymore. So we'd better keep them thinking that we're there forever so that they keep blowing us up, we keep wasting lives and money, Iraq never becomes strong enough to stand on its own and we get to keep flushing the lives of our servicemen down the toilet."

What about Clinton? Which means, "I know that the Republican party is horribly corrupt and it's actions are completly indefensible but Clinton remained very popular throught the bulk of his presidency, especially when the Republicans were attacking him like a rabid terrier, but frankly, that's the best we've got. Clinton cheated on his wife. We're really emotional about that, so we feel that makes up for it's complete irrelevance."

Flip-Flop "Kerry's consistent positions can be phrased differently so that they sound contradictory. Worse, when he makes a decision based on fact he might change his mind when new facts emerge that warrant a new position. Bush doesn't do that. In fact, he doesn't even base his first decisions on fact, so we know that new ones won't change his mind. The only thing that changes his mind is poll numbers. Which he doesn't pay attention to, because polls indicate that people don't like it when the president pays attention to polls."

9/11 "I'm totally wrong about everything I said, so I'm going to say something that works like an emotional bludgeon so that if you criticize me I can say you're cowardly and uncompassionate without actually presenting any evidence to either of those accusations and you have to stop proving how wrong I am."

"Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran who was one of the top commanders in the first Gulf War, said Wednesday in Atlanta that the U.S. military is "in a race against time" to train its Iraqi replacements before running short of soldiers and Marines next summer.

"The wheels start falling off the Army and Marine Corps next summer," McCaffrey said. "We can't sustain the current deployment cycle beyond that without changing the law." Atlanta Journal Constition 12/01/05

McCaffrey said the United States has little alternative to reducing the number of troops in Iraq, since it is also quickly running out of Reserve and National Guard forces to send."

This was in todays paper. I can keep looking for generals other than Clark if you want that have said we need to start to reduce troop numbers. I know I have seen several others, as I read several papers daily.

Oh? Not that I've noticed, other than the occasional off-the-wall, "Gee, I'm so sorry I was a soldier" types. :rolleyes:

Wow. I've heard about flashbacks in Vets Eut, but you seem to be the only one who has a constant flashback to civilian life. Murtha regrets being a soldier? How about thse guys?

Some of the Vets coming back from Iraq and getting into politics.
http://www.massaforcongress.com

http://www.dunnforcongress.com

http://www.followmetodc.com

http://www.duckforcongress.org

http://www.murphy06.com

There's a reason that these people aren't coming back from Iraq and running as Republicans. Pull your head out of the 70's Eut. And by "70's," I mean "ass."

"Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran who was one of the top commanders in the first Gulf War, said Wednesday in Atlanta that the U.S. military is "in a race against time" to train its Iraqi replacements before running short of soldiers and Marines next summer.

"The wheels start falling off the Army and Marine Corps next summer," McCaffrey said. "We can't sustain the current deployment cycle beyond that without changing the law." Atlanta Journal Constition 12/01/05

McCaffrey said the United States has little alternative to reducing the number of troops in Iraq, since it is also quickly running out of Reserve and National Guard forces to send."

This was in todays paper. I can keep looking for generals other than Clark if you want that have said we need to start to reduce troop numbers. I know I have seen several others, as I read several papers daily.
I see where it says we are short on troops compared to where we'd like to be, but where does it say we need to pull out of Iraq prematurely? Did you write that in white text or something?

What about Clinton? Which means, "I know that the Republican party is horribly corrupt and it's actions are completly indefensible but Clinton remained very popular throught the bulk of his presidency, especially when the Republicans were attacking him like a rabid terrier, but frankly, that's the best we've got. Clinton cheated on his wife. We're really emotional about that, so we feel that makes up for it's complete irrelevance."
That rule is the "Hey, look over there!" rule. When Republicans have no actual defense, they point at one or more Democrats and yell "Hey, look over there! Look at what they are doing/did/are supporting!"

There's a reason that these people aren't coming back from Iraq and running as Republicans. Pull your head out of the 70's Eut. And by "70's," I mean "ass."
There's a reason that our troops voted overwhelmingly for Bush in the 04 election. Wanna keep playing this game? :D

That rule is the "Hey, look over there!" rule. When Republicans have no actual defense, they point at one or more Democrats and yell "Hey, look over there! Look at what they are doing/did/are supporting!"
No, Republicans only do that when a Democrat says "I support the war in Iraq" and then when it gets tough they cry "Bush tricked me, pull the troops out now! I never really supported the war!"

I see where it says we are short on troops compared to where we'd like to be, but where does it say we need to pull out of Iraq prematurely? Did you write that in white text or something?


He is saying that we need to get moving on training Iraqi's to replace soldiers because there won't be enough soon. Frankly, we have over extended ourselves.

Nancy Pelosi is a partisan hack of the umpteenth degree. If it would hurt George Bush, she'd eat a dead baby on national television. :rolleyes:


Who wouldn't?:confused:

And just who are these "military experts" whom you say think it's a good idea to give a public timetable for our operations that the enemy has access to?

Please Please Please say Wesley "the NATO disaster (http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html)" Clark so I can laugh in your face. :D

Before the war, George Bush said we shouldn't go to war without a public timetable. Now, it is suddenly a bad idea.

He is saying that we need to get moving on training Iraqi's to replace soldiers because there won't be enough soon. Well, NO SHIT SHERLOCK! Of course we need to get them trained ASAP. But that is not the same as saying "Well, this is getting too hard, we quit" :rolleyes:

There's a reason that our troops voted overwhelmingly for Bush in the 04 election. Wanna keep playing this game? :D

Source please?

And there are many reasons this could be true beyond Bush's Iraq policy.

Before the war, George Bush said we shouldn't go to war without a public timetable. Now, it is suddenly a bad idea.
Read my lips. MILITARY EXPERTS! Where are your military experts? Here's one thing Bush has been 100% consistent on. He listens to the commanders on the ground. You know, THE EXPERTS? Isn't it the Democrats who claim Bush won't chang strategies even when they don't work?

So what if he said that? He now knows that it isn't a good idea to set a public time table. You know why? I'll give you one guess who he's listening to!

Well, NO SHIT SHERLOCK! Of course we need to get them trained ASAP. But that is not the same as saying "Well, this is getting too hard, we quit" :rolleyes:

i think the war on terror should be abandoned. not because it is 'too hard', but because it is unwinnable, and every military action the US and UK undertakes does more harm than good to your cause. for every terrorist you kill, one or more will take their place. for every incident of collateral damage, an entire family will hate the west. if you want to eradicate terrorism, which of course is a good thing, then you must stop feeding the fire. make their economic situation better, stop western influences in their countries, dont impose your values on them. then they will have nothing to fight for.

Not really, you guys all get the same brainwashing, so when you hear similar setups you have similar knee-jerk reactions.
you know I find it funny that I get accused of being brainwashed on here.

I mean, lets see, I weigh the evidence and come up with my own conclusion, and just because it doesn't fit right in with what you were "taught to believe" then I am brainwashed.

Yeah, that's a good argument.

The truth is I see nothing original or helpful ever come out of Pelosi's mouth, mostly she just jumps on the bandwagon of what she thinks is popular and tries to push it just a little further, if she ever had a nonpartisan, balanced, intelligent sentiment, I might change my mind about her.

All I have seen so far though, leads me to believe that she is a woman on a mission, and it isn't what's good for the country that is on her mind, but rather what is bad for conservatives, mainly the president.

There's a reason that our troops voted overwhelmingly for Bush in the 04 election.

bribery?

Source please?

And there are many reasons this could be true beyond Bush's Iraq policy.
Sure! HERE (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm) ya go! ;)

bribery?
Funny. :rolleyes:

Funny. :rolleyes:

sorry :(

sorry :(
That's OK. It was a little funny! :p

:eek: Eutrusca! 18k! Get a hobby or something!

*hands over the Spam Flag*

Carry it with pride

Read my lips. MILITARY EXPERTS! Where are your military experts? Here's one thing Bush has been 100% consistent on. He listens to the commanders on the ground. You know, THE EXPERTS? Isn't it the Democrats who claim Bush won't chang strategies even when they don't work?

So what if he said that? He now knows that it isn't a good idea to set a public time table. You know why? I'll give you one guess who he's listening to!

Welcome to the idea that the US is a nation who has a military... not a military leading the nation. Military experts can only talk about their field. What is on the table is policy, not tactics or strategy. The decision whether to leave Iraq or not. Military doesn't get to choose which wars to fight and for how long.

Nancy Pelosi is a partisan hack of the umpteenth degree



Ha ha ...and you're not?

The only difference between her and you is the side of the fence you both sit on.

Well, that and her being an elected, prominent public figure and you being a mere armchair gobshite.

Sure! HERE (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm) ya go! ;)

"Army Times Publishing sent e-mails to more than 31,000 subscribers and received 4,165 responses on a secure Web site. The publisher cautioned that the results are not a scientific poll. Its readers are older, higher in rank and more career-oriented than the military as a whole."

And just who are these "military experts" whom you say think it's a good idea to give a public timetable for our operations that the enemy has access to?

Please Please Please say Wesley "the NATO disaster (http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html)" Clark so I can laugh in your face. :D
Every time I hear people talk about withdrawal, I think about Haiti and Somalia. In the first case, we didn't even land the Marines because the thugs on the docks scared the politicians. In the second case, we withdrew after a run of bad luck. Both are testimonials to stalwart nature of the Democratic pary.

Ha ha ...and you're not?

The only difference between her and you is the side of the fence you both sit on.

Well, that and her being an elected, prominent public figure and you being a mere armchair gobshite.

*clapclapclap*

Have a medal of 'bitchslapped a right-winger', you've earned it soldier!

you know I find it funny that I get accused of being brainwashed on here.

I mean, lets see, I weigh the evidence and come up with my own conclusion, and just because it doesn't fit right in with what you were "taught to believe" then I am brainwashed.

Yeah, that's a good argument.

The truth is I see nothing original or helpful ever come out of Pelosi's mouth, mostly she just jumps on the bandwagon of what she thinks is popular and tries to push it just a little further, if she ever had a nonpartisan, balanced, intelligent sentiment, I might change my mind about her.

All I have seen so far though, leads me to believe that she is a woman on a mission, and it isn't what's good for the country that is on her mind, but rather what is bad for conservatives, mainly the president.
So I'm not the only one that thinks the Democrats are sounding more fascist every day. Good.

And the Republicans are cuddly fluffy little teddy bears? They're f***ing politicians!

So I'm not the only one that thinks the Democrats are sounding more fascist every day. Good.
not really, I don't like her in particular, there are fascists on both sides, I just hate the idea that because I don't think just like they want me to that I am now a "brainwashed" person unable to make my own decisions based on what I see.;)

There's a reason that our troops voted overwhelmingly for Bush in the 04 election. Wanna keep playing this game? :D

Yes. The reason was vote fraud and brainwashing.

When people are in the military they have to believe that they're doing something good, otherwise the guilt with tearing apart a country would be overwhelming and life threatening. Once people get out of the military, some of them go through a deprogramming as they start to see a bit more truth. Others become like Eutrusca viewing the world through a pair of blood-colored glasses that are so warped and twisted that they don't actually see anthing in the world the way it is, but as it was explained to them 30 years ago.

Those who are unaware vote republican. Those who are aware are so incensed that they run for office... as Democrats.

No, Republicans only do that when a Democrat says "I support the war in Iraq" and then when it gets tough they cry "Bush tricked me, pull the troops out now! I never really supported the war!"

Um, no, they do it all the time.

Just the other day Rush Limbaugh said that Republicans aren't corrupt, if you want to talk about corruption, let's talk about Clinton getting a blowjob.

And when he got in trouble for saying blowjob (a couple of months ago) he refered to it as "an act that occured between Clinton and Monica and then entered down into the school system from there."

Republicans cry Clinton over everything.

Those who are unaware vote republican
yeah:rolleyes: because, everyone who doesn't think just like you do, is unaware and brainwashed.

Read my lips. MILITARY EXPERTS! Where are your military experts? Here's one thing Bush has been 100% consistent on. He listens to the commanders on the ground.

Yes he listens to commmanders and does as they say. Because he fires those who say differently. Remember General Shinseki? The guy who said that you'll need several hundred thousand troops to hold Iraq after conquering it?

It's like how the Catholic schools have a 99% graduation rate. The don't count anyone who they kick out for conduct violations, bad grades, or slovenly appearance, which amounts to 75% of every incoming freshman class and several more students in the subsequent grades. If one percent of the people who get good grades and don't get kicked out don't graduate that's still a lousy statistic.

If Bush does as the commanders who he hasn't fired for disagreeing with him say then it does not speak volumes for his supposed military pragmatism.

you know I find it funny that I get accused of being brainwashed on here.

I mean, lets see, I weigh the evidence and come up with my own conclusion, and just because it doesn't fit right in with what you were "taught to believe" then I am brainwashed.

Yeah, that's a good argument.

Who said anything about what I was "taught to believe?" Years of conservative corporate media and indoctrinating public school social studies have taught me to believe that America is the shining beacon of hope, freedom, and opportunity to the world. Reality is showing me something very different.

Of course you don't believe your brainwashed. Just like Patty Hearst didn't think she had Stolckholm syndrome when she was pulling of a bank robbery.

The truth is I see nothing original or helpful ever come out of Pelosi's mouth, mostly she just jumps on the bandwagon of what she thinks is popular and tries to push it just a little further, if she ever had a nonpartisan, balanced, intelligent sentiment, I might change my mind about her.

All I have seen so far though, leads me to believe that she is a woman on a mission, and it isn't what's good for the country that is on her mind, but rather what is bad for conservatives, mainly the president.

When "the truth" as you came up with "on your own" sounds exactly like the same things that other people of your disposition say, who revile the same people, and who cheer the same banners as you, then clearly you're not as independent a thinker as you think.

Take a look at how many middle aged women comment "I've become my mother." They make a series of decisions based on the circumstances of the moment their whole lives while trying to be as little like their own mothers as possible and then they find themselves yelling "their are kids starving in China so eat your unpalatable crap!" and wondering how much of their mothers are still in their heads.

You're the same, except substitute "mother" for "GOP party platform."

So I'm not the only one that thinks the Democrats are sounding more fascist every day. Good.

Well, of course you're not the only right winger who thinks that.

Republicans think that Kerry was a flip-flopper, but Bush actually is.
Republicans think that Clinton was corrupt when more and more Republicans are getting caught for corruption every week and the GOP higher up's are defending them to the hilt.
Republicans think that Bush is the only one who knows what the military wants and needs when Kerry and Murtha are decorated war heroes who totally disagree with him and Bush deserted the Champaigne Squad.

Republicans always think that the Democrats are demonstrating hints of the flaws that define the Republican party. It's one of the most fascinating aspects of their psychology.

To believe false things like "Republicans are better on fighting crime," or "Republicans favor gun rights more than Democrats," is silly, but understandable. It's believable if you don't look to closely and just listen to stories. But when you believe stories that fly in the face of logic and reason, and those stories are self-debunking, such as "chop down the trees to grow healthy forests," or "increase air pollution to clean up the sky," well, that's just wierd.

not really, I don't like her in particular, there are fascists on both sides, I just hate the idea that because I don't think just like they want me to that I am now a "brainwashed" person unable to make my own decisions based on what I see.;)

Well, you sound exactly like the brainwashed people.

If you were to tell me that you were a Davidian, a scientologist, a Heaven's Gatist, or a devout Hare Krishna, I'd be well within my rights to assume you were brainwashed because common sense and independent thought are likely to make you look around and say WTF! I'm in a cult!

You're on the side of the GOP. Same difference.

Perhaps you could explain where you see the things upon which you base your opinions, and explain the logic by which your conclusions are derived, I might reopen the book on whether or not you're brainwashed.

Sure! HERE (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm) ya go! ;)

A pre-election "unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel shows they support President "

This doesn't show how the troops actually voted. It isn't even a scientific poll. It wasn't even a poll of all the troops:

Army Times Publishing sent e-mails to more than 31,000 subscribers and received 4,165 responses on a secure Web site. The publisher cautioned that the results are not a scientific poll. Its readers are older, higher in rank and more career-oriented than the military as a whole.

Your own source also undermines your theory that the troops supported Bush because of his Iraq policy: "Two-thirds of those responding said John Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam make them less likely to vote for him."

Those who are unaware vote republican. Those who are aware are so incensed that they run for office... as Democrats.

This is the most useless bipartisan crap I've read on this forum this week. You win an award!

Well, you sound exactly like the brainwashed people.
just like the "all republicans are brainwashed, and are too stupid to think for themselves" crowd sounds brainwashed to me.

When you speak in absolutes you are always wrong.

You're on the side of the GOP. Same difference.
I am not on anyone's side, but my own. I think for myself.

Perhaps you could explain where you see the things upon which you base your opinions, and explain the logic by which your conclusions are derived, I might reopen the book on whether or not you're brainwashed.
I don't have to justify my beliefs to you, or anyone else for that matter.

Maybe if you asked a question that wasn't so broad and accusatory I could answer.

yeah:rolleyes: because, everyone who doesn't think just like you do, is unaware and brainwashed.

Anyone who voted for Bush falls into one or more of 3 catagories, defined by several noticable traits/behaviors.

Evil:
Pro-death penalty despite being aware that it does not reduce the murder rate and costs more money than life prison sentences. Or else neccesitates inadequate trials.
Pro-Iraq invasion despite an awareness that Bush fought the war to gain control of oil and water for a handful of really rich corporations in which his friends and family hold stocks.
Pro-Bush because he's making life harder for poor, minorities, and anyone who makes less than $500,000 a year.
Anti-Immigration despite the knowledge that our trade policy and our foreign policy creates a situation in foreign countries where they cannot find work in the market system and can no longer grow their own food like they used to, so they come here to find the work that we destroyed in their own countries.
Pro-Bankrupcy "reform" despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of bankrupcy cases are due to catastrophic illness, divorce, disaster, or being forced to abandon a business to provide military service.

Unaware:
Pro-Iraq war because you think that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.
Pro-Bush because you think that he's a moderate who has brought integrity and transperency to the White House. You think that he's a fiscal conservative who is cutting spending to pay down our debt and cutting taxes to spur our economy.
Anti-Immigration because you think that conditions in foreign countries have nothing to do with our foreign policy and what it's like there is not our fault.
Pro-Bankrupcy "reform" because you think that bankrupcy is usually a result of deliberate fraud and this was designed only to prevent that.

Brainwashed:
Pro-Iraq because America is on a crusade to spread freedom all over the world.
Pro-Bush because he governs according to God's law and is trying to bring God back into government the way the Founding Fathers intended.
Anti-Immigration because "they're taking our jobs."
Pro-Bankrupcy "reform" because of "cadillac-driving welfare queens" and people using foodstamps to buy caviar.

Nancy Pelosi is a partisan hack of the umpteenth degree. If it would hurt George Bush, she'd eat a dead baby on national television. :rolleyes:

And I LOVE how some of the Democrats claim to "support our troops" and say they know so much, yet they completely ignore our Commanders on the ground, who are in agreement that pulling out early should NOT be an option.

I'm sick to death of these people. There ought to be a law against idiot congressmen and congresswomen. :rolleyes:
yeah

just like the "all republicans are brainwashed, and are too stupid to think for themselves" crowd sounds brainwashed to me.

When you speak in absolutes you are always wrong.

I didn't say "all republicans are brainwashed." I said that you in particular sound like the sort of people who've been conservativly brainwashed. A group of people I define as holding self contradictory or easily debunked beliefs that lead them to vote for Republicans.

I am not on anyone's side, but my own. I think for myself.

That's what all brainwashed people think. If they didn't, then they wouldn't be brainwashed.

I don't have to justify my beliefs to you, or anyone else for that matter. Maybe if you asked a question that wasn't so broad and accusatory I could answer.

No, but your insistence tells me that you don't want to be thought of as brainwashed. I suggested a good way to demonstrate that. In the face of your complete agreement with people who are brainwashed there is an overwhelmingly strong statistical likelihood that you are one of them.

You tell me that you've based your opinion on Nancy Pelosi on "what you've seen." I doubt you actually know the woman, so you most likely saw her on corporate media outlets. If you think that that's an objective source of information then that's more evidence of your brainwashing.

So is the fact that you construe a request for a source and some use of logic as "accusatory."

Anyone who voted for Bush falls into one or more of 3 catagories, defined by several noticable traits/behaviors.

Evil:
Pro-death penalty despite being aware that it does not reduce the murder rate and costs more money than life prison sentences. Or else neccesitates inadequate trials.
do you have sources for that?

Pro-Iraq invasion despite an awareness that Bush fought the war to gain control of oil and water for a handful of really rich corporations in which his friends and family hold stocks.
do you have any proof of that at all?
Pro-Bush because he's making life harder for poor, minorities, and anyone who makes less than $500,000 a year.
that isn't true.
Anti-Immigration despite the knowledge that our trade policy and our foreign policy creates a situation in foreign countries where they cannot find work in the market system and can no longer grow their own food like they used to, so they come here to find the work that we destroyed in their own countries.
not my problem.
Pro-Bankrupcy "reform" despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of bankrupcy cases are due to catastrophic illness, divorce, disaster, or being forced to abandon a business to provide military service.
not true either.

but all in all, it looks like according to your definition I am evil. (which doesn't really matter because it's not backed up by any facts anyway.)

i think the war on terror should be abandoned. not because it is 'too hard', but because it is unwinnable, and every military action the US and UK undertakes does more harm than good to your cause. for every terrorist you kill, one or more will take their place. for every incident of collateral damage, an entire family will hate the west. if you want to eradicate terrorism, which of course is a good thing, then you must stop feeding the fire. make their economic situation better, stop western influences in their countries, dont impose your values on them. then they will have nothing to fight for.
Oh for God's sake! You just don't get it do you? You have been so brainwashed with that politically correct bullshit that you can't even think for yourself anymore!

The Jihadists are going to attack us REGARDLESS! They resent the fact that Islamic nations don't "hold their rightful place" of dominance over the infidels. Blowing sunshine up their collective ass isn't going to accomplish a thing except make them even more eager to hit us again and make us back down even more.

Why do we refuse to negotiate with terrorists who hold hostages? Have you ever asked yourself that question? It's so that they won't be encouraged to DO IT AGAIN SINCE THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT THIS TIME!

And you dimbulbs accuse ME of "having my head up my ass!" Jeeze!

:eek: Eutrusca! 18k! Get a hobby or something!

*hands over the Spam Flag*

Carry it with pride
[ grabs LP by the scuff of the neck and shakes him until his children's teeth rattle! ] BEHAVE! Grrrrr.

Every time I hear people talk about withdrawal, I think about Haiti and Somalia. In the first case, we didn't even land the Marines because the thugs on the docks scared the politicians. In the second case, we withdrew after a run of bad luck. Both are testimonials to stalwart nature of the Democratic pary.
Not to mention Mogadishu! :(

Anyone who voted for Bush falls into one or more of 3 catagories, defined by several noticable traits/behaviors.

Evil
Unaware
Brainwashed

do the delusional ones fall under unaware in your system? you know, the ones that believe that bush favors things he loudly opposes, that democrats hold bad positions that are actually the ones the republicans hold, etc.

*clapclapclap*

Have a medal of 'bitchslapped a right-winger', you've earned it soldier!
[ pins the medal to your ass, then kicks it ] Keep it. It's about as close as you'll ever get. :D

do you have sources for that?

http://www.justiceblind.com/death/sorensen.html

do you have any proof of that at all?
You'll have to find the Iraq War Plan. It's on page 74. I don't have an online version, so you'll have to do your own research.

that isn't true.

Well, a good example would be the bankruptcy reform. Republicans, with Bush's support, voted down Democratic amendments to the bill to exempt those who are filing due to catastrophic illness, military service, disasters, or divorce. Those were seperate bills and all voted down. The republicans oppose the working class to support the wealthy.

not my problem.

Not really their problem that you don't like it. It is your problem if you don't like it and they keep coming here. Especially since the politicians you vote for don't actually want to stop it. Even the police who do make efforts to stop it choose to arrest the day laborers who keep replacing themselves instead of the employers which would end the practice immediatly.

not true either.

To quote you, "do you have any proof of that at all?"

I'm willing to present you with evidence, but I'm entitled to expect the same from you. If I keep hurling evidence at you and you not only refuse to ask these questions of yourself, but simply respond with "no it isn't," you're not only self-confessed evil, but brainwashed too.

A cursory search yeilded this (http://www.newsbackup.com/about383552.html), but I urge you to learn to do some independent research. So far you've demonstrated little capacity for critical thinking other than to say "no it isn't" when presented with information you've never heard before.

You provided neither contrary evidence which would provide evidence that you already knew otherwise, nor did you actually go and do any research, because you responded right away. That indicates brainwashing.

but all in all, it looks like according to your definition I am evil. (which doesn't really matter because it's not backed up by any facts anyway.)

You're entitled to ask for sources and evidence, but when others ask the same of you your demands oblige you to provide some of your own, which you have refused to do on rather flimsy moral grounds. Hardly surprising since ignorance is a virtue among republicans, but it demonstrates the self-contradictory beliefs that are indicative of Bushites of the "brainwashed" variety.

Yes. The reason was vote fraud and brainwashing.

When people are in the military they have to believe that they're doing something good, otherwise the guilt with tearing apart a country would be overwhelming and life threatening. Once people get out of the military, some of them go through a deprogramming as they start to see a bit more truth. Others become like Eutrusca viewing the world through a pair of blood-colored glasses that are so warped and twisted that they don't actually see anthing in the world the way it is, but as it was explained to them 30 years ago.

Those who are unaware vote republican. Those who are aware are so incensed that they run for office... as Democrats.
Oh thank you for your guidance, oh Great Expert on Things Miliary! I am so glad that you have chossen to condescend to enlighten those of us mired in the morrass of the past; we who have no knowledge or wisdom or awareness.

All hail Domici, who has deigned to descend from Mount Olympus and dispense his benificent wisdom on us mere mortals. Alas, we suffer from the limiting effects of years of experience and training and are adrift on the sea of our own perceptions. :rolleyes:

just like the "all republicans are brainwashed, and are too stupid to think for themselves" crowd sounds brainwashed to me.

When you speak in absolutes you are always wrong.

I am not on anyone's side, but my own. I think for myself.

I don't have to justify my beliefs to you, or anyone else for that matter.

Maybe if you asked a question that wasn't so broad and accusatory I could answer.
Just remember ... one man's "brainwashing" is another man's epipany. :D

Not really their problem that you don't like it. It is your problem if you don't like it and they keep coming here. Especially since the politicians you vote for don't actually want to stop it. Even the police who do make efforts to stop it choose to arrest the day laborers who keep replacing themselves instead of the employers which would end the practice immediatly.
I should point out that I am not anti-immigration, my family immigrated here,and I agree that the focus is all wrong.



A cursory search yeilded this (http://www.newsbackup.com/about383552.html), but I urge you to learn to do some independent research.

so, from what I read, her problem is with the credit cards that she ran up a $25,000 tab on. Is it my fault that she spends more than she makes, or is it my fault that she has spent herself into a hole, and didn't bother to prepare for a time when she didn't have the money to pay the cards?

Just remember ... one man's "brainwashing" is another man's epipany. :D
I am loving this whole conversation, so far I am brainwashed and evil. ;)
I wonder what else is wrong with me (probably a lot more if he had bothered to actually find out where I stand instead of assuming that because I don't like Pelosi that I am a big fat party line republican.)

I should point out that I am not anti-immigration, my family immigrated here,and I agree that the focus is all wrong.

Well, you should have pointed that out before instead of saying "not my problem."

so, from what I read, her problem is with the credit cards that she ran up a $25,000 tab on. Is it my fault that she spends more than she makes, or is it my fault that she has spent herself into a hole, and didn't bother to prepare for a time when she didn't have the money to pay the cards?

Volumes could be written about the unwinnable economics of a credit card society, but I notice that a litany of points has shriveled to one which you agree with and one on which I have yet to disabuse you of.

My main point is that you aren't already asking these questions yourself and when you do you ask them of sources that tell you what the GOP thinks. You also refuse to tell me what those sources are, which I can only assume means that you know how flimsy they are. I've given you sources, please return the favor.

I am loving this whole conversation, so far I am brainwashed and evil. ;)
I wonder what else is wrong with me (probably a lot more if he had bothered to actually find out where I stand instead of assuming that because I don't like Pelosi that I am a big fat party line republican.)
I really wish I had a nickle for every time the posters on here make assumptions without any facts or information to back them up. I would be a very wealthy man and would buy you a new car! :D

My main point is that you aren't already asking these questions yourself and when you do you ask them of sources that tell you what the GOP thinks. You also refuse to tell me what those sources are, which I can only assume means that you know how flimsy they are. I've given you sources, please return the favor.
you sure assume a lot

That rule is the "Hey, look over there!" rule. When Republicans have no actual defense, they point at one or more Democrats and yell "Hey, look over there! Look at what they are doing/did/are supporting!"
What was that, something about Clinton invading Kosovo as a diversion?

I really wish I had a nickle for every time the posters on here make assumptions without any facts or information to back them up. I would be a very wealthy man and would buy you a new car! :D
you know me, you don't think I am brainwashed right? (I only ask because I respect your opinion, and I know you aren't one to assume anything)

Oh thank you for your guidance, oh Great Expert on Things Miliary! I am so glad that you have chossen to condescend to enlighten those of us mired in the morrass of the past; we who have no knowledge or wisdom or awareness.

All hail Domici, who has deigned to descend from Mount Olympus and dispense his benificent wisdom on us mere mortals. Alas, we suffer from the limiting effects of years of experience and training and are adrift on the sea of our own perceptions. :rolleyes:

If you don't want military service to be criticized as a basis for opinions on government policy then you should shut up about it once in a while. Honestly Eut, you're like Ice-T never shutting up about being black.

Just because you were in the military doesn't mean you know a damn thing about political decisions that affect the military.

You were the one who said that the only people who disagree with the Iraq war and served in the military were "off-the-wall" and implied that they are consumed by the guilt of their wartime actions and are therefore thinking irrationally.

If you want to address that actual point then I'l like to point you back in the direction of all those people who came back from their Iraq service and decided that their political interests, and the interests of their brothers-in-arms are best supported by the Democratic party, not the GOP. Please address that one before descending into empty insults disguised as defense of an indefensible position.

Volumes could be written about the unwinnable economics of a credit card society, but I notice that a litany of points has shriveled to one which you agree with and one on which I have yet to disabuse you of.

Actually, if people would, as you so eloquently put it, pull their heads out of their asses, there wouldn't be a problem with credit card debt.

Oh for God's sake! You just don't get it do you? You have been so brainwashed with that politically correct bullshit that you can't even think for yourself anymore!

The Jihadists are going to attack us REGARDLESS! They resent the fact that Islamic nations don't "hold their rightful place" of dominance over the infidels. Blowing sunshine up their collective ass isn't going to accomplish a thing except make them even more eager to hit us again and make us back down even more.

Why do we refuse to negotiate with terrorists who hold hostages? Have you ever asked yourself that question? It's so that they won't be encouraged to DO IT AGAIN SINCE THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT THIS TIME!

And you dimbulbs accuse ME of "having my head up my ass!" Jeeze!

im sorry, but so far your method of doing things doesnt quite seem to be working...

you failed to address my point that for every 'terrorist' or civillian you kill, one or more will take their place. you cannot fight fire with fire.

i do not agree that the cause of terrorism is some sort of racism. i think this is a product of different factors, and it has been jumped upon by a few influential people. i think it is down to western dominance over these areas going all the way back to the crusades. i think it is the economic situation that they live in, dictated by the west. i think it is caused by attacking a country that posed absolutely no threat to you, then trying to impose your ideals on them.

if you were to remove these problems, then i believe terrorism would lose a lot of support in these countries.

What was that, something about Clinton invading Kosovo as a diversion?

You've got it wrong. Clinton is an evil genius and is still underestimated as to the scope.

Monica was the diversion. Sex is easier to argue about than economics, so Clinton was relativly free to invade Kosovo while everyone was busy arguing about his sex life.

It should be noted that the main difference between Clinton's invasion of Kosovo and Bush's invasion of Iraq is that Clinton's war actually did something good as well as being in our best interests.

Bush's war has been an unmitigated disaster. More terrorism, higher oil prices, less stable middle east. Just a total failure, which ought to be the legend on his stationary.

If you don't want military service to be criticized as a basis for opinions on government policy then you should shut up about it once in a while. Honestly Eut, you're like Ice-T never shutting up about being black.

Just because you were in the military doesn't mean you know a damn thing about political decisions that affect the military.

You were the one who said that the only people who disagree with the Iraq war and served in the military were "off-the-wall" and implied that they are consumed by the guilt of their wartime actions and are therefore thinking irrationally.

If you want to address that actual point then I'l like to point you back in the direction of all those people who came back from their Iraq service and decided that their political interests, and the interests of their brothers-in-arms are best supported by the Democratic party, not the GOP. Please address that one before descending into empty insults disguised as defense of an indefensible position.
Oh. So the two undergrad degrees and the Masters don't count for anything? And having lived through the terms of eleven Presidents doesn't count for anything? And having been in private industry for over seven years, and in business for myself for over five years ... none of those mean anything either?

So tell me ... just WTF sort of training, education, experience, or combination thereof DO you accept as being legitimate?

Actually, if people would, as you so eloquently put it, pull their heads out of their asses, there wouldn't be a problem with credit card debt.
There wouldn't be any more liberals, either.

im sorry, but so far your method of doing things doesnt quite seem to be working...

you failed to address my point that for every 'terrorist' or civillian you kill, one or more will take their place. you cannot fight fire with fire.

i do not agree that the cause of terrorism is some sort of racism. i think this is a product of different factors, and it has been jumped upon by a few influential people. i think it is down to western dominance over these areas going all the way back to the crusades. i think it is the economic situation that they live in, dictated by the west. i think it is caused by attacking a country that posed absolutely no threat to you, then trying to impose your ideals on them.

if you were to remove these problems, then i believe terrorism would lose a lot of support in these countries.
Please go study some history without the added politically correct bullshit. Let me know when you're done and I'll talk with you again.

Please go study some history. Let me know when you're done and I'll talk with you again.

thats very grown up of you. i have infact studied history, i have an A grade A level in it, but elected to do design and technology at university instead. now please answer my points, as i answered yours.

you know me, you don't think I am brainwashed right? (I only ask because I respect your opinion, and I know you aren't one to assume anything)
No, from what I've seen, you don't appear to have been brainwashed. You seem to have more than the average intellgence displayed on NS General ( which, I realize isn't saying all THAT much, but meh! ), and can at least put two and two together and come up with 4. :D

No, from what I've seen, you don't appear to have been brainwashed. You seem to have more than the average intellgence displayed on NS General ( which, I realize isn't saying all THAT much, but meh! ), and can at least put two and two together and come up with 4. :D

surely you mean 5?

No, from what I've seen, you don't appear to have been brainwashed. You seem to have more than the average intellgence displayed on NS General ( which, I realize isn't saying all THAT much, but meh! ), and can at least put two and two together and come up with 4. :D
thanks ;) I didn't think so, but you know that's what the brainwashed think, so I thought I should seek a third party diagnosis from someone I know would be honest. (even if you thought I wouldn't like the answer, I knew you would be truthful)

I was just thinking something similar...........weird:eek:




*except instead of dead baby I was thinking eat a live puppy

oh really, i thought maybe she should eat you :gundge:

thats very grown up of you. i have infact studied history, i have an A grade A level in it, but elected to do design and technology at university instead. now please answer my points, as i answered yours.
If you had indeed studied history, you would be aware of the methods used by the Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire to spread Islam from the Balkans to Madrid, as opposed to the supposed "oppression" of Islam that you posit. That doesn't sound to me as if you have studied history.

[ grabs LP by the scuff of the neck and shakes him until his children's teeth rattle! ] BEHAVE! Grrrrr.
Fair enough. Be nice. Make lurve, not war :fluffle:

HE HE HE :D
Pelosi just seems like the "eat anything to get ahead" type! :DI can Monika Lewinsky as a Neocon Congreswoman.

oh really, i thought maybe she should eat you :gundge:
I've got a few pounds on her, I doubt that she would get very far.........

Oh for God's sake! You just don't get it do you? You have been so brainwashed with that politically correct bullshit that you can't even think for yourself anymore!

The Jihadists are going to attack us REGARDLESS! They resent the fact that Islamic nations don't "hold their rightful place" of dominance over the infidels. Blowing sunshine up their collective ass isn't going to accomplish a thing except make them even more eager to hit us again and make us back down even more.

Your logic is faulty. So is your understanding. The more instability and desolation we bring to the region, the easier it is for the terrorists to recruit. It's the same everywhere and everywhen. As governments become less able to protect and feed their people, the people rebel. The more unable the government is, the more people who join the rebellion.

At any given time, right here, there are probably at least a hundred people who'd like to take up arms against the president, but can't see any way to do it. If you got them all together, they'd probably start a gun club, like all those "survivalist militias." If unemployment went up people would start looking into membership because there'd be a lot of people who would like to have the government replaced but have too much to loose by fighting it. The more people who have nothing to loose (like in the middle east) the less they are afraid to fight the government (theirs or ours). Eventually the militia would become an army capable of a failed insurection. Get enough of those all over the country and then eventually you get a successful insurection. That's what happened to Rome, it's what happened to India, it's what happened to China, it's what's going to happen to us if we don't stop being so myopic about this.

Yes, no matter what we do there will be people who are willing to attack us, but what we're doing now is making it so that there are people willing to help them. Would bin-Laden have been able to find 14 Saudi highjackers if we didn't support a brutal dictatorship there that perpetuates a society with a 70% unemployment rate? Probably not. Even if those 14 people were still unemployed there wouldn't have been an apathetic society in which to grow their rebellion.

Why do we refuse to negotiate with terrorists who hold hostages? Have you ever asked yourself that question? It's so that they won't be encouraged to DO IT AGAIN SINCE THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT THIS TIME!

And you dimbulbs accuse ME of "having my head up my ass!" Jeeze!

You're absolutly wrong. They keep doing it anyway. The reason we don't negotiate with terrorists is because kidnapping is a time honored way for terrorist groups to finance themselves. It's a bit clearer if you take a look at South American revolutions. They were paid for almost entierly with bank robberies and kidnapping ransoms.

What the Iraqi kidnappers are trying to get is bad press for the war. And they're getting it. They don't care if we meet their demands, they're getting exactly what they want as it is. That's also why they're so happy to kill peace activists. They want the war to continue as much as Bush does. For Bush it's an imperialist action, for the terrorists it's a recruiting drive. Everyone's happy, except those with at least shred of reason and morality.

If you had indeed studied history, you would be aware of the methods used by the Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire to spread Islam from the Balkans to Madrid, as opposed to the supposed "oppression" of Islam that you posit. That doesn't sound to me as if you have studied history.

if you had read my post, you would see nowhere did i mention islam. so thats enough highbrowing from you.

*edit* thankyou, domici.

thanks ;) I didn't think so, but you know that's what the brainwashed think, so I thought I should seek a third party diagnosis from someone I know would be honest. (even if you thought I wouldn't like the answer, I knew you would be truthful)

So you think you've been objectivly diagnosed as "not brainwashed" because someone who already is on record as agreeing with you said "from what you have to say I'd guess you're reasonable, not brainwashed."

And you wonder why I hold your "sources" in suspicion.

So you think you've been objectivly diagnosed as "not brainwashed" because someone who already is on record as agreeing with you said "from what you have to say I'd guess you're reasonable, not brainwashed."

And you wonder why I hold your "sources" in suspicion.
not true, I hardly ever agree with Eut.

I have not been objectivly diagnosed as brainwashed, so I don't need to be diagnosed as "un-brainwashed" I simply asked someone whom I know to be honest, and no-nonsense, to give me their opinion on the subject, because I find it hilarious that you would think that I was brainwashed when you don't know anything at all about me.

Oh. So the two undergrad degrees and the Masters don't count for anything? And having lived through the terms of eleven Presidents doesn't count for anything? And having been in private industry for over seven years, and in business for myself for over five years ... none of those mean anything either?

So tell me ... just WTF sort of training, education, experience, or combination thereof DO you accept as being legitimate?

Thing is, you don't usually say "according to this master's degree holder..." you say "according to this old soldier."

You may have a masters degree and two undergraduate degrees, but you explicitly define your positions as those of an "old soldier."

And I don't know what your degrees are in. If they're in business, engineering, and art history, then no, they don't qualify you to speak on these matters. Not that qualifications are needed, just they aren't relevant.

You keep touting your status as a soldier to give you gravitas for opinions that don't really have much other defense going for them. If I had a PhD in mathematics I would still not expect to have my position accepted as prima facea if I were to say 1+1=3. By the same token I don't accept your status as a soldier as evidence in itself to support your opinion on a modern war. Just like the rest of us, I expect a little support for your arguments. You presented a position as having the military seal of approval because you're ex-military, I showed you several people who disagree with you so strongly that they're entering government to see that your views are repelled.

Whatever your qualifications backing up your opinions, PhD's, masters degrees, thermometer degrees, job experience, none of it means a damn thing to me unless you can argue your case.

not true, I hardly ever agree with Eut.

I have not been objectivly diagnosed as brainwashed, so I don't need to be diagnosed as "un-brainwashed" I simply asked someone whom I know to be honest, and no-nonsense, to give me their opinion on the subject, because I find it hilarious that you would think that I was brainwashed when you don't know anything at all about me.

Except that you agree wholeheartedly with brainwashed people and can't give me any sources for your opinion.

"In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented a plan called Operation Northwood, which is now declassified. It proposed conducting mass casualty attacks on American targets and blaming it on Cuba to rally public support for war against Fidel Castro. President Kennedy rejected the plan. So we shouldn't just assume any future attack on our soil is the work of al-Qaida."

- Author David Dionisi

Gore Vidal has said that he changed his mind about believing the Bush administration orchestrated the 9/11 attacks because he doesn't think they are competent enough to have pulled it off. Personally, I'm not so sure.

Maybe our country is in a race between impeaching the President and seeing a Bush-ordered mushroom cloud over a major US city, followed by announcements of new "wartime powers" for the President and his freedom-loving associates...

Except that you agree wholeheartedly with brainwashed people and can't give me any sources for your opinion.
how do you know I agree with them?


and sources for what opinion? I haven't expressed any except the fact that I am not against immigration and that I don't understand why it's my problem if someone spends themselves into a hole.

I can't provide "sources" for those because I made those up myself, I don't have other people that tell me what to think.

This is the most useless bipartisan crap I've read on this forum this week. You win an award!

I take offense to that remark sir or madam.

My remarks are wholeheartedly partisan. And by that I mean a weapon having a blade with lateral projections mounted on the end of a long shaft, used chiefly in the 16th and 17th centuries. Metaphoricly of course, because it is used to "peirce" the breastplate of lies that guards the Republican propaganda framework.

Except that you agree wholeheartedly with brainwashed people and can't give me any sources for your opinion.
WILL you get over that "brainwashed" thing! To hear you talk, anyone who doesn't agree with you is brainwashed.

how do you know I agree with them?


and sources for what opinion? I haven't expressed any except the fact that I am not against immigration and that I don't understand why it's my problem if someone spends themselves into a hole.

I can't provide "sources" for those because I made those up myself, I don't have other people that tell me what to think.

You responded to my post about the hallmarks of Evil, Unaware, and Brainwashed Republicans by only addressing the "Evil" heading and saying that the points in it were simply untrue and pointing out that I had provided no sources. Then when provided with the sources you had no response to the actual points.

The fact that you simply didn't know that stuff would have put you in the simply "unaware" catagory, but you implied that you agreed with them on the anti-immigration thing which would have put you in the evil catagory too, though only tenuously, then you admited that you don't actually oppose anti-immigration.

What marks you as brainwashed is that you refuse to cite any sources for your opinions (that those points under the heading of "evil" were false) and that you believe that my neglect of source citing indicates falsehood.

Simply refusing to cite sources would be obstinacy. Thinking that if I don't then I have no facts, but if you don't then you're occupying the moral high-ground is irrational thinking.

It even fits with my definition that posits self-contradictory beliefs as being a Brainwashed Republican hallmark. Because the Brainwashed people are a catagory that overlaps almost entirely with the "Unaware" catagory because to be brainwashed is neccessarily a state of diminished awareness. Albeit one that allows you to be exposed to information that disproves your accepted positions but not be made to question them. It's a sort of pro-active unawareness.

WILL you get over that "brainwashed" thing! To hear you talk, anyone who doesn't agree with you is brainwashed.

How would you know if you had been brainwashed?

My remarks are wholeheartedly partisan. And by that I mean a weapon having a blade with lateral projections mounted on the end of a long shaft, used chiefly in the 16th and 17th centuries. Metaphoricly of course, because it is used to "peirce" the breastplate of lies that guards the Republican propaganda framework.

Except of course you have your very own breastplate of lies and hypocrisy. That is the problem with partisans. With you, it's always Us vs Them... and Us is always good, and Them is always Evil, Unaware or Brainwashed. There's no room for independent thought. Which is why if I criticize you often enough you will in true brainwashed fashion start getting the idea that I must be Republican. Or at least, Evil, Unaware or Brainwashed.

Brainwashed people are always quick to suspect others of being brainwashed, just as armies in the 16th and 17th centuries would try to match their enemy in terms of armor.

WILL you get over that "brainwashed" thing! To hear you talk, anyone who doesn't agree with you is brainwashed.

I'm not "on" the brainwashed thing.

He and I disagree on a point over which the subject of brainwashing is relevant.

I don't believe that anyone who disagrees with me is brainwashed. There are positions on which disagreement is not reasonable and can only be accounted for by ignorance, malice, or some sort of diminished reasoning. And the positions are not digital, they are analogue, but there are definite points that are fit to be contended that you're raising a false dichotomy over. I'll use a different subject as an example.

The economy and taxes.
The conservative pundits these days say that lower taxes means economic growth. This is not true.

It is said as though if it is not true then it must be that higher taxes create growth. That's not true either.

The truth is that there's a point somewhere between a 100% tax rate and a 0% tax rate that will provide the maximum amount of tax revenue for the government. Either a tax rate of 100% or 0% will produce no revenue. It also follows that once taxes go over or under a certain point (let's call it TB) that revenue declines.

Where the argument breaks down is when people start saying that a certain tax rate (either "higher" "lower" or a specific percentage) will always produce the same result. TB will always shift with market fluctuations.

However, we have people who think that lower tax rates increase tax revenue.

What could account for people having this view when it is so absurdly false?
Either:
A, he knows it's not true, but wants to keep more money.
B, he doesn't understand economics, but never heard anyone explain it except A. or,
C, he has had access to both A's opinion and ~A's opinion and even though ~A has clearly demonstrated that A is full of crap, he agrees with A anyway.

Smunkeeville and I disagree on what marks one as C. I'm fully aware that there are also A's and B's in the world and a whole bunch of D's who understand that the subject has a broad range that isn't that clear cut.

There are lots of area's on the political spectrum that are reasonable and disagree with me. Being pro-Bush is not one of them. You can be pro-conservative and even pro-republican, but if you're pro-Bush you have gone beyond being simply D and are into A, B, or C territory.

WILL you get over that "brainwashed" thing! To hear you talk, anyone who doesn't agree with you is brainwashed.

are you going to reply to my post or just ignore it and hope it goes away?

WILL you get over that "brainwashed" thing! To hear you talk, anyone who doesn't agree with you is brainwashed.
Oh for God's sake! You just don't get it do you? You have been so brainwashed with that politically correct bullshit that you can't even think for yourself anymore!

-snip-
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10019646&postcount=55
Please go study some history without the added politically correct bullshit. Let me know when you're done and I'll talk with you again.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10019934&postcount=76
Yeah, who would argue that way?

Though, I have to give you credit-I went fishing for these assuming I'd find them knowing you well enough and I didn't find as many as I thought I would. This one disturbed me a bit though-
Funny. I don't feel like a slave. You, however, not only sound like one, but look like one as well! :D
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10016636&postcount=23
eek, dude.

Please go study some history without the added politically correct bullshit. Let me know when you're done and I'll talk with you again.

*sigh*

Is your definition of political correctness simply anything you disagree with?

Except of course you have your very own breastplate of lies and hypocrisy. That is the problem with partisans. With you, it's always Us vs Them... and Us is always good, and Them is always Evil, Unaware or Brainwashed. There's no room for independent thought. Which is why if I criticize you often enough you will in true brainwashed fashion start getting the idea that I must be Republican. Or at least, Evil, Unaware or Brainwashed.

Brainwashed people are always quick to suspect others of being brainwashed, just as armies in the 16th and 17th centuries would try to match their enemy in terms of armor.

Would you mind pointing out where I've said something hypocritical, or told a lie?

As the burden of proof rests with you on pointing out actual deciet I'm entitled to expect that you provide a statement I made that is false as well as one that proves I know otherwise, but I'm willing to settle for something that is just demonstrably false, meaning that you provide actual evidence of falsehood not merely something that you disagree with.

I don't divide the world into Us and Them in general terms, but as I told Eut, once you get down to particular points truth is fairly clear cut. To believe in what used to be conservative principles is reasonable, to be a Bush supporter once you know what he does and what he stands for is not. If you think he stands for things other than he does, it is reasonable to support him, but once you have it pointed out to you what he stands for it is not.

I don't believe that there is no such thing as a bad Democrat and that Dems=good and Repubs=evil. I have more objective tests available. For example, bankruptcy reform. There are degrees of evil that could lead one to favor it knowing how little it will do to prevent fraud, but the true measure of evil is opposition to efforts to limit the bill to only preventing fraud.

This was a Republican bill that was designed to hurt the middle class as a gift to the credit industry. That part is debatable. The argument that the republicans presented was that it would prevent fraud, however Democrats offered some amendments to it that would have made it so that people who went bankrupt under inoccent circumstances would not have to suffer. The republicans voted together to shoot down those amendments. Even the one that made allowances for the military that they're supposed to be such stalwart champions of. So here's the breakdown as I see it.

Favor the bankruptcy bill but oppose mitigating amendments = evil.
Favor the bankruptcy bill and the mitigating amendments, but vote for it even though the amendments were left out = Corrupt
Favor the bankruptcy bill with, and only with the amendments in it = Conservative.
Oppose the bankruptcy bill with or without the amendments = Liberal

Every single republican voted in favor of the unamended bill, but I don't know how many of them exactly opposed the amendments be included.
17 Democrats from both houses voted in favor of it.

17 Democrats and every single Republican in the legislature is either evil or corrupt as far as I'm concerned. Not because I oppose Republicans, but because they do evil and corrupt things. I think the same of anyone who is actually informed about the bankruptcy bill, therefore it is not partisanship. The Democrats just happen to favor my view marginally more than the Republicans on most things, and seem to have far less corruption.

I can't be sure that the lack of corruption is because they're just better people or because the conservative media harps on every little thing that the Dems do and tries to turn it into a scandal while looking the other way when Republicans do the same. Just take a look at Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Actually convicted of corruption and no one in the media has asked "why hasn't a convicted Republican bribe taker had an ethics investigation on him in the republican controled legislature?" But either way, Repubs are more corrupt right now. Have been since Nixon.

*sigh*

Is your definition of political correctness simply anything you disagree with?

He is following the technical definition of policitcal correctness. Information that is correct and has to do with politics. For example 1+1=2. Conservative ideas like Reaganomics are based on politically incorrect information like 3-2=5.

As a conservative, Eut prefers information that is either correct, but has nothing to do with politics, like a "bite of bread tastes better than a spoonful of baking soda," or information that is incorrect and political like "Bush is a good president who is making sound decisions on matters of military strategy in Iraq."

eutrusca, could you answer my post now please...

[ pins the medal to your ass, then kicks it ] Keep it. It's about as close as you'll ever get. :D


Is that remark aimed at him or me?