NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously. Back when she criticized Bush, a lot of so-called progressives rallied to her cause, but once she started criticizing Obama, they dropped her like a hot potato. What changed?

The KGB (Kentuckians, Georgians, and Bush) killed her. :eek:

But seriously, her support came form the democrats and from opposition to bush. By opposing obama and bush being irrelevant, now she's irrelevant.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cindy+sheehan+2009

The KGB (Kentuckians, Georgians, and Bush) killed her. :eek:

But seriously, her support came form the democrats and from opposition to bush. By opposing obama and bush being irrelevant, now she's irrelevant.

Which proves my point. Most "antiwar" people only oppose wars that are started by Presidents belonging to a different political party. Why can't people show some damned consistency and either oppose all wars, or support all of them?

Why can't people show some damned consistency and either oppose all wars, or support all of them?
because while most people are pretty stupid, only a special few are that stupid

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cindy+sheehan+2009

Once again, you have absolutely nothing to add to the thread. Your only "contributions" consist of subtly mocking or outright insulting other people. I bet you feel all high and mighty, don't you? I wonder if you would ever have the balls to treat someone like this to their face. Somehow, I highly doubt it.

Also, way to avoid the question. Now, since you have nothing to add, why not bugger off?

because while most people are pretty stupid, only a special few are that stupid

What is stupid about consistency?

What is stupid about consistency?

having consistency with stupid principles is just being consistently stupid

having consistency with stupid principles is just being consistently stupid

How is opposing war stupid?

Seriously. Back when she criticized Bush, a lot of so-called progressives rallied to her cause, but once she started criticizing Obama, they dropped her like a hot potato. What changed?

what changed?

but once she started criticizing Obama, they dropped her like a hot potato.

that changed. :D

I support the afghanistan war.
I oppose the iraqi war.

Once again, you have absolutely nothing to add to the thread. Your only "contributions" consist of subtly mocking or outright insulting other people. I bet you feel all high and mighty, don't you? I wonder if you would ever have the balls to treat someone like this to their face. Somehow, I highly doubt it.

Also, way to avoid the question. Now, since you have nothing to add, why not bugger off?
I'm sorry that you're humiliated by the realization that Cindy Sheehan's whereabouts are easily determined, and also the fact that most of the top links when you Google are actually progressive organizations and/or leaders and thus the flawed assumption in your OP is kind of pitiful, but there's no need to get grumpy about it. Nobody would even have bothered to check my link and notice the size of your mistake, if you'd just refrained from pitching a tantrum at it. Now they're all going to look.

Back when she criticized Bush, a lot of so-called progressives rallied to her cause, but once she started criticizing Obama, they dropped her like a hot potato....

Most "antiwar" people only oppose wars that are started by Presidents belonging to a different political party.
You seem to be confusing a specific section of the US citizenry with a disparate antiwar/pacifist movement.

Those of us around the world who, generally or specifically, oppose war should not be tarred with the US Democrat brush.

Which proves my point. Most "antiwar" people only oppose wars that are started by Presidents belonging to a different political party. Why can't people show some damned consistency and either oppose all wars, or support all of them?

I have noticed that a number of the same persons who vigorously protested the Iraq War under Bush seem indifferent under Obama.

How is opposing war stupid?

blanket opposition to all wars means opposing war against a group that is invading your area whose only stated intention is to rape infants. blanket support for all wars means supporting those guys on their baby-rape adventure because you happen to be from the same area as them.

as for sheehan, she began to marginalize herself from the more mainstream parts of the progressive movement back in 2007. this isn't some new development at all.

I have noticed that a number of the same persons who vigorously protested the Iraq War under Bush seem indifferent under Obama.

It's the way the US political system works, unfortunately.

How is opposing war stupid?

Your demand for "consistency" would prevent someone from defending their nation against an invasion, lest they no longer be considered "anti-war". Demanding a uniform approach to all situations without taking any consideration for the particular circumstances is stupid.

What is stupid about consistency?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Ralph Waldo Emerson.

And, your timeline is way off. Your 'so called progressives' were done with her long long long before Bush left office. She had become a beaten horse of a fascination of the right long enough ago that Eutrusca was still posting. (meaning that they brought her up more often than the just about never that anyone else brought her up) She had been potato dropped long before Obama was considered a viable candidate for the presidency. That she is opposing Obama now is news to me because everyone save a select few stopped listening to her years ago. And I say that as someone who lives in a House district she ran for Representative in.

I don't remember where empathizing with her lose and recognizing it as symbolic of the condition of an ill-conceived and unnecessary war required me to hang on to her every word indefinitely.

I have noticed that a number of the same persons who vigorously protested the Iraq War under Bush seem indifferent under Obama.

well, he did announce that they were withdrawing and even outlined dates for it all. its hard to get quite so worked up about them not getting the hell out fast enough as you can about them going on imperial adventures in the first place.

Which proves my point. Most "antiwar" people only oppose wars that are started by Presidents belonging to a different political party. Why can't people show some damned consistency and either oppose all wars, or support all of them?

Is that your point? Are you upset that the "anti-war" people aren't protesting all those wars Obama has started?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cindy+sheehan+2009

Hehehehehehehehehe.

I have noticed that a number of the same persons who vigorously protested the Iraq War under Bush seem indifferent under Obama.

Have you? Have you really? Please, outline this indifference. Be as specific as possible.

Is that your point? Are you upset that the "anti-war" people aren't protesting all those wars Obama has started?

i was trying to be upset about his invasion of burkina faso, but i only have so much rage available and right now its all tied up in rage at the emm ess emm for not reporting that obama ordered mustard on his hamburger at some elitist fast food joint. the people have a right to know!!!

I'm sorry that you're humiliated by the realization that Cindy Sheehan's whereabouts are easily determined, and also the fact that most of the top links when you Google are actually progressive organizations and/or leaders and thus the flawed assumption in your OP is kind of pitiful, but there's no need to get grumpy about it. Nobody would even have bothered to check my link and notice the size of your mistake, if you'd just refrained from pitching a tantrum at it. Now they're all going to look.

What the fuck did I ever to do you? Seriously. Whatever I did to make you act like a gigantic goddamn douche, let me know. It must have been something big. Either that, or your parents never got around to teaching you manners.

And when I said "progressives" I meant the type found on this site. You know, the same people who railed against Bush's "immoral" war in Iraq, but who either support (or refuse to condemn) Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

well, he did announce that they were withdrawing and even outlined dates for it all. its hard to get quite so worked up about them not getting the hell out fast enough as you can about them going on imperial adventures in the first place.

A: Bush already did that.

B: Obama's site says a force that will stay in Iraq after the so-called "withdrawal", in order "to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda".

i was trying to be upset about his invasion of burkina faso, but i only have so much rage available and right now its all tied up in rage at the emm ess emm for not reporting that obama ordered mustard on his hamburger at some elitist fast food joint. the people have a right to know!!!

Some "anarchist" you are. You claim to hate the state, yet you're one of its biggest sycophants - provided the ruler has a (D) after his name. And if you didn't know that Obama is massively escalating the war in Afghanistan, you must really be living under a rock. What about the 100+ Afghanis killed there recently? Or don't their lives matter to you?

Hehehehehehehehehe.

You have nothing to add, either? Then fuck off.

...and right now its all tied up in rage at the emm ess emm for not reporting that obama ordered mustard on his hamburger at some elitist fast food joint.
That's the funniest 'news' I've seen reported in a long time.

I love the US.



From a distance.


What the fuck did I ever to do you? Seriously. Whatever I did to make you act like a gigantic goddamn douche, let me know. It must have been something big. Either that, or your parents never got around to teaching you manners.
Woah!

Calm the beans, Flamey McFlamerson.

Have you? Have you really? Please, outline this indifference. Be as specific as possible.

Persons I have met in real life. I mention to them that Obama is still in Iraq; they look offended, and say he needs time to withdraw (as if USian troops have not been there long enough); when I then mention that his site claims he will leave a force there with no set withdrawal date, they shrug and say, "so?", or they claim I misunderstand our President.

Have you? Have you really? Please, outline this indifference. Be as specific as possible.
Yes. There are plenty of people who merely support their own political party, no matter what they do. And there are others who hold a complete double standard, war in Iraq with Bush = monstrosity, war in Iraq with Obama = Necessity.

Not saying it's everyone, but there are enough of those kinds out there.

You have nothing to add, either? Then fuck off.

*rubs shoulders*

Much anger you have, Jedi you cannot be. Calm down you must.;)

Some "anarchist" you are. You claim to hate the state, yet you're one of its biggest sycophants - provided the ruler has a (D) after his name. And if you didn't know that Obama is massively escalating the war in Afghanistan, you must really be living under a rock. What about the 100+ Afghanis killed there recently? Or don't their lives matter to you?

Did you make this thread just so you could cry about what mean hypocrites we all are for not getting equally as mad at Obama for continuing the wars he did not start as we got at Bush for beginning the wars, unprovoked?

You have nothing to add, either? Then fuck off.

Would you like to add to your thread?

Okay.

Do you have any evidence that the same progressives who supported her now do not?

Some "anarchist" you are. You claim to hate the state, yet you're one of its biggest sycophants - provided the ruler has a (D) after his name. And if you didn't know that Obama is massively escalating the war in Afghanistan, you must really be living under a rock. What about the 100+ Afghanis killed there recently? Or don't their lives matter to you?

ah. and you are, i take it, an expert on my views of what to do in afghanistan? fascinating.

Did you make this thread just so you could cry about what mean hypocrites we all are for not getting equally as mad at Obama for continuing the wars he did not start as we got at Bush for beginning the wars, unprovoked?

Erm, I don't know about him, but I sure as hell am. Continuing the crime is just as bad as starting it.

Yes. There are plenty of people who merely support their own political party, no matter what they do. And there are others who hold a complete double standard, war in Iraq with Bush = monstrosity, war in Iraq with Obama = Necessity.

Not saying it's everyone, but there are enough of those kinds out there.

Persons I have met in real life. I mention to them that Obama is still in Iraq; they look offended, and say he needs time to withdraw (as if USian troops have not been there long enough); when I then mention that his site claims he will leave a force there with no set withdrawal date, they shrug and say, "so?", or they claim I misunderstand our President.

Ah, those dastardly "some people" "I've met"...always doing those things that you want people to have been doing to justify some sort of vague blanket anger. When will those amorphous unverifiable strawfilled bastards ever learn?

Ah, those dastardly "some people" "I've met"...always doing those things that you want people to have been doing to justify some sort of vague blanket anger. When will those amorphous unverifiable strawfilled bastards ever learn?

I do not think I displayed any blanket anger, nor did I indict Democrats in general. My point was simple: The Iraq War is Bush's greatest mistake, and Obama is continuing it; I feel I have not seen proportionate outrage.

You have nothing to add, either? Then fuck off.

Is diddums getting stroppy? Awww.

Ah, those dastardly "some people" "I've met"...always doing those things that you want people to have been doing to justify some sort of vague blanket anger. When will those amorphous unverifiable strawfilled bastards ever learn?
*sigh* How I hate this. 'These people are nitwits.'
'What people?'
'A few I've met in real l-'
'ZOMG ZOMG! STRAWMAN NOOB LOLOLOL!'
'*resists urge to call up his Ex-Military relatives and ask them for a few extra words to use to 'politely' respond to this poster*'

Which reminds me... Do these people even know what a Strawman is anymore? It seems to be used to refer to any kind of logical fallacy, or hell, at this point, just for lack of proof anymore. Doesn't anyone know what a Strawman argument actually is?

resists urge to call up his Ex-Military relatives

Ah yes, these ex-military relatives, Why should I believe they exist? You've provided no evidence of there existence. Not one single source.

Ah yes, these ex-military relatives, Why should I believe they exist? You've provided no evidence of there existence. Not one single source.

:tongue:

:tongue:

Oh ho, a smily face with his tongue sticking out. What a poor rebuttal. Good day, sir.

*sigh* How I hate this. 'These people are nitwits.'
'What people?'
'A few I've met in real l-'
'ZOMG ZOMG! STRAWMAN NOOB LOLOLOL!'
'*resists urge to call up his Ex-Military relatives and ask them for a few extra words to use to 'politely' respond to this poster*'

Which reminds me... Do these people even know what a Strawman is anymore? It seems to be used to refer to any kind of logical fallacy, or hell, at this point, just for lack of proof anymore. Doesn't anyone know what a Strawman argument actually is?

Do you? Because you used another one in this post here. Your attempt to characterize the post CToaN made into one that you could present in a demeaning manner is the definition of a strawman.

Oh ho, a smily face with his tongue sticking out. What a poor rebuttal. Good day, sir.

Maybe you should learn how to use google, you lazy bum. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=CM%27s+Military+Relatives) :mad:

(No, none of the links in there are actually relevant)

Let us conduct a test:

On a scale of 1-10, NSG, how angry are you at Bush for the Iraq War?

On a scale of 1-10, NSG, how angry are you are at Obama for maintaining the Iraq War?

The difference between The war under Bush and the war under Obama, is much like hiring a gardener to trim your hedges and having that gardener completely massacre them, as in an absolute shit job with branches sticking out all over the place, completely uneven, patches of leaves wildly left in awkward places. Now, of course you fire that gardener and hire a new one, but there's no sense getting pissed off at the new gardener for needing to wait until the damn hedges grow in a bit before he can make them look like anything more than a pile of firewood.

Just as there's no sense in maintaining the same outrage at Obama, who is trying to untangle the mess as was directed at Bush who started it.

Unless of course Obama is the crooked sort of gardener who's secretly trimming away at the new growth just to keep his job, but people like that are eventually found out and turfed for it.

*sigh* How I hate this. 'These people are nitwits.'
'What people?'
'A few I've met in real l-'
'ZOMG ZOMG! STRAWMAN NOOB LOLOLOL!'
'*resists urge to call up his Ex-Military relatives and ask them for a few extra words to use to 'politely' respond to this poster*'

Which reminds me... Do these people even know what a Strawman is anymore? It seems to be used to refer to any kind of logical fallacy, or hell, at this point, just for lack of proof anymore. Doesn't anyone know what a Strawman argument actually is?
I'll have to cop to walking into the Great Fallacy Fuckdown that is internet debate by including 'strawfilled' in my sentence, and that's something I'll have to live with.

However...you are not a reliable source, nor can we review the statements of the 'some people you've met' to verify that your characterizations are in any way accurate. For the purpose of discussion you either have to confront these phantom people when they say these supposed things or deal with the statements that are either said specifically by the people here or can be quoted and verified. Otherwise, we are relegated to arguing against or on behalf of the voices in your head as we have no other indication that they are otherwise.

Just as there's no sense in maintaining the same outrage at Obama, who is trying to untangle the mess as was directed at Bush who started it.

How is leaving a force in Iraq untangling the mess? Your metaphor is vague, to say the least.

Do you? Because you used another one in this post here. Your attempt to characterize the post CToaN made into one that you could present in a demeaning manner is the definition of a strawman.
:confused:

Yes. There are plenty of people who merely support their own political party, no matter what they do. And there are others who hold a complete double standard, war in Iraq with Bush = monstrosity, war in Iraq with Obama = Necessity.

Not saying it's everyone, but there are enough of those kinds out there.

Ah, those dastardly "some people" "I've met"...always doing those things that you want people to have been doing to justify some sort of vague blanket anger. When will those amorphous unverifiable strawfilled bastards ever learn?

*sigh* How I hate this. 'These people are nitwits.'
'What people?'
'A few I've met in real l-'
'ZOMG ZOMG! STRAWMAN NOOB LOLOLOL!'
'*resists urge to call up his Ex-Military relatives and ask them for a few extra words to use to 'politely' respond to this poster*'

Which reminds me... Do these people even know what a Strawman is anymore? It seems to be used to refer to any kind of logical fallacy, or hell, at this point, just for lack of proof anymore. Doesn't anyone know what a Strawman argument actually is?
Hardly. I was calling him on the argument that what I (And Pakus) was saying was a straw man fallacy, which is was not. I might have been a bit pissier than I should have, but I did nothing that was close to a straw man fallacy. A straw man argument (which is presumably what Ctoan meant when he said 'Strawfilled bastards), is an argument where you misrepresent what someone else has said. Wiki has a very good example.
1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.
Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments - thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Which proves my point. Most "antiwar" people only oppose wars that are started by Presidents belonging to a different political party. Why can't people show some damned consistency and either oppose all wars, or support all of them?
your position makes no sense.

i doubt that ms sheehan is in sudden support of the iraq war or that the democratic party suddenly feels that she should go home and shut up about her opposition to it.

until you have some evidence of one of these things happenning you have no grounds to call hypocrisy.

as of the start of the new administration, some anti-war people are as up in arms as ever over mr obama's handling of it. the rest of us are in a wait and see mode patiently waiting for him to end both of them in a reasonable manner.

Let us conduct a test:

On a scale of 1-10, NSG, how angry are you at Bush for the Iraq War?

On a scale of 1-10, NSG, how angry are you are at Obama for maintaining the Iraq War?
I don't think 'angry' is a great description of how I feel about the whole matter.

Though I certainly felt some anger at the way 9/11 was itself hijacked by the US government as an excuse for all sorts of violent nonsense, I was unpleasantly unsurprised at the way the new administration has wiggled its way out of what it appeared to promise during the elections. So I'm not really angry with Obama, just sort of resigned. With every passing day, his administration reminds me more and more of a flashier version of New Labour, circa 1997.

How is leaving a force in Iraq untangling the mess? Your metaphor is vague, to say the least.

So if all US forces left Iraq tomorrow, Iraq would be exactly the same as if we had never even gone there in the first place and Saddam was in power maintaining strict control over the people and the militias? Don't kid yourself.

So if all US forces left Iraq tomorrow, Iraq would be exactly the same as if we had never even gone there in the first place and Saddam was in power maintaining strict control over the people and the militias? Don't kid yourself.

Leaving a permanent force there is not the solution.

I'll have to cop to walking into the Great Fallacy Fuckdown that is internet debate by including 'strawfilled' in my sentence, and that's something I'll have to live with.


If you don't like it, don't comment on other posters opinions. Commenting leads to discussion, discussion leads to debate. So please, get off of your high horse.;)

However...you are not a reliable source,
Never have claimed to be.
nor can we review the statements of the 'some people you've met' to verify that your characterizations are in any way accurate.
No, but do you really think that such people do not exist? Have you never met a person who acts like that, whether they be Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or whatever group you want to put in there?
For the purpose of discussion you either have to confront these phantom people when they say these supposed things or deal with the statements that are either said specifically by the people here or can be quoted and verified.
Sorry, but not everything that happens can be quoted, or is recorded. Yes, I know, shock and horror.
Otherwise, we are relegated to arguing against or on behalf of the voices in your head as we have no other indication that they are otherwise.
Hehe, I hear voices in my head.:wink:

No, but truth be told, not everything can be verified on the internet. I know you don't want to take my word on it, and the kind of people who hold these positions rarely have any kind of interaction with more or less reasonable places like NSG. It's like talking about any personal experience online. You can't quote it, you can't link to it, sometimes, you can only speak of it. Can we know for sure that Parkus is going into the military? That any of the women on here are actually women? That you actually hold the opinions that you do? No. For all we know, Parkus could be ten, all the women on here could be men (And thus fitting in with the Internet meme that there are no women on the internet :p), and that you're actually trolling for fun. Sometimes, even on an internet forum, there has to be trust somewhere. I'm not asking you to trust my statement though, I'm only asking that you don't call it a strawman. Fair?

If you lurked at exclusively Democratic and left-liberal blogs and forums, you would get a very different picture.

The dynamic is always different when you have a mixed group: why attack Obama when you can attack the Republicans?

What the fuck did I ever to do you? Seriously. Whatever I did to make you act like a gigantic goddamn douche, let me know. It must have been something big. Either that, or your parents never got around to teaching you manners.

what did you do? hmmm... let me see...

Once again, you have absolutely nothing to add to the thread. Your only "contributions" consist of subtly mocking or outright insulting other people. I bet you feel all high and mighty, don't you? I wonder if you would ever have the balls to treat someone like this to their face. Somehow, I highly doubt it.

Also, way to avoid the question. Now, since you have nothing to add, why not bugger off?

perhaps this?

You have nothing to add, either? Then fuck off.
this too isn't a very nice demonstration of your manners.

I have noticed that a number of the same persons who vigorously protested the Iraq War under Bush seem indifferent under Obama.

I have noticed that a number of the same persons who vigorously protested the open-ended Iraq War under Bush seem somewhat mollified by the attempt to timetable withdrawal under Obama.

But hey, pretending apples are oranges is more fun, right?

(In the interests of full disclosure, I had hoped that Obama would stick closer to what he said near the start of his campaign, rather than adhering reasonably well to his end-of-campaign rhetoric. But at least we have the impression of withdrawal now - and for a lot of people, that's enough. For now).

I have noticed that a number of the same persons who vigorously protested the open-ended Iraq War under Bush seem somewhat mollified by the attempt to timetable withdrawal under Obama.

But hey, pretending apples are oranges is more fun, right?

(In the interests of full disclosure, I had hoped that Obama would stick closer to what he said near the start of his campaign, rather than adhering reasonably well to his end-of-campaign rhetoric. But at least we have the impression of withdrawal now - and for a lot of people, that's enough. For now).
as long as he sticks to the agreements that bush made with the iraqi government, im happy with his performance.

I have noticed that a number of the same persons who vigorously protested the open-ended Iraq War under Bush seem somewhat mollified by the attempt to timetable withdrawal under Obama.

But hey, pretending apples are oranges is more fun, right?

(In the interests of full disclosure, I had hoped that Obama would stick closer to what he said near the start of his campaign, rather than adhering reasonably well to his end-of-campaign rhetoric. But at least we have the impression of withdrawal now - and for a lot of people, that's enough. For now).

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.
Seems rather vague to me.

I have noticed that a number of the same persons who vigorously protested the open-ended Iraq War under Bush seem somewhat mollified by the attempt to timetable withdrawal under Obama.

Bush did set a timetable, and Obama's site does not mention a withdrawal date for many of the troops.

Leaving a permanent force there is not the solution.

What do you believe the solution is?

My point was simple: The Iraq War is Bush's greatest mistake, and Obama is continuing it

This is just a completely, and utterly meaningless platitude. There is absolutely no connection between starting a war, and having your troops stay there, in an attempt to stabilize an unstable and chaotic region (most people would say that's you're fucking duty, if you break something and make lives horrible for everyone, you fix it). Just because Obama (and pretty much every politician in the US, from left to right) sees the need to stay there and fix this mess, does not mean he actually supported the war in the first place, it doesn't mean he's pro aggression against Iraq for the sake of aggression, or whatever the bullshit reasons the Bush admin had.

What do you believe the solution is?

Leaving, plus gradually decreasing financial aid. Some civilian experts could remain to help the new government.

Leaving, plus gradually decreasing financial aid. Some civilian experts could remain to help the new government.

Leaving now?

Leaving now?

I would say leaving within a few months. Or something like that, I'm not an expert on modern military logistics, or how long it would take to remove all of our troops.

Leaving a permanent force there is not the solution.

Ok, that's a valid criticism. Saying that supporting maintaining forces is inconsistent with being against going to war in the first place is not though.

Bush did set a timetable, and Obama's site does not mention a withdrawal date for many of the troops.

Bush did set a timetable. When it became a bone in the craw of a Republican candidate following him. Up until it became obvious it was likely to be one of this last election's big issues, it was a major fuck-you to the Democrats to continue along without any accountability.

The Republicans really had the march stolen on them, on that issue.

If you don't like it, don't comment on other posters opinions. Commenting leads to discussion, discussion leads to debate. So please, get off of your high horse.;)
You, uh, you don't know what you're responding to here, do you?

Never have claimed to be.
Tacitly, yes you have. You have asked us to take your word for it that you've encountered these people and that they expressed their opinions exactly as you characterized them based on nothing other than your say so.

No, but do you really think that such people do not exist? Have you never met a person who acts like that, whether they be Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or whatever group you want to put in there?
No. Let me clarify, I do not expect to enter into debate as evidence nor expect other posters here to answer for, justify, or relate to the rantings of the pee smelling man yelling at the top of his lungs outside of the Transbay Terminal. If you are going to enter into discussion the evidence, views, activities, etc. of an individual then I am going to want to independently verify that individual and what they actually said. I will not be moved by appeals to 'common wisdom' such as "we all know they exist."

Sorry, but not everything that happens can be quoted, or is recorded. Yes, I know, shock and horror.
I am neither shocked, nor horrified. Nor am I prone to taking 'your word for it' about the opinions or words of someone who I cannot verify myself. I do not know what gave you the impression that I thought a Complete Record of Everything existed, but please dispel yourself of it.

Hehe, I hear voices in my head.:wink:
The first step is coming to terms with it. (Alright, too easy, my apologies...)

No, but truth be told, not everything can be verified on the internet. I know you don't want to take my word on it, and the kind of people who hold these positions rarely have any kind of interaction with more or less reasonable places like NSG. It's like talking about any personal experience online. You can't quote it, you can't link to it, sometimes, you can only speak of it. Can we know for sure that Parkus is going into the military? That any of the women on here are actually women? That you actually hold the opinions that you do? No. For all we know, Parkus could be ten, all the women on here could be men (And thus fitting in with the Internet meme that there are no women on the internet :p), and that you're actually trolling for fun. Sometimes, even on an internet forum, there has to be trust somewhere. I'm not asking you to trust my statement though, I'm only asking that you don't call it a strawman. Fair?
No. And you've given the reason why. I could not be who I say I am, you could not be who you say you are. Therefore, anything that cannot be verified is suspect. If I cannot trust that your own opinions are what you say they are (as you yourself pointed out) how am I supposed to extend that non-existent trust to the opinions of the people 'you've met' and that you are accurately and fairly relating them to me? The reason why it might resemble a caricature put in cornfields to frighten birds is because it is introduced into an argument about a proposed hypocrisy as evidence. It is not the opinion of anyone posting here or participating in the debate, it is in fact an unverifiable source that just so happens to be on the extreme end that conveniently proves your point but has no relation to the opinions of those debating here. So when someone goes, "Show me." and you respond with "Trust me" the answer is "No." The implication is that you are making up opponents that are easier to defeat and asking the rest of us to accept that as evidence of your point made. That, my friend, does not work.

I would say leaving within a few months. Or something like that, I'm not an expert on modern military logistics, or how long it would take to remove all of our troops.

The troops could be out within a week. If we wanted to make sure we left the place without unaccounted hardware, etc - we could still have a hard withdrawal in less than two months.

Personally, I favor that plan, but I don't see it happening.

The troops could be out within a week. If we wanted to make sure we left the place without unaccounted hardware, etc - we could still have a hard withdrawal in less than two months.

Personally, I favor that plan, but I don't see it happening.
the agreement requires us to have all combat troops out by the end of next month.

You, uh, you don't know what you're responding to here, do you?

I'm fairly sure I do.

Tacitly, yes you have. You have asked us to take your word for it that you've encountered these people and that they expressed their opinions exactly as you characterized them based on nothing other than your say so.

And if you don't want to believe me, don't.

No. Let me clarify, I do not expect to enter into debate as evidence nor expect other posters here to answer for, justify, or relate to the rantings of the pee smelling man yelling at the top of his lungs outside of the Transbay Terminal. If you are going to enter into discussion the evidence, views, activities, etc. of an individual then I am going to want to independently verify that individual and what they actually said. I will not be moved by appeals to 'common wisdom' such as "we all know they exist."
Should I bring a tape recorder everywhere I go to prove my statements? Sorry, but I'm not willing to throw out what little personal life I still have in order to prove to a few people on the internet that such people exist.:p

I am neither shocked, nor horrified. Nor am I prone to taking 'your word for it' about the opinions or words of someone who I cannot verify myself. I do not know what gave you the impression that I thought a Complete Record of Everything existed, but please dispel yourself of it.
As stated above, not everything can be sourced without said record. I'd be more than happy to introduce you to a few people I knew held that opinion if, well, they frequently NSG.

No. And you've given the reason why. I could not be who I say I am, you could not be who you say you are.
Actually, I could be, and you could be, but we also might not be. Or maybe that's what you're saying, could is a very flexible word...
Therefore, anything that cannot be verified is suspect.
In which case you should doubt everything that does not have a video attached, sound included, with no possible way of it being tampered with.
If I cannot trust that your own opinions are what you say they are (as you yourself pointed out) how am I supposed to extend that non-existent trust to the opinions of the people 'you've met' and that you are accurately and fairly relating them to me?
I didn't relate them to you. Well, not originally. In my post complaining about the meaning of the Straw Man argument I (Ironically enough) used a straw man, and did relate you to 'those people'. However, the post for which you accused me of making a straw man argument of, was not a straw man. Unsourced? Yes. Straw Man? No.

And by saying that I am accurately and fairly relating them to you, you have provided me with a usable source for future problems like this. *saves to favorites*
The reason why it might resemble a caricature put in cornfields to frighten birds is because it is introduced into an argument about a proposed hypocrisy as evidence..
...
1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.
Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments - thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
I'm assuming you're arguing #4. However, for that criteria to be true, they would have to be fictatious, of which you have no way of proving. Or am I suppose to take your word for it that they're fictitious?;)

Either way, I have proof now: You.:p

It is not the opinion of anyone posting here or participating in the debate, it is in fact an unverifiable source that just so happens to be on the extreme end that conveniently proves your point but has no relation to the opinions of those debating here.
You didn't ask for anyone debating here.;)
So when someone goes, "Show me." and you respond with "Trust me" the answer is "No."
And if I refuse to trust your assertion that the people I have mentioned are fictitious..?
The implication is that you are making up opponents that are easier to defeat and asking the rest of us to accept that as evidence of your point made. That, my friend, does not work.
But why am I to trust you? Why should I trust you? Your argument that I am making up opponents could be (And is) completely false. Not only that, but you've already proved my point above. And Trust me, I will be linking to that for years to come.;)
The troops could be out within a week. If we wanted to make sure we left the place without unaccounted hardware, etc - we could still have a hard withdrawal in less than two months.

Personally, I favor that plan, but I don't see it happening.

Neither do I. Sadly enough.

I'm fairly sure I do.
You can be fairly sure and wrong simultaneously. Like now. (the snarky, "It must be a familiar feeling" is really hard to resist...so apparently I'll do it in this backhanded way...)

And if you don't want to believe me, don't.
I do not, and have stated why. It is debate.

Should I bring a tape recorder everywhere I go to prove my statements? Sorry, but I'm not willing to throw out what little personal life I still have in order to prove to a few people on the internet that such people exist.:p

As stated above, not everything can be sourced without said record. I'd be more than happy to introduce you to a few people I knew held that opinion if, well, they frequently NSG.
You have, despite my request, not dispelled yourself of the notion that I think there is a Complete Record of Everything. Disappointing. Now I am in the unfortunate position of repeating myself to you because you have made the exact same argument. Why would you do that?

No, I do not expect you to record every conversation you ever have. However, again, if you are going to introduce these into argument you are going to have to restrict yourself to sources that can be independently examined and verified instead of relying on your say so. Please dear god do not go on again about how you need to record conversations or some such nonsense. I do not want to feel like I'm arguing with a failing Turing Test.

Actually, I could be, and you could be, but we also might not be. Or maybe that's what you're saying, could is a very flexible word...
So is is. Doesn't really matter.

In which case you should doubt everything that does not have a video attached, sound included, with no possible way of it being tampered with.
If all things either were or weren't and all sources equal. Instead, it's a slope and "people you've met" are at the bottom of it.

I didn't relate them to you. Well, not originally. In my post complaining about the meaning of the Straw Man argument I (Ironically enough) used a straw man, and did relate you to 'those people'. However, the post for which you accused me of making a straw man argument of, was not a straw man. Unsourced? Yes. Straw Man? No.
The argument of the thread was a proposed inconsistency in 'so called progressives' in their opinions about Sheehan and by extension, the war. You presented 'people you've met' and characterized their opinions as support for that. With nothing but your word it does in fact resemble your vaunted #4 or, if they exist marginally as you have characterized them #3. Now, I already copped (though you apparently did not understand...in the spirit of this thread, let me google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mea+culpa)) to what I myself regard as lazy hackiness of simply tossing out even a passing reference to logical fallacies as if it was some sort of 'instant win chip' instead of just explaining why the argument does not work itself. But the fact remains, 'people you've met' are not evidence of anything.

And by saying that I am accurately and fairly relating them to you, you have provided me with a usable source for future problems like this. *saves to favorites*

...

I'm assuming you're arguing #4. However, for that criteria to be true, they would have to be fictatious, of which you have no way of proving. Or am I suppose to take your word for it that they're fictitious?;)

Either way, I have proof now: You.:p


You didn't ask for anyone debating here.;)

And if I refuse to trust your assertion that the people I have mentioned are fictitious..?

But why am I to trust you? Why should I trust you? Your argument that I am making up opponents could be (And is) completely false. Not only that, but you've already proved my point above. And Trust me, I will be linking to that for years to come.;)


Neither do I. Sadly enough.
I'm not sure...do you think you're being clever here, or did you get a phone call while you were typing?

Leaving now?

We have been there for six years--that is enough time for me.

Ok, that's a valid criticism. Saying that supporting maintaining forces is inconsistent with being against going to war in the first place is not though.

I get the feeling most of those opposed to the Iraq War favored a withdrawal while Bush was in office.

What do you believe the solution is?

Find a way to sacrifice Bush's soul resulting in eternal punishment for it in exchange for raising the dead Iraqis from the dead and rebuilding the infrastructure.

The US needs to withdraw, but not so quickly that iraq returns to clusterfuck status. Unfortunately, politicians are too proud to go before the UN and say "Hey, the US messed up. Please send some troops to help us."

You can be fairly sure and wrong simultaneously. Like now. (the snarky, "It must be a familiar feeling" is really hard to resist...so apparently I'll do it in this backhanded way...)

Am I supposed to trust your assertion that I'm wrong?

I do not, and have stated why. It is debate.

Why do you feel the need to justify your opinion to me? Am I suppose to trust that it really is your opinion?

You have, despite my request, not dispelled yourself of the notion that I think there is a Complete Record of Everything. Disappointing. Now I am in the unfortunate position of repeating myself to you because you have made the exact same argument. Why would you do that?

I am merely stating that I could not source some of my claims without such record, I am not currently claiming that you believe that it exists, only that I cannot source this without said record. I don't like repeating myself either.

No, I do not expect you to record every conversation you ever have. However, again, if you are going to introduce these into argument you are going to have to restrict yourself to sources that can be independently examined and verified instead of relying on your say so. Please dear god do not go on again about how you need to record conversations or some such nonsense. I do not want to feel like I'm arguing with a failing Turing Test.

Repeating myself does not make me like a participant in a Turing Test.
So is is. Doesn't really matter.

What did you mean then? Otherwise, that response was without value.

If all things either were or weren't and all sources equal. Instead, it's a slope and "people you've met" are at the bottom of it.

There goes 3/4ths of NSG. No longer may people post about their personal lives, even if it relates to the subject at hand. From now on, only verifiable sources may be allowed. All others will now be punished.

The argument of the thread was a proposed inconsistency in 'so called progressives' in their opinions about Sheehan and by extension, the war. You presented 'people you've met' and characterized their opinions as support for that. With nothing but your word it does in fact resemble your vaunted #4 or, if they exist marginally as you have characterized them #3. Now, I already copped (though you apparently did not understand...in the spirit of this thread, let me google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mea+culpa)) to what I myself regard as lazy hackiness of simply tossing out even a passing reference to logical fallacies as if it was some sort of 'instant win chip' instead of just explaining why the argument does not work itself. But the fact remains, 'people you've met' are not evidence of anything.

And you yourself have admitted to being one of these people. Ergo, the proof has been provided. You didn't need to believe me, I only stated what I could. I had no proof, but, as I have stated before, not all things have verifiable proof. Now, after admitting you are one of said people, you no longer may deny that said people exist.
I'm not sure...do you think you're being clever here, or did you get a phone call while you were typing?
Oh, it hurts, it hurts.:(

Which proves my point. Most "antiwar" people only oppose wars that are started by Presidents belonging to a different political party. Why can't people show some damned consistency and either oppose all wars, or support all of them?
The above proves that you did not use the link that Bottle so graciously supplied?

http://cindysheehanssoapbox.blogspot.com/2009/02/open-letter-to-barack-obama-from-cindy.html

I think there should be a "war tax" levied against every American when there is a conflict to help pay for it. In my opinion, if there is a valid, Constitutionally declared war for defensive purposes, then there should be a universal draft (no exemptions or exceptions) with the children of Congress-members and Presidents being the first to be drafted. I think CEO's and other executives of companies that profit off of war should have their salaries reduced to that of the Infantry during times of war and their children should be second in line for a draft. My proposals are designed to make war obsolete, but at the very least, Americans should be able to see the devastating images of the flag draped coffins.

Taking photographs of the coffins does not violate any kind of privacy, because when the coffins are at Dover AFB, the remains are anonymous. If the families wish privacy when the loved one returns home, that is the family's prerogative.

President Obama, I have a shirt with my son's picture on it and the dates of his birth and death. When he was first killed in April 2004, I would wear it and many strangers would ask me who was in the picture and what happened to him.

I would say: "This is my son, Casey, and he was killed in the war." I cannot tell you how many times the next question was, "What war?" The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are waged on lies, but that there is little to no shared sacrifice is a national disgrace. Yes, removing the ban is a political ploy, but so was instituting it. If more Americans shared in the grief, then maybe more Americans would protest the cause for that grief?

Bringing our needlessly dead children home under the shadow of secrecy exploits their sense of honor, even if the wars and the reasons for secrecy are ignoble.

Bring our troops home immediately and/or lift the ban.
Your claim of inconsistency in regards to the topic you started is non-existent.

I get the feeling most of those opposed to the Iraq War favored a withdrawal while Bush was in office.
and many still would like an immediate withdrawal.

the rest (desperately) wanted a withdrawal during the bush administration because they realized that bush would not make it better so staying would just be a worse fuck-up yet. these people are giving the new administration the benefit of the doubt and trust that mr obama will do a good job in an orderly withdrawal (plus there is already an agreement that combat troops will be out by the end of next month and that the rest will be gone by '11)

Am I supposed to trust your assertion that I'm wrong?

Why do you feel the need to justify your opinion to me? Am I suppose to trust that it really is your opinion?

I am merely stating that I could not source some of my claims without such record, I am not currently claiming that you believe that it exists, only that I cannot source this without said record. I don't like repeating myself either.

Repeating myself does not make me like a participant in a Turing Test.

What did you mean then? Otherwise, that response was without value.

There goes 3/4ths of NSG. No longer may people post about their personal lives, even if it relates to the subject at hand. From now on, only verifiable sources may be allowed. All others will now be punished.

And you yourself have admitted to being one of these people. Ergo, the proof has been provided. You didn't need to believe me, I only stated what I could. I had no proof, but, as I have stated before, not all things have verifiable proof. Now, after admitting you are one of said people, you no longer may deny that said people exist.

Oh, it hurts, it hurts.:(

You'll break your Stretch Armstrong if you keep playing with him like that.

I've now managed to become two things I hate, I participated (started even, ugh) a Great Fallacy Fuckdown (I have to admit, I like that term...) and now have participated (through no small fault of my own) one of those obnoxious 'debate style debates' that are far too common here where posters pat themselves on the back for being 'such good debaters' and condescendingly 'give advice' to their 'opponent.' Thus, I feel dirty and need to take a shower.

I'm sorry that you're humiliated by the realization that Cindy Sheehan's whereabouts are easily determined, and also the fact that most of the top links when you Google are actually progressive organizations and/or leaders and thus the flawed assumption in your OP is kind of pitiful, but there's no need to get grumpy about it. Nobody would even have bothered to check my link and notice the size of your mistake, if you'd just refrained from pitching a tantrum at it. Now they're all going to look.
I actually looked without noticing his tantrum, but that is what I tend to do when people actually post links that may be an answer to my questions or may provide "proof" for their posts.

You'll break your Stretch Armstrong if you keep playing with him like that.

I've now managed to become two things I hate, I participated (started even, ugh) a Great Fallacy Fuckdown (I have to admit, I like that term...) and now have participated (through no small fault of my own) one of those obnoxious 'debate style debates' that are far too common here where posters pat themselves on the back for being 'such good debaters' and condescendingly 'give advice' to their 'opponent.' Thus, I feel dirty and need to take a shower.
Ah, it's human nature to be arrogant sons of bitches. You need not feel bad, take my advice, it'll make you a better person; :p

Closed on request of the OP.