Democratic Debate

[LSU]

Anybody watch it tonight?

I think Gravel kicked some ass. At least in the competition for loud and obnoxious. But he made me laugh.

Kucinich seems pretty left, and I think that's good to call attention to some of the backtracking the other candidates do...


Overall, pretty useless as too many candidates for too little time available.

[ryr8828]

Between running for President and seeking face time the majority in the houses of Congress for the democrats will not do much more than cause a ruckus. They have no real time for constructive thought.

Some of them become more treasonous by the day.

[Jiddy78]

Between running for President and seeking face time the majority in the houses of Congress for the democrats will not do much more than cause a ruckus. They have no real time for constructive thought.

Some of them become more treasonous by the day.

Interesting rhetoric there old man...but is it really treason if you are a self-serving a-hole representing a nation of the same ilk?

[LSU]

Between running for President and seeking face time the majority in the houses of Congress for the democrats will not do much more than cause a ruckus. They have no real time for constructive thought.

Some of them become more treasonous by the day.

What's more treasonous? Disagreeing with someone or diluting down what treason is to the point where disagreement is treason?


http://humor.beecy.net/politics/bushisms/propaganda/bush-propaganda.jpg

[Vegas]

What's more treasonous? Disagreeing with someone or diluting down what treason is to the point where disagreement is treason?


http://humor.beecy.net/politics/bushisms/propaganda/bush-propaganda.jpg

The possibility that ryr has a valid point didn't occur to you?

And do you know the context of the quote in the photo?

[LSU]

The possibility that ryr has a valid point didn't occur to you?

And do you know the context of the quote in the photo?


If "treason" is the valid point, no it didn't occur to me, and it won't be under the heading of "valid". As for the photo, I have no idea the context. I didn't even know it was a real quote. I just googled "propagand" and that was the first thing that came up. If rhetoric is what were going for here, I can surely oblige.

[Jiddy78]

The possibility that ryr has a valid point didn't occur to you?

And do you know the context of the quote in the photo?

I'd say that it not only occurred, I'd say that I had to DEMAND said "validity" from him, as the accusation is hardly a small one. He's got a lot of work to do...Lotta democrats out there he generalized as committing a pretty heinous crime....

[ryr8828]

I'd say that it not only occurred, I'd say that I had to DEMAND said "validity" from him, as the accusation is hardly a small one. He's got a lot of work to do...Lotta democrats out there he generalized as committing a pretty heinous crime....

We'll start with Harry Reid and "This war is lost". If that's not giving aid and comfort to the enemy I don't know what the hell is. All for political gain nonetheless.
Leahy's neverending leaks of classified information.
The Plame and Wilson set up of the administration for political gain, most clearly for the advancement of John Kerry.

On November 14, 2005, former and soon-to-be again Senate Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) proudly proclaimed on Fox News Sunday, "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq Ð that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11."



In the new tape from al Qaeda No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri, the al Qaeda leader tells the leaders of the Democratic party that the terrorists are responsible for the defeat of congressional Republicans (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/al_qaeda_sends_.html):
"The first is that you aren't the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen -- the Muslim Ummah's vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq -- are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost," Zawahri said, according to a full transcript obtained by ABC News.
Zawahri calls on the Democrats to negotiate with him and Osama bin Laden, not others in the Islamic world who Zawahri says cannot help.
"And if you don't refrain from the foolish American policy of backing Israel, occupying the lands of Islam and stealing the treasures of the Muslims, then await the same fate," he said.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/al_qaedas_message_to_democrats



Ted Kennedy's letter to the KGB, anyone remember that?

Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria to "negotiate" with one ot the world's leading sponsors of terrorism, against the wishes of the administration.



"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged"- Abraham Lincoln

[ryr8828]

Writings by someone else that reflect my point of view:

More Democratic Treason
Imagine the morale of Nazi Baathists if the liberal press were united against their evil, instead of united against America?

June 28 2005
Counterbias.com
by Ted Baiamonte
R E P U B L I C A N V I E W
Ronald Reagan expressed it most famously when he said, "why do they always blame America first?"
Ann Coulter recently wrote an entire book called Treason about the Democrats. I recently turned on Air America, the liberal radio network, to hear Al Franken pretending to shed tears about how much he loved our troops in Iraq, but two minutes later his patriotism seemed to fade instantly as he made fun of the troops in Afghanistan for not finding Osama Bin Laden. A recent Paul Krugman ultra-liberal column in the Times dismissed the American free market, which is 100% responsibly for giving us the highest standard of living in the history of the world, in favor of single payer socialist healthcare.

So why do liberals hate America? The answer is simple: America, since the Revolution, has been mostly about freedom from government and therefore about freedom from Democrats. Throughout American History the Democrats have always been for less and less freedom from government despite the hundred million or so dead bodies government has caused during that period. One has to consider that their philosophical illegitimacy is what makes their loyalty so questionable and their style so nasty and seemingly treasonous. They want to belong here but the facts always paint them as anti-American. In a way you have to feel sorry for the painful position in which they find themselves, but you also have to wonder why it is that they seem to have an absolute inability to learn to think?

The latest liberal treason award should probably go to the New York Times. We are at war in Iraq against Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party. By almost any standard we are the most noble country in the history of the world while Saddam Hussein's Iraq is among the most ignoble. Recently, there was a story out of Iraq about an enemy soldier who blew up a bomb in a public square killing about twenty people, many of who turned out to be orphan children peddling groceries in the street. Their idea of acceptable collateral damage extends to any man, woman or child who might be near anyone who might be vaguely associated, if only by geographic default, with the war against them, and this is when they cannot behead a living, fully conscious, captured soldier or hostage, and all this is in support of a regime that is arguably more grotesque and has less electoral legitimacy than even Adolph Hitler's.

So in the last year, how many times did the vaunted Times (the so called "newspaper of record") run front page headlines about how perhaps the scummiest, most illegitimate regime on earth conducts war: zero! How many times did they run front page headlines about how America conducts war? There have been 49 front page headlines about our so called conduct at Abu Ghraib alone. It wasn't that we were blowing up innocent children in the street or slowly cutting off the heads of fully conscious prisoners as the insurgents do, it was that a few Americans, later found to be criminals, were making the prisoners get in human pyramids while naked or in women's underwear.

Why is it that the liberal Times wants you to know more and care more about the way America is conducting the war than the way Saddam's Hussein's Nazi Baathists are conducting the war? The answer is simple: the liberals hate America and always have. In Vietnam they shouted, "Ho Ho, Ho Chi Minh." They are not yet shouting, "Saddam Saddam, Saddam Hussein", but the effect is exactly the same. They are seeking to undermine America; not America's evil enemy. So what does that make a liberal?
Our troops, many of them kids, are on the battlefield with the simple moral clarity to fight against pure evil. When they get wounded they heal, when possible, and then heroically and voluntarily return to fight again alongside their fellow soldiers. Don't we owe them more than the treasonous, undermining liberal commentary we get on the front page of the Times? Don't the liberals know that once the war is on, and there is no way out, we're all supposed to be on the same team? Are they so alienated from the soul of America that they would rather see its children die on the battlefield than prevail against evil?

Imagine what the morale of the Nazi Baathists would be if the world's liberal press were united against their evil, instead of united against America? Imagine what the morale of our troops would be if the most significant and influential newspaper in the world at least tried to be loyal to the truth, instead of, in effect, the enemy? Imagine what the state of the world would be if the world's liberal press organized the world's citizenry against evil, instead of the American freedom that they blindly see, to the exclusion of everything else, as insensitive and uncaring. But if that happened it wouldn't be a liberal Democratic press would it?


http://www.counterbias.com/329.html

[Nixon's Head]

Wow...that's some big text.

[ryr8828]

Wow...that's some big text.

I tried to edit it down 3 times with no success.

[Jiddy78]

We'll start with Harry Reid and "This war is lost". If that's not giving aid and comfort to the enemy I don't know what the hell is. All for political gain nonetheless.
Leahy's neverending leaks of classified information.
The Plame and Wilson set up of the administration for political gain, most clearly for the advancement of John Kerry.

On November 14, 2005, former and soon-to-be again Senate Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) proudly proclaimed on Fox News Sunday, "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq Ð that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11."



In the new tape from al Qaeda No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri, the al Qaeda leader tells the leaders of the Democratic party that the terrorists are responsible for the defeat of congressional Republicans (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/al_qaeda_sends_.html):
"The first is that you aren't the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen -- the Muslim Ummah's vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq -- are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost," Zawahri said, according to a full transcript obtained by ABC News.
Zawahri calls on the Democrats to negotiate with him and Osama bin Laden, not others in the Islamic world who Zawahri says cannot help.
"And if you don't refrain from the foolish American policy of backing Israel, occupying the lands of Islam and stealing the treasures of the Muslims, then await the same fate," he said.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/al_qaedas_message_to_democrats



Ted Kennedy's letter to the KGB, anyone remember that?

Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria to "negotiate" with one ot the world's leading sponsors of terrorism, against the wishes of the administration.



"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged"- Abraham Lincoln



Whoa...That's a lot there Sleeping Dragon...

The Israel/Muslim thing perplexes me...Why don't we like the muslims again? I try to get this answer from my wife and her family...but it always somehow turns into a Bush bashing event...Maybe the old man can shed some light?


A few points about some of your presented evidence:

#1 Does this thing still qualify as a war? Did it ever? Seems more like a policing campaign than a war...Go in...Clean up the trash...Move on...Of course, like all coordinated events by the government, it takes 100 times too long to do and costs way too much...But ya know what makes this "cost" different than anything you will b*tch about domestically (ie social security/government handouts/illegals taking our jobs)??? People are dying in the process.

Yeah...That kinda hurts to watch...


#2 A statement made by the #2 asshole in the world is nothing more than manipulation. I'm sure you don't believe anything else. Would you accept any other of the guy's life views? Yeah, uh, no...He chops off people's heads on videotape... WHO is actually creating the "division" here? Sounds like manipulation to me...When the bad guy is trying to "create" division, is it truly there? Like a bluff in poker...Now, if you want to argue the merit of division itself...but a few people like that Cindy lady that camp outside of Bush's place is hardly a revolt...People are unhappy...but they know what brings food to the table...Soooooo...Complacency is king. NOT division IMO. Therefore, is this even a relevant point?

#3 Ted Kennedy's letter is not in my memory banks...but I'd be more than happy to put it there.

[Jiddy78]

I tried to edit it down 3 times with no success.


Technology 276

ryr 0

[ryr8828]

Whoa...That's a lot there Sleeping Dragon...

The Israel/Muslim thing perplexes me...Why don't we like the muslims again? I try to get this answer from my wife and her family...but it always somehow turns into a Bush bashing event...Maybe the old man can shed some light?


A few points about some of your presented evidence:

#1 Does this thing still qualify as a war? Did it ever? Seems more like a policing campaign than a war...Go in...Clean up the trash...Move on...Of course, like all coordinated events by the government, it takes 100 times too long to do and costs way too much...But ya know what makes this "cost" different than anything you will b*tch about domestically (ie social security/government handouts/illegals taking our jobs)??? People are dying in the process.

Yeah...That kinda hurts to watch...


#2 A statement made by the #2 asshole in the world is nothing more than manipulation. I'm sure you don't believe anything else. Would you accept any other of the guy's life views? Yeah, uh, no...He chops off people's heads on videotape... WHO is actually creating the "division" here? Sounds like manipulation to me...When the bad guy is trying to "create" division, is it truly there? Like a bluff in poker...Now, if you want to argue the merit of division itself...but a few people like that Cindy lady that camp outside of Bush's place is hardly a revolt...People are unhappy...but they know what brings food to the table...Soooooo...Complacency is king. NOT division IMO. Therefore, is this even a relevant point?

#3 Ted Kennedy's letter is not in my memory banks...but I'd be more than happy to put it there.

The War against Iraq was won a long time ago. The war against extremist muslim terrorists continues.

The AlQuaeda leader's statement is a valid point imo regarding their frame of mind. The Democrats embolden them on a regular basis. Cindy Sheehan is simply a pawn of the left, I feel sorry for the poor woman.

Ted Kennedy's contact with the KGB, here's the first google hit:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20061027-084248-4386r.htm

[Jiddy78]

The War against Iraq was won a long time ago. The war against extremist muslim terrorists continues.

The AlQuaeda leader's statement is a valid point imo regarding their frame of mind. The Democrats embolden them on a regular basis. Cindy Sheehan is simply a pawn of the left, I feel sorry for the poor woman.

Ted Kennedy's contact with the KGB, here's the first google hit:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20061027-084248-4386r.htm



I think Vegas had the over/under at 12 seconds.

[Jiddy78]

The War against Iraq was won a long time ago. The war against extremist muslim terrorists continues.

The AlQuaeda leader's statement is a valid point imo regarding their frame of mind. The Democrats embolden them on a regular basis. Cindy Sheehan is simply a pawn of the left, I feel sorry for the poor woman.

Ted Kennedy's contact with the KGB, here's the first google hit:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20061027-084248-4386r.htm


I was teasing my wife by speaking into her belly the weekend before the last...I kept saying "Dubya" "Dubya" into her belly...

She didn't talk to me for like 2 hours...I posted on the boards, of course. :p

[IBC]

Between running for President and seeking face time the majority in the houses of Congress for the democrats will not do much more than cause a ruckus. They have no real time for constructive thought.

Some of them become more treasonous by the day.

Wow, just wow.

[Jiddy78]

Wow, just wow.

You support treason...Thus...You are treason.

Or something like that...

[ryr8828]

You support treason...Thus...You are treason.

Or something like that...

He only gives aid and comfort to the enemy on this site, and I don't know that Al Quaeda views this site.

[IBC]

He only gives aid and comfort to the enemy on this site, and I don't know that Al Quaeda views this site.

This tired shit from conservatives is getting old. You guys fucked our country over and then you say it was us? What a joke.

[ryr8828]

This tired shit from conservatives is getting old. You guys fucked our country over and then you say it was us? What a joke.

What with there being only around 4 conservatives on this site I know we've worn you libs out with all our posting.

[IBC]

What with there being only around 4 conservatives on this site I know we've worn you libs out with all our posting.

In general. You seriously, after all the failures of teh last 6 years have teh balls to call liberals traitors. Its laughable.

[ryr8828]

In general. You seriously, after all the failures of teh last 6 years have teh balls to call liberals traitors. Its laughable.


Yes I have those balls.

Those who give aid and comfort to the enemy, those who leak classified military information for political gain, those who meet with enemies of the US while being discouraged from doing so by the President,

are treasonous and in fact are traitors.

And when you look at the list of these people an overwhelming percentage of them are liberals.

[hannitykillspuppies]

getting us into a war with a country that posed no threat to the US isn't treasonous?

[Jiddy78]

He only gives aid and comfort to the enemy on this site, and I don't know that Al Quaeda views this site.

If you live it...If you breathe it...You are it. You condemn quite a few people with your statement old man...but don't feel bad...I do it daily. So at least one person can empathize. :p

[ryr8828]

getting us into a war with a country that posed no threat to the US isn't treasonous?

Both houses of congress voted to approve that action.

[IBC]

Yes I have those balls.

Those who give aid and comfort to the enemy, those who leak classified military information for political gain, those who meet with enemies of the US while being discouraged from doing so by the President,

are treasonous and in fact are traitors.

And when you look at the list of these people an overwhelming percentage of them are liberals.

Again, you offer no proof short of the BS propaganda you posted earlier. There is no use talking with you. Leaking classified info for political gain. LOL.

[IBC]

Both houses of congress voted to approve that action.

Yes, it was a bipartisan war. Must repeat same bullshit.

[ryr8828]

Again, you offer no proof short of the BS propaganda you posted earlier. There is no use talking with you. Leaking classified info for political gain. LOL.

When you post something it's gospel. When I post events, they're BS propaganda. There seems to be a problem with that line of reasoning.

[IBC]

When you post something it's gospel. When I post events, they're BS propaganda. There seems to be a problem with that line of reasoning.

Uh-huh. That is what I have been saying. I say don't make ridiculous claims without being able to back them up. I am attacked as a traitor to my country. I backed up my claim. Yours, not so much. Keep changing the subject.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Both houses of congress voted to approve that action.

right i know. that's the standard conservative response. bush's rubber stamp congress voted for the war. got it.

who proposed the war?

[ryr8828]

Uh-huh. That is what I have been saying. I say don't make ridiculous claims without being able to back them up. I am attacked as a traitor to my country. I backed up my claim. Yours, not so much. Keep changing the subject.

I have seen no proof from you on anything, nice try.

[ryr8828]

right i know. that's the standard conservative response. bush's rubber stamp congress voted for the war. got it.

who proposed the war?

Look at the list of those who voted yes. Some are running for President right now under the Democrat ticket.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Look at the list of those who voted yes. Some are running for President right now under the Democrat ticket.
you just said the same thing only in a different manner.

who proposed the war?

[IBC]

I have seen no proof from you on anything, nice try.

Whatever man.

[IBC]

Look at the list of those who voted yes. Some are running for President right now under the Democrat ticket.

It just gets more and more ridiculous. You don't see teh flaws in your logic? By your logic you should vote Kucinich. I actually agree with you. I won't vote for someone that supported the war. I want the architects of this war on trial. They were wrong, Dems and Repubs. The architects were repubs.

[Vegas]

you just said the same thing only in a different manner.

who proposed the war?

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

[IBC]

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

Ahh yes. Why did Clinton and his administration get us into this war?

[hannitykillspuppies]

It just gets more and more ridiculous. You don't see teh flaws in your logic? By your logic you should vote Kucinich. I actually agree with you. I won't vote for someone that supported the war. I want the architects of this war on trial. They were wrong, Dems and Repubs. The architects were repubs.
excuse me, there is no such thing as flawed conservative logic.

[Jiddy78]

Whatever man.

Quitting like a true "righty-perceived" liberal? That's not like you Ibca.

[hannitykillspuppies]

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
bill clinton led us into iraq in 1998? i must have missed that year.

say what you want about clinton, at least he wasn't a puppet, unlike a certain currently serving president. rummy and wolfie tried for 8 years to get him to attack iraq. at least he understood he should probably have a justifiable reason. and really what the hell does bill clinton have to do with any of this discussion?

[IBC]

Quitting like a true "righty-perceived" liberal? That's not like you Ibca.

Its just not worth it. I will not sit around and be called a traitor. It the most bush-league shit in the political playbook.

[Vegas]

Its just not worth it. I will not sit around and be called a traitor. It the most bush-league shit in the political playbook.

You weren't called a traitor. The liberal politicians guilty of the conduct discussed were called traitors.

[Jiddy78]

You weren't called a traitor. The liberal politicians guilty of the conduct discussed were called traitors.

This is what I was trying to get out of ryr...Logic would lead you to conclude that those who support traitors, are, in fact, themselves traitors.

???

Step up to the plate old man. If yer gonna jump the shark, go all out baby.

[ryr8828]

This is what I was trying to get out of ryr...Logic would lead you to conclude that those who support traitors, are, in fact, themselves traitors.

???

Step up to the plate old man. If yer gonna jump the shark, go all out baby.

Most are only mislead. They have nothing to gain from their blind following of appeasement.

[Nixon's Head]

He only gives aid and comfort to the enemy on this site, and I don't know that Al Quaeda views this site.I tried to sign up, but they said my beard was too full.

[Jiddy78]

Most are only mislead. They have nothing to gain from their blind following of appeasement.

Eh...But herein lies the rub...IF you follow something you believe to be right and good, have you committed a crime? The most important aspect IMO of damning is, and always will be, intent.

What is the intent?

Could it be treason? IF it can be proven that it is not done for the good of this country...but there seems to be a lot of gray area...

Although nothing is more fun than a plot twist, this is real life...and real beliefs...So if one is to make accusation...Well....

[Vegas]

Eh...But herein lies the rub...IF you follow something you believe to be right and good, have you committed a crime? The most important aspect IMO of damning is, and always will be, intent.

What is the intent?

Could it be treason? IF it can be proven that it is not done for the good of this country...but there seems to be a lot of gray area...

Although nothing is more fun than a plot twist, this is real life...and real beliefs...So if one is to make accusation...Well....

So those who gave secrets to the Soviets out of ideology in the earlier stages of the cold war were not traitors?

[Nixon's Head]

So those who gave secrets to the Soviets out of ideology in the earlier stages of the cold war were not traitors?Phantom patriots.

[LSU]

This just really makes me sick. Throwing around such a serious crime (i.e., treason, i.e., unpatriotic) for what amounts to differences in policy and ideals.

Because you say (or think) a different viewpoint aids the enemy does not mean it does. One of Al Qaeda's objectives is to drain the US of resources. Do you not think Bush fell right into that "desire" by funneling all the resources to Iraq? I certainly could call that aiding the enemy, but that is utterly ridiculous.

The point at which you call the opposition traitors simply for doing what you don't want them to do is the exact same time the laws and rights and everything this country was built on are degraded.

In fact, the degradation of our government and nation could be construed as treason and unpatriotic. But still, I will not lower myself to that sort of rhetoric.

After reading the initial claims of treason last night, I've had serious considerations in my head whether or not having discussions where that sort of rhetoric is used and supported is really worth my time. It literally disgusts me.

[Jiddy78]

So those who gave secrets to the Soviets out of ideology in the earlier stages of the cold war were not traitors?

Depends...Whose trust has been betrayed? And are they in the right? Right and wrong has a different perspective after years pass....I wouldn't doubt that in 50 years people view Bush's actions as something historically great and pioneering...Imagine a scenario where the western world MUST defend itself and its ideals...and the foundation set here in Iraq is what ensures victory...

Libs would scoff...but just as history has destroyed the greatest empires...so too can it build bigger ones...Just, what kind?

Just thinking out loud..

[ryr8828]

Depends...Whose trust has been betrayed? And are they in the right? Right and wrong has a different perspective after years pass....I wouldn't doubt that in 50 years people view Bush's actions as something historically great and pioneering...Imagine a scenario where the western world MUST defend itself and its ideals...and the foundation set here in Iraq is what ensures victory...

Libs would scoff...but just as history has destroyed the greatest empires...so too can it build bigger ones...Just, what kind?

Just thinking out loud..

You have found the hypnotoad.

[IBC]

This just really makes me sick. Throwing around such a serious crime (i.e., treason, i.e., unpatriotic) for what amounts to differences in policy and ideals.

Because you say (or think) a different viewpoint aids the enemy does not mean it does. One of Al Qaeda's objectives is to drain the US of resources. Do you not think Bush fell right into that "desire" by funneling all the resources to Iraq? I certainly could call that aiding the enemy, but that is utterly ridiculous.

The point at which you call the opposition traitors simply for doing what you don't want them to do is the exact same time the laws and rights and everything this country was built on are degraded.

In fact, the degradation of our government and nation could be construed as treason and unpatriotic. But still, I will not lower myself to that sort of rhetoric.

After reading the initial claims of treason last night, I've had serious considerations in my head whether or not having discussions where that sort of rhetoric is used and supported is really worth my time. It literally disgusts me.
At some point you give credence to an idea by opposing it. For that reason, I regret having this convo today.

[LSU]

At some point you give credence to an idea by opposing it. For that reason, I regret having this convo today.



I don't. I've been posting with these guys for a long time.

We're not giving creedence to anything. We're a bunch of average joe's having a conversation. I'll give my point of view when I feel I need to...

[IBC]

I don't. I've been posting with these guys for a long time.

We're not giving creedence to anything. We're a bunch of average joe's having a conversation. I'll give my point of view when I feel I need to...

I wasn't meaning you in particular. I feel i did by even arguing about the traitor issue. It is ridiculous and didn't even dignify a response. I still can't halp myslef though.

[LSU]

I wasn't meaning you in particular. I feel i did by even arguing about the traitor issue. It is ridiculous and didn't even dignify a response. I still can't halp myslef though.


I think it does deserve a response. Just as when some extreme lefty throws something out that I think is ludicrous, I'll contend it. Should work both ways for both sides. If we (the nation) are ever able to settle down and get beyond the petty bomb throwing, this country will be the benefactor. Until then, we're just tearing ourselves down from the inside.

[pnkpanther]

Dick Cheney in a post-mortem on the first Gulf War at the Soref Symposium, 4/29/1991:



I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

[ryr8828]

Dick Cheney in a post-mortem on the first Gulf War at the Soref Symposium, 4/29/1991:



I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

You're the same guy who posted that Bush didn't know there were different factions in Iraq. Cheney is his Vice President.

[ryr8828]

Dick Cheney in a post-mortem on the first Gulf War at the Soref Symposium, 4/29/1991:



I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

And to add, apparently he changed his mind since he is constantly accused of orchestrating this war to amass huge profits for his company. I've read that Bush is a puppet and Cheney pulls the strings.

[pnkpanther]

You're the same guy who posted that Bush didn't know there were different factions in Iraq. Cheney is his Vice President.

according to a US ambassador, he didnt and bush has never presnted himself as an Astute or worldly man, so it's not a stretch for me to believe..

if say bush was asked a question and he didnt studder for an answer and always seemed to grasp sitution, i'd doubt it

[pnkpanther]

And to add, apparently he changed his mind since he is constantly accused of orchestrating this war to amass huge profits for his company. I've read that Bush is a puppet and Cheney pulls the strings.

do you doubt the quote?

i mean, i gave a time and the speech

[hannitykillspuppies]

You're the same guy who posted that Bush didn't know there were different factions in Iraq. Cheney is his Vice President.

cheney is not bush.

[ryr8828]

do you doubt the quote?

i mean, i gave a time and the speech

I don't doubt the quote. That's why I said he must have changed his mind.

[hannitykillspuppies]

And to add, apparently he changed his mind since he is constantly accused of orchestrating this war to amass huge profits for his company. I've read that Bush is a puppet and Cheney pulls the strings.

so he is a flip flopper.

[hannitykillspuppies]

I don't doubt the quote. That's why I said he must have changed his mind.

he voted against it before he voted for it.

[pnkpanther]

I don't doubt the quote. That's why I said he must have changed his mind.

ahhh so he waffeled on the subject

bastard

[Vegas]

so he is a flip flopper.

A lot of perspectives changed after 9/11.

[ryr8828]

ahhh so he waffeled on the subject

bastard

At least it was several years and not just a few months.

[pnkpanther]

At least it was several years and not just a few months.

or maybe somethign changed in the bills that made him change his mind

ie, he approved it when there was a plan to pay for it, the new plan called for,well not paying for it let the future pay for it

[hannitykillspuppies]

A lot of perspectives changed after 9/11.

because iraq was involved in 9/11.

[Jiddy78]

You have found the hypnotoad.

I never said the western way was "right" per se...

:eek:


It's just the "most" right.

:cool:

[Reagan Smash]

This is America. We respect people who have the courage to change there convictions, and hate anyone who is a flip-flopper.