Originally Posted By ecdc Major props to gadzuux and dabob for some superb posts and responses. gadzuux's posts sum up things quite nicely. Brilliant stuff, guys.
Originally Posted By ecdc They were true instead of ridiculous spin. Trying to paint us better off because of Iraq is screamingly funny - but probably not to the families of all the dead Americans and Iraqis. But hey, it ain't your kid, so who cares, right?
Originally Posted By gadzuux Or the americans left in the wake of katrina. But they're poor, black and would never vote for bush anyway, so who cares, right?
Originally Posted By ecdc ^^^Hey, they had it coming! They didn't load up the Honda CRV or the Ford Explorer with the bottled water and dried fruit from Costco and hit the road! How dare they! Reading the responses to Katrina victims and Iraqi victims, it makes me wonder if the so-called "Christian" conservatives have ever propped that New Testament open and read what Jesus had to say about all this.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They were true instead of ridiculous spin.> Hardly. And the rest of your posts and gadzuux's is just scarecrow building.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Major props to gadzuux and dabob for some superb posts and responses. gadzuux's posts sum up things quite nicely. Brilliant stuff, guys.>> If you think gadzuux posts were brilliant compared to Douglas and Hyper it just shows the level of thinking, or lack of it from the libs on here. No wonder they can't keep a simple radio show going with their " intellectual " viewpoints. Sorry libs, but Saddam is not coming back.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Upon further review, the Senate Intelligence Committee has ruled that there was not enough evidence to tie Saddam to Al Qaeda. The initial call was incorrect and they withdraw the flag.>> I see out the lawyer on here has no idea what the Intelligence committee left out of their report to reach their democrat talking point conclusion. A conclusion meant to confuse the suckers and the people who are so easy to mislead.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<A conclusion meant to confuse the suckers and the people who are so easy to mislead.>> Well, I've got to concede that point to you. All those middle-of-the-roaders who voted for Bush in 2004 (like me) had been mislead BIGTIME! Fortunately the REAL libs didn't drink the Kool Aid.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy You started this thread saying Bush lied RT based on a flawed conclusion from democrats. Why are you such a sucker for the spin all the time? I made $300 betting against Minnesota. The libs from Berkley came through for me.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I'd never bet against Minnesota, but I'd never bet for them either -- at least not this year. They lost their entire running game due to guys graduating or going professional.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ To show you how little I care about college football, this is the first I knew that Minnesota was defeated. Who’d they play out there anyway? Does Univ of Calif - Berkeley have a football team? The only CA college teams I know about are UCLA and USC, and I didn't think either one of them was in Berkeley. Oh well. Glad you won some money. More for you to lose in November.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Care to elaborate?>> <The article was far more elaborate than I can be in a post.> Okay. Because I read it, and I don't think it says what you claim. <<Since you, by your own admission, never gave a rat's patootie about Saddam until the Bushes did, I've got you beat.>> <Hardly.> Oh no, we established that ages ago.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >> It is quite possible to recognize Saddam's evil,>> <I don't recall many liberals actually saying that, though, while plenty gleefully said it about our president.> You read the wrong liberals, in both cases. >> and yet say that invading and occupying his country would be unwise. Just as it's quite possible to recognize Kim Jong Il's evil and say that invading the Korean peninsula would be unwise. Which is pretty much Bush's position.>> <Like I said, disagreement is fine. But that's not what we're getting from the left. They are engaging in wholesale character assasination against the president instead of the villains of the world who truly deserve it.> No more than the right did against Clinton while not uttering a peep against Kim or others of his ilk. Why are you pretending it only works one way? Most honest people understand that some people on both sides engage in that kind of hyperbole, but you actually seem to think it's only one way, or overwhelmingly one way. That's ideology, not reality.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >> We can't have much of an effect on a foreign dictator,>> <Saddam's removal, supported by the majority of the American people and the president they elected, would seem to contradict that statement.> Nice attempt at goalpost moving. Obviously I meant that the WORDS of the average American (which is what you were complaining about) couldn't have much effect on a foreign dictator, not the US army. >>> I'm willing to bet that in the 90's you lambasted Clinton a lot more than you did, say, Kim Jong Il.>> <Perhaps, but Kim Jong Il wasn't on the nightly news and I didn't even know really who he was. Saddam was a different story. He WAS a story.> I knew Kim was starving his people in the 90's. It might not have made the nightly news, but it was known to anyone who paid even the slightest attention to foreign affairs. If you didn't know it, whose fault is that? Or do you only oppose dictators when your party tells you to? >>> We succeeded in getting a number of political prisoners released.>>> <The protesting did that? Something tells us you're not giving someone else their due credit.> The protests were part of a larger concerted effort. I don't claim to have done more than the little I could do, but at I least I did do my part. >>> More than I'm betting you've ever done. <Who knows. I do vote regularly, and attend my caucus meetings (all of them), and study the issues, and support good over evil, which I'd guess is at least as effective as marching in circles, chanting and hold a placard.> Since you've apparently never engaged in the sort of larger efforts you dismiss as such, I'm not surprised you don't understand how it works. Sometimes it doesn't work. But you try. And even the simple act of writing letters regarding political prisoners can give them the hope they need to hold on. I've recently received a personal letter of thanks from someone released from a hellhole in Burma (Myanmar) saying how just knowing there were people out there who cared and who kept shining the light on the regime kept him going, and it means a lot to me - you should try it sometime. Occasionally a concerted international effort can even result in the release of someone like Mandela, with transformative results.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> Now we have 2600 americans dead with the trail leading to the white house. What a cruel thing to say. The trail leads to the terrorists, for cryin' out loud. George Bush didn't kill anyone. He asked for people to fight for their country and defend the innocent. The blood is on the hands of those who killed them. This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Terrorists shoot guns, ignite bombs and slit throats. And you say Bush killed them. You're a liar. >>> How many deaths of iraqi innocents has our 'helping' caused? None. Terror is fueling the killing. How many innocent lives have been SAVED by removing Saddam? It's hard to say, but I'm sure they number in the thousands. >>> No he didn't - he pre-empted diplomatic options, going so far as to removing the weapons inspectors so he could begin the 'shock and awe' campaign. So they could be safe. Weapons inspectors were being blown-off for nearly a decade. They weren't working. >>> the outgoing clinton administration tried repeatedly to press the case that bin laden, al qaeda and the taliban were going to be the biggest threat the incoming bush administration would face. Ah, yes. The Clinton Administration, which did so much. Y'know, liberals are great at warning and talking, but aren't so great at doing. And yet I certainly don't blame Clinton for 911. He didn't cause it any more than Bush did, and I'd be a liar if I did so. >>> The ONLY difference? I can think of a few more. Our involvement in the balkan war was a humanitarian effort. You don't really think the same thing about iraq, do you? If so, then it bolsters the arguments that iraq is wholly unrelated to 9/11 and has nothing to do with the war on terror. Oh, you have got to be kidding. The dems march to war and it's strictly "humanitarian" but conservatives go to war and it's "murder." What a double standard. The reasons were the same. Milsovich was a threat to the stability and safety of Eastern Europe. Saddam was the same in the Middle East. And if fighting terror is NOT a humanitarian cause, I don't know what is. >>> Why are you pretending it only works one way? I'm not. But you have two loudmouths on the right (Limbaugh and Coulter) who engage in extreme rhetoric for public. For the most part, conservative leaders and rank-and-file are still reasonably civil in the debate. I am surrounded by conservatives all the time, and we don't go around blaming Clinton for terror, or calling him a murderer, or whatever. (Rapist is about as bad as it gets, but if the shoe fits ...) And even when Coulter shoots off at the mouth, there are many conservatives who say she's taking it too far. Try finding that on the left. Libs from the top to the bottom, from the airwaves to Congress will paint Bush in all of Hitler's colors. Logic, reason, truth aren't necessary. You just don't find that kind of vitriol coming from the right, and even Coulter and Limbaugh have not stooped so far as to call Clinton or Kerry murderers or terrorists, though both have fought in wars and/or led them. >>> Nice attempt at goalpost moving. Obviously I meant that the WORDS of the average American (which is what you were complaining about) couldn't have much effect on a foreign dictator, not the US army. No. Obviously, individuals do have a say. The election of 2000 showed just how much one voice can have. So did Samantha Smith, the girl whose letter caught the attention of a Russian dictator in the 1980s. And when you bad-mouth your own president, and say he has blood on his hands, and blame him for something terrorists did, you give licence to the terrorists overseas. They publish the polls, the quote the blowhards like Cindy Sheehan, and they love every minute of it because it emboldens their minions, sours international opinion against the U.S. and weakens resolve against terror. Vote for whom you like. Write a letter to President Bush objecting to his choices. More power to you. But don't paint him as the enemy, or worse, and expect people to respect your opinion ... because it's trash. Every country has its traitors ... even ours. The more true hyperbole you use against your own countrymen who may not agree but are genuine in their views about foreign threats, the more you turn your back on the good people of this nation who are sacrificing everything for you and for me. And you trash the spirit of civility and loyalty to goodness, despite differences, that once made this country something different ... and wonderful. Instead of constructive criticism, your rhetoric mirrors the pointless whining and gossip that comes from mean girls table in junior high school. Grow up.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> What a cruel thing to say. << I calls `em as I see's `em. The trail leads to the terrorists, for cryin' out loud. George Bush didn't kill anyone. Terrorists that in many cases, weren't in iraq until we took the place over. Conservatives would love to have everyone think that iraq was a hotbed of islamic terrorism before we invaded. It wasn't. We made it that way. >> He asked for people to fight for their country and defend the innocent. << What are you talking about? Bush did no such thing. In fact, they dissolved the iraqi military - what little was left of it - but allowed them to keep their weapons. Good idea, huh. >> The blood is on the hands of those who killed them. << In many cases, that would be the US military. They'll tell you the same thing - we have killed unknown thousands of iraqi civilians. Were they "terrorists"? Or insurgents? Or just innocent victims of war? We don't know, and don't seem to care very much. >> Terrorists shoot guns, ignite bombs and slit throats. And you say Bush killed them. << We shoot guns too. We also drop bombs, and fire missiles. The buck stops with the president - it's "his" war - he started it. I'll tell you ahead of time, spare us the hot air about how the "terrorists" started it with 9/11 - they had no tangible link to iraq. The iraq war is wholly bush's doing, so yes - the blood of innocents is on his hands. >> You're a liar. << You're affronted by my comments about a president that you revere. But it's not a lie, and I've shown you why. Stay civil.
