Russ Feingold: Latest Idiot Hero to the Militant Left, Useless In Washington

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='Cheese']Former PM Allawi[/quote]
That's the key point. Why don't we rely on former President Gerald Ford for advice on what to do in Iraq? They are out of the picture, they are private citizens. He has as much say in the issue as me or you. He has more experience, no doubt, but not anymore. When's the last time he's had a security briefing? Hell, does he even live in Iraq?

I'd like to see a side by side comparison of the rights of the people in Iraq under Saddam and the rights of them under the new constitution. I just looked up the Ba'athist Constitution, which as a theoretic document seems pretty sound, in my quick review of it I found few things separated it from the current constitution: the current one has the previously mentioned religious undertones, and the Ba'athist one has an 'Arabs Only' overtone. So kinda a trade off. For the most part it seems it's the 'in practice' part that got screwed up.

Iraq under the Ba'athists already had more freedoms then most middle eastern countries, no religious police, freedom of religion, open Universities, equality for women, etc. It seems the biggest problems were: A) ruled by a minority. B) Headed by a family of nutty egomaniacs. But, that's why it was chosen as the first target in the PNAC plan. The thinking being if you cut off the crazy head, the rest of the body just might fall in line, and the idea was that turning it into a fully realized western style democracy wouldn't be so hard.

alonzo made a good point, why would you side with a Constitution "protected" by a totalitarian before one representative of a unity, republican style government? To say Hussein and his party gave his people more freedom is astoundingly out of touch. I mean, equality for women? Some were rounded up and locked in rape rooms for days because government officials wanted some pussy.

We've always proclaimed intolerance to 'blood thirsty' dictators, while at the same time propping them up. The US has always been hard on Syria, but not so much to piss them off and risk them attacking Israel. The 'Cedar Revolution' had nothing to do with the US in Iraq, and besides some ProBush blogs, I can't find any evidence to the contrary.

Again, I guess it could just be an awfully big coincidence. They just happen to revolt for their freedom after almost 30 years of occupation. Hariri had a lot to do with it, but let's not be completely naive just because you're not a big fan of democracy.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/11/bush_began_iraq_plan_pre_911_oneill_says/

So what? You want me to pull out some Dick Morris?

 

[Cheese]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']That's the key point. Why don't we rely on former President Gerald Ford for advice on what to do in Iraq?[/quote]

Ford was President 30+ years ago. Allawi was PM, what? A YEAR ago? Bit of a difference. And yes, I believe he lives in Iraq.

alonzo made a good point, why would you side with a Constitution "protected" by a totalitarian before one representative of a unity, republican style government?

Wow, that's not what I said at all. I said they were comparable, that there were trade offs in spooky overtones and that the biggest difference seems to how it was practiced, abused.

To say Hussein and his party gave his people more freedom is astoundingly out of touch. I mean, equality for women? Some were rounded up and locked in rape rooms for days because government officials wanted some pussy.

Again, not what I said. I said under the Ba'athists women had more rights then most other middle eastern countries. And yes, governmental powers were abused, and I said as much. I just wonder with 'moral standards' and Shira law themes in the Iraqi constitution if women's rights will last very long or will they be be up to interpretation depending on who's in power.

Again, I guess it could just be an awfully big coincidence. They just happen to revolt for their freedom after almost 30 years of occupation. Hariri had a lot to do with it, but let's not be completely naive just because you're not a big fan of democracy.

The Hariri assassination was the trigger for a movement that was long in the making. The US making a civil war ridden mess out of Iraq had nothing to do with it.

And I am not against democracy, yet again you are taking large unsubstantiated leaps in logic. I have been more then civil with you and haven't attacked you personally which you seem to do every post, please extend me the same courtesy.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/11/bush_began_iraq_plan_pre_911_oneill_says/"

So what?

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']For you to dismiss him is, unfortunately, to be expected, as anyone who doesn't seem to say what you want to hear would be troubling for you to take in. [/quote]

Just sayin' is all.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']alonzo made a good point, why would you side with a Constitution "protected" by a totalitarian before one representative of a unity, republican style government? To say Hussein and his party gave his people more freedom is astoundingly out of touch. I mean, equality for women? Some were rounded up and locked in rape rooms for days because government officials wanted some pussy. [/quote]

Well, there usually was some reason. But womens rights were better before, and women played more active roles in government and society. But, they faced other restrictions on freedoms that men did as well, and, in the end, there is a net gain now when compared with before, even if not every issue taken individually is better now.

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='Cheese']Ford was President 30+ years ago. Allawi was PM, what? A YEAR ago? Bit of a difference. And yes, I believe he lives in Iraq.[/quote]

Semantics. We're still talking private citizens. I'd trust Gen. Casey before I'd trust Mr. Allawi and I'll tell you why. Gen. Casey has everything to lose to claim there isn't a civil war if, in fact, there is. He's ultimately the one most responsible militarily, if something goes wrong people are going to lay a lot of blame on him, not Mr. Allawi. Allawi can make any prediction he wants, whether it's wrong or not doesn't amount to a hill of beans, Gen. Casey on the other hand has significantly more at stake. Not to mention one is much better equipped to make an assessment like that.

Wow, that's not what I said at all. I said they were comparable, that there were trade offs in spooky overtones and that the biggest difference seems to how it was practiced, abused.

Again, not what I said. I said under the Ba'athists women had more rights then most other middle eastern countries. And yes, governmental powers were abused, and I said as much. I just wonder with 'moral standards' and Shira law themes in the Iraqi constitution if women's rights will last very long or will they be be up to interpretation depending on who's in power.

I'm sure if you submitted to the will of the government party and as long as you never questioned the party you did have more 'rights' if you were a woman. I guess it all depends on your definition of rights.

The Hariri assassination was the trigger for a movement that was long in the making. The US making a civil war ridden mess out of Iraq had nothing to do with it.

And I am not against democracy, yet again you are taking large unsubstantiated leaps in logic. I have been more then civil with you and haven't attacked you personally which you seem to do every post, please extend me the same courtesy.

Again, if you're a believer in big coincidences, then maybe your story has some weight. They just happened to wait until there was significant American presence in the Middle East to stand up.

No, you jumping to civil war because a few liberal editorials and a former PM are telling people it's happening might be an unsubstantiated jump though. Let me rephrase though, because I'll admit that did come out in a way I didn't mean for it to. You don't believe in America's responsibility to spread democracy.

Just sayin' is all.

Bill Clinton's War, and Bush's

​

By Dick Morris

FrontPageMagazine.com | December 1, 2005Here’s a story most newspapers buried, if they ran it at all: Bosnia's three key ethnic/political groups (Muslims, Serbs and Croats) have all agreed to unify their nation and end the tripartite government bequeathed them by the Dayton peace accords negotiated in 1995 after a heavy round of American bombing.

No longer were racial hatreds so deep that these three factions needed to stay away from one another. Now the desire to centralize to join Europe and grow economically has overcome the animosities that led to 250,000 deaths in the early 1990s.

Should we expect a similar article 10 years hence — about Iraq?

As intense as the killing has been in Iraq, with 30,000 civilian and 2,000 U.S. military deaths, it doesn't come close to Bosnia's quarter-million genocide. But constitution-making, nation-building, and planting the seeds of democracy have still worked in Bosnia.

To cap it all off, the Bosnian Serbs said that they would undertake "all possible measures and actions to find and apprehend" the two most widely sought war criminals: Radovan Karadzic and Gen. Ratko Mladic, once their political and military leaders.

President Bill Clinton was right to invest in "nation-building" after the U.S. military action in Bosnia, and 2000 presidential candidate George W. Bush was wrong to criticize him for it. And now President Bush is right to push nation-building in Iraq, while ex-President Clinton is wrong to criticize the military action as a "huge mistake."

Nation-building, while tedious and costly in lives and money, is the only way to reconcile hatreds so that the great cycle of revenge killings and wars does not continue to hold nations in its grip.

Symptomatic of the growth of an Iraqi democracy was the declaration at the recent Arab League meeting by both Shi'ite and Sunni Iraqi representatives demanding a schedule for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

We all agree that America needs, ultimately, to withdraw from Iraq (though possibly keeping a base there to assure that the bad guys don't regain power by military means). But Sunnis have been trying to blast us out, with each bomb amplifying Democratic and left-wing calls back home for a pullout. But now both factions have joined as part of a political process, a signal breakthrough.

The factions, bitter enemies for centuries, have now come together in a political statement. The progress this shows is immense, and its promise is immeasurable. It presages just the kind of unity and democratic cooperation we now see on the former killing fields of Bosnia.

Fortunately, Bill Clinton had the courage to defy the United Nations in 1995 and bomb the Bosnian Serbs (with NATO cooperation and sponsorship). Then he had the foresight to send in U.S. peacekeeping forces, a deeply unpopular step.

Now the former president fails to see how Bush's policies in Iraq will succeed just as his did in Bosnia. But his partisan myopia should not cloud our vision. Success in Iraq may seem as unlikely as it once did in Bosnia. But, if we persevere, it will come just as surely.

Just saying is all.

 

[alonzomourning23]

Again, if you're a believer in big coincidences, then maybe your story has some weight. They just happened to wait until there was significant American presence in the Middle East to stand up.

Or they just waited until tensions were already building and then their form PM was assinated by the occupying power.

This is kind of like the Libya situation. Gaddafi had made offers, beginning in 99, to give up his WMD program. The previous administration had rejected the conditions. He had long been trying to get back into the international community and remove sanctions to improve libya's struggling economy. Previous steps had already been taken (such as handing over of lockerbie suspects) in previous years.

You have a tendency to see correlations as causations. Coincidence happen all the time, and can be produced for almost any situation.

Just saying is all.

If you want to present a frontpagemag article as your opinion then that's one thing, but it's worthless as an argument to support anything. It's the same as a counterpunch or indymedia article.

 

[Cheese]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Semantics. We're still talking private citizens. I'd trust Gen. Casey before I'd trust Mr. Allawi and I'll tell you why. Gen. Casey has everything to lose to claim there isn't a civil war if, in fact, there is. He's ultimately the one most responsible militarily, if something goes wrong people are going to lay a lot of blame on him, not Mr. Allawi. Allawi can make any prediction he wants, whether it's wrong or not doesn't amount to a hill of beans, Gen. Casey on the other hand has significantly more at stake. Not to mention one is much better equipped to make an assessment like that. [/quote]

Not to slight General Casey, but to get this straight, in the context of an internal political and religious struggle inside Iraq, you're going to go with the guy who's been there less then two years against a guy who's been a internal political figure there, still heads a party there, is still deeply involved in the government, and knows all the ins and outs of the innumerable political and religious factions. Right? OK.

Unless the factions in Iraq actually put on the Blues and Greys this administration will never admit there is a civil war going on there, or even the beginnings of one. It's rainbows and flowers all day and all night.

I'm sure if you submitted to the will of the government party and as long as you never questioned the party you did have more 'rights' if you were a woman. I guess it all depends on your definition of rights.

First, I was comparing the two documents, not their implementation. Second, people who are speaking out against the government are being killed NOW. Trucks of execution style murder victims, kidnappings, political assassinations, political party run death squads, etc. The writing is on the wall.

Again, if you're a believer in big coincidences, then maybe your story has some weight. They just happened to wait until there was significant American presence in the Middle East to stand up.

See above.

No, you jumping to civil war because a few liberal editorials and a former PM are telling people it's happening might be an unsubstantiated jump though.

Yes, a 'few liberal editorials' like this comment a few weeks back from another 'moonbat liberal'...

STEPHANOPOULOS: What does civil war look like?

GEORGE WILL: This. This is a civil war.

Seriously, what is your definition of a civil war? Maybe I'm just setting the bar too low, y'know with the militias shooting each other and trading bombings and all.

Let me rephrase though, because I'll admit that did come out in a way I didn't mean for it to. You don't believe in America's responsibility to spread democracy.

Not at the barrel of a gun, no. We are not Rome, nor should we want to be. It didn't turn out to well for the Romans. America has many weapons in it's arsenal for cultural change that are more successful, more profitable and create warm fuzzy feelings in the hearts of the world when they think of America, then 'bunker busters'. Changing the world takes time, you can't do it in a weekend.

Just saying is all.

First, who's talking about Dick Morris? I guess you're trying to convey the idea that Paul O'Neill cannot be trusted because he was bitter about losing his job, even though Richard Clarke (another disgruntled employee) and the Downing Street Memo back him up (among others).

Regardless, it seems you missed my point, it being, as much as you accused me of not listening to someone just because I don't like what they are saying, it is EXACTLY what you are doing both with O'Neill and Allawi.

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']If you want to present a frontpagemag article as your opinion then that's one thing, but it's worthless as an argument to support anything. It's the same as a counterpunch or indymedia article.[/quote]

This is exactly why I hate people who jump into arguments that they don't know what's going on. The article means jack shit, my point was to convey to Cheese that O'Neill isn't the first former administration member to jump ship and switch sides.

[quote name='Cheese']Not to slight General Casey, but to get this straight, in the context of an internal political and religious struggle inside Iraq, you're going to go with the guy who's been there less then two years against a guy who's been a internal political figure there, still heads a party there, is still deeply involved in the government, and knows all the ins and outs of the innumerable political and religious factions. Right? OK.

Unless the factions in Iraq actually put on the Blues and Greys this administration will never admit there is a civil war going on there, or even the beginnings of one. It's rainbows and flowers all day and all night.[/quote]

Please, you're saying the top American commander, a four-star general no less, has absolutely no idea what's going on in Iraq? An area he's ultimately responsible for more than any other military official on the ground? I know how you basic sentiments toward the military go, but give me a break here. We're not talking some private who's driven around a few blocks, we're talking a distinguished general that served commanding tours in Bosnia during the 1990's to supervise and assist the restructure of a wartorn eastern Europe.

Again, this basically boils down to whining over which person is more creditable, exactly why this debate is incredibly asinine.

First, I was comparing the two documents, not their implementation. Second, people who are speaking out against the government are being killed NOW. Trucks of execution style murder victims, kidnappings, political assassinations, political party run death squads, etc. The writing is on the wall.

Are not the words meaningless if they aren't respected? What good is a Constitution if it's worth less than the paper it's printed on? I mean, I've heard of a few isolated cases of sectarian violence in regards to the police factions, but to say entire political parties exist within the government that are outlining proposals to commit mass genocide is unheard of. I've never seen reports even close to something like that. Are there still extremists in Iraq? Of course. The government does not condone anything like that though.

GEORGE WILL: This. This is a civil war.

And a few conservative editorials. What do you want to do now, list which commentator is where on a grid or something? This isn't the first issue that has had different leaning commentators on one side or the other. You can't really expect every conservative to say the exact same thing and think the exact same way, nor can we assume that of liberal ones, correct?

I respect George Will, and I admire his work. We have an honest disagreement.

Not at the barrel of a gun, no. We are not Rome, nor should we want to be. It didn't turn out to well for the Romans. America has many weapons in it's arsenal for cultural change that are more successful, more profitable and create warm fuzzy feelings in the hearts of the world when they think of America, then 'bunker busters'. Changing the world takes time, you can't do it in a weekend.

All the while if we lose a few thousand lives, a couple of buildings every once and a while we should just ignore it and continue to ask politely that they don't do it again? I agree that changing takes time, tell that to your side. A democratic government can't be thrown up in a couple of years, and it certainly can't be perfectly made to order after a few guns are shot.

I don't know what else to say. I think something has to be done to make sure that American civilians, my children or your children, are protected now and in the future. The way I see it is that we can either turn the other cheek and wait another twelve years for the U.N. to do something about these extremists, or defend ourselves.

Regardless, it seems you missed my point, it being, as much as you accused me of not listening to someone just because I don't like what they are saying, it is EXACTLY what you are doing both with O'Neill and Allawi.

No, my point is you're throwing up Paul O'Neill like I should agree with him because he was once apart of an administration that I happen to support at this point in time. If you're going to tell me that I have to agree and accept the opinions of people who used to be part of an administration, then I show you Dick Morris as an example that Paul O'Neill isn't the first person to break from an administration and come up against it to make a few bucks.

 

[Msut77]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']All the while if we lose a few thousand lives, a couple of buildings every once and a while we should just ignore it and continue to ask politely that they don't do it again? I agree that changing takes time, tell that to your side. A democratic government can't be thrown up in a couple of years, and it certainly can't be perfectly made to order after a few guns are shot.

I don't know what else to say. I think something has to be done to make sure that American civilians, my children or your children, are protected now and in the future. The way I see it is that we can either turn the other cheek and wait another twelve years for the U.N. to do something about these extremists, or defend ourselves. [/QUOTE]

Are you trying to link the War in Iraq to 9/11 again?

Do you have any shame?

 

[Cheese]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Please, you're saying the top American commander, a four-star general no less, has absolutely no idea what's going on in Iraq? [/quote]

I didn't say that at all. I said that Allawi may have more of an understanding of the ins and outs of the numerous political factions, the history of of the people involved, and an understanding of how they might want to blow each other up.

I've heard of a few isolated cases of sectarian violence in regards to the police factions, but to say entire political parties exist within the government that are outlining proposals to commit mass genocide is unheard of. I've never seen reports even close to something like that. Are there still extremists in Iraq? Of course. The government does not condone anything like that though.

Who said anyone was outlining proposals to commit mass genocide? I didn't say that, I have no idea where you're getting that. I said there are death squads run by political factions and their connected militias.

And a few conservative editorials. What do you want to do now, list which commentator is where on a grid or something? This isn't the first issue that has had different leaning commentators on one side or the other. You can't really expect every conservative to say the exact same thing and think the exact same way, nor can we assume that of liberal ones, correct?

I respect George Will, and I admire his work. We have an honest disagreement.

At least admit that it's not 'a few liberal editorials'.

All the while if we lose a few thousand lives, a couple of buildings every once and a while we should just ignore it and continue to ask politely that they don't do it again?

I didn't say that either. Sure go after the people that attacked us, I'm all for that, I lived a mile from the World trade Center on September 11th, I watched the towers fall, I smelled the fire for weeks after, I'm all for going after the people responsible and humiliating them in front of the world before cutting their eyes out with rusty nails. I am saying that maybe it wasn't the smartest move to invade a country that had nothing at all to do with it. We lost so much international goodwill on Iraq that it will make doing anything in that region THAT much harder.

I don't know what else to say. I think something has to be done to make sure that American civilians, my children or your children, are protected now and in the future. The way I see it is that we can either turn the other cheek and wait another twelve years for the U.N. to do something about these extremists, or defend ourselves.

If you want to take out extremists, fine, but attacking a country that has less then most other countries in the region doesn't really seem to make much sense. You think in 15 years little Ahmed, whose father was killed for not turning off his headlights at a roadblock because he didn't speak the language of the 19 year old waving the machine gun at his wife won't want revenge?

No, my point is you're throwing up Paul O'Neill like I should agree with him because he was once apart of an administration that I happen to support at this point in time.

No, I put up Paul O'Neill to show you that pre 9/11 people in the administration were planning on going after Iraq, this campaign has little to do with the War On Terror, and a lot to do with the foreign policy theories of a few neoconservatives in the administration. Whether you decide to ignore him or not is up to you.

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='Cheese']I didn't say that at all. I said that Allawi may have more of an understanding of the ins and outs of the numerous political factions, the history of of the people involved, and an understanding of how they might want to blow each other up.[/quote]

We're going in circles. The fact of the matter is, Allawi is no longer Prime Minister. He may or may not be familiar with government officials, he may or may not talk with them on a daily basis, and he may or may not have the ability to properly assess the situation in Iraq. Those are all opinions you have made, but one thing is for sure, despite what he thinks he is not accountable for what he says. Gen. Casey on the other hand is very accountable for what he says. If he says there is no civil war taking place, and the President were to disagree with that sentiment, it is in the President's power to remove him from that position.

Who said anyone was outlining proposals to commit mass genocide? I didn't say that, I have no idea where you're getting that. I said there are death squads run by political factions and their connected militias.

While there has been outrage toward Sunni muslims for their favorable status in the past, I would disagree that government politicans are working toward elimination of any specific group of people outside of insurgents. There is sectarian violence, that's not arguable, but that's also a predictable sign in a still growing democracy within Iraq. What should be noted more than outbreaks of violence is the struggle of this government in Iraq to do whatever they can to prevent the spread of this type of violence throughout the country.

At least admit that it's not 'a few liberal editorials'.

Fair enough.

I didn't say that either. Sure go after the people that attacked us, I'm all for that, I lived a mile from the World trade Center on September 11th, I watched the towers fall, I smelled the fire for weeks after, I'm all for going after the people responsible and humiliating them in front of the world before cutting their eyes out with rusty nails. I am saying that maybe it wasn't the smartest move to invade a country that had nothing at all to do with it. We lost so much international goodwill on Iraq that it will make doing anything in that region THAT much harder.

A country that ignores calls of the United States to show proof of disarmament and disapproval of America's enemies. A country that abides terrorism with goals of bringing down the United States. A country that willingly goes against global resolutions for years in an attempt to line itself with the enemy that America called out as one that it would take military action to defer. This country was not as innocent as you prop it up to be. I agree that doing anything in that region in regards to combating terror will be more difficult with what's going on in Iraq, it certainly would've been easier to simply dismantle the regime and kill Hussein right there. I don't think that that's the message this President is trying to send to the region though, I think the policy of this administration is to promote ideas of free market and elected government in a region that is largely absent of such a process. I don't agree however that our Middle East foreign policy strategies will be made more difficult because of some international popularity contest, but by an anti-war sentiment that consciously or not raises anti-American sentiment, remarkably befuddled in its role as an alternative to a more aggressive stance against this enemy. Gone are the days of protest where the alternative is advocating compassion, love, and understand toward all humanity, and no longer is the opposition that promotes change with good intention. Far from it, in an apparent slap in the face to their predecessors in the 1960's, those opposing this administration in this day and age advocate conviction and even annihilation of their Republican counter-parts. I digress, and I don't intend to label you as extreme as one of these people, but rather explain to you why I believe it will be difficult to pursue any effective policy against this enemy in the future.

If you want to take out extremists, fine, but attacking a country that has less then most other countries in the region doesn't really seem to make much sense. You think in 15 years little Ahmed, whose father was killed for not turning off his headlights at a roadblock because he didn't speak the language of the 19 year old waving the machine gun at his wife won't want revenge?

See above. No amount of hypothetical senastionalizing is going to change my stance either.

No, I put up Paul O'Neill to show you that pre 9/11 people in the administration were planning on going after Iraq, this campaign has little to do with the War On Terror, and a lot to do with the foreign policy theories of a few neoconservatives in the administration. Whether you decide to ignore him or not is up to you.

I put up Dick Morris to show you that not everyone that was in the Clinton administration thought that former President Clinton was not to blame for this enemy having half of the strength they do today. On the contrary, Morris thought that Clinton was largely to blame for ignoring an obvious terrorist threat as it grew to dangerous levels during his term in office, right or wrong. Just because O'Neill goes against the administration that employed him doesn't make him absolutely right or wrong. How much did he make for that book he wrote anyway...?

 

[Metal Boss]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']We're going in circles.[/quote] ...

 

[Cheese]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']We're going in circles. The fact of the matter is, Allawi is no longer Prime Minister. He may or may not be familiar with government officials, he may or may not talk with them on a daily basis, and he may or may not have the ability to properly assess the situation in Iraq.[/quote]

As I wrote before, he still runs a party in the government, it's not like he retired.

While there has been outrage toward Sunni muslims for their favorable status in the past, I would disagree that government politicans are working toward elimination of any specific group of people outside of insurgents. There is sectarian violence, that's not arguable, but that's also a predictable sign in a still growing democracy within Iraq. What should be noted more than outbreaks of violence is the struggle of this government in Iraq to do whatever they can to prevent the spread of this type of violence throughout the country.

You do understand that some of the 'insurgents' are better described as militias, and they have ties to political parties, right? And those militias have been killing each other? To the tune of upwards of 60 people a day. How many trucks full of executed Sunnis can we find before 'sectarian violence' becomes something more? Because they just found another today.

A country that ignores calls of the United States to show proof of disarmament and disapproval of America's enemies.

Who said they had to follow our orders and demands? Who said they had to disapprove of our enemies? Quite a few people in that region completely approve of our enemies and their goals but we don't go invading their countries.

I don't think that that's the message this President is trying to send to the region though, I think the policy of this administration is to promote ideas of free market and elected government in a region that is largely absent of such a process.

That very well may be his intention, but it's not turning out well. I think he expected a huge wave of democracy in the region, what he got was more elections that proved that there was more hatred for us then we thought, ie, Iran's elections, the Palestinian elections, etc. Hey look, elections in the middle east, huh. And free markets, before we invaded in 1991 their economy was as European a middle eastern country is gonna get, they had a pretty good idea of what a free market was.

I don't agree however that our Middle East foreign policy strategies will be made more difficult because of some international popularity contest, but by an anti-war sentiment that consciously or not raises anti-American sentiment, remarkably befuddled in its role as an alternative to a more aggressive stance against this enemy.

You think that Anti War protests do more harm to our foreign policy then actual disagreements of our policies? Man, you have GOT to cut down on the kool aid.

Far from it, in an apparent slap in the face to their predecessors in the 1960's, those opposing this administration in this day and age advocate conviction and even annihilation of their Republican counter-parts.

And who do you think started that? Who do you think initiated the rise of the bloodlust in American politics? Who spent two years and $70 million dollars of taxpayer money on a vindictive, partisan investigation against the President that came up with nothing but a personal indiscretion? Who sets the mood of the debate daily on talk radio & cable news using nationalistic and religious posturing, whisper campaigns and outright lies? Who pushes divisive policies only at election time (what happened to the sanctity of marriage amendment?)? I'm sorry, the political right made up these rules, don't whine if you don't like playing with them.

I put up Dick Morris to show you that not everyone that was in the Clinton administration thought that former President Clinton was not to blame for this enemy having half of the strength they do today. On the contrary, Morris thought that Clinton was largely to blame for ignoring an obvious terrorist threat as it grew to dangerous levels during his term in office, right or wrong. Just because O'Neill goes against the administration that employed him doesn't make him absolutely right or wrong. How much did he make for that book he wrote anyway...?

Please drop the Dick Morris stuff. No one was ever talking about the Clinton Administration, it was a bad analogy that had little, if anything to do with the matter at hand and looks more like a dodge or blame laying tactic then focusing on the issue.

So you're calling Paul O'Neill a liar or a rat? I don't think anyone from the administration ever said he was lying. And he's been back up by other testimonies, memos, letters, notes, etc. So, if your argument is that he's a rat, that's fine, but it doesn't make him a liar. Your whole argument against him is like saying Sammy the Bull Gravano made up the orders he got from his mafia bosses because the FBI was giving him witness protection. It's smoke, it has no substance.

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='Cheese']As I wrote before, he still runs a party in the government, it's not like he retired.[/quote]

Did I say he was?

You do understand that some of the 'insurgents' are better described as militias, and they have ties to political parties, right? And those militias have been killing each other? To the tune of upwards of 60 people a day. How many trucks full of executed Sunnis can we find before 'sectarian violence' becomes something more? Because they just found another today.

As the Iraqis step up the Americans will step down. I notice how you like to highlight how Iraqis are starting to take more of a blunt in this war while ignoring how this month has had the second lowest American casualty rate of the entire conflict thus far. If you want to know my opinion, I think you willingly gloss over what else is going on in this country so that you may throw in some more reports of how useless and trivial this whole operation has become. I think it's misleading and I think it's unfair to expect every Shiite to be best friends overnight with all Sunni muslims. What do you want me to say? There is sectarian violence, it unfortunately goes on at a predictable high level with the environment Iraq is in for the time being. I'll tell you what I do know though, Iraq is taking control of their own country whether or not you believe it. 65 terrorists were arrested yesterday thanks to the 2nd Iraqi Army Division.

Who said they had to follow our orders and demands? Who said they had to disapprove of our enemies? Quite a few people in that region completely approve of our enemies and their goals but we don't go invading their countries.

Because our calls were just a facsimilie of calls from the UN in an attempt to defend the overall stability of the free world. Quite a few people in that region also don't use weapons of mass destruction to kill tens of thousands of their own people and invade other U.S. friendly nations on a whim.

That very well may be his intention, but it's not turning out well. I think he expected a huge wave of democracy in the region, what he got was more elections that proved that there was more hatred for us then we thought, ie, Iran's elections, the Palestinian elections, etc. Hey look, elections in the middle east, huh. And free markets, before we invaded in 1991 their economy was as European a middle eastern country is gonna get, they had a pretty good idea of what a free market was.

Where is it written that democratic countries will only elect governments that are friends with America? Are you suggesting we force these nations to abide by our ways and that we instill leaders who will serve as puppets to our intentions? What we have gotten was a huge wave a democracy in the region that will only continue to grow prosper with liberalism to take down the tyrants of oppression and reign in leaders that are represented by an increasingly confident people.

I figured you were a critic of the Gulf war as well, but that's a different argument altogether.

You think that Anti War protests do more harm to our foreign policy then actual disagreements of our policies?

I don't think we need to appease foreign nations and beg that they give us permission to defend ourselves.

And who do you think started that? Who do you think initiated the rise of the bloodlust in American politics? Who spent two years and $70 million dollars of taxpayer money on a vindictive, partisan investigation against the President that came up with nothing but a personal indiscretion? Who sets the mood of the debate daily on talk radio & cable news using nationalistic and religious posturing, whisper campaigns and outright lies? Who pushes divisive policies only at election time (what happened to the sanctity of marriage amendment?)? I'm sorry, the political right made up these rules, don't whine if you don't like playing with them.

Let's see what you got here... A President that lies to the American public under oath in an attempt to shield his deviant practices. A President that could be manipulated by anyone at the mere promise of sexual favors. Talk radio? How about a whole ing network that was born with the goal of airing complete and utter nonstop liberal mantra without any dissenting broadcasts whatsoever. How about major news networks that use obvious forged documents in a desperate attempt to smear a President? How about anti-American, anti-religion, Cindy Sheehan driven mobs that exist only to regurgitate simple, hive-minded phrases like " Bush" and "Destroy Bush?" How about major leaders in the Democratic party that use personal attack after personal attack against the Republican party and President Bush?

Please drop the Dick Morris stuff. No one was ever talking about the Clinton Administration, it was a bad analogy that had little, if anything to do with the matter at hand and looks more like a dodge or blame laying tactic then focusing on the issue.

It has everything to do with the argument. I'll try to write it as simply as I can for you: Dick Morris, same as O'Neill, broke away from his administration and wrote scathing books about the foreign policies that made lots of money. If O'Neill is given this infallible credit in your eyes, then I guess Morris should have the same status, correct?

 

[Cheese]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Did I say he was?[/quote]

No, just that he was out of the loop and his opinion was completely uninformed is all.

As the Iraqis step up the Americans will step down. I notice how you like to highlight how Iraqis are starting to take more of a blunt in this war while ignoring how this month has had the second lowest American casualty rate of the entire conflict thus far.

Yes, I like how fail to highlight that it's not the Iraqi military that is taking the BRUNT, but the Iraqi civilians. So I guess as more Iraqi civies stand up and are murdered in the street by politically run militias, we'll stand down. U!S!A! U!S!A! We're winning!!111!

If you want to know my opinion, I think you willingly gloss over what else is going on in this country so that you may throw in some more reports of how useless and trivial this whole operation has become.

My main point is that this entire endeavor has been mismanaged from the drawing board, which was well before 9/11. And that no one has any idea of how to run it, and how obvious 'staying the course' is total bullshit.

Because our calls were just a facsimilie of calls from the UN in an attempt to defend the overall stability of the free world. Quite a few people in that region also don't use weapons of mass destruction to kill tens of thousands of their own people and invade other U.S. friendly nations on a whim.

First off, the UN wasn't for this war and made it known. So in no way should Iraq have taken our saber rattling as a demand from the UN. Second, how did invading Iraq make the world a more stable place? Saddam's power to make WMD and war against his neighbors was non-existent. As for Saddam's gassing his own people and invading Kuwait, please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Gulf_War#Pre-war_Iraqi-American_Relations

and read up on how we the Commerce Dept. investigation in 1994 showed we sold them chemical weapons in the 80's and in July of 1990 our ambassador green lit Iraq using force against Kuwait (depending on how you read it I guess).

Where is it written that democratic countries will only elect governments that are friends with America? Are you suggesting we force these nations to abide by our ways and that we instill leaders who will serve as puppets to our intentions?

It's worked for us in the past. I'm saying that with a little more hand holding we could have guided them a little more towards what we'd think of as an ideal.

What we have gotten was a huge wave a democracy in the region that will only continue to grow prosper with liberalism to take down the tyrants of oppression and reign in leaders that are represented by an increasingly confident people.

I figured you were a critic of the Gulf war as well, but that's a different argument altogether.

I'm 50/50 on Gulf War 1. We had an agreement with Kuwait, but they weren't any great democratic state, but ok, we had an agreement, so fine, in we go. And Bush 41 was smart enough to understand that taking Saddam out would have created the whole mess we're dealing with now, then, and he wanted no part of that.

I don't think we need to appease foreign nations and beg that they give us permission to defend ourselves.

Just who were defending ourselves from by attacking an old de-fanged lion like Iraq? Or is invading the entire region (twice) considered defending ourselves?

Let's see what you got here... A President that lies to the American public under oath in an attempt to shield his deviant practices. A President that could be manipulated by anyone at the mere promise of sexual favors.

Blow-jobs are deviant? Man, sucks for you... or not, such is the case.

What gave the special prosecutor the power to ask the questions in the first place? What brought his investigation to that arena? He was supposed to investigate Whitewater, not blow-jobs. Those questions were in no way in his purview. What gives you the impression President Clinton could be manipulated by anyone? If you were to believe the unsubstantiated reports of his sexual misdeeds, no one ever got the best of him, he was always coercing them. So which is it? Is he a weak willed penis driven madman who can be controlled by the sheer smell of vagina? Or is he the the evil molester and rapist? You can't have it both ways.

Talk radio? How about a whole ing network that was born with the goal of airing complete and utter nonstop liberal mantra without any dissenting broadcasts whatsoever.

Dude, take a look at the radio landscape, even with Air America, talk radio is 80%+ Rush Limbaugh and his wannabes.

How about major news networks that use obvious forged documents in a desperate attempt to smear a President?

Yeah, they shoulda checked their facts a little more, sadly, because Bush still has never been cleared fully on his Air National Guard record. And with that taint, no one will ever check it again.

How about anti-American, anti-religion, Cindy Sheehan driven mobs that exist only to regurgitate simple, hive-minded phrases like " Bush" and "Destroy Bush?"

Unlike the hive minded, "As they stand up, we'll stand down." crowd. When you stop spouting quotes from RNC talking points memos, then you can accuse others of being sheep.

How is attacking the president Anti-American? One can be against the policies of a particular administration and not be against the country. As demonstrated here:

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX), talking about Clinton, Bosnia.

And being anti-religion is not against the law. I'm sure there are some religions you are against.

How about major leaders in the Democratic party that use personal attack after personal attack against the Republican party and President Bush?

Again, all this stuff happened after the right set up the rules in the late 80's and early 90's. The right wrote the play, we've just exchanged the parts.

It has everything to do with the argument. I'll try to write it as simply as I can for you: Dick Morris, same as O'Neill, broke away from his administration and wrote scathing books about the foreign policies that made lots of money. If O'Neill is given this infallible credit in your eyes, then I guess Morris should have the same status, correct?

I never said I didn't disagree with Dick Morris. If you want to call O'Niell a liar in the face of evidence and supporting testimony to the contrary, go right ahead. You don't disagree with him, he's not stating an opinion you can disagree with, you are calling his account of seeing a report about an Iraq invasion in the beginning days of the administration a lie. Just say it already. Are you saying Paul O'Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury of the United States is a greedy liar? Yes or no?

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='Cheese']No, just that he was out of the loop and his opinion was completely uninformed is all.[/quote]

Sigh, but now you're putting words in my mouth. Let's get serious, the man couldn't get elected again, despite American help. He lost a significant number of seats in the national assembly, to say he is qualified to speak for a nation that a majority of the people do not support is ridiculous. His voice is significant, but certainly not the only one.

Yes, I like how fail to highlight that it's not the Iraqi military that is taking the BRUNT, but the Iraqi civilians. So I guess as more Iraqi civies stand up and are murdered in the street by politically run militias, we'll stand down. U!S!A! U!S!A! We're winning!!111!

Thank you spelling bee, I guess if Cheese ran this war there would be no civilian casualties, everyone would cheer his name, and, well, there wouldn't be a war because we'd all be singing songs and eating candy together. As difficult as the reality may seem, there are going to be civilian and military deaths, that's just a certainty.

My main point is that this entire endeavor has been mismanaged from the drawing board, which was well before 9/11. And that no one has any idea of how to run it, and how obvious 'staying the course' is total bullshit.

Well my main point is that the future of the world hangs in the balance of these decades to come. While rebuilding a nation may not be the most efficient solution, it sure as hell is a plausible one. It's not like we have any options on the other side of the aisle. A party that couldn't even get the most hated President (if you ask me, with the population difference and the internet, he is by far the most hated) in dozens of years out of office, a President who has started an unpopular and controversial war in every sense of the word. In a testament to the strength, or lack thereof, in the Democratic party, I give you November 2004. Staying the course may not be your strategy but you can be damn sure your opinion is that of a minority.

First off, the UN wasn't for this war and made it known. So in no way should Iraq have taken our saber rattling as a demand from the UN. Second, how did invading Iraq make the world a more stable place? Saddam's power to make WMD and war against his neighbors was non-existent. As for Saddam's gassing his own people and invading Kuwait, please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Gulf_War#Pre-war_Iraqi-American_Relations

and read up on how we the Commerce Dept. investigation in 1994 showed we sold them chemical weapons in the 80's and in July of 1990 our ambassador green lit Iraq using force against Kuwait (depending on how you read it I guess).

Given unanimous consent by the U.N. Security Council, which includes the nations of France and China:

[quote name='U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441']13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations[/quote]

The fact that you would suggest that Hussein's government did more positive or stable things for this world than these democratic beginnings is absurd. Perhaps he was stable in being a madman, a piece of totalitarian scum that had his mindset on conquering the Middle East and beyond.

Oh, and I've seen the photos. Rumsfeld and Hussein. The fact that you would use that sophomoric argument against me is offensive. Allies change, Cheese. There was a time when Hussein was seen as someone who could benefit the United States, just as there was a time when Stalin could benefit the United States (the Allies couldn't have won WWII if it weren't for the Soviet Union).

It's worked for us in the past. I'm saying that with a little more hand holding we could have guided them a little more towards what we'd think of as an ideal.

A little more hand holding? You mean a little more gunfire. I think it would be ridiculous to get involved in another conflict because we don't agree with who the Palestinian people chose to represent them.

Just who were defending ourselves from by attacking an old de-fanged lion like Iraq? Or is invading the entire region (twice) considered defending ourselves?

Oh, spare me the Hussein coddling for just one of your points, please? My God you praise him more than Baghdad Bob. Well this gentle, poor, de-fanged Iraq was making damn sure to kick out any UN weapons inspectors. But I guess when Iraq goes against the UN they're just being cute, but when the US gets a unanimous vote from the security council they're these horrible imperialists that are breaking all these rules.

Blow-jobs are deviant? Man, sucks for you... or not, such is the case.

What gave the special prosecutor the power to ask the questions in the first place? What brought his investigation to that arena? He was supposed to investigate Whitewater, not blow-jobs. Those questions were in no way in his purview. What gives you the impression President Clinton could be manipulated by anyone? If you were to believe the unsubstantiated reports of his sexual misdeeds, no one ever got the best of him, he was always coercing them. So which is it? Is he a weak willed penis driven madman who can be controlled by the sheer smell of vagina? Or is he the the evil molester and rapist? You can't have it both ways.

Adultery used to be deviant, but I guess it's a brave new world huh?

What gave this President the power to lie under oath in the first place? He's supposed to be defending this nation, not sticking cigars up interns. I guess that makes it so much better though, that he can have any woman he wants without punishment or question? Hell it should be an honor to be with the President! If you don't like it, tough, it's not like you can speak up. You don't need it both ways because either person is a weak, pathetic excuse for a man.

Dude, take a look at the radio landscape, even with Air America, talk radio is 80%+ Rush Limbaugh and his wannabes.

Rush Limbaugh is aired by radio affiliates who will profit because of him. Air America has to pay their stations to carry their propoganda. Rush Limbaugh hosts a three hour program, depending on the station that carries him there are several other time slots for other talk show hosts (including liberals) to fill up. Air America does not wish to let opposing viewpoints in as their entire program lineup consists of liberal commentators.

Unlike the hive minded, "As they stand up, we'll stand down." crowd. When you stop spouting quotes from RNC talking points memos, then you can accuse others of being sheep.

How is attacking the president Anti-American? One can be against the policies of a particular administration and not be against the country. As demonstrated here:

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX), talking about Clinton, Bosnia.

And being anti-religion is not against the law. I'm sure there are some religions you are against.

I guess " Bush" is a legitimate criticism in your mind, which speaks volumes for your argument. At least believing in a policy of gradual Iraqi control over their own country as opposed to whatever plan you favor (keeping a very large amount of troops there permanently?) is an actual strategy, it isn't just some partisan hate slogan.

Oh, and when you support the enemies of our nation, you're anti-American to me. I've heard the things that woman has said, what she believes in, so you can give me that bullshit all you want.

Being anti-religion isn't against the law, but people are allowed to practice whatever religion they choose to. I mean, I thought this was America.

Again, all this stuff happened after the right set up the rules in the late 80's and early 90's. The right wrote the play, we've just exchanged the parts.

This is when you include the tag. Why don't you show me who played the part of Sen. Stabenow?

I never said I didn't disagree with Dick Morris.

That's a pretty big concession, are you prepared to make it? That's Khobar Towers, 9/11 preparedness, Sandy Berger...

 

[Msut77]

Ace is one sick little puppy.

Saddam wasnt a threat and the Clinton scandal was what almost a decade ago?

 

[Cheese]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Sigh, but now you're putting words in my mouth. [/quote]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']That's the key point. Why don't we rely on former President Gerald Ford for advice on what to do in Iraq? They are out of the picture, they are private citizens. He has as much say in the issue as me or you. He has more experience, no doubt, but not anymore. When's the last time he's had a security briefing? Hell, does he even live in Iraq?[/quote]

I dunno, sounds like you said he was out of the loop and not informed to me.

Thank you spelling bee, I guess if Cheese ran this war there would be no civilian casualties, everyone would cheer his name, and, well, there wouldn't be a war because we'd all be singing songs and eating candy together. As difficult as the reality may seem, there are going to be civilian and military deaths, that's just a certainty.

Hey, I never said I wanted to run the war, as a matter of fact I said that I had no idea how to run it better (then again, I'm not a politician, military expert, middle eastern culture aficionado, etc.) But whatever they're doing now seems to be only getting more and more civilians killed, so maybe it's time for some new ideas, like say admitting that 'sectarian violence' means politically run militias going around assassinating people, and then doing something to stop it.

Well my main point is that the future of the world hangs in the balance of these decades to come. While rebuilding a nation may not be the most efficient solution, it sure as hell is a plausible one.

The future of the world? That might be overstating things, you think? I'm sure Brazil will go on just fine no matter what happens in Iraq. Perhaps the future of the country, ok, I'll even go as far as saying the future of the region. BUt the 'future of the world'? That's a stretch.

And I'm all for rebuilding a country, but let's actually do that. Let's have water and electricity running, let's have safer streets, etc.

It's not like we have any options on the other side of the aisle. ...

There are plans out there, several of them in fact. But asking the Democrats for ideas is admitting that the administration has run out of their own, which they have, but will never admit to.

Staying the course may not be your strategy but you can be damn sure your opinion is that of a minority.

POLLINGREPORT.COM
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International.$March 16-17, 2006. N=1,020 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

". . . Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

.
Approve 29%
Disapprove 65%
Unsure 6%

Maybe not so much.

Given unanimous consent by the U.N. Security Council, which includes the nations of France and China:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441. On January 30, 2003 Blix said that Iraq had not fully accepted its obligation to disarm, and the report was taken broadly negatively. The report of February 14 was more encouraging for Iraq, saying that there had been significant progress and cooperation. However, the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles were not resolved. France, Germany and other countries called for more time and resources for the inspections. The March 7 report was again seen as broadly positive, but Blix noted that disarmament and the verification of it would take months, rather than weeks or days.
By mid-March, Resolution 1441 had become crucial in the Iraq disarmament crisis. Under furious debate was whether a further Security Council resolution (the so-called "second resolution") was necessary to authorize war, or whether 1441 and preceding resolutions sufficed to legitimize military enforcement of the UN's disarmament aims. UK prime minister Tony Blair had for several weeks been under significant domestic pressure to obtain the "second resolution", and he led efforts for a unanimous resolution authorizing force. Of the permanent, veto-holding members of the Security Council, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China wished the inspection period to be extended, and for no military action to go ahead without a further UN resolution. On the other hand, the USA and Britain, while admitting that such a resolution was diplomatically desirable, insisted that Iraq had now been given enough time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to disarm or provide evidence thereof, and that war was legitimized by 1441 and previous UN resolutions. Non-permanent Security Council member Spain declared itself with the USA and Britain. Nevertheless, this position taken by the Bush administration and its supporters, has been and still is being disputed by numerous legal experts. According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced.[1][2][3] On March 10, French president Jacques Chirac declared that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. This caused open displays of dismay by the US and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a "second resolution" was effectively abandoned at that point.

I dunno, sounds like they were pretty against it to me.

The fact that you would suggest that Hussein's government did more positive or stable things for this world than these democratic beginnings is absurd. Perhaps he was stable in being a madman, a piece of totalitarian scum that had his mindset on conquering the Middle East and beyond.

I didn't say that he did things to stabilize the world. I said he was toothless. And he was.

Oh, and I've seen the photos. Rumsfeld and Hussein. The fact that you would use that sophomoric argument against me is offensive.

I am sorry you're offended. My point was that he didn't invade Kuwait on a whim, he very well may have gotten the OK from us first.

A little more hand holding? You mean a little more gunfire. I think it would be ridiculous to get involved in another conflict because we don't agree with who the Palestinian people chose to represent them.

No I meant more hand holding like we did in Japan, while they held elections post WW2 the power of the civilian government was severely limited and they remained under US Military control for years that dictated much of how their government was to be built. Hand Holding.

Oh, spare me the Hussein coddling for just one of your points, please? My God you praise him more than Baghdad Bob. Well this gentle, poor, de-fanged Iraq was making damn sure to kick out any UN weapons inspectors.

And let them back in, and got mostly favorable reports after doing so, see the above wiki quote. And I never said Hussein was a good guy, I said that the war wasn't started because of him.

Adultery used to be deviant, but I guess it's a brave new world huh?

The adultery rate in the US ranges from 25% (women) to 30% (men) so it's not like it's uncommon, and hasn't been for some time.

What gave this President the power to lie under oath in the first place?

My question comes first, he wouldn't have had to purger himself if he wasn't asked the question, how did an investigation into whitewater allow the special prosecutor to ask the President about an unrelated sexual indiscretion?

He's supposed to be defending this nation, not sticking cigars up interns.

I'm sure he has time during the day to do both. I'm sure GW has gotten down with Laura since being in the White House, isn't he supposed to be defending the country?

I guess that makes it so much better though, that he can have any woman he wants without punishment or question? Hell it should be an honor to be with the President! If you don't like it, tough, it's not like you can speak up.

Shit, I'd think it would be an honor to sleep with a president, Hell, I'd sleep with GW just so I could say, "Y'know who I slept with last night?" Lewinsky was a completely willing participant, it's not like the CIA held her down.

Rush Limbaugh is aired by radio affiliates who will profit because of him. Air America has to pay their stations to carry their propoganda.

Rush has been on the air for, I dunno, 20 years? I'm sure it took him a while to build up an audience too. I most recently heard that AA would be in the black in their third fiscal year, which sounds about right for any starting business.

Rush Limbaugh hosts a three hour program, depending on the station that carries him there are several other time slots for other talk show hosts (including liberals) to fill up. Air America does not wish to let opposing viewpoints in as their entire program lineup consists of liberal commentators.

WABC in New York, which Rush is on, has one screaming match show (Kurtis and Kuby), a sports show, Rush, Hannity, Mark Levin (conservative, also carried by the ABC radio network), Laura Ingraham (conservative, nationally syndicated), Monica Crowley (conservative - Also national starting today), Mark Simone (conservative). So you've got nine conservatives, and 1 (maybe 2, I dunno the Sports guy) non conservatives. Check your local listings, see what else is on Rush's station in, where is it you're from, TEXAS? KPRC 950 AM serving the greater Houston area. Pat Grey, Hannity, Savage, O'reilly, Tony Snow, Glenn Beck, should I continue?

AA is one ship in a sea of conservative punditry, undeniably.

I guess " Bush" is a legitimate criticism in your mind, which speaks volumes for your argument.

Not really, but it fits on a poster. I prefer the one's that read, "Killing for peace is like ing for virginity" that's my fave. But that's because it's funny.

Oh, and when you support the enemies of our nation, you're anti-American to me. I've heard the things that woman has said, what she believes in, so you can give me that bullshit all you want.

I agree that Cindy Sheehan is an idiot. She should have stuck to her one note mission, but she allowed herself to be used by a multitude of people. I can assure you she doesn't speak for many people.

Being anti-religion isn't against the law, but people are allowed to practice whatever religion they choose to. I mean, I thought this was America.

Whoever said you couldn't? You said antiwar protesters were anti-religion, you lost me. I'll go as far as saying the left is against religion interfering with public policy, but that's pretty far from being anti-religion.

This is when you include the tag. Why don't you show me who played the part of Sen. Stabenow?

You want a list?

That's a pretty big concession, are you prepared to make it? That's Khobar Towers, 9/11 preparedness, Sandy Berger...

No, I just said that 'I never said I didn't disagree with him', that doesn't mean I do think he's right. I just never said either way. And I won't because we were talking about Paul O'Neill. And thanks for not answering my yes or no question. Are you calling Paul O'Neill a liar?

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='Cheese']I dunno, sounds like you said he was out of the loop and not informed to me.[/quote]

Allawi is a good guy, but he has no real support in his country. You aren't elected by the people to lead a political party. The man has lost his influence, he's just not as encompassing of a voice he once was.

Hey, I never said I wanted to run the war, as a matter of fact I said that I had no idea how to run it better (then again, I'm not a politician, military expert, middle eastern culture aficionado, etc.) But whatever they're doing now seems to be only getting more and more civilians killed, so maybe it's time for some new ideas, like say admitting that 'sectarian violence' means politically run militias going around assassinating people, and then doing something to stop it.

That. is. what. war. is. That's why so many people are against this war, or any war. The people of in this nation had a choice in November of 2004, they have a choice in November of 2006, and they'll have a choice in November of 2008, but this administration obviously has enough support in America to overlook any new ideas. The government in Iraq isn't just sitting around twiddling their thumbs, they're working with the United States and the coalition forces to help run their state and keep it together. Just a couple of weeks ago they hit a huge roadblock with the bombing of the dome, but the government is still together and they handled the situation like a democratic government does.

The future of the world? That might be overstating things, you think? I'm sure Brazil will go on just fine no matter what happens in Iraq. Perhaps the future of the country, ok, I'll even go as far as saying the future of the region. BUt the 'future of the world'? That's a stretch.

Nah. Brazil would be a much different place with a defeated United States. I mean, you can give me the "There is no terrorist threat!" speech all you want, doesn't mean your going to get me to close my eyes to what's going on across the Atlantic.

And I'm all for rebuilding a country, but let's actually do that. Let's have water and electricity running, let's have safer streets, etc.

[quote name='10/31/05, Congressional Report on Iraq']Insurgent attacks remain concentrated in four of Iraq’s eighteen provinces; half of the Iraqi population lives in areas that experience only six percent of all attacks. Six provinces reported a statistically insignificant number of attacks based on population size.

. . .

Through U.S. Government-funded water projects, 22 water treatment facilities have been rehabilitated, with the capacity to serve potable water to 3.1 million people. Additional projects underway will serve an additional 3.7 million people. In an effort to improve access to safe water in rural areas, 68 projects are underway to improve well access. According to the World Bank, 81% of the population (22.6 million) has access to an improved water source, although delivery of potable water to homes remains unreliable. Access to potable water varies widely among governorates and between urban and rural areas.[/quote]

I'll give you electricity though, I've heard of only bad news in that department.

There are plans out there, several of them in fact. But asking the Democrats for ideas is admitting that the administration has run out of their own, which they have, but will never admit to.

I guess it's way out of line to ask for bipartisan support in this nation's efforts.

Maybe not so much.

You can quote any poll you want, but polls don't put politicans in office, votes do. Last time I checked, President Bush was elected and the Republicans won 231 seats in the House and 4 new seats in the Senate.

I dunno, sounds like they were pretty against it to me.

Then why did they agree to it?

I didn't say that he did things to stabilize the world. I said he was toothless. And he was.

Defend him all you like, the evidence continues to point otherwise. Behind his smooth-talking and rugged appeal lied a cold, calculated murderer and ruthless dictator who would stop at nothing to build up his weapons technology.

I am sorry you're offended. My point was that he didn't invade Kuwait on a whim, he very well may have gotten the OK from us first.

Do you have something to connect former President Bush to Hussein's invasion or is it another conspiracy theory you've heard?

No I meant more hand holding like we did in Japan, while they held elections post WW2 the power of the civilian government was severely limited and they remained under US Military control for years that dictated much of how their government was to be built. Hand Holding.

Don't be naive, if President Bush clamped down on leading Iraq or appointing someone to lead Iraq everyone would want his head. Americans think war should be a quick thing, democracy should just pop up and make everyone happy, but the truth is it's much more complicated than that.

And let them back in, and got mostly favorable reports after doing so, see the above wiki quote. And I never said Hussein was a good guy, I said that the war wasn't started because of him.

He had the ability to stop it, all he had to do was decide to abide by some of the numerous resolutions passed against him for more than a decade. He only started getting "serious" about following the rules after we showed that we were committed to using force.

Too little, too late.

The adultery rate in the US ranges from 25% (women) to 30% (men) so it's not like it's uncommon, and hasn't been for some time.

I was just joking about the brave new world reference, but apparently you're all for it then? Can't say I blame you, polygamists are going to have the next civil rights movement. I guess you're getting a head start?

My question comes first, he wouldn't have had to purger himself if he wasn't asked the question, how did an investigation into whitewater allow the special prosecutor to ask the President about an unrelated sexual indiscretion?

He didn't have to lie at all, he chose to lie. And why was it brought up? I'm not in the practice of fighting straw men.

I'm sure he has time during the day to do both. I'm sure GW has gotten down with Laura since being in the White House, isn't he supposed to be defending the country?

Laura Bush is the first lady and his wife. I don't understand your point, are you saying the President should be single?

Shit, I'd think it would be an honor to sleep with a president, Hell, I'd sleep with GW just so I could say, "Y'know who I slept with last night?" Lewinsky was a completely willing participant, it's not like the CIA held her down.

What you'd do with others is your business, but does the name Paula Jones ring a bell?

Rush has been on the air for, I dunno, 20 years? I'm sure it took him a while to build up an audience too. I most recently heard that AA would be in the black in their third fiscal year, which sounds about right for any starting business.

Oh, I'm sure they'll do okay. I'm not the kind of person that predicts failure just because I disagree with them. I hate Al Franken, but I realize he has a fairly strong fanbase.

WABC in New York, which Rush is on, has one screaming match show (Kurtis and Kuby), a sports show, Rush, Hannity, Mark Levin (conservative, also carried by the ABC radio network), Laura Ingraham (conservative, nationally syndicated), Monica Crowley (conservative - Also national starting today), Mark Simone (conservative). So you've got nine conservatives, and 1 (maybe 2, I dunno the Sports guy) non conservatives. Check your local listings, see what else is on Rush's station in, where is it you're from, TEXAS? KPRC 950 AM serving the greater Houston area. Pat Grey, Hannity, Savage, O'reilly, Tony Snow, Glenn Beck, should I continue?

AA is one ship in a sea of conservative punditry, undeniably.

No, you misunderstand. These hosts are put on because they are listened to, they bring the station profits through their ratings. Air America, however, has to pay stations to air their bullshit. I think it's in part because the entire network is saturated with liberals. Air America might start making money if they add a conservative or two to their network instead of just blaring liberal propoganda 24/7.

Not really, but it fits on a poster. I prefer the one's that read, "Killing for peace is like ing for virginity" that's my fave. But that's because it's funny.

How does this one sound, "Es mejor morir de pie que vivir de rodillas." It's my all time favorite.

Whoever said you couldn't? You said antiwar protesters were anti-religion, you lost me. I'll go as far as saying the left is against religion interfering with public policy, but that's pretty far from being anti-religion.

Meh. Maybe you're fooling some but you aren't fooling me. These people are one in the same. There are some very vocal critics of religion in that crowd, and I don't need you to validate it.

You want a list?

No, I want the duplicate part on the other side. Put Sen. Stabenow in the search engine and see why she made news the other day.

No, I just said that 'I never said I didn't disagree with him', that doesn't mean I do think he's right. I just never said either way. And I won't because we were talking about Paul O'Neill. And thanks for not answering my yes or no question. Are you calling Paul O'Neill a liar?

So you don't disagree or agree with him? Make up your mind. It's the same basic charges, and since you have problems with my questions I have problems with yours.

 

[alonzomourning23]

Meh. Maybe you're fooling some but you aren't fooling me. These people are one in the same. There are some very vocal critics of religion in that crowd, and I don't need you to validate it.

This seems to include me now. If lefitsts who are "anti- religion interfering in public policy", are also anti-religion itself, then surely I must be anti-religion, since I'm strongly opposed to any interference by religion in public policy. Hell, I have also been an anti-war protester.

Now the question is, am I fooling you, or are you fooling yourself?

 

[Cheese]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Allawi is a good guy, but he has no real support in his country. You aren't elected by the people to lead a political party. The man has lost his influence, he's just not as encompassing of a voice he once was.[/quote]

That doesn't mean he doesn't know the beginnings of a civil war in his own country.

That. is. what. war. is. That's why so many people are against this war, or any war. The people of in this nation had a choice in November of 2004, they have a choice in November of 2006, and they'll have a choice in November of 2008, but this administration obviously has enough support in America to overlook any new ideas.

Yes, being popular and unsuccessful means you can overlook other ideas.

The government in Iraq isn't just sitting around twiddling their thumbs, they're working with the United States and the coalition forces to help run their state and keep it together. Just a couple of weeks ago they hit a huge roadblock with the bombing of the dome, but the government is still together and they handled the situation like a democratic government does.

Actually the Iraqi government was so stuck in the mud that just this past weekend Jack Straw and Condolezza Rice had to go there to give them a kick in the ass.

Nah. Brazil would be a much different place with a defeated United States. I mean, you can give me the "There is no terrorist threat!" speech all you want, doesn't mean your going to get me to close my eyes to what's going on across the Atlantic.

America has lost other wars in the last 50 years and it hasn't changed the dynamic of the world, Brazil was fine after Vietnam and would survive us leaving Iraq. What's going on across the atlantic? You mean Iraq? They're kinda far from the atlantic, but ok.

I guess it's way out of line to ask for bipartisan support in this nation's efforts.

Yes, let's all get behind the war plan that we don't believe in and is obviously not working, just to save face. What would you have the democrats do? They have little to no voice in military policy, that is mostly in the purview of the Executive branch. It's this administration that completely, totally, whole heartedly, eagerly disregards the opinions and ideas of any one else.

You can quote any poll you want, but polls don't put politicans in office, votes do. Last time I checked, President Bush was elected and the Republicans won 231 seats in the House and 4 new seats in the Senate.

Now you sound like PaDDy. Next you're going to tell me to stop running against Bush since he can't have a third term and complain about how Bill Clinton ruined everything.

Then why did they agree to it?

Read the clip again.

Defend him all you like, the evidence continues to point otherwise. Behind his smooth-talking and rugged appeal lied a cold, calculated murderer and ruthless dictator who would stop at nothing to build up his weapons technology.

What evidence is that? What evidence is there that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the countries around him? Where is the evidence in his great ability to make war, seeing that we beat them in two weeks with a relatively small force, it doesn't say much for this madman determined to attack the world.

Do you have something to connect former President Bush to Hussein's invasion or is it another conspiracy theory you've heard?

Again, read the above clipping.

Don't be naive, if President Bush clamped down on leading Iraq or appointing someone to lead Iraq everyone would want his head. Americans think war should be a quick thing, democracy should just pop up and make everyone happy, but the truth is it's much more complicated than that.

I thought he didn't run his administration by a popularity poll? Bush and Co. never listened to the people around them telling them to expect an insurgency, civil strife, looting, civil war. They thought the only outcome was an instant McGovernment would arise (lead by Ahmed Chalabi) that would play ball. Sadly, Chalabi was a lying crook and the plan went to shit. Too bad they never thought to have a back up.

He had the ability to stop it, all he had to do was decide to abide by some of the numerous resolutions passed against him for more than a decade. He only started getting "serious" about following the rules after we showed that we were committed to using force. Too little, too late.

That's how you treat children, not countries of 26 million people.

He didn't have to lie at all, he chose to lie. And why was it brought up? I'm not in the practice of fighting straw men.

But building them, sure. I was talking about the over-reaching Republican smear campaign against President Clinton, not if he lied or not, which he did because he didn't want to tell his wife he cheated on her on national TV. Pretty understandable. The years 1994-2000 were some of the most vindictive in modern history. The level of debate dropped to new lows, and continues to.

Laura Bush is the first lady and his wife. I don't understand your point, are you saying the President should be single?

You said he should have been busy defending the country instead of fooling around with Monica. With that logic a president shouldn't be ing anyone, he should be spending that time defending the nation.

Oh, I'm sure they'll do okay. I'm not the kind of person that predicts failure just because I disagree with them. I hate Al Franken, but I realize he has a fairly strong fanbase.

No, you misunderstand. These hosts are put on because they are listened to, they bring the station profits through their ratings. Air America, however, has to pay stations to air their bullshit. I think it's in part because the entire network is saturated with liberals. Air America might start making money if they add a conservative or two to their network instead of just blaring liberal propoganda 24/7.

So you admit they'll do fine, but suggest that they might start making money if they hired a conservative. Those two statements are kind of at odds, no? If they're going to do fine, why would they hire a conservative?

Meh. Maybe you're fooling some but you aren't fooling me. These people are one in the same. There are some very vocal critics of religion in that crowd, and I don't need you to validate it.

That's AWESOME. Kid, I hope you're on the chronic, because if you're going to live your life that paranoid, you might as well be high too.

No, I want the duplicate part on the other side. Put Sen. Stabenow in the search engine and see why she made news the other day.

Look, I realize you were only like 10 years old, but the 90's were nothing but attack after attack. Look up the Arkansas Project. Some of the finer work of Tom Delay. I can't remember exactly who it was, but Clinton was accused to personally stabbing two teenage boys, then DRIVING OVER THEM WITH A TRAIN. I wanna say it was on the OPED page of the Wall Street Journal, i can't remember. Then there was Dan Burton (R-IN) who called BC a 'scumbag', which seems light in comparison. Rove has been doing it for years, whisper campaigns that former Texas Governor, Ann Richards was a lesbian, later, in 2000, John McCain has a black love child (my favorite). The Swift Boat bullshit. This is how these guys roll.

So you don't disagree or agree with him? Make up your mind. It's the same basic charges, and since you have problems with my questions I have problems with yours.

No, I said I wouldn't because it's not what we were talking about, stay on topic, Paul O'Neill has stated that he was privy to a report documenting the administrations plans to invade Iraq before 9/11, confirming many people's suspicions that the administration was intent on Invading Iraq since before they came to power and at least as far back as 1998 when many officials in the current administration lobbied then President Clinton to invade. He account has been backed up by statements from other White House insiders, the infamous Downing Street Memo and the more recent Tony Blair administration memo. You say you don't agree with him, does that mean you are calling Paul O'Neill a liar?

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='Cheese']That doesn't mean he doesn't know the beginnings of a civil war in his own country.[/quote]

That doesn't mean Gen. Casey doesn't know the beginnings of a civil war in a country he's responsible for. It's a simple concept, and it makes a huge difference. If Gen. Casey says there isn't a civil war but it turns out to be a violent bloodfest, then he gets in trouble, if Allawi says there is a civil war but the country continues to progress and function like a newly democratic nation, we'll never hear about his claim again. Accountability holds a huge place in creditability.

Yes, being popular and unsuccessful means you can overlook other ideas.

Don't take me out of context, but, for the most part that's correct. We are a democratic republic, and if we elect representatives who campaign on a certain policy issue (i.e. prolonged military intervention in Iraq) then there is an expectation for that to happen. This President isn't going to open U.S. News to read some poll of a couple thousand people subject to any slight subjectivity of the pollsters to decide his foreign policy for that week. If someone is elected it's because their ideas are what the majority of the people want.

Prematurely grading the success of this war, especially at such an early stage, is largely the fault of the American political system and the digital age of media representation. Not to say technology that brings us closer is a bad thing, but you can't review a movie because you don't like the first ten minutes. If I had to measure the success of this war at this point, the only thing I would consider would be pure military statistics, which are coincidentally phenomenal. To speculate how this country will fair five years from now, positive or negative, is ridiculous and riddled with whatever partisanship the person holds.

Actually the Iraqi government was so stuck in the mud that just this past weekend Jack Straw and Condolezza Rice had to go there to give them a kick in the ass.

When it comes to disassembling the national assembly and taking the big step in forming a national legislative body, they are taking their sweet time. Sounds like the first stages of a bureaucracy, eh? :lol:

America has lost other wars in the last 50 years and it hasn't changed the dynamic of the world, Brazil was fine after Vietnam and would survive us leaving Iraq. What's going on across the atlantic? You mean Iraq? They're kinda far from the atlantic, but ok.

You're missing the point. Losing Iraq means nothing if we lose it and it just splits into two seperate, bitter states that attack each other now and again. It would mean a lot more if it becomes a rhetorical point in the terrorist playbook, inevitably leading to more attacks on the United States to continually bring the world economy down piece by piece. If the United States begins to fall, it would reflect poorly on any economic relationship we have with Brazil. This could eventually escalate into another global division vis-a-vis the Cold War, where a nation like Brazil has to decide which side it's on. While the governments in South America lean increasingly to the right in comparison to years past with few exceptions, the people are very divided in these nations. Large nations like Brazil have large sections of the country that are just outside of national control. I know a lot of people look at Iraq as just some silly pet project or whatever, but whether that was the case or not, it now amounts to much, much more than that.

Yes, let's all get behind the war plan that we don't believe in and is obviously not working, just to save face. What would you have the democrats do? They have little to no voice in military policy, that is mostly in the purview of the Executive branch. It's this administration that completely, totally, whole heartedly, eagerly disregards the opinions and ideas of any one else.

See that? Right there. That's the problem. That's the biggest ing problem the Democratic party faces, and it's a pathetic sight to see the new breed of Democrats have taken it upon themselves to continue with a dumbass view of making everything that has ever existed into a political division. When FDR pushed for involvement in WWII, most Republicans fought long and hard to make sure that didn't happen. After Pearl Harbor though, any Republicans who stuck to that isolationist rhetoric were rightfully defeated by a surge of support for military engagement. In 1944, Thomas Dewey basically dropped his campaign in favor of keeping the country united against the threat of that time. Although a few people were tired of FDR, he easily won the election. Fast forward 60 years from now, you have Democrats calling the President a loser, dangerously incompetent, calling Republicans unfriendly, white Christians who haven't ever made a honest living in their life, but all that aside, the one thing that sticks out is the Democrat's insistence that we will lose the war in Iraq. It's not that we're running into problems or the strategy is broken, no, it's cheering on defeat. The worst part of it is the Democrats are so good at hating that they don't even realize they're doing something wrong.

Since you asked, I'll tell you what I'd have Democrats do. I'd have them act like ing Americans. I know you don't understand the difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable, but the difference exists, and both parties used to embrace it as the foundation of having a bi-partisan political system work smoothly. It used to be the case that despite all feelings, we could at least rally behind the defense of this nation. The Democratic party would gladly make this country weaker to get the majority back. Do you understand the danger of that kind of philosophy? That it feels it has to harm this nation to get people to vote for Democrats, which is an effective idea if you can conceal your intents as the harmful one, but the Democrats wear this idea on their sleeve. The only reason people would ever cross over to these so-called leaders would be because the alternative is that much worse. The Republicans, being the lazy, overspending slugs that they are, will probably lose this power to the Democrats soon enough, but I can assure you it's because of their abandonment of almost all things conservative and not because the Democrats offer anything of worth to this nation besides being "the other party." It would be so simple for the Democrats to gain some power, but they seem to take the wrong step at every chance they get.

Now you sound like PaDDy. Next you're going to tell me to stop running against Bush since he can't have a third term and complain about how Bill Clinton ruined everything.

No, I'd encourage you to do so. Keep fighting President Bush on through 2008. Here, I'll get us started. I will never vote for George W. Bush again.

Read the clip again.

It doesn't make a difference. You can argue over this word or that word, the language is pretty plain. After 9/11, it's idiotic to assume that President Bush didn't mean military engagement.

What evidence is that? What evidence is there that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the countries around him? Where is the evidence in his great ability to make war, seeing that we beat them in two weeks with a relatively small force, it doesn't say much for this madman determined to attack the world.

How about starting wars with Iran and Kuwait?

I thought he didn't run his administration by a popularity poll? Bush and Co. never listened to the people around them telling them to expect an insurgency, civil strife, looting, civil war. They thought the only outcome was an instant McGovernment would arise (lead by Ahmed Chalabi) that would play ball. Sadly, Chalabi was a lying crook and the plan went to shit. Too bad they never thought to have a back up.

I think puppet governments are bad ideas altogether, if they know the United States are buddy buddy with them they are prone to do some bad shit. I think it's a better idea to try and set up the nation in such a way so that the government can be formed around and with the people it represents.

That's how you treat children, not countries of 26 million people.

A child would have more common sense than that. It's unfortunate that that lunatic was leading the nation through fear and oppression, but what you just said goes to further the necessity of war. He was ultimately responsible for that nation, and a lot of people have to suffer for that man's mistakes.

But building them, sure. I was talking about the over-reaching Republican smear campaign against President Clinton, not if he lied or not, which he did because he didn't want to tell his wife he cheated on her on national TV. Pretty understandable. The years 1994-2000 were some of the most vindictive in modern history. The level of debate dropped to new lows, and continues to.

Wait a second, I thought you were all in favor of adultery just a second ago, calling it the new thing that everyone does. Mrs. Clinton should have a much more open mind about these things, 30% of the American public does it! I hope you use that argument with your wife, see what she says about it. The fact of the matter is, former President Clinton did everything he could to be attacked by the Republican party.

You said he should have been busy defending the country instead of fooling around with Monica. With that logic a president shouldn't be ing anyone, he should be spending that time defending the nation.

I still don't follow your argument. Monica isn't his wife. Sure, if I could sit on my ass at my job and as many interns as I wanted, I wouldn't mind it one bit. I wouldn't get much done though, and what I do doesn't directly effect the lives of hundreds of millions, and indirectly effect the lives of everyone on the planet.

So you admit they'll do fine, but suggest that they might start making money if they hired a conservative. Those two statements are kind of at odds, no? If they're going to do fine, why would they hire a conservative?

I don't know how long it will take, but if you keep something on the air long enough eventually people will start checking it out. That's increasing the availiabilty by leaps and bounds. If McDonalds sells hamburgers for twenty years as opposed to five years, they'll get more sales in the twenty years easy. If Air America adds a conservative though they might get a whole different audience to tune in, even if it's just for a little while. Likewise, if McDonalds decides to sell hamburgers AND fries, they'll attract more people than if they just sell hamburgers. I hope my fast food analogy cleared that up a bit.

That's AWESOME. Kid, I hope you're on the chronic, because if you're going to live your life that paranoid, you might as well be high too.

You want to open up another can of worms? You've got people who are so opposed to children getting a broader education that there are folks out there who will call for the ban of Intelligent Design as an opposing theory of the creation of life. These people are so blinded by their hatred of religion that they don't understand that it has nothing to do with a higher power, it has everything to do with keeping children informed of everything that's out there now. Guess where the vast majority of these activists come from?

Look, I realize you were only like 10 years old, but the 90's were nothing but attack after attack. Look up the Arkansas Project. Some of the finer work of Tom Delay. I can't remember exactly who it was, but Clinton was accused to personally stabbing two teenage boys, then DRIVING OVER THEM WITH A TRAIN. I wanna say it was on the OPED page of the Wall Street Journal, i can't remember. Then there was Dan Burton (R-IN) who called BC a 'scumbag', which seems light in comparison. Rove has been doing it for years, whisper campaigns that former Texas Governor, Ann Richards was a lesbian, later, in 2000, John McCain has a black love child (my favorite). The Swift Boat bullshit. This is how these guys roll.

I'd like to see the train attack, but you can't put things up like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth into that mix. These people weren't politicans, these people were some war veterans who got tired of Sen. Kerry telling everyone he was the best soldier in Vietnam every other sentence. Hell President Bush alienated himself from this crowd to begin with, even though despite all that talk from the left these people weren't ever proven wrong. I think if Sen. Kerry is going to tout a war record every chance he gets, we ought to damn well have the information of what this record consists of.

I got to admit I like how you'll say that we'll never get a chance to really investigate President Bush's air national guard record, but when it comes to Sen. Kerry, a Democrat, well we should just accept whatever he has to say about his war record as the complete truth and never question it!

No, I said I wouldn't because it's not what we were talking about, stay on topic, Paul O'Neill has stated that he was privy to a report documenting the administrations plans to invade Iraq before 9/11, confirming many people's suspicions that the administration was intent on Invading Iraq since before they came to power and at least as far back as 1998 when many officials in the current administration lobbied then President Clinton to invade. He account has been backed up by statements from other White House insiders, the infamous Downing Street Memo and the more recent Tony Blair administration memo. You say you don't agree with him, does that mean you are calling Paul O'Neill a liar?

No, I think he's telling the truth. I think this President was planning to go to Iraq since 1998, so that Halliburton could make a lot of money. I think they are stealing the oil, as we speak, and putting it in a large refinery somewhere in Texas to store for themselves when the upcoming oil crisis hits us. Then around 2008 when gas costs 12,000 dollars a gallon President Bush will solve the problem and everyone will elect him as dictator of the American Empire. We will then go into Iran, and Dictator Bush will march are troops to victory, killing all innocent people in his way. The American people will cheer or be imprisoned by secret police. Iraq will be named New America, and Iran will be split into several states as we begin our new imperial conquest in the Middle East.

Am I on key so far with your conspiracy theory bullshit? Am I going too fast? To be honest I'm getting a little tired of pampering to your bullshit theories and treating them like serious points. There's only so much I can stomache now, and it's getting on my last nerve.

Here, I'll save you the trouble of making a counterpoint too:

Well, I should expect that coming out of a Bush drone. It's a shame, Rumsfeld and the gang of neo-cons have you eating out of their hand. If you knew what I knew, you'd pick up a sign and picket before that is banned. Well, I'm going to go watch Syriana with some friends.

 

[Msut77]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']No, I think he's telling the truth. I think this President was planning to go to Iraq since 1998, so that Halliburton could make a lot of money. I think they are stealing the oil, as we speak, and putting it in a large refinery somewhere in Texas to store for themselves when the upcoming oil crisis hits us. Then around 2008 when gas costs 12,000 dollars a gallon President Bush will solve the problem and everyone will elect him as dictator of the American Empire. We will then go into Iran, and Dictator Bush will march are troops to victory, killing all innocent people in his way. The American people will cheer or be imprisoned by secret police. Iraq will be named New America, and Iran will be split into several states as we begin our new imperial conquest in the Middle East.[/QUOTE]

Which reminds me, the rightards are itching to go to Syria correct?

 

[Cheese]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']That doesn't mean Gen. Casey doesn't know the beginnings of a civil war in a country he's responsible for. It's a simple concept, and it makes a huge difference. If Gen. Casey says there isn't a civil war but it turns out to be a violent bloodfest, then he gets in trouble, if Allawi says there is a civil war but the country continues to progress and function like a newly democratic nation, we'll never hear about his claim again. Accountability holds a huge place in creditability.[/quote]

Let's look at what he said:

Casey said he did not believe Iraq was in danger of falling into civil war, although he said it remained a possibility because of increased sectarian tensions and violence.

"The situation here is fragile," he said. "I suspect it will remain fragile here until we get a new government, a government of national unity, formed."

That doesn't sound too resounding or confident. I think maybe the difference between the two opinions may just be a difference of preceptive degrees.

Don't take me out of context, but, for the most part that's correct. We are a democratic republic, and if we elect representatives who campaign on a certain policy issue (i.e. prolonged military intervention in Iraq) then there is an expectation for that to happen. This President isn't going to open U.S. News to read some poll of a couple thousand people subject to any slight subjectivity of the pollsters to decide his foreign policy for that week. If someone is elected it's because their ideas are what the majority of the people want.

But it's not an opinion that things on the ground are really, really bad and seemingly getting worse. You don't need a poll to see that, you can look at the Iraqi casualty reports and see it. Now they could reach across the aisle and ask for suggestions, but they don't, they're too smug.

If I had to measure the success of this war at this point, the only thing I would consider would be pure military statistics, which are coincidentally phenomenal. To speculate how this country will fair five years from now, positive or negative, is ridiculous and riddled with whatever partisanship the person holds.

Reported Iraqi casualties 3/2003-3/2004 (per day): 20
Reported Iraqi casualties 3/2004-3/2005 (per day): 31
Reported Iraqi casualties 3/2005-3/2006 (per day): 36

Yeah, pretty phenomenal.

When it comes to disassembling the national assembly and taking the big step in forming a national legislative body, they are taking their sweet time. Sounds like the first stages of a bureaucracy, eh?

There we agree.

You're missing the point. Losing Iraq means nothing if we lose it and it just splits into two seperate, bitter states that attack each other now and again. It would mean a lot more if it becomes a rhetorical point in the terrorist playbook, inevitably leading to more attacks on the United States to continually bring the world economy down piece by piece. If the United States begins to fall, it would reflect poorly on any economic relationship we have with Brazil. This could eventually escalate into another global division vis-a-vis the Cold War, where a nation like Brazil has to decide which side it's on. While the governments in South America lean increasingly to the right in comparison to years past with few exceptions, the people are very divided in these nations. Large nations like Brazil have large sections of the country that are just outside of national control. I know a lot of people look at Iraq as just some silly pet project or whatever, but whether that was the case or not, it now amounts to much, much more than that.

That's an amazingly far stretch, but entertaining, I smell a movie of the week!

See that? Right there. That's the problem. That's the biggest ing problem the Democratic party faces, and it's a pathetic sight to see the new breed of Democrats have taken it upon themselves to continue with a dumbass view of making everything that has ever existed into a political division. Fast forward 60 years from now, you have Democrats calling the President a loser, dangerously incompetent, calling Republicans unfriendly, white Christians who haven't ever made a honest living in their life, but all that aside, the one thing that sticks out is the Democrat's insistence that we will lose the war in Iraq. It's not that we're running into problems or the strategy is broken, no, it's cheering on defeat. The worst part of it is the Democrats are so good at hating that they don't even realize they're doing something wrong.

Please look into the rhetoric of the right when President Clinton sent planes into Bosnia. The bile spewed by leading republicans and right wing pundits was almost exactly, word for word, what some Democrats say now. And I don't see anyone cheering defeat, I don't think anyone is saying, "I hope we lose this war!"

Since you asked, I'll tell you what I'd have Democrats do. I'd have them act like ing Americans.

That is a clear and concise argument.

I know you don't understand the difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable,

Odd, I'm not the one making all the personal attacks in this thread. But go on...

...but the difference exists, and both parties used to embrace it as the foundation of having a bi-partisan political system work smoothly. It used to be the case that despite all feelings, we could at least rally behind the defense of this nation. The Democratic party would gladly make this country weaker to get the majority back. Do you understand the danger of that kind of philosophy? That it feels it has to harm this nation to get people to vote for Democrats, which is an effective idea if you can conceal your intents as the harmful one, but the Democrats wear this idea on their sleeve.

I think it depends on your definition of 'defense of the nation'. If you mean actually defending the nation, like with port security, I think you'll find everyone in agreement, but if you mean invading a country that wasn't a threat, well, yeah, you might see some division.

The only reason people would ever cross over to these so-called leaders would be because the alternative is that much worse. The Republicans, being the lazy, overspending slugs that they are, will probably lose this power to the Democrats soon enough, but I can assure you it's because of their abandonment of almost all things conservative and not because the Democrats offer anything of worth to this nation besides being "the other party." It would be so simple for the Democrats to gain some power, but they seem to take the wrong step at every chance they get.

Political parties trade policies back and forth all the time, one adopting the idea of the other. Environmental issues used to be a big with Republicans, as were civil liberties and personal freedoms. Somewhere along the line Republicans dropped those issues and traded up for religious values voters, who used to vote democratic, and deficit spending. But you're right mostly, the Democratic party is kind of all over the place these days and will very likely win in the fall on the "It'd be hard to do any worse" ticket. but I think the Republicans will go through the same thing come 2008, where is the party going? More conservative, more religious right type stuff? Or more old School Republican, personal responsibility and pro-business?

Here, I'll get us started. I will never vote for George W. Bush again.

Have you ever?

It doesn't make a difference. You can argue over this word or that word, the language is pretty plain. After 9/11, it's idiotic to assume that President Bush didn't mean military engagement.

Hey, man, don't ask me, I thought so too. I knew we were going in the first time I heard it brought up. But the wording is not that plain, especially in the face of Iraq starting to comply with the various points.

How about starting wars with Iran and Kuwait?

I'll clarify, Iraq had little to no warmaking capabilities in 2003.

I think puppet governments are bad ideas altogether, if they know the United States are buddy buddy with them they are prone to do some bad shit. I think it's a better idea to try and set up the nation in such a way so that the government can be formed around and with the people it represents.

I think it is too, but that wasn't the plan, the plan was stick Chalbi in there almost as Saddam Lite and get out quick leaving much of the government intact. This is where you have Paul Wolfowitz saying the war would only last a few months and cost $2 billion.

Wait a second, I thought you were all in favor of adultery just a second ago, calling it the new thing that everyone does. Mrs. Clinton should have a much more open mind about these things, 30% of the American public does it!

I'm not married to Hilary.

The fact of the matter is, former President Clinton did everything he could to be attacked by the Republican party.

Yet he still won elections and his popularity never dropped below 42%.

I still don't follow your argument. Monica isn't his wife. Sure, if I could sit on my ass at my job and as many interns as I wanted, I wouldn't mind it one bit. I wouldn't get much done though, and what I do doesn't directly effect the lives of hundreds of millions, and indirectly effect the lives of everyone on the planet.

Forget it, it wasn't an argument, it was a joke.

I don't know how long it will take, but if you keep something on the air long enough eventually people will start checking it out. That's increasing the availiabilty by leaps and bounds. If McDonalds sells hamburgers for twenty years as opposed to five years, they'll get more sales in the twenty years easy. If Air America adds a conservative though they might get a whole different audience to tune in, even if it's just for a little while. Likewise, if McDonalds decides to sell hamburgers AND fries, they'll attract more people than if they just sell hamburgers. I hope my fast food analogy cleared that up a bit.

Burgers and Chicken sammiches would've worked better, but regardless, any conservative they hired would immediately be attacked by his own kind as caving in to the lefties, much like Alan Colmes is thought of by the left, he's a punching bag, the only reason he's there is to get beaten on a daily basis, and they'd be right to do so.

You want to open up another can of worms? You've got people who are so opposed to children getting a broader education that there are folks out there who will call for the ban of Intelligent Design as an opposing theory of the creation of life. These people are so blinded by their hatred of religion that they don't understand that it has nothing to do with a higher power, it has everything to do with keeping children informed of everything that's out there now. Guess where the vast majority of these activists come from?

Being against Intelligent Design isn't anti-religion. It's common sense. There is not a single shred of scientific evidence supporting the Intelligent Design theory. It's not about being opposed to a broad education, it's about letting a thin veil for creationism into science classrooms. The right likes to make it sound like there is this huge debate in the scientific community about evolution, there isn't. 99% of biologists agree, evolution is as much of a fact as human beings can say. Every piece of evidence we've ever found points to evolution, none points to any opposing theory. And to belittle evolution as 'just a theory' ignores the genuine mountains of evidence behind it and plays to the layman's ignorance of the scientific requirements to call it a fact.

Oh, and IT has everything to do with a higher power, not one that guides our daily lives, but one that created the universe. Even the Vatican says it's bunco.

I'd like to see the train attack, but you can't put things up like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth into that mix. These people weren't politicans, these people were some war veterans who got tired of Sen. Kerry telling everyone he was the best soldier in Vietnam every other sentence. Hell President Bush alienated himself from this crowd to begin with, even though despite all that talk from the left these people weren't ever proven wrong. I think if Sen. Kerry is going to tout a war record every chance he gets, we ought to damn well have the information of what this record consists of.

The train thing's great, it goes something like; these two kids see a 'protected' drug drop and are killed for it. I can't find the OPED that suggested Clinton did the murdering himself, but I remember reading it at the time. The truth came out a few years later when a drug dealers ex-girlfriend said he told her that the boys ripped him off for coke and he killed them. Some, including one of the boys mothers, still claim the FBI was running drugs with for the contras (which may or not be true) and the boys witnessed it and were killed for it.

From the wiki:
The initial communications consultant for SBVT was Merrie Spaeth, a Reagan administration press officer and a volunteer consultant to Ken Starr in the Clinton impeachment; she was also a spokesperson for "Republicans for Clean Air," an anti-McCain 527 group formed during the 2000 primaries and funded by Bush supporters who also helped fund SBVT [50][51]. Spaeth's late husband, Tex Lezar, who graduated from Yale two years behind George W. Bush, was a speechwriter for the Nixon administration and an attorney in the Reagan Justice Department [52]. He ran for Texas lieutenant governor on George W. Bush's ticket in 1994. John E. O'Neill — the primary author of Unfit for Command and a key player in the formation of SBVT — donated over $14,000 to Republican candidates, was a partner in Lezar's law firm. He co-operated with the Nixon White House in opposing Kerry in 1971, and seconded Nixon's nomination at the 1972 Republican national convention

So, John O'Neill was a partner in a law firm with Tex Lazar, who ran for Lieutenant Governor with Bush, whose widow was also the communication director for the Swift Boat guys. Also they had the same Lawyer, Ben Ginsberg, who is also a close personal friend of Karl Rove. The Swift Boat guys and the administration were as close as you can be without actually being connected.

I got to admit I like how you'll say that we'll never get a chance to really investigate President Bush's air national guard record, but when it comes to Sen. Kerry, a Democrat, well we should just accept whatever he has to say about his war record as the complete truth and never question it!

There were several investigations into Kerry's war record in 2004, I am sorry you missed them. They were kinda all over the news for months.

No, I think he's telling the truth. I think this President was planning to go to Iraq since 1998, so that Halliburton could make a lot of money. I think they are stealing the oil, as we speak, and putting it in a large refinery somewhere in Texas to store for themselves when the upcoming oil crisis hits us. Then around 2008 when gas costs 12,000 dollars a gallon President Bush will solve the problem and everyone will elect him as dictator of the American Empire. We will then go into Iran, and Dictator Bush will march are troops to victory, killing all innocent people in his way. The American people will cheer or be imprisoned by secret police. Iraq will be named New America, and Iran will be split into several states as we begin our new imperial conquest in the Middle East.

I'll take that as a yes, you think he's a liar. To clarify, I never thought the war was for greed though, it was for ideology.

Am I on key so far with your conspiracy theory bullshit? Am I going too fast? To be honest I'm getting a little tired of pampering to your bullshit theories and treating them like serious points. There's only so much I can stomache now, and it's getting on my last nerve.

Here, I'll save you the trouble of making a counterpoint too:

Well, I should expect that coming out of a Bush drone. It's a shame, Rumsfeld and the gang of neo-cons have you eating out of their hand. If you knew what I knew, you'd pick up a sign and picket before that is banned. Well, I'm going to go watch Syriana with some friends.

Well, you nailed some of it, (but I've never seen Syriana). You really should look into the neocon history, ideology and goals, it lays out a lot of what this administration has done. Seeing that you've been hearing these same guys for 2/3 of your life, stepping back and taking an objective look at them might not be the worst idea.

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='Cheese']That doesn't sound too resounding or confident. I think maybe the difference between the two opinions may just be a difference of preceptive degrees.[/quote]

What have I said to you, um, I don't know, fifty times already? There is violence, sectarian violence. It is occuring, there is no doubt about that. I think he's damn confident in the abilities of the Iraqi government and the U.S. military, as well he should be.

But it's not an opinion that things on the ground are really, really bad and seemingly getting worse. You don't need a poll to see that, you can look at the Iraqi casualty reports and see it. Now they could reach across the aisle and ask for suggestions, but they don't, they're too smug.

Bullshit, man. That's just bullshit and you know it. The Democratic party has had plenty of opportunities to show this nation that they have solutions, that they'll work with the President to make America united and strong in it's front against terrorism, and they blow it every single time. Instead of trying to connect with the President they spit in his face and tell everyone how lousy he is and how America is going to lose.

Reported Iraqi casualties 3/2003-3/2004 (per day): 20
Reported Iraqi casualties 3/2004-3/2005 (per day): 31
Reported Iraqi casualties 3/2005-3/2006 (per day): 36

Yeah, pretty phenomenal.

Let's just do a little comparison, shall we?

The Korean War lasted about three years, same as Iraq right now, let's compare the death tolls:

We have about 55K U.S. military deaths in Korea.
In Iraq it's 2,321.

Just a little bit off.

How about outside of the military?

About 1.9 million Korean civilians were killed.
In Iraq it's around 35 thousand.

We can do this with any war, I chose Korea because it was a little more than 3 years, so the length is close.

That's an amazingly far stretch, but entertaining, I smell a movie of the week!

Whatever man, all I'm saying if the United States falls the world will feel it.

Please look into the rhetoric of the right when President Clinton sent planes into Bosnia. The bile spewed by leading republicans and right wing pundits was almost exactly, word for word, what some Democrats say now. And I don't see anyone cheering defeat, I don't think anyone is saying, "I hope we lose this war!"

Nice editing.

Look to your leader man, if you can call him that. This clown you parade around with the voice of a 80 year old smoker.

"The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong." - Howard Dean 12/05/05

If that isn't cheering for defeat I don't know what is. But pucker up, Cheese, if anyone can defend him you can.

I think it depends on your definition of 'defense of the nation'. If you mean actually defending the nation, like with port security, I think you'll find everyone in agreement, but if you mean invading a country that wasn't a threat, well, yeah, you might see some division.

That isn't your call to make. When you win an election, then you call the shots over our foreign policy, but until then you must honor what the people of this country have voted on. There are elections every two years, that's when you state your case about why the Democrats should be elected. Someone wants to pull out of Iraq, fine, in 2008 you go up and make your case for pulling out. If you make good points then you'll be elected and then you have the power to do so. Instead you have Democrats bitching about how they wouldn't join the military. They wouldn't join the military. It's outrageous, dangerous, and unprecendented. You can whine and moan but but the Republicans did this and the Republicans did that. Well have a nice strolll down memory lane because it isn't about what did, it's about what's being done.

Political parties trade policies back and forth all the time, one adopting the idea of the other. Environmental issues used to be a big with Republicans, as were civil liberties and personal freedoms. Somewhere along the line Republicans dropped those issues and traded up for religious values voters, who used to vote democratic, and deficit spending. But you're right mostly, the Democratic party is kind of all over the place these days and will very likely win in the fall on the "It'd be hard to do any worse" ticket. but I think the Republicans will go through the same thing come 2008, where is the party going? More conservative, more religious right type stuff? Or more old School Republican, personal responsibility and pro-business?

More or less. One of my history professors like to use that same thing, that parties change with the times. I think that's off set by the fact that definitions change with the time as well. A liberal in 1860 was taking a bold risk in calling a negro an equal person. A liberal today is taking a bold risk in promoting socialist medicare. You can't compare the two, in 1860 both liberals and conservatives would never have supported a annual federal tax structure. Nevertheless, one thing we can find common ground on is how much we hate our respective political parties. I think the vast majority of my party are populist porkers that are so bloated they can't see what's going on under their own fat. It's becoming cliche to say you hate both parties, but I really do. I just hate one more than the other.

Have you ever?

No, actually, I couldn't vote in 2000 or 2004 for that matter.

Hey, man, don't ask me, I thought so too. I knew we were going in the first time I heard it brought up. But the wording is not that plain, especially in the face of Iraq starting to comply with the various points.

I don't think so. I think he smelled the fire after it was too large to be put out through some pissy efforts at the last minute.

I'll clarify, Iraq had little to no warmaking capabilities in 2003.

I bet you don't even need glasses for that keen of hindsight you have. Perhaps you could've told that the intelligence agencies across the world that disagreed with you.

I think it is too, but that wasn't the plan, the plan was stick Chalbi in there almost as Saddam Lite and get out quick leaving much of the government intact. This is where you have Paul Wolfowitz saying the war would only last a few months and cost $2 billion.

Well, to each their own. Like I said, I would prefer that we not just do a dictator swap. I don't think that policy works out as well as you might think.

I'm not married to Hilary.

Okay, I got you. Some women deserve to be cheated on. I don't understand why you would want to get married if you want to sleep around though, that never made sense to me. All people on earth who cheat, why the did you get married in the first place! That's so idiotic. I like women too but I can control my cock.

Yet he still won elections and his popularity never dropped below 42%.

That he did. He never could get a majority of the American people to vote for him, but he won fair and square. Popularity, however, is a subjective measurement, depending on the pollster and the people selected.

Burgers and Chicken sammiches would've worked better, but regardless, any conservative they hired would immediately be attacked by his own kind as caving in to the lefties, much like Alan Colmes is thought of by the left, he's a punching bag, the only reason he's there is to get beaten on a daily basis, and they'd be right to do so.

Meh, that's just stereotyping. I can tell you've never watched Hannity and Colmes, or if you have you watched it with whatever self-blinders you put up. Just the other night Colmes and some other Democratic strategy fellow where just beating up on Hannity point after point on his thing with Alec Baldwin. You could tell Hannity was frazzled by the whole thing as he just kind of shut up for a few minutes. I find that is unfortunately the case for a lot of people on the left, need I bring up the phrase, "House nigger"

Being against Intelligent Design isn't anti-religion. It's common sense. There is not a single shred of scientific evidence supporting the Intelligent Design theory. It's not about being opposed to a broad education, it's about letting a thin veil for creationism into science classrooms. The right likes to make it sound like there is this huge debate in the scientific community about evolution, there isn't. 99% of biologists agree, evolution is as much of a fact as human beings can say. Every piece of evidence we've ever found points to evolution, none points to any opposing theory. And to belittle evolution as 'just a theory' ignores the genuine mountains of evidence behind it and plays to the layman's ignorance of the scientific requirements to call it a fact.

Oh, and IT has everything to do with a higher power, not one that guides our daily lives, but one that created the universe. Even the Vatican says it's bunco.

In the literal sense of course it has everything to do with a higher power, my point was that's not the way the debate should be framed and you know that. This debate is so screwed up because it segways right into the whole evolution thing when that isn't the case at all. The left equates someone defending the right for a child to learn as much as they can as a priest coming in and telling a child to recite the Bible. It's not like that at all. Here's the way I see it. ID needs to be taught not for the sake of any religion, but for the sake of the children.

Let's say some kid askes the teacher about why this contradicts what he was taught in sunday school. What situation do you want to put the teacher in? To call the kid's parents and parish liars who don't know the facts, or to discuss another theory that other people choose to believe. I'm not saying we should force one or the other, I'm saying the classroom should be open for all discussion. That's what a classroom is for, to learn. You don't learn by censoring information. That's ridiculous.

The train thing's great, it goes something like; these two kids see a 'protected' drug drop and are killed for it. I can't find the OPED that suggested Clinton did the murdering himself, but I remember reading it at the time. The truth came out a few years later when a drug dealers ex-girlfriend said he told her that the boys ripped him off for coke and he killed them. Some, including one of the boys mothers, still claim the FBI was running drugs with for the contras (which may or not be true) and the boys witnessed it and were killed for it.

Wish I could read about it then.

So, John O'Neill was a partner in a law firm with Tex Lazar, who ran for Lieutenant Governor with Bush, whose widow was also the communication director for the Swift Boat guys. Also they had the same Lawyer, Ben Ginsberg, who is also a close personal friend of Karl Rove. The Swift Boat guys and the administration were as close as you can be without actually being connected.

Go prove me wrong then, go find me the article that shows President Bush embracing these veterans and appreciating the ideas that they are pushing against Sen. Kerry.

There were several investigations into Kerry's war record in 2004, I am sorry you missed them. They were kinda all over the news for months.

There was an investigation. It's done guys. No more. No more talking about it. War hero. Period. Stop. No more looking. I know you served with Sen. Kerry but we can't have you talking! It's been done. Never again, we will never allow it to happen again.

I'll take that as a yes, you think he's a liar. To clarify, I never thought the war was for greed though, it was for ideology.

Drat. There are so many off the wall explainations, I just took a stab at one of them. I'll bet you've got a little hate for Halliburton in there somewhere. At least hit me with the Vice President thing.

Well, you nailed some of it, (but I've never seen Syriana). You really should look into the neocon history, ideology and goals, it lays out a lot of what this administration has done. Seeing that you've been hearing these same guys for 2/3 of your life, stepping back and taking an objective look at them might not be the worst idea.

I'll do that, I'll do that. I've also been reading about how our oil structure is going to collapse and we're all going to live without electricity in little makeshift huts ten years from now. That's the peak oil thing. I particularly enjoy Al Gore's doomsday predictions. Global warming will kill us all in ten years too. I got avian flu covered. Don't forget about how the President blew up the World Trade Center. And the Jews. The Jews who control everything.

 

[Cheese]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']What have I said to you, um, I don't know, fifty times already? There is violence, sectarian violence. It is occuring, there is no doubt about that. I think he's damn confident in the abilities of the Iraqi government and the U.S. military, as well he should be.[/quote]

You say tomato, I say Tomahto, you say sectarian violence, I say beginnings of a civil war?

Bullshit, man. That's just bullshit and you know it. The Democratic party has had plenty of opportunities to show this nation that they have solutions, that they'll work with the President to make America united and strong in it's front against terrorism, and they blow it every single time. Instead of trying to connect with the President they spit in his face and tell everyone how lousy he is and how America is going to lose.

I think a lot of people feel that the President's policy on 'The War On Terror" (or "the Long War" as they are unsuccessfully trying to brand it) is disingenuous. I think they feel like they've been duped, lied to, walked on and generally dismissed. It's painfully obvious that this administration is going to do whatever it wants no matter what anyone else tells them, even from within their own party. General Zinni was on Meet the Press a week or so ago talking about how every suggestion about troop numbers, post war rule and diplomacy and the threat of an insurgency was dismissed because it didn't come from 'their' guys. I think many in the democratic party feel that even if they did extend an olive branch it'd be rebuffed. That said they have tried. Harry Reid has been to the White House numerous times with suggestions.

Let's just do a little comparison, shall we?

The Korean War lasted about three years, same as Iraq right now, let's compare the death tolls:

We have about 55K U.S. military deaths in Korea.
In Iraq it's 2,321.

Just a little bit off.

How about outside of the military?

About 1.9 million Korean civilians were killed.
In Iraq it's around 35 thousand.

We can do this with any war, I chose Korea because it was a little more than 3 years, so the length is close.

Well, it's not really comparable, Korea was an all out war with the North being backed by China and the USSR with planes and tanks and uniformed armies and the whole deal. A little different situation here. But if we go into Iran at some point...

It took us 8 years to get to about the same number of casualties in Vietnam as we have in Iraq.

Whatever man, all I'm saying if the United States falls the world will feel it.

Sure, but it'll go on. And us leaving Iraq (which I am not saying I support) would not cause the downfall of the republic.

Nice editing.

Well, a lot of that was a screed confusing anti-Americanism with having a dissenting position. The "Act like Fucqing Americans!!!11!" thing was better left speaking for itself.

Look to your leader man, if you can call him that. This clown you parade around with the voice of a 80 year old smoker.

That is a sound complaint. Literally.

"The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong." - Howard Dean 12/05/05

If that isn't cheering for defeat I don't know what is. But pucker up, Cheese, if anyone can defend him you can.

Well, let's look at the whole quote...

In an interview with WOAI radio in San Antonio Monday, the head of the Democratic Party drew a parallel between efforts to hand over security responsibilities to Iraqis and similar efforts during the Vietnam War to the South Vietnamese.
That side ultimately lost the war.

"Of course, the South Vietnamese couldn't manage to support their own country," Dean said. "I do not believe in making the same mistake twice. And America appears to have made the same mistake twice."

Dean said he wished President Bush "had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we had gotten in there."

"The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong," he said.

Ok, he's saying that if we follow the same pattern we did in Vietnam, as the Bush plan seems to be doing, then yes, the idea that we are going to win is wrong, and more likely we would leave an unstable Gov't that would fall soon after. The more bizarre thing is what he says after, which is what you really should have pointed to...

Calling Bush's plan in Iraq a "failed strategy," Dean said he and most Democrats support bringing home an estimated 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops within the next six months.

He said that he backed the redeployment of 20,000 troops to Afghanistan and a force in the Middle East to deal with al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but not in Iraq.

"We cannot have our troops being targets there," he said.

Is that the suggests doing pretty much the same thing, just at a faster pace. Yes, Howard sometimes confuses a lot of people, myself included. i do agree that the Bush plan is a failed strategy, and the redeployment to Afghanistan, but not with his pulling out so fast idea. But hey, at least he's suggesting a alternate plan of action.

That isn't your call to make. When you win an election, then you call the shots over our foreign policy, but until then you must honor what the people of this country have voted on. There are elections every two years, that's when you state your case about why the Democrats should be elected. Someone wants to pull out of Iraq, fine, in 2008 you go up and make your case for pulling out. If you make good points then you'll be elected and then you have the power to do so.

But they were elected too, some elected because of their anti Bush administration stance. Don't they have a responsibility to their constituents? Or is the role of the House and Senate to just cow down to the President?

Instead you have Democrats bitching about how they wouldn't join the military. They wouldn't join the military. It's outrageous, dangerous, and unprecendented. You can whine and moan but but the Republicans did this and the Republicans did that. Well have a nice strolll down memory lane because it isn't about what did, it's about what's being done.

Are you joining the Army? Are Bush's daughters? Hell, I wouldn't join up, not now, farq that. I think you'll find with enlistment numbers as low as they are (even with the relaxing of IQ restrictions and criminal records - great, an army of retarded crooks) that's the opinion of a lot of folks. I had considered it during the first Gulf War, joining the Air Force before a draft came. But it was over too fast, so no need.

More or less. One of my history professors like to use that same thing, that parties change with the times. I think that's off set by the fact that definitions change with the time as well. A liberal in 1860 was taking a bold risk in calling a negro an equal person. A liberal today is taking a bold risk in promoting socialist medicare. You can't compare the two, in 1860 both liberals and conservatives would never have supported a annual federal tax structure. Nevertheless, one thing we can find common ground on is how much we hate our respective political parties. I think the vast majority of my party are populist porkers that are so bloated they can't see what's going on under their own fat. It's becoming cliche to say you hate both parties, but I really do. I just hate one more than the other.

Well, it's not so much as I hate the Democratic party, it's that I'm disappointed in them. They do fail me at every opportunity, but so does the majority of the federal gov't.

I don't think so. I think he smelled the fire after it was too large to be put out through some pissy efforts at the last minute.

Sometimes a last minute recantation can mean a lot, not in this case, he was screwed from December 2000, he just didn't know it yet.

I bet you don't even need glasses for that keen of hindsight you have. Perhaps you could've told that the intelligence agencies across the world that disagreed with you.

There were a lot of people saying that pre-invasion. Huge international protests, marches and political speeches. Funny that while we were dismissed at the time, it turns out we were right. Ha-ha, heh, groan.

Well, to each their own. Like I said, I would prefer that we not just do a dictator swap. I don't think that policy works out as well as you might think.

Wait, you understand that was the BUSH PLAN, not MY plan, right? Chalabi was Cheney's boy. They paid him a fortune and his guys were the first ones into Iraq, there's even some that say that it was his guys that brought down the Saddam statue, they have some compelling photos that support the idea.

Okay, I got you. Some women deserve to be cheated on. I don't understand why you would want to get married if you want to sleep around though, that never made sense to me. All people on earth who cheat, why the did you get married in the first place! That's so idiotic. I like women too but I can control my cock.

First, not what I meant, I meant if I had a woman like Hilary at home I wouldn't cheat, knowing she'd tear my balls off, and if I did, I'd certainly not admit to it on national TV. He should have refused to answer the question on the grounds that it was irrelevant to the investigation.

I don't think many people (this side of swingers) get married with the idea that they're going to cheat on their spouses. But it happens, for sure, in every walk of life. Trust me, one day you'll be married or in a relationship and you'll be severely tempted by someone, and seeing that so many people fall into it, you might find it hard to turn down. The closest I ever got was I broke up with one girl to go out with another. But at least we weren't married.

Meh, that's just stereotyping. I can tell you've never watched Hannity and Colmes, or if you have you watched it with whatever self-blinders you put up. Just the other night Colmes and some other Democratic strategy fellow where just beating up on Hannity point after point on his thing with Alec Baldwin. You could tell Hannity was frazzled by the whole thing as he just kind of shut up for a few minutes. I find that is unfortunately the case for a lot of people on the left, need I bring up the phrase, "House nigger"

You're right, I've never sat through more then ten minutes of H&C. I'm sure they throw Colmes a bone every once in a while, or he just gets lucky, but c'mon you have a bulldog and a pussy cat, who do think is going to come off better? Colmes is a wuss by any definition of the term who was chosen because of his mild manner and svelte physique. Because that's the stereotypical image of a liberal, a scrawny little pussy, as opposed to Hannity, a big, tough MAN.

I don't know what the House Ninja Remark refers to, Harry Bellafanté? Who cares about him?

In the literal sense of course it has everything to do with a higher power, my point was that's not the way the debate should be framed and you know that. This debate is so screwed up because it segways right into the whole evolution thing when that isn't the case at all. The left equates someone defending the right for a child to learn as much as they can as a priest coming in and telling a child to recite the Bible. It's not like that at all. Here's the way I see it. ID needs to be taught not for the sake of any religion, but for the sake of the children.

Bullshit. Read the first paragraph above, the reason people are against teaching Intelligent Design is there is no scientific evidence for it whatsoever. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. There is as much evidence to support ID as there is for Cheese's Theory That This Reality Is All A Bad Dream Caused By A Leftover Burrito I Ate Before Bed, And When I Wake Up You'll All Be Gone. If you want to teach ID, you have to teach the Cheese's Burrito Dream Theory too, they are both equally valid and supported by the same amount of scientific evidence.

Let's say some kid askes the teacher about why this contradicts what he was taught in sunday school. What situation do you want to put the teacher in? To call the kid's parents and parish liars who don't know the facts, or to discuss another theory that other people choose to believe. I'm not saying we should force one or the other, I'm saying the classroom should be open for all discussion. That's what a classroom is for, to learn. You don't learn by censoring information. That's ridiculous.

The teacher should direct the student to ask their parents. If a kid asks specifically, tell them flat out, "There is no scientific evidence supporting ID, thusly it has no place in a science classroom."

Wish I could read about it then.

It was a hoot.

Go prove me wrong then, go find me the article that shows President Bush embracing these veterans and appreciating the ideas that they are pushing against Sen. Kerry.

Of course Bush didn't publicly acknowledge it, it's called 'plausible deniability'. If it were found that he was connected, or anyone beyond the few minor guys who were contributing to both, it'd been over for him. Sure, it's theoretically possible he didn't approve of it going on (even less possible that Rove didn't) but the way everyone is so incestuously connected, it's unlikely they were wholly independent. Y'know, sometimes even if you can't see the line connecting A to B, it doesn't mean it's not there.

Drat. There are so many off the wall explainations, I just took a stab at one of them. I'll bet you've got a little hate for Halliburton in there somewhere. At least hit me with the Vice President thing.

My biggest problem with Haliburton is that out of some 125+ subsidiaries only about 30 are US based, meaning they don't pay taxes. If you're going to bilk the US taxpayers out of billions, at least pay some of it back as taxes. Oh, and Cheney claimed that he never used his government connections to get Haliburton sweet deals, but while he was the CEO their military contracts went from something like $3 billion a year to $30 billion a year, but his contacts in the pentagon had nothing to do with it, sure.

I'll do that, I'll do that.

I really hope you do.

I've also been reading about how our oil structure is going to collapse and we're all going to live without electricity in little makeshift huts ten years from now. That's the peak oil thing. I particularly enjoy Al Gore's doomsday predictions. Global warming will kill us all in ten years too. I got avian flu covered. Don't forget about how the President blew up the World Trade Center. And the Jews. The Jews who control everything.

All that? 100% true. Bush piloted the planes himself. All of them.

(Oddly, the X-Files spin off "The Lone Gunmen" had it's pilot episode the first week of September 2001, in it, there was a secret gov't plot to remotely fly airliners into, you guessed it, the World Trade Center, to purposely start a war in the middle east. I think an issue of the Fantastic Four predicted it too.)

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='Cheese']You say tomato, I say Tomahto, you say sectarian violence, I say beginnings of a civil war?[/quote]

Everything can be twisted to fit that bill, but I'm glad at least I got you to back off of labeling Iraq within the parameters of a civil war and rather just showing signs of one of many possibilites.

I think a lot of people feel that the President's policy on 'The War On Terror" (or "the Long War" as they are unsuccessfully trying to brand it) is disingenuous. I think they feel like they've been duped, lied to, walked on and generally dismissed. It's painfully obvious that this administration is going to do whatever it wants no matter what anyone else tells them, even from within their own party. General Zinni was on Meet the Press a week or so ago talking about how every suggestion about troop numbers, post war rule and diplomacy and the threat of an insurgency was dismissed because it didn't come from 'their' guys. I think many in the democratic party feel that even if they did extend an olive branch it'd be rebuffed. That said they have tried. Harry Reid has been to the White House numerous times with suggestions.

Well, yes. That's what an executive branch is supposed to do. Congress represents us and they advise the President, but they have no say on the direction of our foreign policy. I mean, they can make a law or decide where funding goes, but the executive is ultimately responsible for the nation's course of action. A lot of people may not agree with the President, but obviously a lot isn't enough. And as far as the olive branch goes, I think that's a load of shit. You can tell me a lot of things, but that ain't one of them. I've seen nothing but hatred for this President since 2003. I'm sure it's mostly political, I won't fight you there, but you can't tell me the Democratic party has nothing but hate for these people.

Well, it's not really comparable, Korea was an all out war with the North being backed by China and the USSR with planes and tanks and uniformed armies and the whole deal. A little different situation here. But if we go into Iran at some point...

It took us 8 years to get to about the same number of casualties in Vietnam as we have in Iraq.

Well, this isn't really comparable... that isn't really comparable... of course all wars are different, you can't compare any of them to any of them to be honest. In the past, however, we have lost many, many more troops over the course of the war than we do today.

As far as Vietnam goes, it really depends upon when you start counting the years. You have to at least start in 1965, and from 1965 to 1966 there were well over 3,500 deaths.

Sure, but it'll go on. And us leaving Iraq (which I am not saying I support) would not cause the downfall of the republic.

Not immediately, no. Over the course of time, if we cannot fight this enemy overseas then we must fight it at home.

Well, a lot of that was a screed confusing anti-Americanism with having a dissenting position. The "Act like Fucqing Americans!!!11!" thing was better left speaking for itself.

I was just pointing it out, you didn't even use an ellipsis.

Ok, he's saying that if we follow the same pattern we did in Vietnam, as the Bush plan seems to be doing, then yes, the idea that we are going to win is wrong, and more likely we would leave an unstable Gov't that would fall soon after. The more bizarre thing is what he says after, which is what you really should have pointed to...

Is that the suggests doing pretty much the same thing, just at a faster pace. Yes, Howard sometimes confuses a lot of people, myself included. i do agree that the Bush plan is a failed strategy, and the redeployment to Afghanistan, but not with his pulling out so fast idea. But hey, at least he's suggesting a alternate plan of action.

It's a blunt statement, but it accurately sums up his feelings. America will lose if it doesn't do what he says. Yeah, well, I think that's a dumb statement.

But they were elected too, some elected because of their anti Bush administration stance. Don't they have a responsibility to their constituents? Or is the role of the House and Senate to just cow down to the President?

Which leads me back to my beef with the neo-Democratic party. No ideas, no leadership, no compassion: Just good ol' Bush hate. I admit you sugarcoat it better, but let's be honest with ourselves as to what this party is. If you don't not hate this President you are not welcome in the Democratic party.

Are you joining the Army? Are Bush's daughters? Hell, I wouldn't join up, not now, farq that. I think you'll find with enlistment numbers as low as they are (even with the relaxing of IQ restrictions and criminal records - great, an army of retarded crooks) that's the opinion of a lot of folks. I had considered it during the first Gulf War, joining the Air Force before a draft came. But it was over too fast, so no need.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we lived in America where people were free to make their own individual decisions. I wouldn't volunteer, no, as is my choice to do so. It has no bearing on the current situation, I wouldn't have joined tne years ago or twenty years ago or thirty years ago... etc. That's not who I am, I don't feel I need or want to serve in the military to be complete. But for a former marine to get up and say he wouldn't join the military as a political statement is absurd, can't you at least agree with that?

Sometimes a last minute recantation can mean a lot, not in this case, he was screwed from December 2000, he just didn't know it yet.

They were still getting the missiles ready to shoot at the Pentagon.

There were a lot of people saying that pre-invasion. Huge international protests, marches and political speeches. Funny that while we were dismissed at the time, it turns out we were right. Ha-ha, heh, groan.

You keep thinking that buddy, but in the international intelligence community, everyone agreed where Hussein's Iraq stood. Even nations like France, Germany, and Russia all aided the United States in their quest.

Wait, you understand that was the BUSH PLAN, not MY plan, right? Chalabi was Cheney's boy. They paid him a fortune and his guys were the first ones into Iraq, there's even some that say that it was his guys that brought down the Saddam statue, they have some compelling photos that support the idea.

Wait, you understand that I don't care who's plan it was, I don't think puppet governments are a good idea. That's not what's going on now.

First, not what I meant, I meant if I had a woman like Hilary at home I wouldn't cheat, knowing she'd tear my balls off, and if I did, I'd certainly not admit to it on national TV. He should have refused to answer the question on the grounds that it was irrelevant to the investigation.

But he did answer, with a lie. He ultimately ended up more idiotic having to retract his statement publicly later.

I don't think many people (this side of swingers) get married with the idea that they're going to cheat on their spouses. But it happens, for sure, in every walk of life. Trust me, one day you'll be married or in a relationship and you'll be severely tempted by someone, and seeing that so many people fall into it, you might find it hard to turn down. The closest I ever got was I broke up with one girl to go out with another. But at least we weren't married.

Sorry man, maybe it sounds crazy to you but I believe in monogamy. I may be weak in some respects, namely arithmetic, but moral clarity certainly isn't one of them. Integrity can't be taken from you, only you can give it away.

You're right, I've never sat through more then ten minutes of H&C. I'm sure they throw Colmes a bone every once in a while, or he just gets lucky, but c'mon you have a bulldog and a pussy cat, who do think is going to come off better? Colmes is a wuss by any definition of the term who was chosen because of his mild manner and svelte physique. Because that's the stereotypical image of a liberal, a scrawny little pussy, as opposed to Hannity, a big, tough MAN.

Let's get serious man, what does appearance have to do with anything? If I've ever heard of an argument that grasped at straws, this is it. You think Colmes is an idiot because he's skinny and wears glasses and you think Hannity is smart because he's more stout and groomed?

I don't know what the House Ninja Remark refers to, Harry Bellafanté? Who cares about him?

Close, Ted Rall. I was just bringing it up as a reference in a "speaking of stereotyping" way.

Bullshit. Read the first paragraph above, the reason people are against teaching Intelligent Design is there is no scientific evidence for it whatsoever. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. There is as much evidence to support ID as there is for Cheese's Theory That This Reality Is All A Bad Dream Caused By A Leftover Burrito I Ate Before Bed, And When I Wake Up You'll All Be Gone. If you want to teach ID, you have to teach the Cheese's Burrito Dream Theory too, they are both equally valid and supported by the same amount of scientific evidence.

The teacher should direct the student to ask their parents. If a kid asks specifically, tell them flat out, "There is no scientific evidence supporting ID, thusly it has no place in a science classroom."

It's irrelevent. I'm talking plausible situations. I'm talking about the censor of education as we know it because it doesn't sit well with a few anti-religious extremists. What's next, should we ban books from the library because they might mention God in their text? If there is one place students and teachers should be able to freely discuss, question, and learn without senseless restrictions on what is acceptable to learn and what isn't it should be our schools.

Of course Bush didn't publicly acknowledge it, it's called 'plausible deniability'. If it were found that he was connected, or anyone beyond the few minor guys who were contributing to both, it'd been over for him. Sure, it's theoretically possible he didn't approve of it going on (even less possible that Rove didn't) but the way everyone is so incestuously connected, it's unlikely they were wholly independent. Y'know, sometimes even if you can't see the line connecting A to B, it doesn't mean it's not there.

Oh, of course. If he had publicly acknowledged it then you might have had something to point to rather than a web of, "Well he was working here which was paying for that which had an employee that was friends with him and so there was a payroll discrepancy here!"

My biggest problem with Haliburton is that out of some 125+ subsidiaries only about 30 are US based, meaning they don't pay taxes. If you're going to bilk the US taxpayers out of billions, at least pay some of it back as taxes. Oh, and Cheney claimed that he never used his government connections to get Haliburton sweet deals, but while he was the CEO their military contracts went from something like $3 billion a year to $30 billion a year, but his contacts in the pentagon had nothing to do with it, sure.

See? I knew you had something you wanted to get out.

 

[SpazX]

I'll pick out two of your arguments AoW, since I know most about these.

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
Let's get serious man, what does appearance have to do with anything? If I've ever heard of an argument that grasped at straws, this is it. You think Colmes is an idiot because he's skinny and wears glasses and you think Hannity is smart because he's more stout and groomed?[/quote]

You may not believe it, but that's how our minds work, strong, big guys are good, little, skinny guys are bad. It's not reasonable, no, but you don't reason out everything that goes through your mind; it's a mental shortcut. You can obviously think about it and it makes no sense, but this is television, and if anybody knows exactly how people think and how to use that to their advantage it's television executives. People will agree with a big, strong man over a small, skinny one unless they're motivated to do otherwise, it's a fact.


[quote name='Ace-Of-War'] It's irrelevent. I'm talking plausible situations. I'm talking about the censor of education as we know it because it doesn't sit well with a few anti-religious extremists. What's next, should we ban books from the library because they might mention God in their text? If there is one place students and teachers should be able to freely discuss, question, and learn without senseless restrictions on what is acceptable to learn and what isn't it should be our schools. [/quote]

That is exactly what the ID movement wants you to believe, that it's a free speech issue and not a religious one. This movement isn't being fought against mainly by anti-religious extremists, but by scientists. ID is not science and should not be taught in a science class, it can be taught in philosophy or religion classes, but not science since it is not a contending theory and has no scientific basis. "Plausible situations" are not science. You don't use a school science classroom to just talk about whatever the hell anybody believes, they barely have the time and resources to talk about science, you shouldn't waste that time with non-science. I never learned a damn thing about evolution in grade school and I'm sure it's like that in a lot of places, but it's a major scientific theory that fits together all of biology, so it should be up there with gravity and the periodic table of elements as essential to teaching science.

No one cares about mentioning God in a book, that's a bad slippery slope argument (that the ID movement will also use) since this is about science, but they would have you believe it's a fight against religion. The main purpose of the leadership of the ID movement is to introduce more religion into schools because they think that will correct all of society's wrongs. If you buy into the free speech and alternatives bullshit you've fallen right into their trap.

 

[Cheese]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Close, Ted Rall. I was just bringing it up as a reference in a "speaking of stereotyping" way.[/QUOTE]

Just this, I gotta go out of town for a few days:

I have had the displeasure of knowing Ted Rall, his problem is he's a cunt. He's the left's Ann Coulter, only a complete failure at it. Both are screeching assholes that in the end do damage to their cause and give ammunition to their political rivals. The only good thing about you quoting Ted Rall is that he just might be the only person alive that less people listen to then Harry Belefonté.

I'll be back in two days to get to the rest.

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='SpazX']You may not believe it, but that's how our minds work, strong, big guys are good, little, skinny guys are bad. It's not reasonable, no, but you don't reason out everything that goes through your mind; it's a mental shortcut. You can obviously think about it and it makes no sense, but this is television, and if anybody knows exactly how people think and how to use that to their advantage it's television executives. People will agree with a big, strong man over a small, skinny one unless they're motivated to do otherwise, it's a fact.[/quote]

I'll admit I've heard some pretty lame arguments in my time, but this one is really trying to take the cake. Let's get serious for a second, you're telling me that psychologically when you watch Hannity and Colmes you're a conservative because the conservative on that show is more handsome? I can't help it! I'm so attracted to Sean Hannity! You wanna talk motivation? How about motivation to stop watching whatever garbage American Idol bullshit you watch that clutters your mind to the point of not being able to listen to two human beings talk and thinking about what both of them are saying? Of course it isn't reasonable, anything a liberal says isn't reasonable, but I'll be honest ya'll are the first ones I've heard that can't think for themselves because one commentator looks different. What about Crossfire? Robert Novak is an older man than Paul Begala, certainly not as nice looking. I guess CNN is bias too then?

That is exactly what the ID movement wants you to believe, that it's a free speech issue and not a religious one. This movement isn't being fought against mainly by anti-religious extremists, but by scientists. ID is not science and should not be taught in a science class, it can be taught in philosophy or religion classes, but not science since it is not a contending theory and has no scientific basis. "Plausible situations" are not science. You don't use a school science classroom to just talk about whatever the hell anybody believes, they barely have the time and resources to talk about science, you shouldn't waste that time with non-science. I never learned a damn thing about evolution in grade school and I'm sure it's like that in a lot of places, but it's a major scientific theory that fits together all of biology, so it should be up there with gravity and the periodic table of elements as essential to teaching science.

No one cares about mentioning God in a book, that's a bad slippery slope argument (that the ID movement will also use) since this is about science, but they would have you believe it's a fight against religion. The main purpose of the leadership of the ID movement is to introduce more religion into schools because they think that will correct all of society's wrongs. If you buy into the free speech and alternatives bullshit you've fallen right into their trap.

That's no trap bud, that's common sense. It's not a religious issue at all, and I'll tell you why it isn't. Intelligent Design has no specificality, it doesn't say this God is the creator or that one is, it's just a theory that some people have on how life was created. To say it's wrong is perfectly fine, to indoctrinate children who don't know any better isn't fine. Instead of forcing you beliefs down children's throat, we should be embracing them to ask questions and be curious about anything. Let me give you a situation that I think should be acceptable for everyone:

Teacher, "...and as the species evolved... yes, Timmy?"

Student, "Mrs. K, I thought that life was created by God."

Teacher, "You brought up a good question that is often a hot button issue for teachers and public schools. There is a debate going on that says kids can't learn something because it's controversial, it's over the theory of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design, or ID, is basically the theory that a higher power created human life as opposed to the evolution of life. Some people believe in it and some do not, but if you want more information on the subject then I suggest you take courses on Theology. I obviously can't go into too much detail because of the implications, but I encourage you to learn more if you are interested. Again, you're welcome to believe whatever you'd like, but the evolutionary theory is going to be included in next week's test. Anyways, as the species evolved..."

I'm not suggesting there be a three week section on Intelligent Design, but to act like the government has to move in and punish teachers for using the G-word is ridiculous. That's what they're there for, to teach. If a student is curious about something, they shouldn't be silenced for the sake of being politically correct. All this PC stuff is driving me mad.

 

[SpazX]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I'll admit I've heard some pretty lame arguments in my time, but this one is really trying to take the cake. Let's get serious for a second, you're telling me that psychologically when you watch Hannity and Colmes you're a conservative because the conservative on that show is more handsome? I can't help it! I'm so attracted to Sean Hannity! You wanna talk motivation? How about motivation to stop watching whatever garbage American Idol bullshit you watch that clutters your mind to the point of not being able to listen to two human beings talk and thinking about what both of them are saying? Of course it isn't reasonable, anything a liberal says isn't reasonable, but I'll be honest ya'll are the first ones I've heard that can't think for themselves because one commentator looks different. What about Crossfire? Robert Novak is an older man than Paul Begala, certainly not as nice looking. I guess CNN is bias too then?[/quote]

God damn, calm down, I wasn't even making an argument, I was explaining what cheese was talking about and bringing up the influence that appearance has on people. This is television, if you think appearance doesn't matter you aren't paying much attention. In fact, if you think appearance doesn't matter in life in general you aren't paying much attention. People make assumptions from the appearances of other people, they don't change those assumptions unless they have a really good reason. The general audience watching Fox News for news are not coming at it from an objective angle wanting to see who makes the most reasonable argument (that's true for any TV show) nor are they the most educated on the issues that will be presented, so they'll probably just listen to whoever talks the most/loudest piss and moan to some group of peers and then walk off and not really care. The target audience of Fox News is conservative, they put a conservative on the show that looked good and a liberal that didn't. Fox News' bias it probably towards money, they make money by pandering to their target audience so that they watch. It's TV, it's entertainment.


[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
That's no trap bud, that's common sense. It's not a religious issue at all, and I'll tell you why it isn't. Intelligent Design has no specificality, it doesn't say this God is the creator or that one is, it's just a theory that some people have on how life was created. To say it's wrong is perfectly fine, to indoctrinate children who don't know any better isn't fine. Instead of forcing you beliefs down children's throat, we should be embracing them to ask questions and be curious about anything. Let me give you a situation that I think should be acceptable for everyone:

Teacher, "...and as the species evolved... yes, Timmy?"

Student, "Mrs. K, I thought that life was created by God."

Teacher, "You brought up a good question that is often a hot button issue for teachers and public schools. There is a debate going on that says kids can't learn something because it's controversial, it's over the theory of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design, or ID, is basically the theory that a higher power created human life as opposed to the evolution of life. Some people believe in it and some do not, but if you want more information on the subject then I suggest you take courses on Theology. I obviously can't go into too much detail because of the implications, but I encourage you to learn more if you are interested. Again, you're welcome to believe whatever you'd like, but the evolutionary theory is going to be included in next week's test. Anyways, as the species evolved..."

I'm not suggesting there be a three week section on Intelligent Design, but to act like the government has to move in and punish teachers for using the G-word is ridiculous. That's what they're there for, to teach. If a student is curious about something, they shouldn't be silenced for the sake of being politically correct. All this PC stuff is driving me mad.[/quote]


Even disregarding the people behind ID and the intentions of the ID movement, god is a religious concept, it requires faith, it's supernatural. It can't be tested, so science does not deal with it. It's not science, so it shouldn't be taught in a science class. I don't care if a kid comes up with a question and the teacher says it can't be answered scientifically and so it isn't discussed in a science class, but rather theology or philosophy. Kids should know that science only deals with the natural, things that can be tested and verified, not the supernatural.

Chances are their parents have been telling them about god since before they even went to school at all anyway. They can't learn it in a science class because it's not science (for the 500th time). It's not forcing beliefs down children's throats, it's teaching them a valid scientific theory that unifies biology. Other beliefs are irrelevant in a biology class unless they've been tested and verified scientifically.

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='SpazX']God damn, calm down, I wasn't even making an argument, I was explaining what cheese was talking about and bringing up the influence that appearance has on people. This is television, if you think appearance doesn't matter you aren't paying much attention. In fact, if you think appearance doesn't matter in life in general you aren't paying much attention. People make assumptions from the appearances of other people, they don't change those assumptions unless they have a really good reason. The general audience watching Fox News for news are not coming at it from an objective angle wanting to see who makes the most reasonable argument (that's true for any TV show) nor are they the most educated on the issues that will be presented, so they'll probably just listen to whoever talks the most/loudest piss and moan to some group of peers and then walk off and not really care. The target audience of Fox News is conservative, they put a conservative on the show that looked good and a liberal that didn't. Fox News' bias it probably towards money, they make money by pandering to their target audience so that they watch. It's TV, it's entertainment.[/quote]

Absolutely it matters, but I would think someone that sounds as intelligent as Cheese could think for himself instead of being wooed by some fancy wardrobe. I like how you just ignored my Crossfire point, I guess in denial to concede CNN's bias? There's no such thing as a "money" bias, because in a capitalist society every product or service is made to create profit. I think the argument is sorely flawed in its foundation. People may or may not have an inclination towards a more stout person rather than a slimmer person, but that's all generalized speculation. You or Cheese may need "a really good reason" to look past your self-applied biases on people, but I really think that's the exception. I know I don't look at people that way, I may make impressions but there is such a thing as character. For someone to turn on the television and just assume that person is right or that person is wrong is an individual flaw attributed to ignorance. If you're defending his point, you're making an argument, devil's advocate or not.

Even disregarding the people behind ID and the intentions of the ID movement, god is a religious concept, it requires faith, it's supernatural. It can't be tested, so science does not deal with it. It's not science, so it shouldn't be taught in a science class. I don't care if a kid comes up with a question and the teacher says it can't be answered scientifically and so it isn't discussed in a science class, but rather theology or philosophy. Kids should know that science only deals with the natural, things that can be tested and verified, not the supernatural.

Chances are their parents have been telling them about god since before they even went to school at all anyway. They can't learn it in a science class because it's not science (for the 500th time). It's not forcing beliefs down children's throats, it's teaching them a valid scientific theory that unifies biology. Other beliefs are irrelevant in a biology class unless they've been tested and verified scientifically.

You agree though, right? With my hypothetical? I think we're in agreement but we don't even know it. I'm not advocating that ID have a three week series and then a test over it, I understand why someone would be opposed to that and I agree with it. I'm saying answering questions, or teaching children, shouldn't be forbidden because you or people like you get offended when they hear the word God.

 

[SpazX]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Absolutely it matters, but I would think someone that sounds as intelligent as Cheese could think for himself instead of being wooed by some fancy wardrobe. I like how you just ignored my Crossfire point, I guess in denial to concede CNN's bias? There's no such thing as a "money" bias, because in a capitalist society every product or service is made to create profit. I think the argument is sorely flawed in its foundation. People may or may not have an inclination towards a more stout person rather than a slimmer person, but that's all generalized speculation. You or Cheese may need "a really good reason" to look past your self-applied biases on people, but I really think that's the exception. I know I don't look at people that way, I may make impressions but there is such a thing as character. For someone to turn on the television and just assume that person is right or that person is wrong is an individual flaw attributed to ignorance. If you're defending his point, you're making an argument, devil's advocate or not.[/quote]
I ignored the CNN thing because I didn't think it was relevant, I'm not attacking Fox News in particular, just look at TV news in general, why are like 90% of news reporters on TV hot chicks? It's not for their exceptional news reporting skills. My money bias thing was more of a joke, but it's true in a sense. Any TV news program will report in a way that gets viewers (and they're usually targeted to a certain demographic), I'm not saying they're necessarily evil or something, but that's what they have to do in order to make money. It's kind of disheartening since news is supposed to be objective, but that's pretty much impossible to do with the system now in place.

I'm also not directing my comments about appearance towards you either, it's a general bias within everybody. People make judgements without thinking everyday because they're not devoting their attention to them. You understand that you, me, cheese, anybody really debating politics, whether they be conservative or liberal, is not the norm. Politics are avoided almost entirely by most people either because it's annoying, they don't care or they just have shit to do, it's understandable.

TV news shows are made to be entertaining, not particuarly informative. If you see two old guys that are boring to listen to talking about politics on TV then there might be something of substance in there since they're sure as hell not entertaining, but shit like crossfire, o'reilly, hannity and colmes, scarborough country, like seven million other shows where people are either attractive, shouting, both, or whatever, they're going for entertainment, outrage, or whatever it is they can do to get viewers whether or not it's slanted one way or the other, entirely irrelevant entertainment, or bullshit. Sometimes they report on something important in an objective manner, but it's not really the intent of the shows.


[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
You agree though, right? With my hypothetical? I think we're in agreement but we don't even know it. I'm not advocating that ID have a three week series and then a test over it, I understand why someone would be opposed to that and I agree with it. I'm saying answering questions, or teaching children, shouldn't be forbidden because you or people like you get offended when they hear the word God.[/quote]
I agree that I don't have a problem if a child asked a question and the teacher explained to them that it's not a subject for a science class. They don't need to explain any more than that since one of the first things kids should know about science is the scientific method.

My main problem is that the proponents of ID are not trying to open the minds of children as they try to spin it, they're trying to get more religion (in the form of christianity) into schools and they're using ID as a stepping stone. It's in their own documents, I'm not sure if they even deny it.

EDIT: Here's the document: http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0605/discovery-wedge.php#coverpage

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='SpazX']I ignored the CNN thing because I didn't think it was relevant, I'm not attacking Fox News in particular, just look at TV news in general, why are like 90% of news reporters on TV hot chicks? It's not for their exceptional news reporting skills. My money bias thing was more of a joke, but it's true in a sense. Any TV news program will report in a way that gets viewers (and they're usually targeted to a certain demographic), I'm not saying they're necessarily evil or something, but that's what they have to do in order to make money. It's kind of disheartening since news is supposed to be objective, but that's pretty much impossible to do with the system now in place.

I'm also not directing my comments about appearance towards you either, it's a general bias within everybody. People make judgements without thinking everyday because they're not devoting their attention to them. You understand that you, me, cheese, anybody really debating politics, whether they be conservative or liberal, is not the norm. Politics are avoided almost entirely by most people either because it's annoying, they don't care or they just have shit to do, it's understandable.

TV news shows are made to be entertaining, not particuarly informative. If you see two old guys that are boring to listen to talking about politics on TV then there might be something of substance in there since they're sure as hell not entertaining, but shit like crossfire, o'reilly, hannity and colmes, scarborough country, like seven million other shows where people are either attractive, shouting, both, or whatever, they're going for entertainment, outrage, or whatever it is they can do to get viewers whether or not it's slanted one way or the other, entirely irrelevant entertainment, or bullshit. Sometimes they report on something important in an objective manner, but it's not really the intent of the shows.[/quote]

No, not in a sense, it's one hundred percent true. That's why they exist, to make profit. If they didn't make a profit they wouldn't stay on the air very long. Nevertheless, I see your point. I thought you and Cheese were just feeding the same old, "Faux News is biased!!!1" line I've heard over and over again. I agree that those who were chosen, be it Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity, or who have you, are chosen because they appeal to their audience. I bet the average citizen who just watchs Bill O'Reilly because he likes his voice or Wolf Blitzer because she thinks he's cute make up a surprisingly large part of the audience.

I agree that I don't have a problem if a child asked a question and the teacher explained to them that it's not a subject for a science class. They don't need to explain any more than that since one of the first things kids should know about science is the scientific method.

Meh, we're basically on the same page then. There's a big difference between lecturing about Moses and explaining what ID is and what the proponents of it believe. I recognize that, and I would only advocate the latter be the case.

 

[SpazX]

Well I guess we're pretty much understanding each other then. Time for Cheese to come back (I thought he said two days...).

 

[Cheese]

OK, my trip took a little longer then I expected. But hooray, I have returned to continue this pointless pissing match. C'moooooooooooooooon FUN!

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Everything can be twisted to fit that bill, but I'm glad at least I got you to back off of labeling Iraq within the parameters of a civil war and rather just showing signs of one of many possibilities.[/quote]

Oh, I still think they're 14 seconds from a full on civil war. The kidnapping and murder of the bus loads of Police last week was a sure sign of that.

Well, yes. That's what an executive branch is supposed to do. Congress represents us and they advise the President, but they have no say on the direction of our foreign policy. I mean, they can make a law or decide where funding goes, but the executive is ultimately responsible for the nation's course of action.

C'mon man, they ignored the generals in favor of the brains from their think tank, who not only turned out to be wrong, but staggeringly wrong. And when called on it, they blow it off (RE: Rummy in the past week). They run around saying, "We don't listen to polls, we listen to the generals on the ground." and when the generals come out and say, "They're screwing it up!" they blow them off. So now they're pissing on the Military the same way they pissed on the FBI and CIA.

A lot of people may not agree with the President, but obviously a lot isn't enough. And as far as the olive branch goes, I think that's a load of shit. You can tell me a lot of things, but that ain't one of them. I've seen nothing but hatred for this President since 2003. I'm sure it's mostly political, I won't fight you there, but you can't tell me the Democratic party has nothing but hate for these people.

There has been olive branch after olive branch offered up and politely taken and ignored. Other times he just cops the Democrats points and uses them as his own. "We're addicted to oil, y'see." Jesus, he says it like no one has been screaming that for 25 years. Like it's something new.

PS - You want to see what a real opposition party looks like? Check out the C-Span feed from the house of commons sometime. We're a goddamn tea party in comparison.

Well, this isn't really comparable... that isn't really comparable... of course all wars are different, you can't compare any of them to any of them to be honest. In the past, however, we have lost many, many more troops over the course of the war than we do today.

We also fought enemies with real armies, tanks, air forces, financial backing, etc. And of course now we're not the main target anymore, now they're killing each other.

Not immediately, no. Over the course of time, if we cannot fight this enemy overseas then we must fight it at home.

Again, every time you spout a phrase from the GOP talking points memo you sound like a sheep.

But you seriously believe that if we pulled out of Iraq it would eventually lead to the downfall of the republic? Like if we pulled out of Iraq, A-bombs would start falling on Chicago?

It's a blunt statement, but it accurately sums up his feelings. America will lose if it doesn't do what he says. Yeah, well, I think that's a dumb statement.

And you just said that if we pull out if would doom the country as a whole. Some might also think that's a dumb statement.

Which leads me back to my beef with the neo-Democratic party. No ideas, no leadership, no compassion: Just good ol' Bush hate. I admit you sugarcoat it better, but let's be honest with ourselves as to what this party is. If you don't not hate this President you are not welcome in the Democratic party.

Actually I think the Democratic parties biggest problem is too many ideas. They seem to have the biggest trouble focusing on one plan of action. Because of that they do seem to lack a focal point of leadership. They really need someone to come in and just pick one of the 50 plans they have out there on any given topic and run with it. And sorry, but no compassion? Wrong party pal.

Please note that you didn't answer my question. If Senator X gets elected for his anti-administration views, does he not have a responsibility to the voters that got him elected or should he just shut up and be at the beck and call of a lame duck president?

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we lived in America where people were free to make their own individual decisions. I wouldn't volunteer, no, as is my choice to do so. It has no bearing on the current situation, I wouldn't have joined tne years ago or twenty years ago or thirty years ago... etc. That's not who I am, I don't feel I need or want to serve in the military to be complete. But for a former marine to get up and say he wouldn't join the military as a political statement is absurd, can't you at least agree with that?

For all I know you're a 300 lbs. Ace of McNuggets, but whatever, I'm sure you have your reasons. Sure you have the choice to not join the military, not to stand up for the things you so obviously believe in, to sit at home and bang away on your keyboard spouting GOP talking points. You go do that, while the kid from up the block takes a bullet in the back.

I don't think it's absurd, I don't think it was a political stunt, I think it's true.

They were still getting the missiles ready to shoot at the Pentagon.

I think my head just exploded.

You keep thinking that buddy, but in the international intelligence community, everyone agreed where Hussein's Iraq stood. Even nations like France, Germany, and Russia all aided the United States in their quest.

And look at that, they were all wrong too. I never thought being right would suck so much.

Wait, you understand that I don't care who's plan it was, I don't think puppet governments are a good idea. That's not what's going on now.

Yeah, so what if their plan was to put in place a puppet? We can still trust them!

But he did answer, with a lie. He ultimately ended up more idiotic having to retract his statement publicly later.

Actually he didn't look like an idiot at all, he looked like a guy trying to save his marriage.

Sorry man, maybe it sounds crazy to you but I believe in monogamy. I may be weak in some respects, namely arithmetic, but moral clarity certainly isn't one of them. Integrity can't be taken from you, only you can give it away.

You really should go back and re-read what I said.

Let's get serious man, what does appearance have to do with anything? If I've ever heard of an argument that grasped at straws, this is it. You think Colmes is an idiot because he's skinny and wears glasses and you think Hannity is smart because he's more stout and groomed?

It's perceptions and every little bit counts. Pushing stereotypes is only one tool in the media box. I don't think Colmes is an idiot because he's scrawny (I have a whole laundry list why he's an idiot) but I know that he was chosen because he's the Steve Buscemi to Hannity's Bruce Willis. Who are you gonna trust to blow up the asteroid? It's peoples perceptions of what a liberal is, scrawny, whiney pussies like Colmes and Rall, vs. the American übermen of Hannity and Coulter.

It's irrelevent. I'm talking plausible situations. I'm talking about the censor of education as we know it because it doesn't sit well with a few anti-religious extremists. What's next, should we ban books from the library because they might mention God in their text? If there is one place students and teachers should be able to freely discuss, question, and learn without senseless restrictions on what is acceptable to learn and what isn't it should be our schools.

What is acceptable to learn in a science class? Science. You bring me one shred of evidence that points to Intelligent Design and we'll see. Until then, sorry, not in a science class. My main reason not to teach ID is that it creates the perception that evolution isn't as overwhelmingly evidenced as it is. Teaching it gives the impression that the theory is drastically flawed, which it isn't, not in any way that would be explained in a public school. There are gaps, but at a much higher level then school kids are taught, and to fill in those gaps with magic god beans is an insult.

Of course you talk about how schools should be open and free places of learning, but Texas leads the country in Abstinence only education, which study after study shows causes more teenage pregnancies then every type of sex-ed combined. How about the free and open discussion about human sexuality and contraception?

Oh, of course. If he had publicly acknowledged it then you might have had something to point to rather than a web of, "Well he was working here which was paying for that which had an employee that was friends with him and so there was a payroll discrepancy here!"

How big does the writing on the wall have to be?

See? I knew you had something you wanted to get out.

So I take it you're all for Halliburton having their offices in a PO Box in the Caymans for the sole purpose of them not paying US taxes?

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='Cheese']C'moooooooooooooooon FUN![/quote]

You started it buddy, I was just responding to PAD when you start throwing your liberal tantrum at me. Maybe some of the others let you get away with that spin, but I tend to bitch for pages upon pages until my assailant grows so tired of it that they say something like "Oh, this is pointless. Obviously this guy cannot understand anything whine whine whine he's too stupid wahhhh wahhhh wahhhh..."

Oh, I still think they're 14 seconds from a full on civil war. The kidnapping and murder of the bus loads of Police last week was a sure sign of that.

Yeah but earlier you were claiming the civil war has been going on for some time, but as terrorism grows more weary and sparse in the country we can chalk that up as progress even with an increase in sectarian violence. It's an unfortunate truth, but one that cannot be attributed to our military seeing as how religious disagreements are deep wounds within the very souls of the followers of Islam. There is little we can do to defend from a civil war other than train more and more Iraqi military and police to enforce the laws of their nation. When we do such it is a sure sign of progress toward bringing out troops home.

C'mon man, they ignored the generals in favor of the brains from their think tank, who not only turned out to be wrong, but staggeringly wrong. And when called on it, they blow it off (RE: Rummy in the past week). They run around saying, "We don't listen to polls, we listen to the generals on the ground." and when the generals come out and say, "They're screwing it up!" they blow them off. So now they're pissing on the Military the same way they pissed on the FBI and CIA.

Well when you ask the mainstream media what's going on in the military they'll say they have found a handful of generals who are not supportive of the Secretary of Defense. As a very small minority of people they all happen to gain national attention because the mainstream media will air any story unfavorable of this administration. You've got Sec. Rumsfeld who's not afraid to lead, who knows how the game works. People like Cohen and Perry are politicans, not leaders. They let the generals call the shots and they just go with the flow. Sec. Rumsfeld has a much different take on the role, and he makes a lot of enemies with his way of doing things. He isn't afraid to say no to military contractors and generals if he thinks it's in the best interests of this nation and this military to do otherwise. The generals who were used to basically running the show at the Pentagon are pissed that civilian control is coming back in style. I'm a huge supporter of civilian control of our military, and not just in name only.

There has been olive branch after olive branch offered up and politely taken and ignored. Other times he just cops the Democrats points and uses them as his own. "We're addicted to oil, y'see." Jesus, he says it like no one has been screaming that for 25 years. Like it's something new.

Show me. Show me the Democratic party that even says a nice thing about President Bush. Show me the Democratic party that offers an ounce of respect for the man. Show me one ing Howard Dean quote unsarcastically praising President Bush for anything.

PS - You want to see what a real opposition party looks like? Check out the C-Span feed from the house of commons sometime. We're a goddamn tea party in comparison.

So what? Don't use it as an excuse, this isn't the UK and we aren't a parliamentary government.

We also fought enemies with real armies, tanks, air forces, financial backing, etc. And of course now we're not the main target anymore, now they're killing each other.

Which is why it isn't really like any war we've ever fought before, but like I said no war can really compare to another because of a variety of factors ranging from terrain to technology. All things considered though, the pure military statistics are phenomenal.

Again, every time you spout a phrase from the GOP talking points memo you sound like a sheep.

But you seriously believe that if we pulled out of Iraq it would eventually lead to the downfall of the republic? Like if we pulled out of Iraq, A-bombs would start falling on Chicago?

And you think you don't sound like the same partisan hack on the other side? Bahhhh.

Pulling out of Iraq is different from losing the battle in Iraq. We could pull out now in a gradual fashion and be okay. As this national government establishes itself there will be little left to do in the country and beginning to pull out would make sense. The structure is stable and the seeds are growing over most of Iraq, the few urban problem spots that still exist will begin to dissipate over time. To answer your question though, if we lose Iraq then that's a big blow against not only the United States but freedom as a whole. Islamic fascism is a movement not unlike historical evils we have faced before. A culture whose goals are global domination through a certain medium, in this case religion, that will conform the people of this world or kill them. That is the stated goal of this radical movement, and that is what needs to be stopped. The longer it is allowed slack, allowed to buddy up with dictators and autocratic governments, allowed to plan, plot, and strategize it's efforts in bringing down Western society, then the harder the war on this terror will be.

And you just said that if we pull out if would doom the country as a whole. Some might also think that's a dumb statement.

The difference is I hope and pray we win and our nation succeeds without any political strings attached. I don't predict failure and spread fear to score political points. I don't trash the work of our soldiers and the strength of this nation because victory makes my political party look bad.

Actually I think the Democratic parties biggest problem is too many ideas. They seem to have the biggest trouble focusing on one plan of action. Because of that they do seem to lack a focal point of leadership. They really need someone to come in and just pick one of the 50 plans they have out there on any given topic and run with it. And sorry, but no compassion? Wrong party pal.

Please note that you didn't answer my question. If Senator X gets elected for his anti-administration views, does he not have a responsibility to the voters that got him elected or should he just shut up and be at the beck and call of a lame duck president?

That might be the case as well, and I think you have a point. Listening to Sen. Biden is much different than listening to Sen. Kennedy as far as foreign policy is concerned.

I did answer you though. Senator X, if he's a Democrat, will always be elected for his anti-Bush views because that's what the Democratic platform is. We hate Bush. If they win elections on that platform (which wouldn't be any time lately) then of course that's their obligation.

For all I know you're a 300 lbs. Ace of McNuggets, but whatever, I'm sure you have your reasons. Sure you have the choice to not join the military, not to stand up for the things you so obviously believe in, to sit at home and bang away on your keyboard spouting GOP talking points. You go do that, while the kid from up the block takes a bullet in the back.

I don't think it's absurd, I don't think it was a political stunt, I think it's true.

If your avatar is anything to go on... Either way, the difference is I respect their decision to choose the military as a path for their life. Because of them, I can live the life I choose to live, in spite of all the guilt trips the anti-military left tries to pass off while besmirching and attacking those that did volunteer to defend them every step of the way. I honor those troops, I don't attack or belittle them to make political points. I think anyone who does so is the real coward.

And look at that, they were all wrong too. I never thought being right would suck so much.

As I said, hindsight is a wonderful thing. It was still a necessary step that both this administration and the previous administration agreed was important to make. Except one of them had the balls to do so, despite what the polls would say about him.

Yeah, so what if their plan was to put in place a puppet? We can still trust them!

Maybe you do, not me. I think puppet governments are like band-aids, and ultimately we are going to need a long term solution to the Middle East.

Actually he didn't look like an idiot at all, he looked like a guy trying to save his marriage.

That's right, dishonesty is the best policy.

It's perceptions and every little bit counts. Pushing stereotypes is only one tool in the media box. I don't think Colmes is an idiot because he's scrawny (I have a whole laundry list why he's an idiot) but I know that he was chosen because he's the Steve Buscemi to Hannity's Bruce Willis. Who are you gonna trust to blow up the asteroid? It's peoples perceptions of what a liberal is, scrawny, whiney pussies like Colmes and Rall, vs. the American übermen of Hannity and Coulter.

This was basically settled, I agree that the media, like any other business, uses people or products that appeal to their audience. I won't deny there are people out there who watch Sean Hannity because they think he's cute or watch Alan Colmes because they think he looks sophisticated with little baring on their stance and what they have to say about anything. I thought you and SpazX were making one of those tired "Faux News is biazed!!1" arguments I've heard over and over again.

What is acceptable to learn in a science class? Science. You bring me one shred of evidence that points to Intelligent Design and we'll see. Until then, sorry, not in a science class. My main reason not to teach ID is that it creates the perception that evolution isn't as overwhelmingly evidenced as it is. Teaching it gives the impression that the theory is drastically flawed, which it isn't, not in any way that would be explained in a public school. There are gaps, but at a much higher level then school kids are taught, and to fill in those gaps with magic god beans is an insult.

You agree with my statement a few posts ago though right?

Let me give you a situation that I think should be acceptable for everyone:

Teacher, "...and as the species evolved... yes, Timmy?"

Student, "Mrs. K, I thought that life was created by God."

Teacher, "You brought up a good question that is often a hot button issue for teachers and public schools. There is a debate going on that says kids can't learn something because it's controversial, it's over the theory of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design, or ID, is basically the theory that a higher power created human life as opposed to the evolution of life. Some people believe in it and some do not, but if you want more information on the subject then I suggest you take courses on Theology. I obviously can't go into too much detail because of the implications, but I encourage you to learn more if you are interested. Again, you're welcome to believe whatever you'd like, but the evolutionary theory is going to be included in next week's test. Anyways, as the species evolved..."

That's how I think ID should be involved. Not as a full blown section of the class but as a note to the children about what ID is and what it means. Children should be able to tell you what Intelligent Design is, it's just ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Children aren't as dumb as you might think, I don't think politics should ever come before giving them the full education they deserve.

Of course you talk about how schools should be open and free places of learning, but Texas leads the country in Abstinence only education, which study after study shows causes more teenage pregnancies then every type of sex-ed combined. How about the free and open discussion about human sexuality and contraception?

That's a different debate. That's a debate over role of schools as it relates to raising our children. But obviously the government has no place in overriding the wishes of the parents, that's despicable. I'm more lenient on this whole issue though, and I think if they are that poor of parents and are afraid to talk to their children then there should be a class offered in high school that teaches appropriate sexual education.

How big does the writing on the wall have to be?

I could say the same thing to you about all Sen. Kerry's military record.

So I take it you're all for Halliburton having their offices in a PO Box in the Caymans for the sole purpose of them not paying US taxes?

I can't say I blame them with the tax code as ed up as it is. Most competent corporations hire accountants and attorney's who job is only to abuse tax loopholes and slither around the tax code. I'm all for tax reform.

 

[Msut77]

Ace.

Concerning the Iraq mess, it isnt hindsight.

I think thats been pointed out before.

 

[Cheese]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']You started it buddy, I was just responding to PAD when you start throwing your liberal tantrum at me. Maybe some of the others let you get away with that spin, but I tend to bitch for pages upon pages until my assailant grows so tired of it that they say something like "Oh, this is pointless. Obviously this guy cannot understand anything whine whine whine he's too stupid wahhhh wahhhh wahhhh..." [/quote]

[sarcasm]That is an intelligent and well thought out debate tactic.[/sarcasm]

I don't think you're stupid. I think you're young and uninformed. I think that you've been inundated with these guys for your entire thinking life and you're unwilling to even consider the idea that maybe they're not the righteous heroes you think they are. But I remember when I was 18, I know how thick headed teenagers are. No matter how many times you tell them they're wrong, they're going to run with it anyways. Luckily they often figure it out by themselves in the end. You'll be surprised how different 22 year old you will think. My only hope for you is that you actually stop thinking about politics, it's become a bitter old man's game. 18 year olds should be worrying about more important things like getting laid and scoring beer for the weekend. No one likes a bitter 18 year old.

Yeah but earlier you were claiming the civil war has been going on for some time, but as terrorism grows more weary and sparse in the country we can chalk that up as progress even with an increase in sectarian violence. It's an unfortunate truth, but one that cannot be attributed to our military seeing as how religious disagreements are deep wounds within the very souls of the followers of Islam. There is little we can do to defend from a civil war other than train more and more Iraqi military and police to enforce the laws of their nation. When we do such it is a sure sign of progress toward bringing out troops home.

And leaving the place a total mess. U!S!A! U!S!A! There might have been quite a bit we could have done to stop what I believe is the beginnings of a civil war (please note I said 14 seconds from all out civl war), but thanks to the crack planning of the Bush Administration, our options now are increasingly limited.

Well when you ask the mainstream media what's going on in the military they'll say they have found a handful of generals who are not supportive of the Secretary of Defense.

Ahhhh, "the mainstream media" an oldie but a goody. I really love that one.

As a very small minority of people they all happen to gain national attention because the mainstream media will air any story unfavorable of this administration.

As they've done for time immemorial. This and every administration. One might even say that's become the job of the press. And truth be told, the mainstream media gave Bush a huge pass pre-invasion. The dissenting voices were few.

You've got Sec. Rumsfeld who's not afraid to lead, who knows how the game works. People like Cohen and Perry are politicans, not leaders. They let the generals call the shots and they just go with the flow. Sec. Rumsfeld has a much different take on the role, and he makes a lot of enemies with his way of doing things. He isn't afraid to say no to military contractors and generals if he thinks it's in the best interests of this nation and this military to do otherwise. The generals who were used to basically running the show at the Pentagon are pissed that civilian control is coming back in style. I'm a huge supporter of civilian control of our military, and not just in name only.

There's a difference between not being afraid to lead and being really bad at it. Rummy's plan, what ever it may actually be, seems to backfire at every given opportunity and he's got an excuse for everything. He's been a liability to the Bush Administration for sometime now, and it's not the presses fault, it's his own.

Show me. Show me the Democratic party that even says a nice thing about President Bush. Show me the Democratic party that offers an ounce of respect for the man. Show me one ing Howard Dean quote unsarcastically praising President Bush for anything.

Please see the works of Joe Lieberman, the congressional and senatorial democrats that voted for the patriot act, his tax cuts, or even his invasion of both Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Iraq.

So what? Don't use it as an excuse, this isn't the UK and we aren't a parliamentary government.

I'm just saying, it could be a lot worse.

Which is why it isn't really like any war we've ever fought before, but like I said no war can really compare to another because of a variety of factors ranging from terrain to technology. All things considered though, the pure military statistics are phenomenal.

So no war can compare to another, but let's compare...

And you think you don't sound like the same partisan hack on the other side? Bahhhh.

Hey, at least I ain't using the DNC cheat book.

Pulling out of Iraq is different from losing the battle in Iraq. We could pull out now in a gradual fashion and be okay. As this national government establishes itself there will be little left to do in the country and beginning to pull out would make sense. The structure is stable and the seeds are growing over most of Iraq, the few urban problem spots that still exist will begin to dissipate over time.

Funny, George Murtha when he suggested the a similar action be taken, a plan for a gradual troop withdrawal, was smeared all over the country as a 'retreat in defeat' coward.

That's some mighty optimistic thinking, and a pretty unrealistic. The violence in Iraq isn't declining, it's increasing. Governmental control over the outlying areas is limited at best, if not lost wholly to local militias. Outside of the Green zone, Baghdad is a mess with daily gunfights and bombings. So it's not quite a 'few urban problem spots' the Iraq population is some 75% urban, so these 'few urban problem areas' are where everyone lives. We caused this mess, we have to stay and clean it up. Now only if we had an actual plan to do that instead of 'staying the course.'

To answer your question though, if we lose Iraq then that's a big blow against not only the United States but freedom as a whole. Islamic fascism is a movement not unlike historical evils we have faced before. A culture whose goals are global domination through a certain medium, in this case religion, that will conform the people of this world or kill them. That is the stated goal of this radical movement, and that is what needs to be stopped. The longer it is allowed slack, allowed to buddy up with dictators and autocratic governments, allowed to plan, plot, and strategize it's efforts in bringing down Western society, then the harder the war on this terror will be.

Aren't we, to some degree, asking the same of them? Conform or we'll kill you?

There are better tools to combat radical fundamentalism then guns. Much of the reason radical islamic factions were started in the first place was to combat the rise of social liberalism in the region, which during the 70's was sweeping the middle east like a wildfire. We should be shipping them newspapers, music, literature, TV, etc. Media has much more power to influence then military intervention. It takes longer, but you get real change, you actually change peoples minds instead of scaring them into submission, or worse, military intervention that pushes them into joining in with the radicals.

The difference is I hope and pray we win and our nation succeeds without any political strings attached. I don't predict failure and spread fear to score political points. I don't trash the work of our soldiers and the strength of this nation because victory makes my political party look bad.

Sure you spread fear to score political points. The whole "If we fail in Iraq we'll be ruined!" is just that. 'Fighting them there so we don't fight them here' paints pictures of suicide bombings at Walmart. That's the idea behind much of the speak that comes out of the Administration and what you've said here.

I did answer you though. Senator X, if he's a Democrat, will always be elected for his anti-Bush views because that's what the Democratic platform is. We hate Bush. If they win elections on that platform (which wouldn't be any time lately) then of course that's their obligation.

So, then they're not acting unamerican?

If your avatar is anything to go on... Either way, the difference is I respect their decision to choose the military as a path for their life. Because of them, I can live the life I choose to live, in spite of all the guilt trips the anti-military left tries to pass off while besmirching and attacking those that did volunteer to defend them every step of the way. I honor those troops, I don't attack or belittle them to make political points. I think anyone who does so is the real coward.

C'mon, you're of age, you believe in the cause, what's stopping you? How better to honor the men and women you hold so high then to become one of them? You're the Ace-of-War, go on over there and show'em how it's done, I'm sure they'd appreciate the help. Support our troops, become one of them.

As I said, hindsight is a wonderful thing. It was still a necessary step that both this administration and the previous administration agreed was important to make. Except one of them had the balls to do so, despite what the polls would say about him.

If I and others were speaking out how Iraq had no WMD before the invasion and it turns out to be true, how is that hindsight?

Maybe you do, not me. I think puppet governments are like band-aids, and ultimately we are going to need a long term solution to the Middle East.

No, actually YOU are still trusting them. The neo-con plan was to put Ahmed Chalabi in place of Saddam as a puppet leader. He's Cheney's guy. You're the one still trusting them to do the right thing after they tried and failed to do the wrong thing.

That's right, dishonesty is the best policy.

We don't live in a world of absolutes, it might not be the best policy, but there's a difference between admitting to your wife you had an affair in private and being grilled about it on national television. When you grow up you'll realize that sometimes telling the whole truth might not be the best idea.

You agree with my statement a few posts ago though right?

Yes and no. Should teachers talk about it when it's brought up? Sure. But even calling it an 'opposing theory' gives it too much credit.

That's how I think ID should be involved. Not as a full blown section of the class but as a note to the children about what ID is and what it means. Children should be able to tell you what Intelligent Design is, it's just ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Children aren't as dumb as you might think, I don't think politics should ever come before giving them the full education they deserve.

The way it continues to be presented in schools is a disclaimer on books saying that evolution isn't a fact and that ID is just as reasonable an idea if that's what you believe. But that's just not the case.

That's a different debate. That's a debate over role of schools as it relates to raising our children. But obviously the government has no place in overriding the wishes of the parents, that's despicable. I'm more lenient on this whole issue though, and I think if they are that poor of parents and are afraid to talk to their children then there should be a class offered in high school that teaches appropriate sexual education.

Well the way you wanted to phrase the ID debate, that it was unfair because it actively keeps information away from children, is very much the same as the restricting of sexual education through abstinence only programs.

Fewer and fewer parents talk to their kids about sex, and for good reason, they don't know the facts either. Schools have a responsibility to teach kids the basic facts about the world around them, that includes screwing. ID may never touch their lives, but they're all going to screw.

I could say the same thing to you about all Sen. Kerry's military record.

Well, we went over that and there's plenty of evidence proving the SBVfJ as bullshit. And while connected, this is different, the connection between the SB guys and the Bush Campaign is pretty distinct. Not 100%, but enough that it stinks like week old garbage. And the 'mainstream media' did little to inform the people of the connections, those liberal scumbags.

I can't say I blame them with the tax code as ed up as it is. Most competent corporations hire accountants and attorney's who job is only to abuse tax loopholes and slither around the tax code. I'm all for tax reform.

So a major government contractor that receives billions in tax payer dollars is justified in moving it's assets over seas so it doesn't have to pay the same taxes because of paperwork. That's ok in your book, no moral ambiguity? OK. Just making sure.

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='Cheese']I don't think you're stupid. I think you're young and uninformed. I think that you've been inundated with these guys for your entire thinking life and you're unwilling to even consider the idea that maybe they're not the righteous heroes you think they are. But I remember when I was 18, I know how thick headed teenagers are. No matter how many times you tell them they're wrong, they're going to run with it anyways. Luckily they often figure it out by themselves in the end. You'll be surprised how different 22 year old you will think. My only hope for you is that you actually stop thinking about politics, it's become a bitter old man's game. 18 year olds should be worrying about more important things like getting laid and scoring beer for the weekend. No one likes a bitter 18 year old.[/quote]
Alright Mr. Rogers, I appreciate your little stroll down memory lane. I'd work on your parental speech though, underage drinking and casual sex are hardly "important" goals to attain in life or otherwise. Nevertheless, you're missing out when you set stereotypes on people, I shouldn't have to tell you personal attacks aren't good debating tactics either. I'm sure misery loves company and all but you don't need to be smashed to fight off bitterness, hopefully not something you learned too late?

And leaving the place a total mess. U!S!A! U!S!A! There might have been quite a bit we could have done to stop what I believe is the beginnings of a civil war (please note I said 14 seconds from all out civl war), but thanks to the crack planning of the Bush Administration, our options now are increasingly limited.

Let me guess, "NTO goin to iraq too begn with!!1" Consider me your wake up call: We went. You can't change the past.

As they've done for time immemorial. This and every administration. One might even say that's become the job of the press. And truth be told, the mainstream media gave Bush a huge pass pre-invasion. The dissenting voices were few.

One might also say that the job of the press is to be objective. One might say the editorials job is to attack ideas, people, and politicans.

There's a difference between not being afraid to lead and being really bad at it. Rummy's plan, what ever it may actually be, seems to backfire at every given opportunity and he's got an excuse for everything. He's been a liability to the Bush Administration for sometime now, and it's not the presses fault, it's his own.

Oh, I wasn't aware that you were in the position of advising the President about who he should choose in his cabinet. I can't help it you don't like the man because you think he's a liability to the administration, but I can help you by informing you of the fact that it's the President's call to make about whether or not to keep Sec. Rumsfeld, not yours. I'm sure he appreciates your constructive criticism there though.

Please see the works of Joe Lieberman, the congressional and senatorial democrats that voted for the patriot act, his tax cuts, or even his invasion of both Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Iraq.

I'm surprised you even mentioned his name, you know the DNC is working to take Sen. Lieberman out of office. Just as hard as they work to distance themselves from Zell Miller. Democrats who support this President on anything are ostracized.

So no war can compare to another, but let's compare...

You asked for it! You questioned why I called these death statistics that the left loves to use as a talking point phenomonal from the view of how low they are.

Hey, at least I ain't using the DNC cheat book.

What are you even talking about? I hope you make sense in your own mind because you sure as hell aren't making sense here. When you argue politics like this, you're bound to say what other people you agree with also say, that's just the way it works. No one is immune to it, maybe when you're up there on your ivory tower you tend to forget how ideas like "We shouldn't have went to Iraq!" aren't exactly original.

Funny, George Murtha when he suggested the a similar action be taken, a plan for a gradual troop withdrawal, was smeared all over the country as a 'retreat in defeat' coward.

Hmm? Ever thought that maybe, I don't know, I'm my own person? I have a mind of my own? Don't answer those questions, they're rhetorical. I already know your answer anyways. Just because I support this President doesn't mean I agree with him one hundred percent about everything he's ever said ever. Liberals have such a hard time understanding that in this day and age. What's funny is how you proved the very point I said on the first post of this thread. I was talking with PAD about how stupid liberals can be when they push this assumption that just because you're on the right means you believe everything President Bush says without question. Maybe that's what the commentators or DailyKos or whatever have conditioned people to think, but they're detracting just that much more from the real issue.

That's some mighty optimistic thinking, and a pretty unrealistic. The violence in Iraq isn't declining, it's increasing. Governmental control over the outlying areas is limited at best, if not lost wholly to local militias. Outside of the Green zone, Baghdad is a mess with daily gunfights and bombings. So it's not quite a 'few urban problem spots' the Iraq population is some 75% urban, so these 'few urban problem areas' are where everyone lives. We caused this mess, we have to stay and clean it up. Now only if we had an actual plan to do that instead of 'staying the course.'

[quote name='October 2005, Congressional Report on Iraq']Insurgent attacks remain concentrated in four of Iraq’s eighteen provinces; half of the Iraqi population lives in areas that experience only six percent of all attacks. Six provinces reported a statistically insignificant number of attacks based on population size.[/quote]
It's really dependant on where you get your information, I can find ten blogs that say how bad it is everywhere, and I can find ten blogs that say how those are all misrepresentations.

Aren't we, to some degree, asking the same of them? Conform or we'll kill you?

There are better tools to combat radical fundamentalism then guns. Much of the reason radical islamic factions were started in the first place was to combat the rise of social liberalism in the region, which during the 70's was sweeping the middle east like a wildfire. We should be shipping them newspapers, music, literature, TV, etc. Media has much more power to influence then military intervention. It takes longer, but you get real change, you actually change peoples minds instead of scaring them into submission, or worse, military intervention that pushes them into joining in with the radicals.

No, you can't compare establishing a democracy to forcing religious obedience.

What do you think they're doing over there, twiddling thumbs? There are over a hundred independent newspapers and magazines, 72 radio stations, and 44 television stations as of Oct. 2005. I doubt Hussein would have allowed independent media to interfere with his people anyways, seeing as how there weren't any independent media outlets in Iraq before the war. It would be wonderful if the people just revolted, but that's way easier said than done. Just dropping a few issues of the New York Times is going to have Hussein tell the people that anyone caught with disgraceful western propoganda will be shot on sight.

Sure you spread fear to score political points. The whole "If we fail in Iraq we'll be ruined!" is just that. 'Fighting them there so we don't fight them here' paints pictures of suicide bombings at Walmart. That's the idea behind much of the speak that comes out of the Administration and what you've said here.

Actually it's called history. It's called 9/11. The price of doing nothing is that they bring the war over here as we saw clearly on that day. Losing Iraq to these same terrorist organizations will not help our effort to defend our way of life here and abroad.

So, then they're not acting unamerican?

Hey, you asked me what I'd have Democrats do. I told you what I'd have them do, act like they want this nation to win.

C'mon, you're of age, you believe in the cause, what's stopping you? How better to honor the men and women you hold so high then to become one of them? You're the Ace-of-War, go on over there and show'em how it's done, I'm sure they'd appreciate the help. Support our troops, become one of them.

That's such a typical fallacy. If you support abortion rights, why don't you become a doctor who practices abortion? They sure could use the support! If you support capital punishment, why don't you become a judge and rule it? They sure could use the support! If you support police protection, why don't you become a police officer! They sure could use the support!

If I and others were speaking out how Iraq had no WMD before the invasion and it turns out to be true, how is that hindsight?

Because even the left believed that Iraq had WMDs, hell I could pull out the whole list of quotes which I'm sure you've heard a million times before. If you specifically were so confident in the lack of finding WMDs, you're but an exception.

No, actually YOU are still trusting them. The neo-con plan was to put Ahmed Chalabi in place of Saddam as a puppet leader. He's Cheney's guy. You're the one still trusting them to do the right thing after they tried and failed to do the wrong thing.

They aren't doing that though, in fact these past couple of weeks in particular the President have been very vocal on the fact that it's time for the Iraqi's to get serious about a national government. I'm not a neo-conservative, and I don't support Chalabi to be a dictator. Just today al-Jaafari announced that he would step down to help speed up this deadlock that's been going on between the sects.

We don't live in a world of absolutes, it might not be the best policy, but there's a difference between admitting to your wife you had an affair in private and being grilled about it on national television. When you grow up you'll realize that sometimes telling the whole truth might not be the best idea.

So when I grow up I'll realize how lieing to my wife and child under oath is really protecting them? Maybe I'm not the one who needs to do the growing up...

Yes and no. Should teachers talk about it when it's brought up? Sure. But even calling it an 'opposing theory' gives it too much credit.

The way it continues to be presented in schools is a disclaimer on books saying that evolution isn't a fact and that ID is just as reasonable an idea if that's what you believe. But that's just not the case.

No need to be that anal about it anyways, if the biggest issue the public education system has to deal with is whether or not teachers are politically correct enough then we've come a long way from today. Public schools have way too much on their plate before they can start going into all the classes and making sure a teacher doesn't use the word "God".

Well the way you wanted to phrase the ID debate, that it was unfair because it actively keeps information away from children, is very much the same as the restricting of sexual education through abstinence only programs.

Fewer and fewer parents talk to their kids about sex, and for good reason, they don't know the facts either. Schools have a responsibility to teach kids the basic facts about the world around them, that includes screwing. ID may never touch their lives, but they're all going to screw.

To assign the government the responsibility to raise children isn't something we want to do. Unless you believe that the government is ultimately responsible for the welfare and education of all people until they are 18 regardless of what the parents have to say about it then you have no ground to stand on on this issue. Abstinence is ultimately all they need to know about sex either way, so it doesn't really matter what facts the parents know or don't know. If the parents take the responsibility of raising their child seriously they'll get the facts, especially with the internet there is no longer an excuse to be ignorant. To say the government trumps the child's parents on what's best for the child is breaching communism.

Well, we went over that and there's plenty of evidence proving the SBVfJ as bullshit. And while connected, this is different, the connection between the SB guys and the Bush Campaign is pretty distinct. Not 100%, but enough that it stinks like week old garbage. And the 'mainstream media' did little to inform the people of the connections, those liberal scumbags.

[quote name='FAQ, SBVFT']
17. Are you working or involved in any way with the Bush/Cheney campaign or any other Republican organization?
Absolutely not. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a non-partisan organization. As part of our mission, we believe it is incumbent on ALL presidential candidates to be totally honest and forthcoming regarding personal background and policy information that would help the voting public make an informed decision when choosing the next president of the United States.
The organization was created, organized and funded by swift boat veterans who joined together to defend a common cause. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accepts donations from individuals and groups as a 527 organization.[/quote]

So a major government contractor that receives billions in tax payer dollars is justified in moving it's assets over seas so it doesn't have to pay the same taxes because of paperwork. That's ok in your book, no moral ambiguity? OK. Just making sure.

It's pretty much a punishment for having such a shitty tax system. The corporations that get away with tax fraud every year do so legally and illegally.

I might have to add my sarcasm tags. If they are caught doing these things, they should of course be punished as well. It's causes great doubt that you would advance this theory like it is an apparent and well known fact while nothing has been done about it on a federal, state, or local level.

 

[Msut77]

Ace is yet another rightwing loon, ignore and be sure to point out his idiocy.

I hate to rehash this but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth#Truthfulness

 

[Cheese]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Alright Mr. Rogers, I appreciate your little stroll down memory lane. I'd work on your parental speech though, underage drinking and casual sex are hardly "important" goals to attain in life or otherwise. Nevertheless, you're missing out when you set stereotypes on people, I shouldn't have to tell you personal attacks aren't good debating tactics either. I'm sure misery loves company and all but you don't need to be smashed to fight off bitterness, hopefully not something you learned too late? [/quote]

Hey man, those weren't personal attacks, they were realities. Trust me, you're going to change your mind about a lot of things in the next few years. It's part of the natural development of human beings. Humans don't settle in to who they are until their mid thirties. So be as stubborn as you want, kiddo, it's no use, you're changing as we speak.

Underage drinking is part of the American experience. Would I want my kids to get loaded? As a parent, no. But I can't be too shocked when it happens. It's all about rebelling against perceived societal restraints, affirming your individuality and self identity.

And there is nothing wrong with casual sex. Again, it's part of being an American under thirty. Wait until you go to college (if you go at all).

Let me guess, "NTO goin to iraq too begn with!!1" Consider me your wake up call: We went. You can't change the past.

That would've been a start, but now that we're there we have to stick it out, but with an actual plan of action, not sitting around waiting for others to get their shit together.

One might also say that the job of the press is to be objective. One might say the editorials job is to attack ideas, people, and politicans.

The definition of objective has changed somewhat since the advent of Cable news. Now it's attack everyone, no matter their party affiliation. Unless you're at FOX well then it's just attack anyone left of Rupert Murdock.

Oh, I wasn't aware that you were in the position of advising the President about who he should choose in his cabinet. I can't help it you don't like the man because you think he's a liability to the administration, but I can help you by informing you of the fact that it's the President's call to make about whether or not to keep Sec. Rumsfeld, not yours. I'm sure he appreciates your constructive criticism there though.

As an American citizen everyone is in the position of advising the president, but hey, he can keep him, I mean he's become a lighting rod, might as well let him sit there and take it instead of letting the lighting the Pres. himself. At least that seems to be the running M.O. But hell, at this point they'd have to catch Rummy naked with a barrel of dead, underage boys to make him look worse.

I'm surprised you even mentioned his name, you know the DNC is working to take Sen. Lieberman out of office. Just as hard as they work to distance themselves from Zell Miller. Democrats who support this President on anything are ostracized.

That's not true at all, there are only a few Senators who voted against the Iraq war, the rest of them 'supported the president' and aren't hung out to dry.

You asked for it! You questioned why I called these death statistics that the left loves to use as a talking point phenomonal from the view of how low they are.

Let's just do a little comparison, shall we?

I didn't ask for shit. I just pointed out that maybe a death toll that rises every year isn't 'phenomenal'.

What are you even talking about? I hope you make sense in your own mind because you sure as hell aren't making sense here. When you argue politics like this, you're bound to say what other people you agree with also say, that's just the way it works. No one is immune to it, maybe when you're up there on your ivory tower you tend to forget how ideas like "We shouldn't have went to Iraq!" aren't exactly original.

Yeah, saying the same thing is one thing, constantly repeating, word for word as if read from the the talking points memos is something else. But you go ahead, keep saying 'em. Keep using the RNC vetted catch phrases.

Hmm? Ever thought that maybe, I don't know, I'm my own person? I have a mind of my own? Don't answer those questions, they're rhetorical. I already know your answer anyways. Just because I support this President doesn't mean I agree with him one hundred percent about everything he's ever said ever.

What do you disagree with him about? And are you to the left of him on anything?

It's really dependant on where you get your information, I can find ten blogs that say how bad it is everywhere, and I can find ten blogs that say how those are all misrepresentations.

And vice versa, so I guess we're stuck.

No, you can't compare establishing a democracy to forcing religious obedience.

I was speaking philosophically. What if they didn't want a democracy? What if they wanted a communist state? Would we have allowed that? We are dictating what form of government they have, much like religious extremists want to dictate a state religion.

What do you think they're doing over there, twiddling thumbs? There are over a hundred independent newspapers and magazines, 72 radio stations, and 44 television stations as of Oct. 2005. I doubt Hussein would have allowed independent media to interfere with his people anyways, seeing as how there weren't any independent media outlets in Iraq before the war. It would be wonderful if the people just revolted, but that's way easier said than done. Just dropping a few issues of the New York Times is going to have Hussein tell the people that anyone caught with disgraceful western propoganda will be shot on sight.

Well first, I was talking about Islamic fundamentalism. Not Iraq in particular, which never really had a problem with it, especially under Saddam as his minority was in power. Terrorists hated Saddam because he was a socialist. I was talking broader, the entire Islamic world. And when I said liberalism, I didn't mean the American version, I meant on the grand scale, compared to them, we're already too liberal.

Islamic fundamentalism rose from westernized social liberalism encroaching into the middle east through cultural change brought about through media. Media is just as powerful a tool as a gun against these guys. Bring about social change through various media can provide longer term, stable change. You convince the people of Iran that their government is too hard line and they'll affect change on their own. It's slower paced, but more legitimate. It also costs less lives.

Actually it's called history. It's called 9/11. The price of doing nothing is that they bring the war over here as we saw clearly on that day. Losing Iraq to these same terrorist organizations will not help our effort to defend our way of life here and abroad.

Price of doing nothing? I'm sorry, but the Clinton administration did their part in trying to combat terrorism including multiple attempts to kill Bin Laden and his associates, tripling the anti-terrorism budget, catching and convicting as many 1st WTC bombing, Kobar Towers bombers, and Kenya bombing terrorists as possible (thanks to us not having an extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia, we weren't able to get the rest.)

It's this administration that did little about terrorism until 9/11.

Hey, you asked me what I'd have Democrats do. I told you what I'd have them do, act like they want this nation to win.

They are, they just think the evidence shows that this game plan isn't working.

That's such a typical fallacy. If you support abortion rights, why don't you become a doctor who practices abortion? They sure could use the support! If you support capital punishment, why don't you become a judge and rule it? They sure could use the support! If you support police protection, why don't you become a police officer! They sure could use the support!

Where do you think Abortion doctors, judges and police come from? People who are passionately behind the goals of each profession. You're passionately behind the military, being an ACE-OF- WAR and all, join up!

Because even the left believed that Iraq had WMDs, hell I could pull out the whole list of quotes which I'm sure you've heard a million times before. If you specifically were so confident in the lack of finding WMDs, you're but an exception.

I think there were several million people who believed it, there were international protests about it, marches, rallies, speeches. And to top it off Hans Blix's reports that showed Iraq had destroyed nearly all of it's biological weapons. (some small amounts were found and destroyed, and by small I mean like 13 gallons of mustard gas agents.)

They aren't doing that though, in fact these past couple of weeks in particular the President have been very vocal on the fact that it's time for the Iraqi's to get serious about a national government. I'm not a neo-conservative, and I don't support Chalabi to be a dictator. Just today al-Jaafari announced that he would step down to help speed up this deadlock that's been going on between the sects.

But they tried, doesn't that worry you?

So when I grow up I'll realize how lieing to my wife and child under oath is really protecting them? Maybe I'm not the one who needs to do the growing up...

Well, if you're an important enough person like say, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, you might want to protect them from international embarrassment, so, yeah.

No need to be that anal about it anyways, if the biggest issue the public education system has to deal with is whether or not teachers are politically correct enough then we've come a long way from today. Public schools have way too much on their plate before they can start going into all the classes and making sure a teacher doesn't use the word "God".

Uh, what? We've come along way since... today?

And it's not a debate about political correctness, it's about science facts and theological beliefs. Evolution is as much of a fact as todays humans are capable of understanding and is the basis for nearly all biology. ID is, well, not.

To assign the government the responsibility to raise children isn't something we want to do. Unless you believe that the government is ultimately responsible for the welfare and education of all people until they are 18 regardless of what the parents have to say about it then you have no ground to stand on on this issue. Abstinence is ultimately all they need to know about sex either way, so it doesn't really matter what facts the parents know or don't know. If the parents take the responsibility of raising their child seriously they'll get the facts, especially with the internet there is no longer an excuse to be ignorant. To say the government trumps the child's parents on what's best for the child is breaching communism.

It is the governments responsibility to educate America's future generation to an even degree so that they can gain employment (and ultimately pay taxes) and keep America progressing forward. Sure parents have a say in how their kids are educated, but the law says that they still have to be educated, be it public, private or home schooling. I guess we're a communist state then.

You're advocating giving teenagers even less education about the workings of their own bodies. THAT's absurd. Sex ed is about preparing kids with an knowledge of their own basic biology and provide them with an understanding how that works in today's society, preparing them to go out into the world and make their own decisions. Now most schools allow parents to opt out of the programs if they want to handle it themselves, but they don't because getting into the specifics of the topic is not only embarrassing for them, but complicated. If given the choice, many parents wouldn't talk to their kids until it was too late anyhow.

Originally Posted by FAQ, SBVFT
17. Are you working or involved in any way with the Bush/Cheney campaign or any other Republican organization?
Absolutely not. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a non-partisan organization. As part of our mission, we believe it is incumbent on ALL presidential candidates to be totally honest and forthcoming regarding personal background and policy information that would help the voting public make an informed decision when choosing the next president of the United States.
The organization was created, organized and funded by swift boat veterans who joined together to defend a common cause. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accepts donations from individuals and groups as a 527 organization.

Yeah, I'm sure they'd have no reason to, y'know, lie or anything.

It's pretty much a punishment for having such a shitty tax system. The corporations that get away with tax fraud every year do so legally and illegally.

That's awesome. It's the laziness in complying to the tax code that companies stash their money in the Cayman Islands, not greed. Ok, sure.

I might have to add my sarcasm tags. If they are caught doing these things, they should of course be punished as well. It's causes great doubt that you would advance this theory like it is an apparent and well known fact while nothing has been done about it on a federal, state, or local level.

Oh, it's legal, but it's morally reprehensible.

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='Cheese']Hey man, those weren't personal attacks, they were realities. Trust me, you're going to change your mind about a lot of things in the next few years. It's part of the natural development of human beings. Humans don't settle in to who they are until their mid thirties. So be as stubborn as you want, kiddo, it's no use, you're changing as we speak.

Underage drinking is part of the American experience. Would I want my kids to get loaded? As a parent, no. But I can't be too shocked when it happens. It's all about rebelling against perceived societal restraints, affirming your individuality and self identity.

And there is nothing wrong with casual sex. Again, it's part of being an American under thirty. Wait until you go to college (if you go at all).[/quote]

Well, I will admit it's a unique angle to come at me with. The "too young" thing, who knows, maybe you actually buy into it. Either way, a cop out is a cop out, and I would imagine for a secular, free-spirit, socialist leaning fellow that getting liquored up and ing anything that moves is seen as natural. It's not natural, it may be normal, it's not natural. Alcohol is, in truth, very harmful to your liver and the body treats it virtually like poison. Hence hangovers, nausea, cirrhosis, etc. Then there is always STDs caused by careless sex with whomever. Typical societal standards pressure the average twenty-something to conform to whatever drug or sexual encounter available, but they are just a matter of pressures and pure emotional behaviors.

There are no doubt urges that come with puberty to and peer pressure, the strive to be "accepted" or "normal" are tough feelings to fight, but that's all they are, feelings. No one is immune to them, but using traits like character, responsibility, morality, and common sense, it's not too difficult to do what you know is right. I probably sound like a wet blanket, and although I've done my share of drinking and going out, I try to check it in moderation as best as a human being can. At least with kids you don't carry on these habits too much anymore, right?

That would've been a start, but now that we're there we have to stick it out, but with an actual plan of action, not sitting around waiting for others to get their shit together.

I think the term "stay the course" is throwing you off. When President Bush uses that phrase he doesn't literally mean stand still and don't do anything. The course in that context would be training Iraqi military as best as we can, working together politically to help establish a strong republic that is fair and honest, working to defend the borders of Iraq and aid the police in hotspots around Iraq.

The definition of objective has changed somewhat since the advent of Cable news. Now it's attack everyone, no matter their party affiliation. Unless you're at FOX well then it's just attack anyone left of Rupert Murdock.

The press has always been biased one way or the other. Cable is to the 21st century what yellow journalism was to the 20th century. Fox News is but another organization that appeals to its audience with a good amount of self-described political commentators that already have a lean before they say a word. Murdock used this innovative and brilliant strategy to his advantage for better or worse, and now Fox News dominates the Cable news genre even after starting several years behind their rivals, primarily Turner's CNN. All Murdock did was tap into a large audience that the others neglected. While it goes without saying that Ted Turner is no less partisan than Rupert Murdock, it's hard to argue any real destruction of journalistic principles when characters like William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer were guilty of just as bad of infractions on a different medium.

As an American citizen everyone is in the position of advising the president, but hey, he can keep him, I mean he's become a lighting rod, might as well let him sit there and take it instead of letting the lighting the Pres. himself. At least that seems to be the running M.O. But hell, at this point they'd have to catch Rummy naked with a barrel of dead, underage boys to make him look worse.

Lighting rod, heh.

As if it made a difference, the attacks only serve to make his attackers look more fiendish in the eyes of the fence sitters, while Donald Rumsfeld takes it in stride as a man who has to make tough decisions in a tough environment, and has nothing but support from his boss and the majority of the Republican base. While there will always be the Sen. McCain in any political party, it's safe to say Rumsfeld isn't going anywhere. Any attacks against him just goes to further cement his residency in this cabinet now and until this President leaves office.

That's not true at all, there are only a few Senators who voted against the Iraq war, the rest of them 'supported the president' and aren't hung out to dry.

Next you're going to tell me they did so out of honest support of this administration and not because they are politicans looking to be reelected? If you buy that one I have a bridge to sell you. These Democrats are not as infallible as you play them up to be.

I didn't ask for shit. I just pointed out that maybe a death toll that rises every year isn't 'phenomenal'.

Statistically. Sta-tis-tic-ally.

Of course every death is a tragedy that needs to be honored and respected as if it were our own. That doesn't change the fact that this death toll for a war that has been going on 3+ years is phenomenally low.

Yeah, saying the same thing is one thing, constantly repeating, word for word as if read from the the talking points memos is something else. But you go ahead, keep saying 'em. Keep using the RNC vetted catch phrases.

Oh, okay, I get it. Cheese debating protips 101: Follow the Democrats lockstep but change the words around so it doesn't look like it.

So instead of we shouldn't have went to Iraq you say Iraq was not the country that the United States military needed to enter. Brilliant!

The phrase that as they stand up we stand down is an important strategy for victory and for exiting this nation. If you prefer though, I'll use more convoluted language and extensive rhetoric to say the same thing only more intellectually.

The United States military, in an effort to create a transition effortlessly refined to an exorbitant degree, must recalibrate their presence by means of delegating martial responsibility equivalently thus to forces of Iraqi regimentals.

What do you disagree with him about? And are you to the left of him on anything?

The question you should be asking is if he is to the right of me on anything, because President Bush is not a conservative. Domestically the man picks and chooses his beliefs in a way unlike conservatives or Republicans. Examples:

His veto authority, or lack there of, when it comes to obvious pork spending. He wants tax cuts but he doesn't want to cut spending. Immigration is, by far, his biggest weak point. He is a fan of amnesty in the face of a base completely against it. For a former Texas governor such a position is inexcusable. Punch in "Bush" and "steel tariffs" in google to see how President Bush dealt a blow to free trade. I wasn't a big fan of Harriet Myers, although I wasn't nearly as deadset against her as a majority of conservatives were. I do think he's a secretive President, and that isn't so much a negative as it is a disappointment. I think he could do more to fight the War on Terror domestically. If he would address the nation more and visit Iraq more. If there is such a negative media then he needs to find a way to push out positive coverage, despite whatever notions of propaganda the left throws at him. It's a war and half of our country doesn't think that we can win and doesn't want us to win.

He has several good points as well, namely his cojones when it comes to ignoring the political game and standing up for what's right. The man has more principle than any living politican, mainly because it's an oxymoron, principled politican. His judicial nominations are top drawer, and I think that's what he will most be known for in history domestically. His recognition and courage when it comes to calling out Islamic facism as the greatest threat to this nation and our way of life.

Rest assured that I can agree and disagree on a number of issues with the President though.

I was speaking philosophically. What if they didn't want a democracy? What if they wanted a communist state? Would we have allowed that? We are dictating what form of government they have, much like religious extremists want to dictate a state religion.

Communism is an economic system and it and democracy aren't mutually excluding. Communist principles can easily be taken advantage of though, but I think it's safe to say in this climate that communism will not prevail in any situation but a hypothetical one. That argument of dictation can only take you so far because it really is self-defeating. We are dictating that the Iraqis have a voice to say what they want, so can you really call that dictation? As far as religion goes, that's a bridge that we could cross when we come to it but all signs point to real strives toward secular principles in this state.

Well first, I was talking about Islamic fundamentalism. Not Iraq in particular, which never really had a problem with it, especially under Saddam as his minority was in power. Terrorists hated Saddam because he was a socialist. I was talking broader, the entire Islamic world. And when I said liberalism, I didn't mean the American version, I meant on the grand scale, compared to them, we're already too liberal.

Islamic fundamentalism rose from westernized social liberalism encroaching into the middle east through cultural change brought about through media. Media is just as powerful a tool as a gun against these guys. Bring about social change through various media can provide longer term, stable change. You convince the people of Iran that their government is too hard line and they'll affect change on their own. It's slower paced, but more legitimate. It also costs less lives.

Despite what Ba'athism stood for, Hussein was, for all intents and purposes, a full blown totalitarian. Islam didn't have a large role in government because Hussein didn't want power relegated to clerics or religion, he wanted the power for himself. I mean Hussein was as much a socialist as Stalin was. All that aside, I do understand what you are saying and I do love that way too. This is what I see as the problem with that route. People are too complacent, and although I know that every Iranian has the yearning to be free, I think fear is a stronger emotion than courage in most instances. Iran should be dealt with in due time, but no option should be taken off the table under any circumstances if Iran's government remains committed to nuclear ambitions and oppressive governance. I agree with you though, an aggressive campaign of spreading liberal ideas by means of media and counter-Iranian propaganda is a good idea that would be good to explore.

Price of doing nothing? I'm sorry, but the Clinton administration did their part in trying to combat terrorism including multiple attempts to kill Bin Laden and his associates, tripling the anti-terrorism budget, catching and convicting as many 1st WTC bombing, Kobar Towers bombers, and Kenya bombing terrorists as possible (thanks to us not having an extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia, we weren't able to get the rest.)

It's this administration that did little about terrorism until 9/11.

Former President Clinton was offered OBL more than once, specifically in 1996 when the Sudanese government offered a captured OBL on a silver platter. He cut the military budget time after time in a trend that lasted ten years. Look up Louis Freeh, who mentions this same problem with Saudi Arabia only he doesn't leave out the fact the former President Clinton never attempted to get the evidence and instead hit up Price Abdullah for a donation to the Clinton Library.

They are, they just think the evidence shows that this game plan isn't working.

That's no excuse to demoralize the players and personally attack the coach. If the plan is wrong then that's what should be attacked and debated.

Where do you think Abortion doctors, judges and police come from? People who are passionately behind the goals of each profession. You're passionately behind the military, being an ACE-OF- WAR and all, join up!

So then you don't support abortion, the rule of law, or police protection? Let's be fair, since according to your logic you can only support something if you are part of it.

I think there were several million people who believed it, there were international protests about it, marches, rallies, speeches. And to top it off Hans Blix's reports that showed Iraq had destroyed nearly all of it's biological weapons. (some small amounts were found and destroyed, and by small I mean like 13 gallons of mustard gas agents.)

Use straw men much? Perhaps there were millions, roughly, but millions is but a drop in a bucket compared to 6.5-7 billion. Oh, and you also just happened to leave out that, um, wars are never popular. No one but sick sociopaths want war for the sake of it, war is unfortunately a necessary institution. Even that statement can't be agreed upon by a majority of the world. So, again, irrelevence of the argument aside, those that did not support it were but exceptions to the majority of governments around the world that disagreed.

But they tried, doesn't that worry you?

Why would it? Puppet governments are a completely logical and understandable foreign policy position to believe in. Past Presidents have made it policy to replace governments with pro-Western type people. I don't particularly feel that way and I happen to think it's a waste of time to do so. Temporarily it might work but a real solution will still be necessary further down the line. I view containment, or a policy like detente as a more worrisome foreign policy.

Well, if you're an important enough person like say, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, you might want to protect them from international embarrassment, so, yeah.

Under that heavy of a public eye I wonder if he ever thought he was really going to get away with his dishonesty or if he was merely buying time...

Uh, what? We've come along way since... today?

And it's not a debate about political correctness, it's about science facts and theological beliefs. Evolution is as much of a fact as todays humans are capable of understanding and is the basis for nearly all biology. ID is, well, not.

What I meant was there are far more pressing issues that the American public education system should deal with before political correctness. For starters maybe to quit letting retards graduate. We rank pretty low in developed nations as far as education goes.

Oh and you better believe it's a political correctness issue. When you try to censor words because they are offensive to certain people or teachers whatever, that's the definetion of PC. There is nothing wrong with explaining to kids that there are competitive theories of how human life was created, taking a side is the problem, not teaching.

It is the governments responsibility to educate America's future generation to an even degree so that they can gain employment (and ultimately pay taxes) and keep America progressing forward. Sure parents have a say in how their kids are educated, but the law says that they still have to be educated, be it public, private or home schooling. I guess we're a communist state then.

You're advocating giving teenagers even less education about the workings of their own bodies. THAT's absurd. Sex ed is about preparing kids with an knowledge of their own basic biology and provide them with an understanding how that works in today's society, preparing them to go out into the world and make their own decisions. Now most schools allow parents to opt out of the programs if they want to handle it themselves, but they don't because getting into the specifics of the topic is not only embarrassing for them, but complicated. If given the choice, many parents wouldn't talk to their kids until it was too late anyhow.

There's a difference between taking a course on personal hygene and biology and handing out condoms to 14 year olds. It is not the position of the government to teach children how to have sex, to make it so is opening pandora's box. If we "can't trust" the parents to raise their children the way the state thinks they should be raised, then we might as well kiss the Bill of Rights bye bye because individualism will have taken a serious blow to the face. If you can honestly say you support the state having free reign to circumvent the authority of the parents, then who's to say the state shouldn't have the unquestionable authority to disallow certain people from having children at all? What if the powers that be deemed that homosexuals were deemed unfit to adopt/raise children because it didn't conform to the state? What if the powers that be deemed it illegal to baptize or take a child to a church that their parents attend? Sorry Cheese, I value freedom more than I value the government having the power to "correctly" raise children.

Yeah, I'm sure they'd have no reason to, y'know, lie or anything.

That's your call, I haven't seen any evidence that leads me to believe they had any interests in President Bush's victory outside of keeping Sen. Kerry out of office. They don't have any positions in this administration or anything, unless you can show me that these people got the spoils with sweet government jobs or something?

That's awesome. It's the laziness in complying to the tax code that companies stash their money in the Cayman Islands, not greed. Ok, sure.

Oh, it's legal, but it's morally reprehensible.

Estimates of how much GM spent for abiding by the tax system starts at about $300 billion a year and go up to $500 billion. That's billion with a B, money that could've been spent investing in new ideas for cars, greener cars, more efficent cars. It could've been used for employee purposes, expanding the workforce, giving raises, extending benefits... it could've been used for a lot of things but it just goes straight into the government so that the do-nothing Congressmen and women can build more bridges in Alaska that lead nowhere.

 

[Msut77]

Ace the "Clinton was offered Osama via Sudan" meme is bunk.

Are you clueless or just dishonest?

 

[Cheese]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Well, I will admit it's a unique angle to come at me with. The "too young" thing, who knows, maybe you actually buy into it. Either way, a cop out is a cop out, and I would imagine for a secular, free-spirit, socialist leaning fellow that getting liquored up and ing anything that moves is seen as natural. It's not natural, it may be normal, it's not natural. Alcohol is, in truth, very harmful to your liver and the body treats it virtually like poison. Hence hangovers, nausea, cirrhosis, etc. [/quote]

Eating Cheetos is un-natrual. Driving a car is un-natural. Wearing shoes is un-natural. Money is un-natural. Computers are un-natural. Virtually everything is un-natural. Wine is natural.

Booze goes back to mesopotamia. Humans have been drinking since man first banded together in a society. Jesus drank. Hell, the wedding he was at was on day 3 when they ran out of wine and called on Jesus to make up a new batch. Day THREE! That's a bender if I ever heard of one.

Up until the 80's the drinking age was 18 here in the states, it still is in various parts of Europe and Canada, so the term 'underage' drinking kinda depends on where you are.

Hangovers are caused by: 1) dehydration. Alcohol is a diuretic, meaning it makes you piss more fluid then you take in and can be avoided by drinking a decent amount of water (1:1.5 ratio); 2) Sugar. Booze is high in sugar to begin with and your body motabilizes alcohol as sugar. So when drinking your sugar levels go through the roof. When you stop your body craves the sugar and gives you a headache/nausea. A banana has enough sugar and essential vitamins to replace what you've lost and even out your system. Hangovers are not evidence of POISON.

Then there is always STDs caused by careless sex with whomever. Typical societal standards pressure the average twenty-something to conform to whatever drug or sexual encounter available, but they are just a matter of pressures and pure emotional behaviors.

STD's can also be caught by careful sex with whomever.

It's not societal standards telling young people to bang each other, it's hardwired into our systems, it's preservation of the race. And pure emotional behavior isn't a bad thing.

There are no doubt urges that come with puberty to and peer pressure, the strive to be "accepted" or "normal" are tough feelings to fight, but that's all they are, feelings. No one is immune to them, but using traits like character, responsibility, morality, and common sense, it's not too difficult to do what you know is right. I probably sound like a wet blanket, and although I've done my share of drinking and going out, I try to check it in moderation as best as a human being can. At least with kids you don't carry on these habits too much anymore, right?

Feelings make us who were are. Bottling up our feelings, whether it be anger, or love, is dangerous and/or counter productive. Character, responsibility, morality and common sense are all completely subjective.

I never said I had kids. So no, I carry on these habits on a regular basis. I did just quit smoking though.

I think the term "stay the course" is throwing you off. When President Bush uses that phrase he doesn't literally mean stand still and don't do anything. The course in that context would be training Iraqi military as best as we can, working together politically to help establish a strong republic that is fair and honest, working to defend the borders of Iraq and aid the police in hotspots around Iraq.

Y'see, I don't see the political thing. I see a military that has become an amazingly well armed police force that seems to do a lot of clean up. To me 'stay the course' means sit and wait for the Iraqi's to get their shit together. Man, that could be a hundred years.

The press has always been biased one way or the other. Cable is to the 21st century what yellow journalism was to the 20th century. Fox News is but another organization that appeals to its audience with a good amount of self-described political commentators that already have a lean before they say a word. Murdock used this innovative and brilliant strategy to his advantage for better or worse, and now Fox News dominates the Cable news genre even after starting several years behind their rivals, primarily Turner's CNN. All Murdock did was tap into a large audience that the others neglected. While it goes without saying that Ted Turner is no less partisan than Rupert Murdock, it's hard to argue any real destruction of journalistic principles when characters like William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer were guilty of just as bad of infractions on a different medium.

I will say this much, making a purely one-sided cable news network was a good idea, betting that people truly want commentary and opinion and screaming matches more then they want actual unbiased news was, in retrospect, an easy call.

Ted Turner has had nothing to do with CNN in years.

Cable news is a nightmare. From Natalie Holloway to the runaway bride to Michael Jackson. It's hours and hours a day of useless bullshit. That's cable news biggest flaw, uplifting mundane scandal to the same level as actual issues.

As if it made a difference, the attacks only serve to make his attackers look more fiendish in the eyes of the fence sitters, while Donald Rumsfeld takes it in stride as a man who has to make tough decisions in a tough environment, and has nothing but support from his boss and the majority of the Republican base. While there will always be the Sen. McCain in any political party, it's safe to say Rumsfeld isn't going anywhere. Any attacks against him just goes to further cement his residency in this cabinet now and until this President leaves office.

You realize that with his approval at 33%, there are no fence sitters left, right?

Next you're going to tell me they did so out of honest support of this administration and not because they are politicans looking to be reelected? If you buy that one I have a bridge to sell you. These Democrats are not as infallible as you play them up to be.

I'm sure it varies from person to person.

Of course every death is a tragedy that needs to be honored and respected as if it were our own. That doesn't change the fact that this death toll for a war that has been going on 3+ years is phenomenally low.

I'm sure 10 year old Abdul will be conforted at night knowing his mother was one of the fewest collateral casualties in any US war ever.

Oh, okay, I get it. Cheese debating protips 101: Follow the Democrats lockstep but change the words around so it doesn't look like it.

So instead of we shouldn't have went to Iraq you say Iraq was not the country that the United States military needed to enter. Brilliant!

The phrase that as they stand up we stand down is an important strategy for victory and for exiting this nation. If you prefer though, I'll use more convoluted language and extensive rhetoric to say the same thing only more intellectually.

The United States military, in an effort to create a transition effortlessly refined to an exorbitant degree, must recalibrate their presence by means of delegating martial responsibility equivalently thus to forces of Iraqi regimentals.

Well at least you stopped sounding like a parrot! And I don't follow the Democrats lockstep either, while I do agree that going to Iraq was a mistake, I say that we have to stay there and fix our own mess. We broke it, we bought it.

The question you should be asking is if he is to the right of me on anything, because President Bush is not a conservative. Domestically the man picks and chooses his beliefs in a way unlike conservatives or Republicans. Examples:

His veto authority, or lack there of, when it comes to obvious pork spending. He wants tax cuts but he doesn't want to cut spending. Immigration is, by far, his biggest weak point. He is a fan of amnesty in the face of a base completely against it. For a former Texas governor such a position is inexcusable. Punch in "Bush" and "steel tariffs" in google to see how President Bush dealt a blow to free trade. I wasn't a big fan of Harriet Myers, although I wasn't nearly as deadset against her as a majority of conservatives were. I do think he's a secretive President, and that isn't so much a negative as it is a disappointment. I think he could do more to fight the War on Terror domestically. If he would address the nation more and visit Iraq more. If there is such a negative media then he needs to find a way to push out positive coverage, despite whatever notions of propaganda the left throws at him. It's a war and half of our country doesn't think that we can win and doesn't want us to win.

He has several good points as well, namely his cojones when it comes to ignoring the political game and standing up for what's right. The man has more principle than any living politican, mainly because it's an oxymoron, principled politican. His judicial nominations are top drawer, and I think that's what he will most be known for in history domestically. His recognition and courage when it comes to calling out Islamic facism as the greatest threat to this nation and our way of life.

So you have three real disagreements and a bunch of nitpicks. I've never agreed so much with a politician in my life.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you like the idea that his judicial picks, who have the moral beliefs of my grandparents, will effect the social beliefs of my grand children.

I like the idea that a literal bible believing, young earth, end times, born again christian isn't a conservative.

Communism is an economic system and it and democracy aren't mutually excluding. Communist principles can easily be taken advantage of though, but I think it's safe to say in this climate that communism will not prevail in any situation but a hypothetical one. That argument of dictation can only take you so far because it really is self-defeating. We are dictating that the Iraqis have a voice to say what they want, so can you really call that dictation? As far as religion goes, that's a bridge that we could cross when we come to it but all signs point to real strives toward secular principles in this state.

Thank you for missing my point. It being that we decided what type of government they are making. What if they had chosen to make a theocracy? A dictatorship? We wouldn't have stood for it. They are pigeon holed into making a democracy, isn't that, dictatorial?

Despite what Ba'athism stood for, Hussein was, for all intents and purposes, a full blown totalitarian. Islam didn't have a large role in government because Hussein didn't want power relegated to clerics or religion, he wanted the power for himself. I mean Hussein was as much a socialist as Stalin was. All that aside, I do understand what you are saying and I do love that way too. This is what I see as the problem with that route. People are too complacent, and although I know that every Iranian has the yearning to be free,

Are you so sure about that? Their president was elected by a pretty large majority over his 'moderate' predecessor. Y'know, freedom isn't a gift you can give, it's got to be wanted and earned. You have to want freedom so badly that you're willing to have a revolution over it. That's sorta what I fear may happen in Iraq, we bust in and bestow beautiful, trumpet backed freedom on a society that never asked for it, I just don't know if they're very willing to embrace it.

Former President Clinton was offered OBL more than once, specifically in 1996 when the Sudanese government offered a captured OBL on a silver platter. He cut the military budget time after time in a trend that lasted ten years. Look up Louis Freeh, who mentions this same problem with Saudi Arabia only he doesn't leave out the fact the former President Clinton never attempted to get the evidence and instead hit up Price Abdullah for a donation to the Clinton Library.

I'm sorry you still believe that even after it's been debunked from every angle. Please check the 9/11 commission report for more information.

Are you trying to tie Clinton to Saudi Arabia? You know the connections between the Bush family and the Sauds?

That's no excuse to demoralize the players and personally attack the coach. If the plan is wrong then that's what should be attacked and debated.

And it is, but anyone who challenges the plan is attacked as being 'against the troops' and brushed off by an arrogant executive.

So then you don't support abortion, the rule of law, or police protection? Let's be fair, since according to your logic you can only support something if you are part of it.

Not at all, but I think that it's people that believe in those things that get into them. You don't see someone with no interest in law enforcement become a cop. You, the ACE OF WAR, seem to have a true passion for our fighting men and women and the mission they are on. Someone with that much of an interest, is of age and physically able, should at the very least consider a career in the Armed Forces.

Use straw men much? Perhaps there were millions, roughly, but millions is but a drop in a bucket compared to 6.5-7 billion. Oh, and you also just happened to leave out that, um, wars are never popular. No one but sick sociopaths want war for the sake of it, war is unfortunately a necessary institution. Even that statement can't be agreed upon by a majority of the world. So, again, irrelevence of the argument aside, those that did not support it were but exceptions to the majority of governments around the world that disagreed.

It doesn't change the fact that they were right. And I don't see how pointing out that the guy in charge of looking for WMD saying that they had no WMD can be a straw man. This was a war of ideology. A war to try and convert the middle east into a western friendly region through military might. These same guys were chomping at the bit to invade Iraq before they came to power, and what a co-inky-dink? When they finally came to power that's exactly what they did. Make no mistake, this was a war of choice, not necessity.

Why would it? Puppet governments are a completely logical and understandable foreign policy position to believe in. Past Presidents have made it policy to replace governments with pro-Western type people. I don't particularly feel that way and I happen to think it's a waste of time to do so. Temporarily it might work but a real solution will still be necessary further down the line. I view containment, or a policy like detente as a more worrisome foreign policy.

Wait, like two posts ago you were condemning the idea, but now that you understand that was part of the Bush Doctrine, you're ok with it?

Under that heavy of a public eye I wonder if he ever thought he was really going to get away with his dishonesty or if he was merely buying time...

Plausible deniability, at least in public. It's not like anyone cared by that point anyways. Y'know for a thing that still today takes up so much discussion and public debate, at the time, no one cared. We all saw it for what it was, a witch hunt.

What I meant was there are far more pressing issues that the American public education system should deal with before political correctness. For starters maybe to quit letting retards graduate. We rank pretty low in developed nations as far as education goes.

We're ranked low because we spend nothing (comparatively) on education and cut the budget for it at every opportunity. All part of the 'Starve the beast' plan to dissolve the dept. of education completely, which I have a sneaking suspicion you're all for.

Oh and you better believe it's a political correctness issue. When you try to censor words because they are offensive to certain people or teachers whatever, that's the definetion of PC. There is nothing wrong with explaining to kids that there are competitive theories of how human life was created, taking a side is the problem, not teaching.

No one is saying that you should not talk about ID because it is offensive, but because it is groundless.

There's a difference between taking a course on personal hygene and biology and handing out condoms to 14 year olds. It is not the position of the government to teach children how to have sex, to make it so is opening pandora's box.

Even without the access to the internet, sex ed, condoms, what have you, teenagers around the world, and throughout history have figured out how to screw. Arming them with the proper knowledge before they go where we all know they're going to go anyway isn't opening pandora's box, it's lessening the impact when they open it themselves.

If we "can't trust" the parents to raise their children the way the state thinks they should be raised, then we might as well kiss the Bill of Rights bye bye because individualism will have taken a serious blow to the face. If you can honestly say you support the state having free reign to circumvent the authority of the parents, then who's to say the state shouldn't have the unquestionable authority to disallow certain people from having children at all? What if the powers that be deemed that homosexuals were deemed unfit to adopt/raise children because it didn't conform to the state? What if the powers that be deemed it illegal to baptize or take a child to a church that their parents attend? Sorry Cheese, I value freedom more than I value the government having the power to "correctly" raise children.

Teaching kids that condoms can prevent the spread of disease and not allowing baptism are a little different, no?

Well I hate to break it to your love of freedom, but the entire idea of state run education is in part founded in a fear that parents wouldn't/couldn't teach their children the basic necessities to get by in the 1800's and the belief that basic knowledge belonged to everyone, not just the rich who could afford it.

That's your call, I haven't seen any evidence that leads me to believe they had any interests in President Bush's victory outside of keeping Sen. Kerry out of office. They don't have any positions in this administration or anything, unless you can show me that these people got the spoils with sweet government jobs or something?

Again, from the wiki...

SBVT characterized itself as a non-partisan group both in the legal sense and in spirit, yet several prominent individuals who assisted the SBVT also have had close ties to the Republican Party. According to information released by the IRS on February 22, 2005, more than half of the group's reported contributions came from just three sources, all prominent Texas Republican donors: Houston builder Bob J. Perry, a long time Bush supporter, donated $4.45 million, Harold Simmons' Contrans donated $3 million, and T. Boone Pickens donated $2 million. Other major contributors included Bush fundraiser Carl Lindner ($300,000), Robert Lindner ($260,000), GOP contributor Aubrey McClendon ($250,000), George Matthews Jr. ($250,000), and Crow Holdings ($100,000).

They got what they wanted ideologically, a texas republican in the white house, by hook or crook.

Estimates of how much GM spent for abiding by the tax system starts at about $300 billion a year and go up to $500 billion. That's billion with a B, money that could've been spent investing in new ideas for cars, greener cars, more efficent cars. It could've been used for employee purposes, expanding the workforce, giving raises, extending benefits... it could've been used for a lot of things but it just goes straight into the government so that the do-nothing Congressmen and women can build more bridges in Alaska that lead nowhere.

It also could have paid for the entire Iraq war.

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='Cheese']Eating Cheetos is un-natrual. Driving a car is un-natural. Wearing shoes is un-natural. Money is un-natural. Computers are un-natural. Virtually everything is un-natural. Wine is natural.

Booze goes back to mesopotamia. Humans have been drinking since man first banded together in a society. Jesus drank. Hell, the wedding he was at was on day 3 when they ran out of wine and called on Jesus to make up a new batch. Day THREE! That's a bender if I ever heard of one.

Up until the 80's the drinking age was 18 here in the states, it still is in various parts of Europe and Canada, so the term 'underage' drinking kinda depends on where you are.

Hangovers are caused by: 1) dehydration. Alcohol is a diuretic, meaning it makes you piss more fluid then you take in and can be avoided by drinking a decent amount of water (1:1.5 ratio); 2) Sugar. Booze is high in sugar to begin with and your body motabilizes alcohol as sugar. So when drinking your sugar levels go through the roof. When you stop your body craves the sugar and gives you a headache/nausea. A banana has enough sugar and essential vitamins to replace what you've lost and even out your system. Hangovers are not evidence of POISON.[/quote]
Uh, okay. As I said, I don't have a problem with drinking. I do it myself. Like most things, in moderation it can even be a good thing.

I do have a problem with alcoholism, which is a serious disease that effects the body in very negative and sometimes fatal ways. I could show you study after study of proven adverse effects attributed to underage drinking. Hangovers aren't the only effect of drinking and I noted as such when I listed it as one of many in my last post. Scientifically alcohol abuse can be attributed to heart disease, increased risk of cancer, pancreatitis, and most prevalently, cirrhosis through alcoholic liver disease. If you'd like I could link some Wikipedia articles up as well. If you think starting to drink when you're twelve or fourteen or eighteen won't make any difference, you're sadly mistaken.

STD's can also be caught by careful sex with whomever.

It's not societal standards telling young people to bang each other, it's hardwired into our systems, it's preservation of the race. And pure emotional behavior isn't a bad thing.

I'm more of a supporter of logical behavior, letting my brain judge the circumstance before acting haphazardly. Again, if you think societal pressure coupled with music, television, and movies make no difference on underage sex, you're sadly mistaken. Since you ignored it, I did say, and I quote,

[quote name='Me']There are no doubt urges that come with puberty to [/quote]
but those are emotional characteristics triggered, or as you say, hardwired, as a natural part of growing up. Nevertheless, there is no reason to let these emotional and irrational urges control you if you have the least bit of common sense, morality, or intelligence. Thinking is infinitely important and shouldn't be left out of this process because it's perceived by you or others as uncool.

Feelings make us who were are. Bottling up our feelings, whether it be anger, or love, is dangerous and/or counter productive. Character, responsibility, morality and common sense are all completely subjective.

I never said I had kids. So no, I carry on these habits on a regular basis. I did just quit smoking though.

You infered to your kids in a possessive tense earlier in the thread, I just took it for granted.

Bottled up feelings isn't the same as making responsible decisions, or thinking with your brain instead of your cock. While some issue specific points may have a gray area, that point is irrelevent when we are talking about something as simple as ing whoever, whenever, under the influence of alchohol. You don't do that, you're an idiot if you do. You can tell me all day that that's subjective, but that isn't a healthy lifestyle and to be that stubborn is to ignore hundreds upon thousands of studies and papers all illustrating the greatly increased risk factors when doing something that stupid.

Y'see, I don't see the political thing. I see a military that has become an amazingly well armed police force that seems to do a lot of clean up. To me 'stay the course' means sit and wait for the Iraqi's to get their shit together. Man, that could be a hundred years.

Which just leads me to believe more and more that you believe immediate pullout would be a viable strategy, no matter what you claim. Neither of us have really lived through a war (aside from ones that have been fought thousands of feet in the air with very little extended ground military presence) so it's really hard to grasp the reality of war-time policy. What's more, it's impossible to judge a war strategy of this caliber without the benefit of historical results that can only be seen ten or twenty years down the road.

[quoteI will say this much, making a purely one-sided cable news network was a good idea, betting that people truly want commentary and opinion and screaming matches more then they want actual unbiased news was, in retrospect, an easy call.

Ted Turner has had nothing to do with CNN in years.

Cable news is a nightmare. From Natalie Holloway to the runaway bride to Michael Jackson. It's hours and hours a day of useless bullshit. That's cable news biggest flaw, uplifting mundane scandal to the same level as actual issues.[/quote]

The problem with that statement is there is no such thing as unbiased news, and even if there was no one can control how people take media. There has never been a news network, conglomerate or what have you that doesn't spin it in one direction or another because, simply, to err is human. I will admit Fox News took this a step further, but if anything they should recieve praise for one reason: honesty. O'Reilly doesn't start his program letting you know he's going to be objective, because he isn't. He has an admitted bias and people that watch his program do so understanding that. A program like CBS Evening News is infinitely more dangerous because here you have a program claiming to be objective that clearly isn't.

Either way I just use the internet for all my news now, no commercials and I have several different takes on the same story that I can look at and piece together for myself rather than let some network executive tell me what's news worthy that day.

You realize that with his approval at 33%, there are no fence sitters left, right?

Even if that were true -- I don't think any serious person puts much stock in polls one way or the other -- does it really matter how popular a President is? He isn't running for President again, we can't vote on him in 2006 either. It amazes me how the left treats that as such a big point, like if it made a difference if his approval rate was 93%, 33%, or 03% to whatever news organization concocted it.

I'm sure it varies from person to person.

If the vast majority of Congressmen and women are just power hungry, ego bloated politicans, one of two good ones make little difference.

I'm sure 10 year old Abdul will be conforted at night knowing his mother was one of the fewest collateral casualties in any US war ever.

The fact that you quoted the very comment I used to denounce such a stance tickles me,

[quote name='Me']Of course every death is a tragedy that needs to be honored and respected[/quote]
Don't forget, the left uses the death count as a political point. I was the one who said that it really is idiotic to attempt to measure the success of failure of this campaign at such a very early stage.

Well at least you stopped sounding like a parrot! And I don't follow the Democrats lockstep either, while I do agree that going to Iraq was a mistake, I say that we have to stay there and fix our own mess. We broke it, we bought it.

Subject is interpolated into a expressionism that includes reality as a paradox. Foucault suggests the use of capitalist subcultural theory to attack outdated, elitist perceptions of consciousness. In a sense, the fatal flaw, and some would say the paradigm, of the sidebar is that it is a like a jihad, depicted in Eco’s The Limits of Interpretation [Advances in Semiotics] emerges again in The Name of the Rose, although in a more mythopoetical sense. Any number of constructions concerning structural narrative exist. "Sexual identity is intrinsically impossible," says Sartre. Thus, Baudrillard promotes the use of capitalist feminism to read and deconstruct class. Debord uses the term ‘neocultural desublimation’ to denote a capitalist totality.

So you have three real disagreements and a bunch of nitpicks. I've never agreed so much with a politician in my life.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you like the idea that his judicial picks, who have the moral beliefs of my grandparents, will effect the social beliefs of my grand children.

I like the idea that a literal bible believing, young earth, end times, born again christian isn't a conservative.

Give me a break, you want me to write a dissertation on every single political issue in effect today? I mean, I'm trying to write a simple post and spend a few minutes here arguing with you not write a ten page paper on the Bush administration.

Oh, and I like the assumption that you have to be a conservative to be Christian, most use it the other way around. If it was possible it sounds even more bigoted your way. You can ask any politically astute person around, President Bush does not fit the traditional conservative mold by a long shot. The Bush family has actually done more to harm the conservative movement than anything.

Thank you for missing my point. It being that we decided what type of government they are making. What if they had chosen to make a theocracy? A dictatorship? We wouldn't have stood for it. They are pigeon holed into making a democracy, isn't that, dictatorial?

Again, that's a self-defeating argument because the very essence of democracy entitles it's citizens to that very choice. What you're saying is someone is forcing someone to have the freedom to not be forced. It's kind of a paradox if you ask me.

Are you so sure about that? Their president was elected by a pretty large majority over his 'moderate' predecessor. Y'know, freedom isn't a gift you can give, it's got to be wanted and earned. You have to want freedom so badly that you're willing to have a revolution over it. That's sorta what I fear may happen in Iraq, we bust in and bestow beautiful, trumpet backed freedom on a society that never asked for it, I just don't know if they're very willing to embrace it.

Oh, I know it. To quote Natan Sharansky's article yesterday, "[FONT=Verdana, Times]Today, we are in the midst of a great struggle between the forces of terror and the forces of freedom. The greatest weapon that the free world possesses in this struggle is the awesome power of its ideas.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Times]The Bush Doctrine, based on a recognition of the dangers posed by non-democratic regimes and on committing the United States to support the advance of democracy, offers hope to many dissident voices struggling to bring democracy to their own countries. The democratic earthquake it has helped unleash, even with all the dangers its tremors entail, offers the promise of a more peaceful world."[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Times]Unfortunately fear is generally a much greater motivator than freedom, which explains why those that live in states like North Korea or, in this case, Iran, would continually "allow" themselves to be oppressed by manical, evil, threatening dictators that personify some of the greatest evils in this world.
[/FONT]​

And it is, but anyone who challenges the plan is attacked as being 'against the troops' and brushed off by an arrogant executive.

Because no one is just against the plan, they have to go out on a limb and make sensational statements so that they may appease the radicals that have a stranglehold over the Democratic party. There's no such thing as bipartisanship, just disagreeing with this administration isn't enough, they must hate everything the Republican party stands for and loathe President Bush.

Not at all, but I think that it's people that believe in those things that get into them. You don't see someone with no interest in law enforcement become a cop. You, the ACE OF WAR, seem to have a true passion for our fighting men and women and the mission they are on. Someone with that much of an interest, is of age and physically able, should at the very least consider a career in the Armed Forces.

We both have "interests" in police protection, just as we both have "interests" in military protection, even if one of us doesn't want to admit it. Regardless, seeing as how we live in a free society, we have the freedom to have interests and support organizations without being involved. It's really not ing rocket science, CHEESE. (Hur, I guess you're really a block of cheese and not just using that handle because it's something you made up while playing Starcraft many, many years ago and has since stuck with you in forums and other places as a sort of univeral internet alias)

I "considered" playing baseball for a living too, but I would advise you continue to strongly backpedal out of your ridiculous fallacies and get away with whatever little respect you have left.

It doesn't change the fact that they were right. And I don't see how pointing out that the guy in charge of looking for WMD saying that they had no WMD can be a straw man. This was a war of ideology. A war to try and convert the middle east into a western friendly region through military might. These same guys were chomping at the bit to invade Iraq before they came to power, and what a co-inky-dink? When they finally came to power that's exactly what they did. Make no mistake, this was a war of choice, not necessity.

The straw man is your use of how many millions protested. Millions in this context is less than one percent, a fraction of a percent even. It has nothing to do with the argument but it's nice to put up as a defense because millions sounds like a big number. To say right is probably the number one touted liberal fallacy of the 21st century thus far. Hearing this argument over and over again that cannot be proved makes it false. I don't know if there absolutely was or was not WMDs, and it's foolish to side with one or the other especially at such an early date. I mean the press is still reporting on documents from Hussein's administration for goodness sakes. To say some evidence leads you to believe Hussein didn't have WMDs, INCLUDING the fact that we couldn't find them is a much better argument than just assuming they never existed because we didn't find them, the very definition of a logical fallacy.

Wait, like two posts ago you were condemning the idea, but now that you understand that was part of the Bush Doctrine, you're ok with it?

You have to realize I'm not a liberal, just because I disagee with a policy doesn't mean I think it's condemnable or horrid. I'll simply it for you though so you don't get lost along the way:

I think puppet governments are a bad idea. STOP.
Historical evidence leads me to this conclusion. STOP.
Big politicians in the past, including those I liked (i.e. President's Reagan or Eisenhower) used similar tactics. STOP.
Just because I disagree with this idea doesn't mean I can't still support certain people, I've never met anyone who agreed one hundred percent without exception the Republican or Democratic agenda. STOP.
If it was part of the Bush Doctrine, it would be something I disagree with. STOP.
If it isn't part of the Bush Doctrine, it would be something I agree with. STOP.

Plausible deniability, at least in public. It's not like anyone cared by that point anyways. Y'know for a thing that still today takes up so much discussion and public debate, at the time, no one cared. We all saw it for what it was, a witch hunt.

"It's not like anyone cared [that a President lied under oath] by that point anyways." - Cheese

We're ranked low because we spend nothing (comparatively) on education and cut the budget for it at every opportunity. All part of the 'Starve the beast' plan to dissolve the dept. of education completely, which I have a sneaking suspicion you're all for.

Why would I support bigger government?

No one is saying that you should not talk about ID because it is offensive, but because it is groundless.

I don't care what the kid or the teacher thinks, if they think it's an acceptable alternative or not, because it doesn't matter what they think about it they still should know what ID means. I don't think taking Algebra three times has any basis or relevence to my education, but that doesn't change anything.

There is a very significant difference between the state giving credence to a particular religion and a teacher telling a kid what Intelligent Design means in an objective and informative manner, to say otherwise is absurd.

Even without the access to the internet, sex ed, condoms, what have you, teenagers around the world, and throughout history have figured out how to screw. Arming them with the proper knowledge before they go where we all know they're going to go anyway isn't opening pandora's box, it's lessening the impact when they open it themselves.

It's the government teaching them that underage sex is okay, despite what your church, parents, or community says. I hate that position so very much. The whole, "They're going to do it anyway so we might as well let them!" It's such unbelievable bullshit. There is always going to be grand theft auto, so let's at least bring a bicycle with us wherever we go as a precaution. There is always going to be robbery, so let's just all carry two wallets as a precaution. Maybe ya'll will have children that you let walk all over you and do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean every parent is a up.

If you're that serious about giving the child proper knowledge about sex then the parent should do it themselves. It's no good punishing everyone with an oppressive government because a few parents are irresponsible and/or ignorant.

Well I hate to break it to your love of freedom, but the entire idea of state run education is in part founded in a fear that parents wouldn't/couldn't teach their children the basic necessities to get by in the 1800's and the belief that basic knowledge belonged to everyone, not just the rich who could afford it.

State run education is just as ridiculous of a concept, and we can jump on that train too if you want. Public schools suck ass, all you need is a pulse to graduate from one. I don't deny that it's necessary to have one for the people who want one, but there should at least be some sort of voucher program to compensate for all the low income families who are trapped in a cycle of disgraceful schools and forced to pay lots of money that does nothing to help it.

They got what they wanted ideologically, a texas republican in the white house, by hook or crook.

And what jobs do they have in the public sector now? I don't see what's the big deal should some of them want to donate to the GOP, I thought this was a free country. MoveOn.org was littered with Democratic donators, and I saw these ads just as much.

It also could have paid for the entire Iraq war.

Because private industry should be solely responsible for government actions, hell let's just come out and say it: they should belong to the government.

 

[Msut77]

Why doesnt Ace ever admit his deceit?

 

[Cheese]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Uh, okay. As I said, I don't have a problem with drinking. I do it myself. Like most things, in moderation it can even be a good thing.

I do have a problem with alcoholism, which is a serious disease that effects the body in very negative and sometimes fatal ways. I could show you study after study of proven adverse effects attributed to underage drinking. Hangovers aren't the only effect of drinking and I noted as such when I listed it as one of many in my last post. Scientifically alcohol abuse can be attributed to heart disease, increased risk of cancer, pancreatitis, and most prevalently, cirrhosis through alcoholic liver disease. If you'd like I could link some Wikipedia articles up as well. If you think starting to drink when you're twelve or fourteen or eighteen won't make any difference, you're sadly mistaken. [/quote]

Hey, I never said it was perfect.

I'm more of a supporter of logical behavior, letting my brain judge the circumstance before acting haphazardly.

Never tell that to any girl ever, Spock.

Again, if you think societal pressure coupled with music, television, and movies make no difference on underage sex, you're sadly mistaken. Since you ignored it, I did say, and I quote,

Do I think it has some influence, sure, but overwhelmingly it’s biological. You could keep a kid away from girls, restrict his access to only sexually safe material, bible study,, etc. a total lack of sexual influence and then leave him and Sally in a room for ten minutes, they’ll figure it out.

but those are emotional characteristics triggered, or as you say, hardwired, as a natural part of growing up. Nevertheless, there is no reason to let these emotional and irrational urges control you if you have the least bit of common sense, morality, or intelligence. Thinking is infinitely important and shouldn't be left out of this process because it's perceived by you or others as uncool.

There’s also no reason to restrain these urges. I don’t come from the starting point that sex is dirty or wrong and needs to be restrained to the ridiculous levels it has been in this country. Besides, I never said anything about underage sex, I said I thought you, an 18 year old, should worry more about getting laid then about Don Rumsfeld. I don’t see the underage part of that.

Bottled up feelings isn't the same as making responsible decisions, or thinking with your brain instead of your cock. While some issue specific points may have a gray area, that point is irrelevent when we are talking about something as simple as ing whoever, whenever, under the influence of alchohol.

You really do need to get out more. Making responsible decisions ain’t it’s all cracked up to be. At your age you should be making every decision irresponsibly on purpose, because in a few years you’re actually going to have to be responsible, and it’s all down hill from there.

You don't do that, you're an idiot if you do. You can tell me all day that that's subjective, but that isn't a healthy lifestyle and to be that stubborn is to ignore hundreds upon thousands of studies and papers all illustrating the greatly increased risk factors when doing something that stupid.

I never said you should get drunk and bang anyone, but y’know what? You should. Greatly increased risk factors be damned. Wear a rubber and those risk factors drop well within acceptable percentages.

Which just leads me to believe more and more that you believe immediate pullout would be a viable strategy, no matter what you claim. Neither of us have really lived through a war (aside from ones that have been fought thousands of feet in the air with very little extended ground military presence) so it's really hard to grasp the reality of war-time policy. What's more, it's impossible to judge a war strategy of this caliber without the benefit of historical results that can only be seen ten or twenty years down the road.

That’s more bullshit then one man should be able to carry. Lemme see if I got this right: since we never lived through a major war we are unable to judge any policy as over-reaching. We are also unable to pass judgment on the strategy for another 20 years.

The problem with that statement is there is no such thing as unbiased news, and even if there was no one can control how people take media. There has never been a news network, conglomerate or what have you that doesn't spin it in one direction or another because, simply, to err is human. I will admit Fox News took this a step further, but if anything they should recieve praise for one reason: honesty. O'Reilly doesn't start his program letting you know he's going to be objective, because he isn't. He has an admitted bias and people that watch his program do so understanding that. A program like CBS Evening News is infinitely more dangerous because here you have a program claiming to be objective that clearly isn't.

I’m pretty sure Bill having something called the No Spin Zone, then spinning everything, might be a tad disingenuous.

Even if that were true -- I don't think any serious person puts much stock in polls one way or the other -- does it really matter how popular a President is? He isn't running for President again, we can't vote on him in 2006 either.

Trust me, everyone takes stock in polls except for the people who are at the bottom of them. The president is the representative of the Republican Party in the eyes of most Americans. His Approval in the toilet means their approval is in the toilet. It also has much to do with him getting his agenda out of the mud. He’s crippled with little to no support.

It amazes me how the left treats that as such a big point, like if it made a difference if his approval rate was 93%, 33%, or 03% to whatever news organization concocted it.

It made a huge difference when his approval was 93%, he could do anything he wanted to, and did. Now he can’t do much of anything.

Oh and 33% was concocted from FOX. He hit 32% in the CNN/GALLUP poll yesterday.

If the vast majority of Congressmen and women are just power hungry, ego bloated politicans, one of two good ones make little difference.

That description runs across both parties, and sometimes it only takes one or two to make a difference.

The fact that you quoted the very comment I used to denounce such a stance tickles me,

Careful, your fangs are showing.

Don't forget, the left uses the death count as a political point. I was the one who said that it really is idiotic to attempt to measure the success of failure of this campaign at such a very early stage.

I know what you said, I just think it’s ridiculous.

Give me a break, you want me to write a dissertation on every single political issue in effect today? I mean, I'm trying to write a simple post and spend a few minutes here arguing with you not write a ten page paper on the Bush administration.

You’re right. I was just being snarky.

Oh, and I like the assumption that you have to be a conservative to be Christian, most use it the other way around.

Christian and Evangelical; not quite the same thing. Most Christians don’t believe in the Rapture (it’s barely in the bible, most End Times beliefs came about in the late 1800’s), most don’t believe in the literal text (i.e. Maybe selling my daughter into slavery isn’t the best idea? Hmmm.), and most care more about the words of Jesus himself then a 100 year old British pastor’s interpretations of scripture. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a young earth, Jack Chick, Rapture watching liberal.

I tell ya, that’s the number one thing that spooks me about GW. If he’s a hardcore End Times evangelical that believes that Jesus is going to return in his life time, how does that effect his policies? Of course he’s got a bad record on the environment, Jesus will be back before anything gets out of hand. Who needs to worry about deficit spending? Jesus will be back before we’ll have to pay any of it back. How am I supposed to trust a man with my future when he doesn’t believe there’s going to be one?

If it was possible it sounds even more bigoted your way. You can ask any politically astute person around, President Bush does not fit the traditional conservative mold by a long shot. The Bush family has actually done more to harm the conservative movement than anything.

I think they’ve done more to harm the country as a whole, but hey, that’s me.

Again, that's a self-defeating argument because the very essence of democracy entitles it's citizens to that very choice. What you're saying is someone is forcing someone to have the freedom to not be forced. It's kind of a paradox if you ask me.

Think of it this way, someone comes to you and says choose your government and you say you want a totalitarian government that does all your thinking for you and then they say, Well, no, you can’t have that, try this instead.” It is, by definition, dictatorial.

Oh, I know it. To quote Natan Sharansky's article yesterday, "[FONT=Verdana, Times]Today, we are in the midst of a great struggle between the forces of terror and the forces of freedom. The greatest weapon that the free world possesses in this struggle is the awesome power of its ideas.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Times]The Bush Doctrine, based on a recognition of the dangers posed by non-democratic regimes and on committing the United States to support the advance of democracy, offers hope to many dissident voices struggling to bring democracy to their own countries. The democratic earthquake it has helped unleash, even with all the dangers its tremors entail, offers the promise of a more peaceful world."[/FONT]​

Well that’s a lot of pretty paint on that turd alright.

Unfortunately fear is generally a much greater motivator than freedom, which explains why those that live in states like North Korea or, in this case, Iran, would continually "allow" themselves to be oppressed by manical, evil, threatening dictators that personify some of the greatest evils in this world.

Sometimes all it takes is a push. Hence infiltrating their society with our media. You’d be surprised how much influence western popular media had in the fall of the Soviet Union.

Because no one is just against the plan, they have to go out on a limb and make sensational statements so that they may appease the radicals that have a stranglehold over the Democratic party. There's no such thing as bipartisanship, just disagreeing with this administration isn't enough, they must hate everything the Republican party stands for and loathe President Bush.

See, I don’t see that at all. If that were the case then the Patriot Act would have never gotten renewed.

We both have "interests" in police protection, just as we both have "interests" in military protection, even if one of us doesn't want to admit it. Regardless, seeing as how we live in a free society, we have the freedom to have interests and support organizations without being involved. It's really not ing rocket science, CHEESE.

But, c’mon man, your country needs you. You’re turning a deaf ear to FREEDOM!11!!1

I "considered" playing baseball for a living too, but I would advise you continue to strongly backpedal out of your ridiculous fallacies and get away with whatever little respect you have left.

I’m not back pedaling, I think you, as a strong supporter of our military men and women overseas should join up and fight for the cause you so believe in. To do otherwise seems, I dunno, chicken.

The straw man is your use of how many millions protested. Millions in this context is less than one percent, a fraction of a percent even. It has nothing to do with the argument but it's nice to put up as a defense because millions sounds like a big number. To say right is probably the number one touted liberal fallacy of the 21st century thus far. Hearing this argument over and over again that cannot be proved makes it false. I don't know if there absolutely was or was not WMDs, and it's foolish to side with one or the other especially at such an early date. I mean the press is still reporting on documents from Hussein's administration for goodness sakes. To say some evidence leads you to believe Hussein didn't have WMDs, INCLUDING the fact that we couldn't find them is a much better argument than just assuming they never existed because we didn't find them, the very definition of a logical fallacy.

That’s some awesome gibberish you got there. 10+ million people organized in the largest demonstration the world has ever seen wasn’t enough. That’s awesome. “Yeah, we barely noticed. It’s only like 1% of the earths population, screw’em.”

And then, even better, “just because all the WMD inspectors said there was none, and we invaded the country over the issue, and we did our own search and still found no evidence what so ever doesn’t mean you were right in saying that we wouldn’t find any WMD.”

I’m sorry, it’s been three years. There were no chemical weapons. No nuclear weapons. No chemical weapons programs, no nuclear weapons programs. There is nothing to point to there being any before, during or after the invasion. This has been backed up by every single investigation from the UN the state Dept. the Military, Congressional review, etc. You keep hoping though.

You have to realize I'm not a liberal, just because I disagee with a policy doesn't mean I think it's condemnable or horrid. I'll simply it for you though so you don't get lost along the way:

I think puppet governments are a bad idea. STOP.
Historical evidence leads me to this conclusion. STOP.
Big politicians in the past, including those I liked (i.e. President's Reagan or Eisenhower) used similar tactics. STOP.
Just because I disagree with this idea doesn't mean I can't still support certain people, I've never met anyone who agreed one hundred percent without exception the Republican or Democratic agenda. STOP.
If it was part of the Bush Doctrine, it would be something I disagree with. STOP.
If it isn't part of the Bush Doctrine, it would be something I agree with. STOP.

It just seems odd that you’re so forgiving of a guy that tried to cheat the Iraqi’s of “THIER FRRDOM11!!!11!~” and so hard on another for getting a blow job.

"It's not like anyone cared [that a President lied under oath] by that point anyways." - Cheese

They really didn’t, by and large. Sorry. From the latimes, 1/30/99…

President Clinton's job approval rating has not seen any dramatic slippage from positive to negative all through the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In January 1998, Clinton's job approval rating was 68% in a Times poll, which is when the country first learned of the president's "inappropriate relationship" with Lewinsky, to 65% in an August Times poll when Clinton was called before the grand jury, to 64% in a September Times Poll after the Starr Report was released on the internet. The president's ratings remained high even after the House of Representatives voted to impeach him and even now while the Senate trial to remove him from office is continuing. As a matter of fact, after the president's State of the Union address, his job approval spiked into the mid 70's as seen in CBS News and CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls.

Why would I support bigger government?

I dunno, maybe to, y’know, try and help people?

I don't care what the kid or the teacher thinks, if they think it's an acceptable alternative or not, because it doesn't matter what they think about it they still should know what ID means. I don't think taking Algebra three times has any basis or relevence to my education, but that doesn't change anything.

There is a very significant difference between the state giving credence to a particular religion and a teacher telling a kid what Intelligent Design means in an objective and informative manner, to say otherwise is absurd.

But that’s no how they phrase it when they put it into books, as I said before, they way they phrase it is that ID is as legitimate as Evolution, which it ain’t.

It's the government teaching them that underage sex is okay, despite what your church, parents, or community says. I hate that position so very much. The whole, "They're going to do it anyway so we might as well let them!" It's such unbelievable bullshit. There is always going to be grand theft auto, so let's at least bring a bicycle with us wherever we go as a precaution. There is always going to be robbery, so let's just all carry two wallets as a precaution. Maybe ya'll will have children that you let walk all over you and do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean every parent is a up.

Why do you hate sex so much? You just likened it to Grand Theft Auto and Robbery.

A much more apt comparison is would be: We wouldn’t send troops into a war zone with guns but no training on how to use them, and no body armor (oh, wait…). We hope they don’t have to use the guns, but if they do, I sure as hell want them to know how to use them.

If you're that serious about giving the child proper knowledge about sex then the parent should do it themselves. It's no good punishing everyone with an oppressive government because a few parents are irresponsible and/or ignorant.

Again, how is a government that tries to inform it’s citizens about a major health issue oppressive? Especially when schools offer them an opportunity to opt out?

Also, what gives you the idea parents have the proper knowledge? Does your mom know what a dental dam is and how it’s used?

State run education is just as ridiculous of a concept, and we can jump on that train too if you want. Public schools suck ass, all you need is a pulse to graduate from one. I don't deny that it's necessary to have one for the people who want one, but there should at least be some sort of voucher program to compensate for all the low income families who are trapped in a cycle of disgraceful schools and forced to pay lots of money that does nothing to help it.

Low income families are forced to pay lots of money for schools? Funny, I thought they had the lowest tax burden. At least that’s what the Bush Administration says. But anyways…

A few of the many problems with vouchers.

1) There aren't private schools everywhere.
2) Many private schools are religious schools that require some form of Bible study, so only the Christian kids get 4.0's.
2a) This actually happened to my brother. Straight A's in everything, but an F in Bible Study, ruined his GPA.
3) Vouchers only pay part of private school tuition, so families that cannot pay the remainder are left out in the cold.
4) When over run with new students, Private schools would need to hire more teachers away from Public schools.
4a) Meaning that while you're now paying taxes to keep the public schools open, the government is paying for private school, you're paying for private school and your kids are getting the same teachers, thus negating the entire reasoning behind sending the kid to private school in the first place.
4b) In the end you get the poor kids who may not be the brightest bulbs in the box being stuck in short staffed public schools getting the worst education possible. Wonderful. Yes, that will really help American families.

How about what they're doing in some of the worst areas of Chicago: extending the school day from 8-2:30 to 8-6. Extending the school year from 180 days to over 200. Copping their curriculum from private schools, less of a focus on 'teaching to the test' and more of a focus on conceptual thinking and personal achievement. Organic lunches, which studies show lower classroom aggression by some nutty statistic, like 40% or some such. It costs a little more then public schools, but certainly less then the government paying for both public schools and private school vouchers. There are ways to fix our public school system without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

And what jobs do they have in the public sector now? I don't see what's the big deal should some of them want to donate to the GOP, I thought this was a free country. MoveOn.org was littered with Democratic donators, and I saw these ads just as much.

Believe it or not, not everyone does things for financial gain. Some people do things to promote an ideology. Some people contribute money, some people contribute time, some people smear a presidential candidate with thin or completely baseless rumors to forward the campaign of one of their close buddies. Believe it, OR NOT!

Because private industry should be solely responsible for government actions, hell let's just come out and say it: they should belong to the government.

What? Man, you’re very frustrating. You know when you said that it was your debate tactic to try and frustrate the person your talking to into writing you off as an idiot, well, it’s working.​

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='Cheese']Hey, I never said it was perfect.[/quote]

I'll say, alcohol abuse has led to some serious problems in this nation.

Never tell that to any girl ever, Spock.

Your mind is a valuable tool.

Do I think it has some influence, sure, but overwhelmingly it’s biological. You could keep a kid away from girls, restrict his access to only sexually safe material, bible study,, etc. a total lack of sexual influence and then leave him and Sally in a room for ten minutes, they’ll figure it out.

Yeah, I'd like to see the comparison of teen pregnancy rates in 1946 and 2006...

There’s also no reason to restrain these urges. I don’t come from the starting point that sex is dirty or wrong and needs to be restrained to the ridiculous levels it has been in this country. Besides, I never said anything about underage sex, I said I thought you, an 18 year old, should worry more about getting laid then about Don Rumsfeld. I don’t see the underage part of that.

Right, it's more important to than keep yourself informed about what the leaders of this country are doing. It's more important to score some liquor than look at a newspaper.

Yikes, no wonder education is suffering.

You really do need to get out more. Making responsible decisions ain’t it’s all cracked up to be. At your age you should be making every decision irresponsibly on purpose, because in a few years you’re actually going to have to be responsible, and it’s all down hill from there.

Let me just point out, you know, as a side note, about how much more presumptuous and self-righteous your tone becomes with each consecutive post. I happen to get out plenty, maybe I don't go to orgies or some red light district, but I have friends and do things just like everyone else. For you to assume those who are well informed and opinionated of what is going on in the world are shut-ins is absurd but telling of what kind of person you are. Speaking of which, here's some information: You can have fun and be responsible at the same time, they call that rational. To be contrary just for the sake of it like you suggest is probably normal, society has pressured that same anti-establishment mentality for generations. What can I say? I guess I'm above the influence of conformity.

I never said you should get drunk and bang anyone, but y’know what? You should. Greatly increased risk factors be damned. Wear a rubber and those risk factors drop well within acceptable percentages.

Like I said, I guess I'm just above traditional teenage traits. I have no interest in wasting years of my life as a stoner or a drunk or whatever. Getting drunk every night is what you do when you come home from finishing moping the entire high school for the tenth year in a row. Temporary salvation in a bottle, 34 years old and still making less than 30 grand a year.

You know what buddy, that.

That’s more bullshit then one man should be able to carry. Lemme see if I got this right: since we never lived through a major war we are unable to judge any policy as over-reaching. We are also unable to pass judgment on the strategy for another 20 years.

We can't really grasp war-time policy, I'll bet half the people in this nation don't even know what a ration is, and we're at war right now! That's a testament to how evolved our fighting capabilites are, but it's also a sign that a great portion of this nation takes for granted how well the situation is going for the United States. There's no question whether the United States can win, the question is whether the public will let us win when a whole political party is rooting against it. History is the only real judge of success or failure. It's idiotic to say we've lost because we don't have the benefit of retrospect.

I’m pretty sure Bill having something called the No Spin Zone, then spinning everything, might be a tad disingenuous.

Not unless you can honestly tell me you think his show is supposed to be objective. He's a political commentator, which means they comment on the news the way they see it.

Trust me, everyone takes stock in polls except for the people who are at the bottom of them. The president is the representative of the Republican Party in the eyes of most Americans. His Approval in the toilet means their approval is in the toilet. It also has much to do with him getting his agenda out of the mud. He’s crippled with little to no support.

Polls are shit. Polls are a thousand people, more or less, expected to represent 300 million. The party breakdown is never right, and it often relies much to heavily on independents who should have virtually no say to begin with. The President is a party representative, not the party representative. If it was anyone it would be Ken Mehlman. If these polls are so accurate, always predicting how hated the Republican party is, how come they never fair that way in the ballot box? Do you realize I Democratic Presidental candidate hasn't gotten 51% or more of the popular vote since 1964? You can put your faith in polls all you want, I'll put mine in actual elections.

That description runs across both parties, and sometimes it only takes one or two to make a difference.

Of course it does, I've already did my rant about how both parties suck.

I know what you said, I just think it’s ridiculous.

As ridiculous as picking the winner of a baseball game in the 4th inning?

Christian and Evangelical; not quite the same thing. Most Christians don’t believe in the Rapture (it’s barely in the bible, most End Times beliefs came about in the late 1800’s), most don’t believe in the literal text (i.e. Maybe selling my daughter into slavery isn’t the best idea? Hmmm.), and most care more about the words of Jesus himself then a 100 year old British pastor’s interpretations of scripture. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a young earth, Jack Chick, Rapture watching liberal.

I tell ya, that’s the number one thing that spooks me about GW. If he’s a hardcore End Times evangelical that believes that Jesus is going to return in his life time, how does that effect his policies? Of course he’s got a bad record on the environment, Jesus will be back before anything gets out of hand. Who needs to worry about deficit spending? Jesus will be back before we’ll have to pay any of it back. How am I supposed to trust a man with my future when he doesn’t believe there’s going to be one?

Evangelicals are Christians too, regardless.

Anyways, last time I heard someone bash the First Amendment so much was when we were discussing colonial America in class.

I think they’ve done more to harm the country as a whole, but hey, that’s me.

Keep up the cheap shots, it's all you're good for.

Think of it this way, someone comes to you and says choose your government and you say you want a totalitarian government that does all your thinking for you and then they say, Well, no, you can’t have that, try this instead.” It is, by definition, dictatorial.

It is, technically, but it also isn't, technically. Like I said, it's more of a paradox if anything, and you can't really argue either side. I haven't heard from the pro-oppression group of Iraqis yet, but when I do I'll let you know.

Well that’s a lot of pretty paint on that turd alright.

Great rebuttal.

Sometimes all it takes is a push. Hence infiltrating their society with our media. You’d be surprised how much influence western popular media had in the fall of the Soviet Union.

Like I said, it sounds like a good idea on paper. If it works, wonderful, if it doesn't, that's why we leave all options on the table.

See, I don’t see that at all. If that were the case then the Patriot Act would have never gotten renewed.

It doesn't take that much when you're the majority though.

But, c’mon man, your country needs you. You’re turning a deaf ear to FREEDOM!11!!1

I’m not back pedaling, I think you, as a strong supporter of our military men and women overseas should join up and fight for the cause you so believe in. To do otherwise seems, I dunno, chicken.

But, c'mon man, your community needs you. You're turning a deaf ear to SECURITY!11!!1

I think you, as a strong supporter of police protection [or insert your favorite government service] on the streets, should join up and fight for the cause you so believe in. To do otherwise seems, I dunno, chicken.

That’s some awesome gibberish you got there. 10+ million people organized in the largest demonstration the world has ever seen wasn’t enough. That’s awesome. “Yeah, we barely noticed. It’s only like 1% of the earths population, screw’em.”

And then, even better, “just because all the WMD inspectors said there was none, and we invaded the country over the issue, and we did our own search and still found no evidence what so ever doesn’t mean you were right in saying that we wouldn’t find any WMD.”

I’m sorry, it’s been three years. There were no chemical weapons. No nuclear weapons. No chemical weapons programs, no nuclear weapons programs. There is nothing to point to there being any before, during or after the invasion. This has been backed up by every single investigation from the UN the state Dept. the Military, Congressional review, etc. You keep hoping though.

You call me gibberish when you're here disregarding concensus from every major intelligence organization in the modern world, including unanimous UN security council support. Don't even try to pretend you have any ground to stand on there.

All I'm doing is pointing out your little logical fallacy. Hell, I'll even simplify it for you:

I can't find my sunglasses in my room, even though I know for a fact that I used those sunglasses before. All the friends I recruit cannot find my sunglasses anywhere in my room, although my room is in a house full of other rooms that are never checked for sunglasses.

Cheese's assumption would be that the sunglasses never existed.

It just seems odd that you’re so forgiving of a guy that tried to cheat the Iraqi’s of “THIER FRRDOM11!!!11!~” and so hard on another for getting a blow job.

I try to keep an open mind about foreign policies, when I disagree with someone I'll argue with them but it doesn't mean I'll hate them personally.

They really didn’t, by and large. Sorry. From the latimes, 1/30/99…

Right, back to the polls. Funny how every election year after that the Democrats have lost miles of ground. Then again, I used elections to measure success/failure, and you use polls from media organizations.

I dunno, maybe to, y’know, try and help people?

People can, I dunno, maybe, uh, be responsible for themselves instead of whining to mommy government?

But that’s no how they phrase it when they put it into books, as I said before, they way they phrase it is that ID is as legitimate as Evolution, which it ain’t.

The fact is we don't know, but that's not the argument here. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I do not support giving ID a lesson in a biology classroom. It ISN'T worthy of a three week discussion, no matter how you slice it. I don't support, however, censoring the word God for the sake of being politically correct.

Why do you hate sex so much?

Why do you dodge and duck my arguments so much?

Again, how is a government that tries to inform it’s citizens about a major health issue oppressive? Especially when schools offer them an opportunity to opt out?

Oh my goodness, I'm going to have to start keeping quotes of what I said handy because you keep recycling the same stuff after a few posts to try and catch me up.

[quote name='Me']There's a difference between taking a course on personal hygene and biology and handing out condoms to 14 year olds.[/quote]

Taking a course on keeping yourself healthy is completely logical and appropriate. There is absolutely no reason a child should be ignorant of sexual diseases.

[quote name='Me']I'm more lenient on this whole issue though, and I think if they are that poor of parents and are afraid to talk to their children then there should be a class offered in high school that teaches appropriate sexual education.[/quote]

So, again, I had already said that opting out is a fine solution. As long as the parents have the power, not the state.

Low income families are forced to pay lots of money for schools?

[quote name='Me']I don't deny that it's necessary to have [Public Schools] for the people who want one[/quote]

Because even with the voucher some parents may still not be able to send there child to a private school and rather use it toward the public school system.

1) There aren't private schools everywhere.
2) Many private schools are religious schools that require some form of Bible study, so only the Christian kids get 4.0's.
2a) This actually happened to my brother. Straight A's in everything, but an F in Bible Study, ruined his GPA.
3) Vouchers only pay part of private school tuition, so families that cannot pay the remainder are left out in the cold.
4) When over run with new students, Private schools would need to hire more teachers away from Public schools.
4a) Meaning that while you're now paying taxes to keep the public schools open, the government is paying for private school, you're paying for private school and your kids are getting the same teachers, thus negating the entire reasoning behind sending the kid to private school in the first place.
4b) In the end you get the poor kids who may not be the brightest bulbs in the box being stuck in short staffed public schools getting the worst education possible. Wonderful. Yes, that will really help American families.

Points one, two, and three are all covered by the fact that you leave some public schools in place for the parents that still want them. Point four is covered by the sharp increase of education majors due to a booming industry with raising wages across the board. Point four-a is still covered by the mass influx of teachers, but private schools would have different policies anyways so that wouldn't be a problem. Point four-b is ridiculous because public schooling would need much less funding due to the massive drop in students, and teachers could focus on a smaller class size giving the kids much needed attention. If the parents are unsatisfied with that then they take their voucher and move the child to another school and earn the difference if there is one on keeping them there.

How about what they're doing in some of the worst areas of Chicago: extending the school day from 8-2:30 to 8-6. Extending the school year from 180 days to over 200. Copping their curriculum from private schools, less of a focus on 'teaching to the test' and more of a focus on conceptual thinking and personal achievement. Organic lunches, which studies show lower classroom aggression by some nutty statistic, like 40% or some such. It costs a little more then public schools, but certainly less then the government paying for both public schools and private school vouchers. There are ways to fix our public school system without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The horror of letting the government teach the child is still in the equation, and seems like it would cause even more resentment. Extra-curricular activites included, specifically athletics, the kid could be involved with the school for 12-15 hours a weekday and 4-10 hours on Saturday. Then again, I'm out of grade school so I don't really care how long they are locked in there anymore.

Believe it or not, not everyone does things for financial gain. Some people do things to promote an ideology. Some people contribute money, some people contribute time, some people smear a presidential candidate with thin or completely baseless rumors to forward the campaign of one of their close buddies. Believe it, OR NOT!

Yeah, just like Moveon.org is funded in part by Tides Foundation that gets large endowments from, believe it or not, Teresa Heinz Kerry! Oh, but Democrats are the sweet, innocent, immaculate political party that is completely absolved of any strange or otherwise suspicious funding connections.

What? Man, you’re very frustrating. You know when you said that it was your debate tactic to try and frustrate the person your talking to into writing you off as an idiot, well, it’s working.

Well, I don't try and do anything other than state my case. What you take from it is your own problem. Nevertheless, that's how most of the left ends there argument. "Oh, ur so stoopid omg forgit it youll nevar learn nuothing!!1" I can't count how many times I've heard it.

 

[Cheese]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Right, it's more important to than keep yourself informed about what the leaders of this country are doing. It's more important to score some liquor than look at a newspaper. [/quote]

It is, without any doubt more important to have sex then worry about what Don Rumsfeld is doing. Hands down.

I guess I'm above the influence of conformity.

He said after regurgitating the GOP talking points word for word.

We can't really grasp war-time policy, I'll bet half the people in this nation don't even know what a ration is, and we're at war right now! That's a testament to how evolved our fighting capabilites are, but it's also a sign that a great portion of this nation takes for granted how well the situation is going for the United States. There's no question whether the United States can win, the question is whether the public will let us win when a whole political party is rooting against it. History is the only real judge of success or failure. It's idiotic to say we've lost because we don't have the benefit of retrospect.

You keep thinking that.

Not unless you can honestly tell me you think his show is supposed to be objective. He's a political commentator, which means they comment on the news the way they see it.

He claims he is. Something called "THE NO SPIN ZONE" that is nothing BUT spin, is bullshit.

Polls are shit. Polls are a thousand people, more or less, expected to represent 300 million. The party breakdown is never right, and it often relies much to heavily on independents who should have virtually no say to begin with. The President is a party representative, not the party representative. If it was anyone it would be Ken Mehlman. If these polls are so accurate, always predicting how hated the Republican party is, how come they never fair that way in the ballot box? Do you realize I Democratic Presidental candidate hasn't gotten 51% or more of the popular vote since 1964? You can put your faith in polls all you want, I'll put mine in actual elections.

Straight from Paddy's mouth.

As ridiculous as picking the winner of a baseball game in the 4th inning?

Who's said anything about picking a winner, I just think we should change the strategy.

Evangelicals are Christians too, regardless.

Yes, they believe that Christ is the savior, but they focus less on his actual teachings then they do on the scripture and dogma surrounding it. Slight difference. Also, strict adherence to the bible may have it's own problems, see below in the ID section.

Anyways, last time I heard someone bash the First Amendment so much was when we were discussing colonial America in class.

How is what I said bashing the first Amendment? I didn't say it should be illegal for him to have those beliefs.

It doesn't take that much when you're the majority though.

Actually there were a number of republican members that opposed it, so they needed the democratic votes, but that's spitting hairs.

But, c'mon man, your community needs you. You're turning a deaf ear to SECURITY!11!!1

I think you, as a strong supporter of police protection [or insert your favorite government service] on the streets, should join up and fight for the cause you so believe in. To do otherwise seems, I dunno, chicken.

I'm a little old to change careers at this point, but you on the other hand are just what the General ordered.

You call me gibberish when you're here disregarding concensus from every major intelligence organization in the modern world, including unanimous UN security council support. Don't even try to pretend you have any ground to stand on there.

Well we did the UN mambo before, the UN was not supportive of our invasion, hence the reason we tried to get a second resolution at the last minute, but go ahead and remember it your way. It doesn't change that fact that those millions of protesters were ultimately right.

All I'm doing is pointing out your little logical fallacy. Hell, I'll even simplify it for you:

I can't find my sunglasses in my room, even though I know for a fact that I used those sunglasses before. All the friends I recruit cannot find my sunglasses anywhere in my room, although my room is in a house full of other rooms that are never checked for sunglasses.

Cheese's assumption would be that the sunglasses never existed.

Again, we went through the facts earlier, Iraq was, albeit slowly, complying with the UN in finding the last few things on it's list that were unaccounted for. They had already complied with nearly all of the conditions of the first gulf war, there were a few undocumented items left on the list. Your analogy is simplistic and ultimately, incorrect.

I try to keep an open mind about foreign policies, when I disagree with someone I'll argue with them but it doesn't mean I'll hate them personally.

Or when y'know, the facts go against you.

Right, back to the polls. Funny how every election year after that the Democrats have lost miles of ground. Then again, I used elections to measure success/failure, and you use polls from media organizations.

Oh, right mainstream media again.

People can, I dunno, maybe, uh, be responsible for themselves instead of whining to mommy government?

Ahhh, an oldie but a goody, good to see you actually spouting something from the real republican mantra instead of pushing the neo-con agenda. The problem with that is that millions and millions of people fall through the cracks and end up destitute. If mommy gov't does't do something about them we get a skyrocketing homeless and/or uneducated rate like we did before the New Deal. We're the greatest country on the planet (an opinion) our citizens deserve to be treated as such, all of them, not just the one's that can afford it.

The fact is we don't know, but that's not the argument here. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I do not support giving ID a lesson in a biology classroom. It ISN'T worthy of a three week discussion, no matter how you slice it. I don't support, however, censoring the word God for the sake of being politically correct.

Again, where in the ID debate is anyone censoring the word of god? And what word of god? The bible? Let's look at the history of the bible:

Jesus and the apostles would have spoken Aramaic and most likely the stories were passed around before being put to the written page in Greek. Later it was translated into Latin by the Romans. Now all this time every copy of the bible was hand transcribed by monks who were quite well known to give things their individual flair, so many versions existed. This goes on for like 1200 years until Gütenberg invests movable type. He uses his copy to make the first printed bible. Several hundred years later in the early 1600's King James edits it, translates it to english and gives birth to the modern bible, which undergoes some minor tweaks for a few hundred years until the 1800's. So expecting exact translations from God's mouth, to Aramaic, to greek, to latin, to english through many revisions, edits, multiple versions, etc. The chances of you reading the Bible and getting 'the word of god' are slim at best. The gist maybe... maybe.

Why do you dodge and duck my arguments so much?

Like you not touching on the second half of my answer there?

A much more apt comparison is would be: We wouldn’t send troops into a war zone with guns but no training on how to use them, and no body armor (oh, wait…). We hope they don’t have to use the guns, but if they do, I sure as hell want them to know how to use them.

Oh my goodness, I'm going to have to start keeping quotes of what I said handy because you keep recycling the same stuff after a few posts to try and catch me up.

Taking a course on keeping yourself healthy is completely logical and appropriate. There is absolutely no reason a child should be ignorant of sexual diseases.

So, again, I had already said that opting out is a fine solution. As long as the parents have the power, not the state.

To me giving kids the knowledge of about sexual diseases and not at least explaining the various methods of how to avoid getting them is a crime.

Because even with the voucher some parents may still not be able to send there child to a private school and rather use it toward the public school system.

That idea reduces the public funding to only the amount of the vouchers of the remaining students and you'll end up with a state instilled class system on your hands. All the rich, christian kids will go to private school with all the better teachers, and the rest get stuck in underfunded public ghettos with second rate teachers.

Points one, two, and three are all covered by the fact that you leave some public schools in place for the parents that still want them. Point four is covered by the sharp increase of education majors due to a booming industry with raising wages across the board. Point four-a is still covered by the mass influx of teachers, but private schools would have different policies anyways so that wouldn't be a problem. Point four-b is ridiculous because public schooling would need much less funding due to the massive drop in students, and teachers could focus on a smaller class size giving the kids much needed attention. If the parents are unsatisfied with that then they take their voucher and move the child to another school and earn the difference if there is one on keeping them there.

But why not just co-opt private schools methods and properly fund public schools? You could get the same results if wages were increased across the board without asking tax payers to pay for both. Oh right, mommy government.

The horror of letting the government teach the child is still in the equation, and seems like it would cause even more resentment. Extra-curricular activites included, specifically athletics, the kid could be involved with the school for 12-15 hours a weekday and 4-10 hours on Saturday. Then again, I'm out of grade school so I don't really care how long they are locked in there anymore.

Y'know it's funny, the rest of the western world never has these discussions and they have decent schools, there's no 'horror of letting gov't teach the child' people and they do fine. But then again they actually fund their education programs, while we spend nearly the same amount as the DoE budget every year in Iraq.

Yeah, just like Moveon.org is funded in part by Tides Foundation that gets large endowments from, believe it or not, Teresa Heinz Kerry! Oh, but Democrats are the sweet, innocent, immaculate political party that is completely absolved of any strange or otherwise suspicious funding connections.

Which might be relevant if we were talking about that, but again, we weren't.

Well, I don't try and do anything other than state my case. What you take from it is your own problem. Nevertheless, that's how most of the left ends there argument. "Oh, ur so stoopid omg forgit it youll nevar learn nuothing!!1" I can't count how many times I've heard it.

Get ready to hear it again.

There's an old saying, "when everyone tells you you're wrong, you just might be." or some such.

And with that I'm ending this. I've got a big project coming up at the end of the week and I need to focus on that.

Have a nice day.

 

[Ace-Of-War]

[quote name='Cheese']It is, without any doubt more important to have sex then worry about what Don Rumsfeld is doing. Hands down.[/quote]

You said it, not me. I think the government always needs to be watched and kept in check by the people.

He said after regurgitating the GOP talking points word for word.

[quote name='Me']When you argue politics like this, you're bound to say what other people you agree with also say, that's just the way it works. No one is immune to it, maybe when you're up there on your ivory tower you tend to forget how ideas like "We shouldn't have went to Iraq!" aren't exactly original.[/quote]

He claims he is. Something called "THE NO SPIN ZONE" that is nothing BUT spin, is bullshit.

The definition of commentary:

[quote name='Merriam Webster"']1 a : an explanatory treatise -- usually used in plural b : a record of events usually written by a participant -- usually used in plural
2 a : a systematic series of explanations or interpretations (as of a writing)[/quote]

I'm not here to defend O'Reilly though, I don't particularly like his populist views. I do agree that "No Spin" is bullshit because no human is immune to bias as I explained earlier. I know for damn sure that you can't find one thing that says he's an objective news anchor, because all he does is argue his viewpoint for all of his guests and read emails.

Straight from Paddy's mouth.

Two conservatives would have... similar ideas?! Get out of town!

Who's said anything about picking a winner, I just think we should change the strategy.

The point is you think this current strategy is a failure and will inevitably lead to our defeat. I'm saying that the only real stat you can go on at this point, despite the fact that it's absurd to judge the success or failure of this conflict at such a premature stage, is the death count. That count is unprecendented, it's very low all things considered.

Yes, they believe that Christ is the savior, but they focus less on his actual teachings then they do on the scripture and dogma surrounding it. Slight difference. Also, strict adherence to the bible may have it's own problems, see below in the ID section.

I'll admit I'm not very well-read on my theology, but I have a hard time accepting that the sects in Christianity are all that largely different with the only possible exception being between Catholicism and Protestantism.

How is what I said bashing the first Amendment? I didn't say it should be illegal for him to have those beliefs.

You criticize him for exercising his Constitutional rights. You don't have to believe in Jesus Christ or even God, that doesn't make any difference, but to call someone spooky because they're religious or not religious is just senseless religion or anti-religion bashing that would be better left out of the debate altogether.

I'm a little old to change careers at this point, but you on the other hand are just what the General ordered.

Never too old. Shoot, down here in Houston we're hurting for police officers. Our Mayor and our police chief messed up the pension plan for the Houston Police Department and a bunch of officers left. We have something like 20% less of a force than we did in 1980. Especially with the mass influx of Katrina evacuees, the crime rate in this town has really shot up. They're taking whoever they can get, so don't give me that career excuse. You're eligible, believe you me, and to not serve and protect your community shows blatantly that you don't support their efforts and support a de facto anarchist government.

Well we did the UN mambo before, the UN was not supportive of our invasion, hence the reason we tried to get a second resolution at the last minute, but go ahead and remember it your way. It doesn't change that fact that those millions of protesters were ultimately right.

No they weren't ultimately right about shit. I'm tired of hearing people bow down to that. Action had to be taken, something had to be done. Hell, former President Clinton was more than ready to move into Iraq had he not realized the massive political damage he would suffer because of it. Guess what would've happened in that alternate reality? You would be right here arguing how much of a threat Hussein was and how it was a good thing that former President Clinton had the foresight to do something about it.

Again, we went through the facts earlier, Iraq was, albeit slowly, complying with the UN in finding the last few things on it's list that were unaccounted for. They had already complied with nearly all of the conditions of the first gulf war, there were a few undocumented items left on the list. Your analogy is simplistic and ultimately, incorrect.

No, it's very correct. The whole WMD craze has turned into one big fallacy because the left overplayed a winning hand and ed up what should've been an easy victory in 2004.

I'll explain it as best as I can, a fallacy is, for all intents and purposes, an error in your reasoning skills.
FACT: Hussein has had WMDs,
FACT: The US cannot find WMDs,
therefore Hussein never had WMDs.

That's a false conclusion. If A had B, but C cannot find B, then A doesn't have B.

Or when y'know, the facts go against you.

Well, you may hate the President, you may hate all Republicans. I don't. I don't agree with Democrats, but I don't hate them. Some of my better friends are always arguing with me politically because they're all a bunch of socialists or libertarians.

Oh, right mainstream media again.

Any media. All media. A poll is a group of people, close to .001 percent of the base it is supposed to represent, completely subject to whatever questions they're given and whatever answer choices they're given to answer. I don't buy it. It's stupid to buy into any poll no matter what it says. I'd much rather rely on an election.

Ahhh, an oldie but a goody, good to see you actually spouting something from the real republican mantra instead of pushing the neo-con agenda. The problem with that is that millions and millions of people fall through the cracks and end up destitute. If mommy gov't does't do something about them we get a skyrocketing homeless and/or uneducated rate like we did before the New Deal. We're the greatest country on the planet (an opinion) our citizens deserve to be treated as such, all of them, not just the one's that can afford it.

I don't spout anything, I say what I believe in. One thing I don't believe in is establishing a welfare state where those the succeed and do well in life are punished for it, and those who are ups are rewarded for it. That's so completely backwards.

Again, where in the ID debate is anyone censoring the word of god? And what word of god? The bible? Let's look at the history of the bible

Let's not. I didn't say the word of God, I said the word "God." It's stupid to censor and restrict the learning process because we have to be PC everywhere we go.

Like you not touching on the second half of my answer there?

A much more apt comparison is would be: We wouldn’t send troops into a war zone with guns but no training on how to use them, and no body armor (oh, wait…). We hope they don’t have to use the guns, but if they do, I sure as hell want them to know how to use them.

No, it's your stupid assumptions I have to call you on every five seconds. I don't hate sex, and if you would've read what I wrote instead of taking it out of context and dodging it you would've seen that I only compared it to grand theft auto to make a point. Try reading it again and actually responding to what I said instead of going "wtf u h8 sex!!!11 olol" because I disagree with you.

[quote name='Me']It's the government teaching them that underage sex is okay, despite what your church, parents, or community says. I hate that position so very much. The whole, "They're going to do it anyway so we might as well let them!" It's such unbelievable bullshit. There is always going to be grand theft auto, so let's at least bring a bicycle with us wherever we go as a precaution. There is always going to be robbery, so let's just all carry two wallets as a precaution. Maybe ya'll will have children that you let walk all over you and do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean every parent is a up.[/quote]

To me giving kids the knowledge of about sexual diseases and not at least explaining the various methods of how to avoid getting them is a crime.

Yeah, you get them by having sex, so don't do it. Simple as that.

That idea reduces the public funding to only the amount of the vouchers of the remaining students and you'll end up with a state instilled class system on your hands. All the rich, christian kids will go to private school with all the better teachers, and the rest get stuck in underfunded public ghettos with second rate teachers.

Again, those that stay in public schools will obviously give their vouchers to the public school, thereby keeping funds in that school. While as students leave so will funding, but as students leave there is that less of a need for the same funding. Lesser class sizes means more one on one time with teachers and students, more individual attention. Less kids mean less problems, less uniforms for sports, smaller auditoriums, less textbooks, etc. etc. etc. Cutting spending is easy when your school's population is cut in half.

But why not just co-opt private schools methods and properly fund public schools? You could get the same results if wages were increased across the board without asking tax payers to pay for both. Oh right, mommy government.

Lest you forget, it's the parent's money to begin with, they earned it fair and square. Who are you to tell them that they're stuck with using that money on a shitty school where their kid isn't learning anything?

Y'know it's funny, the rest of the western world never has these discussions and they have decent schools, there's no 'horror of letting gov't teach the child' people and they do fine. But then again they actually fund their education programs, while we spend nearly the same amount as the DoE budget every year in Iraq.

That has to do with it. America spends more money on education than any other country in the world. Throwing money at the problem has never been the solution. There could be two computers for every student and that doesn't mean that the student is going to learn better, it just means more money was thrown at the problem. We pamper our children like nobody's business. We can't stop them from having sex whenever they feel like, so we teach them how to do it. We can't stop them from goofing off in class, so we just let them slip to the next grade. Some teachers can't teach children without indoctrinating them with whatever agenda they have.

Which might be relevant if we were talking about that, but again, we weren't.

It all goes back to how you put the Democrats on a pedestal, like they have a moral high ground or something. Money has corrupted politics long before the Democrats and Republicans wanted each other's throats.

[quotw]Get ready to hear it again.

There's an old saying, "when everyone tells you you're wrong, you just might be." or some such.

And with that I'm ending this. I've got a big project coming up at the end of the week and I need to focus on that.

Have a nice day.[/quote]

Sweet, I'll have the last word then. When everyone refers to this forum, you might want to broaden your scope of the word everyone. Good luck on your project.