just ask Dan RatherOriginally Posted by Shelby07
Has a 5" Member
just ask Dan Rather
End of line.
Senior Member
Do I really need anything else to point out who the "very gullible" were?#1.)
Got anything more up to date?
We all know what the republicans have proported about why we entered Iraq. It's in the news every day. They believed that Saddam had WMD's. The democrats are saying that they didn't believe there were WMD's in Iraq, and even though they voted to give Bush the authority to use force, they "really didn't think he'd use it." Yet they voted for it. Now, if Bush is so stupid, how stupid were they to be duped by an *idiot?* Doesn't say much for them. Do I want to vote those people into office? No, not really. The flavor of the day is to bash Bush because our team isn't winning the miss congeniality contest, and the democrats have latched onto this with allegations that the only reason they thought there were WMD's in Iraq is because "Bush lied." Yet every single one of those quotes were stated with certainty that the there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and many of those quotes were made years before Bush won the Presidency. Now, either those folks are lying themselves or they were stupid enough to be fooled by a "bumbling idiot." Take your pick. It has to be one or the other. It leads me to ask the questions I do. Do I vote for those who are either 1) lying when they call Bush a liar or 2)stupid enough to be mislead when they had all, if not more, information than Bush as many of them were on the very committes and commissions that were gathering the information. As I said, it has to be one or the other. There ain't no gray area in my gray matter.
Both parties were behind Bush when we went in. And the United Nations were in agreement that force was justified. Until I see some real evidence that the democrats were truly duped and how it was accomplished, I'm not going to simply assume that the democrats are telling the truth now. I am NOT going to let them get away with it, and I am certainly not going to vote them into power, especially when all they can say is "It's time for a change" but they can't tell us what the change will be. The bottom line is that EVERYONE believed Saddam had WMD's, even going back to before Bush took office. Now, in an effort to win the game, the democrats are back-peddling at breakneck speed, and I don't trust them. In my view, they are the ones who are lying.
Senior Member
"neocons" "neopukes" "chickenhawk" ????
DVM . . . why don't you try to have an intelligent debate without name calling. It makes you look 12 years old. If you have to resort to calling names then you have lost the argument.
Let us so live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry. - - Mark Twain
Senior Member
Thank you. Intelligent discourse needs to be well structured and compelling. Points should be made with either some direct evidence, or a reasonably reliable source. You are also completely entitled to express your opinion, but you should make sure and specify it is your opinion. You can accompany it with a description of the logical thought process that leads you to believe it as being true. Constant name calling and unsubstantiated statements presented as "God's Truth" do nothing but detract from your argument. It sounds like the kind of emotional speak used to incite a riot.
"some people are like slinkies, they're not really good for anything but they can bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs." –Unknown
"He did for bullshit what Stonehenge did for rocks." -Cecil Adams
Senior Member
I've said this before, but I think it's worth repeating.
I may not like Barry's style of debate, but I think he can bring good points to the table. If I didn't think he had some intelligence I wouldn't be participating.
I don't believe that Barry has ever been disrespectful to me personally and I hope I have not been disrespectful to him. Our styles are different, but we both have differing opinions that have been formed in varying ways. Barry lives in NY, I live in Colorado and sometimes it's difficult for us to understand why our views are not shared by everyone. But views and opinions need to be questioned constantly. Although Barry is sometimes overly passionate about his beliefs, I think that's ok. My goal is to gather facts and information that I may not have seen before, and I'm not going to let his passion get in the way of anything he can enlighten me on. I think it is fruitless to discuss issues with people who agree with me.
I am also disappointed by many things that this administration is doing, I do believe, however, that at this point in time the current administration is what we need to carry out their primary responsibility of protecting us. I believe that the destruction of the WTC could have been avoided if past administrations held a firmer hand and didn't worry so much about public opinion and polls. Barry disagrees, and I can understand why. The outcome has been less than stellar. But I think our biggest disagreement is that he is willing to make a change for change's sake and I am not.
So Barry, aside from style, I want to tell you that I AM interested in your point of view. Tell me what you think and let me tell you what I think, and maybe we can both learn something. And if it turns out that I am wrong in some of my beliefs, all the better.
barry DOES NOT live in NY...he lives in california.....carry on....
Senior Member
SEE!! I'm learning stuff already! This is great!
Are You Threatening Me?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041101888.html
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=8837
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200603...r-in-iraq.html
Just a few links, and really just the tip of the iceberg.
The rest of you, if you don't like it, don't read it. I don't care either way.
Noob Peon
Here is a copy of the report of the found WMD's in Iraq just for reference, not directed at you, just for anyone who wants to see it.#1.) CLINTON NEVER INVADED IRAQ!! Why is it that the neocons can't get through one complete thought without trying to tie Clinton into it? I find it extremely funny that they are so consumed with hate for old BJ Bill.
#2.) All the rest of those quotes from the Democrats, many of whom are only marginally better than the neopukes, were all based on intelligence reports fabricated, filtered, and eventually provided to them by and at the direction of dumbya and the rest of the chickenhawk neopukes.
I know this is info that hasn't been broadcast on the fox network, but please try to keep up...Dumbya, Darth Cheney, Rice-a-foni, the Rummy, and the original house minority Colon Powerless, stood in front of Congress, and the rest of the U.S. AND LIED.
So, those quotes really don't pertain to the discussion at hand.
Got anything more up to date?
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...classified.pdf
...and being wrong is one thing, but "based on intelligence reports fabricated, filtered, and eventually provided to them by and at the direction of dumbya and the rest of the chickenhawk neopukes."???
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540
Senior Member
There you go with the "I am right You are wrong" head-in-the-sand attitude which turns people off and make them stop listening to your arguments regarding your point of view. Take a lesson from Shelby . . . now there is the right attitude with regard to intelligent discussions.
When it comes to politics and religion, the focus of your discussion with those of opposite view should not be to convert but rather to share your views and LISTEN to their views as well. Once you shut out other's view points and begin calling names you start down the path of ignorance.
I may not agree with what you have to say but I have read your posts and posted some of my own without once calling you, your party members, or anyone else here derogatory names. I appreciate your views and your conviction, however your credibility and intelligence are diminished with every childish comment and name you call other members of this board.
My .02
Let us so live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry. - - Mark Twain
he thinks he's God...^^^^
i'm not believing him...
Destroyer of Safiness
There you go with the "I am right You are wrong" head-in-the-sand attitude which turns people off and make them stop listening to your arguments regarding your point of view. Take a lesson from Shelby . . . now there is the right attitude with regard to intelligent discussions.
When it comes to politics and religion, the focus of your discussion with those of opposite view should not be to convert but rather to share your views and LISTEN to their views as well. Once you shut out other's view points and begin calling names you start down the path of ignorance.
I may not agree with what you have to say but I have read your posts and posted some of my own without once calling you, your party members, or anyone else here derogatory names. I appreciate your views and your conviction, however your credibility and intelligence are diminished with every childish comment and name you call other members of this board.
My .02
You're wasting your breath, he's not going to listen, just act like a child and call names.
There's only two kinds of cigars, the kind you like and the kind you don't.
Are You Threatening Me?
Actually, it was a "I don't give a shit if you read it" attitude. BTW, anyone that believes there were any real wmd's in Iraq isn't capable of intelligent anything.There you go with the "I am right You are wrong" head-in-the-sand attitude which turns people off and make them stop listening to your arguments regarding your point of view. Take a lesson from Shelby . . . now there is the right attitude with regard to intelligent discussions.
When it comes to politics and religion, the focus of your discussion with those of opposite view should not be to convert but rather to share your views and LISTEN to their views as well. Once you shut out other's view points and begin calling names you start down the path of ignorance.
I may not agree with what you have to say but I have read your posts and posted some of my own without once calling you, your party members, or anyone else here derogatory names. I appreciate your views and your conviction, however your credibility and intelligence are diminished with every childish comment and name you call other members of this board.
My .02
As far as religion and politics go, the reason the neopukes have courted the religious right whack-jobs, and vice versa, is both groups have proven to be incapable of distinguishing reality from fantasy. Just ask cnb.
Credibility and intelligence being diminished? On a bb?
Now you're just being silly.
Senior Member
The articles you refered to are common knowledge. I have to say that stories riddled with phrases like "one page reports", "unnamed informants" and any story involving Rove or Wilson make me raise an eyebrow. There have been so many stories, allegations and spin associated with these types of stories that one is basically left with a "pick whatever version you like" scenario. No conclusions other than supposition. These kinds of articles are exactly what I am talking about when I say I have to filter out spin and bias.
The first article does nothing to explain why the democrats backpeddled from their original assessment that we needed to stop Saddam, nor does it reference any "lies" told by Bush for the purpose of gaining support to enter Iraq. It does support the fact that pre-war intelligence was wrong, not fabricated.
Looking at the title of the web site in your second example, I would immediately be suspect of their agenda. After reading the article I would categorize it as spin. And after browsing other articles on the web site it is clear to me that all of their articles are biased. They even go so far in one of their articles as to make an argument that Hezbolla is really not trying to kill Jews. Their supporting evidence seems to be the background shots on BBC reports.
The third link references lots of spin from the Karl Rove case. Hearings and preceedings produced conclusions spun to whatever side of the argument one favors.
And as for the author of the 4th reference...
http://neveryetmelted.com/?p=656
I have not seen much in the way of the printed or spoken word where I could not say it had been taken out of context or spun into meaning something other than its original meaning. Political spin doctors get paid lots of money to do just that, and they have no consequences for misrepresenting the truth.
I see nothing in those references that cannot be attributed to spin or bias depending on what side you are on.
Edit:
I base most of my opinion on the things that I remember, since I am very skeptical of the news media, be it MSNBC or FOX. I do watch them both and see very different slants in their stories and commentaries. But what I remember is everyone jumping on the bandwagon when we first went into Iraq. There was no uproar or dissention from politicians or even the news media. Battle lines were drawn during the election campaigns when both parties were maneuvering for votes. I will admit that I don't have the answers as the news slants everything, but I do remember very clearly how it all played out. I can believe that our intelligence may have been wrong, but I just can't see how Bush was able to dupe every single member of the democratic party the way they are all claiming, except for Lieberman.
Question about Lieberman's failed bid. Do you think that if the events that happened today had occured a few days earlier it would have made a difference in Tuesday's primary election?
Last edited by Shelby07; 08-11-2006 at 12:19 AM.
Are You Threatening Me?
Your link, a response by Guillermo Christenson, is interesting.
I only have one question...who the hell is Guillermo Christenson?
Paul Pillar is a known entity. His position, and expertise, is well known and heavily documented. I never heard of the other guy.
I suppose if you are willing to believe every article, by any person, in response to things they may or may not know about, well, I can see how all this confuses you.
This is along the same lines as the Retired Generals who served in Iraq, who came out against how rummy was handeling the whole thing. Fox produced their usual "foxperts" (people who are presented as experts on fox, who actually have no direct knowledge of what they speak), who said that those Generals who had actually had their boots on the ground in Iraq, were just disgruntled workers, and the fox-faithful ate it up.
Now we all know that those Generals know more of what was really going on than some idiot talking heads on fox. But, the more those "foxperts" and the neocons repeated the White House talking points, the more the sheeple believed that they were right.
Are You Threatening Me?
Considering that the neocons had control of all the intelligence involving Iraq, and that the party leaders were publicly producing "evidence" of biolabs and such, that even they later admitted were stretches of their imagination, and proven to be bullshit, coupled with the anti-islamic fervor that was whipped up by the war-mongers, I can see how many were fooled into believing the bullshit.
I don't think recent events would have changed the outcome for Lieberman. He was seen as being to far away from the Democratic party thinking on too many critical issues. He lost because he ignored what his constituents wanted.
Has a 5" Member
Didn't they find like 10,000 pounds of enriched Uranium over there? Was he going to make watches out of it or something?
End of line.
Senior Member
Yeah, that's the ticket! The "glow in the dark" kind!
"some people are like slinkies, they're not really good for anything but they can bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs." –Unknown
"He did for bullshit what Stonehenge did for rocks." -Cecil Adams
Senior Member
OK. Bad example. I'll give you that. My point, not very well made, was that Pillar has his critics. He has openly criticized Bush and his policies since the beginning of the administration. It is fairly well known that he resents the fact that Bush and the rest of the intelligence community in this country, and indeed around the world, didn't agree with his assessment. My biggest problem with Pillar is that he believes the way to resolve disagreements with terrorists is to negotiate,. While I would love to believe that, I just can't. I don't believe that negotiations would have any lasting effect. I truly believe that the people we are fighting have no other agenda than to disrupt our society and kill as many of us as they can. They have nothing other than their religious beliefs to fight for and martyrdom, for them, is an honor, not a tragedy. The attempt in NY to blow up the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, and the plot that was unfolding to blow up 9 or 10 aircraft over the Atlantic supports that. And, of course, the attack on the WTC was completely unprovoked.
I am not a war monger. I would love to see this situation go away tomorrow and have our troops come home. Who wouldn't? But a quick withdrawl, in my opinion, would show our enemies that we can be beaten into submission, and would show our allies that we don't have the conviction to stay until the job is done. That, in my opinion, would be disasterous for the future security of our country. I believe the hate these people have for us is going to be around for a long, long time and we will have to continue to fight it far into the future.
One big reason that I don't feel comfortable with democratic leadership is their lack of consistency and conviction. The democratic party, in my opinion, create policy by bending to the poll of the day. They change their position quite frequently, depending on what is popular. Although this may seem like a good idea on the surface, the truth is that our government is a commonwealth, not a democracy. as I am sure you know. In a commonwealth, the people's responsibility is to vote for representatives to make the decisions and set policy that's best for the country, not to listen to the poll of the day and react. As you know, polls change weekly and I don't believe that changing our direction on a regular basis is the way that the country should be run.
Let me ask these questions, which might help me understand more where the democrats are coming from. What would the democrat's ideal resolution in Iraq be? What do they think the results would be if we pulled out of Iraq in the next 6 months or so? What is their plan for dealing with the threat from Iran and Korea? Going forward, what would they do to keep us safe from future attacks? Would their policy be proactive or reactive? Perhaps if I could get answers to those questions I could feel more comfortable with a democratic leadership, but honestly, just hearing that it's time for a change without knowing what that change would be leaves me cold.
Last edited by Shelby07; 08-11-2006 at 12:28 PM.
Senior Member
I think that the republican party is also moving in that direction. To be honest, it is getting harder and harder to see unity in our politicians no matter what party they belong to.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks