McCain's VP:

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

....not all wars are bad and not all wars are necessary.

I can't disagree with everything you've said, including the last statement. I do not favor war, in fact I teetered on whether Iraq was a wise move, before we did it, but I have since thought the entire spin by Democrats, after the vote was taken and when they thought we were losing, and after WMD was not found as they predicted, they have engaged in one of the biggest spin machines ever constructed to tear down a president and an administration, based solely on the desire for power. We live in a representative republic, where Congress voted, its history, and based on their information from intelligence. We can disagree whether Bush cherry picked the intel, but I think the Dems are just as guilty now, and probably more guilty of cherrypicking what was perceived to have happened to build the case that Bush lied us into war. I don't buy it. I think Bush is a better man than that. What the Dems have done would have been considered treasonous at other times in our history. Now, I am ready to get out of there, I have been for a while, and I agree we need to quit spending money over there. I think the success won so far needs to be turned over to the Iraqis as quickly as possible. I think we've dropped the ball on many other fronts here.

With that said, I agree we are a nation of people that have a rich history of debating and dissent, but we have not been this polarized for a long time, and for one of many examples, I simply think it has been lower than the low for people like Durbin, and others, to accuse our military of some of the things they have. Some of the dissent is unamerican in my opinion, and it is solely for the purpose of their party to gain power. They do not even act like they want this country to succeed anymore, not economically or militarily, or morally. They are obstructionists on every front. I have almost concluded many of them simply do not believe in America, in capitalism, in national defense, in family, nothing. I am not aiming that comment at you, as you don't seem to be extreme, but I believe the extremists have invaded the Democratic Party. Just look at how Lieberman went from vp candidate to praising the Republicans at the RNC in 8 short years if you don't believe times are a changin.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, You conservatives don't know how to "rationalize" fear in your lives. More people die from car and other accidents near home then through terrorists activities - each and every year. Natural disasters add considerably more to that pot of the dead when compared to terrorism.

It's what most people with common sense apply to their lives. Irrational fear is what you practice.

Look, riding in a car is a known acceptable risk, and virtually everyone accepts that risk as an acceptable and calculated risk every time they get into a car. I am not willing, as you apparently are along with your Democrat friends, to accept the risk of a terrorist wiping out an entire city for example with some kind of nuclear device. That is not an acceptable risk, and I for one will stand up and tell people that it is a real risk and one that we should make every effort to prevent. The argument of comparing terrorists to traffic accidents is plain stupidity, ci. I've heard it many times, it is a Democrat talking point, but I predict many will rue the day that they viewed the situation in that light. We live in a dangerous world, I accept that, and I do not live in fear every day, I don't, but I do believe we should be vigilant and make every effort to protect ourselves.

I am not going to equate acts of terrorism to traffic accidents, as that is pure silliness. Terrorism as calculated in terms of loss of life to this point, is mathematically comparable, but the upside in terms of severity is far more dangerous to the entire country than traffic accidents. We know that traffic accidents are an acceptable risk in terms of infrastructure and national welfare, but we do not know that at all with terrorism. Some of the statements you make cause me to seriously question your ability to do critical thinking, ci.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

With that said, I agree we are a nation of people that have a rich history of debating and dissent, but we have not been this polarized for a long time,

it does seem to be even worse than the '60s.

and for one of many examples, I simply think it has been lower than the low for people like Durbin, and others, to accuse our military of some of the things they have.

i'm not sure what things you mean. an example?

... I have almost concluded many of them simply do not believe in America, in capitalism, in national defense, in family, nothing.

i admit that there are some people who would like to see america in ashes. but i don't really attribute that to the dems. some may be registered that way. but as a party, can't say that their stated goals are the ruination of the country. do you think that maybe your perceptions could be colored by seeing "your america" changing? i ask because sometimes i look around and see things that have changed that i wish hadn't. i finally came to the conclusion that i'm just getting older. it ain't all about me nomore...

I am not aiming that comment at you, as you don't seem to be extreme,

thank you. i try not to be all ott. nope, i reserve that tendency for stuff like playing my old ac/dc records real loud when the wife is home.

but I believe the extremists have invaded the Democratic Party. Just look at how Lieberman went from vp candidate to praising the Republicans at the RNC in 8 short years if you don't believe times are a changin.

i would agree with the statement that extremists have had both parties over over a barrel for the last couple of decades.

that's the bad news.

the good news is that i estimate (based only on my observations) that extremists on both ends of the spectrum are really small, but very loud, very organized groups who just can't stand to see or hear anything they don't like.

it seems to me that more and more people are getting pretty bored with it. it's just not that helpful.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

Thanks for the thoughtful and honest reply.

1 Reply

Heard a great Texas saying today that reminded me of Palin:

A chicken has wings, but that don't mean it'll fly.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Thanks for the thoughtful and honest reply.

welcome. i really do believe that if people just talked with each other without getting all ticked-off all the time we would all have a fairly decent life.

maybe even osama.

nahhhhhh... effin' shoot 'im in the head.

0 Replies

okie - If you sincerely believe what you post, tell me what is American about discriminating against homosexuals?

What about their pursuit of happiness?

When we spread ourself thin in two wars with an enemy which is in no way contained in those two countries, how do we protect ourself when military super powers like Russia start trying to land grab? Ever wonder if Russia just knew it could do what it wanted because it knew we were too spread thin to do anything?

Even if we had won the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in 18 months a piece, we would still have terrorism in the world. In the wake of everything, we've lost as many soldiers as we lost citizens on the attack of 9/11.

We've painted Iraq red with the blood of too many innocents. What of their Life.

We've detained people without even charging them. We've tortured them.

What of their liberty?

You're on the wrong side okie, your politics forbid you from speech about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

T
K
O

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

You're on the wrong side okie, your politics forbid you from speech about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

T
K
O

T
K
O

What a pile of bullshit. Okie may be a dope, but I don't know who the **** you think you are to tell him he can't talk about life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, or any other damn thing he so pleases. Grow up and get over yourself… and consider losing the TKO bullshit too. That, along with crap like I quoted above, mostly serves to make you look like a fool.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

^^Oops! I didn't mean to double moniker.

OB - ???

If okie can come here and soapbox about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness like he has some political high ground, then he can eat his own words. He introduces it into the dialog, he opens the door to to have his views examined by it.

I don't care to wrestle about semantics, but my use of "forbid" is meant poetically/ironically. He can gladly beat his dumb drum all day, I honestly don't care, and I don't pretend to have the authority to say otherwise even if I did.

I don't mind if I look like a fool in your eyes OB, and since we're exchanging advice, I'd suggest you stop chasing every fire with gasoline. You're looking for all the wrong fights. You're otherwise excellent intellectual rhetoric is wasted on a seemingly insatiable urge for simply conflict.

After ranting about how I can't tell another A2K member how to express himself, I have one thing to say...

Take your own advice
K
Or just ignore my posts

0 Replies

Until you at least figure out communism is a dirty word, the idea of you forbidding an American conservative from speaking about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, figuratively or literally, is beyond absurd. I mean really stupid.

The idiotic Technical Knockout reference compounds the absurdity when you utterly and completely fail to make a point in the first place.

Ps. If you knew more about the rapist, you’d understand what took place on that thread too.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Until you at least figure out communism is a dirty word, the idea of you forbidding an American conservative from speaking about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, figuratively or literally, is beyond absurd. I mean really stupid.

Communism is not a dirty word. It's a word used as a red flag to inspire fear. Nothing more. At worst, communism is a weak system of government that is easily exploited by (ironically) the most bourgeois of dictators.

You're entitled to your opinion, but your posturing as an authority is laughable.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

The idiotic Technical Knockout reference compounds the absurdity when you utterly and completely fail to make a point in the first place.

I made my points about okie's political party and how they were in direct conflict with the notion of protecting "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Perhaps you should read backwards first before running into a thread with your gas can.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Until you at least figure out communism is a dirty word, the idea of you forbidding an American conservative from speaking about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, figuratively or literally, is beyond absurd. I mean really stupid.

Communism is not a dirty word. It's a word used as a red flag to inspire fear. Nothing more. At worst, communism is a weak system of government that is easily exploited by (ironically) the most bourgeois of dictators.

You're entitled to your opinion, but your posturing as an authority is laughable.

Laughable is the inherent idiocy contained in your sentiment above... after having it repeatedly explained to you by some of A2K's best and brightest.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Laugh to your heart's content, but you still have yet to ever refute my point about the bourgeois. We both agree that communism is a system doomed to fail, we just disagree on why. I'm not interested in your pissing contests, or your thread derailing, anymore than you are interested in hearing an opinion other than you own. I'll entertained a handful of posts, but you are losing my interest since you're not posting any content.

Good day to you sir.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

I'll entertained a handful of posts, but you are losing my interest since you're not posting any content.

Good day to you sir.

Many opinions are posted here. All have content. That you disagree with them does not make them without content.

0 Replies

If memory serves; every erroneous point you made on the subject of communism was disproved by at least 3 different members. You made it vividly clear that you don't know the difference between socialism and communism. When it comes to communism, you choose to remain deliberately obtuse. Per your request; I once answered every question raised by PM, only to have it completely ignored. Talk about a waste of energy. At any rate; it will forever remain idiotic for an advocate of communism to chastise an American conservative over his use the words "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

okie - If you sincerely believe what you post, tell me what is American about discriminating against homosexuals?

Look, there are two aspects about this issue, whether it is hereditary or environmental, and we don't know for sure in all cases. There have been cases where a homosexual claims to have changed their situation through choice. I honestly do not know, but I suspect it may be a combination of both, or more one than the other is some cases. One thing we do know for sure, the lifestyle is a choice. What liberals are trying to ram down everyones throat is that the lifestyle is something everyone should accept as normal, and that is where you are confusing the subject of discrimination. I have no habit of discriminating against such people, but I do object to the homosexual lobby demanding, for example, demanding that teachers can openly and freely teach my children that it is normal with my tax dollars.

Quote:

What about their pursuit of happiness?

Yes, its not about happiness, but the pursuit of it. The government cannot and should not guarantee everything that anyone wants, and I think it is trying to do that in some areas. Rights and liberty to pursue something are being confused nowadays. We have politicians claiming things are rights, when they are not, if you would read the constitution.

Quote:

When we spread ourself thin in two wars with an enemy which is in no way contained in those two countries, how do we protect ourself when military super powers like Russia start trying to land grab? Ever wonder if Russia just knew it could do what it wanted because it knew we were too spread thin to do anything?

Even if we had won the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in 18 months a piece, we would still have terrorism in the world. In the wake of everything, we've lost as many soldiers as we lost citizens on the attack of 9/11.

We've painted Iraq red with the blood of too many innocents. What of their Life.

We've detained people without even charging them. We've tortured them.

What of their liberty?

You're on the wrong side okie, your politics forbid you from speech about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

T
K
O

T
K
O

We can have a debate about wars and what our policy should be. That has been done in Congress, they voted, and Bush acted. Public opinion will always filter into congress, and our policies will be roughly determined through that process. You may not always agree, not everyone does, but you cannot deny that it has gone throught the proper process. And contrary to what you may believe, we may be better off in regard to terrorism than we would have been if we had not done what we have done. Look, I want to also see us reduce our expenditures in Iraq, and Afghanistan for that matter.

You can continue to motivate all of your politics based upon your dislike of Bush, but at some point you need to show you have a better policy and sell it to the people. If Obama wins, you will have apparently won that debate this election cycle, but the story does not end there, your man will need to do more than shout "change," and go "uh uh uh, uh, and some more uhs." He will have to actually make a decision on some things, show leadership and commitment, which is what Bush has been doing for 8 years whether you agree with it or not.

1 Reply

@okie,

Diest TKO wrote:
okie - If you sincerely believe what you post, tell me what is American about discriminating against homosexuals?

okie wrote:
Look, there are two aspects about this issue, whether it is hereditary or environmental, and we don't know for sure in all cases. There have been cases where a homosexual claims to have changed their situation through choice. I honestly do not know, but I suspect it may be a combination of both, or more one than the other is some cases. One thing we do know for sure, the lifestyle is a choice. What liberals are trying to ram down everyones throat is that the lifestyle is something everyone should accept as normal, and that is where you are confusing the subject of discrimination. I have no habit of discriminating against such people, but I do object to the homosexual lobby demanding, for example, demanding that teachers can openly and freely teach my children that it is normal with my tax dollars.

okie, Think about homosexuality this way; most animals practice it. That tells me it's "natural."

Best Quote:
What about their pursuit of happiness?

okie wrote:
Yes, its not about happiness, but the pursuit of it. The government cannot and should not guarantee everything that anyone wants, and I think it is trying to do that in some areas. Rights and liberty to pursue something are being confused nowadays. We have politicians claiming things are rights, when they are not, if you would read the constitution.

No, okie, government should not be in the business of restricting happiness through stupid laws. That's called "discrimination" against a special group of citizens.

Best Quote:
When we spread yourself thin in two wars with an enemy which is in no way contained in those two countries, how do we protect yourself when military super powers like Russia start trying to land grab? Ever wonder if Russia just knew it could do what it wanted because it knew we were too spread thin to do anything?

Even if we had won the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in 18 months a piece, we would still have terrorism in the world. In the wake of everything, we've lost as many soldiers as we lost citizens on the attack of 9/11.

We've painted Iraq red with the blood of too many innocents. What of their Life.

We've detained people without even charging them. We've tortured them.

What of their liberty?

You're on the wrong side okie, your politics forbid you from speech about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Unfortunately, okie defends his positions from total ignorance. He has very little knowledge of our Constitution, or any sense of real "humanity."

T
K
O

T
K
O

We can have a debate about wars and what our policy should be. That has been done in Congress, they voted, and Bush acted. Public opinion will always filter into congress, and our policies will be roughly determined through that process. You may not always agree, not everyone does, but you cannot deny that it has gone through the proper process. And contrary to what you may believe, we may be better off in regard to terrorism than we would have been if we had not done what we have done. Look, I want to also see us reduce our expenditures in Iraq, and Afghanistan for that matter.

okie, Don't you ever read all the facts on this matter that has become common knowledge? The Bush administration outright lied and only shared information that supported their case for war. Most democrats have said after the fact that they would not have voted for war if they knew what they learned afterwards.

You can continue to motivate all of your politics based upon your dislike of Bush, but at some point you need to show you have a better policy and sell it to the people. If Obama wins, you will have apparently won that debate this election cycle, but the story does not end there, your man will need to do more than shout "change," and go "uh uh uh, uh, and some more uhs." He will have to actually make a decision on some things, show leadership and commitment, which is what Bush has been doing for 8 years whether you agree with it or not.

okie, No, we don't have to come up with a better plan. That's what our government is supposed to do: it's called "due diligence." That's the reason we have a government - to do the work we elected them to do to conform to the Constitution.

FYI, most of the old guard republicans do not trust Bush, and the new guard republicans do not trust McCain. The GOP is now in shambles, but people like you are blind even to current events.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

ci and Diest, there may be a good example unfolding right before your eyes. Financial crisis is I think linked in a big way to the government trying to guarantee happiness by dictating loans be made to people that simply would not qualify under proper circumstances. Those same people have the right to work hard and attain a financial level where they could have better earned the right to those loans, or happiness, but instead they were given it without earning it.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

ci and Diest, there may be a good example unfolding right before your eyes. Financial crisis is I think linked in a big way to the government trying to guarantee happiness by dictating loans be made to people that simply would not qualify under proper circumstances. Those same people have the right to work hard and attain a financial level where they could have better earned the right to those loans, or happiness, but instead they were given it without earning it.

It has nothing to do with that whatsoever. You guys have latched on to this theory, in order to avoid the fact that deregulation of the financial markets is what led to our current mess. I've patiently explained to you more than once why the laws allowing the bundling of mortgages into securities are the culprit here, not the failed mortgages, which are an inevitability...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie -- please read this thread I started yesterday and give me your thoughts.

http://able2know.org/topic/123062-1

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know