38
   

People are saying some really ugly things here in Texas....

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 05:36 pm
@Asherman,
Quote:
Iraq was a prime candidate as the covert sponsor of Al Queda.


Except, nobody who knew anything about the region, AQ, or Iraq, thought that they were a covert sponsor of AQ. But, as Rumsfeld said, there sure are a lot of good targets in Iraq.

There is not 'war against radical Islam.' You don't seem to realize that this worldview is out the door, Ash. Bitch all you want about how this opens us up to further terrorist attacks, we care not. Your side had their opportunity to combat the problem and accomplished very little. Do not mistake a willingness to try other avenues to address it as 'weakness.'

I don't think most Conservatives understand what Strength really is.

Cycloptichorn
Asherman
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 06:26 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
"Except, nobody who knew anything about the region, AQ, or Iraq, thought that they were a covert sponsor of AQ."

You are wrong. There was a very strong sense amongst intelligence people that I knew and was in touch with the day after 9-11 that Iraq was almost certainly a covert sponsor of the attack. Just prior to 9-11 a surface terror attack sponsored by Iraq on Washington DC targets was being seriously looked at. However, it turns out that our intelligence was incorrect. Even in the best of times and with the best resources intelligence evaluations are difficult and wrong a lot of the time. In the years preceding 9-11, several administrations were actively moving our efforts from HUMINT to technical intelligence. That was because dealing with human intelligence is filled with moral ambiguities that Americans and our political leadership find distasteful. When you have little HUMINT, assessing the intentions and even the hidden capabilities of a potential opponent becomes very tricky. We need more intelligence networks on the ground, and during that period the US was shutting down networks that had been difficult to set up in the first place. We lost a lot of very good people.

Radical Islam is at war with us, and has been for a very long time. They will exploit every weakness, and they are convinced that God has guaranteed them victory over the infidel. They see the West as soft, decadent, and lacking the will to stand steadfastly for any principle. They are convinced that God will punish the West, and that they are the divine instrument of that punishment.

"Bitch all you want about how this opens us up to further terrorist attacks, we care not. "

So you don't care if a terrorist operation launched by a Radical Islamic group successfully duplicates, or surpasses the damage we suffered on 9-11? Well, I and a lot of other Americans do care and we don't want it to happen again. You think that this administrations efforts have accomplished little? Well, Saddam is dead and Iraq is on the road to becoming a stable nation. Terrorist attacks in Iraq have fallen dramatically as a result of our putting more troops on the ground and taking a more proactive stance. The Taliban were expelled from Afghanistan. The architect of 9-11 is hiding in a cave protected by fanatical Muslims who haven't quite gotten complete control of Pakistan. The top leadership of the radical Islamic terrorist organizations has been decimated, and their communications networks hampered. The enemy has had to focus their efforts on just holding on in Iraq, and that has left fewer resources (men, money and munitions) to attack elsewhere.

The favorite terrorist targets within the United States are far less vulnerable today than they were 8 years ago. Our civil infrastructure is better trained and equipped to handle terrorist attacks. We've come a long way toward identifying, tracking and preventing terrorist cells operating in this country. And, of course there hasn't been a large scale successful attack inside the U.S. since 9-11. There are still many holes in our security, but its been getting harder and harder for any terrorist operations here. I'd say this administration has accomplished a lot, even though the Left has done everything in its power to hamper those efforts.

I wonder what "other avenues" of dealing with a determined enemy who wants nothing less than our destruction you might like to try? Do you think we might purchase "Peace in Our Time" by ... ???? Do you think we might buy them off by abandoning Israel? If our military forces are removed from the region, or reduced to very minimal levels, do you think that might bring peace to the world? If the Taliban were restored to power in Afghanistan, would that turn them from lions into pussycats? Would the peace loving Mullahs of Iran play nice, if only we help them to build a few nuclear weapons? What "other avenues" are you thinking of if these aren't a sample?

I'll tell ye this, strength isn't kneeling with your neck stretched out before a guy who has informed you that he intends cutting off your head on television.
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 07:44 pm
@Asherman,
Asherman wrote:

Viciousness? Its pretty difficult to imagine anything more vicious than the Leftist rhetoric heaped on President Bush over the past eight years.


I know you're a smart man. But you're obviously not reading what's being said. They've been more vicious in two days than moderates and liberals were in 8 years.
Asherman
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 11:25 pm
@Wilso,
What is it that I'm missing? I think I have a pretty good sampling of what's been said here at A2K, in the newspapers, and on network television. I never bother with the the commentariat, on either side so that's probably a wash. Its hard to believe that if every minute of the past forty-eight hours carried a "visicous" attack on President-elect Obama that would even come close to the mean and nasty attacks that've been made by Democrats, liberals and the Left over the past eight years. In 48 hours there's 2,880 minutes, and in eight years there are 2,920 days, a total of 4,204,800 minutes. Lets suppose, just for comparison that there is one unfair, "vicious" attack each minute for both the sitting President and the President-elect. That would be 1460:1. The attacks on President Bush were almost impossible to escape hearing, and I've heard nothing that could remotely be called "vicious" said about Obama, it seems reasonable to assume that you are exaggerating more than just a little.

Of course, your comment was only a rhetorical flourish, but I really doubt that many conservatives will ever approach the meaness and unreasonable hatred that we've endured for the past eight years from "moderates and liberals" . Civility still matters to some folks, though it is indeed an endangered species.
snood
 
  3  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 04:59 am
@Asherman,
Asherman, if you are going to hold to the idea that conservatives are somehow more "civil" than liberals and demonstrably so, then you will have to forfeit any claim to be an intelligent and/or honest person. That is unadulterated crap.
cjhsa
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 06:48 am
@snood,
Actually, now your boy is privvy to the same info the previous administration has. I'd be willing to bet he's shaking in his wingtips right about now, snoodly.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 06:58 am
@snood,
Snood- I think that there are ladies and gentlemen across all political persuasions. There are also wingnuts and screwballs. IMO it is unfair to stereotype.
cjhsa
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 07:05 am
@Phoenix32890,
Well, the left sure hasn't shown any civility here on A2K for the past 8 years, and they managed to convert me from a civil moderate to a raging right winger. The crap that has been posted here and that is now POTUS-elect is pathetic.
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 07:16 am
@cjhsa,
Like "Lock and Load", "**** you", "**** your dog". And that after previously expressing the desire to see another member's wife raped. You're liar, a hypocrite, and **********. Do the world a favour you worthless ****. Get one of your beloved guns, put it in your mouth, and blow that squirming pile of malignant crap you call a brain up the nearest wall.

How's that for ugly?
Phoenix32890
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 07:30 am
@cjhsa,
Quote:
Well, the left sure hasn't shown any civility here on A2K for the past 8 years, and they managed to convert me from a civil moderate to a raging right winger. The crap that has been posted here and that is now POTUS-elect is pathetic.


Then I gather from what you are saying that the raucous segment of the left has a lot of control over you. I saw some of the nasty stuff that was written over the last few years. ( Actually I attempted to tune out most of it.) So what? I will not permit the incivility of others to change my essence.

David- The anger that you are exhibiting will simply annoy, incite and/or titillate the mean spirited amongst us. They are having a ball watching you spew your anger. The only one that it will hurt is you. Please think about it.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 07:31 am
@Wilso,
Not bad.
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 07:34 am
@Wilso,
I think you're way off track. His brain doesn't squirm....that would indicate activity.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 07:45 am
@Wilso,
Not just ugly, but typical and expected from the worthless, soulless left.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 08:03 am
@spendius,
I think cjhsa is practicing "resistance analysis". It's a method in psychoanalysis whereby the patient is got mad enough to reveal his real nature. It doesn't work in every case because there are people who can't be got mad because they have very few, in some cases none, areas of sensitivity in their psychology.

It would be argued by some psychiatrists that cjhsa is exposing latent racism and that it is measured by how mad the subject gets and how stridently he asserts that he is a virtuous, enlightened individual and, as such, a fit and proper person to help, by voting and jumping up and down with aggressive glee at a street party, nothing strenuous or callous forming, to lead us into the Glorious Dawn which is now approaching at a most alarming rate.

This incredible claim is uttered from the comfort of an indolent and luxurious setting which has been provided by our bigoted and ignorant forbears.

It is obviously a style choice because any serious concern for the race of black people might do better to focus its energies on Central Africa rather than well-dressed tubbies on the sidewalks of Chicago with a tear in their eye.

You must admit that his challenge to a noon-time duel in Grand Rapids is quite romantic and redolent of a golden age of yore. Some of his lines are fit to go into a movie script. Wilso's too.

0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 08:11 am
@snood,
No, conservatives have the same potential for being angry, abusive, shallow, prejudiced, and narrow minded as any liberal. The philosophical stance of conservatives, tends to be more dispassionate and unwilling to jump to conclusions in my opinion, but maybe not. In my experience, there is little difference between True Believers whether they be dedicated Marxists, or religious freaks convinced that God is wise enough to agree with them. Those tend to be folks who KNOW the truth, whatever that might be. They love conspiracies, they are convinced that the deck is stacked against them and that only their enlightened understanding will save the world from disaster and put it on the road to Utopia. Generally, folks who have reduced the world to black and white so long that they've forgotten color.

The assertion that "vicious" attacks on President-elect Obama in the last two days has been greater than the criticisms of President Bush over the past eight years is a pretty good example of True Believer thinking. It isn't rational and tends to be bombastic and overly simplified. We live in a complex world, and people aren't easily categorized. President Bush is just a human like you or I, probably no better or worse over all. He does have more power, that's for sure. He has been faced with extraordinary challenges, and some have certainly been beyond his powers to deal with. He's made mistakes, and many may not agree with his policies, but that doesn't necessarily make him an idiot, or an evil mastermind who contemplates overturning the Constitution and enslaving the world for the profit of a few plutocrats who already own everything.

President-elect Obama isn't an Al Queda mole, and I doubt that he really intends being best chums with Chavez, Kim Jong-Il, and the leaders of the Radical Islamic Movement. He asked to be President, and the American People have made it so. Now we must give him our unqualified support in the hope that he will be able to secure the nation from attack, restore confidence in the financial system, and make all of our lives better. I suspect that he'll try hard to do what he believes in, but I also believe that the world is a far more complex thing than his supporters generally believe it to be. If his policies fail, for instance, if there is a wave of successful terrorist attacks on our country and he wavers, I'll be more than disappointed. If his economic policies fail to generate new economic growth, and the nation sinks further into financial chaos, he will be criticized and many conservatives will be saying, "I told you so".

We all had high hopes for Jimmy Carter's administration, the last time I voted as a member of the Democratic Party. Our faith in the national leadership had suffered badly, first from LBJ's tragic mismanagement of Vietnam and then by Nixon's betrayal of our trust. It was time for an outsider, a plain man whose character and gentle disposition promised a "new" way of governing. Carter was everything he seemed, but still failed to govern effectively. His decency and patience were taken advantage of by our enemies, and instead of restoring respect for our country and institutions, the Radical Islamic Movement made its largest gains and our leadership remained frozen into an attitude of mumbling, "please, don't do that". Now the American Voters are again seeking leadership from an outsider who promises to take us to the "high ground" of governance. I hope he is more practical and is less willing to turn the other cheek than President Carter. We'll see.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 08:15 am
@Wilso,
"Like "Lock and Load", "**** you", "**** your dog". And that after previously expressing the desire to see another member's wife raped. You're liar, a hypocrite, and **********. Do the world a favour you worthless ****. Get one of your beloved guns, put it in your mouth, and blow that squirming pile of malignant crap you call a brain up the nearest wall."

Now that's just the sort of thing we've been listening to from the Left for eight years. You have it down pat. I have yet to see anything comparable posted by the few conservatives who still visit A2K. I sure hope that conservatives and Republicans never become so facile and hateful as what we've been subjected to for so long.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 08:41 am
@Asherman,
Your holier-than-thou attitude is belied by the postings of such intellectual giants as Gungasnake, cjhsa, H2O_MAN, and the like.

You are succumbing to the ad hominem fallacy, just as those are who ascribe cjhsa's hate-filled rants to "the right."
cjhsa
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 09:58 am
@DrewDad,
I'll say this - I'm proud that I didn't vote for Obama.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 10:47 am
@Asherman,
Quote:
You are wrong. There was a very strong sense amongst intelligence people that I knew and was in touch with the day after 9-11 that Iraq was almost certainly a covert sponsor of the attack.


Bullshit. Nobody is on the record as having supported this theory. Your anecdotal evidence has no place in this conversation, for it is unsupportable.

Whether or not people may have suspected Iraq before 9/11, it quickly became clear that they had nothing to do with it. The war in Iraq was a mistake, an error on the part of your team, whose competence in these matters was not great.

I don't give a fig for your fearmongering about 'radical Islam.' You're just another cowardly Republican, who doesn't know what to do without an external threat.

Quote:

So you don't care if a terrorist operation launched by a Radical Islamic group successfully duplicates, or surpasses the damage we suffered on 9-11? Well, I and a lot of other Americans do care and we don't want it to happen again. You think that this administrations efforts have accomplished little? Well, Saddam is dead and Iraq is on the road to becoming a stable nation.


No, you moron; I don't care for your whining about Obama trying a different path to dealing with the problem. The Bush path has not been effective and it has cost a tremendous amount of money and lives. You display your ignorance more and more with every line you write, it seems -

Quote:
Terrorist attacks in Iraq have fallen dramatically as a result of our putting more troops on the ground and taking a more proactive stance. The Taliban were expelled from Afghanistan.


Both of these are patently incorrect. Terrorist attacks in Iraq have fallen, for the most part, because we bought off the Sunnis. Do you have any conception how much cash we gave them to stop attacking? It has very little to do with an extra 30k boots on the ground and a lot to do with diplomacy.

As for the Taliban, they most certainly are not 'expelled' from Afghanistan. Who do you think you are kidding with this stuff?

Quote:
I'd say this administration has accomplished a lot, even though the Left has done everything in its power to hamper those efforts.


Oh, so it was the Dems who held up many of the 9/11 commission recommendations from becoming law? Who have refused to fully fund port and sensitive site security? I think not.

I was correct; you don't understand what strength is, not at all. Just force. And you see everything through an extremely partisan lens.

You're another that I was thinking of the other night, when Obama won. Thinking and laughing.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 10:55 am
@cjhsa,
Quote:

I'll say this - I'm proud that I didn't vote for Obama.

I wish we 'd had some kind of decent alternative to oboy.
I voted for Sarah Palin.

It woud have been good if Ron Paul had lead the GOP ticket,
because he represents the reason for the existence of America 's conservative party.
HIS libertarian philosophy is inspirational, in keeping with the Founding of the Republic.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/02/2024 at 01:14:12