Bad news for Democrats and liberals?

CerealKiller wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
somewhere, in a crappy cave, osama is reading this shite on a wi-fi lap top ( being educated at an american college and all) and laughing his rag and fan belt wearing ass off.

Are you the same DontTreadOnMe from americasdebate ?

ungh uhh. the only other board i've ever posted on was the "thenleave.com" site in 2003.

0 Replies

Actually Lone Voice was probably offensive to liberal ears (eyes?)--I mean I have to admire somebody even more strident than me Smile

LV did present an interesting experiment and I was curious how you guys would respond. And however much you feel manipulated here, he so far is correct. It would be really hard for any of you to openly state that you hope for a quick resolution with great results in Iraq even though that meant that Bush would win.

Both conservatives and liberals find it really hard to be openly intellectually honest when 1) it gores their own ox, or 2) it makes them look really really bad.

0 Replies

A Lone Voice wrote:

Thank you, libs (and Frank).

All of you seem to be having a grand time slapping me around, but something I find interesting is none of you refute my statements.

They can't. Their candidate doesn't even haved a position on Iraq anymore (I voted for it and then I voted against it). The term the military uses for that sort of thing, i.e. just standing there in an untenable position and hoping nobody notices is 'DIH', taken from Santino Corleone's famous statement in 'Godfather' (I don't want my brother standing there with just his Dick In his Hand...). Another one of those terms like 'FUBAR' which eventually makes it out of military slang into the common vernacular....

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Actually Lone Voice was probably offensive to liberal ears (eyes?)--I mean I have to admire somebody even more strident than me

LV did present an interesting experiment and I was curious how you guys would respond. And however much you feel manipulated here, he so far is correct. It would be really hard for any of you to openly state that you hope for a quick resolution with great results in Iraq even though that meant that Bush would win.

Both conservatives and liberals find it really hard to be openly intellectually honest when 1) it gores their own ox, or 2) it makes them look really really bad.

That may, or may not, be true Fox - but it is irrelevant to the point of this thread.

The actual point, which people have taken umbrage at, was to say that anti-Bush people do not want to see things go well in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"What is a lib to do? Maybe all of you will close your eyes and wish for more car bombs? That would help elect Kerry, wouldn't it? Quick, something bad has to happen soon, doesn't it? How else will Democrats regain power?"

You do not find "wish for more car bombs" utterly offensive?

You still see this as a noble experiment in thought and objectivity?

Crap, I say.

The meat of the thread HAS been addressed - each person has simply said that this is not so - and critiqued what I find to be the breath-takingly simplistic mentality behind making such an assumption.

Also, the challenge is not only offensive, but betrays the prejudice (and trolling intent) behind it by its simple ignorance. I, for instance, have repeatedly said that I hope desperately that things in Iraq and Afghanistan go well. Let LV answer the challenge to find someone here who has EVER indicated a desire for killing and horror to continue in either of those countries.

I, (just as a for instance), have repeatedly said that, though I am against the war in Iraq, I believe allied troops should now remain in Iraq until a really decent shot at enabling a stable government has been made.

0 Replies

I would rather see Bush win if it meant Iraq would be stable. Innocent lives are worth more than my political position.

I just doubt it's going to happen, based on the last 4 years...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

A Lone Voice wrote:
Thank you, libs (and Frank).

All of you seem to be having a grand time slapping me around, but something I find interesting is none of you refute my statements.

They can't. Their candidate doesn't even haved a position on Iraq anymore (I voted for it and then I voted against it). The term the military uses for that sort of thing, i.e. just standing there in an untenable position and hoping nobody notices is 'DIH', taken from Santino Corleone's famous statement in 'Godfather' (I don't want my brother standing there with just his Dick In his Hand...). Another one of those terms like 'FUBAR' which eventually makes it out of military slang into the common vernacular....

Actually...I think our country and the world would have been much better off if Bush had just stood there with his dick in his hand. As it is...he did something...and that something gives every indication of being about as counterproductive as anything any president has ever done before him.

Iraq was a huge mistake...and the cost of it to the world has not even begun to show itself.

Bush could not have played into the hands of the madmen who spawn terror and terrorist organizations any better if they had bribed him to do so.

I will agree with one thing...we do not know for certain how Kerry will handle things when he becomes president (and he will become president)...but that is not something that bothers me terribly.

Anyone who pretends to have a solid plan for something as much in flux as this war in Iraq (and terrorism in general) really is playing with himself.

I want someone who will think things out carefully...and not shoot from the hip. I want someone who will change his mind as issues change...and I see the kind of thing Bush does as boneheadedness and stubborness...not as a virtue.

Yes...even a vacillator can act decisively...and often, a vacillator...when the time comes to act decisively...will act in a way that handles the situation appropiately.

Or at least...that is my opinion.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

I, for instance, have repeatedly said that I hope desperately that things in Iraq and Afghanistan go well. Let LV answer the challenge to find someone here who has EVER indicated a desire for killing and horror to continue in either of those countries.

I, (just as a for instance), have repeatedly said that, though I am against the war in Iraq, I believe allied troops should now remain in Iraq until a really decent shot at enabling a stable government has been made.

Same here, both counts - but I was gonna be damned before I was to come here and say, "yes, LV, I am one liberal who will say that out loud" - because that alone would have implied that others wouldn't, which is nonsense, and because trolling is not to be rewarded, period.

Anyone with half a brain could have used the "search" function of A2K to look up various threads on Afghanistan, for example, where liberals of all stripes expressed their concern and their hope for things to go better - soon - as well as their exasperation about the things that are not being done that would help.

Anyone with half a brain wouldnt even have come up with the inane insinuation that liberals here, obviously, would rather see Iraqis and Afghans go under in the flames of civil war than for us to lose an election.

It is such a blatant attempt at baiting people through a scandalous rhetorical device that it deserves nothing but outright rejection of the whole thread.

0 Replies

Quote:

Bush could not have played into the hands of the madmen who spawn terror and terrorist organizations any better if they had bribed him to do so.

I have seen this repeated before and thought I would address it.

What do terrorists want? Osama wants the US out of the middle east and all other Muslim cultures. He believes the US to be a country of no morals and a direct link to Satan that pollutes the word of Allah. Osama wants American culture to have ZERO influence over Muslim countries. No McDonalds, no Coca Cola, no Nike, no nothing.

How do you figure that by invading Iraq and Afghanistan Bush has played into the hands of the terrorists? Do you honestly believe that is what the terrorists wanted? To be hunted down like dogs? To be forced to kill their own country men and women? Please.

They wanted the US to leave and never come back. Something I believe Kerry would have done had he been president. It's much easier to give an inch than to take a mile. Kerry seems to be a giver. Bush a taker.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:
Bush could not have played into the hands of the madmen who spawn terror and terrorist organizations any better if they had bribed him to do so.

I have seen this repeated before and thought I would address it.

What do terrorists want? Osama wants the US out of the middle east and all other Muslim cultures. He believes the US to be a country of no morals and a direct link to Satan that pollutes the word of Allah. Osama wants American culture to have ZERO influence over Muslim countries. No McDonalds, no Coca Cola, no Nike, no nothing.

How do you figure that by invading Iraq and Afghanistan Bush has played into the hands of the terrorists? Do you honestly believe that is what the terrorists wanted? To be hunted down like dogs? To be forced to kill their own country men and women? Please.

They wanted the US to leave and never come back. Something I believe Kerry would have done had he been president. It's much easier to give an inch than to take a mile. Kerry seems to be a giver. Bush a taker.

I think you are all wrong on what Osama wants...at least for the time being.

I think Osama wants all the things you say he doesn't want right now...because that gives him the recruits he needs for the campaign to finally get those other things.

Only a person like George Bush and people who think he is effective would rush into this kind of confrontation.

Osama is patient...Bush is rash.

Osama was well aware that he had nowhere near the kinds of numbers and support he needed for the long range plan...so rather than work strategically...he worked tactically.

He has been trying to enrage American into making stupid moves...and with the dupe (you can change that spelling one letter if you choose) making decisions ...he got his fondest wish.

George Bush has been a benefactor of Osama Bin Laden...and all the Islamic extremists throughout the wrold, McG.

Truly!

And since that other question that Lone Voice asked keeps coming up in this thread...and since you guys are trying to make so much of it...I intend to respond to it in my next post.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

A Lone Voice wrote:
Thank you, libs (and Frank).

All of you seem to be having a grand time slapping me around, but something I find interesting is none of you refute my statements.

They can't. Their candidate doesn't even haved a position on Iraq anymore (I voted for it and then I voted against it).

Anyone with half a brain wouldn't bother to continue to bring this up because it has been refuted soooo much, yet you still think it gives you points.

How truly sad it must be to live in the blind eyes of what the Republican platform has turned into. The funny thing is that you don't even see it yourself. You are allowing Bush to singlehandedly splinter the republican platform, yet you fail to see it.

Quote:

The term the military uses for that sort of thing, i.e. just standing there in an untenable position and hoping nobody notices is 'DIH', taken from Santino Corleone's famous statement in 'Godfather' (I don't want my brother standing there with just his Dick In his Hand...). Another one of those terms like 'FUBAR' which eventually makes it out of military slang into the common vernacular....

The one DIH was Bush on 9-11. That stare was a DIH stare if there ever was one.

As for your use of the word vernacular, aren't you the least bit embarrassed that your leader couldn't use the same word in a complete sentence?

0 Replies

Well he succeeded in enraging this American with 9/11. To accept Frank's version, we should not have 'risen to the bait' that day and just cooled our heels; insead George Bush was an opportunist? To me this is beyond sensisble.

0 Replies

No, we should have gone after Osama. In Afghanistan. Where he was.

0 Replies

We did. And we were disappointed when the massive bombing of the camps and caves didn't net a capture or a body. Now Kerry accuses Bush of dropping the ball where in fact, we didn't pull any troops from Afghanistan for the Iraqi invasion and there wouldn't be much for any more troops in Afghanistan to do anyway. We did implement our policy of training the locals to take care of their own security.

If Kerry is so damn sure Osama is in Afghanistan--intelligence was fairly sure he had escaped well before the Iraqi invasion--why doesn't he be a big boyand tell the president where that is?

And just suppose the conventional wisdom was right and Saddam had managed to complete and discharge a nuke or something else really awful. I would bet a month's wages that the anti-Bush crowd would then be complaining that Bush foolishly frittered away the time and resources to go after one lone Muslim who is probably dead while ignoring the mounting threat in Iraq.

0 Replies

Lone Voice wrote:

Quote:

Raise your hand if you want the violence in Iraq to lessen and eventually stop, democracy take hold, and a legitimate election to take place, even if Kerry doesn't win next month.

In fact, tell me if want the violence to stop tomorrow. Tell me that you hope for peace to break out next week, and wish for a peaceful Iraq to begin rebuilding by the end of October.

Even if it meant that Kerry would not be elected.

Is peace in Iraq by next week possible? Probably not. But what if it was?

Tell me the truth, my liberal brothers and sisters.....

When responding to McG a while ago...I suddenly realized something about this commentary of yours, LV, that escaped me on first reading.

By the way...on first reading, I decided that this was one of those postings that truly would be dignified in some small way by any reply...so I was not even going to scoff at it. But things change...and the realization that I mentioned above caused me to want to respond.

In any case, in a very real sense...you are asking if we (those who think George Bush is a danger to the world) would be willing to wish for a realively short term solution to the Iraqi problem...even if it means that George Bush would continue in office to endanger the world by his (and his administration's) incompetence.

My answer is going to be NO! I hope you finish reading what I have to say so that my response is understood in its entirety.

The most serious problem facing the world at this moment (in my opinion) is not Osama Bin Laden or the Iraqi War or the Middle East. Those things we can deal with...and although they present formidable problems for the world, they are small time compared with the problem I see as "the most serious."

The most serious, in my opinion, is that this country...without a doubt the most powerful ever to exist on planet Earth to date...has at its helm an unintelligent, incompetent, intellectual adolescent...who has put together one of the most incompetent administrations ever to pollute this Republic.

I see them as a real and present danger to the world...probably greater than the cold war of the 50's and 60's.

I am bothered by more than just the fact that he has done more to alienate us from the rest of the world...and that he operates like a brain surgeon using a chain saw rather than a scalpel or laser. I am bothered by the fact that he simply is too simple to understand the damage he is causing...and that the people around him are either unwilling to tell the emperor that he has no clothes...or are similarly simple.

In another thread (over in Abuzz) I once said that I did not want the pope to have his finger on the nuclear trigger of the American arsenal....I didn't want Mother Teresa to have her finger on it...I wouldn't have wanted Gandhi to have his on it. I wish the arsenal were not in existence.

BUT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY I WANT THIS INCOMPETENT MORON TO HAVE HIS FINGER ON THAT TRIGGER.

Bush is a plague. The plague has to be stomped out...and there's gonna be plenty of eggs broken...if you will excuse the fractured analogy.

As for your hypothetical....Anyone willing to countenance him continuing in office considering the danger he presents to the world just for the hypothetical's value of "peace in Iraq" has his/her priorities screwed up.

NO...is my answer. No I wouldn't!

I want this war to end...I want the Iraqis to have peace and relative freedom...I want the Middle East to calm down. But even in hypotheticals...there are prices too steep to pay for a temporary respite.

And more of George Bush is WAY TOO steep a price to pay.

In the meantime...although this may seem a contradiction to all I've said on this issue so far...I do hope peace comes in Iraq. My sad, sad guess is that Iraq will eventually be a worse happening for our country than the Vietnam war...and that holds no matter who is elected now or the next election.

We will not be finished with this for a very, very long time.

That's my take on this issue that seems to matter so much to you conservatives.

0 Replies

Kerry is sure that Osama WAS in Afghanistan, when we had a chance to catch him and failed.

Osama was not in Iraq, and I haven't seen that offered up as an excuse for going there. Yet.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well he succeeded in enraging this American with 9/11. To accept Frank's version, we should not have 'risen to the bait' that day and just cooled our heels; insead George Bush was an opportunist? To me this is beyond sensisble.

Jesus Christ, Foxfyre, don't you ever use your brain?

I was enraged with 9/11. We all were.

Yes...we should have gone after Osama Bin Laden until we caught him.

And yes...we should have gone into Afganistan after the Taliban and Osama.

But what in the name of hell does that have to do with invading Iraq?

That move was the move that played into Osama's hands.

0 Replies

That is an honest answer Frank. And you even got "moron" in there... :wink:

0 Replies

Okay Frank, but that isn't what you said. I'll accept that's what you meant.

We went into Iraq because it was the next logical step in the war on terrorism. I disagree that it has played into Osama's hands and in all due respect, I think you can only speculate there.

I know, and so do all you you, that if Saddam had and used WMD on Americans, Bush would have been blamed for ignoring and not acting on the plethora of evidence spanning 12 years. Now Bush is being slammed for acting.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:
Bush could not have played into the hands of the madmen who spawn terror and terrorist organizations any better if they had bribed him to do so.

How do you figure that by invading Iraq and Afghanistan Bush has played into the hands of the terrorists? Do you honestly believe that is what the terrorists wanted?

Evidently you know NOTHING about propaganda and its power and influence over people, because if you did, you would see how this IS what the terrorists wanted. But then again, you've been blinded by the Bush propaganda machine, so if you can't spot it, how in the world would you even be able to understand what it can do.

Quote:

To be hunted down like dogs?

Yep, Osama was shaking in his boots, right up until the time Bush decided to take a left into Iraq instead of a right into Pakistan. Remember his quote, if you harbor terrorists, we will consider you a terrorist nation. Well, what he really meant to say was: If you live in Iraq, look out because we're coming in.

Isn't it funny how he persuaded the American people to believe Saddam was planning an attack on us and was planning to give the terrorists nukes. you bought that one too, well let me enlighten you, it was PROPAGANDA!!! It duped you into believing there was a grave and immediate need to invade Iraq, and not only did you believe it, you continue to believe it, even when you are faced with mountainous data which says the exact opposite. Yes, propaganda is VERY powerful, you only need to look into the mirror for evidence.

Quote:

To be forced to kill their own country men and women? Please.

Ummm, who is "forcing" people to kill their own men and women? You see, now you are saying terrorists are "forcing" people to kill their own. Ummm, again a big swing and a miss. You now come to the rash illogical conclusion that terrorism and insurgence in Iraq is "forcing" people to kill women. Propaganda, powerful stuff.

Quote:

They wanted the US to leave and never come back.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. they didn't want us to leave, they wanted us a occupiers!!!! This legitimizes OBLs teachings and it rationalizes his preachings!!!! He has been a LONG proponent of American vs Muslim oppression, well it's a little bit hard to prove that when the other side doesn't help you out. Now, by invading Iraq and ignoring terrorism, Bush has legitimized each and everything OBL has preached the US was. He gave credence to his panderings, and you think this isn't what Al Qaeda wants? Propaganda, powerful stuff huh.

Quote:

Something I believe Kerry would have done had he been president. It's much easier to give an inch than to take a mile. Kerry seems to be a giver. Bush a taker.

No, you don't have an opinion on the topic, because if you actually had an opinion, you wouldn't sprout the party line, you'd have your own thoughts. You've been fooled by the propaganda spewed out by the right and you can't see through the BS. You're not alone, most of the Bible Belt thinks this way.

In fact, not to sound prejudiced, but do you just think it's a strange coincidence that every state with an educated population votes democrat and the opposite holds true for republicans? Do you even think it's an issue when people who can see through the BS continue to vote for the democrat, yet those who are under educated vote for Bush? No, it wouldn't have anything to do with propaganda would it? But then again, if you can't recognize it, how in the world can you see how to persuade a population by it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre, no, he's being slammed for acting unwisely and in a way that has actually made terrorism even more of an issue in that region (see this for example):

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=36072

0 Replies

Bad news for Democrats and liberals?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know