plainoldme
 
  1  
Mon 23 Aug, 2010 08:40 pm
@ican711nm,
You posted this tripe on another thread. It was just as dumb there.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Mon 23 Aug, 2010 08:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Hasn't hokie pokie given up on Hitler's points yet?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  2  
Mon 23 Aug, 2010 08:42 pm
@okie,
Quote:
And it isn't as if I am alone, because I am not at all


Just because you talk to yourself does not mean there is a crowd cheering you on.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Mon 23 Aug, 2010 09:12 pm
Quote:
In a proclamation to the German Nation February 1, 1933 Hitler stated, The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Mon 23 Aug, 2010 09:33 pm
@dyslexia,
Sounds a bit like the Republican Party platform from any presidential election year.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 23 Aug, 2010 11:20 pm
@plainoldme,
The statement by Hitler is very clear, and okie believes Hitler lived by his words.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Tue 24 Aug, 2010 07:01 am
This story is an example of liberal philosophy translated into lifestyle: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/08/green-living-takes-root-in-communes-co-housing-eco-villages/1?csp=usat.me
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  3  
Tue 24 Aug, 2010 09:48 am
@spendius,
Quote:
And what's your position on the teaching of evolution JT?


That as the most accurate portrayal of how life developed on planet Earth, it should, of course, be taught.

Quote:
It is the survival of the fittest red in tooth and claw. Shift out anything that gets in the way.


You have a brain, do you not?

Quote:
You seem to be confused to me. The Christians would be getting their panties into a soggy bunch over a few deaths wouldn't they.


I thought it was infantile to use that particular collocation, Spendi.

Christians have never been reluctant to spill blood. Many in the USA call themselves Christian and the last dolt they had as prez pretended to be one, but they spill blood as well or better than the Brits ever did.

okie
 
  -2  
Tue 24 Aug, 2010 11:10 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Christians have never been reluctant to spill blood. Many in the USA call themselves Christian and the last dolt they had as prez pretended to be one, but they spill blood as well or better than the Brits ever did.



And probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives in Iraq as well as perhaps other places in the world by spilling the blood of terrorist insurgents and Al Qaeda sympathizers. Without the willingness to give your life in the cause of freedom, you will have none, JTT. Have you heard of the saying, "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" ?

How much blood has been spilled by liberals advocating the killing of the unborn right here in this country, not in the cause of freedom, but for their own selfish cause of doing whatever they please without any feeling of personal responsibility?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Tue 24 Aug, 2010 11:11 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

JTT wrote:

Christians have never been reluctant to spill blood. Many in the USA call themselves Christian and the last dolt they had as prez pretended to be one, but they spill blood as well or better than the Brits ever did.



And probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives in Iraq as well as perhaps other places in the world by spilling the blood of terrorist insurgents and Al Qaeda sympathizers. Without the willingness to give your life in the cause of freedom, you will have none, JTT. Have you heard of the saying, "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" ?


By spilling their blood, we create more terrorists.

The Iraqi people never said 'Give me Liberty, or Give Me Death.' We told them 'take our version of liberty, or we'll kill you.'

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Tue 24 Aug, 2010 11:18 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I can see the arguments for both sides, cyclops. However, witness right now your party, including Obama and Biden talking about the credit they deserve for helping bring about a peaceful Iraq that is hopefully ready to govern itself. You can't have it both ways, cyclops, and neither should Biden and Obama, or you. If they really believed what they said they did, they would have pulled all troops out of the country by months ago.

I resent the attitude of liberals that we create more terrorists by combating terrorists. That is akin to saying we create more criminals or murderers by arresting and imprisoning criminals or murderers, which is frankly silly. We are not responsible for what terrorists do, nor are we responsible for the decisions of people to become terrorists because they harbor hatreds and resentments.
Cycloptichorn
 
  5  
Tue 24 Aug, 2010 11:23 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

I can see the arguments for both sides, cyclops. However, witness right now your party, including Obama and Biden talking about the credit they deserve for helping bring about a peaceful Iraq that is hopefully ready to govern itself. You can't have it both ways, cyclops, and neither should Biden and Obama, or you. If they really believed what they said they did, they would have pulled all troops out of the country by months ago.


They did - they got the troops out as quickly as possible, barring a complete and total withdrawal that left all the equipment behind. I just read an article on this.

Quote:
I resent the attitude of liberals that we create more terrorists by combating terrorists.


You resent it because it's true.
Quote:

That is akin to saying we create more criminals or murderers by arresting and imprisoning criminals or murderers, which is frankly silly.


It's not akin to this at all; this is a terrible analogy.

What if we went after criminals by arresting everyone in their entire family until they gave themselves up? What if we bombed their houses if we THOUGHT they were criminals? Arrested them if we suspected they were, and then tortured them until they admitted something they didn't do?

Think that would create more criminals? I do. And that's how we have been fighting terrorists. It's stupid.

Quote:
We are not responsible for what terrorists do, nor are we responsible for the decisions of people to become terrorists because they harbor hatreds and resentments.


We bear responsibility for creating them in many cases, yes. You are wrong about that, Okie. The blood is on all our hands.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Tue 24 Aug, 2010 01:18 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I vigorously disagree. Your reasoning is not accurate, as in fact sometimes innocent bystanders are injured when criminals are apprehended, but it in no way is a credible argument that we should quit arresting and punishing criminals. In fact, I have a close relative in law enforcement, and listening to his stories are strong reminders that danger exists in society, and that law enforcement is a bit messy in terms of how best it is conducted to protect the innocent and apprehend the criminals. Obviously, fighting terrorists is a much messier game to play than simple law enforcement here in the states, but the analogy is pretty accurate I think, cyclops. We do in fact have rules of engagement that seek to minimize the damage to innocent bystanders, but such are obviously not perfect in the real world. The fact that it is not perfect should not keep us from doing our best in fighting the evil that exists out there.

You can feel guilty for creating terrorists, but I do not. I have never created a terrorist, so you can carry around guilt if you wish, but I do not particularly care to feel guilty for stuff that I have not done.

Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Tue 24 Aug, 2010 02:27 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

I vigorously disagree. Your reasoning is not accurate, as in fact sometimes innocent bystanders are injured when criminals are apprehended, but it in no way is a credible argument that we should quit arresting and punishing criminals.


But what if we did that all the time? If that was a common occurrence?

The argument isn't that we shouldn't be arresting and punishing terrorists; it's against invading countries and punishing the population while we do so. It creates lasting and life-long resentments which lead to further violence and crime.

Quote:
You can feel guilty for creating terrorists, but I do not. I have never created a terrorist, so you can carry around guilt if you wish, but I do not particularly care to feel guilty for stuff that I have not done.


The policies of the US help create terrorists. You support those policies; and some of them, I do as well. Ergo, we both bear responsibility in part for what goes on in the world.

You can feel bad about that or not as you choose; but the facts remain.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Tue 24 Aug, 2010 02:34 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

The argument isn't that we shouldn't be arresting and punishing terrorists; it's against invading countries and punishing the population while we do so. It creates lasting and life-long resentments which lead to further violence and crime. Cycloptichorn

The decision to go to war was well debated leading up to that decision, and the fact remains, cyclops, that the resolution to give Bush authority was passed by Congress, end of story. You can continue to carp about it, but it does not change what happened with the political debate that has already occurred and the results from that. History will record more accurately in a few years in regard to the actual long term success of it, and I happen to think it has a good chance of going down in history as overall being successful. One thing for sure, it is in no way determined now to be a failure and it is not at all proven that it has created more terrorists than would have been created without it. That is a subjective judgement that politicians will make, and we can help them make by giving them our feedback, both in elections and otherwise.

If you have any more than mere opinion that it has actually created more terrorists, I would like to see it. You do not eliminate problems with appeasement of the problems.
McTag
 
  0  
Tue 24 Aug, 2010 03:24 pm

How many countries has the USA bombed since 1945? The answer might surprise you.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Tue 24 Aug, 2010 04:03 pm
@okie,
Quote:
that the resolution to give Bush authority was passed by Congress, end of story.


A large group of war criminals giving a small group of war criminals "authority" doesn't detract from the fact one iota that it was an illegal war of aggression based on lies. The war crimes just kept piling up after that.
JTT
 
  1  
Tue 24 Aug, 2010 04:10 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
The argument isn't that we shouldn't be arresting and punishing terrorists; it's against invading countries and punishing the population


The real argument is that you should be arresting and punishing all the terrorists within the USA, pretty much the whole of every administration since, well since forever. But let's start with the most recent for they are a particularly egregious band of criminals.

Then go to work on the Reagan/Bush years; there's another bunch of vicious scum. But since the US is completely unable to do these sorts of things in any fair and equitable manner, this should all be done by the World Court.

Then you should stay the hell out of others countries unless you are asked, that means really asked, not creating a dictator for the day to worm your way in.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 24 Aug, 2010 04:16 pm
@JTT,
Here are the facts from CNN:
Quote:

Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups.
art.bush.march03.afp.gi.jpg

President Bush addresses the nation as the Iraq war begins in March 2003.

"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," reads an overview of the examination, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

According to the study, Bush and seven top officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years.

The study was based on a searchable database compiled of primary sources, such as official government transcripts and speeches, and secondary sources -- mainly quotes from major media organizations. Video See CNN viewers' reactions to the study ยป

The study says Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda.

Bush has consistently asserted that at the time he and other officials made the statements, the intelligence community of the U.S. and several other nations, including Britain, believed Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Don't Miss

* Bush ties Mideast peace effort to fight on terror
* Ex-aide: Bush, Cheney involved in misleading media

Responding to the study Wednesday, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not speak directly to the "false claims" characterization.

But he said the United States was part of a broad coalition of nations that took part in the Iraq invasion and that the invasion was based on intelligence from multiple countries.

He called Hussein a threat to international security and a sponsor of terrorism, and said the world is better off without him. White House press secretary Dana Perino called the study "flawed."

"They only looked at members of the administration, rather than looking at members of Congress or people around the world," she said. "Because as you'll remember, we were part of a broad coalition of countries that deposed a dictator based on a collective understanding of the intelligence."

"And the other thing that that study fails to do is to say that after realizing that there was no WMD, as we thought as a collective body that there was, that this White House, the President set about to make reforms in the intelligence community to make sure that it doesn't happen again."

Bush has repeatedly said that despite the intelligence flaws, removing Hussein from power was the right thing to do.

The study, released Tuesday, says Powell had the second-highest number of false statements, with 244 about weapons and 10 about Iraq and al Qaeda.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Press Secretary Ari Fleischer each made 109 false statements, it says. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz made 85, Rice made 56, Cheney made 48 and Scott McLellan, also a press secretary, made 14, the study says.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al Qaeda," the report reads, citing multiple government reports, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the 9/11 Commission and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, which reported that Hussein had suspended Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to revive it.

The overview of the study also calls the media to task, saying most media outlets didn't do enough to investigate the claims.


For okie and company, lies repeated enough times becomes their truth.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Tue 24 Aug, 2010 04:18 pm
@okie,
I don't care what the politics that led to the war were. I didn't bring that up at all; I merely pointed out, accurately, that having violent and destructive wars in people's countries creates more terrorists.

I would point out that the Bush admin regularly engaged in deception and lies, including planting stories in the media, in order to sell the case for war. You may recall that Scooter Libby went to jail for doing exactly that with Judith Miller. It was part of a coordinated campaign of deception, and you now look back on it proudly. I wouldn't be so proud of that myself.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1760
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.22 seconds on 07/23/2025 at 03:29:34