blueflame1 wrote:ican, it's just a viscious rumor. Bushie dont panic. Bushie dont need them dirty rat Republican Senators who are jumping ship. Bushie dont need nobody.
"Bushie" and what "Bushie" needs is irrelevant!
The most relevant question is what do Americans need?
After you are done celebrating "Bushie's" failures, what then?
Would you then turn to celebrating America's failures?
Or, would you then finally comprehend that a people's members, who think they can purchase entry into paradise by suicidal mass murder of non-murderers, will not stop recruiting new members and making that purchase, and will continue making that purchase until they can make that purchase again and again much more massively in the USA?
Will you finally comprehend that such people will
not use a troop ship to bring them to to the USA via the oceans?
Will you finally comprehend that such people will come into the USA via airline airplanes, charter airplanes, private airplanes, or rental airplanes. Or, they will first come into Canada or Mexico via airplanes and then ride, drive, run, or walk into the USA?
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
But I'm just an old buzzard with much less to lose than any of you younger buzzards. So why in hell should I care what you fools do? Damned if I know! 
Your going to get more of this stuff as the military lowers its standards to try to maintain its quotas. Even with lower standards they failed to meet their quotas in the last two months. They're taking high school dropouts, druggies and gang members. Under Bush and his stupid Iraq war the military is going to hell.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/05/02/gangsters-in-iraq/
Official: Iraq Gov't Missed All Targets
Official: Iraq Gov't Missed All Targets
ANNE FLAHERTY and ANNE GEARAN
July 9, 2007
WASHINGTON ?- A progress report on Iraq will conclude that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has not met any of its targets for political, economic and other reforms, speeding up the Bush administration's reckoning on what to do next, a U.S. official said Monday.
The "pivot point" for addressing the matter will no longer be Sept. 15, as initially envisioned, when a full report on Bush's so-called "surge" plan is due, but instead will come this week when the interim mid-July assessment is released, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the draft is still under discussion.
But another senior official said Bush's advisers, along with the president, decided last week there was not enough evidence from Iraq to justify a change now in current policy.
They had launched discussions about how to react to the erosion of support for the president's Iraq approach among prominent Republicans, that official said, and the debate was part of a broader search for a way out of a U.S. combat presence in Iraq by the end of Bush's presidency.
The second official said the decision was to wait for the September report _ one originally proposed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other administration officials, and then enshrined into law by Congress _ before deciding whether any course shift is warranted. The official spoke on condition of anonymity so he could talk more freely about internal deliberations.
The July report, required by law, is expected to be delivered to Capitol Hill by Thursday or Friday, as the Senate takes up a $649 billion defense policy bill and votes on a Democratic amendment ordering troop withdrawals to begin in 120 days.
The second administration official said the report "will present a picture of satisfactory progress on some benchmarks and not on others."
Also being drafted are several Republican-backed proposals that would force a new course in Iraq, including one by Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Ben Nelson, D-Neb., that would require U.S. troops to abandon combat missions. Collins and Nelson say their binding amendment would order the U.S. mission to focus on training the Iraqi security forces, targeting al-Qaida members and protecting Iraq's borders.
"My goal is to redefine the mission and set the stage for a significant but gradual drawdown of our troops next year," said Collins.
GOP support for the war has eroded steadily since Bush's decision in January to send some 30,000 additional troops to Iraq. At the time, Bush said the Iraqis agreed to meet certain benchmarks, such as enacting a law to divide the nation's oil reserves.
This spring, Congress agreed to continue funding the war through September but demanded that Bush certify on July 15 and again on Sept. 15 that the Iraqis were living up to their political promises or forgo U.S. aid dollars.
The official said it is highly unlikely that Bush will withhold or suspend aid to the Iraqis based on the report.
A draft version of the administration's progress report circulated among various government agencies in Washington on Monday.
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow on Monday tried to lower expectations on the report, contending that all of the additional troops had just gotten in place and it would be unrealistic to expect major progress by now.
"You are not going to expect all the benchmarks to be met at the beginning of something," Snow said. "I'm not sure everyone's going to get an `A' on the first report."
In recent weeks, the White House has tried to shore up eroding GOP support for the war.
Collins and five other GOP senators _ Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Robert Bennett of Utah, John Sununu of New Hampshire and Pete Domenici of New Mexico _ support separate legislation calling on Bush to adopt as U.S. policy recommendations by the Iraq Study Group, which identified a potential redeployment date of spring 2008.
Other prominent Republican senators, including Richard Lugar of Indiana, George Voinovich of Ohio, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine, also say the U.S. should begin redeployments.
Several GOP stalwarts, including Sens. Ted Stevens of Alaska, Christopher Bond of Missouri, Jon Kyl of Arizona and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, said they still support Bush's Iraq strategy.
Kyl said he would try to focus this week's debate on preserving vital anti-terrorism programs, including the detention of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The defense bill is on track to expand the legal rights of those held at the military prison, and many Democrats want to propose legislation that would shut the facility.
"If Democrats use the defense authorization bill to pander to the far left at the expense of our national security, they should expect serious opposition from Republicans," Kyl said.
As the Senate debate began, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee arranged to run television commercials in four states, beginning Tuesday, to pressure Republicans on the war.
The ads are to run in Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota and New Hampshire, according to knowledgeable officials, but the DSCC so far has committed to spending a relatively small amount of money, less than $100,000 in all. Barring a change in plans that means the ads would not be seen widely in any of the four states.
The targets include Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Collins of Maine, Sununu of New Hampshire and the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. All face re-election next year.
The boost in troop levels in Iraq has increased the cost of war there and in Afghanistan to $12 billion a month, with the overall tally for Iraq alone nearing a half-trillion dollars, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which provides research and analysis to lawmakers.
The figures call into question the Pentagon's estimate that the increase in troop strength and intensifying pace of operations in Baghdad and Anbar province would cost $5.6 billion through the end of September.
------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reporters Pauline Jelinek, Andrew Taylor, Matthew Lee and Jennifer Loven contributed to this report.
U.S. Envoy Offers Grim Prediction on Iraq Pullout
July 10, 2007
U.S. Envoy Offers Grim Prediction on Iraq Pullout
By JOHN F. BURNS and ALISSA J. RUBIN
New York Times
BAGHDAD ?- As the Senate prepares to begin a new debate this week on proposals for a withdrawal from Iraq, the United States ambassador and the Iraqi foreign minister are warning that the departure of American troops could lead to sharply increased violence, the deaths of thousands and a regional conflict that could draw in Iraq's neighbors.
Two months before a pivotal assessment of progress in the war that he and the overall American military commander in Iraq are to make to the White House and Congress in September, Ryan C. Crocker, the ambassador, laid out a grim forecast of what could happen if the policy debate in Washington led to a significant pullback or even withdrawal of American forces, perhaps to bases outside the major cities.
"You can't build a whole policy on a fear of a negative, but, boy, you've really got to account for it," Mr. Crocker said Saturday in an interview at his office in Saddam Hussein's old Republican Palace, now the seat of American power here. Setting out what he said was not a policy prescription but a review of issues that needed to be weighed, the ambassador compared Iraq's current violence to the early scenes of a gruesome movie.
"In the States, it's like we're in the last half of the third reel of a three-reel movie, and all we have to do is decide we're done here, and the credits come up, and the lights come on, and we leave the theater and go on to something else," he said. "Whereas out here, you're just getting into the first reel of five reels," he added, "and as ugly as the first reel has been, the other four and a half are going to be way, way worse."
Hoshyar Zebari, the foreign minister, sounded a similar warning at a Baghdad news conference on Monday. "The dangers vary from civil war to dividing the country or maybe to regional wars," he said, referring to an American withdrawal. "In our estimation the danger is huge. Until the Iraqi forces and institutions complete their readiness, there is a responsibility on the U.S. and other countries to stand by the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to help build up their capabilities."
Fearing that the last pillars of Republican support for the war were eroding, the White House invited Senators John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, who has been critical of the administration's war policy, and Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, a supporter of the American troop presence, to the White House to ask them to delay votes on withdrawal until the administration delivers an interim progress report on the war, due in September.
Administration officials say Mr. Bush is considering a news conference on Iraq this week and is also likely to talk about it Tuesday during a trip to Cleveland that was intended to focus on his domestic agenda.
Although Senator Warner said he was inclined to heed the president's request to delay a vote, the Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid, of Nevada, said Monday afternoon that he would not wait. Indeed, hours later, the Senate began debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, the main military spending bill for the next budget year ?- and a vehicle for trying to force the administration to change its policy.
The bill calls for the military to balance the amount of time American troops spend overseas and on American soil, a measure that would limit troop deployments to Iraq.
While Senators Richard G. Lugar, of Indiana, and Pete V. Domenici, of New Mexico, and other Republicans have publicly urged a change of course, the Senate debate is testing party alliances. Mr. Warner and Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, are set to speak Tuesday morning at a rare bipartisan meeting to discuss Iraq. And Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican, said she was strongly supporting for the first time a bill with a specific timetable to remove troops from Iraq.
But the White House insisted Monday that Mr. Bush did not intend to change gears. "Don't expect us to lift a veil and have a whole different strategy," the spokesman, Tony Snow, said. "We're not going to have a strategy jumping out of a cake."
Mr. Crocker's remarks echoed warnings that have been made for months by President Bush and other administration officials. But Mr. Crocker, a career diplomat,, seemed eager to emphasize that the report he and Gen. David H. Petraeus are to make in September ?- an event Mr. Bush and his war critics have presented as a watershed moment ?- would represent their professional judgment, unburdened by any reflex to back administration policy.
In the interview, which was requested by The New York Times, he said, "We'll give the best assessment we can, and the most honest." Unusually for American officials here, who have generally avoided any comparisons between the situation in Iraq and the war in Vietnam, he compared the task that he and General Petraeus face in reporting back in September to the one faced by Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker and Gen. Creighton W. Abrams Jr., the two top Americans in Vietnam when the decisions that led to the American withdrawal there were made nearly 40 years ago.
General Petraeus, too, has warned in recent months that while there is a high price for staying in Iraq, including mounting American casualties, the price for leaving could be higher than many war critics have acknowledged. Some opponents of the war have argued the contrary, saying that keeping American troops in Iraq provokes much of the violence and that withdrawing could force Iraq's feuding politicians into burying their sectarian differences.
In the interview, Mr. Crocker said he based his warning about what might happen if American troops left on the realities he has seen in the four months since he took up the Baghdad post, a knowledge of Iraq and its violent history dating back to a previous Baghdad posting more than 25 years ago, and lessons learned during an assignment in Beirut in the early 1980s. Then, he said, a "failure of imagination" made it impossible to foresee the extreme violence that enveloped Lebanon as it descended into civil war. He added, "And I'm sure what will happen here exceeds my imagination."
On the potential for worsening violence after an American withdrawal from Iraq, he said: "You have to look at what the consequences would be, and you look at those who say we could have bases elsewhere in the country. Well yes, we could, but we would have the prospect of American forces looking on while civilians by the thousands were slaughtered. Not a pretty prospect."
In setting out what he called "the kind of things you have to think about" before an American troop withdrawal, the ambassador cited several possibilities. He said these included a resurgence by the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, which he said had been "pretty hard-pressed of late" by the additional 30,000 troops Mr. Bush ordered deployed here this year; the risk that Iraq's 350,000-strong security forces would "completely collapse" under sectarian pressures, disintegrating into militias; and the specter of interference by Iran, neighboring Sunni Arab states and Turkey.
The ambassador also suggested what is likely to be another core element of the approach that he and General Petraeus will take to the September report: that the so-called benchmarks for Iraqi government performance set by Congress in a defense authorization bill this spring may not be the best way of assessing whether the United States has a partner in the Baghdad government that warrants continued American military backing. "The longer I'm here, the more I'm persuaded that Iraq cannot be analyzed by these kind of discrete benchmarks," he said.
After the Iraqi government drew up the first list of benchmarks last year, American officials used them as their yardstick, frequently faulting the Iraqis for failure to act on them, especially on three items the Americans identified as priorities: a new oil law sharing revenue between Iraq's main population groups; a new "de-Baathification" law widening access to government jobs to members of Saddam Hussein's former ruling party; and a law scheduling provincial elections to choose representative governments in areas where Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are competing for power.
But Mr. Crocker said there were better ways to measure progress, including the levels of security across Iraq, progress in delivering basic services like electricity to the population, and steps by Iraqi leaders from rival groups to work more collaboratively.
Measured solely by the legislative benchmarks, he said, "you could not achieve any of them, and still have a situation where arguably the country is moving in the right direction. And conversely, I think you could achieve them all and still not be heading towards stability, security and overall success for Iraq."
Iraqi Warns of Turkish Threat
BAGHDAD, July 9 ?- Mr. Zebari, Iraq's foreign minister, said Monday that neighboring Turkey had massed 140,000 troops near his country's northern border and urged it to resolve differences with dialogue.
He described a "huge buildup in our view" and said Iraq was "trying to defuse the situation."
A spokesman for the Turkish military said it had no comment on the reported troop movement.
-------------------------------------------------
Stephen Farrell contributed reporting from Baghdad, and Jeff Zeleny from Washington.
Actually, they need to "draw in" their neighbors into this conflict; let them work for peace or war; it's their choice. The US is powerless to make the change all by ourselves.
ican, fearmongering is for Bushies. It dont work much anymore.
Repeat after me, Ican:
I AM NOT AFRAID OF TERRORISM!!![/color][/size]
You'll feel much better afterwards.
If they can come on airplanes, then they are already here.
If they are going to attack us, then staying in Iraq doesn't slow them down one Iota. Neither you nor anyone else has ever provided any evidence that it has done so.
On the other hand, speaking of Iraq:
http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070710/NEWS01/107090061/1009
Quote: U.S. lawmakers prevented from leaving Green Zone.
A six-member congressional delegation recently returned from a seven-day trip that included stops in Ireland, Germany, Pakistan, Kuwait and Iraq. While in Iraq, security conditions prevented them "from meeting any Iraqis, leaving the Green Zone or staying in Iraq overnight." Additionally, the "congressional members were required to wear full body armor, including Kevlar helmets, during the entire trip."
The Green Zone ain't safe anymore.
Cycloptichorn
blueflame1 wrote:ican, fearmongering is for Bushies. It dont work much anymore.
You guys frequently fearmonger about Bush.
Please comprehend that a people's members, who think they can purchase entry into paradise by suicidal mass murder of non-murderers, will not stop recruiting new members and making that purchase, and will continue making that purchase until they can make that purchase again and again much more massively in the USA?
The al-Qaeda in Iraq consist of those kinds of people who think they can purchase entry into paradise by suicidal mass murder of non-murderers, will not stop recruiting new members and making that purchase, and will continue making that purchase until they can make that purchase again and again much more massively in the USA?
Currently these al-Qaeda are doing this to fellow Muslims in Iraq.
Reality is often fearsome. Face it and deal with it.
Cycloptichorn wrote:
...
If they are going to attack us, then staying in Iraq doesn't slow them down one Iota. Neither you nor anyone else has ever provided any evidence that it has done so.
...
Cycloptichorn
Face Reality! We have not been attacked by al-Qaeda since we have been in Iraq. The British and Spaniards et cetera have been attacked since we have been in Iraq.
Say after me:
[size=26]FACE REALITY![/size]
Maybe it will help you face reality.
ican711nm wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
...
If they are going to attack us, then staying in Iraq doesn't slow them down one Iota. Neither you nor anyone else has ever provided any evidence that it has done so.
...
Cycloptichorn
Face Reality! We have not been attacked by al-Qaeda since we have been in Iraq. The British and Spaniards et cetera have been attacked since we have been in Iraq.
Say after me:
[size=26]FACE REALITY![/size]
Maybe it will help you face reality.
You are committing a logical fallacy: You are attempting to use non-corollary statistics to prove something that doesn't follow from the statistics themselves.
Our not being attacked since we went to Iraq is not evidence that the war in Iraq is keeping us from being attacked.
This is quite simple logic, Ican, and the sad part is that you do understand it deep down, I know it - yet you make the case anyways, b/c the fear you feel is stronger then your logic box.
I am not afraid of terrorism.
Cycloptichorn
You are making a logical fallacy of your own Cyc.
Not wanting terrorism at home is not fearing terrorism. Just as not wanting marriage between homosexuals does not make one homophobic and not wanting illegal immigrants does not make one racist.
It's a common tactic used by people like you to attempt to smear those with a different opinion. Don't like illegal immigration? You must be a racist! Don't want terrorism? You must be afraid of them!
Our not being attacked again is more likely a result of our increased monitoring of suspected terrorists using programs like the Terrorist Surveillance Act, the Patriot Act and other things you liberals decry as invasions to your privacy.
McGentrix wrote:You are making a logical fallacy of your own Cyc.
Not wanting terrorism at home is not fearing terrorism. Just as not wanting marriage between homosexuals does not make one homophobic and not wanting illegal immigrants does not make one racist.
It's a common tactic used by people like you to attempt to smear those with a different opinion. Don't like illegal immigration? You must be a racist! Don't want terrorism? You must be afraid of them!
Our not being attacked again is more likely a result of our increased monitoring of suspected terrorists using programs like the Terrorist Surveillance Act, the Patriot Act and other things you liberals decry as invasions to your privacy.
In fact, you have no evidence that it is 'more likely' because of such things. The terrorist plots broken up here in America have largely been done so due to tips that have been phoned in.
That's not the major point though; the point is that it certainly isn't the War in Iraq which is keeping them from coming here, as Ican alleges.
Quote:Just as not wanting marriage between homosexuals does not make one homophobic
There is no other cogent reason to not want marriage between homosexuals, and you are lying to yourself if you claim any differently. We had a huge thread put forth and
none of the reasons offered held up to any logical examination whatsoever. Latent and pervasive Homophobia is the driving force behind denying marriage to gays, the same way as pervasive fearmongering about terrorism is a sign of an internalized fear of said terrorism.
I never, ever see either of you advocating for emergency and drastic measures increasing security here at home. Ever. If you really were as concerned about terrorism - but not afraid of it - you would be advocating it. I consider your arguments on this issue to be worse then hollow.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:McGentrix wrote:You are making a logical fallacy of your own Cyc.
Not wanting terrorism at home is not fearing terrorism. Just as not wanting marriage between homosexuals does not make one homophobic and not wanting illegal immigrants does not make one racist.
It's a common tactic used by people like you to attempt to smear those with a different opinion. Don't like illegal immigration? You must be a racist! Don't want terrorism? You must be afraid of them!
Our not being attacked again is more likely a result of our increased monitoring of suspected terrorists using programs like the Terrorist Surveillance Act, the Patriot Act and other things you liberals decry as invasions to your privacy.
In fact, you have no evidence that it is 'more likely' because of such things. The terrorist plots broken up here in America have largely been done so due to tips that have been phoned in.
That's not the major point though; the point is that it certainly isn't the War in Iraq which is keeping them from coming here, as Ican alleges.
Which you certainly can not prove one way or the other. The corollation exists, just as the pink elephant spray you use to keep them off your yard.
Quote:Quote:Just as not wanting marriage between homosexuals does not make one homophobic
There is no other cogent reason to not want marriage between homosexuals, and you are lying to yourself if you claim any differently. We had a huge thread put forth and
none of the reasons offered held up to any logical examination whatsoever. Latent and pervasive Homophobia is the driving force behind denying marriage to gays, the same way as pervasive fearmongering about terrorism is a sign of an internalized fear of said terrorism.
It was an example of smear techniques used by you and your ilk, nothing more. Don't change the subject.
Quote:I never, ever see either of you advocating for emergency and drastic measures increasing security here at home. Ever. If you really were as concerned about terrorism - but not afraid of it - you would be advocating it. I consider your arguments on this issue to be worse then hollow.
Cycloptichorn
I never, ever see you advocating for not eating babies. Ever. If you were really concerned about not eating babies - but not worried about it - you would be advocating it.
I continue to not care about what you think about my arguments, baby eater.
Quote:
I never, ever see you advocating for not eating babies. Ever. If you were really concerned about not eating babies - but not worried about it - you would be advocating it.
I continue to not care about what you think about my arguments, baby eater.
Yes you do, or you wouldn't respond. That's why we love ya so much, McG!
Your comparing Fearmongering and Homophobia to 'eating babies' is an example of Appealing to Extremes, as well as being a poor rejoinder.
I assure you that if there was an actual and real problem with eating babies, you would hear me commenting on the drastic and immediate steps which need to be taken to stop the problem. However, as there does not seem to be any evidence that there is a problem with this, I am silent on the subject.
You and Ican, on the other hand, allege there is a actual and real problem that we face from domestic terrorism; yet you do not advocate taking the drastic and immediate steps to protect us. This makes your arguments hollow, as you never actually advocate doing the things which need to be done to stop it; merely spread fear about the problem. It's a real indicator that the argument is, as I said, worse then hollow.
I must admit that this is better then your usual trolling. I'm glad to see you've decided to step your game up.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:ican711nm wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
...
If they are going to attack us, then staying in Iraq doesn't slow them down one Iota. Neither you nor anyone else has ever provided any evidence that it has done so.
...
Cycloptichorn
Face Reality! We have not been attacked by al-Qaeda since we have been in Iraq. The British and Spaniards et cetera have been attacked since we have been in Iraq.
Say after me:
[size=26]FACE REALITY![/size]
Maybe it will help you face reality.
You are committing a logical fallacy: You are attempting to use non-corollary statistics to prove something that doesn't follow from the statistics themselves.
Our not being attacked since we went to Iraq is not evidence that the war in Iraq is keeping us from being attacked.
This is quite simple logic, Ican, and the sad part is that you do understand it deep down, I know it - yet you make the case anyways, b/c the fear you feel is stronger then your logic box.
I am not afraid of terrorism.
Cycloptichorn
You keep using the word
prove. I have posted here many times that I am not trying to
prove anything. Yet you persist with your distortions of what I am trying to do, while you yourself make statements without any supporting evidence, as if they were self-evident truths, or true simply because you say they are true.
I am merely stating some facts to support that maybe my postulate
is valid.
I cannot prove that the sun will continue to shine at least until I die. However, I can use the fact that the sun has continued to shine without interruption for at least the last 76 years, to support my postulate that the sun will continue to shine until I die. Proof? Of course not!
If someone were to pull a gun on me, I would bet he intends to shoot me. But I cannot prove that. If he does shoot me, I cannot prove for certain that he shot me. But the DA might convince a jury that he shot me.
Because al-Qaeda said they intended to kill American non-murderers and did kill American non-murderers, I bet they will do it again as soon as they think they are able. Consequently, I will prepare my defence/offense or urge the government to prepare my defence/offense to prevent or at least reduce the chances of al-Qaeda doing that.
I cannot prove anything for certain. I bet the same is true for you. All I can do is provide some evidence that my postulates are true. In otherwords, the only thing I know for certain is that I do not know anything else for certain. I bet the same is true for you.
One more time:
The only thing I know for certain is that I do not know anything else for certain.
By the way there are some who claim human beings do not exist physically but are only a figment of universal consciousness. I bet they are wrong but cannot prove for certain they are wrong.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:
I never, ever see you advocating for not eating babies. Ever. If you were really concerned about not eating babies - but not worried about it - you would be advocating it.
I continue to not care about what you think about my arguments, baby eater.
Yes you do, or you wouldn't respond. That's why we love ya so much, McG!
Your comparing Fearmongering and Homophobia to 'eating babies' is an example of Appealing to Extremes, as well as being a poor rejoinder.
I assure you that if there was an actual and real problem with eating babies, you would hear me commenting on the drastic and immediate steps which need to be taken to stop the problem. However, as there does not seem to be any evidence that there is a problem with this, I am silent on the subject.
You and Ican, on the other hand, allege there is a actual and real problem that we face from domestic terrorism; yet you do not advocate taking the drastic and immediate steps to protect us. This makes your arguments hollow, as you never actually advocate doing the things which need to be done to stop it; merely spread fear about the problem. It's a real indicator that the argument is, as I said, worse then hollow.
I must admit that this is better then your usual trolling. I'm glad to see you've decided to step your game up.
Cycloptichorn
I have repeatedly said we need to enforce our countries boundaries. I have repeatedly stated that we need to control the flow of illegal immigrants across our borders. I have repeatedly defended the Patriot act and the Terrorist Surveillance Act, I have repeatedly backed up the administrations efforts in taking the war on terror to our enemies instead of waiting for them to come to us.
For you to suggest I have not advocated for the defense of this country tells me one of two things:
A. You don't actually read any of my posts, but continuously comment on them, telling me you are nothing but a knee-jerk liberal with no reading comprehension skills.
or
B. You've spouted off here, again, before actually knowing what you are saying telling me you are a knee-jerk liberal that can't stomach someone having a different opinion than them.
So, which is it? No reading comprehension skills or can't stomach a different opinion?
McGentrix wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:
I never, ever see you advocating for not eating babies. Ever. If you were really concerned about not eating babies - but not worried about it - you would be advocating it.
I continue to not care about what you think about my arguments, baby eater.
Yes you do, or you wouldn't respond. That's why we love ya so much, McG!
Your comparing Fearmongering and Homophobia to 'eating babies' is an example of Appealing to Extremes, as well as being a poor rejoinder.
I assure you that if there was an actual and real problem with eating babies, you would hear me commenting on the drastic and immediate steps which need to be taken to stop the problem. However, as there does not seem to be any evidence that there is a problem with this, I am silent on the subject.
You and Ican, on the other hand, allege there is a actual and real problem that we face from domestic terrorism; yet you do not advocate taking the drastic and immediate steps to protect us. This makes your arguments hollow, as you never actually advocate doing the things which need to be done to stop it; merely spread fear about the problem. It's a real indicator that the argument is, as I said, worse then hollow.
I must admit that this is better then your usual trolling. I'm glad to see you've decided to step your game up.
Cycloptichorn
I have repeatedly said we need to enforce our countries boundaries. I have repeatedly stated that we need to control the flow of illegal immigrants across our borders. I have repeatedly defended the Patriot act and the Terrorist Surveillance Act, I have repeatedly backed up the administrations efforts in taking the war on terror to our enemies instead of waiting for them to come to us.
For you to suggest I have not advocated for the defense of this country tells me one of two things:
A. You don't actually read any of my posts, but continuously comment on them, telling me you are nothing but a knee-jerk liberal with no reading comprehension skills.
or
B. You've spouted off here, again, before actually knowing what you are saying telling me you are a knee-jerk liberal that can't stomach someone having a different opinion than them.
So, which is it? No reading comprehension skills or can't stomach a different opinion?
Mmm hmm. You have 1/10th, probably closer to 1/20th, the posts advocating defense as you do advocating offense. This is due to the fact that, idiotically, you really believe that fighting the guys in Iraq who call themselves 'al qaeda' in Iraq has anything at all to do with securing America here at home. It doesn't, and never has.
The things you describe are your cover for advocating warfare in a foreign country. You don't honestly believe we should be doing those things, or at least you don't post about them with any sort of frequency or sense of urgency. You repeat the lie that they will 'follow us home' if we leave. I see no real reason to give you credit for your passing references every now and then to securing the border, as if that's the same thing as demanding greater security here at home.
You do provide my office mates and I with a significant level of humorous entertainment, which I do thank you for, however; please, continue at your convenience.
Cycloptichorn
I'm just wondering, Cyclo, how many US military personnel is protecting the Green Zone? The ratio of military to civilian populatiion in the Green Zone is probably much higher than the military to civilian population in the rest of iraq, and they're trying to tell us this "surge" thing is working or will work.
They need to take first grade math or college logic courses.
