FREE TAPATALK APP

Upchurch · 15th January 2009, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

What the Bush-haters/America haters are missing...

You illustrate Tricky's point nicely.

Originally Posted by rwguinn

but I cannot fault him in the pursuit of terrorists.

If only that was what he did. Iraq and Saddam, of course, had nothing to do with the terrorists who attacked us.

thaiboxerken · 15th January 2009, 01:00 PM

Gosh, and here I was thinking that as soon as Obama was in office, the world would suddenly love the USA, as if by magic. I doubt there are many liberals that think it would take a while to heal the wounds caused by the Bush party by actually taking actions over a period of time.....

daredelvis · 15th January 2009, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Now, speaking of responsibility: Do you not agree that in time of war, it's the opposition party's responsibility to help win that war, especially when the opposition party themselves voted for the war?

Do you not agree that if the opposition party has no idea how to help win the war, they at least have a responsibility to not make it more difficult for the administration that is at least trying to win it, especially when they themselves voted for the war?

Yeah... they should have added something to the Patriot act. Something to prevent this intersection against the actions of the executive branch of the U.S. government. Maybe they could have called the sedition act.

Quote:

Could you please give me some examples of the Democrats' ideas for how to beat Islamist fascism? Not just defend ourselves from it, but to take the war to the Islamists, to put them on the defensive? Because all I can think of is Democratic resistance to the Patriot Act, resistance to warrantless wiretapping of phone calls that both originate and end outside the U.S., complaints that the administration was engaging in torture when they themselves knew full well what was going on in Guantanamo, and complaints that foreigners being held in U.S. custody weren't getting their full Constitutional rights. All things that made fighting the war more difficult.

Saddam Hussein was a Islamist? He represented the Islamist fascists (sic)??!?!? The revisionist history is in full swing in this thread.

Quote:

Two of Bush's other big mistakes: 1) The $400 billion Medicare prescription bill, and 2) announcing he was going to be a "uniter, not a divider," when the Dems and their left-wing cheering section were in no mood to unite because they'd been unsuccessful in stealing the 2000 presidential election. Being conciliatory to the Dems was a mistake Bush 41 had made when he raised taxes after the Dems promised they wouldn't raise spending - you'd think 43 would have learned from his father's bitter lesson, especially since that mistake may well have cost him re-election in 1992.

If only he had learned anything from 41.

Daredelvis

BPSCG · 15th January 2009, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

...all I can think of is Democratic resistance to the Patriot Act, resistance to warrantless wiretapping of phone calls that both originate and end outside the U.S., complaints that the administration was engaging in torture when they themselves knew full well what was going on in Guantanamo, and complaints that foreigners being held in U.S. custody weren't getting their full Constitutional rights. All things that made fighting the war more difficult.

Originally Posted by daredelvis

Saddam Hussein was a Islamist? He represented the Islamist fascists (sic)??!?!? The revisionist history is in full swing in this thread.

Excellent. I list a bunch of things that the Democrats did to impede the war against Islamist fascists and you put up the straw man that Saddam had nothing to do with Islamist fascists.

Was the USA-Patiriot Act a response to Saddam? Answer: No. It was in response to Islamist terrorism. But the Dems hated it and vowed to repeal it or eviscerate it - after voting for it and before voting to extend it, showing the usual courage of their convictions.

Was the warrantless wiretapping of phone calls that both originated and ended outside the U.S. a response to Saddam? Answer: No. It was in response to Islamist terrorism. But the Dems hated it and complained it was a violation of the Constitutional rights of people who were not U.S. citizens and not in the U.S.

Were the harsh interrogation techniques in Guantanamo a response to Saddam? Answer: No. It was in response to Islamist terrorism. But the Dems hated it and complained it was torture and a violation of the Geneva conventions, but only after it was revealed in the newspapers. Until then, they were just fine with it; they'd been fully briefed.

So again (first Upchurch, then Tricky, now you), please show me some examples of the Democrats' ideas for how to beat Islamist fascism. Not just defend ourselves from it, but to take the war to the Islamists, to put them on the defensive.

Upchurch · 15th January 2009, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Excellent. I list a bunch of things that the Democrats did to impede the war against Islamist fascists and you put up the straw man that Saddam had nothing to do with Islamist fascists.

Well, what "unpopular war" were you referring to?

Originally Posted by BPSCG

So again (first Upchurch, then Tricky, now you), please show me some examples of the Democrats' ideas for how to beat Islamist fascism. Not just defend ourselves from it, but to take the war to the Islamists, to put them on the defensive.

I'm sorry, why is it my responsibility to provide you these examples? Did I make a claim that I'm not aware of?

BPSCG · 15th January 2009, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I'm sorry, why is it my responsibility to provide you these examples? Did I make a claim that I'm not aware of?

I'll take that as a, "Sorry, Beeps, but I can't think of a damned thing the Democrats have done to help the fight against Islamist fascists."

Because otherwise, you would have knocked my question out of the park like a batting practice fastball served up to Barry Bonds.

Tricky · 15th January 2009, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

So a bad executive is one who recognizes that strategy A isn't working, and works out a strategy B that ends up working very well.

That would be a good thing. But this is not the case in Iraq. Yes, the fighting has stabilized (but is by no means over), but the country is still in a shambles. Virtually all of the middle class have left, along with any non-Muslim citizens. And of course, we will never know what would have happened if we had let the UN finish their weapons inspections and simply keep the pressure on Saddam. "Working well compared to what?" one must ask. To the carnage brought on by the invasion? Yeah, better than that.

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Whereas a good executive is one who recognizes that strategy A isn't working, so it's time to pack up and leave. The Democrats' position on the war was, "If at first you don't succeed, just give up."

No, they wanted to withdraw gradually, and again, we will never know what would have happened if they had done that. I'm sure you're willing to speculate, but that's all it would be.

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Asking the same questions I asked Upchurch earlier:

Now, speaking of responsibility: Do you not agree that in time of war, it's the opposition party's responsibility to help win that war, especially when the opposition party themselves voted for the war?

As I discussed earlier, the "opposition party" was controlled by the jingoistic surge that was intentionally generated by the Bush administration and the neocons. The same neocons who called any Americans who spoke out against the war "traitors" and some unsupportive allies "cheese-eating surrender monkeys". Maybe you don't remember what it was like in the early war days, but I do.

But yes, the Democratic party did not at any time vote to cut off all funding for the war. Indeed, they were part of the bipartisan groups that tried to make sure that the US soldiers were equipped for the kind of war they were in, a little detail that Bush and co overlooked. But "win" the war? The war was lost the moment it started. Saddam is gone, but there is absolutely no guarantee that the new government will be our ally once the troops are gone. We've created another Korea-like situation. Can't fight. Can't leave. Even if we had quickly won the war and emplaced a US-friendly government in Iraq, it would forever be the enemy of most of the other nations in the area.

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Could you please give me some examples of the Democrats' ideas for how to beat Islamist fascism?

I believe they were in favor of continuing our attack against Islamic fascists in Afghanistan and surrounding regions, which is where the Islamic fascists were actually located. They weren't in Iraq in any great number. With the resources we wasted in Iraq, we might be further along on that project now. We'd have more enthusiastic allies too, because they wouldn't be tainted by helping an aggressor. Pakistan might be more co-operative too. (You know, they condemned the invasion of Iraq, right?)

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Because all I can think of is Democratic resistance to the Patriot Act, resistance to warrantless wiretapping of phone calls that both originate and end outside the U.S., complaints that the administration was engaging in torture when they themselves knew full well what was going on in Guantanamo, and complaints that foreigners being held in U.S. custody weren't getting their full Constitutional rights. All things that made fighting the war more difficult.

I'd say you have a selective memory. And don't make the mistake of thinking that all Democrats are far-left or were against all those things. Leave the "You're either with us or against us" rhetoric to Bush.

DavidJames · 15th January 2009, 01:55 PM

This is pathetic political based revisionist history at it's best.

Americans mostly approved of going into Afghanistan against the Taliban, Al Qaeda and OBL and in fact still do. Invading Afghanistan was a direct response to 9/11 and Islamic terrorism. A response which had the support, in addition to Americans, (yes even the pacifist, Bush hating Democrats

), Bush had the support of much of the world.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, It was only when Bush decided to define terrorism in terms of Saddam and Iraq that thinking people began to question.

So that was the response beeps - invade Afghanistan, capture OBL and destroy Al Qaeda. Your team failed. Your team went to Orioles Park and began playing OBL and Al Qaeda. Unfortunately Coach Bush took most of his team off the field before the end of the game and took them to Cleveland to play the Browns.

Coach Obama has already said he's return to the original field and will finish the job the previous, inept coach, failed.to accomplish.

Upchurch · 15th January 2009, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

I'll take that as a, "Sorry, Beeps, but I can't think of a damned thing the Democrats have done to help the fight against Islamist fascists."

Because otherwise, you would have knocked my question out of the park like a batting practice fastball served up to Barry Bonds.

Yes, that is a possibility.

....or, you're making assumptions and strawmen and then jumping to conclusions.

In fact, I haven't looked because I haven't made a claim about the Democrats role in "the fight against Islamist fascists". I've been talking about Bush's role in various aspects of US and world.

BPSCG · 15th January 2009, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Virtually all of the middle class have left,

Tell that to all the shop-owners who have reopened for business now that al Qaeda in Iraq (with has nothing to do with al Qaeda or the war against Islamist terrorists, of course...) has been destroyed.

Quote:

And of course, we will never know what would have happened if we had let the UN finish their weapons inspections and simply keep the pressure on Saddam.

Don't be silly, of course we do. Saddam would have died in bed of old age. Has the U.N. ever forced a dictator out of power anywhere?

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Whereas a good executive is one who recognizes that strategy A isn't working, so it's time to pack up and leave. The Democrats' position on the war was, "If at first you don't succeed, just give up."

Originally Posted by Tricky

No, they wanted to withdraw gradually...

...and now that the surge reversed the direction of the war, Obama is in a position to do just that, and there's actually a chance (far from a certainty, I'll be the first to admit) that there may be a truly democratic government in Iraq.

Quote:

As I discussed earlier, the "opposition party" was controlled by the jingoistic surge that was intentionally generated by the Bush administration and the neocons. The same neocons who called any Americans who spoke out against the war "traitors"

Please show me anyone in the administration who said that. Please don't say "Ann Coulter" or I'll have to give you a laughing dog.

Originally Posted by Tricky

But "win" the war? The war was lost the moment it started.

Wow. Even Harry Reid waited a couple of years before coming to that conclusion. And it turned out it was wrong.

Originally Posted by Tricky

Saddam is gone, but there is absolutely no guarantee that the new government will be our ally once the troops are gone. We've created another Korea-like situation. Can't fight. Can't leave. Even if we had quickly won the war and emplaced a US-friendly government in Iraq, it would forever be the enemy of most of the other nations in the area.

Just like Israel, I guess...

Originally Posted by Tricky

I believe they were in favor of continuing our attack against Islamic fascists in Afghanistan and surrounding regions, which is where the Islamic fascists were actually located.

So they were in favor of doing what the administration was doing anyway. When did, "Me, too" become a strategy?

Quote:

We'd have more enthusiastic allies too, because they wouldn't be tainted by helping an aggressor.

Oh, dear, if only we hadn't invaded Iraq, the French would have sent 50,000 troops to Afghanistan. But Bush pricked that legendary French pique, alas.

Please don't tell me you seriously believe that. Our so-called European allies didn't deign to lift a finger when Europeans were slaughtering other Europeans in Serbia. Why on Earth would you think they would do any heavy lifting in Asia?

Quote:

I'd say you have a selective memory. And don't make the mistake of thinking that all Democrats are far-left or were against all those things. Leave the "You're either with us or against us" rhetoric to Bush.

Well, looking over your reply here, all I see is that the Democrats contribution to fighting Islamist terrorism was to say, "Yeah, we agree with Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan and kill Osama bin Laden."

Well, at least it's a more substantive answer than I got out of Upchurch. Still waiting on Daredelvis.

Upchurch · 15th January 2009, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Well, at least it's a more substantive answer than I got out of Upchurch.

Is "I try not to legitimize straw man arguments" substantive enough for you?

Ziggurat · 15th January 2009, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Well, looking over your reply here, all I see is that the Democrats contribution to fighting Islamist terrorism was to say, "Yeah, we agree with Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan and kill Osama bin Laden."

That's unfair to Leiberman.

Oh, wait...

BeAChooser · 15th January 2009, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by bpscg

because otherwise, you would have knocked my question out of the park like a batting practice fastball served up to barry bonds.

UnrepentantSinner · 16th January 2009, 02:03 AM

Originally Posted by gdnp

If Carter's attempted rescue of the Iranian hostages had been successful, the American people would have been wildly enthusiastic. Because it failed, it reinforced the perception of America as the toothless giant and people blamed Carter.

I happened to catch a bit of an author discussing his book about the Rescue Mission and he had an interesting observation on CSPAN-3. The mission is considered an abject failure, but CIA estimates for a successful mission were up to 60% hostage fatalities. Mission success might not have been so warmly received if that happened.

Originally Posted by Cicero

They were indignant over our ICBM's stationed in Europe.

{pedant}
We never had ICBMs in Europe.
{/pedant}

Originally Posted by daredelvis

Ahhh.... A second hand anecdote involving soccer hooligans. My personal experiences in Europe (including the land of the cheese eaters) would argue the opposite, but you have a much more colorful story. You only neglected to add the Q.E.D.

BPSCG · 16th January 2009, 04:45 AM

Heh - regarding one of the roadblocks the Dems threw in front of Bush - their screams that warrantless wiretaps were "spying on Americans." The Dems yelled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act demanded that the government get special warrants from the FISA court before it could start tapping phones.

The Bush administration disagreed. And now, just in time for President Obama...

...the FISA court itself has come down on Bush's side.

Quote:

In a major August 2008 decision released yesterday in redacted form, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, the FISA appellate panel, affirmed the government's Constitutional authority to collect national-security intelligence without judicial approval. The case was not made public before yesterday, and its details remain classified. An unnamed telecom company refused to comply with the National Security Agency's monitoring requests and claimed the program violated the Fourth Amendment's restrictions on search and seizure.

But the Constitution bans only "unreasonable" search and seizure, not all searches and seizures, and the Fourth Amendment allows for exceptions such as those under a President's Article II war powers. The courts have been explicit on this point. In 1980, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Truong that "the Executive need not always obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance." The FISA appeals court said in its 2002 opinion In re Sealed Case that the President has "inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information" and took "for granted" that "FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

Quote:

For all the political hysteria and media dishonesty about George W. Bush "spying on Americans," this fight was never about anything other than staging an ideological raid on the President's war powers. Barack Obama ought to be thankful that the FISA court has knocked the bottom out of this gambit, just in time for him to take office.

Emphasis mine. Again, the Dems didn't do a damned thing to help win the war against the Islamist fascists, and did plenty to hamstring that war.

link

BPSCG · 16th January 2009, 04:46 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Is "I try not to legitimize straw man arguments" substantive enough for you?

*shrug*

DC · 16th January 2009, 04:48 AM

the land of the ~~free~~ wiretapped

Travis · 17th January 2009, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

the land of the ~~free~~ wiretapped

When did freedom and wiretapping become mutually exclusive?

Oliver · 17th January 2009, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

It's good to know that with that damned cowboy ChimpBusHitler on his way out, the world is regaining its respect for America and her leaders.

Photo caption:

Link.

Gee, he's not even in office yet.

Are you trying to portrait that as a general Muslim response to Obama in light of the Israeli defense, or are you trying to point out a minority of dumb-wits with no point whatsoever?

Upchurch · 18th January 2009, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

When did freedom and wiretapping become mutually exclusive?

When it is done in violation of the US Constitution.

Ziggurat · 18th January 2009, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

When it is done in violation of the US Constitution.

Looks like it's not.

Upchurch · 18th January 2009, 01:17 PM

That doesn't change the answer to Travis's question.

Skeptic · 18th January 2009, 01:37 PM

Am I the only one who thinks that both the hopes AND the fears many Americans have of Obama's presidency are greatly exagerrated, and that he is seen as a force for "change" mostly for purely symbolic reasons -- i.e., his skin color -- not due to anything about his policies?

Symbols are important, and having a Black US president who is eloquent (as in "speaks well", not in the partonizing sense of "Oh lookie, a black guy who doesn't speak Ebonics") is certainly a good thing, in itself. But symbols are not all-important. I predict that once the initial excitement and novelty wears off, Obama's policies will -- probably -- be seen as not so different than any other politician's, at least in most areas.

To clarify, this is not criticism of Obama; I'm just saying that whether he'll be a good president or a bad one depends little on his symbolic status as the first black president or on his speech-making abilities.

Travis · 18th January 2009, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

When it is done in violation of the US Constitution.

I suppose you are technically correct since the advent of un-constitutional wiretapping does lead to the loss of one's freedom to talk about plans to destroy the Heathen Pigs over the telephone. Lamentably it has not led to the loss of people's freedom to wear spandex when really fat. The Neo-Cons really dropped the ball on that part.

AWPrime · 18th January 2009, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

By waging the unpopular, but critical war against Islamist terrorists, Bush made America unpopular (or perhaps more unpopular) around the rest of the world.

Actually it was his lies and methods that caused the opinion switch.

Heck G-Bay, showed that that administration simply abandoned vital principles. And the Iraq war looked more like GWB settling the score then any anti-terror war.

Also its childish to assume that ones allies would never be critical.

WildCat · 18th January 2009, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by gdnp

Would you prefer "based on tenuous connections to the 9/11 hijackers that real or not in no way justified the cost in terms of US lives, US treasure, the lives or innocent Iraqi civilians?"

What tenuous connections to the 9/11 hijackers?

WildCat · 18th January 2009, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

We remember all the scary stories they told us about how Saddam had WMDs and that he could strike us or our allies any moment.

Who is "we"? I certainly don't remember that one.

Quote:

We remember the jingoistic fever pitch that the Bush administration built up, a fever so hot that to vote or speak against the war might get you labeled as a traitor. "You are either for us or against us", he said.

I could have sworn that was in regards to the war in Afghanistan post-9/11 and not in regards to Iraq, but since "we" remember it I'm sure you'll have no trouble showing it to have actually happened.

Lonewulf · 18th January 2009, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Who is "we"? I certainly don't remember that one.

Huh. It's weird how that totally passed you by. Were you hiding in a cave, perchance?

WildCat · 18th January 2009, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Some of us remember better than others.

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

(...and then some of us have to google the transcripts)

Bizarre. Exactly as I have said, that was regarding the war in Afghanistan post-9/11, not in regards to the Iraq war.

But when "we" remember things, we should also remember that memory can be faukly. Except in your case the date was right there on the page you cited, which leads me to the conclusion you are simply being dishonest.

WildCat · 18th January 2009, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Huh. It's weird how that totally passed you by. Were you hiding in a cave, perchance?

Maybe you can do better than Upchurch and find a refernce to that being used in regard to the Iraq war.

Lonewulf · 18th January 2009, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Maybe you can do better than Upchurch and find a refernce to that being used in regard to the Iraq war.

Originally Posted by President Bush (April 7, 2006)

But what wasn't wrong was Saddam Hussein had invaded a country, he had used weapons of mass destruction, he had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction, he was firing at our pilots. He was a state sponsor of terror. Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing for world peace and the security of our country.

from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0...on-prewar.html

That was after five seconds on google. Pretty sure I could find more direct quotes farther back, but I'd rather not waste time on this, as I fail to see what it has to do with much of anything, and it's pretty well-known that WMDs were a pretty important focus on the War on Iraq. I'm not sure why people like you get off on denying this, but whatever.

Let's see if you change the goalposts here. For posterity:

Originally Posted by Tricky

We remember all the scary stories they told us about how Saddam had WMDs and that he could strike us or our allies any moment.

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Who is "we"? I certainly don't remember that one.

WildCat · 18th January 2009, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

{pedant}
We never had ICBMs in Europe.
{/pedant}

Might want to re-check your map. Most of the USSR was in Asia.

WildCat · 18th January 2009, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0...on-prewar.html

That was after five seconds on google. Pretty sure I could find more direct quotes farther back, but I'd rather not waste time on this, as I fail to see what it has to do with much of anything, and it's pretty well-known that WMDs were a pretty important focus on the War on Iraq. I'm not sure why people like you get off on denying this, but whatever.

Except I wasn't commenting on WMDs, just Tricky and Upchurch's claim that the "with us or against us" part was about the war in Iraq.

Don't believe me? Let's recap:

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Originally Posted by Tricky

No, our memories aren't short. We remember the build-up to the war. We remember all the scary stories they told us about how Saddam had WMDs and that he could strike us or our allies any moment. We remember the jingoistic fever pitch that the Bush administration built up, a fever so hot that to vote or speak against the war might get you labeled as a traitor. "You are either for us or against us", he said.

Some of us remember better than others.

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

(...and then some of us have to google the transcripts)

All clear now?

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Let's see if you change the goalposts here. For posterity:

There was no goalpost changing involved, just your inability to understand what was being discussed.

Ziggurat · 18th January 2009, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0...on-prewar.html

Originally Posted by Bush

Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing for world peace and the security of our country.

...
Let's see if you change the goalposts here. For posterity:

Originally Posted by Tricky

We remember all the scary stories they told us about how Saddam had WMDs and that he could strike us or our allies any moment.

Notice something missing from the Bush quote which is contained within Tricky's claim? (Hint: I bolded it for you).

Lonewulf · 18th January 2009, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Except neither Tricky nor Upchurch was speaking of WMDs, but of the "with us or against us" part which had nothing at all to do with the war in Iraq, as they both claimed.

Don't believe me? Let's recap:

All clear now?

There was no goalpost changing involved, just your inability to understand what was being discussed.

Originally Posted by Tricky

We remember all the scary stories they told us about how Saddam had WMDs and that he could strike us or our allies any moment.

That was exactly what you responded to, ergo, it was what was being discussed, and I mocked your reaction to that particular slice.

To put it in perspective for those that actually can pay attention:

Tricky said something.

You cut that part off and responded to it in particular.

I took your response and responded to it in particular.

Keep twisting, Wildcat. You totally don't look foolish in attempting to cover up your mistake.

Meanwhile, I consider throwing your dishonest ass onto my ignore list. It's not the first time you've lied. Either that, or you're just that incompetent at realizing what "what's being discussed" actually means, in which case, it's not the first time you've been grossly incompetent in a discussion.

WildCat · 18th January 2009, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

That was exactly what you responded to, ergo, it was what was being discussed, and I mocked your reaction to that particular slice.

Keep twisting, Wildcat. You totally don't look foolish in attempting to cover up your mistake.

Your reading comprehension problems are not my fault.

Quote:

Meanwhile, I consider throwing your dishonest ass onto my ignore list. It's not the first time you've lied.

You're correct. I have never lied on this forum. Sorry to make you throw a hissy fit.

Lonewulf · 18th January 2009, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Your reading comprehension problems are not my fault.

You're correct. I have never lied on this forum. Sorry to make you throw a hissy fit.

Keep telling yourself that, Wildcat. My "hissy fit" is nothing compared to your ridiculous twisting.

Not my fault if you can't read worth a damn.

Tell me though. What exactly WAS being discussed when Tricky said:

Originally Posted by Tricky

We remember all the scary stories they told us about how Saddam had WMDs and that he could strike us or our allies any moment.

And why did you write what you said RIGHT AFTER this slice?

Please explain yourself, Wildcat. Why respond to THAT PARTICULAR statement about what "we" knew or not?

If I'm throwing a "hissy fit", it's because I'm tired of your rampant dishonesty in arguments.

Or are you claiming that you didn't respond to that bit at all? Which is it?

WildCat · 18th January 2009, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

That was exactly what you responded to, ergo, it was what was being discussed, and I mocked your reaction to that particular slice.

To put it in perspective for those that actually can pay attention:

Tricky said something.

You cut that part off and responded to it in particular.

I took your response and responded to it in particular.

Oh, I see what you're on about now.

Your quote did nothing at all to support Tricky's claim that Bush said Saddam could strike us at any moment with WMDs. Who's being dishonest here?

Lonewulf · 18th January 2009, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Oh, I see what you're on about now.

Ah, nice to see you've caught up (with your own statement, no less).

Quote:

Your quote did nothing at all to support Tricky's claim that Bush said Saddam could strike us at any moment with WMDs.

No, we just needed to invade Iraq because of WMDs, that threatened our security.

Nothing to do with WMDs that threatened the U.S., nosirree.

Quote:

Who's being dishonest here?

If I'm wrong, you can show exactly where I am. Being wrong is not the same as being dishonest.

Perhaps something to learn. I'm glad to be your teacher.

Hm, I showed this thread to a friend, and she didn't seem to be as confused as Wildcat was... intriguing... maybe I'm not as insane as I thought I was.

WildCat · 18th January 2009, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Wow. You're really not able to keep up with a debate at all, are you? You were the one that responded to him! And I even threw in the "let's recap" bit just because I knew you'd play the "I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOU LOL" BS game.

****, I need a drink.

Sorry, I was watching the end of the Steelers-Ravens game, playing poker online, and listening to my g/f demand I come see how cute the cat looks in addition to posting in this thread. I got confused...

Quote:

No, we just needed to invade Iraq because of WMDs, that threatened our security.

Nothing to do with WMDs that threatened the U.S., nosirree.

Is attacking the US with WMDs the only thing which could threaten the security of the US? Why, no it isn't! And considering that Saddam had no means with which to attack the US with WMDs it is beyond me how anyone could possibly think this is what your quote was referring to.

15th January 2009, 01:00 PM	#122
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 21,075	Gosh, and here I was thinking that as soon as Obama was in office, the world would suddenly love the USA, as if by magic. I doubt there are many liberals that think it would take a while to heal the wounds caused by the Bush party by actually taking actions over a period of time.....
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

15th January 2009, 01:18 PM	#124
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by BPSCG ...all I can think of is Democratic resistance to the Patriot Act, resistance to warrantless wiretapping of phone calls that both originate and end outside the U.S., complaints that the administration was engaging in torture when they themselves knew full well what was going on in Guantanamo, and complaints that foreigners being held in U.S. custody weren't getting their full Constitutional rights. All things that made fighting the war more difficult. Originally Posted by daredelvis Saddam Hussein was a Islamist? He represented the Islamist fascists (sic)??!?!? The revisionist history is in full swing in this thread. Excellent. I list a bunch of things that the Democrats did to impede the war against Islamist fascists and you put up the straw man that Saddam had nothing to do with Islamist fascists. Was the USA-Patiriot Act a response to Saddam? Answer: No. It was in response to Islamist terrorism. But the Dems hated it and vowed to repeal it or eviscerate it - after voting for it and before voting to extend it, showing the usual courage of their convictions. Was the warrantless wiretapping of phone calls that both originated and ended outside the U.S. a response to Saddam? Answer: No. It was in response to Islamist terrorism. But the Dems hated it and complained it was a violation of the Constitutional rights of people who were not U.S. citizens and not in the U.S. Were the harsh interrogation techniques in Guantanamo a response to Saddam? Answer: No. It was in response to Islamist terrorism. But the Dems hated it and complained it was torture and a violation of the Geneva conventions, but only after it was revealed in the newspapers. Until then, they were just fine with it; they'd been fully briefed. So again (first Upchurch, then Tricky, now you), please show me some examples of the Democrats' ideas for how to beat Islamist fascism. Not just defend ourselves from it, but to take the war to the Islamists, to put *them* on the defensive.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia. Last edited by BPSCG; 15th January 2009 at 01:20 PM.

15th January 2009, 01:26 PM	#126
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Upchurch I'm sorry, why is it my responsibility to provide you these examples? Did I make a claim that I'm not aware of? I'll take that as a, "Sorry, Beeps, but I can't think of a damned thing the Democrats have done to help the fight against Islamist fascists." Because otherwise, you would have knocked my question out of the park like a batting practice fastball served up to Barry Bonds.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

15th January 2009, 01:55 PM	#128
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,116	This is pathetic political based revisionist history at it's best. Americans mostly approved of going into Afghanistan against the Taliban, Al Qaeda and OBL and in fact still do. Invading Afghanistan was a direct response to 9/11 and Islamic terrorism. A response which had the support, in addition to Americans, (yes even the pacifist, Bush hating Democrats ), Bush had the support of much of the world. As has been pointed out repeatedly, It was only when Bush decided to define terrorism in terms of Saddam and Iraq that thinking people began to question. So that was the response beeps - invade Afghanistan, capture OBL and destroy Al Qaeda. Your team failed. Your team went to Orioles Park and began playing OBL and Al Qaeda. Unfortunately Coach Bush took most of his team off the field before the end of the game and took them to Cleveland to play the Browns. Coach Obama has already said he's return to the original field and will finish the job the previous, inept coach, failed.to accomplish.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

15th January 2009, 02:14 PM	#129
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Originally Posted by BPSCG I'll take that as a, "Sorry, Beeps, but I can't think of a damned thing the Democrats have done to help the fight against Islamist fascists." Because otherwise, you would have knocked my question out of the park like a batting practice fastball served up to Barry Bonds. Yes, that is a possibility. ....or, you're making assumptions and strawmen and then jumping to conclusions. It's the second one. In fact, I haven't looked because I haven't made a claim about the Democrats role in "the fight against Islamist fascists". I've been talking about Bush's role in various aspects of US and world.

15th January 2009, 12:57 PM	#121
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Originally Posted by rwguinn What the Bush-haters/America haters are missing... You illustrate Tricky's point nicely. Originally Posted by rwguinn but I cannot fault him in the pursuit of terrorists. If only that was what he did. Iraq and Saddam, of course, had nothing to do with the terrorists who attacked us.

15th January 2009, 01:02 PM	#123
daredelvis Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Torrey Pines Posts: 1,904	Originally Posted by BPSCG Now, speaking of responsibility: Do you not agree that in time of war, it's the opposition party's responsibility to help win that war, especially when the opposition party themselves voted for the war? Do you not agree that if the opposition party has no idea how to help win the war, they at least have a responsibility to not make it more difficult for the administration that is at least trying to win it, especially when they themselves voted for the war? Yeah... they should have added something to the Patriot act. Something to prevent this intersection against the actions of the executive branch of the U.S. government. Maybe they could have called the sedition act. Quote: Could you please give me some examples of the Democrats' ideas for how to beat Islamist fascism? Not just defend ourselves from it, but to take the war to the Islamists, to put *them* on the defensive? Because all I can think of is Democratic resistance to the Patriot Act, resistance to warrantless wiretapping of phone calls that both originate and end outside the U.S., complaints that the administration was engaging in torture when they themselves knew full well what was going on in Guantanamo, and complaints that foreigners being held in U.S. custody weren't getting their full Constitutional rights. All things that made fighting the war more difficult. Saddam Hussein was a Islamist? He represented the Islamist fascists (sic)??!?!? The revisionist history is in full swing in this thread. Quote: Two of Bush's other big mistakes: 1) The $400 billion Medicare prescription bill, and 2) announcing he was going to be a "uniter, not a divider," when the Dems and their left-wing cheering section were in no mood to unite because they'd been unsuccessful in stealing the 2000 presidential election. Being conciliatory to the Dems was a mistake Bush 41 had made when he raised taxes after the Dems promised they wouldn't raise spending - you'd think 43 would have learned from his father's bitter lesson, especially since that mistake may well have cost him re-election in 1992. If only he had learned anything from 41. Daredelvis

15th January 2009, 01:22 PM	#125
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Originally Posted by BPSCG Excellent. I list a bunch of things that the Democrats did to impede the war against Islamist fascists and you put up the straw man that Saddam had nothing to do with Islamist fascists. Well, what "unpopular war" were you referring to? Originally Posted by BPSCG So again (first Upchurch, then Tricky, now you), please show me some examples of the Democrats' ideas for how to beat Islamist fascism. Not just defend ourselves from it, but to take the war to the Islamists, to put *them* on the defensive. I'm sorry, why is it my responsibility to provide you these examples? Did I make a claim that I'm not aware of?

15th January 2009, 01:51 PM	#127
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,403	Originally Posted by BPSCG So a bad executive is one who recognizes that strategy A isn't working, and works out a strategy B that ends up working very well. That would be a good thing. But this is not the case in Iraq. Yes, the fighting has stabilized (but is by no means over), but the country is still in a shambles. Virtually all of the middle class have left, along with any non-Muslim citizens. And of course, we will never know what would have happened if we had let the UN finish their weapons inspections and simply keep the pressure on Saddam. "Working well compared to what?" one must ask. To the carnage brought on by the invasion? Yeah, better than that. Originally Posted by BPSCG Whereas a good executive is one who recognizes that strategy A isn't working, so it's time to pack up and leave. The Democrats' position on the war was, "If at first you don't succeed, just give up." No, they wanted to withdraw gradually, and again, we will never know what would have happened if they had done that. I'm sure you're willing to speculate, but that's all it would be. Originally Posted by BPSCG Asking the same questions I asked Upchurch earlier: Now, speaking of responsibility: Do you not agree that in time of war, it's the opposition party's responsibility to help win that war, especially when the opposition party themselves voted for the war? As I discussed earlier, the "opposition party" was controlled by the jingoistic surge that was intentionally generated by the Bush administration and the neocons. The same neocons who called any Americans who spoke out against the war "traitors" and some unsupportive allies "cheese-eating surrender monkeys". Maybe you don't remember what it was like in the early war days, but I do. But yes, the Democratic party did not at any time vote to cut off all funding for the war. Indeed, they were part of the bipartisan groups that tried to make sure that the US soldiers were equipped for the kind of war they were in, a little detail that Bush and co overlooked. But "win" the war? The war was lost the moment it started. Saddam is gone, but there is absolutely no guarantee that the new government will be our ally once the troops are gone. We've created another Korea-like situation. Can't fight. Can't leave. Even if we had quickly won the war and emplaced a US-friendly government in Iraq, it would forever be the enemy of most of the other nations in the area. Originally Posted by BPSCG Could you please give me some examples of the Democrats' ideas for how to beat Islamist fascism? I believe they were in favor of continuing our attack against Islamic fascists in Afghanistan and surrounding regions, which is where the Islamic fascists were actually located. They weren't in Iraq in any great number. With the resources we wasted in Iraq, we might be further along on that project now. We'd have more enthusiastic allies too, because they wouldn't be tainted by helping an aggressor. Pakistan might be more co-operative too. (You know, they condemned the invasion of Iraq, right?) Originally Posted by BPSCG Because all I can think of is Democratic resistance to the Patriot Act, resistance to warrantless wiretapping of phone calls that both originate and end outside the U.S., complaints that the administration was engaging in torture when they themselves knew full well what was going on in Guantanamo, and complaints that foreigners being held in U.S. custody weren't getting their full Constitutional rights. All things that made fighting the war more difficult. I'd say you have a selective memory. And don't make the mistake of thinking that all Democrats are far-left or were against all those things. Leave the "You're either with us or against us" rhetoric to Bush.

15th January 2009, 02:43 PM	#130
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Tricky Virtually all of the middle class have left, Tell that to all the shop-owners who have reopened for business now that al Qaeda in Iraq (with has nothing to do with al Qaeda or the war against Islamist terrorists, of course...) has been destroyed. Quote: And of course, we will never know what would have happened if we had let the UN finish their weapons inspections and simply keep the pressure on Saddam. Don't be silly, of course we do. Saddam would have died in bed of old age. Has the U.N. ever forced a dictator out of power anywhere? Originally Posted by BPSCG Whereas a good executive is one who recognizes that strategy A isn't working, so it's time to pack up and leave. The Democrats' position on the war was, "If at first you don't succeed, just give up." Originally Posted by Tricky No, they wanted to withdraw gradually... ...and now that the surge reversed the direction of the war, Obama is in a position to do just that, and there's actually a chance (far from a certainty, I'll be the first to admit) that there may be a truly democratic government in Iraq. Quote: As I discussed earlier, the "opposition party" was controlled by the jingoistic surge that was intentionally generated by the Bush administration and the neocons. The same neocons who called any Americans who spoke out against the war "traitors" Please show me anyone in the administration who said that. Please don't say "Ann Coulter" or I'll have to give you a laughing dog. Originally Posted by Tricky But "win" the war? The war was lost the moment it started. Wow. Even Harry Reid waited a couple of years before coming to that conclusion. And it turned out it was wrong. Originally Posted by Tricky Saddam is gone, but there is absolutely no guarantee that the new government will be our ally once the troops are gone. We've created another Korea-like situation. Can't fight. Can't leave. Even if we had quickly won the war and emplaced a US-friendly government in Iraq, it would forever be the enemy of most of the other nations in the area. Just like Israel, I guess... Originally Posted by Tricky I believe they were in favor of continuing our attack against Islamic fascists in Afghanistan and surrounding regions, which is where the Islamic fascists were actually located. So they were in favor of doing what the administration was doing anyway. When did, "Me, too" become a strategy? Quote: We'd have more enthusiastic allies too, because they wouldn't be tainted by helping an aggressor. Oh, dear, if only we hadn't invaded Iraq, the French would have sent 50,000 troops to Afghanistan. But Bush pricked that legendary French pique, alas. Please don't tell me you seriously believe that. Our so-called European allies didn't deign to lift a finger when Europeans were slaughtering other Europeans in Serbia. Why on Earth would you think they would do any heavy lifting in Asia? Quote: I'd say you have a selective memory. And don't make the mistake of thinking that all Democrats are far-left or were against all those things. Leave the "You're either with us or against us" rhetoric to Bush. Well, looking over your reply here, all I see is that the Democrats contribution to fighting Islamist terrorism was to say, "Yeah, we agree with Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan and kill Osama bin Laden." Well, at least it's a more substantive answer than I got out of Upchurch. Still waiting on Daredelvis.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

15th January 2009, 03:09 PM	#131
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Originally Posted by BPSCG Well, at least it's a more substantive answer than I got out of Upchurch. Is "I try not to legitimize straw man arguments" substantive enough for you?

15th January 2009, 03:28 PM	#132
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by BPSCG Well, looking over your reply here, all I see is that the Democrats contribution to fighting Islamist terrorism was to say, "Yeah, we agree with Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan and kill Osama bin Laden." That's unfair to Leiberman. Oh, wait...
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

15th January 2009, 10:57 PM	#133
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by bpscg because otherwise, you would have knocked my question out of the park like a batting practice fastball served up to barry bonds.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

16th January 2009, 02:03 AM	#134
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,438	Originally Posted by gdnp If Carter's attempted rescue of the Iranian hostages had been successful, the American people would have been wildly enthusiastic. Because it failed, it reinforced the perception of America as the toothless giant and people blamed Carter. I happened to catch a bit of an author discussing his book about the Rescue Mission and he had an interesting observation on CSPAN-3. The mission is considered an abject failure, but CIA estimates for a successful mission were up to 60% hostage fatalities. Mission success might not have been so warmly received if that happened. Originally Posted by Cicero They were indignant over our ICBM's stationed in Europe. {pedant} We never had ICBMs in Europe. {/pedant} Originally Posted by daredelvis Ahhh.... A second hand anecdote involving soccer hooligans. My personal experiences in Europe (including the land of the cheese eaters) would argue the opposite, but you have a much more colorful story. You only neglected to add the Q.E.D.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics. Last edited by UnrepentantSinner; 16th January 2009 at 02:04 AM.

16th January 2009, 04:45 AM	#135
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Heh - regarding one of the roadblocks the Dems threw in front of Bush - their screams that warrantless wiretaps were "spying on Americans." The Dems yelled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act demanded that the government get special warrants from the FISA court before it could start tapping phones. The Bush administration disagreed. And now, just in time for President Obama... Church Lady: "How very conveeeenient..." ...the FISA court itself has come down on Bush's side. Quote: In a major August 2008 decision released yesterday in redacted form, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, the FISA appellate panel, affirmed the government's Constitutional authority to collect national-security intelligence without judicial approval. The case was not made public before yesterday, and its details remain classified. An unnamed telecom company refused to comply with the National Security Agency's monitoring requests and claimed the program violated the Fourth Amendment's restrictions on search and seizure. But the Constitution bans only "unreasonable" search and seizure, not all searches and seizures, and the Fourth Amendment allows for exceptions such as those under a President's Article II war powers. The courts have been explicit on this point. In 1980, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Truong that "the Executive need not always obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance." The FISA appeals court said in its 2002 opinion In re Sealed Case that the President has "inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information" and took "for granted" that "FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." Quote: For all the political hysteria and media dishonesty about George W. Bush "spying on Americans," *this fight was never about anything other than staging an ideological raid on the President's war powers*. Barack Obama ought to be thankful that the FISA court has knocked the bottom out of this gambit, just in time for him to take office. Emphasis mine. Again, the Dems didn't do a damned thing to help win the war against the Islamist fascists, and did plenty to hamstring that war. link
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia. Last edited by BPSCG; 16th January 2009 at 05:23 AM.

16th January 2009, 04:46 AM	#136
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Upchurch Is "I try not to legitimize straw man arguments" substantive enough for you? shrug
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

16th January 2009, 04:48 AM	#137
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	the land of the ~~free~~ wiretapped
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

17th January 2009, 09:53 PM	#138
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 18,101	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney the land of the ~~free~~ wiretapped When did freedom and wiretapping become mutually exclusive?
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

17th January 2009, 09:57 PM	#139
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,370	Originally Posted by BPSCG It's good to know that with that damned cowboy ChimpBusHitler on his way out, the world is regaining its respect for America and her leaders. Photo caption: Link. Gee, he's not even in office yet. Are you trying to portrait that as a general Muslim response to Obama in light of the Israeli defense, or are you trying to point out a minority of dumb-wits with no point whatsoever?
	__________________

18th January 2009, 06:31 AM	#140
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Originally Posted by Travis When did freedom and wiretapping become mutually exclusive? When it is done in violation of the US Constitution.

18th January 2009, 07:07 AM	#141
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by Upchurch When it is done in violation of the US Constitution. Looks like it's not.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

18th January 2009, 01:17 PM	#142
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	That doesn't change the answer to Travis's question.

18th January 2009, 01:37 PM	#143
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Am I the only one who thinks that both the hopes AND the fears many Americans have of Obama's presidency are greatly exagerrated, and that he is seen as a force for "change" mostly for purely symbolic reasons -- i.e., his skin color -- not due to anything about his policies? Symbols are important, and having a Black US president who is eloquent (as in "speaks well", not in the partonizing sense of "Oh lookie, a black guy who doesn't speak Ebonics") is certainly a good thing, in itself. But symbols are not all-important. I predict that once the initial excitement and novelty wears off, Obama's policies will -- probably -- be seen as not so different than any other politician's, at least in most areas. To clarify, this is not criticism of Obama; I'm just saying that whether he'll be a good president or a bad one depends little on his symbolic status as the first black president or on his speech-making abilities.

18th January 2009, 01:49 PM	#144
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 18,101	Originally Posted by Upchurch When it is done in violation of the US Constitution. I suppose you are technically correct since the advent of un-constitutional wiretapping does lead to the loss of one's freedom to talk about plans to destroy the Heathen Pigs over the telephone. Lamentably it has not led to the loss of people's freedom to wear spandex when really fat. The Neo-Cons really dropped the ball on that part.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

18th January 2009, 03:00 PM	#145
AWPrime Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,929	Originally Posted by BPSCG By waging the unpopular, but critical war against Islamist terrorists, Bush made America unpopular (or perhaps more unpopular) around the rest of the world. Actually it was his lies and methods that caused the opinion switch. Heck G-Bay, showed that that administration simply abandoned vital principles. And the Iraq war looked more like GWB settling the score then any anti-terror war. Also its childish to assume that ones allies would never be critical.
AWPrime Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,929	__________________ Sir Arthur C. Clarke - "Any sufficiently advanced technology, to the uninformed observer, is indistinguishable from magic." c4ts - "Jesus loves the little children, Nice and fat and honey roasted..." Lancastic = Demonstrative of outstanding personal effort in the exposing of frauds. Rob Lister - "The enemy of my enemy probably tastes yummy. "

18th January 2009, 06:27 PM	#146
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,454	Originally Posted by gdnp Would you prefer "based on tenuous connections to the 9/11 hijackers that real or not in no way justified the cost in terms of US lives, US treasure, the lives or innocent Iraqi civilians?" What tenuous connections to the 9/11 hijackers?

18th January 2009, 06:39 PM	#147
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,454	Originally Posted by Tricky We remember all the scary stories they told us about how Saddam had WMDs and that he could strike us or our allies any moment. Who is "we"? I certainly don't remember that one. Quote: We remember the jingoistic fever pitch that the Bush administration built up, a fever so hot that to vote or speak against the war might get you labeled as a traitor. "You are either for us or against us", he said. I could have sworn that was in regards to the war in Afghanistan post-9/11 and not in regards to Iraq, but since "we" remember it I'm sure you'll have no trouble showing it to have actually happened.

18th January 2009, 06:44 PM	#148
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,380	Originally Posted by Wildcat Who is "we"? I certainly don't remember that one. Huh. It's weird how that totally passed you by. Were you hiding in a cave, perchance?
	__________________ Writing.com Account

18th January 2009, 06:46 PM	#149
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,454	Originally Posted by Upchurch Some of us remember better than others. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (...and then some of us have to google the transcripts) Bizarre. Exactly as I have said, that was regarding the war in Afghanistan post-9/11, not in regards to the Iraq war. But when "we" remember things, we should also remember that memory can be faukly. Except in your case the date was right there on the page you cited, which leads me to the conclusion you are simply being dishonest.

18th January 2009, 06:47 PM	#150
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,454	Originally Posted by Lonewulf Huh. It's weird how that totally passed you by. Were you hiding in a cave, perchance? Maybe you can do better than Upchurch and find a refernce to that being used in regard to the Iraq war.

18th January 2009, 06:54 PM	#151
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,380	Originally Posted by WildCat Maybe you can do better than Upchurch and find a refernce to that being used in regard to the Iraq war. Originally Posted by President Bush (April 7, 2006) But what wasn't wrong was Saddam Hussein had invaded a country, he had used weapons of mass destruction, he had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction, he was firing at our pilots. He was a state sponsor of terror. Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing for world peace and the security of our country. from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0...on-prewar.html That was after five seconds on google. Pretty sure I could find more direct quotes farther back, but I'd rather not waste time on this, as I fail to see what it has to do with much of anything, and it's pretty well-known that WMDs were a pretty important focus on the War on Iraq. I'm not sure why people like you get off on denying this, but whatever. Let's see if you change the goalposts here. For posterity: Originally Posted by Tricky We remember all the scary stories they told us about how Saddam had WMDs and that he could strike us or our allies any moment. Originally Posted by Wildcat Who is "we"? I certainly don't remember that one.
	__________________ Writing.com Account Last edited by Lonewulf; 18th January 2009 at 06:57 PM.

18th January 2009, 07:03 PM	#152
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,454	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner {pedant} We never had ICBMs in Europe. {/pedant} Might want to re-check your map. Most of the USSR was in Asia.

18th January 2009, 07:12 PM	#153
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,454	Originally Posted by Lonewulf from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0...on-prewar.html That was after five seconds on google. Pretty sure I could find more direct quotes farther back, but I'd rather not waste time on this, as I fail to see what it has to do with much of anything, and it's pretty well-known that WMDs were a pretty important focus on the War on Iraq. I'm not sure why people like you get off on denying this, but whatever. Except I wasn't commenting on WMDs, just Tricky and Upchurch's claim that the "with us or against us" part was about the war in Iraq. Don't believe me? Let's recap: Originally Posted by Upchurch Originally Posted by Tricky No, our memories aren't short. We remember the build-up to the war. We remember all the scary stories they told us about how Saddam had WMDs and that he could strike us or our allies any moment. We remember the jingoistic fever pitch that the Bush administration built up, a fever so hot that to vote or speak against the war might get you labeled as a traitor. "You are either for us or against us", he said. Some of us remember better than others. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (...and then some of us have to google the transcripts) All clear now? Originally Posted by Lonewulf Let's see if you change the goalposts here. For posterity: There was no goalpost changing involved, just your inability to understand what was being discussed.
	Last edited by WildCat; 18th January 2009 at 07:14 PM.

18th January 2009, 07:14 PM	#154
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by Lonewulf from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0...on-prewar.html Originally Posted by Bush Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing for world peace and the security of our country. ... Let's see if you change the goalposts here. For posterity: Originally Posted by Tricky We remember all the scary stories they told us about how Saddam had WMDs and that he could strike us or our allies any moment. Notice something missing from the Bush quote which is contained within Tricky's claim? (Hint: I bolded it for you).
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law Last edited by Ziggurat; 18th January 2009 at 07:15 PM.

18th January 2009, 07:15 PM	#155
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,380	Originally Posted by WildCat Except neither Tricky nor Upchurch was speaking of WMDs, but of the "with us or against us" part which had nothing at all to do with the war in Iraq, as they both claimed. Don't believe me? Let's recap: All clear now? There was no goalpost changing involved, just your inability to understand what was being discussed. Originally Posted by Tricky We remember all the scary stories they told us about how Saddam had WMDs and that he could strike us or our allies any moment. That was exactly what you responded to, ergo, it was what was being discussed, and I mocked your reaction to that particular slice. To put it in perspective for those that actually can pay attention: Tricky said something. You cut that part off and responded to it in particular. I took your response and responded to it in particular. Keep twisting, Wildcat. You totally don't look foolish in attempting to cover up your mistake. Meanwhile, I consider throwing your dishonest ass onto my ignore list. It's not the first time you've lied. Either that, or you're just that incompetent at realizing what "what's being discussed" actually means, in which case, it's not the first time you've been grossly incompetent in a discussion.
	__________________ Writing.com Account Last edited by Lonewulf; 18th January 2009 at 07:16 PM.