Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 78 of 78
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Gawd your comparison's are pathetic. Americans, as in ALL Americans sacrificed for the effort in WWII. The Iraq conflict has asked nothing of the average US citizen. Years into WWII the entire country was united in it's effort. Years into the Iraq conflict over 60% of US citizens question it's goals as opposed to at the beginning. You're not even comparin apples and oranges you're comparing apples and pugs.
    At least provide me the courtesy of reading my post before you launch into your diatribes. In the beginning, i.e. before the attack on Pearl Harbor, American public opinion was very divided on whether we should be involved in the war. Polls showed that FDR supporters were more likely to favor our aiding England in the war. Those who opposed FDR were less likely to support our involvement. It took a tragedy like Pearl Harbor to galvanize public opinion. Does any of this sound familiar?
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Let's compare goals. The war for American Independence was one begun by the land's citizen's to break free of an oppressive colonial empire.

    The Iraq invasion is an artificial "liberation" in the name of global economic competition.

    Sad that you would put the two in the same basket. Very sad.
    LOL. You've got that exactly backwards.

    Despite what your third grade teacher might have told you about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the American Revolution was about TAXES and TRADE. Nothing noble about it.

    Saddam was the oppressive tyrant. He committed genocide. He tortured and murdered his opponents. The Iraqis would have been lucky to have the freedoms enjoyed by colonial Americans.

    You are right that the two don't really compare.


    As for associating the Iraq war with "global economic competition," I have no idea where that comes from. I've heard the oil angle before from some obscure House Democrats, but global economic competition?
  3.    #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    LOL. You've got that exactly backwards.

    Despite what your third grade teacher might have told you about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the American Revolution was about TAXES and TRADE. Nothing noble about it.

    Saddam was the oppressive tyrant. He committed genocide. He tortured and murdered his opponents. The Iraqis would have been lucky to have the freedoms enjoyed by colonial Americans.

    You are right that the two don't really compare.


    As for associating the Iraq war with "global economic competition," I have no idea where that comes from. I've heard the oil angle before from some obscure House Democrats, but global economic competition?
    Think Europeans economic competition and the Euro and OPEC.
  4.    #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    At least provide me the courtesy of reading my post before you launch into your diatribes. In the beginning, i.e. before the attack on Pearl Harbor, American public opinion was very divided on whether we should be involved in the war. Polls showed that FDR supporters were more likely to favor our aiding England in the war. Those who opposed FDR were less likely to support our involvement. It took a tragedy like Pearl Harbor to galvanize public opinion. Does any of this sound familiar?

    It's exactly the opposite of Iraq. Iraq started with high support then went down.
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It's exactly the opposite of Iraq. Iraq started with high support then went down.
    I'm sorry. I'm not going to give you a recap of the whole thread.
  6.    #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I'm sorry. I'm not going to give you a recap of the whole thread.
    Thanks. I owe you one then.
  7. #67  
    You bet.
  8.    #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    You bet.
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    The Democrats need to get off the "failed policy" crap. The freedom of speech is one thing, but when people like Kennedy and Pelosi and Boxer are spewing stuff that even they know is inaccurate just for the sake of the upcoming elections then they need to be called out.
    But I guess it's OK for the Bush administration to spew stuff they know is inaccurate? BS. Nobody lies better than the Bushies. That, and the unswavoring loyalty of conservative republicans unable to think for themselves, are the only reasons Bush's popularity numbers aren't down in the single digits.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  10. #70  
    And today we find out where the real traitors are. In our own military, where someone gave the Russians detailed information on our military plans in Iraq. After which, the Ruskies turned the info over to the Iraqis:

    http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...2/1013/48HOURS

    http://www.slate.com/id/2138717/
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    But I guess it's OK for the Bush administration to spew stuff they know is inaccurate? BS. Nobody lies better than the Bushies. That, and the unswavoring loyalty of conservative republicans unable to think for themselves, are the only reasons Bush's popularity numbers aren't down in the single digits.
    I'm not sure that liberal democrats are better at thinking for themselves. I'm certainly not "loyal" to Bush; I recognize that they've screwed up Iraq, and have done a poor job on other fronts. But I also see how liberals have been trained into a campaign of hate and distrust. Michael Moore began the "Bush lied" mantra several years ago, and repeated it until its definition finally morphed in the minds of liberals to fit the situation.

    Saying something you know isn't true (such as "Nobody lies better than the Bushies.") is a lie. Being wrong about something isn't. But liberals have this ends-justifies-the-means mentality about lying themselves, and ironically have no problem making up accusations about lying, based not on facts, but on a combination of distrust and wishful thinking.

    The premise of most liberal political arguments these days seems to be "Bush is evil." Everything else flows from that. Anyone who doesn't accept this black & white view of the world is rejected as a right-wing loyalist. There's so much hate seething on the left. No one can make good judgements with such a strong emotional bias.

    If you can't list five things Bush has done right in five years, your thinking is hobbled by emotional bias.
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    And today we find out where the real traitors are. In our own military, where someone gave the Russians detailed information on our military plans in Iraq. After which, the Ruskies turned the info over to the Iraqis:

    http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...2/1013/48HOURS

    http://www.slate.com/id/2138717/
    Speaking of making up accusations without facts...

    Why do people do that?

    At this point, it hasn't been made clear how the information was given to the Russians, whether it was through spying, illegally disclosing classified information, sharing of information with a supposed ally, spreading of disinformation, or something else entirely. Yet the accusations come fast from the left.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    And today we find out where the real traitors are. In our own military, where someone gave the Russians detailed information on our military plans in Iraq. After which, the Ruskies turned the info over to the Iraqis:

    http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...2/1013/48HOURS

    http://www.slate.com/id/2138717/
    Man....the whole thing states Russians leaked information. There is no mention of any concerns, at the moment at least, of US giving intel out. The article you cited even says:

    In addition, it remains unclear how much of the information was genuine intelligence and how much involved passing on educated guesswork about American intentions, the likes of which was occurring simultaneously on internationally broadcast media accounts featuring retired military experts.
    How do you get "And today we find out where the real traitors are. In our own military, where someone gave the Russians detailed information on our military plans in Iraq" from that? Unless you are trying to spin unkown or made up facts for any personal bias or agenda.

    I have already quoted several additional sources yesterday about this development here: CLICKY CLICKY
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 03/26/2006 at 01:26 AM.
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    But I guess it's OK for the Bush administration to spew stuff they know is inaccurate? BS. Nobody lies better than the Bushies. That, and the unswavoring loyalty of conservative republicans unable to think for themselves, are the only reasons Bush's popularity numbers aren't down in the single digits.
    Gee, I guess I can't argue with that.
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Gee, I guess I can't argue with that.
    Except for maybe:

    "I have never had sexual relations with that woman" or "It depends on what the definition of Is is".

    Dems spew about Bush lies from everything from him personally orchestrating the attacks on 9/11 to W being responsible for creating Katrina and personally guiding it to hit NO because it is a majority black population. Obviously I am being sarcastic (except the orchestrating the 9/11 attacks as they are real claims that have been made from far left liberals)....

    ...but the point is ALL Politicians lie and distort the truth for their own personal agenda. Sometimes history has proven that such action was justified while a vast majority is driven by self interest or hardline party benefit without much thought to the well being of the people. The dems have more than their fair share of lies and inaccuracies surround 9/11 and Iraq as Bush does. I personally see the scale pretty well balanced. A major factor I look at is who has been consistent and who have wavered with the shifting waves of political opportunities.

    As far as the claim "That, and the unswavoring loyalty of conservative republicans unable to think for themselves".....it is yet again a perfect political Ad-lib line. You can put Liberals in there and it would be no less true. Both have blind loyalists that cannot look to anything beyond their own party, the days talking points, or personal loyalties.
  16. #76  
    Of course. But, as I'm sure you're aware, if a person makes an a priori assumption that I am a mindless Bush supporter who can't think for myself then that person is unlikely to consider the merits of any argument that I present. Therefore, "can't argue with that."

    It is ironic that people who repeat such mantras are doing so without thought.
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    That was the smoke and mirrors to sell the invasion to the public. It's hard to say to the working poor, "We're going to use your children's bodies to protect this economy which benefits the richest 1% of the populace."

    It's even harder to conceptualize this without sounding like a conspiracist but it is the simple cold hard truth of the situation.
    Da...Were you interviewed for this ABC piece? If not I thought I would share it as it may help you gain a few more theories to add your pool:

    Some Ask, Were Aliens or Bush Behind 9-11?
    Conspiracy Theorist Immune to the Widespread Support for War on Terror

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91744&page=1
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 03/26/2006 at 10:31 PM.
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Were you interviewed for this ABC piece? If not I thought I would share it as it may help you gain a few more theories to add your pool:

    Some Ask, Were Aliens or Bush Behind 9-11?
    Conspiracy Theorist Immune to the Widespread Support for War on Terror

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91744&page=1
    Those guys are silly! Everyone knows it was the Mossad.
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions