Off Topic Messages

Do you agree with what Cindy Sheehan is doing?

I totally agree that she is doing the right thing
13
41%
I understand her grief but she is going about it all wrong
9
28%
I think she's nuts and I'm tired of seeing her face on the news
10
31%
 
Total votes : 32

Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:10 pm

Hey Greg, gotta run some errands, but to keep Doc at bay I will be back. :lol:

In looking over likethebike's "they are all rumors" I can only shake my head. A cop only has to have suspicion. The days for waiting are over. Nuclear bombs being launched is not something to ignore. I rather they be wrong, then to wait for the results. Sadaam had plenty of opportunity to curb this and he showed in every way he simply didn't care.

Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:11 pm

Again, there seems to be different sets of "facts" out there.

Will history be as kind to the President about his decision?

We shall see.

A new 'democratic' Iraq, led by those who supported the
Ahyahtolla Khomeini in the '80s? A civil war?

Nice going, George. Maybe Saddam wasn't so bad after all.

I really hope you prove to be right about this sinkhole, Gene'.

I don't think our soldiers should spend too much more time there.

It's not worth it.

Thu Sep 01, 2005 2:20 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Scatter wrote:However, I'm certain you have the honesty to admit, My cut-n-paste posts are very minimal ...

Do you have the minimal honesty to admit to being a hypocrite?

DJC


What the hell are you talking about?? My posts are very rarely of the cut and paste variety. Anyone can check and see your ignorance on this point. You do little else than cut-n-paste as original thought is beyond your capacity. You are a petulant child.Fortunately.......petulant children are amusing. :lol:

Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:54 am

Greg I don't agree at all. There is nothing wrong with democracy. Saddam was a very bad thing, and the current trend is a vast improvement.

Yes we shall have to wait and see. But a war shouldn't be about how much time, but accomplishing the mission. When you consider other wars, we have vastly less casualties, and that is after a major invasion!! No one likes war, but sometimes it is an unavoidable problem. It is absolutely worth it for our continued freedom. Funny how if it went fast, then that would have been ok and Bush would have been raised up to the highest pedestal. That is completely sad thinking, and unfortunately with the MTV generation it is the only way they see it. Quick and cut, or nothing at all.

Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:41 am

Well, like I said, I'll leave it to smarter people than myself to continue
this debate, but how you conflate my remarks with thinking that I
said there is "something wrong with democracy" is as good reason
as any to bow out while my hands still have the strength. :roll:

I'm wary of the "short-attention span" that now plagues America in some
ways, but I'm not sure if that's the case here. It's comforting
to use this as the excuse for the growing discomfort with a
war which we were assured would be quick and easy, complete
with a Iraqi populace we thought would be glad to see the big bad bully gone.

Instead, it's complete chaos and America will only give so many of its sons
and daughters to these tribes before they say:"You know what, George,
I don't care, bring 'em home." Personally, I think that would register
as a lost war, so let's not have that happen.

And as LTB reminds us, let's retire some of our assumptions about how
we were "there to help." I just don't know anymore and after Vietnam,
Watergate, WWI and even the failed response to this Hurricane, (etc.)
how we have such blind faith in our leaders I'll never know.

But, if nothing else, Genesim, don't trivialize those you disagree with.

You may think they are homosexuals and hippies, but I think you'll
find that there is a big cross-section of America that is troubled by the
government's priorities.

Listen to your critics, Genesim, and you're
arguments will be better honed and, on occasion, you might learn
something.

We're only on a Elvis messageboard :roll: : it's okay to relax and
engage in possibly being wrong.

If you are as certain as you act here, I am truly concerned. It's
okay to be wrong sometimes. The President may not have to admit
that, but here on this board, why not eat a little humble pie once
in a while?

I mean that not as a put-down, but as a hopefully gentle rejoinder from a
fellow Elvis fan - and human being.

That you say we should "wait and see" at least shows you are
showing signs of being open-minded. I'll grant that.

And I can tell from your comments that you are in your way
thoughtful and passionate about justice, which is to be commended.
I don't want to go too far in that, but I can't deny you have a sense
of right and wrong...

In respect to the folks down South - and to the 1000 Iraqis apparently
killed in that stampede in Baghdad today, I'm bowing out here for now.
Later,
Greg Nolan
Last edited by Gregory Nolan Jr. on Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thu Sep 01, 2005 7:51 am

You may think they are homosexuals


I take great offense to this crap, and I will thank you to apologize to me because I have never once even implied this.

As far as the rest. I feel that I am right, and there is nothing wrong with that. Though you are completely wrong in stating that I am not open to ideas.

The problem is that no one refutes my facts. They cannot debate a subject. When I bring up my basis, they either A. personal attack or B. ignore.

If someone brings up a counter, then I counter. If disproven, I would happily admit it. Case in point, Likethebike brought up my error in Clinton having criminal charges. I had said it so much that it sounded like it went along with the Paula Jones case. He straightened me out on this by pointing out that it was a civil case.

As far as the Democracy comment, this one in direct retort to this statement:

A new 'democratic' Iraq, led by those who supported the
Ahyahtolla Khomeini in the '80s? A civil war?

Nice going, George. Maybe Saddam wasn't so bad after all.


The official was elected as fairly as he could be in the situation. I do believe that this is better then having a murdering dictator. PERIOD

I never once said that you didn't believe in Democracy, I stated that the democratic way was better then the mentioned DICTATOR!

As far as eating humble pie. Give me something to eat, and I shall. As it stands, you want me to eat even if it isn't my own. There is nothing wrong with sticking to my thoughts regarding evidence before me. Dissprove the evidence, then I shall reexamine. You make too many assumptions, yet you say how compassionate I am. Do you think that this would also stretch to how I came to the conclusion to begin with?

Look at the facts as I have many times. I didn't just stumble into my beliefs. With every vote I spent many hours thinking about my decision.

Thu Sep 01, 2005 7:52 am

Scatter wrote:What the hell are you talking about??

You should use this line for nearly all of your posts, as your comprehension is usually suspect.

You may find the definition of "hypocrite" on line.

Read and learn!

DJC

Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:25 am

It would be a very sad day (pop to)if the folk in the services never got the suport they would need from there folks.


My uncles and some cousins fought in conflicks (wars),and no matter the personal view,yee or nee on it,they got what they should always get = support.


Just a view.

Thu Sep 01, 2005 3:55 pm

Carolyn excellent point. With Cindy this is probably the case and as another pointed out, after it is all over, a grieving mother will be left behind with her loss. G.W. Bush saw her twice, and there is simply nothing more he can do for her. Her son made the choice...twice. Contrary to popular belief, the armed forces are not a picnic for paying your College way, it is for killing people. There is no nice way to put it. The best case scenario is that the soldiers can bluff the enemy, but sooner or later force is applied.

I myself feel proud for the men and women that have served and for their efforts in volunteering for the cause. As others have pointed out(repeatedly :roll: ), they have gone the extra step as I have not. I can only wish them a better end then those that have perished. Those fallen soldiers will never be forgotten in my eyes. This war is one of the most importent ones ever fought.

Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:41 pm

Genesim:

Perhaps I readily conflated the comments I've heard on this board
of others (Gardener, etc.) that veer towards the personal, such as
calling Doc a "fag" or a "proctologist."
:roll: If I'm wrong on you joining in on
that, I apologize. I thought I saw you joining in with it, sort of
being in that "Amen" corner. I have, however,
seen you play the silly "hippie" card, which is a distortion of
most of the anti-war critics and mainly a debating tactic.
And I don't even like the "hippies." (I wouldn't trust them, the few
that exist, to defend this nation, not at all. )

In general, your taking "offense" at this "crap" is
comical when one considers how much crap you spew
on this board in the last few years.
Aren't we sensitive all of a sudden?
We all lose it on here occasionally,but you have done it
regularly in the past. Your response to me is your trademark,
typical egocentric, "the world-according-to-me
and George Bush" that has grown so tiresome.

As for "democracy," you may welcome the election of an
Iran-friendly radical cleric as President,
but students of real politik think this has in no way made us "safer."
"Period" as you would say. It's quite a gamble.

It's naive to use the battlecry of "democracy over dictatorship." You'd
better role up your sleeves because there's a lot of dictatorships
to topple. And that's not what the USA was supposed to be about.


And I conceded that you are open to ideas- just not too often.
I was trying to be charitable. You may
protest, but you are quite rigid, judging from reading your comments
over time. Again, just my opinion, but I"m guessing I'm not alone
in that assessment.

It's okay to be firm in your convictions, but take it down a notch.

I've seen plenty of people refute your facts and, yes, engage in
spirited debates. You are way too quick to assume that you "win"
these debates. :lol: It makes it hard to agree with you when you are
so blindingly partisan and dismissive of anyone but those who agree
with you.

I can't be making this perception up. I wish I was wrong.
I've tried to appeal to your better nature.
I'm a fairly-even handed guy.
You can take it or (as you of course will) leave it.

As for "humble pie", I use that as an illustration. You frankly
should be more humble.
You come off as a misanthropic know-it-all.

I'm not going to go on and on, but I predict you will attempt to dismantle
my response - and then tell us how you succeeded. :roll:

Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:24 pm

If someone is going to take offense at hippies...that is comical. I am referring to the "me" generation from the 60's that still plague this board to this day. Still it is only a type, but hardly indicative of calling someone a HOMOPHOBE!! I have never said Amen to someone being called a "fag". Although it would be interesting to go back and see where you were confused, for the record the AMEN or WORD would have to do with the post directly above, and not all that came before it. :roll:

Your blanket statements are yes very offensive. I don't recall proctologist ever being used either...are you making this up as you go? Though I have no doubt called him an Assshole if that is what you mean. I could fathom this, but this is hardly the same as you imply.

As far as the "crap I spew". When have I ever called people names other then the two on this board that completely deserve it? Even then I usually choose to go the other way. Not only is it not my style, but it is a waste of time. My usual response is "there you go getting personal again", of course it rarely does any good.

To wrap this part up. Be careful of what you accuse. I am glad you apologized, but the facts are that stating such things like implying some homophobia is downright low...especially when I know I haven't even implied it EVER! If you want to conflate the ideas of individual posters then you are no better then the things you accuse me of. But get one thing straight. I know who I am debating with and I know thier ideas. I would never accuse Likethebike of the BS tactics that the Doc has done. As much as I disagree with likethebike of late, I don't ever recall him making personal accusations toward me or calling me a "stump". That is the difference. You should watch this behavior because you are tearing down someone's character with no just reason. What is to stop the next person..or a newbie from coming along and assuming that I stand for what you just hung on my shouldier?

Now, I have argued in fact, and you choose to ignore this. The world according to me and George Bush??? How about the world according to reality!

Again, look at the commission report, look at the Grand Jury testimony, look a the facts that lay before your face before making judgement on me. All I see typed day in and day out are attacks on ME personally rather then combatting the facts that I presented.

As far as me being rigid. I have apologized on far more occasions then my opposition and I have done so when proven wrong.

Now lets talk about rigid. Other then a few more republicans there are very little on this board. Take a look at this thread itslef. Perhaps maybe it is people like you that are rigid in your thinking for not at least examining why I have come to my conclusions. There is nothing wrong with standing up for your beliefs, but when you can't back up an argument it is pretty shaky ground.

For example, what burns me up is when someone points out that a document like the 9/11 commission report "proves" that there are no links between Iraq and Al Queda. At the same time I show how the report itself shows many links. So then someone states....well those are all rumours. Well then how can you trust the f*cking report to begin with?

Who says that I haven't questioned Bush's decision myself in the past? You make far too many assumptions about me without first taking a look at my character on this board. My "rigid"ness came from the belief that I have taken all evidence into account and have formed my own opinion. I stick to my beliefs till proven wrong. You see this is where I differ from most on the board. I don't base my decisions on feelings. True it is natural to doubt, doesn't mean I paste it everywhere based on a wiggle of a hair on my neck. Why is this all considered just George Bush's war? Why is it that if I support the decision that I am rigid??? Did you ever think that it could be the right thing to do even if it doesn't SEEM like the popular thing right now???

Everytime I hear about it all being HIS war, it makes me angry. Congress declares war...BOTTOM LINE. There was a vote and the democrats alike supported the war. John Kerry himself voted for it to pass.

Getting back

It's naive to use the battlecry of "democracy over dictatorship." You'd better role up your sleeves because there's a lot of dictatorships
to topple.


One war at a time. Democracy should always be chosen over a dictatorship. There is nothing naive about it. It has been proven to be successful time and time again. In the case of Iraq it is a no-brainer.

Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:29 pm

Fair enough, Genesim. We'll never see eye to eye on this war
(maybe the overall war on terrorism) but I apologize for apparently
throwing you in with those who go negative.

Let's get back to Elvis or something.

Peace,
GN

Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:58 pm

Its all good. I didn't think your intentions were bad, or I wouldn't have wasted my time writing the response that I did. I appologize for the "democracy" part. I can see how that came out wrong. I am sure you support democracy and do not favor a dictatorship. I never meant it that way.


Although I still wouldn't mind you commenting on this:

For example, what burns me up is when someone points out that a document like the 9/11 commission report "proves" that there are no links between Iraq and Al Queda. At the same time I show how the report itself shows many links. So then someone states....well those are all rumours. Well then how can you trust the f*cking report to begin with?


What kills me is that this same logic is applied to the Clinton having Bin Laden's head on a platter. likethebike stated that that was also rumours...and when I post a direct quote from Clinton himself stating the fact that the situation did indeed exist and it wasn't just propigated by the Suddanese government as he suggests, there is no response to it, but instead a slur of attacks on Bush that had nothing to do with the debate to begin with!

Thu Sep 01, 2005 6:51 pm

Again, you prove to be a reasonable sort and I appreciate your tone,
Genesim.

Well, it is true that the Bin Laden thing goes back to the Clinton
administration. Both administrations can be said to have missed
the chance to nail both him and Mohammed Atta and friends.
No heads have really rolled after the biggest attack on the US
ever. Sad, really. Even a symbolic firing of, say, Norman Minetta,
would have suited me fine.

I personally haven't read the 9/11 report. Have you?
I've heard it is a good read, and it sold well, reading like a novel, or
so they say. I thought the consensus was about all the "missed opportunities" and failure to "x, y, and z" before 9/11.

Sounds rather bland to me and the recent "Able Danger" controversy apparently was left out of the report, which was (I think) about how Atta was inthe cross-hairs but no one listened to those who said "there's
a terrorist among us," etc. It's been alleged that the report was
politicized by leaving this out.

From what I know about the WMD and Iraq controversy, it is still
very politicized on both sides and hard to wade through.

It does seem, however, that the most say that Bush has not
proved that the imminent danger of WMDs was there, and worse,
lied about it -the later being harder to prove.

The Pro-Bush response seems to be that, well, maybe he trucked the stuff off to Syriaor something. And besides, he was a ticking time-bomb, etc.

And a democracy of sorts would be good to have in the Middle East
anyway as a bulwark against extremism. And now look at all the cretinous jihadist insurgents crawling out of and into Iraq: might as well face 'em down, etc.

Like I said, historians will have to sort this all out. Right now, we're
too close to the flame and partisanship makes it hard to make
sense of definitively. We'll all take better stock of Iraq war in
a few years, whether we pull the plug and go home or stick around
and make it all finally function.

Many on both sides already have their minds made up.

Thu Sep 01, 2005 7:07 pm

Yes I had skimmed through the report and that is why I found this paste to begin with. I was struck at the time at how many Iraq references there were. My train example was most evident.

As far as Bush lying...I am still waiting. What was the lie?

That there were ever WMD? Well we didn't know, and he couldn't have known, but the fact that UN inspectors were kicked out repeatedly makes one wonder.

The fact that we haven't found any? Well that doesn't mean a damn thing. There are a number of reasons for this. It took a while to invade, they could be burried...the could be dismantled and destroyed..etc.

Did Bush state this as the only reason for invasion...NOPE he did not.

You say lied about it later? WHEN!!! He actually said that his intelligence could have been flawed and it didn't matter. He had the capacity to make the weapons and he had made a decision based on that. In every speech he stated before and after...we believed that he had them...BELIEVED. Why is this all Bush's fault? Congress declares war right? Congress takes a vote for war right?? Bush is a spokesman for the itelligence he is given. There are a number of people that have backed him up. That includes many generals. Where is the LIE???

Bush made things clear. We have gone to war because of one reason. Sadaam Hussein's refused to cooperate with the U.S.A. We gave him a warning about the safety of the U.S.A. and asked him to disarm and he ignored it. That is war anyway you slice it. Did he once jump up and say...NO NO, you got us all wrong...we do not have weapons and we don't ever intend to use them.

Thu Sep 01, 2005 7:10 pm

Like I said, it's still murky. I'd like to see others' responses to your post.

Thu Sep 01, 2005 7:24 pm

Right. I was just wondering what YOU thought.

Thu Sep 01, 2005 7:42 pm

That's what I mean. Everything is so black and white for you.

I support the troops and want us to win.

But I'm troubled what the opposition says. And the results
are hardly inspiring so far.

I sincerely look forward to historians having the full-view years
from now in summing up the merits of this war and the claims
of both sides.

I'm not being evasive. I just don't know. :shock: :D

Thu Sep 01, 2005 8:09 pm

Actaully I am speaking of the report. Yes it does have to do with committing. There is nothing wrong with doubt, but for goodness sake how about a little faith in the evidence that is presented.

Can you at least see how I have come to my conclusions? Can you not see how the otherside is a bit shaky???

I said the 9/11 report was flawed. I have stated why I have come to this answer. Does it prove the Al Queda and Iraq ties alone..NO. Perhaps nothing will unless we see pictures of Bin Laden and Sadaam kissing....even then it would be doubted.

But like Bush said, and I will repeat it. The world is a better place without Sadaam Hussein in power. That is black and white to me. Know doubt about it. The Iraq people are better off for it.

Every day I see a protest walking down the street on the news, I think of two things. Why are the U.S. soldiers not in view? and Gee they must feel pretty damn safe to do it!!!!

We are making progress, but many are just refusing to see it. Thats ok. When it is more blatant, then they will see. Its unfortunate that the Hurricane hit at all. It really was a backset. Asside from the complete tragedy it is currently, it is just another excuse for the opposition to tear down our president.

Incidently, I didn't need historian to tell me that Reagan did a good job. I knew that at the time. I base my opinions on my own head...not just what other people think.

Thu Sep 01, 2005 8:23 pm

Well, historians themselves would largely think that even the Reagan era is too close to call in terms of what history will say.

It's not about needing to be told. I'm not going to sit here
and explain how the craft and discipline of history works.

I still think you are being way too rosy about this war. But you make
some interesting points. Like I said, I look forward to others responding to you.

And I bet a lot of people who aren't responding agree with at least that.
And I'm not sure how true it is that the world is a better place
without Hussein. The lid's really coming off over there now,
and the Muslim world trust us even less than before.

Ironically, save for the pissing match we got into with him,
he was at least a secular thug, not a religious nut.

This is going to get interesting.

Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:08 pm

I have no arguement against that. If you aren't sure, then it can't be helped. Hussein was Hitler..just without the power to expand. I don't care whethere they trust us or not. All I care is that if we come to inspect then the doors will be open. After this is over, you can bet that a lot more cooperation will be at hand.

As far as Reagan, he crushed the Soviets and they are no longer the power that they were. This cannot be denied.

Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:35 pm

Historians would have a hard time believing Hussein merits mention
with Hitler - be they from the left or right.

Bin Laden arguably has more business in such a sentence, but not
Saddam.

Likewise, most concede that Reagan alone did not alone end the Cold War.
He was a key force, even decisive (some would say) but such
absolute terms trivialize other factors and figures.

Life is just not that simple, Genesim.

Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:37 pm

Who said it was? Hussein was stopped before it got worse. His capacity was on par with Hitler, we just didn't sit back and wait for it to happen again.

Reagan as you say, was instrumental. History will treat him kind. Life can be that simple.

Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:57 pm

Reagan's legacy will be enormous.

Still, the Hitler/Hussein thing really is a bit rich.

Thu Sep 01, 2005 10:05 pm

And do you know why that is? Because he has been taken out of power! Still the genocide that did happen from ONE MAN was enormous. Or do you think that 300,000 people dead from mass extermination is to little?