I am new here so I thought I start off with a few thoughts about things I don't understand about the left. Why must our children be protected from Christmas, santa, Christ, but halloween, the devil, witchs, and goblins are fine? Why do they get mad at a clerk saying merry christmas, but will defend as art a guy who hangs santa from a tree? Why do they complain about the human rights suffering under a dictator, and then throw a sissy fit when that dictator gets overthrown? Why does the left claim to defend free speech then try to shout down those they disagree with? Why is the only solution to the debt raising taxes, never control of spending? Why all this sympathy for a murderer, but none for an unborn child? Why is Thomas considered extreme, but Ginsberg is ok? Why all this complaining about the treatment of terrorist but no complaints about those suffering in N Korea, or Iran? Just a few random questions to start things off.

dh

Originally posted by data66
I am new here so I thought I start off with a few thoughts about things I don't understand about the left. Why must our children be protected from Christmas, santa, Christ, but halloween, the devil, witchs, and goblins are fine? Why do they get mad at a clerk saying merry christmas, but will defend as art a guy who hangs santa from a tree? Why do they complain about the human rights suffering under a dictator, and then throw a sissy fit when that dictator gets overthrown? Why does the left claim to defend free speech then try to shout down those they disagree with? Why is the only solution to the debt raising taxes, never control of spending? Why all this sympathy for a murderer, but none for an unborn child? Why is Thomas considered extreme, but Ginsberg is ok? Why all this complaining about the treatment of terrorist but no complaints about those suffering in N Korea, or Iran? Just a few random questions to start things off.

Wow.

I've seen ridiculous strawmen before....but this guy has built a strawARMY.

My strawmen use flamethrowers!

but very much off topic. I'd say most politicans serve themselves rather than anything else, but that is just me.

dh

why hate anyone? Why waste time?

dh

But they still lost to the tin men.

Originally posted by data66
why hate anyone? Why waste time?

dh

Why anything?

Why concoct nonsensical strawmen and talk of having "sissy fits" over dictators being overthrown and of "protecting children from Christmas" (whatever the fuck that is supposed to denote...?!?!?!?!?)

Talk about a goddamned waste of time.......

Data, don't expect answers. You're new, but you'll figure out in about 2 minutes who's who.

Generally, if you see the f word used, you made a good point.

Good questions, especially the one about Thomas and Ginsburg.

many good questions data... don't expect any libbies to take them seriously though... expect them to laugh it off... but watch them not answer.

I think I'll take a stab at answering these.

Why must our children be protected from Christmas, santa, Christ, but halloween, the devil, witchs, and goblins are fine?

It is not children being protected from Christmas, only parents can do that. And plenty of conservatives howl about halloween, for much the same reasons.

Why do they get mad at a clerk saying merry christmas, but will defend as art a guy who hangs santa from a tree?

Because the only art that really needs defending is the art that is not in the mainstream that others will attack.

Why do they complain about the human rights suffering under a dictator, and then throw a sissy fit when that dictator gets overthrown?

This is a pretty legitimate straw man. First prove that a majority of liberals did this. Minority sects can say anything. You should hear what some of your conservative buddies are saying.

Why does the left claim to defend free speech then try to shout down those they disagree with?

Oh, probably the same reason you righties made four threads to compete with mine. I love that thread, by the way, keep it up guys!

Why is the only solution to the debt raising taxes, never control of spending?

Well, in this particular case, many of your conservative buddies will probably agree that President Bush seems incapable of controlling spending. He is also cutting taxes at the same time, absolutely destroying any semblance of reducing the debt. I think Democrats are just trying to reverse the trend, at least in one direction. I've heard some on the left actually clamoring for controls on spending, but most of the rest of Congress just doesn't listen to them.

Why all this sympathy for a murderer, but none for an unborn child?

Murderers have had lives, unborn children have not. Please don't tell me you have sympathy for all the mushrooms you eat.

Why is Thomas considered extreme, but Ginsberg is ok?

I really don't know. I haven't followed the Supreme Court debates for awhile now. Maybe someone else here can help me out on this point?

Why all this complaining about the treatment of terrorist but no complaints about those suffering in N Korea, or Iran?

They do complain. Just not as loudly. Probably because President Bush will take it as his signal to invade.

Originally posted by Decka
... don't expect any libbies to take them seriously though...

An entirely appropriate warning.

Originally posted by Freethinker
An entirely appropriate warning.

don't think that me admitting you won't take it seriously some how "exaults" you.. it's like me admitting shit will smell bad... its an unfortunate occurance that is going to take place..

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is Thomas considered extreme, but Ginsberg is ok?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thomas is considered extreme by the left and Ginsberg is considered extreme by the right. Ergo, both are considered extreme. A complete non-point.

Welcome aboard data66.

Your questions were thought provoking as can be seen by the number of comments in so short a period.

Sedan
While Ginzberg is considered extreme by the right, the right does not use the hateful, vitriolic language in speaking about him that the left uses when speaking about Thomas.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why must our children be protected from Christmas, santa, Christ, but halloween, the devil, witchs, and goblins are fine?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christmas is a Christian holiday so it must be attacked because Christians are evil and must be put in their place.

Halloween is a pagan holiday and since pagans are not Christians anything associated with them is good.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do they get mad at a clerk saying merry christmas, but will defend as art a guy who hangs santa from a tree?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See above. The hanging Santa is an anti-Christmas expression so it must be protected at all cost. Were someone to place a figure of a hanging black man or a hanging gay man from a tree the uproar would be deafening.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do they complain about the human rights suffering under a dictator, and then throw a sissy fit when that dictator gets overthrown?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is only true when it is a dictator being overthrown by a Republican president. When Clinton did the same the liberals praised him.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does the left claim to defend free speech then try to shout down those they disagree with?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The left believes in free speech only when it is leftist speech. Look at what happened when Ann Coulter recently tried to give a speech at a college campus.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is the only solution to the debt raising taxes, never control of spending?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entitlements take a lot of money so taxes should never be reduced. If anything they should be raised, especially the taxes of the evil rich. Entitlements build a ready made constituency that will tend to vote Democrat. Therefore entitlements must be kept and if possible expanded.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why all this sympathy for a murderer, but none for an unborn child?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Murderers were only controlling their own bodies and expressing their personal feelings when they killed. Woman who have abortions are only controlling their own bodies and expressing their own feelings when they abort an unborn child.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is Thomas considered extreme, but Ginsberg is ok?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thomas is a race traitor so it is right to call him every name in the book. Were Thomas really black rather than being an Oreo he would agree with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Since he doesn't he should be attacked at every opportunity.

Since Ginzberg agrees with liberals there is no way he can be an extremist because there are no liberal extremists, only conservative extremists. Liberals, no matter what they think and say are right. Just ask them.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why all this complaining about the treatment of terrorist but no complaints about those suffering in N Korea, or Iran?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kim has a punk hairdo and everybody knows punks are liberal and therefor their political opinions are to be accepted. Those people ill treated in North Korea are just right wing extremists anyway so they deserve what they get.

Originally posted by data66
I am new here so I thought I start off with a few thoughts about things I don't understand about the left.

Maybe you should get a better education, read more and get a life and possibly, then, you'll understand things in life that now mystify you.

Why must our children be protected from Christmas, santa, Christ, but halloween, the devil, witchs, and goblins are fine?

Not following you dude -- there is no acceptable premise that our children need to be protected from santa et al unless you're talking about the hate-radio version.

Why do they get mad at a clerk saying merry christmas, but will defend as art a guy who hangs santa from a tree?

You should have included the link to the guy that hung santa so everyone knows what you're talking about ... keep in mind that 50% of this board is conservative and not well informed.

Why do they complain about the human rights suffering under a dictator, and then throw a sissy fit when that dictator gets overthrown?

Specific case please. It's not a case of having seen one dictator you've seen them all.

Why does the left claim to defend free speech then try to shout down those they disagree with?

Where did you see the left shouting ... that was Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Bill Oreilly and none of them are leftists.

Why is the only solution to the debt raising taxes, never control of spending?

Your god chosen president Bush is the largest spender in presidential hitory.

Why all this sympathy for a murderer,

I'll presume you mean tookie ... it's in the ten commandments ... thou shalt not kill. Next question?

Thomas considered extreme, but Ginsberg is ok?

What? A handful of liberals say Thomas is extreme so that applies to all liberals?

Why all this complaining about the treatment of terrorist

Again, I'll presume you mean the torturing ala abu-ghraib. Have you served? Have you been captured? Would you want your loved ones tortured? Geeesh ... this is a total no-brainer.

Just a few random questions to start things off.

Fine, how do you feel about answering a few? Or are you a one-way politico?

Originally posted by data66
I am new here so I thought I start off with a few thoughts about things I don't understand about the left. Why must our children be protected from Christmas

The religious elements of Christmas should not be in government institutions, if that is what you are implying.

I say 'religious elements' to make more exact the point, as Christmas is a social/cultural holiday as well as religious, and often the two are not always tied together.

santa

Are you suggesting that 'Santa Claus' is being censored to "protect the children"?

Christ

Jesus of Nazareth is a religious founder and hierophant, would you object to Mohammed ibn Abdullah or Siddhartha Gautama being doctored into your offspring?
In America, the religious views of the majority are not to be forced on the minorities, although they often are.

It is not your place to proselytize others by use of the collective people's government.

but halloween

Halloween is behind Christmas as the most commercial holiday in America. These are cultural events, not so much invocations of religious sentiments as they originally were.

the devil, witchs, and goblins are fine?

An obese old man who sneaks into your house, talking snowmen, and enslaved elves are? ;)

Why do they get mad at a clerk saying merry christmas, but will defend as art a guy who hangs santa from a tree?

Christmas is a remembrance of Jesus Christ's birth, those that do not believe or follow him will of course take some form of action to being propagandized. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy as well as other characters...are aiding in the celebration of the festivals going on. There is a difference, however, that is not to say I agree with getting offended at 'Merry Christmas', it is a greeting. I reply to 'Happy Hanukkah' in good spirit as it is a cheery greeting. "God bless you" and other 'polite' terms like that are in our vernacular.

Why do they complain about the human rights suffering under a dictator

Because that is a bad thing.

and then throw a sissy fit when that dictator gets overthrown?

Perhaps they disagree with militant force being used to overthrow said dictator?

Why does the left claim to defend free speech then try to shout down those they disagree with?[/b]

They are practicing the free speech that they ardently defend.

Why is the only solution to the debt raising taxes

To pay off the debt.

never control of spending?

Controlling spending keeps the debt from increasing, but doesn't necessarily equal it getting paid off.

Why all this sympathy for a murderer

Human rights and this supposed "sympathy" are not one in the same.

but none for an unborn child?

Because it is not yet fully a person.

Why is Thomas considered extreme, but Ginsberg is ok?

Because of ideological standings.

Why all this complaining about the treatment of terrorist but no complaints about those suffering in N Korea, or Iran?

Just because we demand fair treatment of our prisoners, as it is ethical and bound by law to do so, doesn't mean we are turning a blind eye to countries with deplorable human rights violations.

Just a few random questions to start things off.
dh

Welcome to Allforums :)

Originally posted by data66 With Italicized answers by Lungdop

I am new here so I thought I start off with a few thoughts about things I don't understand about the left.

Maybe you should get a better education, read more and get a life and possibly, then, you'll understand things in life that now mystify you.

So Lungdop, I guess you will never ask a question in this forum since you have gotten a better education and are now mystified by nothing.

Why must our children be protected from Christmas, santa, Christ, but halloween, the devil, witchs, and goblins are fine?

Not following you dude -- there is no acceptable premise that our children need to be protected from santa et al unless you're talking about the hate-radio version.

He is talking about the fact that in many schools even the mentionof Santa Claus or the colors red and green are banned. There seems to be an overeaction by the left against any mention of Christmas even if in the most abstract way.

Why do they get mad at a clerk saying merry christmas, but will defend as art a guy who hangs santa from a tree?

You should have included the link to the guy that hung santa so everyone knows what you're talking about ... keep in mind that 50% of this board is conservative and not well informed.

There is a man in Ft. Lauderdale who has a blindfolded Santa with a noose around his neck hanging in his front yard where little children see it every day. While I think he has a right to do this I think he is a sick, perverted bastard.

Why do they complain about the human rights suffering under a dictator, and then throw a sissy fit when that dictator gets overthrown?

Specific case please. It's not a case of having seen one dictator you've seen them all.

We can start with Saddam Hussein.

Why does the left claim to defend free speech then try to shout down those they disagree with?

Where did you see the left shouting ... that was Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Bill Oreilly and none of them are leftists.

You may disagree with Coulter, Hannity and O'Reilly but they are not shouting. They are talking. It was once again members of the left who were shouting so loudly recently that Ann Coulter could not give the speech she had been invited to give at a college campus. It is the left, not the right that throws salad dressing and pies at speakeers they don't like. Too many on te left believe in free speech only for members of the left.

Why is the only solution to the debt raising taxes, never control of spending?

Your god chosen president Bush is the largest spender in presidential hitory.

Ageed, but that doesn't answer his question. Why must we raise taxes to lower the debt when keeping taxes the same, or even lowering them coupled with a decrease in spending will also lower the debt.

Why all this sympathy for a murderer,

I'll presume you mean tookie ... it's in the ten commandments ... thou shalt not kill. Next question?

You chose to answer only part of the question. Why so much sympathy for a murderer and none for an unborn child? Is the life of someone who took a life worth more than that of an innocent child?

Thomas considered extreme, but Ginsberg is ok?

What? A handful of liberals say Thomas is extreme so that applies to all liberals?

When it is members of the Democrat Party in Congress doing the calling it becomes more than a handful of liberals.

Why all this complaining about the treatment of terrorist

Again, I'll presume you mean the torturing ala abu-ghraib. Have you served? Have you been captured? Would you want your loved ones tortured? Geeesh ... this is a total no-brainer.

It is not a total one brainer. First off, the treatment of the prisoners does not, despite the rhetoric from the left rise to the level of torture. Second, it is not only prisoners as Abu Ghraib the left bleeds for but all prisoners of the American military. You once again chose to ignore the part of the question that didn't have such an easy answer. Why the seeming disregard of the atrocities committed by the leaders of North Korea and Iran?

I'm too dumb to answer your post frogger -- put data66 back on the line.

Your questions were thought provoking as can be seen by the number of comments in so short a period.

Are you kidding? You guys called us out, of course we are going to respond. I was happy with my straw men fighting tin men, and I was going to leave it at that, but Brooks and Decka just had to accuse that we cannot answer pointed questions.

You're anything but dumb, Lungdop. Admit it. You're just too lazy to answer the post since each successive post seems to be longer than the one preceding it.

If you answer it and make it even longer I will surrender and leave you the victor.

Too lazy? It's data66's turn to chime in. There have been several responses and (s)he needs to at least acknowledge the original poster is still alive and give us some guidance on where we're going with this hand wringing issue of not being able to understand the left.

Then I'll be back to answer your post.

And correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you, just yesterday, call me dumb on another thread?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
It's data66's turn to chime in. There have been several responses and (s)he needs to at least acknowledge the original poster is still alive and give us some guidance on where we're going with this hand wringing issue of not being able to understand the left.


Gimme a fucking break.

I think that by now we all are fully aware that data66 in nothing more than a 100% troll.......and a not-very-inventive troll at that.

Let's face the facts; anyone who tries to compose a serious response to him/her and his/her inane strawmen is just amusing themself at the expense of a Reichwing idiot.........

Why do they get mad at a clerk saying merry christmas,

They don't, except for a small minority. Most of them just choose to say "Happy Holidays" instead. But why is it that most of the Right gets mad at a clerk saying "Happy Holidays"? The get so mad when their religion isn't the one thats put in the forefront. Look at these people boycotting stores that say "Happy Holidays", demanding that those stores only focus only their holiday...talk about arogant.

Let me ask this question to my Democratic friends out there.

In light of how the Democrats are criticizing Senator Joe Lieberman about his position on Iraq ........( "The American people want to hold George Bush accountable for the failed policy in Iraq, and Senator Lieberman doesn't." ).

Do you Democrats think it is more important to punish President Bush ....for his position on terrorism and choosing to go into Iraq ...............or is it more important to you ........to punish terrorists themselves ..........??


Slim

Yeah let's make Jomentum the sec of defense so we have an orthodox jew in charge of indiscriminately killing arabs and muslims in the middle east.

Lieberman is openly Israel-first above all and everything in his life. He can not think rationally nor can he put his religion aside -- it's israel 24/7 for this guy. IOW -- the only good arab is a dead arab.

He no longer has a place in the democratic party -- he rarely votes with the dems and he's a bonafide liar and racist.

Will you answer the question for me......??

Do you Democrats think it is more important to punish President Bush ....for his position on terrorism and choosing to go into Iraq ...............or is it more important to you ........to punish terrorists themselves ..........??


Slim

"Strawmen"

I am now going to ask a question which will expose me for the ignorant dolt that I am.

What is this "strawman" "Strawmen" stuff I've been reading about here?

What does this mean?

Does it mean the scarecrow in "Wizard of OZ"--that is, a person without a brain?

Other than this idiotic question, I'm staying OUT of THIS thread.

Do you Democrats think it is more important to punish President Bush ....for his position on terrorism and choosing to go into Iraq ...............or is it more important to you ........to punish terrorists themselves ..........??

The terrorists.

Slim, why do you put "........." in the middle of your sentences?

Originally posted by rendova
Other than this idiotic question, I'm staying OUT of THIS thread. My fifth-grade teacher taught us that there is no such thing as a stupid question. But then, she had never met slim.

A 'straw man' is an argument that presupposes a position that someone else has not taken. For example, 'When did you stop kicking your dog?". In this case, slim is implying that a Democrat must think one goal is more important than the other, and that all Democrats want to punish Bush. No matter how you answer he can claim he has scored a point.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
+++++++++++++++++++++

Just answer the question spellchecker ............the reason I ask it is not to obfuscate ...........I am curious because Lieberman says the Democrats by tearing down president Bush ......are actually weakening our position in Iraq ........he believes it.

So is it more important to you ....spellchecker .......do you think it is more important to punish President Bush ....for his position on terrorism and choosing to go into Iraq ...............or is it more important to you ........to punish terrorists themselves ..........??


Slim

We burn straw(wo)men where I come from ...

When someone presents a strawman argument, simply refuse the premise and just like that -- no more strawman.

Democrits all say.......terrorists gooood..........Bush baaaaaad.........read Marks.......all anwsers there.

1 for Terrorists . 0 for the president.

Now how bout you Limpdogg .......??


Slim

OK Slime ...

I've stated my position on the forums a zillion times but given you're relatively new here I guess I can present a nutshell.

I've often challenged the wingers to explain how to identify a terrorist. What does one look like, feel like, smell like and most of all, how do I know one when I see one?

Was that 2 year-old with both arms missing (you know the pic) a terrorist? Is that why our troops blew him into the middle of next month?

How about the family, just last week, that was riddled with bullets (hundreds of bullets) ... they could barely identify the bodies -- surely we had some air-tight evidence they were terrorists.

Oh, by the way, it was just a family that took a wrong turn ... but what the fuck -- that's their problem. If they were good christians, god would have given them better driving skills and they would still be alive today.

So let's start there Slime -- you tell me who is and who isn't a terrorist and I'll tell you how I feel about it.

Originally posted by slim
Just answer the question spellchecker ............the reason I ask it is not to obfuscate ...........I am curious because Lieberman says the Democrats by tearing down president Bush ......are actually weakening our position in Iraq ........he believes it.

So is it more important to you ....spellchecker .......do you think it is more important to punish President Bush ....for his position on terrorism and choosing to go into Iraq ...............or is it more important to you ........to punish terrorists themselves ..........??


Slim

I'm no Democrat,but i am happy to answer this question.

First off, I have seen ZERO indication that anyone is intent on imposing *punishment* on GWBush for his position on terrorism and choosing to go into Iraq......thus, the entire basis of your question is bullshit to begin with.

Secondly, even IF there was a move to "punish" GWBush for his position on terrorism and choosing to go into Iraq, how would any "punishment" be delivered??!?!?

Thirdly, (echoing Dop's point) just WHO are these terrorists exactly, and how is our "punishment" of them being carried thru??

How do we go thru Iraq and single out every person and say "yes, this one's a terrorist",.....and "No, this one is not a terrorist".

Terrorism is not a country. Terrorism is not a race.....or a political party.......or a club with a roll of membership.

TERRORISM is a TACTIC........and there is no possible defeat of an IDEA, a tactic, an ideology. There is little substantive way to **punish terrorists** when we can never be sure who they are.

And to claim you will defeat or "punish" terrorism itself is as preposterous as proposing that you will "punish" a hornet's nest by beating it with a stick.

Lastly.....HERE below is the way your precious political Party is going about "fighting tuuuurrism" in the Midddle East. Tell me if it makes you happy and proud.

In another shooting incident in Mosul, Mozafar Ahmad, a 14-year-old who suffered wounds in one arm and above one knee, said he was hit while on a bus passing the governor's office:

"I saw Americans standing on the street and on the roof shooting. Seven others in the bus were also injured," he said.

Amal Mahmoud, a 40-year-old taxi driver, said he saw US troops shoot at people:

"There were people inside the central bank, which is next door to the governor's office. They had been looting money for several days. Police were standing outside the bank and fired shots in the air to disperse the looters. The Americans started firing at the people in front of the governor's office, rather than at the looters," he said. (Times of India)

2 for terrorists .....0 for the president

How bout the freethinker .......???


Slim

Originally posted by slim
2 for terrorists .....0 for the president

How bout the freethinker .......???


Slim

C'mon slime -- ya gotta contribute more than just being a scoreboard. Refute the responses ... you asked the question, now defend it.

No ........I am really and truly interested in the results of my question. I am not trying to discuss it .....I am just trying to get a statistical idea of who believes this way.

If I could do a poll in here ..I would do it.

I am being serious though ......for the likes of me....I can't understand how somebody could come to the decision to back terrorists over the president ....but ....I understand that this element is out there.

Where is the DefiledPagan on this one.......??


Slim

Originally posted by slim
I am not trying to discuss it .....This being a discussion forum, why don't you not discuss it somewhere else.I am just trying to get a statistical idea of who believes this way.You get credit for trying to get an idea, but your knowledge of statistics is woeful if you think you can get a valid sample here.

Oh ......now Karnak the spellchecker guy ....is the forum police too .....*L*. What next ......??

A statatician ...*L*.


Slim

Originally posted by slim
I can't understand how somebody could come to the decision to back terrorists over the president ....but ....I understand that this element is out there.

Ok.

I'd like to see you name one person who is **backing the terrorists over the president**.

Why can't you just admit that your question is deeply flawed and intellectually dishonest, in that it pre-supposes that anyone who does not agree with president Bush's policies regarding Iraq is automatically "backing the terrorists"...........?!?!?!?

DAAAAAAAMN it is SO tiresome having to constantly listen to the binary thinking of these Rightwingers.

If someone were to say --"I like dogs", those of the conservative mentality immediately form the question ---"What!! You say you hate cats?!?!? Why?!?!?"

Originally posted by Freethinker

If someone were to say --"I like dogs", those of the conservative mentality immediately form the question ---"What!! You say you hate cats?!?!? Why?!?!?"

I absolutely agree... but yet you extreme liberals call me a flag-waving bush supporter just because i don't call for his head....

i guess you are guilty of what you accuse.

Originally posted by Decka
yet you extreme liberals call me a flag-waving bush supporter just because i don't call for his head....

Virtually no one is 100% behind their prefered politician or political party on all issues and at all times, it is true. And I'm certain that you are no exception.

But you are sometimes seen by the posters here as a *flag waving Bush supporter*, for a very clear and compelling reason.

Oftentimes, you go to great lengths to make excuses for him, even when the political wrongdoing or the negative effects of a particluar policy are well documented.

Unlike the unrelievedly binary-thinking reaction demonstated by many conservative people whenever someone makes a statement of a particular political position (i.e., automatically assuming the person is taking a stance on the issue the diametric opposite of the one he's talking about) it is no *knee-jerk reaction* on the part of the "extreme liberals" that causes you to be labeled a "Bush supporter".

You often demonstrate yourself to be such. Not on every issue, or every occasion. But often enough to earn the label, i'd say.

I'm no Democrat,but i am happy to answer this question.

First off, I have seen ZERO indication that anyone is intent on imposing *punishment* on GWBush for his position on terrorism and choosing to go into Iraq......thus, the entire basis of your question is bullshit to begin with.

Then you haven't been looking very hard. There have been impeach Bush, imprison him and his cronies, and worse being called for by members of the leftist establishment.

Secondly, even IF there was a move to "punish" GWBush for his position on terrorism and choosing to go into Iraq, how would any "punishment" be delivered??!?!?

There are those who want him impeached. (Tit for tat for the Clinton impeachment.), those who want him jailed and even those few who want him executed.

Thirdly, (echoing Dop's point) just WHO are these terrorists exactly, and how is our "punishment" of them being carried thru??

The terrorists are those who tore a hole in the USS Cole, killing American sailors. The terrorists are those who attacked the World Trade Center the first time. The terrorists are those who attacked the American Embassy in Kenya. Those were terrorists the Clinton administration chose to do nothing about. Today's terrorists are those who brought down the Twin Towers, those who tried to explode a shoe bomb on an airplane, those who blew up the buses in London. The differance is that while Clinton chose to do nothing, Bush is actively fighting them.

How do we go thru Iraq and single out every person and say "yes, this one's a terrorist",.....and "No, this one is not a terrorist".

You identify terrorists by their actions. Those committing acts of terrorism or aiding and abetting those who commit acts of terrorism are terrorists.

Terrorism is not a country. Terrorism is not a race.....or a political party.......or a club with a roll of membership.

True but overly simplistic. Terrorists do tend to gravitate toward countries that offer them safe havens. Terrorists tend to be of a particular race, religion or social stratum. Terrorists tend to consider themselves members of a club or group with like interests.

TERRORISM is a TACTIC........and there is no possible defeat of an IDEA, a tactic, an ideology. There is little substantive way to **punish terrorists** when we can never be sure who they are.

That is simply not true. Terrorists have been defeated many times in the past, going all the way back to the defeat of, The Old Man of the Mountain and his Hashishans. The list of terrorists groups that have been either totally defeated or at least seriously curtailed in their actions include, but is not limited to, The Thugee, Sendero Luminoso, The Sandinistas, The Huks, the Muslim Brotherhood. To say that terrorism cannot be defeated is a false and defeatist statement.

And to claim you will defeat or "punish" terrorism itself is as preposterous as proposing that you will "punish" a hornet's nest by beating it with a stick.

See the above response to understand why you are so completely wrong.

Lastly.....HERE below is the way your precious political Party is going about "fighting tuuuurrism" in the Midddle East. Tell me if it makes you happy and proud.

It is not a question of being happy or proud. It is a question of whether we take the Clinton path and basically ignore acts of terrorism or a path in which we actively punish terrorists.

In another shooting incident in Mosul, Mozafar Ahmad, a 14-year-old who suffered wounds in one arm and above one knee, said he was hit while on a bus passing the governor's office:

"I saw Americans standing on the street and on the roof shooting. Seven others in the bus were also injured," he said.

Amal Mahmoud, a 40-year-old taxi driver, said he saw US troops shoot at people:

"There were people inside the central bank, which is next door to the governor's office. They had been looting money for several days. Police were standing outside the bank and fired shots in the air to disperse the looters. The Americans started firing at the people in front of the governor's office, rather than at the looters," he said. (Times of India)

You seem overly willing to accept at face value reports of Americans shooting at peaceful citizens with no provocation. You do not question either the accuracy of the accusations or the possible underlying reason for their being made. You seem to be a member of the, 'blame America' camp.

Why would he question the accuracy of the accusations or the motives of the individuals ....he is working for the other side ....me thinks. Though I haven't seen his answer to the question I posed.

Do you Democrats think it is more important to punish President Bush ....for his position on terrorism and choosing to go into Iraq ...............or is it more important to you ........to punish terrorists themselves ..........??

So far it has been: 2 for the terrorists ......and .....0 for the president.


Slim

Originally posted by slim
What next ......??

A statatician ...*L*. Maybe, if I knew what a statatic was.

Karnak the Spellchecker .......*L*.

You are too funny ...............


Slim

2 for terrorists .....0 for the president

I don't think Bush is very good at soccer.

First off, I have seen ZERO indication that anyone is intent on imposing *punishment* on GWBush for his position on terrorism and choosing to go into Iraq......thus, the entire basis of your question is bullshit to begin with.

Originally posted by Frogger
Then you haven't been looking very hard. There have been impeach Bush, imprison him and his cronies, and worse being called for by members of the leftist establishment.

I guess I should have phrased it---""I have seen ZERO indication that anyone with the slightest capability of carrying thru on any proposed "punishment" willl ever be imposing any *punishment* on GWBush for his position on terrorism and choosing to go into Iraq"".

The **leftist establishment** that you tout has absolutely ZERO political power in the United States.

Thus, there is (sadly) absolutely ZERO chance that Bush will ever be "punished" for his traitorously lying this nation into an ill-advised and extraordinarily expenisve "war".

....just WHO are these terrorists exactly, and how is our "punishment" of them being carried thru??


Originally posted by Frogger
The terrorists are those who tore a hole in the USS Cole, killing American sailors.

I read that Osama bin Laden was behind that attack.

Tell me again; just HOW has HE been "punished by GWBush?!?!?



Originally posted by Frogger
The terrorists are those who attacked the World Trade Center the first time. The terrorists are those who attacked the American Embassy in Kenya. Those were terrorists the Clinton administration chose to do nothing about.

WTF?!?!?!?

""chose to do nothing about"".....?!?!?!?!?!?

You're out of touch with reality.

It is completely false that ""Clinton did nothing"" about that attack.

Under Clinton, the six Islamist extremist conspirators who were charged with the (first) 1993 attack on the WTC were convicted of that crime and given prison sentences of 240 years each.

Originally posted by Frogger
Today's terrorists are those who brought down the Twin Towers, those who tried to explode a shoe bomb on an airplane, those who blew up the buses in London. The differance is that while Clinton chose to do nothing, Bush is actively fighting them.

ROTFLOL..........WTF do you see Smirky the Chimp as having "DONE" to the man behind the attack, Osama bin Laden?!?!?!?

Bush is a completely impotent buffoon. He has done NOTHING to bring the person behind the attack---Osama bin Laden--- to justice!!!

imprison him and his cronies

Why not? All the rest of the Repubs are getting indicted on various corruption charges. Let's clean house.

Originally posted by Freethinker
The **leftist establishment** that you tout has absolutely ZERO political power in the United States.

Is this a joke? How can you hold a straight face and still say that...

I read that Osama bin Laden was behind that attack.

Well, Al-Qaeda, which he heads.

Tell me again; just HOW has HE been "punished by GWBush?!?!?

When he isn't even in our grip, it is hard to throttle him.

You're out of touch with reality.

You're so out of touch with it that i amazed you actually knew the term.

Bush is a completely impotent buffoon.

I believe we'll leave Laura Bush to divulge that information.

He has done NOTHING to bring the person behind the attack---Osama bin Laden--- to justice!!!

Yes, because sending in troops to dismantle the Taliban, an organization friendly with his, and any Al-Qaeda cells in Afghanistan, this relentless effort by our intelligence agencies to gather and bring down his operations world-wide for the past four years, founding a "department of homeland security", and having attempts, even successful ones, to foil attacks by these terrorist groups, it all amounts to "NOTHING", in your view? We've doled out billions, we've spent supplies and hours of manpower that are almost countless-not to mention time- to work against the activities of Osama Bin Laden and his organization...justice is being done, and more will come with time and work.

Originally posted by Evakian
Is this a joke? How can you hold a straight face and still say that...

YES, I would reiterate that the people who to me represent the closest thing this country has to a "leftist establishment" --- people like Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman and Howard Zinn and Micheal Parenti and the rest of the small cadre of true leftwing writers and thinkers and academics remaining in America-- have virtually ZERO political power in this country.

Evidently, it would be unthinkable to the Corporate owners of the mainstream Media to allow any of the above named people in front of a television camera.



Originally posted by Evakian

Yes, because sending in troops to dismantle the Taliban, an organization friendly with his, and any Al-Qaeda cells in Afghanistan, this relentless effort by our intelligence agencies to gather and bring down his operations world-wide for the past four years, founding a "department of homeland security", and having attempts, even successful ones, to foil attacks by these terrorist groups, it all amounts to "NOTHING", in your view?

I said he has done nothing to bring the person of Osama bin Laden to justice.

If they've captured bin Laden, I haven't heard about it.

P.S. ---the Taliban has not been "dismantled".

P.S.S. ----Yes, we certainly HAVE doled out hundreds of billions, spent endless supplies and countless hours of manpower AND sacrified over 2000 lives, and what is the result? No Osama bin Laden, no victory over terrorism, and America is STILL as much if not more in danger of terrorist attack than it ever was.

You're out of touch with reality.


You're so out of touch with it that i amazed you actually knew the term.

I felt my brain shrink as I read that exchange.

"You're stupid!" "No, YOU'RE STUPID!!"

C'mon kids, there's enough to go around.

Tell me again; just HOW has HE been "punished by GWBush?!?!? Posted by Freethinker in reference to OBL

He's living in a hovel somewhere in the Tribal Area of Pakistan rather than being wined and dined by the Taliban.

It seems Freethinker thinks that the capture or death of OBL is what defines success or failure in the war on terror.

Originally posted by Frogger

There are those who want him impeached. (Tit for tat for the Clinton impeachment.), those who want him jailed and even those few who want him executed.

The terrorists are those who tore a hole in the USS Cole, killing American sailors. The terrorists are those who attacked the World Trade Center the first time. The terrorists are those who attacked the American Embassy in Kenya. Those were terrorists the Clinton administration chose to do nothing about. Today's terrorists are those who brought down the Twin Towers, those who tried to explode a shoe bomb on an airplane, those who blew up the buses in London. The differance is that while Clinton chose to do nothing, Bush is actively fighting them.

You identify terrorists by their actions. Those committing acts of terrorism or aiding and abetting those who commit acts of terrorism are terrorists.



You're watching too much FOX news frogger -- I have yet to hear of anyone openly calling for his execution or for that matter, harming him in any way. Care to give some examples on that one? In fact, liberals are against the death penalty in any form, and in most cases against harming anyone for any reason and conservatives are quick to point that out. Your argument is defeated by itself.

Ya really should try and get over Clinton.

OK -- if you identify terrorists by their actions, I guess driving down the street is a terrorist action cause that's all that family last week was doing -- no more no less. Our troops blasted them into the middle of next month.

You still haven't told me how I can spot a terrorist out of a crowd and I'm taking all bets you never will. You're no better than the troops that are murdering innocents in Iraq (not all of the troops) only you hide behind your keyboard while cheering them on instead of being over there suited up doing the dirty work.

Actually ...Osama is dead.


Slim

Originally posted by slim
Actually ...Osama is dead.My step-daughter did two tours in eastern Afghanistan and belived the same thing. Hard to recover remains that are disintegrated.

Originally posted by slim
Actually ...Osama is dead.


Slim

Bush gave a terra speech (2-minute hate) at the world affairs meeting in Philadelphia -- in the speech he stated that Bin Laden gave a fatwa declaring Iraq the place for Jihad (paraphrase) and that is why the Iraquis are suffering.

So -- if Osama is dead, no one has told the president.

ROTFLMAO

It serves the American people and the president .....for people to still think he is alive.


Slim

Originally posted by slim
It serves the American people and the president .....for people to still think he is alive.


Slim

Would you mind explaining just how it serves the president and the american people?

(Frogger) You're no better than the troops that are murdering innocents in Iraq.

Fuck you, Lungdop.

You want to discuss issues I will discuss them with you. You want to call me no better than a murder you can go fuck yourself you vile little piece of shit..

Tell me again; just HOW has HE been "punished by GWBush?!?!? Posted by Freethinker in reference to OBL

Originally posted by Frogger
He's living in a hovel somewhere in the Tribal Area of Pakistan rather than being wined and dined by the Taliban.

Ok.

I'll bite.

How is it that you know the sort of housing OBL is living in??

If you know --as you claim to--- exactly where OBL is living, maybe you should call the Smirker in Chief and tell him. He seems to be having trouble finding Osama.

Originally posted by Frogger
It seems Freethinker thinks that the capture or death of OBL is what defines success or failure in the war on terror.

You're becoming more and more prone to lying the longer you post here, chum.

I did not in any way state, suggest or even hint that **the success or failure of the War on Terror hinges on the capture of bin Laden**.

I simply noted that he has not been brought to justice by GWBush.

Mr Bush ---in stark contrast to anything I have said--- did make it known to the entire nation that captuuring OBL was of extreme importance.....a TOP priority.

Yet he has not been able to accomplish that.

Maybe you need to cast about for a new rightwing hero.

One with a 3 digit IQ, instead of the miserable failure GWBush.

Originally posted by Frogger
(Frogger) You're no better than the troops that are murdering innocents in Iraq.

Fuck you, Lungdop.

You want to discuss issues I will discuss them with you. You want to call me no better than a murder you can go fuck yourself you vile little piece of shit..

Besides the wasted bandwidth, you're showing your triggers. No way I want you on my debating team.

Fuck you, Lungdop.

You want to discuss issues I will discuss them with you. You want to call me no better than a murder you can go fuck yourself you vile little piece of shit..

Hahaha! Who was it that bitched about my use of foul language when he first got here?

The terrorists are those who tore a hole in the USS Cole, killing American sailors. The terrorists are those who attacked the World Trade Center the first time. The terrorists are those who attacked the American Embassy in Kenya. Those were terrorists the Clinton administration chose to do nothing about. Today's terrorists are those who brought down the Twin Towers, those who tried to explode a shoe bomb on an airplane, those who blew up the buses in London. The differance is that while Clinton chose to do nothing, Bush is actively fighting them.

Actually, Bush did nothing as well about those incidents until 9/11 happened. Sure he didn't have as much time as Clinton but he had 8 months to start going after all those people that Clinton failed to punish.

Frogger, don't sweat over DOP... he's just trying to rattle shit up...

Its obvious he has issues if he thinks THAT way(you just as guilty as murderers) but doesn't hold that reason of thinking all across the board. To think that extreme is just ludicrous and not to mention... insanely retarded.

but what do you expect from Dop?