PDA

View Full Version : Farenheit 9/11


perfmode
07-01-2004, 08:16 AM
I think this could be the end of Bush. If enough people go to see this movie/doc, he's toast. Gore is going to be re-elected at the end of the year for sure.

@wright
07-01-2004, 08:51 AM
Doesn't Gore have to be elected once before he can be re-elected? Michael Moore is a good example of why people in Hollyweird shouldn't get mixed up in politics.

perfmode
07-01-2004, 10:09 AM
Doesn't Gore have to be elected once before he can be re-elected? Michael Moore is a good example of why people in Hollyweird shouldn't get mixed up in politics.

Have you seen it yet? Do you think that Bush can explain what Moore has revealed? Even if it is biased, it exposes a lot of dirty secrets and facts. You can't deny that.

NoBadMojo
07-01-2004, 11:28 AM
well first you should know that michael moore takes some liberties w. the truth in his moviemaking. i guess if you believe everything he puts on the screen to be true, then it sure does put the bushman in a very bad light. if you have seen bowling for columbine w. the bank scene where he walks out w. a free rifle for opening up an account <pretty funny>....well as it turns out, that was contrived..it wasnt true. his movies arent true documentaries..they are films. having said that, bush really sucks ;) ed

david aames
07-01-2004, 12:45 PM
Awright, you can certainly accuse Moore to be filfty rich now but he is certainly no hollywood head. He is from Flint, Michigan -- a true *******ern with a working class background and all. His dad was an auto mechanic.

You guys shouldn't put the blame on hollywood anyway. It's the best asset america has when it comes to 'win the hearts and mind' of the rest of the world. It does everyday what no army can do.

About Fahrenheit -- I doubt it will convince anyone when it comes to november but the movie (whether you call it fiction or documentary) is certainly making a few good points. One of them being -- shall we expect from our leader to sit in a classroom for 5 minutes straight after being informed that the nation is under attack.

See it for yourself, take a look at your watch and ask yourself whether the man deserves to be your leader.

Video (quicktime)
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.mov

Stills:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm

Michael Moore is a good example of why people in Hollyweird shouldn't get mixed up in politics.

Morpheus
07-01-2004, 03:12 PM
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war
in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor,
for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword.
It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.
And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch
and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed,
the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry.
Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism,
will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.
How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."

-- Julius Caesar

What rights are you willing to give up? I suppose you aren't troubled by the Bush administration's proclivity towards secrecy and self-protection. It would be fascinating to see how Bush would fare on the intelligence and psychometric testing that my corporation uses to evaluate its leaders and new hires.

NoBadMojo
07-01-2004, 03:38 PM
morpheus how about a simple IQ test? the bushman is the lowest recorded iq'd us president in US history and it is pretty obvious when you hear him speak..what a bonehead we <sort of> elected to the presidency....;) ed

Morpheus
07-01-2004, 04:35 PM
Well, maybe we could start with emode or tickle.com since the ceiling on these tests is so low... :wink:

I worry more about personality than intelligence. In my view, he's mean spirited and self righteous. In another place and another time, he very well could have been a "bad" guy. Moore actually gives Bush too much credit for being manipulative. He's just not that sharp.

BTW, I'm am not a Democrat, but just a guy who doesn't like where Bush has taken us and the manner in which he has done so...

Put aside your feelings about Moore and just go see the movie. It is quite powerful with amazing footage, and well worth the investment in time and money to view. It may not change your vote, but it may change how you think about Bush's vision and tactics.

http://www.df7cb.de/stuff/bush_school.jpg

David Pavlich
07-01-2004, 06:51 PM
Does the fact that Moore is a liar have any bearing on your opinion of his "documentaries"?

Case in point. A few days ago, Moore proudly proclaimed that he's an independent. Well...as it turns out, he's a registered Democrat in New York (hasn't voted since 2001, btw). He's also registered in Flint, but registration there does not require that you name your party affiliation, so his claim to be an independent is cannot be corroborated. Typical.

His whole assertion that the bin Laden family that was in the states at the time of 9/11 was rushed out of the country before the flight restrictions were lifted is false, as is his assertion that these people weren't interogated before they left. If you don't believe me, check the latest issue of Newsweek and the letters to the editor section. Newsweek did the footwork and found that Moore's claim is false.

The majority of the people that have seen or will see this movie already hate Bush. It won't make any difference come November.

David

perfmode
07-01-2004, 07:02 PM
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war
in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor,
for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword.
It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.
And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch
and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed,
the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry.
Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism,
will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.
How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."

-- Julius Caesar

What rights are you willing to give up? I suppose you aren't troubled by the Bush administration's proclivity towards secrecy and self-protection. It would be fascinating to see how Bush would fare on the intelligence and psychometric testing that my corporation uses to evaluate its leaders and new hires.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."


-Hermann Goering (1893 - 1946)
Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and Hitler's designated successor

The second in command of the Third Reich

Capt. Willie
07-01-2004, 07:29 PM
morpheus how about a simple IQ test? the bushman is the lowest recorded iq'd us president in US history and it is pretty obvious when you hear him speak..what a bonehead we <sort of> elected to the presidency....;) ed A perfect example of our fearless leaders intelligence, which the film ended with: "There's an old saying in Tennessee. I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee... that says....fool me once, shame on....shame on you. Fool me......you can't get fooled again."

Capt. Willie
07-01-2004, 07:46 PM
Does the fact that Moore is a liar have any bearing on your opinion of his "documentaries"? I'm a big Michael Moore fan, have been since way back to the days of "Roger And Me" and "TV Nation". I'll be the first to admit that Mike bends the truth a bit from time to time to get a point across. But if only 50% of what he claims is true (and I think it is a much, much higher percentage than that) it is still a very scary situation.

perfmode
07-01-2004, 08:04 PM
morpheus how about a simple IQ test? the bushman is the lowest recorded iq'd us president in US history and it is pretty obvious when you hear him speak..what a bonehead we <sort of> elected to the presidency....;) ed A perfect example of our fearless leaders intelligence, which the film ended with: "There's an old saying in Tennessee. I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee... that says....fool me once, shame on....shame on you. Fool me......you can't get fooled again."

Lol, his facial expression was SO FUNNY. His hand gestures were the icing on the cake for me.

Morpheus
07-01-2004, 08:23 PM
"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind," he said.

"I see dangers that exist and it's important for us to deal with them."

Yes, and we see dead people. I feel so much safer now, don't you?

NoBadMojo
07-01-2004, 08:42 PM
the thing about michael moore IMO, is that he had plenty of good ammunition on bush w.o having to do fictional stuff <the bush is a walking disaster>....when he did the fictional stuff his credibility went away..he should have just played it straight up, interjected his very poignant humour and called it a day..now he is just another spin doctor and you dont know what portion of his stuff is reality and what part is fantasy. my .o2. do you think bush plays tennis? his dad did i believe. think he would hook you on line calls? ed

perfmode
07-01-2004, 08:43 PM
"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind," he said.

"I see dangers that exist and it's important for us to deal with them."

Yes, and we see dead people. I feel so much safer now, don't you?

The disturbing part was when they had the businessmen talking about how profitable Iraq is right now.

Aonex
07-02-2004, 01:10 AM
Ed, I'm totally with you on this. Michael Moore is a propagandist. He plays with our emotions by showing very graphic images and personal stories to ellict anger. He's also very funny. The movie itself was filled with so many contrived arguments and logical fallacies it's hard to take it seriously. However, that shouldn't take away from the overall message of the film... get Bush out!

Alan

Cypo
07-02-2004, 02:17 AM
Well, maybe we could start with emode or tickle.com since the ceiling on these tests is so low... :wink:

Darn - on the tickle test I was an "Above Average Genius" (unlike the rest of you average ones )

Michael Moore really has done his credibility a disservice by using manipulative tactics in his later films, but it seems to sell. "Roger and me" probably didn't get the attention Bowling did because it was less manipulative movie.

But what is most disturbing about him are his half truths. In "Stupid White Men" nothing he says is wrong, but he's spinning his facts, so unfortunately you have to consider what he says pretty carefully and not rely on it to heavily.

However, given the times we live in, perhaps the ends justify the means - better to fear Bush, if you know what I mean.

Morpheus
07-02-2004, 04:51 AM
I think the problem is that in today's world one has to yell really loud and say outrageous things to be heard. Sure, Moore spins things as does Rush, Fox News, ABC, NY Times, and the Washington Post. Everyone has facts that swirl around a concept, and that concept is the story they are trying to sell.

All that aside, if you find you aren't disturbed by anything the Bush admin is doing, or at least the method in which they are doing it, then you might want to open your mind to the possibility that something may not be right and look at the world with new eyes. This movie will certainly point you in the right direction if you don't know where to look.

Alan, those graphic images of wounded soldiers and dead Iraqis are something that you just don't see on the evening news. You don't even see the caskets. From a distance, war is sexy and we appear all powerful. Close up, it looks brutal and immoral. I for one would like everyone to see that perspective.

mlee2
07-02-2004, 09:33 AM
Agreed with Morpheus, show pictures of the dead to show an accurate picture of both sides of the argument.

But ever thought it might backfire? What if the evening news showed the terrorists' execution videos in full? That would be great fuel for any military to gain support from all perspectives of people.

david aames
07-02-2004, 10:08 AM
NASCAR dad anyone? Dale Earnhardt Jr told his crew that they should go see Fahrenheit ("it'll be a good bonding experience no matter what your political belief. It's a good thing as an American to go see").

I don't know about you but I certainly like NASCAR better all of a sudden ;)

Ben42
07-02-2004, 12:35 PM
Doesn't Gore have to be elected once before he can be re-elected? Michael Moore is a good example of why people in Hollyweird shouldn't get mixed up in politics.


I thought Ronald Reagan was the best example of why people in "Hollyweird" shouldn't get mixed up in politics. :)

(or was the Charlton Heston? It's hard to make up my mind)

Kobble
07-02-2004, 12:52 PM
If he was such a do-gooder he wouldn't be trying to make millions off these documentaries. Also, the bottom line of his messages contradict one another. In BFC, his message was the cycle of fear in the american population, now he wants to promote fear to divide the nation concerning Bush, and effectively contribute to his own party's interest. Divide and concquer.

david aames
07-02-2004, 01:17 PM
You might want to back it up. That is if you actually saw his movie.

One of his point is on the contrary to say that the Bush administration has been spreading a message of fear amongst the population, relayed by the media but never backed it up with facts or concrete counter-terrorism funding. Moore conclusion being -- if there is no serious budget (/budget increase) allocated to borders protection, that is because there is no evidence of a threat.

As for making millions out of his movies, what would you like him to do? Send it to the republican party?


In BFC, his message was the cycle of fear in the american population, now he wants to promote fear to divide the nation concerning Bush

tennis-n-sc
07-02-2004, 04:19 PM
Michael Moore is jerk and an opportunist.

I wonder what the emotions of the American people would be if 6 times a day and during prime time, the images and video of the attack on this country on September 11 were replayed.
We have allowed ourselvews to become desensitized to what occurred and elevate an idiot like Michael Moore to the status of wonderful messenger of devine truth.

Have mistakes been made by Mr. Bush? Absolutely. More probably will follow. He made decisions based on what was known at the time and what was suspected. He at least had the balls to act. Be thankful Al Gore was not elected.

Mr. Kerry's actions after his abrieviated tour in Vietnam were a disgrace to this country and to his commrades in arms. To think this man won his party's nomination is downright shameful.

We are at war, I am convinced. Whomever becomes commander-in-chief had better accept that and be ready to do whatever it takes to protect this country, even if chaps the rest of the world, even that staunch ally Bermuda.

I think on the day before the election I will review all that transpired in this country on September 11. I think I will know where to cast my vote the next day. God bless America.

Morpheus
07-02-2004, 05:19 PM
I wonder what the emotions of the American people would be if 6 times a day and during prime time, the images and video of the attack on this country on September 11 were replayed. "

I guess you weren't watching TV back then and perhaps you can elaborate on your point a bit.


Michael Moore is jerk and an opportunist.

At least he has an opinion. :lol: Well, it's obvious you aren't in the target demographic (e.g., open minded, curious types), but perhaps you should see the movie anyway so you can comment on it intelligently.

NoBadMojo
07-02-2004, 05:39 PM
everyone is surely entitled to opinions. uninformed ones are never very cool though. to call someone a jerk because you disagree with his message isnt appropriate. i think supporting a country and president is a good idea until it reaches the point where our good peoples' intelligence gets insulted. a really valid point michael moore makes is that our country and presidents' prime directive, if you will, is to keep the country and it's people safe. the attack on us came under his watch (i realize there were inadequacies in a past watch)....and then....because there arent any decent targets to blow up in afghanistan we bomb the hell out of iraq on two false pretenses..wmd's and al quiada connections to saddam, send our kids over there to be killed or otherwise jammed up, and cause either directly or indirectly a bunch of other innocents to be killed in the process. there's gonna be a million people killed over there because of whatever bush's true motivations may be before this is over..if it is ever over. is saddam evil? sure..by almost everyones standards..thing is..there are a few more saddams out there..are we gonna bomb them all? how about the poor sudanese...we arent jumping to their aid are we.....hmmm? why do you suppose that might be? bah....we really need to get bush out of there before something even worse happens..he's already been responsible for enough deaths and assorted other blunders. bah. ed

david aames
07-02-2004, 05:48 PM
Point taken but for the record, the only candidate who showed prime time images of 9-11 is Bush in his political ads.

'Having balls' would have required to fight the war in Afghanistan all the way to the Pakistani border and eliminate Al Qaida and Taliban combatants with the help of our traditional allies (yes, they were there and most of them still are). Tennis-n-sc, don't be fooled. Acting manly and having balls are two different things. Remember the flight suit? The man had his chance to do 'whatever it takes' to serve his country and chose, just like our vice-president (the guy who had 'other priorities' during the Vietnam war) not to put himself in arm's way.

On the eve of the election, I believe you will do what you do everyday -- put your trust in honesty-challenged talk show hosts and ignore that good people have died for no good reason, miles away from our shores, just because someone in Washington wanted to look manly once in his lifetime.

As far as I'm concerned, I will certainly remember that morning of 2001 when, from the Brooklyn Heights promenade I saw the World Trade Center fall. That was right after President Bush spent a full month out of town, on vacation.


Michael Moore is jerk and an opportunist.

I wonder what the emotions of the American people would be if 6 times a day and during prime time, the images and video of the attack on this country on September 11 were replayed.
We have allowed ourselvews to become desensitized to what occurred and elevate an idiot like Michael Moore to the status of wonderful messenger of devine truth.

Have mistakes been made by Mr. Bush? Absolutely. More probably will follow. He made decisions based on what was known at the time and what was suspected. He at least had the balls to act. Be thankful Al Gore was not elected.

Mr. Kerry's actions after his abrieviated tour in Vietnam were a disgrace to this country and to his commrades in arms. To think this man won his party's nomination is downright shameful.

We are at war, I am convinced. Whomever becomes commander-in-chief had better accept that and be ready to do whatever it takes to protect this country, even if chaps the rest of the world, even that staunch ally Bermuda.

I think on the day before the election I will review all that transpired in this country on September 11. I think I will know where to cast my vote the next day. God bless America.

perfmode
07-02-2004, 08:04 PM
If he was such a do-gooder he wouldn't be trying to make millions off these documentaries. Also, the bottom line of his messages contradict one another. In BFC, his message was the cycle of fear in the american population, now he wants to promote fear to divide the nation concerning Bush, and effectively contribute to his own party's interest. Divide and concquer.

Does he look like a guy trying to make a quick buck? No. He is a simple man from Flint, Michigan with strong beliefs and a gift for film making. He makes these documentaries to express his views and opinions.

perfmode
07-02-2004, 08:08 PM
Michael Moore is jerk and an opportunist.

I wonder what the emotions of the American people would be if 6 times a day and during prime time, the images and video of the attack on this country on September 11 were replayed.
We have allowed ourselvews to become desensitized to what occurred and elevate an idiot like Michael Moore to the status of wonderful messenger of devine truth.

Have mistakes been made by Mr. Bush? Absolutely. More probably will follow. He made decisions based on what was known at the time and what was suspected. He at least had the balls to act. Be thankful Al Gore was not elected.

Mr. Kerry's actions after his abrieviated tour in Vietnam were a disgrace to this country and to his commrades in arms. To think this man won his party's nomination is downright shameful.

We are at war, I am convinced. Whomever becomes commander-in-chief had better accept that and be ready to do whatever it takes to protect this country, even if chaps the rest of the world, even that staunch ally Bermuda.

I think on the day before the election I will review all that transpired in this country on September 11. I think I will know where to cast my vote the next day. God bless America.

Next time, maybe you should follow your own advice.

Tennis-n-SC: It is best to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.


You just made yourself look extremely closed-minded and ignorant. You are no better than Britney Spears.

Kevin T
07-03-2004, 09:03 AM
Ah, that patriot Michael Moore. :lol: Why the personal attacks on Tennis-n-SC? Because he called Moore a jerk and an idiot? Because he doesn't agree "9/11" is a great film, this makes him "closed minded"? If I remember correctly, T-n-SC is a vet with some personal experiences in these matters. I went to see "9/11" last night with two Air Force buddies that fly c17s over to Iraq on a monthly basis. I encouraged them to ask for their military discount at the theatre. You should have seen the look on the clerk's face. Classic! There is nothing new in this film that one shouldn't already know unless they have been sleeping under a rock for the last year. I agree with Aames that this film is basically preaching to the choir. All it will do is further anger the left and the right. The only group it might influence is that pocket of geniuses that gets its political news from MTV and Rolling Stone. Bush has made a gaggle of errors in office and the Dems in congress went right along with him. I won't vote for Bush. I won't vote for Kerry. I'll probably vote for Nader or write in John McCaine. It's a shame we are left to such choices. But this movie and Moore are embarrassments. I am all for speaking your mind and letting your voice be heard but Moore deals in falsities, half-truths and straight-up BS.

1. The film's portrayal of Bush sitting in the kindergarten class with what is meant to convene a confused/oblivious look on his face. Should Bush have ran out like the house was on fire? The school's principal and local media commented through numerous outlets that they were impressed with his handling of the situation. Was this in the film? Five minutes is too long. Maybe he should have left in two minutes. As we have learned from the 9/11 group, the blunders of our air traffic control system would have negated immediate action anyway.

2. Moore's "connections" of Bush to the Saudis/bin Laden family/etc. fall prey to the same flawed 1+1=4 logic the Bush administration used in their WMD/bin Laden/Iraq argument. Where's the beef?

3. Moore's "logic" concerning sons and daughters of congress serving in Iraq. The ratio of congresspersons to sons/daughters serving in Iraq is 268:1. The ratio of households in America to households with a son/daughter serving in Iraq is 349:1. Using his logic, a congressperson is 23% more likely to have a child serving in Iraq than the average American household. Of course, this type of statistical analysis leaves out the fact that we need to include variables such as households/congresspersons having children/without children, etc. Ain't it easy to prove a point with "fuzzy math", as Dubya would say?

4. Moore quote from the BBC program "Question Time" just days after 9/11:
"I don't know why we're making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely you'll be struck by lightning than die by an act of terror". Of course, Moore denies these comments, even though they are transcripted, though didn't make it "on air". Not to mention comparisons of Iraqi insurgents to "minutemen" and "revolutionaries" or that "bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty... it's the American way". Whew.

5. Screendaily.com and 'The Guardian' have reported that 9/11 will be the first documentary to be released theatrically in the Middle East, including 10 screens in Lebanon and 2 in Syria. Hooray!! These sources also report that Front Row, the Middle Eastern distributor of the film is "getting a boost" from organizations related to terrorist group Hezbollah with Front Row sources stating that "(we) can't (go against) these orgs. as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria". And by the way, 'The Guardian' isn't exactly a conservative rag.

6. Moore has stated that we (Americans) are "possibly the dumbest people on the planet". Hopefully not too dumb to believe Moore's propaganda.

7. Go to slate.com and read Christopher Hitchens' article on "Unfahrenheit 9/11" for a good laugh. Hitchen's is a self-professed liberal. A drunken, mouthy liberal, but definitely a lib.
He has a great quote about Euros embracing the precise characterization of Moore's quintessential American (fat,dumb,greedy,obnoxious).

8. And let's drop this 2000 election junk. Studies by CNN/NYT/Washington Post have shown that even if the Supreme Court had not stopped the recount of heavily Democrat county ballots in FL, Bush still would have won. Drop it. Over. Done. Four years ago. Oh yeah, but what about voter fraud/stopping people from getting to the poles, etc? Never been proven. But did you catch the story on NPR this morning about the Democratic Party in Arizona legally blocking/questioning the validity of the signature campaign to get Nader on the ballot in AZ? The Green Party can't afford to fight the Dems in court so Nader won't be on the ballot. God bless democracy in action. The Dems really are the party of the little guy.

GO NADER!!!

perfmode
07-03-2004, 11:44 AM
Ah, that patriot Michael Moore. :lol: Why the personal attacks on Tennis-n-SC? Because he called Moore a jerk and an idiot? Because he doesn't agree "9/11" is a great film, this makes him "closed minded"? If I remember correctly, T-n-SC is a vet with some personal experiences in these matters. I went to see "9/11" last night with two Air Force buddies that fly c17s over to Iraq on a monthly basis. I encouraged them to ask for their military discount at the theatre. You should have seen the look on the clerk's face. Classic! There is nothing new in this film that one shouldn't already know unless they have been sleeping under a rock for the last year. I agree with Aames that this film is basically preaching to the choir. All it will do is further anger the left and the right. The only group it might influence is that pocket of geniuses that gets its political news from MTV and Rolling Stone. Bush has made a gaggle of errors in office and the Dems in congress went right along with him. I won't vote for Bush. I won't vote for Kerry. I'll probably vote for Nader or write in John McCaine. It's a shame we are left to such choices. But this movie and Moore are embarrassments. I am all for speaking your mind and letting your voice be heard but Moore deals in falsities, half-truths and straight-up BS.

1. The film's portrayal of Bush sitting in the kindergarten class with what is meant to convene a confused/oblivious look on his face. Should Bush have ran out like the house was on fire? The school's principal and local media commented through numerous outlets that they were impressed with his handling of the situation. Was this in the film? Five minutes is too long. Maybe he should have left in two minutes. As we have learned from the 9/11 group, the blunders of our air traffic control system would have negated immediate action anyway.

2. Moore's "connections" of Bush to the Saudis/bin Laden family/etc. fall prey to the same flawed 1+1=4 logic the Bush administration used in their WMD/bin Laden/Iraq argument. Where's the beef?

3. Moore's "logic" concerning sons and daughters of congress serving in Iraq. The ratio of congresspersons to sons/daughters serving in Iraq is 268:1. The ratio of households in America to households with a son/daughter serving in Iraq is 349:1. Using his logic, a congressperson is 23% more likely to have a child serving in Iraq than the average American household. Of course, this type of statistical analysis leaves out the fact that we need to include variables such as households/congresspersons having children/without children, etc. Ain't it easy to prove a point with "fuzzy math", as Dubya would say?

4. Moore quote from the BBC program "Question Time" just days after 9/11:
"I don't know why we're making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely you'll be struck by lightning than die by an act of terror". Of course, Moore denies these comments, even though they are transcripted, though didn't make it "on air". Not to mention comparisons of Iraqi insurgents to "minutemen" and "revolutionaries" or that "bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty... it's the American way". Whew.

5. Screendaily.com and 'The Guardian' have reported that 9/11 will be the first documentary to be released theatrically in the Middle East, including 10 screens in Lebanon and 2 in Syria. Hooray!! These sources also report that Front Row, the Middle Eastern distributor of the film is "getting a boost" from organizations related to terrorist group Hezbollah with Front Row sources stating that "(we) can't (go against) these orgs. as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria". And by the way, 'The Guardian' isn't exactly a conservative rag.

6. Moore has stated that we (Americans) are "possibly the dumbest people on the planet". Hopefully not too dumb to believe Moore's propaganda.

7. Go to slate.com and read Christopher Hitchens' article on "Unfahrenheit 9/11" for a good laugh. Hitchen's is a self-professed liberal. A drunken, mouthy liberal, but definitely a lib.
He has a great quote about Euros embracing the precise characterization of Moore's quintessential American (fat,dumb,greedy,obnoxious).

8. And let's drop this 2000 election junk. Studies by CNN/NYT/Washington Post have shown that even if the Supreme Court had not stopped the recount of heavily Democrat county ballots in FL, Bush still would have won. Drop it. Over. Done. Four years ago. Oh yeah, but what about voter fraud/stopping people from getting to the poles, etc? Never been proven. But did you catch the story on NPR this morning about the Democratic Party in Arizona legally blocking/questioning the validity of the signature campaign to get Nader on the ballot in AZ? The Green Party can't afford to fight the Dems in court so Nader won't be on the ballot. God bless democracy in action. The Dems really are the party of the little guy.

GO NADER!!!

You realize that by supporting Nader you are throwing away your vote, right? I hope that you are kidding.

Kobble
07-03-2004, 11:55 AM
WOw, is it working or what. If he was not out to make money, why does he ridicule anyone who has not seen the movie? So, people will feel they have to pay ten bucks to achieve the right to have an opinion, or post an argument on message boards. Basically, this guy is saying we should fear the policies of the Bush administration. And he uses music filled and edited propoganda to impose his fear driven message on you. Moore does not choose to do a speech on live television or in public, and simply present his facts in an intelligent non-obnoxious manner. That would be the way to go for a man who wants you to realize his great credibilty, especially, on such an important issue about the direction of the U.S.. I will wait until my local library branch gets a copy.

Kevin T
07-03-2004, 12:05 PM
Brilliant comment, Perf. I prefer to look at it as if I were throwing away my vote on Bush or Kerry. Agreed Kobble. I plunked down my cash as one of those "things you have to do", like drive to Canada on a dare. I am a college professor and work in research and if it's easy for scientists to manipulate study results, you can bet it's even easier to manipulate film editing. I was thinking that maybe next year, the USA could send "This Is Spinal Tap" or "A Mightly Wind" to Cannes for the documentary category.

Morpheus
07-03-2004, 03:49 PM
Hey, Kevin, when you write in for "McCaine", remember to spell his name correctly or it might not count. :wink:

It is hard to tell if you are pro or con Bush (although you sound as though you don't care for either candidate) because your post was mainly anti-Moore, which is a reasonable position to take given his style. I suppose the thread was originally about the movie so your rebuttal makes sense. Where exactly do you stand on things? (BTW, I didn't perceive that Tennis N Sync had been attacked by more than one poster).

perfmode
07-03-2004, 04:10 PM
WOw, is it working or what. If he was not out to make money, why does he ridicule anyone who has not seen the movie? So, people will feel they have to pay ten bucks to achieve the right to have an opinion, or post an argument on message boards. Basically, this guy is saying we should fear the policies of the Bush administration. And he uses music filled and edited propoganda to impose his fear driven message on you. Moore does not choose to do a speech on live television or in public, and simply present his facts in an intelligent non-obnoxious manner. That would be the way to go for a man who wants you to realize his great credibilty, especially, on such an important issue about the direction of the U.S.. I will wait until my local library branch gets a copy.

"Marches and speeches only reach those who already know about it. This is how we go about it." -Outkast

Music and movies are sometimes the only ways to reach certain ages groups and audiences.

Kevin T
07-04-2004, 06:41 AM
Morpheus, it's not a logical reaction considering his "style", it's a logical reaction considering his facts and methodology. And comments towards Tennis-n-SC came from 3 posters concerning his
"intelligence", "closed-mindedness and ignorance" and "putting his trust in honesty-challenged talk shows". How can a man's intelligence and political philosophy be gleaned from one post? Vets see things through different eyes because we've been there and done that. And to answer your question, I'm not for either candidate. In my adult life, I have tended to vote democratic locally and republican nationally. Bush is a disappointment to me. But was I going to vote for Gore? :lol: :lol: When you can't win your home state, that's saying something. Even Mondale won Minnesota (the only state he won) in the Reagan landslide of 1984. It was a choice between ugly fat girl or uglier fatter girl. Whose side am I on? I'm on our soldiers side. Period. End of story. I grew up an army brat, served, have family and good friends in the military and live in a military town. They are just doing their job and 99.999% of them are doing it very well. They always pay the price of ignorant foreign policy. They never get the respect they deserve. Hollywood was out in droves to support the 9/11 victims. Where is the support for the families of our dead soldiers? The guys making minimum wage and doing their duty? And thanks for the spellcheck, Morph. I never won a spelling bee in school, that's for sure. I'm surprised you didn't notice my "poles" (should have been "polls"-thanks spellcheck!).

By the way Morpheus, you're not working for one of those American companies that move off-shore for a tax break, are you? :D Happy 4th, everyone!

Phil
07-04-2004, 09:06 AM
Where is the support for the families of our dead soldiers?

Normally, in America at least, support is generated through media exposure-to whatever issue or cause. If the Bush administration ALLOWED the filming/photographing of the caskets coming into Dover AF Base, or the media (and the US military propaganda machine) ALLOWED dead us soldiers and marines to be filmed in battle in Iraq, or if ANY of the senior members of the Bush administration even BOTHERED to visit the wards in Bethesda and Walter Reade hospitals full of single, double and triple amputees, then THOSE images would, without a doubt, create more support. But the Bush administration is scared of doing this because it will turn the public completely against the war.

My only comment on Moore, because 9/11 has been discussed ad nauseum here and elsewhere: yes, he's a propogandist and an entertainer-he manipulates his audience and distorts the truth. But that's NO DIFFERENT than what Limbaugh, Coulter, Fox News and its "news" staff, Evans and Novack, etc., etc. do on the right. Why, then, is the right wing so SCARED of Moore?

david aames
07-04-2004, 02:20 PM
Kevin,

1/ saying that Tennis-n-SC was 'putting his trust in honesty-challenged talk shows' can hardly be considered a personal attack. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt but I certainly find his post influenced by the rhetoric and views of the Murdoch far right champions.

2/ Most of the veterans in this country never had to fight a war... Not that it matters -- paying taxes alone should allow you to voice your opinion in a democratic society (something that the Enron and other Bermuda-loving executives might want to meditate). Don't you find it interesting that the two most prominent war veterans holding public office have been smeared by the Bush campaign?

3/ In my view, MTV and Rolling Stone did their share when it comes to cover the war... I remember seeing pretty original reporting from MTV's Gideon Yago coming out of Iraq, and Evan Wright, who just published 'Generation Kill' (I'm reading it right now, terrific stuff -- he was 'embedded' with First Recon, a Marines elite corp) is writing for Rolling Stone... Believe it or not, that 'pocket of geniuses' are the ones fighting this war for the likes of O'Reilly and Hannity.

Morpheus, it's not a logical reaction considering his "style", it's a logical reaction considering his facts and methodology. And comments towards Tennis-n-SC came from 3 posters concerning his
"intelligence", "closed-mindedness and ignorance" and "putting his trust in honesty-challenged talk shows". How can a man's intelligence and political philosophy be gleaned from one post? Vets see things through different eyes because we've been there and done that. And to answer your question, I'm not for either candidate. In my adult life, I have tended to vote democratic locally and republican nationally. Bush is a disappointment to me. But was I going to vote for Gore? :lol: :lol: When you can't win your home state, that's saying something. Even Mondale won Minnesota (the only state he won) in the Reagan landslide of 1984. It was a choice between ugly fat girl or uglier fatter girl. Whose side am I on? I'm on our soldiers side. Period. End of story. I grew up an army brat, served, have family and good friends in the military and live in a military town. They are just doing their job and 99.999% of them are doing it very well. They always pay the price of ignorant foreign policy. They never get the respect they deserve. Hollywood was out in droves to support the 9/11 victims. Where is the support for the families of our dead soldiers? The guys making minimum wage and doing their duty? And thanks for the spellcheck, Morph. I never won a spelling bee in school, that's for sure. I'm surprised you didn't notice my "poles" (should have been "polls"-thanks spellcheck!).

By the way Morpheus, you're not working for one of those American companies that move off-shore for a tax break, are you? :D Happy 4th, everyone!

david aames
07-04-2004, 02:31 PM
More about Generation Kill:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0399151931/qid=1088976556/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-3133330-1043255?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Phil
07-04-2004, 08:22 PM
KevinT wrote:

Go to slate.com and read Christopher Hitchens' article on "Unfahrenheit 9/11" for a good laugh. Hitchen's is a self-professed liberal. A drunken, mouthy liberal, but definitely a lib.
He has a great quote about Euros embracing the precise characterization of Moore's quintessential American (fat,dumb,greedy,obnoxious).

I read that article before and I was shocked at Hitchen's obvious pro-Bush, pro-war bias. For a much better, and even-handed approach to the subject, see this article by Todd Gitlin:


http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-3-1988.jsp#

Morpheus
07-04-2004, 08:41 PM
Try this:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-3-1988.jsp#

(Phil, the URL code doesn't seem to work; instead, you just type in the link...)

Phil
07-04-2004, 08:56 PM
Thanks, Morpheus.

baseliner
07-07-2004, 06:06 AM
I guess my opinion doesn't count either. I am a vet of 3 wars (Vietnam, Desert Shield/Storm and current operation Iraqi Freedom) and I, like vast majority of vets loath John Kerry. Fact: Michael Moore is a liar and a propagandist. He admits he hopes the film changes minds to defeat Bush. As far as being an independent, he is a registered Democrat in NY and registered to vote in Michigan where party registration is not required. I say I am an independent because I have voted for Democrats as well as Republicans. Wonder when Moore last voted for a Republican?
One of the earlier posters mentioned 2 reasons for the war both of which were disproved. 1. WMD's Please go to a google search of earlier statements of Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton. All unequivocally stated Iraq had WMD's. Please note WMD's have been found in Iraq (do search of Sarin gas canister found also Mustard gas) The media outside of Fox has not widely reported the fact. The response has been "Stockpiles" of WMD have not been found. Imperically however WMD have in fact been found in Iraq. 2. No tie between Sadaam Hussein and Al-Qaieda. Read the 9-11 copmmission report. Extensive ties between Hussein and Al-Qaieda. The trumpeted finding was no direct tie between the 9-11 attacks and Hussein. There is a significant difference between the two. If in fact we are fighting a war on terror and there is a direct link between a terror organization (Al-Quaieda) and Saddam Hussein in providing funding and camps for the training of terrorists that makes Saddam H a legitimate target.
I recognize I am in the minority on this board but I feel compelled to add some facts to the discussion.

magiset
07-07-2004, 12:29 PM
Moore is also a fairly conservative Democrat (the target audience for his film). Remember he just supported W. Clark in the dem prime, a Reagan-era Republican turned Democrat (I think not really).

What strikes me is how many on this board (not so long ago) believed the 9/11-Iraq pseudo-connection. Thanks to Moore for making obvious falsehoods like this presentable to the peasant classes of me-me-me generation consumers. Beyond this one would be better served reading from alternative news sources like commondreams.org and/or truthout.com.

Moreover, for the Moore-clones who can almost justify killing innocents in Afgan. (at least for arguement's own sake), but not in Iraq, think a little deeper into the stream of everyone-- revolt toward peace.

Phil
07-07-2004, 06:51 PM
I guess my opinion doesn't count either. I am a vet of 3 wars (Vietnam, Desert Shield/Storm and current operation Iraqi Freedom) and I, like vast majority of vets loath John Kerry. Fact: Michael Moore is a liar and a propagandist. He admits he hopes the film changes minds to defeat Bush. As far as being an independent, he is a registered Democrat in NY and registered to vote in Michigan where party registration is not required. I say I am an independent because I have voted for Democrats as well as Republicans. Wonder when Moore last voted for a Republican?
One of the earlier posters mentioned 2 reasons for the war both of which were disproved. 1. WMD's Please go to a google search of earlier statements of Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton. All unequivocally stated Iraq had WMD's. Please note WMD's have been found in Iraq (do search of Sarin gas canister found also Mustard gas) The media outside of Fox has not widely reported the fact. The response has been "Stockpiles" of WMD have not been found. Imperically however WMD have in fact been found in Iraq. 2. No tie between Sadaam Hussein and Al-Qaieda. Read the 9-11 copmmission report. Extensive ties between Hussein and Al-Qaieda. The trumpeted finding was no direct tie between the 9-11 attacks and Hussein. There is a significant difference between the two. If in fact we are fighting a war on terror and there is a direct link between a terror organization (Al-Quaieda) and Saddam Hussein in providing funding and camps for the training of terrorists that makes Saddam H a legitimate target.
I recognize I am in the minority on this board but I feel compelled to add some facts to the discussion.

Okay, this is a TENNIS forum, but you DO deserve a response to your comments. I think your opinion counts, but that doesn't mean that it's correct. I don't think you added any more "facts" to the discussion; only the same standard arguments and half truths that have been thrown around for many months-kind of like what Moore does. Citing Fox News is sort of like a liberal using Michael Moore as his source of information.

The sarin gas canister-a single shell, was probably well over 14 years old; we KNEW they had some gas-but the US under Reagan was SILENT when it was used to kill hundreds of Kurds in '88. And they NEVER used gas against the US, in either Desert Storm or OIF. Iraq was not a threat to the US. They were an "easy" target, Iran, Syria, N. Korea and Pakistan-all THREATS to the US and the international community-are not easy targets for various reasons. Greed, ideological blindness and revenge for Poppy's failure to dispose of Saddam the first time around, play more of a part in the US going into Iraq than "WMD" (proved to be a falsehood), which was changed to "Sponsor of Terror/9-11" (another falsehood, or at the very least, a gross exaggeration), and THEN changed to something called "Iraqi Freedom" (Freedom from Saddam, but now a prison of civil war and instability, courtesy of the domestic and foreign terrorists unleashed by the war).

Who cares what party Moore is registered with? You don't think Bush, Cheney and Co. have "lied" to the US public about much more important issues-like, say, the reasons for going into Iraq? What a joke. But the American public is so gullible that they'll swallow anything whole if it's spun well. Of COURSE Saddam had contact with known terror groups-probably many of them, but so does Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Pakistan (you know, the country that CREATED the Taliban) and N. Korea. Fact is, Saddam hated the Islamists and he probably did not go far beyond talking to them. He did not provide funding to train al Qa'eda. The administration has SQUANDERED resources in Iraq that should have been used for rooting out and killing terrorists, in Afghanistan. Now that Iraq is wide open, it's NOW a magnet for terrorists like al Zarqawi, so I guess the lie became a self-fulfilling prophecy and the US has no choice now but to stay in Iraq, indefinitely.

Taking Iraq was not, in itself wrong. There are many strategic reasons for holding such a central geographical region, and, getting rid of a tyrant in the process. What was wrong was basing the action on false, fantasy premises, and lying to the American people and the entire international community. Not everyone bought those lies, though. I've seen nothing but bumbling, stumbling incompetence from the administration since the war "ended". No real planning...only reaction and half-measure solutions to events that they cannot control or stop. And, as part of that, the fact that they didn't send in special teams to destroy the thousands of conventional weapons caches, which are now being used to kill Americans and Iraqis, is one of the MOST criminally negligent non-actions of this sad and pathetic situation. My question still stands: Why are Bush supporters so AFRAID of Michael Moore, especially if he's just another "lier"?

david aames
07-07-2004, 07:16 PM
Baseliner,

sounds like you're having a Fox News overdose... I only hope you won't vote for that independent candidate of yours in november ;)

Morpheus
07-07-2004, 07:57 PM
Nice rebuttal, Phil.

I've wondered to what extent the war on Iraq was driven by the Bush administration's realization that they needed a political "win" against terror, and since Bin Laden was a ghost with an amorphous army, they chose Sadam and Iraq--a stationary target with a highly prominent bad guy as boss. If you can't win the real war, why not find a war we can win, then shift everyone's attention away from the real problem.

Problem is, we may not be able to win this war. Good thing the economy is picking up in time for the election. Should at least make it a close race.

Chopin
07-07-2004, 08:10 PM
Nice post Phil

david aames
07-07-2004, 08:44 PM
They had a win in Afghanistan. They let it slip away because it was never about the 'war on terror'.

I've wondered to what extent the war on Iraq was driven by the Bush administration's realization that they needed a political "win" against terror, and since Bin Laden was a ghost with an amorphous army, they chose Sadam and Iraq--a stationary target with a highly prominent bad guy as boss. If you can't win the real war, why not find a war we can win, then shift everyone's attention away from the real problem.

Problem is, we may not be able to win this war. Good thing the economy is picking up in time for the election. Should at least make it a close race.

tennis-n-sc
07-08-2004, 10:25 AM
I have always had a problem controlling the urge to write something without thinking about it. My bad. There has been a lot of opinions thrown out on this thread along with some name calling, mostly at me. I would just add, if comments are to be made about the military or foreign service, at least consider the opinions of posters who have performed service in those areas, lived in other countries (other than Bermuda)as an American representing the government of the United States or performed some similar type of service. To merely go to Paris for a week doesn't count. Other folks experiences can be a wonderful source of information if not condemed prior to investigation. Same holds true on the tennis courts which is probably why political and religious topics should be banned from this board.

I can't help but feel a little guilty when I go out to the courts thinkig about the thousands of American men and women around the world that are just trying to do what they can to make things better. Having been there, I can feel safe in saying that they are porbably wondering what we are doing with our lives and if anyone really gives a hoot in hell about what they are trying to do.

Roger Moore is an entertainer attempting to capitalize on the next big item of controversary. He has no experience in anything except placing an antagonistic view on film. I don't think he has ever offered suggestions or solutions to the very topics he supposedly exposes. Well, it takes all kinds. Most of the topics on these boards are interesting and offer good advice and suggestions with regard to tennis. If everyone had the Tennis Channel, maybe these topics would not turn so hostile.

Those of you are old enough, go vote. No matter who is elected, I sadly doubt we will see much change.

If you can, the next time you see a man or woman in uniform, walk up to them and thank them for serving. It will make their day.

baseliner
07-08-2004, 01:03 PM
tennis-n-sc. Let me add a nonpolitical amen to the request to go thank a soldier or airman in uniform. Back when I was on active duty as I entered a restaraunt (in uniform) I heard a small boy say to his mother "He's one of the good guys isn't he". Made my whole day.

david aames
07-08-2004, 02:04 PM
George W. Bush to Barbara? With all due respect, because of that good guys/bad guys way of looking at the world the country has to contemplate huge deficits with no end in sight.

I just wish Kerry, a fellow veteran, would get the same respect from you. Cause he is 'one of the good guys' you know.

Back when I was on active duty as I entered a restaraunt (in uniform) I heard a small boy say to his mother "He's one of the good guys isn't he". Made my whole day.

Phil
07-08-2004, 06:22 PM
tennis-n-sc - I think you're coming at Michael Moore from the wrong angle. His film is not a criticism of the US military, and certainly not of the people serving in the US military. 9/11 is a broadside against the BUSH ADMINISTRATION and its alleged manufacture of a casus belli, and the incompetent and venial prosecution of said war. Whatever you think of his methodology, he at least has the RIGHT to do what he is doing and ask the questions-just as Rush Limbaugh has the right, each and every nighyt, to slander democratic pols. In a war that has no definite "end", with Americans getting killed, these questions need to be asked-by someone. The Bush administration and its supporters feel that everything is just fine and to question the war is unpatriotic. Wrong answer-especially in a democracy like ours. Please also note that unlike Moore, I AM a registered Independent-so this is not some pro-Kerry rant.

I agree that the vast majority of our men and women in uniform are good guys. But you don't have to have direct experience to talk about US foreign policy or the military-it can certainly give you greater insight-but not always. Americans have the right to VOTE, but they normally have no direct experience or knowledge of the issues that they're voting for, other than what they might read in a newspaper. Dick Cheney, an individual who has served as SecDef and is now one of the chief architects of Operation "Iraqi Freedom" has no military experience-he, in fact, took advantage of multiple draft deferments to avoid the military, and in all liklihood, the Vietnam War. So if he can craft US foreign policy then I don't see a problem with the people on this board TALKING about it. You cannot have your cake and eat it too...

David - Good point. I'm no fan of Kerry, and there ARE ambiguities in Kerry's behavior while he was in, and shortly after he left the Navy. But one thing is indisputable-he WAS There, in the sh*t.

Cruzer
07-09-2004, 10:31 AM
Documentarys are theoretically objective and factual in their nature. Moore's 9/11 is neither. Moore is not much more than an obvious left wing Demo equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. Just as the Republican party does not openly commend the efforts of Rush Limbaugh the Democrats are not openly embracing the efforts of Michael Moore since both these guys are clearly way over the top in the views and opinions, almost in the wacko category. Kerry et al. are probably quite happy to have Moore's 9/11 film playing at this time but they are not going to invite him to give the opening address at their upcoming convention. If he wanted to make an entertaining film at least he could have got Will Ferrell and Darryl Hammond to do some of their Bush-Gore routines.

tennis-n-sc
07-09-2004, 12:23 PM
Phil, I am neither a Democrat nor Repulican but do tend to lean toward the conservative end of things. I have heard Kerry diss his commrades in arms before senate hearings while wearng pieces of uniforms, side with Jane Fonda during her love-ins with Hanoi and he claims to have thrown his medals away. In addition, there is strong evidence he used family influence to get his tour shortened considerably in addition to causing at least one of his wounds, if not both (both of which were minor), himself. He may have been in the s#*t, as you say, but he bailed when it began to stink. But enough of that.

My last political statement is that I would like to see a McCain/Leiberman ticket. These guys have more sense than the rest of Washington combined.

Now, back to tennis!!

david aames
07-09-2004, 03:38 PM
Tennis n sc -- I hate to do this but, how many times did you get hit by shrapnel during your service? How many bronze/silver stars did you bring home? I mean, you have the right to despise the man but please do it for the right reasons.

This is a link to an Associated Press story about his service in Vietnam:

http://www.detnews.com/2004/politics/0404/25/politics-132427.htm

Phil, I am neither a Democrat nor Repulican but do tend to lean toward the conservative end of things. I have heard Kerry diss his commrades in arms before senate hearings while wearng pieces of uniforms, side with Jane Fonda during her love-ins with Hanoi and he claims to have thrown his medals away. In addition, there is strong evidence he used family influence to get his tour shortened considerably in addition to causing at least one of his wounds, if not both (both of which were minor), himself. He may have been in the s#*t, as you say, but he bailed when it began to stink. But enough of that.

My last political statement is that I would like to see a McCain/Leiberman ticket. These guys have more sense than the rest of Washington combined.

Now, back to tennis!!

Morpheus
07-09-2004, 05:36 PM
Why am I not surprised...

Report: Bush Military Records Destroyed

The Pentagon says military records related to President Bush's
service in the National Guard more than 30 years ago
were inadvertently destroyed, The New York Times
reported on Friday.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-RTO-rontz&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20040709%2F0645031861.htm&sc=rontz&photoid= 20040707MISW108

Phil
07-10-2004, 02:24 AM
Phil, I am neither a Democrat nor Repulican but do tend to lean toward the conservative end of things. I have heard Kerry diss his commrades in arms before senate hearings while wearng pieces of uniforms, side with Jane Fonda during her love-ins with Hanoi and he claims to have thrown his medals away. In addition, there is strong evidence he used family influence to get his tour shortened considerably in addition to causing at least one of his wounds, if not both (both of which were minor), himself. He may have been in the s#*t, as you say, but he bailed when it began to stink. But enough of that.

My last political statement is that I would like to see a McCain/Leiberman ticket. These guys have more sense than the rest of Washington combined.

Now, back to tennis!!

Tennis n sc - If you want to talk about family influence, let's look at Dubya...he landed a COVETED place in a champagne AFNG unit, passing over THOUSANDS of people who were ahead of him, due to the connections of his powerful father and grandfather. The same connections helped him to MISS a good portion of NG duty to work on a campaign, after which he got out six months early to attend business school. What would YOUR CO's reaction have been if YOU had walked up to him and asked to leave the unit a half year earlier 'cause you wanted to go back to school. We KNOW what his reaction would be.

I'm not crazy about Kerry's post war activities, but even if he DID mix with a few misguided souls, his heart was in the right place-protesting a lost cause of a war. And while he did that, your boy was smoking, coking and getting DWI's on the privleged frat boy circuit. I don't think EITHER man's behavior at that time warrents the scrutiny that it's getting now-but that's American politics.

Here's MY final non-tennis comment here...bottom line is military service should not even be a factor in an election year, but after the Republicans set a precedent in their election battle against Clinton (BTW, despite the "draft doger" claims, he defeated TWO decorated WW II combat vets), it's become an issue, unfortunately, and more unfortunately for Bush since he has the weaker record there. Given Clinton's success, in the end I don't think the American public, other than some vets, really cares. I'm a vet, and I don't care-there's a lot more, and a lot worse things to pick up on in the Bush record than his NG boondoggle, which I think is distracting.

tennis-n-sc
07-10-2004, 08:16 AM
David, I served in Vietnam in the mid 60's as a forward air controller all over the country but primarily in three Special Forces camps in Tay Ninh Province. No medals and no awards. Never fired a shot in anger though I was the reciepent of several, along with many others.

Phil, I actually think we are making many of the same points from a different view. Life experiences do count toward leadership, along with surrounding yourself with qualified advisors. When you consider the last several occupants of the White House, they have all lacked in many aspects, some more than others. In many regards, I think their is a lot of underlying frustration among the majority of the American people that a more complete candidate never seems to appear, from either party.

And I swear this is my last comment!

Now back to work on that one-handed backhand.

Phil
07-10-2004, 11:29 PM
Life experiences do count toward leadership, along with surrounding yourself with qualified advisors. When you consider the last several occupants of the White House, they have all lacked in many aspects, some more than others. In many regards, I think their is a lot of underlying frustration among the majority of the American people that a more complete candidate never seems to appear, from either party.


Tennis n sc - True, but I think the reason for this is that no one who may actually possess complete or near complete qualifications for the job is insane enough to take it! Who CHOOSES such a difficult and thankless job? We're always going to have to settle for second best there, I'm afraid.

Morpheus
07-11-2004, 06:07 AM
There can be no "complete" President because of the diversity of needs, views, ethics, and morality that exist within the U.S. population. A President hopes to represent the majority of the people, but in the end he can only do what he believes to be right, and that inevitably ****es off a lot of people, oftentimes even those who are aligned with the President's platform.

Phil
07-11-2004, 06:01 PM
but in the end he can only do what he believes to be right

More likely, he can only do what is in the interests of his backers/paymasters.

Morpheus
07-12-2004, 04:44 AM
but in the end he can only do what he believes to be right

More likely, he can only do what is in the interests of his backers/paymasters.

True. Although I don't think Dubya is a total puppet; he has this self-righteousness coupled with a mandate from [his] God that shapes his actions as much as anything.

Phil
07-12-2004, 08:54 PM
True. Although I don't think Dubya is a total puppet; he has this self-righteousness coupled with a mandate from [his] God that shapes his actions as much as anything.


I'm not sure how much of his mandate comes from God and how much of it is just pandering to the religious right wing element of his constituency. He is, after all, a politician, which means he does a lot of acting.

Shane Reynolds
07-21-2004, 04:36 PM
Just a few random thoughts:
(1) No one that runs for President, Governor of a state, the Senate, etc., isn't rich before he runs for the office. It takes major money to run a campaign. The Bush family made their money in oil - don't you think a family of that wealth made from oil would have crossed paths with Saudi Arabia? I don't like it any more than I like the fact that John Edwards made his money as an ambulance-chasing personal injury lawyer. Rightly or wrongly, this is American politics. My personal solution would be to have a multiple party system with a run-off election between the top two vote getters; this won't work, though, because we can barely get 1/3 of the population to vote once much less twice.
(2) Michael Moore is a liar and a deceiver. He makes works of fiction and distorts the truth to make everything look the way he wants it to. Conservatives do it, too - we just haven't made a movie yet and represented it as a "documentary."
(3) We have become a country of entitlement. We think we are owed something and we look for someone to blame when it doesn't work out for us. We've all had tough times but we have to do the best we can. We live in the greatest country in the world (no offense to anyone else) and thousands sacrifice each year for a chance to come here. Most of them don't complain, they just work hard so their children can have a better life and grow up with our freedoms and prosperity. Personally, I think there is no higher act than to sacrifice your own time and efforts for your children's betterment. The Democratic Party has gone so far left I'm surprised they have any support but the way the media tries to think for us, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
(4) Just because the President is not a slick speaker like Clinton doesn't mean he is stupid. Public speaking is not my forte either but I am not stupid. He is in the worst situation a President could be in because he is getting hammered by the media and he is having to use our military throughout the world to ensure our safety. Everybody knows Iraq had WMD; we could not take the chance of them getting into the wrong hands. I don't know where they are now and I don't care - I am quite confident we did the right thing. Our soldiers are doing great but we citizens are failing them by giving them nothing but discouragement.
(5) France is not our friend. Do not deceive yourselves. We don't need their permission to defend ourselves. We are not oppressing anyone - we are defending ourselves and we are helping the people of Afghanistan and Iraq to have rights like we have. If you think we don't have the right to act unilaterally as a force of good, look up and read Jimmy Carter's eloquent letter to Bill Clinton urging him to not wait for UN support before stopping the Serbs.
(6) The Patriot Act has not affected me one bit other than to make me safe. It hasn't infringed on the rights of anyone I know or have heard of. For the people that drone on and on about our civil liberties being compromised - do you extend that same protection to 2nd Amendment Rights? If you do, I would like to hear about it because most of the people squawking about civil liberties are the same people that want all guns gone (which would be fantastic if you're in the criminal industry).
(7) Bush is a man of faith. Every President to some extent has been Christian. There is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights compromising the rights of Christians or any other group - we have liberal judges to thank for that. Being a Christian is like being black or white, tall or short, fat or slender - you don't turn it off and on. It is part of who you are. Would you rather have a man who thinks he is only responsible to people who the media will help him deceive or do you want a man who knows he will stand before the Almighty to account for what he has done?
(8) Stop quoting Caesar and others. It's just silly. We have to trust our leaders. It is fine to disagree, it is fine to voice your opinion, but it serves no useful purpose to take personal attacks at our Leader. I think Clinton did some stupid things that made 9/11 easier but I don't think for a second that he did anything purposefully to compromise us. He did what he thought was right and I disagreed with what he did. I don't need to call him names, accuse him of having agendas, or talk about the fact that most everyone around him with knowledge of his finances has died mysteriously. I am part of the "Religious Right" and trust me, Bush does not pander to us, though he is more palatable than most Presidents have been. You don't have to be religious to have a moral code and to respect the way things have been done for centuries before someone put it in our heads that "change is always good."

thejerk
07-24-2004, 04:40 PM
Alright Shane, I had to read all the way through the juvenile conspiracy stuff to finally get to a grown up point of view. Remember what Churchhill said, I'll paraphrase, if your not a liberal when you're young then you have no heart, if your not conservative as an adult, then you are just stupid.

Russiadude
07-24-2004, 07:17 PM
I would call myself a conservative but I enjoyed watching Fahrenheit 9/11. Having said this, Moore is definitely a propagandist. Yes the movie was quite powerful and played on basic emotions but the bottom line to why this movie should not be considered fact is here: http://www.larryelder.com/911/debunking911.html

thejerk
07-24-2004, 08:19 PM
Oh yea, just wondering if any of you kids knew that mikey got fired as editor of Mother Jones for censoring stuff that was critical of socialism. Just wondering what you youngsters thought of censorship?

Phil
07-25-2004, 07:44 PM
I am part of the "Religious Right" and trust me, Bush does not pander to us

Trust me, padre, he does.

Coda
07-25-2004, 08:23 PM
good argument phil...couldn't have said it better myself shane. I agree that some things that this administration has done have been questionable, but Bush is pushing this country in the correct direction...remember, lives must be lost in order for freedom to be protected...think about Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII. I thank all those soldiers out there in the desert so I can sit here in an air conditioned room wasting time on my computer.

Phil
07-25-2004, 08:52 PM
...remember, lives must be lost in order for freedom to be protected...think about Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII. I thank all those soldiers out there in the desert so I can sit here in an air conditioned room wasting time on my computer.

For you to compare the Iraq misadventure to WWII and the Revolutionary War (WWI; well, you don't know much about history, do you?), is absurd and betrays your absolute ignorance of American history. Don't EVEN try and call this a "Freedom" war. I'm not going to construct a "good argument" for you or Shane because there's no point in arguing with droids who swallow whole everything that the government tries to shovel down their throats. This is a tennis board-maybe you should consider discussing tennis, because you are out of your depth on this subject.

Rickson
07-25-2004, 09:02 PM
Bush will be gone in January. 4 years of peace, what a relief.

Coda
07-25-2004, 10:00 PM
Iraq misadventure? Seems to have created a new hope for all the millions of Iraqis who suffered under the Hussein regime to me. Oh I forgot, they weren't suffering, they lived happy lives getting gased and killed by Hussein...my bad. This new hope is freedom. Didn't you see the news when the Iraqi people were overjoyed and took down the Hussein statue? Their new freedom isn't worth our time I guess.

Phil
07-25-2004, 10:15 PM
I don't think the "freedom" of the Iraqis (and that they ARE free is still up in the air) is worth the lives of 900 Americans SO FAR and countless innocent Iraqis, so NO it isn't worth our time and blood. We went in on the pretext of WMD; when that turned out to be a sham, it turned into "fighting terrorism" and when that turned out to be b.s., it became "Iraqi Freedom"-the number three justification for this invasion. Do I hear a fourth or a fifth? Oh, and I have news for you; when Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988, we stood by and did NOTHING then. Because he was our boy back then.

If you're so eager to use the blood of Americans to "free" people, look to North Korea which not only has killed untold millions of its people through torture and starvation, but also actually HAS WMD and is, as we speak, using them for blackmail. But that wouldn't be so easy, would it? It is a misadventure in every way and it in no way insures our own freedom or your freedom to "...sit here in an air conditioned room wasting time on my computer." You don't seriously believe that claptrap, do you? Try to DISCARD that myth right now.

Coda
07-25-2004, 10:54 PM
I agree that the justification for the war was shaky, but 900 lives is a small risk to pay for a new, free government for 25 million Iraqis. I also agree that their freedom is still up in the air. And I still believe that Hussein did have WMD, we just gave him enough warning about the invasion through our own media and he was able to hide them/ship them out. But if worse comes to worse at least hussein isn't ruling anymore...who knows if he could have eventually became the 21st century hitler?

Rickson
07-26-2004, 12:13 PM
So far, the closest one to a 21st century Hitler has been Bush. Thank goodness he can be voted out in a few months.

Coda
07-26-2004, 12:22 PM
haha, yes Bush is looking to kill every Arab in the world and take over the world, I forgot.

Shane Reynolds
07-26-2004, 03:09 PM
Phil, if you're looking for someone who is out of his league, I suggest you look in the mirror. If a woman is being attacked in an alley and you (presumably a big, strong man) walk by and do not intervene, what does that say about you? What if the attacker is eyeing your wife and child as you walk by? America helps as best we can BECAUSE we can. As Uncle Ben Parker once said, "With great power comes great responsibility." What would the world say of us if we sat around counting our money and never helped another country? And your North Korea argument doesn't hold water - according to your rule, if you cannot be perfect 100% of the time, you should never try. That's sad. It is also sad that you are calling US ignorant by linking this war to WWII; this war is every bit as serious as WWII. Both started as the result of an attack on our soil that was then shifted overseas. Both instances had the writing on the wall that was ignored (yes, I think Bush ignored it, too) but I don't think anyone expected 9/11. Comparing Hitler to Bush is asinine. Everyone can have his opinion but I hope you get to take Civics when you get to Freshman year. Hitler rounded up people and killed them because he did not like their race, their religion, etc. He needed a scapegoat to blame problems on so he could assume power; all Bush needed to do to stay in power was not rock the boat and try to bring the economy along after Clinton ruined it. Why would he choose all of this? If he had some conspiracy in mind to make money, don't you think he could have made as much or more just staying out of this headache? If it meant that much to him to just stay in power (even at the cost of American civilian lives), he could still be sending permission slips to the UN and just tell the public, "Well, I can't do anything because the UN won't let us." Bush has taken the fight to the terrorists on their own soil. It is indeed sad that we have lost 900 brave men and women - let's not sully their memory by whining about the war. They died with honor, and they knew when they signed up that they might be called into a war. God bless them and their families! And thank God no country in the world is counting on France to lift a finger to help them. I am so thankful that Great Britain, Australia, Poland and others have stood with us in our time of need. BTW, Phil, if you want to post on tennis, there is plenty of room for that but this forum is called "Odds & Ends" so this topic is right where it belongs and you knew what you were getting into when you started reading it. I suggest you and Rickson quit letting the media tell you what to believe and start thinking for yourself. Name another country that gives so freely. Name another country that is so easy to enter and become a part of. Name another country where it is "evil" to be proud of your country and want to wave your flag. Even the liberal Brokaw recognized the "Greatest Generation"; God help us if we had to fight a war like that today because we would sit around and whine and second-guess ourselves into speaking German (or, in this case, Arabic).

Rickson
07-26-2004, 03:47 PM
Bush and his pre-emptive strikes. I guess I should pop someone in his face for thinking about getting with my girlfriend. Maybe I should pound someone who I heard wants to fight me through unreliable sources. Bush used bully tactics and false accusations to invade Iraq and he'll pay the price soon enough by not getting a second term.

Aonex
07-26-2004, 04:06 PM
What do you guys think of the foreign policy argument that the U.S. also went into Iraq to try and set up a western democratic presence in the Middle East? This is the idea that since the region is so volatile, the U.S. wanted a foothold in the area to try and keep Syria and Iran from becoming too extremist. If they could have a peaceful, democratic state in the ME, then that would show the rest of the religious extremists in Iran, Syria and Saudi that 1) the west will actually do something about rogue states, and 2) there is an alternative to the religiously run governments in the region.

I remember reading about this in Foreign Affairs a while back. Was just curious what everyone else thought about this.

GrahamIsSuper
07-26-2004, 04:12 PM
Shane Reynolds, are you calling Iraq a woman? I'd have to say that Iraq is the most Unattractive woman EVER, and personally, I would not help Iraq if she was being attacked in a dark alley. She's one of those strong burly types. Also, if you DID help her, wait till you get her home, send in your "search teams" and find out she has a missile of mass destruction. :lol:

Shane Reynolds
07-26-2004, 05:16 PM
Graham, thanks for making me laugh. Maybe I do take these arguments a bit too serious sometimes. In any event, if anyone doesn't believe that Iraq had WMD, that person should be really mad at the UN for wasting all of that time and money trying to oversee the dismantling of the weapons. That person should also be mad at Bill Clinton for saying that Iraq had WMD. Finally, that person should be furious with all the Kurds and Iranians who died for no reason since there weren't really any chemicals in those missiles. What does the left think the reason is for "bully tactics and false accusations"? What does he have to gain? Doing the right thing may cost him re-election but the left wants us to think that he is up to no good - what is the no good? Please, someone tell me what he is up to? Is it money? Tell me, then, what can Bill Gates buy that Donald Trump can't? What can the Bush family buy that Mark Cuban can't? The Left shoves it down your throat that being a Republican is about money. That's part of it, yes. I work hard for my money and I don't see any need for Government intruding into every aspect of my life with a tax or law. The Federal Government is the single largest employer in the country - what do you think the Founding Fathers would think about that? All they intended was for the Fed Gov't to handle the military, interstate commerce, etc. Being a Republican is about smaller government for most of us. Take a look at the Democrats' planks and they're not even coherent - they just try to promise a little more than Republicans. They don't have a plan other than to tear down the current plan. Kerry couldn't even give a straight answer on the DH rule at the ballgame the other night - how can he run a country? How can he run the only superpower? Rickson, your analogy is flawed. What if the attacker had already fought with you once? What if those "unreliable" sources (let's give credit where it's due to Carter and Clinton for destroying our intelligence) were telling you what common sense had already told you? For Pete's sake, one of Bin Laden's key men was treated in Iraq for injuries received in Afghanistan - does that not speak to common sense? If you want to hear it fair and balanced, watch Fox News, especially the O'Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes. O'Reilly will tell you he is not a Republican and he criticizes Bush quite a bit. Alan Colmes, while I agree with little he says, presents his side with poise and knowledge so that I can occasionally say, "You know, I don't agree with him but I can see where he's coming from." What Colmes has that most commentators on both sides does not have is CLASS. If all the whiners and crybabies would turn that negative into something positive, we can start turning this country around. If you don't like what Bush is doing, write him a letter and tell him so. Donate to Kerry and ask him to outline what he plans to do differently so that the public can listen to both sides. We have got to stop demonizing each other. You know in your heart of hearts that Bush is doing what he thinks is right and whether you will admit it or not, he probably did the right thing. You know he didn't mislead the people for any kind of gain; he made the best decision he could with the information he had. On one hand we are screaming, "How could 9/11 have happened? Why didn't we prevent this?" but then on the other hand we're screaming "Just because Abdullah was talking about hijacking a plane and had been building bombs doesn't mean he is evil, just misunderstood" and "Why are we sending our troops all over the world?" Do you see the irony? You might not like me but you gotta give me this one.

Phil
07-26-2004, 06:34 PM
It is also sad that you are calling US ignorant by linking this war to WWII; this war is every bit as serious as WWII. Both started as the result of an attack on our soil that was then shifted overseas. Both instances had the writing on the wall that was ignored (yes, I think Bush ignored it, too) but I don't think anyone expected 9/11. Comparing Hitler to Bush is asinine. Everyone can have his opinion but I hope you get to take Civics when you get to Freshman year. Hitler rounded up people and killed them because he did not like their race, their religion, etc. He needed a scapegoat to blame problems on so he could assume power;

Listen, Padre, That's quite a mouthful-a lengthy, convoluted and poorly thought out post. However, I WOULD HAVE read the entire post and even responded to your drivel, but then I came to the passage above. First, I challenge YOU to FIND, ANYWHERE where I compared Bush to Hitler-but you won't find it-this is an outright lie. Why would you connect anything I wrote with that, or with something that someone else wrote? Secondly, I didn't link this war to WW II or "call the US ignorant"-someone else did. WW II this isn't. Saddam never tried to take over the world.

All you're doing is parroting Fox News and using the tactics of slander and lies, like your buddy Rush Limbaugh. Just SAY IT, and for most people too lazy or ignorant to know better, it's the "truth". You have to put words in my mouth for lack of a better tactic. Nothing I haven't heard before from Crossfire-these shows are tailor made for people who are unable, intellectually to think for themselves-they are the Wal-Mart of public opinion. You want to stay deluded, fine, but I don't need to address pure bullshiat-to me it's pretty pointless to have a discussion with a liar.

Aonex - I think that IF that were the reason for the invasion, and it was PLANNED in advance-the post war strategy, etc., it would be, to me, a credible reason for asserting power in that key region. However, because the public probaby wouldn't buy a pre-emptive strike for such ambigious (to them) reasons-i.e. no quick return on investment, the administration would have to come up with a Big Lie to gain public support. Well they did the Big Lie part, only, they forgot about post war planning, and, didn't send enough troops in the first place.[/quote]

Phil
07-26-2004, 06:35 PM
It is also sad that you are calling US ignorant by linking this war to WWII; this war is every bit as serious as WWII. Both started as the result of an attack on our soil that was then shifted overseas. Both instances had the writing on the wall that was ignored (yes, I think Bush ignored it, too) but I don't think anyone expected 9/11. Comparing Hitler to Bush is asinine. Everyone can have his opinion but I hope you get to take Civics when you get to Freshman year. Hitler rounded up people and killed them because he did not like their race, their religion, etc. He needed a scapegoat to blame problems on so he could assume power;

Listen, Padre, That's quite a mouthful of a lengthy, convoluted and poorly thought out post. However, I WOULD HAVE read the entire post and even responded to your drivel, but then I came to the passage above which pretty much turned me off of anything else you might have to vomit out. First, I challenge YOU to FIND, ANYWHERE where I compared Bush to Hitler-but I can save you some time there-you won't find it because this is an outright lie. Never wrote it, never even THOUGHT it. Why do you feel that you need to put words in my mouth or connect me with something that someone else wrote? I find this “tactic” sleazy-having to do this is indication of lack of any knowledge on the subject, which, you certainly demonstrated in your last droning post. And you call yourself a “Christian”? Where’s your integrity? Secondly, I didn't link this war to WW II or "call the US ignorant"-someone else did. WW II this isn't. Saddam never tried to take over the world. So that’s another fabrication from you. Again, what is your point in lying? You get desperate and resort to making things up, then you’ve lost the battle.

All you're doing is parroting Fox News and using the tactics of slander and lies, like your buddy Rush Limbaugh. Just SAY IT, and for most people too lazy or ignorant to know better or at least find out, it's the "truth". You have to put words in my mouth for lack of any concrete information. Nothing I haven't heard before from Crossfire-these shows are tailor made for people who are unable to think for themselves-they are the Wal-Mart of public opinion. You want to remain deluded, fine, but I don't need to address pure bullshiat-to me it's pointless to have a discussion with a liar.

Aonex - I think that IF that were the reason for the invasion, and it was PLANNED in advance-the post war strategy, etc., it would be, to me, a credible reason for asserting power in that key region. However, because the public probaby wouldn't buy a pre-emptive strike for such ambigious (to them) reasons-i.e. no quick return on investment, the administration would have to come up with a Big Lie to gain public support. Well they did the Big Lie part, only, they forgot about post war planning, and, didn't send enough troops in the first place.

Shane Reynolds
07-27-2004, 11:34 AM
Phil, I'm glad you assume that everything anyone in this post says is to address you. If you bothered reading just a few of the posts before mine, you would realize I was talking to Rickson about that part. You write and think like a child. I'm fat, and I would rather you call me Fatso than Padre, if you feel it necessary to call me something other than my name.

Your assertions about people thinking for themselves ... just don't qualify for comment other than a quickly little adding game for you. Add up all the TV channels that lean left, then add up all the channels that lean right. The second answer is one; I suspect you ran out of fingers and toes before you got an answer to the first part.

Please give me a good answer as to why we would invade Iraq if it were not to protect our citizens? Why would Bush risk it? It is no secret that we have no resolve anymore, so any idiot would know going in to Iraq would be unpopular after a few months. I have yet to hear the Left give a good reason and that is because there isn't one. The Left has no plan for anything other than to sit back and whine. You've fallen into the same trap, Phil. You can't argue points with me so you call me names, curse, accuse me of lying, etc. I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh in years, though I wish I could.

Finally, I don't call myself a Christian. I AM a Christian. Simplest decision I made in my life. After re-reading your posts several times trying to make some sense of them, I have the sneaking suspicion that you are a young teen thinking you're "cool" for baiting me with posts devoid of content. I hope you have a good first day of school.

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a soldier.

Aonex
07-27-2004, 12:33 PM
Shane, I think the response would be that the administration miscalculated on the difficulties of post-war reconstruction and did not plan to have it drag out this long, nor were they expecting this many casualties. As to why we went in there in the first place... well, I'm sure that's been debated to death.

david aames
07-27-2004, 03:10 PM
Oh, so talking like Limbaugh was not good enough, you needed to LOOK like him? Next stop is the oxy addiction (but to his credit that's the best thing he ever did...)

I'm fat, and I would rather you call me Fatso than Padre, if you feel it necessary to call me something other than my name.

Shane Reynolds
07-27-2004, 06:29 PM
Good point, Aonex - I don't think anyone foresaw how hard this would be. I really wish there was a manual for being President and things could go smoother by studying harder. It's funny - I voted for Clinton twice. Yep, I'll admit it. I was as liberal as they come in college. I became more conservative as I got older but four years ago, I was still carefully examining Bush and Gore to decide for whom to vote. To be honest, Gore didn't have much of a shot but I wanted to be thorough. I hope you know how I mean this but I think outside of what has happened to this country from a terrorism point of view and our response to that, "W" would have been a forgettable President, but one that likely would have easily won re-election. But this is one of those instances where the right man was in the right place at the right time; I cannot fathom what would have happened these past few years if Gore were in charge. I think he would have cried and turned it over to Lieberman, who would have done something similar to what we did under Bush.

This would be so much easier if there was a country named "Terrorists" and we could go bomb it, invade it and blow it up. I doubt we will see another large-scale war like that (with the possible exception of a bad soccer game in South America or a power-hungry dictator in Africa). I will concede some difficult choices have been made but at the end of the day, we have done our best. Libya clearly got the message.

Phil
07-27-2004, 07:22 PM
Please give me a good answer as to why we would invade Iraq if it were not to protect our citizens? Why would Bush risk it?

Okay, shane, so how about FAT PADRE, or Friar Tuck, if that's your preference? Of course you KNOW that I'm not some stupid teenager-otherwise why would you waste your time here, regurgitating this drivel?

Anyway, your premise is we HAD to invade Iraq to insure our safety. That is a patently FALSE premise-it has no military basis in reality, and even our own GENERALS were against this invasion. Our generals are not cowards, but they do base their opinions on risk and use of resources weighted against the actual threat-and there wasn't one. The administration ignored the recomendations of the JCS and the State Dept. Do you have inside information that they don't? No, you don't.

Our citizens would not be any LESS safe if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Saddam did not, and has NEVER had the capability (or the will-he's not a suicidal extremist) to strike directly at the US. He also wasn't involved in 9/11. He didn't have WMD at that time. So why did we invade, you ask? How would I know the true answer to that if no one else knows? The administration has, so far, FAILED to give a proper accounting of the invasion. I THINK we invaded to avenge Poppy's failure to put Saddam out of business the first time. After Desert Storm, we PROMISED to support an Iraqi uprising among Shi'ites and Kurds, and then we reneged on that promise and left them out to dry. Another possible reason, as I said before, is that it was and "easy" military (and political) victory-one that could insure Bush, the "War President" of his place in history, without the inherrent risks of facing a halfway competent conventional military force. Of course they didn't calculate post war deaths against a stiff resistance. One other reason is that we didn't want to be seen as cowtowing to the French and Germans and other UN anti-American bias. They DID push us into a corner, but there were face saving ways OUT of it. To go to war and get good men and women killed just to spite the French is a pretty sick and twisted excuse for unleashing American military power, which is nothing to trifle with.

To say that I sleep better because our soldiers and marines are ducking pot shots and roadside bombs from insurgents in Iraq, is ludicrous. That's a myth concocted by warmongering conservatives to justify a war that has no realistic justification. Wal-Mart shoppers like YOU buy that myth, so it works. George Washington, Gen. Patton-those guys are responsible for our freedom, not Tommy Franks. That's an insult to those men who were the actual architects of our freedom. But Not many people, with a straight face, can honestly say that our actions in Iraq have "saved" us. If we had had the nerve and strategic vision to do something with Iran or N. Korea-the REAL threats, then, I could see legitimate military action. I could EVEN see it in Iraq for the reasons Aonex provided above. But it wasn't planned that way-in fact, other than the actual invasion, nothing was planned. Every move we make now is in REACTION to events that we have no control over. To have the greatest military in the world REACTING instead of ACTING is sad and pathetic and a product of our very poor and ideologically BLINDED civilian leadership. If you have a job that requires planning, or if you've ever been in the military, or even if you try to clean and organize your house, you realize that things WORK with a good plan. Without one, they break down, or don't work at all.

Do you know what a clusterfu*k is? Sorry for denting your pious Christian ears, but that is an expression used by Christians and non-Christians alike who are in the military. That's what we have here, now.

Russiadude
07-27-2004, 07:34 PM
I think I've got to agree with Aonex and Shane on the last few posts. But I felt like adressing some other issues as well. Most of you liberals out there are regarding the results of the war as bad or mixed but feel like Bush's reasons for going to war are completely unfounded. Regarding oil there are a few facts that you should know. Fact #1: the exclusive authority to make oil contracts has been given to the Iraqi provisional government who can make deals with ANY country and ANY company not just Halliburton. Fact #2 if we were really after oil why the hell didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? Think about it: its the #1 oil nation, they would pose far less resistance than Iraq, they have had many many crimes against humanity (public beheading is common), and lastly 15 of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. Fact #3: many leaders of the various foreign nations that voted against the war actually had stakes in the old regime because of their own oil connections. Quite a biased decision to make, huh? Phil, regarding your North Korea comment I really hope you aren't serious. There is an old text known as "The Rules of War" by Sir Thomas Aquaitane I believe. So far every nation that we consider morally right has tried to obey by these rules. One of them proclaims that it is wrong to shed civilian casualties. Do you realize that if we attacked North Korea, at the first sign they could easily slaughter half of South Korea's population? In addition, China would not be too happy and for all you know another cold war would start. Their economy might have gotten more liberal but their government sure hasnt. Regarding actual terrorists in Iraq I wouldn't say that it is all b.s. There are hordes of terrorist organizations who train, live, and attack from Iraq. Ok maybe not Al Quaeda, but Bush started a war against TERROR, not a war against AL QUAEDA. Lastly I wanted to rebuke the unfound WMD's argument. For one thing tons and tons of officials, and various nations believed Iraq to have WMD's. Bush received news of this not only for many many of his own informants in the different agencies, but Russia's President Putin announced to the press recently that his own government told Bush of Iraq's WMD's and his plans to actually attack the US. I'm sure he had other informants as well. How can president Bush be expected to sit by in the wake of 9/11 after he hears that another very "questionable" nation at best is planning to attack again? For God's sake as Shane said, last August even Bill Clinton mentioned he was surprised that they have not been found as of yet because he had intelligence on them as well. So now we have a president that has information from all kinds of sources: both Democratic, Republican, and International. Was he lying about the WMD's? Possibly, but not likely. Lastly, I especially love the fact that all of you keep referring to the WMD's as a sham, and yet you never have and never will have any of the actual intelligence that the people in power get to work with. So now you get your pick between a case of ignorance (you) or hundreds or maybe even thousands of people who actually have access to intelligence information that you call "liars" though you don't have the facts. Also, I wanted to mention that I really have to disagree with Shane on FOX news. Though the angle that they provide can be refreshing and different to say CNN (the Clinton News Network) they are NOT far and balanced. Bill O' Reilly is an absolutely liar, an obnoxious personallity, and he is a registered republican though he vows himself an independent. Colmes barely gets a word in to Hannity's constant dribble. Personally I can't stand people that lie or rant no matter what party they are. By the way, good topic guys and keep up the friendly arguing. I think the real crime being committed way too often is when people stop listening to each other and never double-check their own opinions. Lastly I am going to mention that Moore's take on Welle's 1984 is quite false. He compares the police state from the novel to Bush USA. When I read the novel, I was actually thinking of Iraq and the dicatorship which was in presence there. Welle's whole point in the novel was that a people under complete physical and moral oppression might not even realize it. This is why outside forces like the United States can and sometimes should intervene, especially if our own security is at stake.

Russiadude
07-27-2004, 07:36 PM
woops sorry, meant to say George Orwell, for some reason Orson Welles was in my head. Similar names.

Phil
07-27-2004, 08:09 PM
3: many leaders of the various foreign nations that voted against the war actually had stakes in the old regime because of their own oil connections. Quite a biased decision to make, huh? Phil, regarding your North Korea comment I really hope you aren't serious. There is an old text known as "The Rules of War" by Sir Thomas Aquaitane I believe. So far every nation that we consider morally right has tried to obey by these rules. One of them proclaims that it is wrong to shed civilian casualties. Do you realize that if we attacked North Korea, at the first sign they could easily slaughter half of South Korea's population?

Well, Russiadude, you should read my posts more carefully. I would never advocate a direct military assault on N. Korea, nor would any sane person. But just because you can't do that, and that they remain a huge threat to the region AND the West Coast of the USA, doesn't mean you turn around and attack someplace that's "easier". What kind of thinking is THAT? As we see, it's NOT so easy. There are other ways to skin a cat, but the Bush administration has apparently abandoned the use of diplomacy and political/economic pressure to influence such countries as N. Kor. As for those other nations like France, of COURSE they had interests in Iraq. Every country bases its actions on its national interests, but even so, it's tough to actually say that France was, in the end, right. I don't think France's reasons for opposing the US was motivated by what's all right and good, but regardless of their motivation, they were right. That hurts for me to say, because I've been slamming the French long before you conservative idiots came up with "Freedom Fries" and boycotted buying Chateau de Rothschild. And another thing-to call anyone that doesn't agree with this war a "liberal" is absurd. Most so-called liberals do not like this war. However, Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni is not a liberal, and he's slammed the war. Other retired military leaders have done the same. I'm just waiting for someone with the balls who ISN'T retired to do the same. I am not a liberal. Unjust is unjust, and if you have the courage and intelligence to open your eyes and take off the ideological blinders, you may see that too.

Re. Oil, I never raised that issue-maybe someone else did, but I don't think that was a reason for the invasion-at least not the primary reason. Even if we had full control of Iraq's oil revenues, that money wouldn't add up to the $200-500 billion that this war will eventually cost-or more...so the numbers don't add up. But I don't know...this type of logic doesn't always "catch" in the testosteristis-afflicted Bush administration.

Re. Conservative commentators, I don't watch Fox or CNN or any of those shows/networks (sometimes, just for laughs, I listen to Rush)-and I don't come by my opinions from pre-packaged talking heads. I read some of their columns and I notice that many people-on this board and elsewhere-parrot their views. I don't have anything else to say about them other then the fact that there are SO MANY of them, which pretty much shuts down this myth of the "Liberal Media".

david aames
07-27-2004, 08:13 PM
Reasons for shock and awe?

1. Secure Israel's backyard (that's the 'these people deserve freedom part')

2. Avenge Daddy (the sky diver) and look REALLY presidential in the process (flightsuit not included)

3. Maintain a US Military presence in the M.E. (after the Saudis politely asked us to leave because it was embarassing them in front of their Al Quaida guests)

4. To keep Boeing and Lockeed afloat (you know, Boeing with the supersonic idea that did REALLY WELL on paper)

5. To keep Halliburton (KBR) afloat (they just posted a BAD quarter when Schlumberger, their european counterpart did just fine without having to serve meals and build restrooms in the M.E.)

6. To make the UN look really silly (now we have an excuse not to pay that tab that Ted Turner was to pick up for us anyway)

7. To arrest SOMEONE with a beard (no, not the one who highjacked those planes)

8. Last but not least, to 'secure' the oil wells of the biggest reserve on the planet (still there yes, they were apparently easier to locate and secure than the WMDs)

Russiadude
07-27-2004, 11:07 PM
Ok, Phil first of all when I said "liberals" I wasn't referring to you. Most liberals are against the war in Iraq that's why I used the term (not to mention most of the other posters on here probably are liberals). I also think its rather funny that you propose that we put "economic" and "diplomatic" pressure on North Korea and Iraq. Hmm, we've tried to diplomatically pressure Iraq already. Recall how the UN tried to send investigators in and Iraq complied after months and then only allowed them to go in certain areas. To explain the flawed logic in "diplomatic" pressure let's put it this way: If a cop showed up at your door, and you told him to wait around for half an hour and then didn't allow him to go into your back yard how would that make you look? In addition, diplomatic pressure DOESN'T work with terrorists. Give me ONE example. So far EVERY EVERY agreement Israel has made with terrorists where it has given up something has ended with suicide bombings, and great anger from the extremist Muslim population. So another words instead of solving at least an integral part of the problem in the Middle East, America is going to participate in a form of appeasement. I know I know, you were talking about Korea when you were talking about political/economic pressure. Now please please tell me how we are going to pressure them and what we are trying to get them to do? Yes I know they are a dangerous regime but can you explain what we are trying to get them to do? Are we going to try to make them Democratic with political pressure? Are we going to make one of the last TRUE communistic regimes give up their nuclear arsenal with political pressure? Can you explain how you intend for us to change their regime with political pressure? Then I came up on this gem: [I don't think France's reasons for opposing the US was motivated by what's all right and good, but regardless of their motivation, they were right.] Thats not a very good argument Phil. If you are going to argue that the ends justify the means than why won't you accept SUPPOSEDLY false pretenses that Bush gave us and be happy that soon the people of Iraq might be free from the hands of dictatorship. It seems that you only use logic when it fits your ideology. And by the way, yes I know the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" and the term "ideology." You were so offended when you thought I called you a liberal and yet you retort right back by saying that I'm a conservative. You are doing what you are accusing me of. I'm not even a true conservative. I don't agree with Bush on many many issues. David, your post is interesting but you have zero proof of anything. Just theories. However, I do agree with you on your first comment about Israel. My question is, is it so bad to want to defend a country that is the only liberal Democracy in the Middle East, the only haven for Jews (created so that people like Hitler and Bin Laden won't kill them all), and that offers more rights to its ARAB/MUSLIM citizens than any of the other Middle Eastern countries? If anything, it would seem you are detracting from your point.[/quote]

Russiadude
07-27-2004, 11:10 PM
agg. sorry I'm bad with html.

Phil
07-27-2004, 11:44 PM
diplomatic pressure DOESN'T work with terrorists. Give me ONE example. So far EVERY EVERY agreement Israel has made with terrorists where it has given up something has ended with suicide bombings, and great anger from the extremist Muslim population. So another words instead of solving at least an integral part of the problem in the Middle East, America is going to participate in a form of appeasement. I know I know, you were talking about Korea when you were talking about political/economic pressure. Now please please tell me how we are going to pressure them and what we are trying to get them to do? Yes I know they are a dangerous regime but can you explain what we are trying to get them to do?

Russiadude - You're right; diplomacy doesn't work with terrorists, which is why, rightly so, we attacked the terrorist base of Afghanistan. But that's a different issue, and I can argue that we haven't done enough THERE, because we have WASTED and DIVERTED resources in IRAQ. Iraq was not a "terrorist" regime. Rougue, yes, with a lowlife dictator, yes, but Iraq, unlike, say Iran and SAUDI, has not sent suicide bombers against the US. It's a GOOD thing that Saddam is gone from power, but that alone is not, and will not help us in this so-called War On Terrorism. It just looks good having his pistol on GWB's mantlepiece.

We had PLENTY of sources of diplomatic and military pressure to put on Saddam. We BOMBED Iraq constantly from 1991 until the eve of the war last year-this was to contain them. The UN sanctions and inspections were WORKING...Iraq gave up their WMD in the years after Desert Storm and most of the so-called programs that they were working on, have proven to be exaggerated or outright lies.

As far as N. Korea, what we are TRYING to get them to do is to NOT go into the nuclear weapons business-selling to any and all parties that offer cash. Because Al Qa'eda has the cash, as does Iran, etc. Kim understands power and blackmail, and we can put PLENTY of pressure on him-many options there. But we've decided to walk away from the table on numerous occasions. The fact that the N. Koreans are TALKING tells me that they want to find a way out of this, if possible. We don't have the patience to do that. All or nothing, force or nothing really puts the US in a bind. There was a time when we were feared AND respected, and a subtle hint or whisper in the right ear concerning military or economic pressure was all it took in many cases. Bush has destroyed our credibility and our moral standing, so we don't have these kind of options anymore.

Shane Reynolds
07-28-2004, 11:20 AM
Phil,

Your last post concedes that Iraq had WMD (you said they got rid of them after Dessert Storm) - where did they go? Did they comply with the UN Resolutions? If diplomacy was working, why was it over a decade later and the world still did not know for certain whether he had WMD or not? They're obviously not there now but where did they go? Is it about Iraq in particular or is it about weapons that could hurt us? For me, it was about the weapons but as a consequence of that, Saddam had to go. How long should we have let diplomacy work? Is 15 years the right amount of time to wait? How about 20 years?

If you knew someone in your neighborhood had a gun and you had seen him use it on people, would you worry about him using the gun on you? Would you continue to worry with the police asking him to please give them his gun? Would it make any sense to you if the police told you, "Yeah, we want him to give us the gun but then again, we're not sure he still has it." You know what you would say? You would say, "You're the police and I want you to go in there and find the gun and take it away from him!" I don't believe we need UN approval to defend ourselves but at the end of the day, we enforced UN resolution 441. We did it because we could. Could the French have done it? Maybe. Could the Germans have done it? I doubt it. Would either of them have acted considering how much money they were making in Iraq? Nope.

If you don't see the terror connection in Iraq with the evidence widely available, I can't help you. You are allowing your opinion to cloud the facts. I don't think Russiadude and I would agree on everything, but he has done his homework and has a rationale for feeling the way he does. FYI, I listened to Hannity on the radio yesterday for the first time this year. I notice everyone assumed I watch Fox News and listen to all the conservative shows. I used to, but I stopped because I stayed so wound up about it. The only time I have turned on Fox News this year was to watch the Reagan funeral and the only reason I ended up there was because they didn't have some idiot talking the whole time. I watched O'Reilly last night to see Affleck and Moore. Affleck is sharp; he makes some good points. Moore is in an alternate universe and I am disappointed that O'Reilly took it so easy on him. In any event, Phil, no one has taught me how to think - somehow I've managed to do it myself and come to the same conclusions as the successful people on the radio.

Imagine you're in Bush's shoes . . . it's a post 9/11 world. You know there are terrorist cells in Iraq and key Al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan are in hospitals in Iraq after being wounded. Iraq regularly has shot at our planes patroling no-fly zones. Iraq has not allowed in the weapons inspectors for quite some time. Saddam Hussein regularly antagonizes us. We have toppled the Taliban government and other countries around the world are arresting suspected terrorists. We are freezing bank accounts and gathering information in ways we had not done since the Cold War. All of a sudden, Saddam says "Come on in" to the weapons inspectors and they cannot find anything. Well, we know he had the weapons at one point - where did they go? If you're Bush in this situation, do you (a) sit back and figure they'll turn up somewhere? or (b) do you go in there and look for them yourself? If he sits back and an Iraqi warhead with nerve gas is detonated at a Jets game - how would you ever sleep at night again? How would you face the country and explain your failure? He had to go into Iraq. All of the other possibilities about helping Israel or his father just really don't make sense. Israel doesn't need our help - I think we need them more than they need us. The only help we gave them was against the Soviets' attempts at intimidation. As for the Middle East, Israel doesn't ask us for help or for our permission, and they're doing just fine. The whole "daddy" thing is just a little too playground for me; he didn't rise up the political ladder like he did by holding petty grudges. We can have as much military presence as we like in the Middle East with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, etc. We didn't need Iraq. As for Boeing, Lockheed and Halliburton failing, I'll just have to plead ignorance here - I don't know enough to comment on it other than to say the information I DO know doesn't seem to support a business cause for the invasion.

I negotiate for a living and tactics become more aggressive every year. I walk away from tables all the time. People hang up on me. It's just how it works. I don't like it but it is how it is done. I remember reading an article a few years ago about how Nissan was rethinking its philosophy on pricing its cars because the philosophy had always been that American consumers wanted to negotiate the same way Japanese buyers do. Let me tell you, Japanese buyers wage war when they get a car. It can be ugly. In the end, though, both sides would agree that it was the best way. In America, especially since the Wal Mart generation came along, we are obsessed with the cheapest price and we think we should just be able to walk in and get it. The point of this is to say that I am confident our negotiations with North Korea are productive. I am more worried about Iran right now. China wouldn't like us getting physical with North Korea but don't forget that they don't like North Korea much more than we do. Kim would have a hard time getting too frisky because he would have the US, China, and most of the world coming down on him.

DANMAN
07-28-2004, 11:43 AM
My sole point about the weapons of mass destruction that you liberals claim do not exist is this: Weapons do not drink, eat, breathe, and therefore do not live. Look how long it took to find Saddam in his foxhole. Can you imagine how long it could take to find unliving things buried anywhere in the Iraq's desert. Just because we have not found them yet does not mean they do not exist.

@wright
07-28-2004, 11:54 AM
Russiadude and Shane, you make some excellent points and I agree with them. However, arguing with Phil is like arguing with that dumbass monkey in the zoo with eats his own feces. You can disprove his points and counterpoints all day long, but all he has to do is keep manipulating the facts, just like he has learned from his liberal politician buddies. Kerry flip flops more than a fish out of water.

Coda
07-28-2004, 04:56 PM
amen russiandude, shane, awright and dan...further, as soon as Bush asked the UN to go get the weapons couldn't Hussein have started hiding them deep down in the sand and what was stopping him from shipping them out of the country at the same time as well?

Phil
07-28-2004, 06:14 PM
Shane, you know something the State Dept., CIA, and the military don't. There were no WMD by 2003, and there were NEVER any nukes (there was, of course gas, at one point-you know, the stuff that we helped Saddam to obtain in the 80's).

Bush had a personal agenda for going into Iraq, that much is clear and is in the 9/11 commission report. On 9/11 he and Cheney were already talking about Iraq, looking PAST Afghanistan.

Here the REAL analogy: If I knew that a guy in my neighborhood had a gun or an assault rifle and he was CRAZY enough to use it, I would NOT attack the guy who lives down the street or who lives next door who DOESN'T have a gun, now would I? Or would I? At least in attacking either of those two weaker neighbors, I would be limiting my personal risk-while the gunman looked on and laughed and stockpiled even MORE guns and ammo. THIS is the logic of this administration in going into Iraq.

And @wright? You've added your "contribution" to this-and all the other discussions you've participated in-nil, nothing, zilch. You're not funny or witty, you're a garden variety racist-I mean, don't you have a first cousin or a sister that you can sleep with, or a moonshine still that needs attending to, instead of posting here 24/7?

Shane Reynolds
07-28-2004, 07:07 PM
Phil, I bet you hit the tennis ball to the same place every time and your opponent just stands there wondering if you've had a stroke or sudden-onset Alzheimer's. You clearly have not read the 9/11 Commission report and your analogy doesn't make sense. Saddam Hussein had WMD (or the gun in my analogy that you clearly had trouble following) - why would the UN have a resolution mandating weapons inspectors overseeing the dismantling of his WMD if he didn't have them? Why is it alright that at the same time Bush thought it was a good idea to go into Iraq, John Edwards, John Kerry, and pretty much everybody else thought it was a good idea to go into Iraq, yet no one is accountable in your world other than Bush. Have you thought about how stupid that sounds? And don't even try the "Bush knew he was lying" argument - everyone relied on the same intelligence and you know it. I think it is perfectly fair that Bush was suspicious of Iraq on 9/11 - Clinton always had a plan for invading Iraq, too, because they had been a perpetual problem.

Phil, did you support Clinton stopping the Serbs? Think before you answer and you might want to call some of your intelligent friends to ask what to say.

Why is @wright a racist? Your accusation further affirms my suspicion that you do little besides smoke crack all day. I found @wright to be hysterical.

Honestly, Phil, it's just no fun when you cannot hold up your end of the intellectual bargain. You don't know your facts and you cannot present a lucid argument (even one that rambles like mine). I love these debates at lunch with co-workers because we know our facts and don't make them up to suit our purpose.

You may get your wish, Phil. Whoever is running the Bush campaign clearly has lost a few brain cells because all it would take would be a few people cutting through the cloud of lies laid out by the Left to make this clear to the 10-20% of people on whom this election will turn. It's just not happening, though. Then you will have Kerry getting a hall pass from the UN to go to the bathroom. We can kiss and make up with France so they can more easily start stabbing us in the back again. And my taxes can go back up to support bigger government and a lot of programs I don't believe in. Our military will become more like boys' camp where they're encouraged to sit around and talk about how they feel. Clearly, there will be no new weapons development because Kerry will veto anything that comes to him. We will be the dancing bear for the world; big and powerful, but everybody knows to just tickle our stomachs and we're nothing.

Oh, and Phil, at least the weapons we sold Saddam were when he was supposed to be our ally. France was selling him weapons while at the same time condemning him in the UN. I guess we should thank them, though; their military advisors were telling him days before our invasion that we would never do it.

Chopin
07-28-2004, 09:35 PM
Shane Reynolds: "Phil, I bet you hit the tennis ball to the same place every time and your opponent just stands there wondering if you've had a stroke or sudden-onset Alzheimer's"
"Your accusation further affirms my suspicion that you do little besides smoke crack all day"
"You don't know your facts and you cannot present a lucid argument "
Shane-your insults are so intellectual, relevant and lucid-I am impressed. Perhaps you should join a local debate team. Having read a considerable number of your posts-you've presented yourself as nothing other than a biased intellectual buffoon. It is you that are ignoring the facts-the international community did not want us in Iraq, the people of Iraq do not want us there and more importantly-Iraq prevented little to no threat to us. If you are proud of America's decision to invade Iraq-I feel sorry for you. I will enjoy the day when Bush loses the election and will be remembered as one of the worst administrations in this country's history. I hope you enjoy that day as well. Its a pity that so many lives that were lost in Iraq-both American and Iraqi-needlessly I might add. We are no safer now than before Iraq. Bush says that Jesus is his role model-he sure doesn't act like it. Perhaps you should think about this quote Shane-you’re such an intellectual (pathetic laugh)
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, science for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable an ignorable war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." -- Albert Einstein

sarpmas
07-29-2004, 01:20 AM
No matter whose right or wrong, you can't cry over spilled milk. What's done's done. What worries me is the increase number of suicide bombing, and the worst thing is the targetted victims are innocent people, of all nationality! Are these mindless killings becoming a trend for retailiation? Is this a consequence of the Iraq war? Is this too high a price to pay? I don't know...

Phil
07-29-2004, 02:12 AM
Shane - Your analogy doesn't really hold water to the one I presented, and you have no response to that. HAD WMD. HAD is the operative word. They were dismantled or destroyed well before Bush went to war. So, if you want to make like they're there when NOTHING and no one has proved otherwise, then go ahead. I can't have a logical discussion with someone who swallows the big lie whole, and then spits it out again. A true believer. Always a bad proposition. You haven't presented any "facts" to support why there STILL are WMD, and no one has found aleged WMD. The 9/11 report and several other articles and books confirm that Bush and Cheney started planning for Iraq immediately after 9/11. To just say "No", you're wrong and stupid, without anything to back you up is, actually, well stupid. For you to use the word "intellectual" next to your posts is laughable. Stay deluded, and hopefully the rest of your kind will be swept from office. Hopefully, for all of us.

@wright
07-29-2004, 07:14 AM
I'm glad I irritate you, Phillip. At least SOMETHING is coming out of my posting "24/7"( a pretty hackneyed, overused term, Phillip). You are one of the best examples(I've ever seen) of a crybaby liberal, always wanting to ***** about what goes on, but never really having a solution. Bush may have made some mistakes in the presidency, but at least he stands for SOMETHING. Kerry has the backbone of a jelly fish, and so do you. Flip flopping all over the place to make yourself sound smart(which you don't). So sorry to break it to you, but you really aren't the expert on EVERYTHING that you think you are. You call someone else use of the word intellectual "laughable", but the only thing laughable here is you. Go enjoy your pro-choice rallies, maybe you make a trip down south and go to the Southern Decadence parade in New Orleans. You just want Bush out so you can marry your life partner, Skip. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a still to tend to, soon we will all have fresh moonshine.

Kevin T
07-29-2004, 08:23 AM
Moonshine, yummie!! :D :D Hey, @wright, I grew up next to the biggest 'shine producing county in VA. Maybe we could start up a new Copperhead Road from 'Sippi to SC. I'll look for an old Dodge Charger. Yee Haww!!!

@wright
07-29-2004, 08:38 AM
I've got my eye on an old el camino, so I can carry the 'shine in the back, but it'll be sporty enough to run away from Boss Hawg and the gang.

Coda
07-29-2004, 11:04 AM
sampras, the suicide bombings is something very scary and very serious, but we can't let terrorism control our foreign policy....even if the war in Iraq was the wrong thing anyway(it was the right thing).

Shane Reynolds
07-29-2004, 03:56 PM
So, Phil, is Chopin your boyfriend or is he the smart friend that you called? I've already talked about silly quotes and that's pretty much all Chopin had, quoting me and then Einstein. I guess it was a good day when someone decides to quote two people and they're me and Einstein.

I have some quotes for you:

"Hey, how are you doing?" --- Shane Reynolds
"That depends on what the definition of "is" is." --- William Jefferson Clinton
"There is no question about it, Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to the United States." --- John Edwards

Einstein also wore a coat in the summer. Think of the biggest geek you know and ask yourself if you would feel good about him running the country. Now, I don't want Bush enriching uranium but I don't want Einstein working on the economy. Chopin, why do we care if the "International Community" wanted us there or not? Do you ask your neighbor if you can keep a gun in your house? By the way, I can look in the garage for my debate awards if you want to see them. The really great thing about debate was that it trained me to use facts as weapons and make sure my arguments have logical conclusions. And Jesus made it clear that he brought a sword.

Phil, I cannot help you, friend. I have tried. In all honesty, you're probable somewhat intelligent and you definitely have passion about your convictions. You've resorted to the typical Democratic schemes of not saying anything of import, just criticizing everything the other side has done.

We will simply have to agree to disagree. I know I have insulted you (though I would say not as badly as you've insulted me) and that is not right: I apologize for doing that. You frustrate me because you clearly have the analytical tools but you've been snowed so badly that you actually believe this stuff and believe conservatives are the ones misleading. Friend, you have to look for conservatism in the media because if you just pick up a magazine, turn on your local news, turn on the radio, or turn on CNN, you're going to get the Left's propaganda. You act as though every person in the US is forced to listen to Hannity, Limbaugh and the others when the opposite more closely resembles the truth.

Shane Reynolds
07-29-2004, 04:07 PM
Phil, you know he had WMD and you don't know where they are now - I don't either but even if I did and told you, you would still not accept it. Are you okay with him dismantling them on his own, not allowing the "International Community" to inspect the dismantling as was required by UN Prop. 441, and just hoping for the best? If that's your stance, I hope you're the next Democratic Presidential Nominee.

The "fact" is that if you're going to say Bush and Cheney started planning for what to do in Iraq on 9/11, you might as well go ahead and say they were planning on invading Iraq before 9/11. They did have an invasion plan for Iraq on the day they came to office and it was a constant priority that the plan be updated. You see, the plan they had the day they took office was pretty much Clinton's plan, because he had planned an invasion of Iraq since the day HE took office. I would hope that if Kerry does snow enough people and win, he, too, will have plans for invasion of Iraq, Iran, North Korea and any other country that we might need to fight at some point. It's kinda important that we don't make those plans only when they're needed. Phil, this isn't just about maps and international sing-a-longs - there is a dynamic here that is held in place under tension. I was a Democrat until a few years ago when I was ashamed and embarassed by Clinton's behavior in office. It doesn't help when I look at my paycheck, too, and see my money squandered on taxes.

Chopin
07-29-2004, 05:04 PM
I'm not sure what kind of deluded world you live in Reynolds-claiming that the media is left-winged. A statement like that really mars any credibility you might have. You obviously don’t listen to the media very much. And yes I'd rather have Albert Einstein running the country over the primitive Neanderthal puppet currently in office. And despite the great intellectual fortitude you've displayed with your insults and inapt analogies about guns, I am not at all impressed by your ability to “debate.” Of course the Clinton administration had plans to invade Iraq if necessary-but it was never necessary-and it still wasn’t necessary during any moment of Bush’s administration. I also find your reference to Jesus to be laughable. I’m sure you’re one of the close minded people who believes that the Bible is factual text and rejects the theory of evolution. And I’m sure you believe in Christian forgiveness but hypocritically support the killing of thousands through an overly aggressive foreign policy that almost every other country in the world objects to. I shall greatly enjoy the day Bush is elected out of office and more of your tax dollars will have to go to social programs. Fortunately, the buffoons with your flawed ideology only have a few more months before they will be voted out of office. I shall be laughing at people like you when it happens. And did it really matter that Bush had plans to invade Iraq beforehand, since the plans were flawed and the operation was blunder even by Republican account?
"The really great thing about debate was that it trained me to use facts as weapons and make sure my arguments have logical conclusions." Get back to me when this happens moron.

Morpheus
07-29-2004, 07:09 PM
Big Surprise: it certainly doesn't look like anyone is changing their position. I guess its true that polar opposites attract.

I'm bored by this thread, so I'm going to go back to watch the convention on T.V.

Chopin
07-29-2004, 07:29 PM
Yes I can agree on that, I'd rather debate about tennis :-)

Coda
07-29-2004, 07:45 PM
the media for the most part is very liberal...evidence of this, during the florida voting controversy all three big stations (nbc, cbs, abc) were doing stories about allowing military absentee ballots being counted. They each had clips of soldiers oversees saying "I voted for Gore" or "I want Gore to be president" etc etc. Never did I hear a soldier being interviewed as wanting Bush. I could think of some more evidence if you want.

Phil
07-29-2004, 08:32 PM
Phil, you know he had WMD and you don't know where they are now - I don't either but even if I did and told you, you would still not accept it.

Yes I would. I have no personal interest in WMD NOT being found. If they were there, I would have WANTED them to be found and destroyed. But they weren't. Now no one has found them, the CIA, State and DoD has DISPUTED the WMD reason for going to war, but Bush/Cheney did it anyway, and no creditable source has come up with any evidence that they exist. You're going on your FAITH that they're there-that the president says they are and therefore they must be. That's delusion if I ever heard it. Show me the evidence; show me. Otherwise, obviously it's impossible for you or Bush to admit that it was all a mistake, right? Chalabi and the Iranians, the FAKE claims of yellow cake purchases in Africa, not even CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence for WMD...a lot of things don't add up-too many. And to sit there and just say nyah, they DO SO exist is not, for me, enough. It is, in fact, Lame, Shane.

david aames
07-29-2004, 08:48 PM
Ah, the good old days... your tax dollars paying for the whitewater investigation and the Ken Starr crusade... Republican management at its best. Or were you still voting democrat back then?...

Just came across a news report that might be to your liking... Your tax dollars spent abroad in 'lots of programs you really believe in'... Courtesy of the Associated Press.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_AUDIT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I was a Democrat until a few years ago when I was ashamed and embarassed by Clinton's behavior in office. It doesn't help when I look at my paycheck, too, and see my money squandered on taxes.

Phil
07-29-2004, 09:31 PM
I'm glad I irritate you, Phillip. At least SOMETHING is coming out of my posting "24/7"( a pretty hackneyed, overused term, Phillip). You are one of the best examples(I've ever seen) of a crybaby liberal, always wanting to ***** about what goes on, but never really having a solution. Bush may have made some mistakes in the presidency, but at least he stands for SOMETHING. Kerry has the backbone of a jelly fish, and so do you. Flip flopping all over the place to make yourself sound smart(which you don't). So sorry to break it to you, but you really aren't the expert on EVERYTHING that you think you are. You call someone else use of the word intellectual "laughable", but the only thing laughable here is you. Go enjoy your pro-choice rallies, maybe you make a trip down south and go to the Southern Decadence parade in New Orleans. You just want Bush out so you can marry your life partner, Skip. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a still to tend to, soon we will all have fresh moonshine.


I think he be mad at me...Well, it's good to have a loyal puppy dog to follow me around on these Boards again. I was kind of missing the one I had before. In fact, my old puppy dog was so in love/hate with me, that even the MENTION of his name on these boards is banned. I can make that happen for you, too, Alan. And then what would you do? How would you fill those days-what will replace 1,400 posts in time and energy?
You could burn a cross on someone's lawn or outrun "Smokey" across the county line in your 454, but somehow, I think that may be unfullfilling for you now...just come 'ere now, boy. Come over here...now git!

Coda
07-29-2004, 10:48 PM
good, you managed to pick out three examples...from mismanagement. Democrats however continually create social programs and enlarge ones that are already big enough. One of these programs is welfare, a program that if used correctly can help people up off of their feet, however many times it is taken advantage of. How is rewarding people to not work, to extra babies on the taxpayer's shoulders in any way American? Aren't we supposed to reward hard work in this country? I personally know a Hispanic family, that 5 years ago was just a boyfriend and girlfriend and now they have 4 kids. They don't marry because a mother without a husband gets more money from the government than a husband and wife with the same amount of kids. A very large percentage of their overall income comes from welfare and much of their food is payed using food stamps. I am not a taxpayer yet, but guess who gets to pay for this couple to have kids? I asked them why they continue to keep having kids, and the girl responded "because I want a girl." So essentially the taxpayers are also paying for this lady to have enough kids to get a girl. Don't say that this is just one example, because in this particular small town of about 20,000 more than 3/4 of the population is receiving some sort of governmental support. How is this in any way good? Oh yes, the new American way supported by the good ol Democrats.

Shane Reynolds
07-30-2004, 07:20 AM
Aames, I agree with you 100%. I think anytime an investigation of that magnitude is undertaken, there should be some accountability on what was known before the investigation and what we learned after spending all of that money. I would also say, however, that we have beat 9/11 to death several times over to arrive at the same conclusion - our intelligence simply failed.

Chopin, you're losing me. At least Phil has some convictions about him. You simply want to argue about the color of the sky and what shape a wheel should be. For someone who appears to think Bush made too many assumptions about Iraq, you seem to be very comfortable making assumptions about me. You state the media is not left-winged but you don't state why you feel that way. You got on to me for insulting Phil and I apologized for it. You continue to insult me but if that helps you feel better about yourself and the lack of substance to your arguments, have at it. I'm cheaper than therapy.

Phil, the point is that the best information available about the WMD at the time of our invasion was that he had them. US, British and Russian intelligence all confirmed this. Post 9/11, it is simply too big of a risk to take to not know what has become of his WMD. Do you really think that Saddam dismantled them and disposed of them safely? Do you think if it would have cost him one penny more to do it safely versus risking the health of his own people, that he would have spent that penny? I could really care less that Bush said they were there or not; I am considering the information available to us all at the time. You are obsessed with finding WMD in Iraq; I am obsessed with finding the WMD that were or still are in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/index.html

We haven't found them yet, but where did they go? If he did dismantle them, why didn't he tell the UN, "okay, I've done what you asked and you can come see"?

You guys have GOT to let the conspiracy go. Even if every single thing you said were true, do you not think that Bush would know this would all come out in the media and could cost him re-election? I think Clinton made lots of mistakes, especially with his use of the military, but I think he did his best and had our best interests in mind. His campaign against Serbia was well-planned and successful.

Bush said that the rest of the world was either with us or against us. The Taliban was assisting Al-Qaeda so we attacked them. Iraq was assisting Al-Qaeda so we attacked them. Nobody complained when we sent troops to help stabilize Haiti. Nobody complained when we attacked Serbia. The difference here is resolve - if something is right, are we willing to pay a price to accomplish it? The price in Iraq was high, higher than we expected. That is unfortunate and very sad. We will always remember their sacrifice.

Phil, what is with the racist comments against @wright?

@wright
07-30-2004, 07:26 AM
Phillip, I think you're overestimating yourself here. Nothing on an internet message board makes me mad. In fact, you have the opposite effect, it's laughable how self-absorbed you are. You seem to be proud of your supposed ability to get people banned. That is pretty pathetic, pal. Having a bad day because no one will notice your "hall monitor" badge? Or perhaps you're just irritable from wearing a paper hat and name tag for so long...Time to get a new Mcjob?

Chopin
07-30-2004, 08:01 AM
I do not have the time nor do I see the point of extensively debating the subject. I will however address one post.
"the media for the most part is very liberal...evidence of this, during the florida voting controversy all three big stations (nbc, cbs, abc) were doing stories about allowing military absentee ballots being counted. They each had clips of soldiers oversees saying "I voted for Gore" or "I want Gore to be president" etc etc. Never did I hear a soldier being interviewed as wanting Bush. I could think of some more evidence if you want."
One only needs to turn on Fox News or almost any talk radio show and listen to the "debate" that goes on shows such as "O'Riley" (Debate translates to O'Riley cutting people off, ignoring facts and talking loudly over people) to see that the media is right-winged. Perhaps the reason why most of the networks showed people voting for Gore in Floridia is that by almost EVERY non partisim independent tally of the votes done by universites, and yes the media-Gore won. Your example is flawed.
"Iraq was assisting Al-Qaeda so we attacked them."
Show me the facts Reynolds...

mlee2
07-30-2004, 09:46 AM
If I was the leader of a country and countless lives in the military, the least I would want to do for my soldiers is make sure the cause is close to 100% true and without reasonable doubt.

WMD evidence was OLD as in 1998 old when the UN last inspected Iraq. Iraq/Saddam even conceded to more UN inspections a day before Bush issued the go ahead with the bombs. Somehow that got ignored in the mainstream media.

We can all agree the evidence is a maybe/maybe not. The point I want to make is if I had control of soldiers' lives, I want to be DAMN SURE it's for a cause only the ******** would argue against. Obviously, there's doubts about the war and there should be.

Pro-war people sometimes forget that REAL wars aren't glorious and aren't like video games. People actually lose lives and you can't reset your game to start over in this.

coach
07-30-2004, 10:12 AM
morpheus how about a simple IQ test? the bushman is the lowest recorded iq'd us president in US history and it is pretty obvious when you hear him speak. ed

Though I am no fan of Bush, as Woody Allen once said, intelligence is overrated. I agree that having someone SMART as the leader of the most powerful country in the world is an asset, but you may recall that Reagan was also not known for his brilliance. Leading is more than intelligence, it's part cheerleading, being sincere, and working with the powers that be in Washington, etc.

Shane Reynolds
07-30-2004, 04:12 PM
Chopin, name ONE other station besides Fox News that is even remotely right-winged. CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, local Fox affiliates, the Associated Press, USA Today, etc., don't even put up a fight anymore when they're accused of being biased to the Left. Why do you watch as much Fox News as you do if you don't like it?

As for the facts on the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, please see

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

for an excellent article about it. I have also already cited the fact that Al-Qaeda operatives injured in Afghanistan were treated at hospitals in Iraq ran by Saddam's sons.

Shane Reynolds
07-30-2004, 04:27 PM
mlee2, you make good points. You are right that this should be more sobering than it has been. Both sides have tried to politicize it so much that we have lost sight somewhat of the sacrifice made by these brave men and women and their families. I'll be honest - I think our military has gotten too "warm and fuzzy." The way my father described it and the way I've always understood it was that you follow orders and that was that. We cannot have a military that takes surveys on how the soldiers feel and what do they think about this and that - they are technically a weapon subject to the command of the Commander in Chief. I said that under Clinton, under Bush, and I may be forced to say it under Kerry. They are a finely-tuned machine just like if every part of your car had an opinion on how to make it work best, the brakes would not want to do their job because they wear out. I think it is a great honor to serve in the military and I take every opportunity I can to walk up to soldiers and say "thank you."

I would have to disagree with your logic, though, that the fact that inspectors couldn't immediately find weapons when allowed back in was a reason NOT to go in - it was a better reason TO go in.

Let's try this example. If I am pulling up in my driveway and I see through the window that my son has somehow gotten a bottle of insecticide out of the garage, I would run into the house. If he did not have the bottle when I got there, I wouldn't simply relax - I would want to know where the bottle went. It would have been great if the bottle was easily recovered when I got to my son, but that was no time to just walk away. It would be important to find out where the bottle went so that I could make sure he didn't get it again. Did he hide it for use later? (Keep in mind that Saddam has hid thousands and thousands of murdered bodies and missiles don't have relatives looking for them). Did my son give the bottle to the dog (that silly dog!)?

I know that's not a precise analogy but I think it gets my point across.

Chopin
07-30-2004, 04:30 PM
Yes Reynolds-what an unbiased source you get your information from. Perhaps you should look at any other source which clearly illustrates that the 9/11 commission did not establish that Iraq had any part in assisting Al Quida's quest against the United States. You are missing the point quite pathetically-the point is that by invading Iraq-we did not nothing to dismantle Al Quida. And yes many of the media outlets you've mentioned are right winged. I no longer wish to debate this with you-you are irrational and not intellectually competent. You type very much-but say very little. I'd rather go debate tennis with people on this website. Just keep in mind who won the debate when Bush is voted out of office in November. I'll be laughing at you Reynolds. When the American people show you that they don’t support Bush-but then again- most people didn’t support him last election. See you in the tennis forum Reynolds-perhaps I can respect you there.

Morpheus
07-30-2004, 05:37 PM
Reynolds...You type very much-but say very little.

Finally, someone says something that rings true!

For those of you who do not see Kerry as a great alternative to Bush but wish to protect our civil liberties, remember, the only lasting impact of a President (besides blood and psychological terror of those we may attack) is the nature of the Supreme Court. Justices sit for a long, long time time. By voting Republican, you cast your vote for a conservative court.

Now I'll brace for the incoming salvos from the righties out there who would likely rather punch me in the nose (premptively), then share a beer and chat for awhile.

Shane Reynolds
07-30-2004, 06:58 PM
I type very much but say very little? Chopin, all you do is hurl insults and ignore facts. You see what you want to see so there is no point to trying to help you take your blinders off. Read the 9/11 report - don't just trust what you "hear" about it. All we heard was that the Commission was biased by Bush until they release a report that is honest and now the Liberals want to black out some parts and take the rest as Gospel. What the report says is that there is no proof of a link between Iraq and 9/11; the best proof of a link there (that I have seen) is old stuff Clinton said. Why is the truth so hard for you to accept? I am not crazy about every single thing Bush does but the Left is trying to hang him out to dry when your precious Kerry and Edwards both looked at the same intelligence Bush did and voted to go to war with Iraq. Why is Bush accountable and not Kerry and Edwards?

Morpheus, what civil liberties have you lost under Bush? If you were planning a career in the terrorist field, maybe so. I have not been affected one bit. We can cry about civil liberties right up to the point where a nuke goes off at a Raiders game. Are you complaining about the lines at the airports?

It doesn't appear to matter that I vote Republican because the Dems in the Senate won't let any nominations for judges come to a vote. And have we attacked anyone who couldn't use a good case of psychological terror?

Morpheus
07-31-2004, 11:38 AM
Shane, you're kidding, right? If not, you missed my point.

thejerk
08-01-2004, 12:59 PM
Hey Shane, what do you want to bet that everyone of those against disarming Hitler in a headscarf would disarm you and all of their own neighbors? The left isn't worried about civil liberties, only civil decadence.

thejerk
08-01-2004, 01:40 PM
By the way, if the media isn't lilberal, why do all polls of media personel show them to be around 80 percent self proclaimed liberal? I studied journalism in college and most of the other students got into journalism because they were bleeding hearts.

david aames
08-02-2004, 05:50 AM
Sorry if I go back to Fahrenheit 9/11 but that might decide some of you guys on making the move to Kuwait... That's the country we 'liberated' in 1990 btw.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=529&e=7&u=/ap/20040802/ap_en_mo/kuwait_fahrenheit_911

@wright
08-02-2004, 07:05 AM
The media, not liberal? huh? The only parts of the media that aren't liberal are the conservative sides in shows like "crossfire" and Fox news. I live in a conservative part of the country and even our media are lefties. BTW, Phil hasn't replied yet, I guess he's resting from the long hours tossing McSalads and asking "would you like fries with that?"

Morpheus
08-02-2004, 06:23 PM
Sorry, but Fox News is not news; its entertainment at best. The only good that comes out of Fox News is that their brand of sophistry serves to clarify one's views.

I suppose your conservatism so overpowers your senses that everything looks and feels liberal, even fair and impartial reporting. If you want to see clearly you must stop staring at the sun.

Coda
08-02-2004, 07:11 PM
makes me chuckle when people say mainstream media isn't liberal...someone needs to watch the news...

Phil
08-02-2004, 07:26 PM
You bunch of little biaches-complaining about the "liberal media". That's all a whitewash to cover the FAILINGS of the republican party and this administration. There IS no liberal media. The MEDIA is owned by very large multinational corporations that, if they aren't far right, such as Murdoch and Fox "News", are at the very least defenders of the status quo. It doesn't matter HOW journalists vote-they have no control over the news content, and as it turns out, they aren't generally liberal, at all. Read these, learn, actually READ the newspapers, instead of throwing around cliches that you don't even understand. Just 'cause it isn't on Rush, doesn't mean it's liberal.

http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/123102a.html

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030224&s=alterman2

thejerk
08-02-2004, 08:10 PM
You have to be kidding. They all say the are center, yet less than 10% say they are conservative. How many liberals do you know who will admit to it. I know a few and I really enjoy talking to them. Preaching to the choir really sucks. If those stories don't illustrate the liberal bias you must have blinders on. Look at the New York Times from last week, in it editorial it's own watch dog claims that if you don't see a liberal bias there then you have blinders on. I know when journalists chronically omit the questions I as a conservative would ask then they are liberal. By the way, what ever happened to the Sandy Burglar story. Wasn't he slated to have high post in Heinz campaign. Why do I have to listen to talk radio to find out that among likely voters, the lemmings recieved an unbounce in the polls. How many stories proving liberal bias did you have to omit before you found those three stories?

Phil
08-02-2004, 08:49 PM
The NY Times fell lockstep behind all the other major dailies in pushing the WMD bandwagon and the other "evidence" leading to the war. They did this without asking FUNDUMENTAL questions on where the so-called evidence came from, and other factors which added up to a weak case for attacking another soverign nation. The Pentagon regularly FEEDS the Times and Wash. Post what the administration wants to see published-does that, to you, indicate a "liberal bias".

Read my post again. Reporters don't set the news agendas-their bosses do, and their bosses are not "liberal". Uncovering government and corporate greed, lies and manipulation of the public by the Bush administration is NOT a liberal thing. That's part of the news, but it's also what conservatives would call "liberal bias". If you had your way, Kenny Boy Lay and Georgie and Prince Bani Sader would be running the country. Oh wait...they already do.

Anyway, the media are not even leaning on Bush-his enviornmental policies, his disaster of an economic policy, etc., etc. If they were to call him on that as they should, you'd REALLY hear right wing whinning about iberal media.

thejerk
08-02-2004, 09:09 PM
In general Tommy Franks book he says that the king of Jordan and the Leader of Egypt told him that Hitler in a Head Scarf had wmd. We have the fastest growing economy in 20 years where is that in your non liberal papers. I know when I saw those buildings come down the first thing I thought of was Saddam finally did it. You are insane if you don't believe that the psycho-path billionaire was a danger for us. What about his demon spawn sons, I suppose they couldn't help terrorists under the table huh. I guess it wasn't enough that he was shooting at our planes for 12 years makes no difference to you. And yes, I know, you still support the troops . Say I guess you didn't see in your unliberal news outlets the open rewards Hitler in a Headscarf gave to suicide idiots families for blowing up jews. By the way, the going reward Saddam gave, and this is common knowledge for people that don't rely on only liberal media, was $25,000.

Phil
08-02-2004, 09:12 PM
Yes, Jerk-off, Saddam and his WMD caused 9/11. Everyone knows this by now, except for the Liberal Medial.

The first thing I thought of when I saw the buildings come down was-it was the same people who blew up our embassies in Africa, and who tried to blow up the WTC in 1993. I was right. You were wrong. You're still wrong.

thejerk
08-02-2004, 09:39 PM
In case you didn't realize it, I never said that Hitler in a Headscarf helped blow up the towers. The 93 blast has been linked by many to Hitler in a Headscarf(HIAH). The Blind Sheik, was reportedly an intel officer of HIAH. You know what's funny, Bush admin is the admin that caught, just today or yesterday, one of the masterminds of the African embassy bombings. That fact must really get under your skin.
I want to see you write in all honesty, Phil, that HIAH had nothing to do with any terrorism. If I didn't ask you this question then I will now. Wasn't it an act of war for HIAH to shoot at our pilots for 12 years. I hope that just because we were flying under U.N. colors doesn't mean that our pilots are ducks in a shooting gallery. Why use name calling help your dialogue? The only thing I may have called you is a liberal, and just like the media in your stories, you can't stand being labeled with your own idiology. You shouldn't call people names like that because it shows something of doubt within yourself and only hurts your arguments.
Did you get your name calling skills from that great master of rhetoric Chopin. I would quake in my shoes if I had to face you guys in a court of law.

Phil
08-02-2004, 10:10 PM
First of all, you don't know what a liberal is, so you calling ME one has no meaning to me. If a liberal is someone who destroys every lame argument you can come up with-arguments which you're parrotting from Fox News' talking heads, then I must be a lib. If you say it enough, you'll believe it, along with all the other cult members.

Secondly, Saddam had links to terrorists-Many Middle Eastern leaders do, but the Saudis, Syrians and Iranians have far more links with ISLAMIC terrorists-you know, the kind that have succeeded in murdering many of our people. To say he merely had links, and that was the reason to invade, is no reason. Don't forget that 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, and were, POSSIBLY, funded by Saudis, among others. Also, don't forget (or maybe you don't know in the first place) that the SAUDIS started paying Palestinian suicide bombers' families before Iraq did-and that Saddam followed suit in a desperate attempt to attract sympathy from the PLO and develop street creds among the radical Arabs. Also, you probably don't know that the Palestinians took Saddam's money but Hammas wanted nothing to do with him-Saddam and the Islamicists never did like each other.

It was not an "act of war" to shoot at our pilots any more than it was an act of war for them to stray beyond the UN-mandated patrol boundries, on a constant basis. I call it the desperate and impotent actions of a ****ed off country. We would do the same thing if we were in that position. I know a little about these things, Jerk-off, and I know that part of our pilots' mission was to TEST the reaction time of the Iraqi air defenses-that means actually provoking them to shoot or at least fire up their search, range and fire control radars. The pilots generally flew out of range of Iraqi SAMS, except for brief periods. Also, it helped to get in a little target practice. This is what the Air Force calls sam suppression-one plane acts as a decoy, flying in range of a SAM launcher-the SAM operators switch on their fire control radar and another plane, called a Wild Weasel-an F-4G, will fire HARMS-that's High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles, or other rader seeking missiles which destroy the SAM radar. I'm all for this kind of action, but to spin it as "Saddam shot at our pilots" is either a lie or, as in your case, someone who is lacking even basic knowledge of military strategy and tactics. Now you're just pulling stuff out of your butt-making it up as you go along. That never works-Bush is doing the same thing-lies, backtracking, etc. Your type deserve each other, but the REST OF US do not.

thejerk
08-02-2004, 11:13 PM
The Saudis didn't have U.N.(League of Nations) resolutions demanding disarmament. So you aren't against war, just war in Iraq. Were you bribed like the French and Germans.
It's funny you know what the talking heads are saying way better than me. I don't like watching both sides argue, I like to get one coherent viewpoint be it to the left or right. I get news from everywhere I can.
Wait, let me guess, the Iranians, North Korea, or Syria were the real danger.
p.s. could your name calling be a little more couth, some may object to some of the particular names you use. I am not actually offended by it I only resort to that sort of thing when my wife is out of town.

@wright
08-03-2004, 06:29 AM
Phillip, if you'd pull your head out of your @ss, maybe you'd realize that the 5 paragraph posts you routinely put up are meaningless, self worshipping drivel. Or could it be that your paper hat is too tight? Whether you're a liberal or not, you are definitely a jackass.

Kevin T
08-03-2004, 08:28 AM
The thread that wouldn't die. C'mon, Phil, I know you didn't just reference 'The Nation', did you? The same rag with a current issue title of "How they could steal the election this time"? By the way, did anyone see "Real Time" on HBO this past week? Mahr and Mikey Moore couldn't retort anything Nader had to say. They could only beg that he would drop out of the race. Nader really busted Moore by mentioning that Moore's website said something about working to remove anyone from office that supported the war in Iraq (ie, Kerry). Moore looked liked someone had just punched him in his fat gut.

Phil
08-03-2004, 06:10 PM
Kevin T. - Not a regular reader of the Nation, and it is somewhat of a liberal rag, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have some good material. I also occassionally look at your rag, the National Review. As for Nader vs. Moore/Mahr, Nader is a vain, vindictive has-been who's doing his best to stay in the limelight. BUT, he's certainly no dummy and Moore and Maher are not on his intellectual level, and Moore doesn't do well when confronted directly-he tends to run and hide, from what I've seen, or mumble. A similar reaction to GW Bush when he is cornered in an unscripted situation.

Kevin T
08-04-2004, 10:18 AM
Now, Phil, KNOWING that I am a conservative (in your mind, anyway), you should have said my rag is "The Limbaugh Letter". I actually do enjoy NR from time to time, as I do The Weekly Standard, The New Republic and National Journal. Actually, my favorite political-type mag is "Reason"; more libertarian than anything else. That, along with "Mother Earth News", 'cause I've been trying for years to get that grass to grow on the roof of my house. Already had a rigged-up lawnmower elevator to get it up there. Nothing beats a straw house with a mud and grass roof.

Shane Reynolds
08-04-2004, 04:11 PM
Phil, Murdoch is not conservative. Fox News may lean to the Right a bit but it does so because there was no other non-liberal news channel and if you're going to enter a crowded market, you need to do something a little bit different. I love 'em, but they would change to a Communist station tomorrow if there was a dollar to be made at it.

There was an interesting article on my news server the other day - I believe it was from one of the New York papers. Out of the journalists polled from the major press bodies, 80% consider themselves liberal. I may not be quoting that exactly but it is interesting nonetheless.

Chopin, I find it interesting that you're all about "togetherness" with the "International Community" yet you still call me names rather than engage me in discussion on the points I bring up. What you're basically saying is you are tolerant and want to get along with the people that agree with you and to hell with those who don't. Nice.

Nobody is taking me on with the civil liberties arguments - that got dropped quick. Shall we consider your silence a concession speech?

Phil
08-04-2004, 06:23 PM
Phil, Murdoch is not conservative

Since when? Are you still on the pipe, Shane? That's not even worth commenting on other than, get off the crack. It's bad for you.

As for civil liberties, I didn't bring up the subject-someone else did, but I wouldn't concede anything to you, because you haven't given me any reason to-no facts, just a cultish, slavish devotion to the republican administration, even as they bumble and stumble their way through the biggest foreign policy disaster in our history. The Patriot Act was designed to protect public safety, but like all blanket-type law enforcement initiatives, it's being abused. MY civil liberties haven't been violated, and you make the argument that yours haven't, so everything's okay. Just because YOU haven't been thrown into jail without benefit of habeus corpus, or haven't been kicked off an airplane because your skin's a bit too brown, doesn't mean that rights abuses aren't happening. "Look at me, I've got my head in the sand, so everthing's just peachy keen!" Some argument. However, compared to other periods of our history, particulary the time when J. Edgar Hoover ruled over the FBI (and the Justice Dept.) what's going on today is, at least up to now is not the worst that it's been. We once had a Soviet-style secret police, for decades under Hoover. But little by little, personal freedoms are being whittled away and much of it is the result of scare tactics by republicans to convince people that only GW Bush can protect them. I guarantee you that the next terrorist attack on US soil will result in a roll back of civil liberties to a point where even YOU, Mr. Ostrich, will feel it. Doesn't mean that I don't agree with things like the "Patriot" Act, just that I don't agree with abuse of the laws.

thejerk
08-04-2004, 06:59 PM
Civil liberties, when did that ever affect anyone on the left. Every city under lefty rule has done away with the second. Look it up sometime and you will also find senators trying to shut down political speech. If your not lazy you will find it, just happened resently. In case you want to bring up Howard Stern let me remind you that only the government can censor someone, and Howard Stern was fined for indecency. Clear Channel doesn't have to employ someone who is going to represent them in that fashion. "Stick this in you" doesn't really qualify as political speech. And that bit about just because you are Brown doesn't fly either, my wife is brown and so are most of my friends and they haven't been unduly messed with. If you are looking for muslim terrorists shouldn't you look among muslim terrorists, comeon Grandma Kitchen isn't going to blow up your plane. Hark, yonder, lemmings doth come.

That reminds me, wasn't M. Moore fired as an editor of Mother Jones magazine for censoring articles critical of socialism/communism?

Phil
08-04-2004, 09:03 PM
Dude/Jerk - Why don't you let Shane respond to my post, if he wants to. You busting in with your ill-informed babble doesn't add anything here.

Morpheus
08-05-2004, 04:42 AM
Fox News may lean to the Right a bit ...

Nobody is taking me on with the civil liberties arguments - that got dropped quick. Shall we consider your silence a concession speech?

1. Fox News leaning "a little to the right", now that is a remarkable understatement.

2. You missed my point about civil liberties and never bothered to ask for clarification. Now you claim victory because the thread has stayed to other topics. You should have been a politician--you've got the stuff.

Shane Reynolds
08-05-2004, 05:31 AM
Phil, you act as though we are all just standing around while our grandmothers are being locked up for making pipe bombs. If four planes were hijacked by fat, bald, white men, I wouldn't complain about security watching me closely at the airport.

Morpheus, please clarify. If you have caught on to me at all, you know I wasn't claiming victory as much as I was trying to get you guys to come out and fight. Apparently, I did miss your point so I ask your assistance in that regard.

And I do stand by my statement that perhaps Fox "leans slightly to the Right." I say this because I am solidly on the Right and I do not scream "Amen" to everything that comes out of someone's mouth on Fox News. I think they spend too much time talking about "failures" in Iraq and shortcomings of the Bush Administration.

People, I don't think you grasp what is going on here. This is like trying to fight cancer that has metastacized (I probably misspelled that word). We can't say we're going to bomb Terrorst-istan and the war is over, just like when cancer has spread from a kidney, you can't win by just removing the kidney. We live in the most free country in the world and the terrorists are using that to THEIR favor. Am I free to walk through a nuclear power plant with a bomb on my back because I promise I'm not up to something? Am I free to make Anthrax in my home for personal use only?

At the end of the day, if Bush does lose (and I'm starting to feel better that he won't), it will be because the Democrats defined his Presidency for him and he let them do it. They can talk about Iraq all day long but if he tries to talk about the success in Afghanistan, he will get lambasted for politicizing 9/11. With all due respect, Phil, I don't think I am the one with my head stuck in the sand here. There are plenty of Democrats who could successfully protect us; I just don't think any of them are running for President anymore. And please don't tell me about Kerry's purple hearts unless you want to tell me how he got three of them in four weeks without ever spending a night in the hospital.

Morpheus
08-05-2004, 05:04 PM
...For the people that drone on and on about our civil liberties being compromised - do you extend that same protection to 2nd Amendment Rights? If you do, I would like to hear about it because most of the people squawking about civil liberties are the same people that want all guns gone (which would be fantastic if you're in the criminal industry).
"

1. Shane, a more pertinent question is why is it that conservatives seem only interested in protecting one of ten amendments of the Bill of Rights?

2. While I'm at it, why is it that it seems to be only the conservative men seem interested in curtailing women's reproductive rights?

thejerk
08-05-2004, 08:37 PM
The right to life is in the constitution, that is unless u believe that there are 1/2 people, bacause a sperm is not a person nor is an egg. As a mature fetus, I would think that you would see this as a human rights issue. Why don't you cry for equal protection under the law for abortion ie... why can't I abort my rights as provider in the same time frame as a woman can abort, upto and including 7 to 9 months. Hey why should I even have to tell a woman that I have aborted my desire to provide for a child. Little riddle: It is healthy, we can identify its parents with a dna test, it feels pain but is not a beast what is it?

What I meant is that liberal men lack the courage of there convictions. Can't stand for anything unpopular.
By the way, every pro-life event I've been to had a majority of women at it. Many of those women are pressured into something that they didn't want.
What is wrong with speaking for the voiceless I thought liberals loved that sort of thing.

Phil
08-05-2004, 09:02 PM
And I do stand by my statement that perhaps Fox "leans slightly to the Right." I say this because I am solidly on the Right and I do not scream "Amen" to everything that comes out of someone's mouth on Fox News. I think they spend too much time talking about "failures" in Iraq and shortcomings of the Bush Administration.

Obviously, you missed Fox's Gulf War coverage-it was like watching a bunch of 21 year old cheerleaders. You are blind, I guess. I've never seen a more dispicable display of non-journalism. But even THEY "spend too much time talking about failures" because GUESS WHAT, buddy? THAT'S the NEWS. Even for FOX, there are no "successes" at this stage of the conflict. It's all imcompetent bumbling.

As far as Kerry's war record, what does that have to do with anything that I've discussed. Again, you're needlessly changing the subject, bringing up straw men. But let's look at that...I'm not comfortable with Kerry putting his Vietnam service front and center of his campaign because, a). I don't think it's all that important what he did 35 years ago and b). His immediate post-war activities and his current higlighting of the war as a postive are contradictory. That said, the Republicans are doing what they can to SMEAR his war record, as you have. The fact is: he was THERE. He WAS in the sh*t, regardless of whether it was for 6 months (what most officers usually served) or 4. George Bush and his Chickenhawk cabinet (GWB's AWOL in a champagne Nat'l guard unit, Cheney's FIVE deferrments, etc.) give the opposite impression-i.e. that these guys don't understand the true nature and intensity of war, and hence, send young men and women to their deaths with a clear and untroubled conscience. Have YOU ever been in a war? It's always the people who never HAVE who are most eager to have others killed. Colin Powell knows this, and this is why he's distanced himself from the Chickenhawk Cabinet.

thejerk
08-05-2004, 09:43 PM
Napoleon said that the most dangerous time of war was during occupation. Did you know Benedict Arnold was considered a war hero.

Phil, I guess you've never seen WWII coverage before. Sometimes journalists consider themselves to be Americans first. You ever seen CNN coverage of pre-invasion attrocities in Iraq. No wait, that's right, they shut up so that they could stay on the regimes good side. Or was that in Cuba. No wait, that could have been in both countries.

Phil
08-05-2004, 10:04 PM
thejerk - I was born a number of years AFTER WWII ended, so I didn't catch the coverage of that war. Did you?

Morpheus
08-06-2004, 04:22 AM
The right to life is in the constitution, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

No one wants to argue about reproductive rights here. There's a board on women's central for that. I merely asked why it is that the second is the only amendment righties seem to interested in protecting--maybe so they can go shoot the lefties that **** them off. The reproductive rights issue is always led (on the right) by guys who probably look a lot like you, so why am I surprised that you launched into a tirade.

thejerk
08-06-2004, 08:47 AM
Yea that life and liberty thing really sucks. I thought this was odds and ends. Does it matter what I look like? Also guys like me have kids, I don't think there is anything wrong with being a breeder. You only give guys the credit, you must believe that women are monolithic and incapable of anything but herd mentality. Like I said, most people I've met in pro-life movement are women. How about the right of association, you probably don't think boyscouts deserve that either do ya. Aren't left wing students the ones who burn right wing news letters. Isn't it illegal to speak disapprovingly of homosexuality in Canada a left wing bastion. How come Austrians and such aren't allowed to express non government backed opinions of Hitler. Now, I don't hate homosexuals nor am I a **** but I don't think non violent politacal speech should be against the law. Why is it that the left are the ones that push hate crime laws. Since when is it good to have thought crimes. Communism/socialism and capitalism have one very important thing in common, materialism. The left seems to lament materialism and then say abortion is good because some people can't afford to have a baby. Financial reasons are the biggest reason for abortion. Life of a mother is self defense and no one is against that, even the pope. How about property rights, the left seems to think that they have a right to other peoples property as well ie... redistribution of wealth. Do you know what egalitarianism is?

Hey Phil it's not hard, a new thing has come along called micro-fisch. I have plenty of news reels on tape and disk, not to mention audio tape. Look what news papers were reporting about the occupation of Germany. In some instances, you can take out the word Germany and place Iraq in there and it is identical. The New York Times is a good place to look for that kind of coverage.

Morpheus
08-06-2004, 11:51 AM
Jerk, do you even bother to read other posts or even skim for key words, or do you simply just miss points all together. Sit down and try to focus. Try not to spew every thought that comes into your head. Censorship is ok when it comes to speech (I know that may be confusing to you, but its true). I know its tough with all the thoughts that are ricocheting through your head, but I know you can do it. And take off those polarizing glasses of yours, they're blinding you to too many wave lengths. You need a paradigm shift, but unfortunately, so does your man Bush, but at least your smart enough to make the change.

(BTW, did you see Dubya one up Kerry in Iowa. I bet he didn't realize that you supposed to cook corn first. )

thejerk
08-06-2004, 12:54 PM
Just trying to give examples of rights that the left oppose. I am so far right that the republicans can't touch me. Government censorship shouldn't be allowed just because something may be deemed offensive. I think that calling for or inciting violence shouldn't be allowed, obviously. Look at campaign finance reform, I watched the debates on cspan and the dems were all for it. I can't believe that Bush signed it. Think that it is an abridgement of the first amendment. Now the liberal press has carte blanche when it comes to political speech. For instance, The Boston Globe's campaign reporter is also being paid to write the official campaign book for the dems. I don't know, but isn't there a conflict of interest there. The Globe is also owned by the New York Times from what I understand.

A paradigm shift? I think that the republicans are dangerously close to socialist thought. I voted for Harry Brown. Admittedly, I would have voted for Bush if I'd known election was so close.
An Aside: Just heard a pole that says military guys are 58% Bush 35% Kerry. Believe that was Rasmusin. Bet that wasn't front line soldiers were the difference would probably be even more pronounced. Who wants to fight a sensitive war?
So you are telling me that offensive speech should be censored by the government. What a fearful world view. Give me an example of censored speech, not including incitement of violence, that you would back up. Read Brave New World and 1984(written by a disillusioned communist) again.

How about Capriatti's shorts.

Morpheus
08-06-2004, 01:07 PM
Jerk, there you go again. I repeat, it is okay to censor your own thoughts, and advisable in your case because they keep gushing out in a messed up tangle of words.

I give up. Say what you want. I could care less. I was merely hoping that you might be more interested in discourse rather than proselytizing (look it up if you must) ad nauseum.

Shane Reynolds
08-06-2004, 01:24 PM
Speaking of straw men, Phil, you know you can't set things up as us old fat men sending soldiers off to war. The military is the teeth to our foreign policy. When we need to accomplish something that cannot be accomplished through diplomacy, the military does it. Your attitude is what is demoralizing our soldiers. They were much better off when they didn't have everybody second guessing everything they do. It's fine to disagree with war, fine to let everybody know how you feel but all I hear when I try to watch CNN or MSNBC is whining. We have no resolve and this will haunt us one day; I just hope it's not with Kerry as President or we're in BIG trouble.

I watched a show last weekend about WWI on the History Channel. You have to remember that there was no such thing as plastic back then and most metal was being used for weapons. There were women who were being sterilized by handling TNT but you know what they had to say about it? They said that they could not complain when the men were overseas being shot at. What would happen today if this were to happen? I'll give you a hint: the plaintiff's bar would be increasing their donations to the Democratic Party.

Morpheus, I see your point but can only say I care about ALL of our rights. As an aside, I do not think the Supreme Court was proper to incorporate the Bill of Rights to State Constitutions - I think that is exactly what the authors of the Constitution were trying to protect against. I, too, think it is wise to shelve the reproductive rights discussion as it could get much too heated. I would encourage you, however, to take a look on CNN.com and search for a recent article on how views of abortion are changing, particularly in England, due to the new 3-D color ultrasounds.

And, Phil, I just can't even imagine the argument about Bush's cabinet vs. Kerry's potential cabinet running the war. Since you seem to think that I change the subject but you always know what I'm going to say, I'll let you argue with yourself on that one.

thejerk
08-06-2004, 01:24 PM
I am usually doing alota stuff. I agree with you about censoring ones self and realize I do go on rants. I sometimes write stuff just to get a reaction, sorry.

Shane Reynolds
11-03-2004, 05:00 PM
Yes Reynolds-what an unbiased source you get your information from. Perhaps you should look at any other source which clearly illustrates that the 9/11 commission did not establish that Iraq had any part in assisting Al Quida's quest against the United States. You are missing the point quite pathetically-the point is that by invading Iraq-we did not nothing to dismantle Al Quida. And yes many of the media outlets you've mentioned are right winged. I no longer wish to debate this with you-you are irrational and not intellectually competent. You type very much-but say very little. I'd rather go debate tennis with people on this website. Just keep in mind who won the debate when Bush is voted out of office in November. I'll be laughing at you Reynolds. When the American people show you that they don’t support Bush-but then again- most people didn’t support him last election. See you in the tennis forum Reynolds-perhaps I can respect you there.

I wish I were a bigger man, but I just have to ask - Are you laughing now? Bush won the electoral college and he also won the popular vote by around 3 million votes. He won by a larger margin than Clinton ever did. God bless America!

Bhagi Katbamna
11-03-2004, 07:00 PM
I'm certainly laughing. Bush won a record popular vote, higher in total # than Reagan who had the previous record.
I don't mind the world laughing at us, so long as they fear us.

Phil
11-03-2004, 08:39 PM
I am usually doing alota stuff. I agree with you about censoring ones self and realize I do go on rants. I sometimes write stuff just to get a reaction, sorry.


I know that, jerkoff, which is why I skip over most of your senseless babbling.

You're the guy who said he wouldn't join the military because it's run by the UN, right? So where are the black helicopters? You should put your money where your mouth is. The Bush govt. is going to need more and more bullet sponges as our forces become totally bogged down. Don't be a Dick Cheney and avoid military service-go ahead; Uncle Sam needs you, now more than ever.

Morpheus
11-04-2004, 04:33 AM
I wish I were a bigger man.

Chopin, most men seem to feel the same way, but they don't usually say it out loud. :wink:

@wright
11-04-2004, 10:10 AM
Phil seems irritated. I for one happen to think he would make a great "bullet sponge".

ChrisNC
11-04-2004, 10:28 AM
Phil seems irritated. I for one happen to think he would make a great "bullet sponge".
Phil always seems irritated

chad shaver
11-04-2004, 12:20 PM
Phil seems irritated. I for one happen to think he would make a great "bullet sponge".

I don't wish that on anybody on these boards.

The one thing that I do respect about everyone on these boards is that you actually do care about the direction our country is going. Those who think Bush will do the right thing...I hope you're right. Those who think he's going to send us all to hell in a handbasket...I hope you're wrong.

Bhagi Katbamna
11-04-2004, 02:19 PM
If the dems want to win elections in the future, they need to distance themselves from people like Michael Moore and others of the extreme radical left.

Shane Reynolds
11-04-2004, 03:34 PM
I agree, Bhagi. I think we will likely see the Dems appear to move more to the middle (with Michael Moore hopefully ignored by them) to set the table for Hillary's run in 2008. We know she is a leftie but her voting record, especially on defense issues, is pretty moderate. It will be interesting to see if Cheney resigns at some point to allow an up-and-comer some experience to add legitimacy to a run in 2008. I would love to see JC Watts, though I know he is enjoying time at home with his family. Can you imagine a Watts/(Condeleza) Rice Republican ticket in 2008? I hope that campaign on both sides is less negative and that Michael Moore doesn't make another "movie" that makes even moderate Dems shake their heads. I predict there will be a Southern/mid-Western Democrat who strongly challenges Hillary for the nomination. BTW, for what it's worth, I thought Kerry's concession was all class. That was the most sincere speech I heard from him, and I think he spared the country some grief by showing grace in defeat.

thejerk
11-04-2004, 05:45 PM
I am usually doing alota stuff. I agree with you about censoring ones self and realize I do go on rants. I sometimes write stuff just to get a reaction, sorry.


I know that, jerkoff, which is why I skip over most of your senseless babbling.

You're the guy who said he wouldn't join the military because it's run by the UN, right? So where are the black helicopters? You should put your money where your mouth is. The Bush govt. is going to need more and more bullet sponges as our forces become totally bogged down. Don't be a Dick Cheney and avoid military service-go ahead; Uncle Sam needs you, now more than ever.

No listen Phil/Larry, I said that when I was old enough to join, I didn't because I wouldn't serve under the Draft Dodger. I thought he would use us for U.N. missions instead of U.S. Several of my brothers and my father were in the military, and they helped me make that decision. They believed it too. Hard to get americans to fight under a Canadian. Looks like no one will be fighting under a frenchy either. I am too old to sign up now. I know because I tried.

What do mean bogged down. You lefties wouldn't know a victory if it slapped ya in the face. You don't know what is going on in Iraq. Most of the provinces over there are pacified and look how many people are signing up to police. I suppose they were better off being buried in mass graves. Or, was being buried alive in busses better?

I have finally figured out who you are. You are Larry Flint.
11 Feb 2004
Total posts: 1076
[0.90% of total / 4.03 posts per day]
Find all posts by Phil
Location:
Website: http://www.cplaza.ne.jp/
Occupation: Freelance Writer of Pornographic Greeting Cards
Interests:
You old Bolshevic. I'll bet the last time you actually talked to a military guy in person was in the 60's or 70's and it was probably to spit. I say that because I believe you are old enough to be in that generation and your politics seem to be the same. You even use terms like bogged down.

I believe you are just upset because Kerry won't be able to give you embryos to suck down. Jesus Edwards won't be able to get you out of your chair now.

Phil
11-06-2004, 01:24 AM
You old Bolshevic. I'll bet the last time you actually talked to a military guy in person was in the 60's or 70's and it was probably to spit. I say that because I believe you are old enough to be in that generation and your politics seem to be the same. You even use terms like bogged down.


First of all, learn how to spell Bolshevik correctly. Then, learn what it means.

Secondly, WRONG. I WAS a military guy-in the 80's and 90's, and STILL talk to AD military people-friends of mine. In fact, my commander-in-chief at one point was W's father-a guy with a lot more sense than his coke-snorting frat boy son. So, stop pulling shiat out of your butthole-if you HAVE something to say, say it. If you don't-which is often and always, then STFU.

You're a joke. This is a TENNIS chatboard, but some of us tennis junkies also like to talk politics, etc. as a sideline-a diversion. Most of us, though, talk tennis most of the time. We may not agree on some issues, but we all share a love for the Game. You haven't contributed, or even posted, anything to the TENNIS boards-you're using this board as a platform for...something. Manipulating your wife some more, maybe.

Did you lose your way while stumbling through the Yahoo or AOL chat boards? Go back there or else start talking sense here, you little moron and poor excuse for an American (UN-led US forces...give me a break-that's an even poorer excuse than "The Dog ate my enlistment papers"). Do not presume that someone you don't know is a draft dodger or leftist war protester, or anti-military or ANYTHING-especially if you yourself have LESS THAN NOTHING to show in the way of credibility.

You didn't have the bal-ls to enlist. Your brother and father may have served honorably but all you have to show as service to your country is your garbled posts here-our country doesn't need any more chickenhawk war cheerleaders-I can't tolerate you fu**ers who talk out of one side of your mouth, and then when you have the opportunity to DO something, you fade into the background and hide behind others. And YOU'VE ****ed on Kerry and his military record on this board? You got a lot of nerve, yellow belly. I wish I was able to say this to your face, really. Put up or shut up. If you're 35 or under you aren't too old to enlist; if you're 36-38, you can get a wavier for the Reserves-if you really want it.

Shane Reynolds
11-06-2004, 03:42 PM
Phil, I agree with little of your politics but I thank you for your service to your country. You are better than to resort to personal attacks laced with profanity. Just because some of us weren't cut out for military service doesn't mean our opinions don't count. If we're ever desperate enough that we need fat guys with bad backs to serve, I will gladly go. I don't fly planes because I'm not a jet pilot; I like to think of myself like that fat blob vampire in Blade - I don't really do anything but am decently intelligent. Now, can we please do this without attacking each other?

david aames
11-06-2004, 04:27 PM
Shane,

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20041106/capt.ans11111061735.iraq_blowing_off_steam_ans111. jpg

Today in Falluja... Now, what were you saying about that Blade cameo of yours? They do need your talent over there.

The story is worth reading BTW. Now we are fighting 'Satan'? But IT'S NOT a crusade...

They are awaiting orders from interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi to launch an all-out assault.

Col. Gary Brandl voiced his troops' determination:

"The enemy has got a face. He's called Satan. He's in Fallujah and we're going to destroy him."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20041106/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq


Just because some of us weren't cut out for military service doesn't mean our opinions don't count. If we're ever desperate enough that we need fat guys with bad backs to serve, I will gladly go. I don't fly planes because I'm not a jet pilot; I like to think of myself like that fat blob vampire in Blade - I don't really do anything but am decently intelligent. Now, can we please do this without attacking each other?

thejerk
11-07-2004, 02:17 PM
Interesting story. What would you call enemies you are about to go do battle with? Would you rally the troops by saying let's go get them goat herders? Well actually, that wouldn't be a bad one. Point is, when you are going to go kill people, you have to dehumanize them.

What is wrong with the Crusades? Maybe in government schools you are taught about the evil Crusaders, but the crusades were what saved europe from the muslim hords.

Did you also see contained in the story, "Samarra, an ancient city of gold-domed mosques that once served as the capital of a Muslim empire extending from Spain to India." Because of the crusades western culture survived. That is why Islamo-fascists hate the crusaders so much. They apparently remember history better than we do. The crusades gave them their greatest defeat. I'm glad I don't live under muslim law. I'm glad we survived long enough to abolish slavery and give rights to women.

There are many similarities. Not least among them, islamo-fascism. Identical ideology. You are the ones who forget history. Why do you think we fight. This war is not for expansionist policy. We are in it to stop them from killing us. They call us the crusaders because we are the only power willing to face them.

david aames
11-07-2004, 03:30 PM
You are hateful and clueless. I usually ignore your rants so I will only chime in to say what has already been noted by other posters -- you should either stick to tennis or go back to the Yahoo boards where you belong.

What is wrong with the Crusades? Maybe in government schools you are taught about the evil Crusaders, but the crusades were what saved europe from the muslim hords.

Did you also see contained in the story, "Samarra, an ancient city of gold-domed mosques that once served as the capital of a Muslim empire extending from Spain to India." Because of the crusades western culture survived. That is why Islamo-fascists hate the crusaders so much. They apparently remember history better than we do. The crusades gave them their greatest defeat. I'm glad I don't live under muslim law. I'm glad we survived long enough to abolish slavery and give rights to women.

There are many similarities. Not least among them, islamo-fascism. Identical ideology. You are the ones who forget history. Why do you think we fight. This war is not for expansionist policy. We are in it to stop them from killing us. They call us the crusaders because we are the only power willing to face them.

mlee2
11-07-2004, 03:34 PM
You sure love to go on tangents, jerk.

perfmode
11-07-2004, 04:01 PM
What is wrong with the Crusades? Maybe in government schools you are taught about the evil Crusaders, but the crusades were what saved europe from the muslim hords.

Did you also see contained in the story, "Samarra, an ancient city of gold-domed mosques that once served as the capital of a Muslim empire extending from Spain to India." Because of the crusades western culture survived. That is why Islamo-fascists hate the crusaders so much. They apparently remember history better than we do. The crusades gave them their greatest defeat. I'm glad I don't live under muslim law. I'm glad we survived long enough to abolish slavery and give rights to women.

There are many similarities. Not least among them, islamo-fascism. Identical ideology. You are the ones who forget history. Why do you think we fight. This war is not for expansionist policy. We are in it to stop them from killing us. They call us the crusaders because we are the only power willing to face them.

:?:

As far as I know, Muslims had nothing to do with the triangular trade. It was the ****ed up Christians who benefited from slavery. They used religion to justify it just like they used religion to justify a lot of other things.

One can also argue that the Crusades are responsible for the way the new world turned out. Right after the Spanish defeated the Moors, they went crazy and started conquering peoples and claiming land with their new-found e-penises.

What can we all learn from this?

Believing in a God = good
Having a religion = bad

chad shaver
11-07-2004, 04:09 PM
So, perfmode, you're saying that slavery was/is a purely Christian institution?

Phil
11-07-2004, 05:59 PM
Phil, I agree with little of your politics but I thank you for your service to your country. You are better than to resort to personal attacks laced with profanity. Just because some of us weren't cut out for military service doesn't mean our opinions don't count. If we're ever desperate enough that we need fat guys with bad backs to serve, I will gladly go. I don't fly planes because I'm not a jet pilot; I like to think of myself like that fat blob vampire in Blade - I don't really do anything but am decently intelligent. Now, can we please do this without attacking each other?


Shane - Although the back is still okay, I have bad knees and an ankle with ligaments hanging by threads-I prefer the blob vampire role myself.

As for "personal attacks", please remind me again who attacked whom here? Maybe I missed something, but my post was in response to a little weasel who questioned MY patriotism and, even though he was trying to be "cute"-making inferences that I was some dope smoking, Jane Fonda-supporting anti-war protester from the 60's-did not do himself a service by the "spitting on returning veterans" comment. Better writers are able to convey their point without using profanity (and some use it anyway)-I felt that a few choice words would accomplish for me what a face-to-face conversation could not. I have not seen a response from him, and I don't expect to.

It wasn't my intention to critiicize anyone who has not served in the military, because I think that just about EVERYONE who works, pays taxes and CARES about their country (regardless of party affiliation) is doing a service to their country by being productive citizens, and has a right to air their views. At the same time, I don't think those who serve are automically beyond criticism. They're still human, even with a war going on. Remember that. America is not about its military; it's about its CITIZENS. The military is only part of that. I am not from that school that says, unless you SERVED, shut up because you haven't been there and done that. I AM of that school that says if you haven't served, make EXCUSES for not doing so (rather than just say you preferred NOT to serve, which, to me, is fine-to each his own) and THEN criticize those who have served, then you deserve some harsh words, at the very least.

You don't have to agree with my politics and I'm not looking for "thanks" for what I did. I'm glad that I did it-wouldn't change a thing if I could go back in time-but I would never puff my chest out or wear my time in as some sort of badge of honor-It's history-we all have to move on. I ONLY mentioned this to silence the worm who SAID that he wanted to join, gave a pathetic excuse for not doing so, and then turned around and inferred that I was a yellow-bellied swine. Now what would YOU do in a situation like that?

Anyway, I feel much better this week-it's Monday, I have some coffee in me, the Steelers absolutely kicked...ahh...tail, and America needs to get on with its business, regardless of who leads it. The country AND the office is bigger than the man and I hope-probably futilely-that the MAN and his devout followers realize that at some stage of this second administration-better sooner than later.

Shane Reynolds
11-08-2004, 06:31 PM
Well-put, Phil. I know you're not fishing for compliments or pats on the back, but I like to give them anyway. As for Aames and others, don't be so politically-correct as to not see that some good things can come out of bad. This world is an amazing creation, and I am so very thankful to live in this great country where we can have these discussions.

And, yes, the Steelers did kick some serious tail - I just hope they're not peaking too soon.

ty slothrop
11-08-2004, 08:44 PM
What is wrong with the Crusades? Maybe in government schools you are taught about the evil Crusaders, but the crusades were what saved europe from the muslim hords.


dude, the moors were honing astronomy, algebra, and a host of other sciences while the europeans were dragging their knuckles behind them against the ground. ever hear of Cordoba? well, it was a moorish city in spain, and around the year 1000 it was arguably the most civilized and highest-educated spot on the globe.

if you want to talk about "hords" [sic], let's examine the europeans from, well,up until 3-400 years ago. aside from catholic and protestant theology (and even that's a dubious gift), europeans contributed almost nothing to but cruelty to humanity until the enlightenment. [/quote]

perfmode
11-08-2004, 08:58 PM
Jerk, if it wasn't for "them a-rabs" and "muslim hords", you'd still be doing your taxes with an abacus! Stop being an ignorant redneck.

Phil
11-08-2004, 09:08 PM
Ty - This guy just rants out of his behind. He's ignorant of history or current affairs and has admitted that he merely posts to get a rise from (more informed) posters. Of course the Crusades were an absolute military failure for the Europeans. While the initial objective of the Crusades was to take back Jerusalum, which the Europeans captured and then lost, it turned into an orgy of **** and plunder. The Europeans, with their heavily armored mounted calvery, were usually completely outmanuevered and outclassed by the lightly armored and much faster Muslim horsemen.

The one positive of the Crusades-the influence of Roman and Greek civilization, medicine, astronomy and other arts, which had been lost in the West but preserved by the Muslims. Major negative-the stupid, violent and frustrated Christians, on their way to the Holy Land, sacked Byzantium-the major Eastern Christian outpost and defender of Eastern Europe from the Muslims, hence irreparably weakening Byzantium and paving the way for the Turks to take it over and from there take control of much of E. Europe for the next 600+ years. The Crusades were not a proud moment for the West.

thejerk
11-10-2004, 08:42 PM
Phil, you've attacked me on more than one occassion. As a matter of fact, my post that you so stridently object to was in response to an attack. It was Clinton not just my father and brothers, that kept me out of the military. As a matter of fact, this isn't the first time that you seem to imply violence. I would throw the challenge back at you, but I don't want to sound like a crusader. I do appolgize for the spitting comment, I got a little emotional over your previous attack. I guess you are too young to have done that.

Perfie, I never used the term "A-rabs." I only use muslim to describe the religion of the islamo-fascists. Not all sects of Islam want to take over the world by force. If not for the crusades we'd all be paying infidel taxes with or without an abacus. I have much more in common with muslims than non religious people. You call me redneck can I call you Hollywood? You seem so urbane.

Aames, what's up. I see you can do nothing but parrot others. It's hard to play tennis and be on the internet at the same time. I usuallyl read all the posts on raquets and a few of the others. I find politics interesting. If I wasn't at work I wouldn't bother with you. Why would I Yahoo? I like this because of the disagreements. It seems that you only want to hear people who agree with you. Like perfmode u must be to urbane to put up with simple rednecks. Why aren' t you in Canada anyway? Not old enough? Don't tell the Canadians won't even have ya.

Phil
11-10-2004, 09:20 PM
Yes, Jerkoff, I was "too young to have done that", but that's not the point. I would have NEVER done it, ANY TIME. You really have to THINK before you write these things-but that's like asking a snake to grow legs-it'll never happen.

I NEVER "implied" violence in my posts. I said that I would have loved to have a face-to-face with you. It's absurd to threaten someone with physical violence from the safety of a computer. From my experience, most live conversations don't result in violence and a real discussion can often resolve misunderstandings that anonymous e-mails cannot. That's all.

As for your comment on Clinton "keeping you out of the military", I don't understand how he, or anyone could have done that. If you pass the physical and academic requirements for enlistment and aren't a habitual criminal, then you're in...regardless of who is sitting in the White House. The "UN" comment doesn't wash. It's an excuse, and a poor one. Don't blame Clinton for your inability or fear to make a decision that you now regret you never made. If you really WANTED to go, and didn't, then YOU blew it, not Slick Willie. He doesn't know Mr. Jerkoff, from Jackwater, Montana. U.N. Peacekeeping duties are part-and-parcel of serving in some units, but in a very small percentage, and, for a very short time within the span of an enlistment. I've heard excuses, but none so lame.

You right wingers can't continue to blame Clinton for EVERYTHING; eventually, you're gonna have to own up to whose doing the screwing up. It's RESPONSIBILITY TIME now.

thejerk
11-10-2004, 10:39 PM
I can blame Clinton. Your are saying that I should have served under a commander-n-chief like him. I wasn't wrong. The dems don't fight unless the UN lets them. Not anymore anyway. The Kennedy part of the dems is now the Bush part of the republicans. Bush is more of a Kennedy style politician than Clinton or Kerry. They are Canadian French.

The Byzantine empire under Alexius Comnenus asked for aid from Pope Urban in fighting back the Seljuk Turks. The first Crusade began in 1096. Byzantium didn't fall until 1453. Western and Eastern christianity were always at odds with each other. The western europeans did gain some of the lost books from the Byzantines, but, that was during exposure to each other in their fight to retake holy lands. The Seljuk Turks didn't allow pilgrimages as the arab muslims had. The Seljuks took the lands from the arabs.

The Crusades allowed Byzantium to last for 400 more years. Eastern and Western christianity's differences probably contributed to the fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman turks, however, without their combined forces during the Crusades Byzantium would probably have fallen in the early 1100's to the Seljuks instead of in 1453 to the Ottomans. Western forces didn't sack Constantinople until 1204 during the 4th Crusade. The Crusades weren't a proud moment because they were unable to hold their gains. The later Crusaders were just bandits and merauders with a noble sounding name. They used the name of Crusade to justify their pilage. Many good things came out of the original Crusades, such as, culture that was formerly lost was found. They also slowed the Turkish expansion.

I misunderstood your face to face comment. I think that would be fun. However, when you say think before you write these things, I see you have misrepresented the Crusades without thinking. The first Crusade was successful and the holy lands were captured. They were lost because, imo, of the contentiousness between eastern and western Christians. Succeding Crusades became more about expansion and infighting between the two Christian factions.

Ty, I didn't bring up the Moors. The Moors were kicked out by Ferdinand and Isabella. I was talking about the crusades. I used the quote from the story to show that there are and were ideologies within Islam for expansion. The Islamo-Fascists believe it is their duty to expand Islam by force. The Moors were kicked out of Europe 400 years after the first Crusade. They were africans. The story we were refering to just said Muslims, it did not differentiate between the sects. The story did say that the empire from there stretched all the way to Spain and that threw me, because, I believe Moors were black africans. Let me get this right, you are saying that cruelty didn't exist before christianity? That only christian countries were capable of spreading cruelty? The Moors are were only trying to spread science? The Moorish expansion was peaceful?

Just because we consider the europeans as christian doesn't wipe away the entire history of paganism. Nazism used many pagan symbols. The ****'s tried to wipe out christianity and replace it with paganism. Europe is reverting still. I bring this up because of the ferver many of the crusaders used in plundering. If Hitler and the germans still had paganistic ideas, what do you think of the europeans back then? Christian dogma doesn't condone wanton acts of depravity.

Perf, muslim slade traders were the beginning of the triangle. The Moors were not kicked off the Iberian peninsula by the crusades. Ferny and Izy did that. However, where would we be if the Moors hadn't been dislodged? Why don't you find out what happened to the great majestic peace loving, all educated, cultured Moors and get back with us?

Phil
11-10-2004, 11:45 PM
The Clinton thing is an excuse. Our men and women in uniform do a job-regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. They don't base their decision to join on who is sitting in office-they do it to serve their country. You're saying that your country was less worth defending just because you didn't like the sitting president? It was still YOUR country. What an idiotic EXCUSE. Don't blame Clinton for your decision. It's YOUR fault alone for whatever poor judgement you exercised.

The 1st Crusade achieved its objective-the taking of Jerusalem. It was all downhill from there. The Europeans LOST Jerusalem and were handed their butts by the Janissaries and finally, booted out altogether in 1291. Even 30 years before that the Crusader presence was reduced to a small and weak garrison holed up in Syria. At one point an army of Mamaluk Turks, marching through Syria on its way to clash with the approaching Mongol army, stopped at Craque de Chevalier (sp?) Castle-the remaining Crusader outpost, and TOLD the garrison captain that if his men allowed the Muslim armies to pass through that territory without incident, they would be spared the destruction of the castle and death of everyone inside. The "Crusaders" obliged, without as much as a whimper, and the Turks went on to hand the Mongols their worst military defeat at Ayn al-Jalut, ending Mongol military dominance of the Near East.

The sack of Byzantium weakened the Eastern Christian Empire and opened the door for a fairly easy take over by the Ottomans. It took awhile, but the Ottomans-having become the dominant force in the Levant, eventually made their move and occupied much of E. Europe more-or-less until WW I ended. A strong Byzantium, with Western SUPPORT, could have held off the Turks for much longer.

thejerk
11-11-2004, 12:15 AM
I consider the Clinton thing a reason not an excuse. He made the military too politically correct. He used it as a social experiment. I feared at the time that I would be used to further UN causes that were contradictory to US interests. I would have been serving for a lie then, not just a disagreement. I wasn't wrong.

Look at all the people who lost their jobs because of doing the same things Slick Willie was doing with his subordinates. Of course, that came later.

You are right about the disbute between East and West opening the way, but that came after the originators of the Crusades were dead. The two factions were always at odds.
Even so, without the crusades the muslims would have taken all of Europe.

Phil
11-11-2004, 12:39 AM
Well, it's a poor reason. There was nothing wrong with the UN forces occupying Bosnia and Kosovo, unless, of course, you don't mind a little genocide with your morning coffee. The same reason some people defend the invasion of Iraq-to "save" the population. Only, in the case of Yugoslavia, it was true. Those missions are short for US forces-believe me, 99% of all service members, even under Clinton, performed the business of the US. You were GROSSLY misinformed if that is the "reason" you choose not to join.

Re. the Crusades, there is no evidence that the Muslims "would have taken all of Europe" without the Crusades. Muslims didn't threaten Europe at the time of the 1st Crusade-they occupied S. Spain, and no more, and my geography tells me that S. Spain is in the opposite direction of where the Crusades took place. The Crusades, like Muslim jihad today, exploited religion as an excuse for mayhem and murder, only the objective was material-as a way for the rich (knights, nobels) to acquire pluder under the banner of the cross.

Do some research, my man. You will find that the Muslims were too WEAK and divided to take Europe during the time of the Crusades. Until 1260, the Mongols put a serious beating on the Muslims, and even after Ayn al-julut, the Turks remained in a weakened state.

Only under the unified Ottomans, almost 250 years AFTER the Crusades did Muslims threaten Central and W. Europe. The Ottomans actually got to the gates of Vienna, but they were over-extended militarily, and retreated eastward, and never again seriously threatened W. and C. Europe. Thanks to the greed and blundering stupidity of the Crusaders, the Ottomans were able to waltz into Byzantium and use it as their launch point in conquering more territory east and west.

mlee2
11-11-2004, 05:00 AM
What's up with the Muslim bashing (re: Crusades?)

Plain and simple: The Europeans picked a fight with the Muslims and the Muslims decided to defend their homeland with ferocious valor.

Calling them Muslim "hords" when they're defending their own land is pretty illogical if you ask me.

Face it, the Muslims were advanced in almost every single way during that time frame. Others have mentioned scientific and military achievement. But, you ever heard of Prince Saladin?

He was history's (arguably) most compassionate ruler of all time. He was revered greatly in Muslims literature as well as in the West. As the key player of the retaking in Jerusalem, he had the option of not sharing it with the Christians (and rightfully so), but he didn't. He embraced many faiths and cultures with open arms. And was more than willing to sign peace treaties with all the Crusading states when he was at a clear military advantage.

Adding to Saladin's great reputation, there were insurmountable amounts of Christians whom decided to convert after hearing about his treatment to everybody, including Saladin's Christian POWs.

Heck, thew were better off as prisoners in Ottoman than they were in Europe. At least, they weren't persecuted for their beliefs!

If it's one lesson right wingers can learn from this: Do not let religious radicals take over your government. It was the downfall of a paradise (Middle East) and it'll certainly be the downfall of our great country if they keep this up.

Face it jerk, you need to brush up on your Muslim history before you prattle on like an ignoramus/racist.

Shane Reynolds
11-12-2004, 03:30 PM
I love how lefties throw out the term "racist" to try to keep you boxed in - they usually can't argue with you so they call you a "racist" and scratch their chins like they have said something wise. Mlee throws out one little snippit and we're all supposed to concede defeat. I will concede that Mr. Jerk and Mr. Phil obviously know the subject better than I care to. I'm fine with that.

I also love the people who throw out the term "religious radicals" to identify anyone with a strongly-held religious belief. The only thing I like better is non-Christians who have memorized the verse "Judge not lest ye be judged" without bothering to learn the whole context. For a person of faith, especially in the Christian/Jewish/Muslim traditions (and no, I'm not excluding others, I just am not as familiar with them), your faith is part of who you are. You don't turn it off and on. For me, it's not about what I think or say, it's about what my Lord says. I fall miserably short most of the time, but I won't go into all that here. I am curious what completely secular country you are holding up as a measuring stick for your comment, Mlee, and why you call the Middle East "paradise." People from all faiths or no faith at all can make scientific advancements, be kind to others, and be good rulers; they can also murder, ****, and plunder. I don't think you can call that land "Muslim" land when that land has been fought over from pretty much the beginning of time. I am convinced those dinosaurs didn't like each other! It's also interesting that to most lefties, they will argue that Europe is superior to the US in all social and cultural areas but here in this board, the left is bashing Europe to say they ruined everything in history.

Phil, I do not classify you as a leftie, maybe more Libertarian. I agree with the emotions behind your comments about serving your country but most righties perceive the Democrats as giving the UN too much say in what we do, and there is the fear of being put under the command of a UN officer while serving in peacekeeping ops. I think Serbia was pretty much Clinton's only true military success and I think it was the right thing to do. I think it was great that we coordinated with other countries who had the same objective we did. But I would not want a single thing our military did or didn't do to be because of what an officer of another country ordered. The rest of the world wants us to fix everything, us to pay for everything, but they don't want us to say anything or ever have our own interests at heart.

There's a good article on foxnews.com about Federalism. The blue states (which were primarily made blue by high population densities in urban counties within the state) can have all the socialism and big government they want - they just have to do it at the state level instead of running to Washington and the courts when they want something. By the same token, I don't really see what Democrats are mourning - Bush has pretty much stolen their thunder with bigger government (Medicare prescription drug plan and nationalized control over education), lax immigration laws (amnesty program that he refuses to call the amnesty program and refusal to take common-sense approach to completely revamping how we deal with illegal aliens), out of control budget deficit (tax cuts worked for Reagan because he cut spending on social causes - I didn't go to Yale but I think I understand income vs spending), and now the constant talk of unity. He's acting like he barely won this election when he actually had a margin of victory, unlike in 2000.

mlee2
11-12-2004, 06:12 PM
Ok, the 'racist' label was whack. I apologize. Although it is fun to put stereotype labels on you right-wing rednecks. ;-)

My view on religion: Religion itself is a beautiful thing but majority of believers are unbelievably stupid. This goes for pretty much people of ALL CULTURES and ALL beliefs, throughout all of history including now. I'm not picking just on Christians, Muslims, etc. Every belief has its own idiosyncracies. But look at most of the major wars of our history. There are countless wars that had constant religious connontation or reasons, based on the whim of rulers who were "religious fanatics."

Faith is one thing but I consider it wrong to live your life out blindly through scriptures and practices.

I have been in a Catholic school for 2 years and took very intensive courses on mainstream religion in college. So, I do have a small understanding and respect of faith. But, you would not believe how many people have everything manipulated. First and foremost, is that Christ believed tolerance was the most important thing to have as a spiritual person.

I fully believe that Christ would be shaking his head about the prejudice that goes on in people who do things under his name. Christ said nothing about gays or people of other beliefs. It was only added 500? years later when some Romans made some stuff up in the New Testament, in an effort to seperate themselves from the homoerotic orgies known as The Ancient Greeks.

I respect when someone embraces a certain belief (even a strong one) but to me, one should believe whatever they want and STFU about it. Noble actions are bigger than cheap religious talk. The act of "converting" people (in a fanatic sort of way) is frowned upon in most religions, yet some clowns seem to ignore this very important canon.

You could say that Clinton also stole Republican thunder too. This guy balanced the budget, increased the economy, and even advocated for restrictions on abortion. Difference between Bush and Clinton is that Clinton succeeded in 2 of the 3. It was the Republicans who fought against Clinton's partial-birth abortion bill.

There are too many critics about Bush's Medicare plan, No Child Left... plan, etc. for him to be considered even closely successful to Clinton.

Lastly, you might not believe me but, I am not into blindly supporting anyone liberal. I come from a state where incompetence and complacency plague the Democratic party so I will vote Republican when the person is even minimally competent (or at least moderate). I share many Republican values as part of an immigrant family that made a well established business here. But I do not forget the social structure of the Dems that made that possible as well.

There are plenty of Repubs whom I would vote for President but I know enough about Bush and Repubs like him, for me to vote for anyone else if they were on the ballot.

Phil
11-13-2004, 11:06 AM
Shane - Yes, the term "racist" is overused and misused. By the same token, conservatives throw out the terms "socialism" (as you did) and "liberal" for the same reason. Being a liberal of the classic type has become as much of a stigma as being a Communist used to be-as I said in a previous post, it's the new communism among right wingers.

If you really MUST classify my politics based on my comments on this board, I'll give you a hint: I'm conservative on foreign policy (not in the Pat Buchannan way-i.e. isolationist, but closer to Henry Kissinger and realpolitek), and liberal or libertarian on domestic issues.

That stuff about the U.N. taking control of the US military is a paranoid conservative fantasy. Do you really think the US would ALLOW that to happen? Even in Yugoslavia/Bosnia, with the US military under nominal control of the UN, when it came time to drop the bombs, the US took the lead. When push comes to shove, the rest of the countries involved, WILL step aside. If you're scared of the black helicoptors of the UN World Government, then you better go out and buy yourself a tin foil hat.

thejerk
11-13-2004, 01:25 PM
Phil, I didn't know Serbia was harboring terrorists. Without calling Milosevic a good guy, the people u saw that were supposedly victims of genocide were Islamo gangs(KLA) trying to wrest Kosovo from Serbia. It has been part of Serbia for 1000 years. Serbia was one of our allies during ww2 before we allowed the Soviets to annex it. Serbia was purely UN/Europeans dictating foreign policy. The UN has since allowed the Muslim seperatists to systematically burn down churches and displace christians.

Muslim expansionists took over what 2/3 of the known world. They took lands all the way to Spain within 100 years of Mohammed. Without the crusades nothing would have stopped them. You say there is no evidence they were a danger to Western Europe, well there is no evidence they would have stopped either. I say the evidence points to expansion. Byzantium sought help isn't that evidence. Constantinople fell, that is more evidence.

I don't remember who said, "They were fighting for their homelands." but you are wrong. Saladin probably came from Egypt. They were fighting over Jerusalem. If you say Jarusalem belongs to the Arabs, not jews, I'd say it belonged to Rome by the same standards. Somebody even brought up Cordoba. In Cordoba, an enlightened monarch hired learned people of all religions to come and study. He loved science. It didn't last that long. After him and maybe one or two others, Islam was imposed. Christians were forced into muslim schools and learning was seriously hindered and culture slowed.

Mlee, when you spoke of religions, I wonder if you included atheism. Atheism is based on beliefs. I noticed somebody said religion killed alota people in this century. They were right, if you also include atheism ie U.S.S.R., Mao, Pol Pot, etc...

thejerk
11-13-2004, 01:25 PM
Phil, I didn't know Serbia was harboring terrorists. The people u saw that were supposedly victims of genocide were Islamo gangs(KLA) trying to wrest Kosovo from Serbia. It has been part of Serbia for 1000 years. Serbia was one of our allies during ww2 before we allowed the Soviets to annex it. Serbia was purely UN/Europeans dictating foreign policy. The UN has since allowed the Muslim seperatists to systematically burn down churches and displace christians.

3+

Phil
11-14-2004, 05:23 PM
Jerk - I haven't a clue as to what you're talking about. Pure, nonsensical babble. I think you need to go back on your meds.

Saladdin was a KURD from the area that is now Iraq. Jerusalem belongs to the JEWS. Other than that, it's useless to even begin to correct all your non-sequiters. Go back to the AOL or the Yahoo chat boards where your kind tends to crawl.

mlee2
11-14-2004, 09:03 PM
Jerk, using your definition, I could make up my own religion of recklessly spending money as my path to holiness or some other sort of nonsense.

Atheism isn't a religion. It's just a label. There is no organized instituion about atheism, nor is there some sort of nationwide effort to convert people to atheists. I've never heard of some ruler declaring war on the basis that "there is no god/afterlife" or some other similar reason. What a simpleminded effort to demonize atheism!

Next, you get all your facts wrong. Mao had lots of influence from Confucious. Also, Stalin had plenty of his influences from people who were diehard Catholics. I mean c'mon, that area is home to the biggest cathedrals on Earth. Geez....

Morpheus
11-15-2004, 05:32 AM
Hey, Jerk, if you want to get away from all the atheists, go to hell; that is, if you don't mind hanging with catholics.

Shane Reynolds
11-15-2004, 03:19 PM
mlee2 and Phil, I am glad we're exchanging ideas in more creative ways. mlee2, I think you could not be more wrong about what you say about homosexuals and tolerance in the Bible. What I think Jesus did better than any of us seem to do (for good reason considering the whole divinity thing) is preach a hard edge without falling into a pattern of alienating the very ones He was trying to reach. As for the laws mentioned, I would have to reference Leviticus 18:22, which was quite a bit before 500 AD; I know Paul mentions it many times and there is never anything other than disdain for the PRACTICE (not the PERSON). I am not positive but I believe the entire canon of the Bible was established long before 500 AD. I have an excellent sermon in mp3 format if you have broadband and wish me to email it to you. I doubt these posts will last long before someone objects to them so I don't see any point in going much farther. For the record, I cannot name a religion that doesn't proselytize. As for me as a Christian, there are two Commandments given by Jesus himself and one of them is to preach the Gospel to all the nations. It's in the Qu'ran to convert the infidels or kill them.

Atheism is indeed a religion, which Webster's defines as a "system of beliefs." Atheism says, "I have thought about it, examined the evidence, and come to the conclusion that there is no god." There are organized groups of Atheists who fight against what they see is a propagation of religion involving the worship of any gods. You are right, though, that, as far as I know anyway, atheists have never slaughtered anybody in the name of no god. The passion with which we experience our faith can sometimes lead to horrific outcomes, this is true. For anyone looking for references, I highly recommend "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for the Creator" by Lee Strobel, who was an attorney in the Chicago area and an atheist before he sat down and decided to examine the evidence for himself with no bias. There is another book of his called "The Case for Faith" but it is most enjoyed by someone who has faith but gets shaken sometimes. I am not suggesting you are in one place or another - I'm just throwing out some short, easy books to read that I thoroughly enjoyed. "The Case for the Creator" is obviously more scientific and, at least in my case, is not a book I could get as much out of by trying to read it at bedtime.

Phil, it's not paranoia if everyone really is after you. All kidding aside, I seriously do believe that Kerry would have given unprecedented control to the UN, whether it was direct or indirect control.

I want to make one thing very clear: I am not preaching hatred of anyone. Romans 3:23 is very clear that I am in the same boat as everyone else. I am not for legislating any form of religion but THAT INCLUDES ATHEISM. I am sure I will get slammed on all of this and so be it.

Phil
11-15-2004, 07:16 PM
Shane - I don't believe Kerry would have given control of US forces to the UN. He MAY have asked them, AS BUSH HAS DONE, to come in and SUPPORT US troops, but that's all. A president doesn't necessarily have the power to do whatever he wants, campaign promises aside. Sooner or later, the reality of his limitations sets in. Even Bush, the man who can never be wrong or make a mistake, will find this out soon enough. Now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election, he may just focus on doing something positive for the country, rather than pander to his middle America constituency. It's payback time for the big boys-the REAL people who ensured his victory-the money guys. Which doesn't bode well for our enviornment or consumer protection/safety issues, but for other fiscal issues-like balancing the budget, he may have no choice but to do the right thing.

Shane Reynolds
11-17-2004, 02:55 PM
We will have to agree to disagree on the UN control issue. I think Bush makes lots of mistakes and I think it bothers him that in today's political climate, you can't really just come out and say, "you know what, this Iraq thing is going to be a little tougher steak to chew than we originally thought." I don't fault him for it; as I have said before, it's not like there is a textbook they can study to make sure they are right 100% of the time. Consultants, strategists, etc. take their best guess. I agree with Kerry that we need more troops on the ground over there and all of our convoys of supplies should be protected (though I think those soldiers who refused to do their duty should be courtmartialed and dishonorably discharged). It reminds me of that email I got a few years ago called something like "Name this country" and it described the country's military and called it the fourth largest military in the world; at the end, you find out that this "military" is actually the downsizing done of our military by Bill Clinton. I really wish he had planned the downsizing to be in more moderate steps. I always thought the National Guard was supposed to be there to guard our nation, not be sent overseas like regular military but what do I know?

I think Bush is going to go the other way - he seems more moderate to me already. If there is to be "payback" though, I'm glad it's not owed to George Soros. For all the heat Bush has taken about this "recession," I cannot imagine what will happen if a Dem does get in office and commit to the stiff cutbacks the rest of the world is seeking from us in emissions, etc. - then we will see a real recession. What was wrong with drilling in Alaska again?

I'm curious what consumer protection/safety issues you're talking about. I think your guns are safe with Bush.

Phil
11-17-2004, 07:22 PM
I think Bush makes lots of mistakes and I think it bothers him that in today's political climate, you can't really just come out and say, "you know what, this Iraq thing is going to be a little tougher steak to chew than we originally thought."

It's obvious that it doesn't bother him at all not admitting colossal errors in Iraq and elsewhere. After all, it's all Allah's...oh, I mean God's will. He is the leader who can do no wrong. A sensible person would have the balls to change course-admit that a course change is necessary. That's okay-enough people know that he screwed-up and even his generals HAVE come out and said as much. But failure to reverse course on a bad policy is a FATAL character flaw. Kerry wasn't the first to say we need more troops-the Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki said it right from the start, and Bush & Co. rewarded him by putting him out to pasture.

Yes, you can even find a reason to blame Clinton for this one.

As for consumer safety/protection issues, there are far too many instances to go into here-I'm not going to write a thesis here or do your research. If you CARED about your enviornment and the safety of the American worker, YOU would bother to do that. All I'll say is: Special Interests (i.e. corporate) have taken control of those issues, which is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

Here, I even did your research-read this...and then tell me that the source is liberal, biased, etc. and lacks credibility-I'm sure you'll do that, but I've read it and there's NOTHING there that's been distorted or falsified-it's all the sick truth.

http://www.sensiblesafeguards.org/pdfs/finalreport.pdf

Drilling for oil in Alaska is just fine. While we're at it, why don't we do that in Yosemite or Yellowstone too. Nothing wrong with mortgaging our natural treasures for a couple 100 million bb's of oil...And Dick-head Cheyney can continue to hide reports from his energy commision, in which he's pushing for MORE polluting coal production. As for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocal, which, according to you, if passed, would put us into a recession, that's a slick Republican lie, just like Saddam being responsible for 9/11. The bottom line is anything that affects the corporate bottom line won't see the light of day-not if Bush and his paymasters can help it. I would say that fighting two wars simultaneously while cutting taxes and running up an $8 trillion debt will be enough to put us into another recession. You're sprouting the standard b.s. I suppose that kind of debt is, somehow, "good" for the economy. Twisted.

Here's another one I saw in today's Yahoo news:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041118/ap_on_go_co/fit_food_labeling_6

mlee2
11-18-2004, 02:19 AM
Shane, we obviously come from different schools of Christian philosophy, so the old saying goes: agree to disagree. I have read that book before and it's a great one. I may be misquoting something but I think Strobel puts atheists in their place by stating even science proves that there has to be a God thanks to the "law of conservation," pretty much meaning the "Big Bang" is a crock theory. In case you're wondering, I'm an agnostic/borderline Christian, not an atheist.

"What was wrong with drilling in Alaska again?

Dude, please tell me you are joking. Alaska is a wildlife refuge and it's preserved for good reason. I highly recommend going there yourself to see what the fuss is about. Besides, the oil supply would only last several months, then we're screwed again. That's unbelievably short-sighted to sacrifice millions of years of beauty for several months of cheaper gas.

The whole point of marking something a national park/wildlife refuge/etc. is to stop development ENTIRELY in the area, not just some resource-rich areas for political/economic convienience.

Phil pretty much covered what I was going to say. In regards to the Kyoto Protocol, I'm pretty sure there was a figure stating the average American pollution-producing factory can reduce 50-75%? of emissions with only a 1% increase in expenses.

Phil's right: this is about corporate greed, not economic stability.

Shane Reynolds
11-18-2004, 03:33 PM
I cannot compete with your conspiracy theories and I don't want to try. You took my critique of Bush further than I intended - I think he's a fantastic President. I don't expect to agree with everything anyone does; that doesn't even happen with my wife and I love her much more than any of you. There are plenty of politically-motivated people to say a variety of things - I cannot remember hearing anyone say we need more troops without also criticizing other areas; I'm not a general and I haven't served as you have, Phil, so I'm just going with a "gut feeling." You've taken a much more harsh tone with me again, and I frankly don't understand your comment that you are doing my research for me. You mentioned consumer protection/safety issues and I asked what you were talking about; if I said "I didn't like Kerry's stance on birds," wouldn't you need further clarification on what I meant?

Yes, you're right, I do think that source was a bit biased. I work in insurance and I would probably have heard about "the big conspiracy to kill everybody."

What you guys fail to get is that by removing FEDERAL requirements, we are simply being REPUBLICANS. If I owned a business in Philly, the entire state of NJ, or south FL, I would shut it down - it cannot possibly be worth it to do business there due to the enormous amount of frivolous lawsuits. Those are extremely liberal areas where verdicts are highly volatile; I can only understand them from an outsider's perspective, and that is fine with me. But a FEDERAL system of government doesn't have the National government tellling the states what to do - the states can make up their own minds. If you want a 10-lb book to tell you how to adjust your desk and your chair, you can have one in your state. I know some things cross state lines and MUST be addressed at the national level but I'm not sure we want anything other than basic rules on workplace safety and such.

And while I would try to disturb the land as little as possible, I would drill Alaska in a heartbeat. I'm convinced it can be done. I don't care so much about cheaper gas, just not having to depend as much on the Saudis.

Mlee, I know I'm gonna get hit for saying this, but there are not different schools on when those issues were addressed by Christians. You asserted something as fact and you were wrong. Sometimes it really is that simple, another concept lost to most liberals. To be clear, I'm not arguing that I am right and you are wrong - I'm just telling you what the Good Book says. If you don't recognize its authority, it's a tougher road to hoe strictly sticking to history but it can be done, as Strobel demonstrated. There is also a verse about "lukewarm" believers but I'll let you check that out for yourself if you're interested.

If you two are so convinced Bush is a liar and all of this is motivated by greed, then allow me to politely ask you why Kerry wanted the job. Catering to special interests certainly happens on both sides but the left's special interests scare the hell out of me.

Morpheus
11-18-2004, 04:34 PM
"that doesn't even happen with my wife and I love her much more than any of you."

How do you know how much I love your wife?

"If I owned a business in Philly, the entire state of NJ, or south FL, I would shut it down - it cannot possibly be worth it to do business there due to the enormous amount of frivolous lawsuits. "

Yet, many businesses thrive there. How can it be so? There must be other criteria at play

"And while I would try to disturb the land as little as possible, I would drill Alaska in a heartbeat. "

But would you strip mine your backyard?

"Sometimes it really is that simple, another concept lost to most liberals. "

Ouch, you sure are liberal with your generalizations...

"If you two are so convinced Bush is a liar and all of this is motivated by greed."

He is neither greedy, nor a liar, but he is spiteful, mean-sprited and ethnocentric--all good qualities if you wish to **** someone off. (He's also a fantastic public speaker.)

thejerk
11-18-2004, 05:01 PM
Mlee, I actually agree with you on Alaska. I think we should all go there look around, and then ask the Alaskans, what do you think? If we did that drills would be there already.

You are insane if you think Stalin was a catholic. Did you know Castro was trained in a Jesuit school? I suppose that would make him a catholic aswell. Mao was an atheist, remember the Little Red Book. Much of the cultural revolution was to drive out the old ideas. The Little Red Book never condoned diversity either. Cathedrals? I thought they were Russian and/or Greek Orhodox.

I love the way you conveniently forget that christians, not to mention jews, lived in Jerusalem 600 yrs before Mohammed was even born. Where do you come up with the assumption that christians stold Jerusalem from the Muslims? You say it is right that Islam took over Jerusalem? Why? I wonder why you never find any records of Islamic evildoing from the time? Yes, even Saladin probably didn't allow to much descent.

Phil, every document I've come across places Saladins birth in either Syria or Egypt. You don' t have to be born in a specific house to be part of a group.

Morpheus, I don't want to "get away from atheists." I have nothing against them. I always bring the communists up to show that just as people believe religion is the root of evil, atheism isn't the root of all that is good. I no more believe all atheists are communists than all monotheists are christians. Besides atheism is a religion. How would you describe the faith it takes to believe we developed an optical nerve without a cornea or iris. Why would evolution bring forth a useless thing like an optical nerve? Did every part of the eye just appear there. Explain the evolution of the eye, just the eye, and I too will be a true believer.

Morpheus
11-18-2004, 06:56 PM
Morpheus, Why would evolution bring forth a useless thing like an optical nerve? Did every part of the eye just appear there. Explain the evolution of the eye, just the eye, and I too will be a true believer.

Perhaps you would be better served to ask why male mammals have nipples? Why some snakes carry the rudiments of tiny legs? or Why certain species of flightless beetles have wings that never open?

Just why is it that so many people do not possess even the most rudimentary knowledge of the theory of evolution, when the supporting evidence is abundant, ever increasing, and available in museums, text books, and a large accumulation of peer reviewed scientific studies? I can appreciate how scriptural literalism can result in anti-evolutionary thinking, but so many people seem to argue for creationism without a basic understanding of evolution. Even the Catholic Church has made room for both God and Darwin by "conceding" that divine initiation got things started and evolution has been the creative means.

Jerk, I suggest you start by Googling the following phrases:

1. Natural Selection
2. Domestic Selection
3. Evolutionary theory
4. Darwin

Interestingly enough, you don't have to be able to think in terms of "millions of years" to grasp the concept of evolution (but it helps). You can just look to bacteria and viruses--or too insects and plants that become resistant to insecticides and herbicides--for real time evidence.

Read up on it, then come back with questions and counter arguments.

Jay Welvaert
11-18-2004, 07:51 PM
your a duesch

Morpheus
11-19-2004, 05:07 AM
your a duesch

Douch or Deutsch?

(Although some American Nationalists on this board may not believe their is a difference...).

Phil
11-19-2004, 06:39 AM
What I FAIL to get, Shane is people who BLINDLY support and cheerlead a president who is taking us down an economically and MORALLY (despite all his claims to moral superiority) destructive path. What conspiracy theories have I mentioned, Shane? You're the one harping about loss of soverignty to the UN-it's never happened to us, and will never happen. As far as your "Federalism" goes, all that means to me, is inequitable laws. It's already bad enough that it exists for the death penalty-which gives greater weight to minority criminals in the south and southwest. Sorry, but I don't trust YOUR state to do the right thing-it never has and never will, and that goes for a few others, too. Why should someone who, based on family history, has come to live in a certain state, be PUNISHED for living there? If I lived in Arkansas, I wouldn't want occupational health standards and consumer safety standards influenced by what Wal-Mart has to say-do you get my point, here? I say that Bush is rolling back job and industry safety (and pollution and consumer safety) standards and you say "where". Time to put your head back into the sand.

As far as your gut feeling, you're better off listening to someone who knows something about Iraq-Collin Powell and Norman Schwartzkopff BOTH said it would be a mistake to occupy a country where there were blood feuds LONG before the US came into existance. It IS and WILL BE a quagmire. I don't like the word, but we haven't had ANY good news there. Our forces are killing a lot of insurgents, but there are too many to kill for us to "win" that war.

thejerk
11-20-2004, 01:02 PM
Morpheus, I don't even see how scriptural literalism disclaims evolution. Perhaps the big bang was the beginning, physically impossible as it may be. A miracle. Perhaps evolutions happened over billions of relative years. By relative I am refering to The General Theory of Relativity that links time, space, and matter. Perhaps after the big bang creation was traveling at such speeds that 7 days could have been relative to man's perception. It could have been the time that the seeds of evolution led to man. If you want to know why snakes have legs read Genesis.

I think you need to look up Intellegent Design, because all the terms you mentioned are based on unproven assumptions. As for male mammals having nipples, I am not sure if you are aware of it or not, but all mammals are female until the chromosome kicks in and testosterone starts pumping. You should ask why would we loose our nipples just because we are male? Even on men they aren't useless. One day, if you are lucky, you will find that out.

As far as insects and pesticides, that is adaptation. Their dna hasn't changed one iota. Winged insects that don't fly? That seems more an indictement than validation for evolution to me. Perhaps the wings are used to attract mates or something to do with dispearsing heat. Maybe the are suppose to look like a different insect to trick predators.

When you talk about scientific theory and how everyone agrees you are wrong. Many scientists dispute evolutionary theory. Stop being so closed minded. Just to prove that a theory isn't fact, let's take two other theories that everyone agree with. General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics as espoused by Hawking. They seem to be at odds. They can't both be true, even if, they are both backed up by observable phenomena. However, along comes string theory and with it unification theories. String theory is problematic because there have to be invisible demensions and here we go again with the invisible crap. Don't forget also that string theory says everything is just vibrational frequencies(what I like to call the word or song of god).

Morpheus
11-20-2004, 03:13 PM
Jerk (if I may call you that),

You may call me closed minded if you like, but I'm the one who believes science and religion can co-exist. I accept both. Science is the "how;" religion is the "why." Second, the body of evidence supporting evolution is very strong. I will allow, however, that it is quite possible, even probable, that evolution is God's tool. But I do not tolerate those who disregard evolution without taking the time to understand the concept.

Third, evolution theory does (at least) contradict a literal reading of Genesis. Scientific evidence shows that the universe was actually formed about 13 billion years ago, not in 7 days. I suppose a day in the life of God could be just short of 2 billion years, if that's what you suggest. I would also add that the Catholic Church has approved of the study of events after the Big Bang--because the Big Bang itself was of God's hand--but bristles at the current movement to study the Bang itself or anything prior to the Bang.

The point of my previous post was merely to express incredulity over the number of people who do not understand evolution, but dismiss it out of hand, either because of their literalism, upbringing, or ignorance.

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein

perfmode
11-20-2004, 03:26 PM
My thread is double platinum! Go me.

Shane Reynolds
11-21-2004, 02:57 PM
Phil, I understand what you're saying about Federalism, but you aren't allowing for the fact that there are people who don't think the way you do. I know a LOT of people in GA who moved here from NJ - do you meet many folks up there who moved from GA? My point is not to knock your state from an objective perspective but simply to point out it's not right for me - I like a little freedom with my sunshine. At the end of the day, I am not convinced the goverment can do ANYTHING more efficiently than the private sector, so I prefer as small a (Federal) government as possible. At the state and local levels, I am much more interested in what Democrats have to say (though rarely for judges). Phil, I think there is plenty of evidence that you nor I blindly support anyone. I prefer Bush's MORAL path - did Kerry even have one? Economically, I, too, am concerned - our national debt is out of control. I believe tax cuts and other economic stimuli will help much more than the larger government Kerry (and other Democrats) espoused. Kerry really should have listened to Clinton about iterating exactly how you will pay for new social programs (not just SAYING "I have a plan" but never sharing that plan with anyone).

I am disappointed, Phil, that you would accuse my state of being racist. I am quite confident that we are no more or less guilty of such than any other state. If we are so racist here, why do we have a constant influx of illegals (and legals) from Mexico, India, and African countries? I'll give you a hint - it isn't a promise of persecution.

Why is it, Phil, that if Bush is out to kill the common worker, that it hasn't made the news yet? I mean, Kerry hit him with everything but the kitchen sink in the campaign, but I don't remember seeing this as one of those issues dividing the nation. And don't give me the crap about conservative media - ANY media outlet would give up Bush for a story like that. I've looked, and cannot find, a source that brings up the points of that report without being obviously against Bush. Again, it is quite relevant to my job what the laws are on workplace safety, OSHA violations, etc. and I have seen no change under Bush from a practical perspective.

Phil, I wish you well with everything, and I will pray for you and your family to have a great Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's. I am done with this thread - my friend The Jerk is quite capably handling Morpheus so I see no need to get involved there. Feel free to email me if you like - search on my name and you will find my email address.

Phil
11-21-2004, 05:08 PM
Shane - Georgia's history speaks for itself.

Bush is not out to kill the common worker per se-he's just undermining everything that protects the worker in order to satisfy his corporate backers. That's his goal, although the end result WILL be more consumer and worker injuries and fatalities. Any why isn't that in the news more (it IS in the news if you actually listened)? Because it's not a sexy issue-especially for FOX. Why would the administration's "news" channel cover that one?

As far as Bush's "moral" path, I don't see how LYING to the country and the world to justify a US invasion/occupation, doing NOTHING to renew the ASSAULT GUNS BAN, and standying idly by while 100's of thousands of jobs are moved off shore, and many, many more failures can be construed as a "Moral" path. It's a label...that's all it is to a politician, and Bush and his team, very smartly, were able to co-opt that label, branding themselves as the morallly superior party and hoodwinking a whole lot of people who are LOOKING to be hoodwinked. Marketing, my friend, marketing. There's no true morality whatsoever here. Kerry's personal bio. demonstrates, to me, a lot more morality than the partying frat boy/recovering alcoholic, pretzel-choker, failed businessman, tool-of-wealthy-Texans George W. Bush.

I guess if you're done with this thread, you're done...goodbye.

mlee2
11-22-2004, 04:29 AM
Re: State of Georgia

Out of all the redne...i mean red states *cough,* Georgia is actually one of the more moderate states thanks to Atlanta. I, personally, have some very VERY left-winged friends that lead normal lives in the city. I mean, c'mon, a lot of the world's leading companies have HQs there including CNN.

Bad parts of the city and state include all that pollution coming from the industries in and around the airport. Very comprable to the likes of NYC and LA. A lot of Republican influence can be seen there with all the flourishing industries there.

Max G.
11-22-2004, 01:06 PM
Morpheus, Why would evolution bring forth a useless thing like an optical nerve? Did every part of the eye just appear there. Explain the evolution of the eye, just the eye, and I too will be a true believer.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html - evolution of the shape of the eye

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html - evolution of color vision


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7521983&postcount=156 - somebody's post about how the basic chemicals used in the eye could have come together

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html#EYES - evolution of the eye overall

Morpheus
11-24-2004, 04:00 PM
Silence....



(Nice job Max.)

thejerk
11-24-2004, 06:38 PM
Max, them sites aren't as good as the other sites. The first and last of these sites were the worst. In the third site, I found this: "We shall never know for sure how the eye developed ." Sounds suspiciously like faith in evolution to me. In one of your sites, the writers says that a monkey given enough transisters could create a computer. That is clever. I wouldn't mind a new car, maybe I need some monkeys.

I didn't see any of them dealing with recessive traits. When did the eye become the dominant. I wasn't impressed with any of their explanations. If I had more time I could go point for point with them. The eye just doesn't make sense. How would creatures take a mutation and suddenly all their dna has the eye trait? Why would the optic nerve develop when one was never needed? Random evolution wouldn't work that way.

Animals run on instinct. Why would an animal develop the instinct for vision. How did the mutation for a useless retina or useless optic nerve become part of the dna? They wouldn't have developed simultaneously. The eye is something on developed animals. Even evolution can't explain why a developed animal without an eye would develop one. Is there an eye on lesser animals? Remember, if parts of the eye develop seperately, they are worthless. Would an animal without the instinct for vision even be able to cope with an eye, not to mention, eyes?

I saw on one of your sites, the writer says something that I would paraphrase as, evolution happens whenever it can. Remember our old conversation about being surrounded by voices or at least sounds(artificial signals). To think evolution, with all of its built in assumptions, just happened in one place is impossible. Well statistically improbable to say the least.

Morpheus, you said all scientist agree. When all scientists agree, you know something is wrong. Science is built on the bones of previous assumptions/beliefs. Besides, without trying to sound to cynical, scientists generally find what they are paid to find. I never said, "I don't believe in evolution." Even if all scientists say something, you should still question it. Scientist aren't g*d.

Sorry if this is choppy, I have no time.

Phil
11-24-2004, 07:04 PM
The eye just doesn't make sense.

So how, exactly, does the belief that the entire earth was created by a superbeing (God) in 6 days, around 6,000 years ago (nothwithstanding all of the animal, human and other entities that died out before that), make any sense? It doesn't-not to a modern, thinking, inquiring man.

But religion is FAITH based. That means you have to DISCOUNT all of that scientific mumbo jumbo-regardless of HOW accurate much of it is-in favor of a nonsensical BELIEF, based on faith. You jist have to believe in "them" things, donchya, Jerk?

I FEAR for the young people today who are, or may be, forced to learn this hoaky myth in favor of science. It's not a whole lot more credible than Zeus, Apollo, Isis, Mana and the rest of the now-obsolete deities.

thejerk
11-24-2004, 07:54 PM
Why does faith based have anything to do with discounting science. If Gd is real, science has no problem. Why would one discount one the other?

If science is so accurate, why hasn't it explained more? Why do we still have questions? How does one theory disprove another?

perfmode
11-24-2004, 07:55 PM
The eye just doesn't make sense.

So how, exactly, does the belief that the entire earth was created by a superbeing (God) in 6 days, around 6,000 years ago (nothwithstanding all of the animal, human and other entities that died out before that), make any sense? It doesn't-not to a modern, thinking, inquiring man.

But religion is FAITH based. That means you have to DISCOUNT all of that scientific mumbo jumbo-regardless of HOW accurate much of it is-in favor of a nonsensical BELIEF, based on faith. You jist have to believe in "them" things, donchya, Jerk?

I FEAR for the young people today who are, or may be, forced to learn this hoaky myth in favor of science. It's not a whole lot more credible than Zeus, Apollo, Isis, Mana and the rest of the now-obsolete deities.

Dude, wtf? Zeus is real.

Shane Reynolds
11-24-2004, 08:06 PM
Now, if I were going to post on this board again, I would ask Phil to name just ONE LIE Bush has told. The only LIE I can think of was undervaluing the cost of the prescription drug plan for seniors in order to get Congress to pass it. No way to defend it - he knew about it and still used the most conservative numbers. THERE WAS NO LIE, NO CONSPIRACY ABOUT IRAQ!!! I am convinced that this is one key issue that lost Dems respect in the campaigns and you're just too smart to keep throwing that out, Phil.

Also, if I were going to post here again, I would ask you to do a little research and explain to me what the assault weapons ban did to protect us from crime. I want you to look at exactly what the ban did and show me where it did anything to prevent criminals from killing people with guns. I searched and found one instance; in that instance, it was a cop that used a banned gun and he would have had access to the same gun through the police department.

If I were going to post again, I would want to ask how Bush was supposed to STOP jobs from going off-shore. Did he pass a bunch of new laws that changed everything and made it happen? It seems to me that (a) he pretty much left things as they were under Clinton and (b) oh yeah, it's not the government's job to create or prevent the destruction of jobs. The Federal Government is already the single largest employer in the country, though I'm not positive they will keep the title if we finally do get a flat tax and/or national sales tax passed.

If I were going to post again, I would ask mlee about human sacrifices in Hawaii. He would say that was hundreds of years ago. And I would say "yep." Further, I would say Atlanta, from a political perspective, is a cesspool. Bill Campbell ruined the city so badly and was so corrupt that he moved to FL after leaving office to avoid backlash. Shirley Franklin runs a much smarter group but she is about to make her first enormous gaffe by not giving an adequate raise to Firefighters in the city.

I would hate to work at Arby's and have John Kerry walk in - how many people would he call to ask whether he should have Homestyle or Curly fries? He is the most pathetic moral and political excuse for a candidate since Ted Kennedy. The quicker the left learns that, the quicker they will compete again at the national level.

Finally, though I was blessed to never have atheism make any sense whatsoever to me, let me just ask this (assuming I was to ever post to this topic again): if you were to have a million tornados in a given area, how many times do you think a satellite would be assembled out of the raw materials on the land? how many personal computers? alarm clocks? telephones? speakers? Tell you what: let's make it a fair fight. Let's go to a computer store and buy all the parts for a computer, clear out a space in the garage, and sit them all next to each other on a table, and watch them the rest of our lives to watch them form together into a computer. By buying parts already designed for this purpose, rather than trusting them to spontaneously generate, we should be skipping millions of years in the evolutionary process, and we can actually see it in our lifetime!

In "The Origin of Species," Darwin admitted his theories failed because there were no clear examples of animals that were "between" two other animals and unless you're going to theorize that every single species evolves at exactly the same rate, you would have to see some animal that was clearly one animal we see evolving into another animal we see.

It's pretty hard to explain Newton's laws without a First Mover. It's also pretty hard to explain similarities across species lines if there was no overall design; evolution does not have a reason for all animals to have a similar cardiovascular design if they were all evolving completely independently of each other. I would recommend a book called "The Creator and the Cosmos" for anyone with an open mind; I first heard about it on "The Journey Home" on EWTN. It's a heavy read so put on your thinking caps. Merry Evolutionamas!

I will say one last thing and then I really am done here. Most anyone who will read this has some exposure to Christianity. I am not talking about particular denominations, blah, blah, blah, but just the basic tenets of Christianity. Many just try not to think such matters and try to push it out of mind. You say you believe in God (whatever that means) and you have a Christmas tree and you might even go to church at Easter and Christmas. You think Jesus was a good man but you've never seriously considered the implications of the Christ. He was one of two things: He was either a liar (and possibly insane) OR He was exactly what He said He was. If you believe anything in the middle of those two, you're wasting your time. We are all (arguably) intelligent people so I encourage you to pick up a Bible for yourself and start to read the Gospels and Paul's letters. Filter out what anyone (including me) has ever told you - decide for yourself. If you don't believe and you're wrong, you have everything to lose. If you're right, you'll only waste a few hours of your free time to make this important decision. Don't waste your time rolling your eyes - just look for yourself. When you see the name of a city official or other detail in the Bible, look him or it up in a history book. Erastus in Romans 16:23 comes to mind since he was mentioned at a recent sermon I heard.

I hope everyone, including John Kerry and the plaintiffs' bar, has a Merry Christmas.

thejerk
11-24-2004, 08:13 PM
You must hate science. According to scientific theory matter cannot be destroyed or created. Something outside of the material universe must have done something. If matter had always existed, It would have cooled down by now. The universe seems to burn too brightly for it to be old. It sure seems new.

Shane, of course, you are right about Jesus. If He isn't who He said, He is a fraud. He wasn't a good man, just insane.

Morpheus
11-24-2004, 08:32 PM
Morpheus, I never said, "I don't believe in evolution."

Then help us understand what you do believe, because everything you have written is pure gibberish.

Phil
11-24-2004, 08:47 PM
So, keeping assault weapons on the street WILL protect us from crime? I'm really lost with that logic. I am STUPID in the face of such thinking-I just don't understand it. Guns kill people; assault weapons kill them in greater numbers and more effectively. Because, well, that's what they were designed to do. It's a real nobel cause to lobby to have AK-47's readily available for just about anyone. Banning assault weapons and "taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens" are very different issues. Really.

Iraq? A lie, pure and simple. As egregious, if not more so (time will tell) as the Tonkin Gulf Incident (read about that, Shane-there are quite a few parallels there-for once, have some FACTS behind your opinions-do some research, even if the results might come into conflict with your "beliefs"-that's how we, as humans, learn new things). It's a fact that Cheney wanted to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11-he bullied the CIA into politicizing its intell. and the administration ignored the State Dept., CIA and Joint Chiefs of Staff who advised against the invasion. So, Bush is right and all those experts were wrong? Current events say otherwise.

If you cannot understand evolution-or it makes no sense to you, why would you concoct or believe an even goofier theory? Creationism isn't even a theory-it's a BELIEF-meaning it trumps all other information because, well, just because...that's it. You just have to believe. To each his own. You really can't have a discussion with someone who is righteous-who is certain, regardless of the evidence (and there is a lot of that)-that their belief is the only true answer.

We didn't send a man to the moon by praying that it would happen. We didn't find a cure for polio and other horrible diseases by appealing to a greater power. And the alleviation of much suffering that could POTENTIALLY be achieved through stem cell research, will never be substituted by prayers to our Maker. Sorry, buddy, but all of this bad stuff in the world indicates to me that if God exists, he's basically left us to our own fate, and how to overcome it. And modern man, in response, has succeeded by developing SCIENCE which, regardless of its imperfections (and no one claims its perfect), has found more solutions to this world's problems than Faith. You might say that God wants us to succeed in this manner. That's why He gave us such a highly developed brain. He's left us to our own devices and if some of us continue to ask for His help, He will continue to ignore such entreaties.

mlee2
11-24-2004, 09:44 PM
Jerk, I second Morpheus. What are you trying to prove, anyways?

Morpheus has made it clear that there is plenty of room for religion and science. Nobody is saying 'I believe there is no spiritual presence' or something like that. It's VERY possible that the creation of everything occured under both concepts.

Religion is a theory, just like science is. So why such a strong effort to demonize everything you don't agree with?

perfmode
11-25-2004, 05:38 AM
You must hate science. According to scientific theory matter cannot be destroyed or created. Something outside of the material universe must have done something. If matter had always existed, It would have cooled down by now. The universe seems to burn too brightly for it to be old. It sure seems new.

Shane, of course, you are right about Jesus. If He isn't who He said, He is a fraud. He wasn't a good man, just insane.

It would have cooled down by now? Do you know anything about the history of the universe or do you just think it should have been "cooled down by now"?

thejerk
11-25-2004, 09:43 AM
Perf, everything breaks down. If the universe had always existed, meaning not created, it couldn't be young or old. Everything in nature comes to rest over time, suns die, planets die. This shows imo that because suns are still active that the universe is aging. If the universe is old, we wouldn't exist because all the suns would be dead. Everything would be cold and dead. It looks young to me, because there is still potential for new stars to be created. Last I read, the universe is actually expanding at an accellerating rate. For purely physical reasons, this expansion should be impossible. If the universe is aging it must have a beginning.

I believe Gd created everything in 7 days. I only believe that because that is what I am told. I don't know exactly how, but there are literally 1000s of ways I can imagine this happening, including evolution. Perhaps 7 days isn't literal, I believe it is, but I'm open to other possibilities.

I love science, Gd gave us brains didn't He? Maybe He made the ingredients so that they would evolve, I don't know. I will continue studying this. My whole problem is that some of you take evolution as fact, with only faith in scientists to back it up. That is the beginning and end of your inquiry. Someday evolution could be disproved. Imo, it hasn't been proven. Remember, based on observable evidence, scientists use to believe the earth was flat. Without a creator, evolution is purely faith, because it is based on faith. Why would life suddenly begin in a universe that always existed. You have to believe that the universe just exists without cause. That is real faith. No cause? no effect? Illogical faith!

So Phil, I see your point. creating embryos to experiment with is ok, because there is no higher moral authority. This proves a point in many ways. What you are admitting is that there is no morality without religion. The only true morality, without religion, is natural selection. The strong survive to pass on their traits. I say this because you are obviously attacking Bush's ban on federal funding of stem cell research. Bush did not ban stem cell research. He didn't even ban embryonic stem cell research. The private sector can still do it. He actually funded, the first president ever, umbilical(sp?) and adult stem cell research. The only thing he banned was the "goment" from taking my money and spending it on your **** like human experimentation. You liberals, pushing your religion on other people again and don't even know it. Yes, I'm a fanatic and believe that human embryos are humans. Then again, I believe in science. Biology tells me that embryos are just the first stage in all human life. It is, to me, no different than the stage between puberty and adulthood. Before puberty, humans are incapable of procreation. Does that make them less human? But I see you have faith that scientist will give us immortality, if only those religions fanatics would get out of the way. I don't believe the cost is worth it.

The assault weapons ban was for show. Who cares if it will protect us, a right is a right. The ak47 was already banned. Automatic weapons were banned before that. Clinton and the other socialists put that in there so they could say "look what we did." That legislation was pure trickery. The pictures you got to see were weapons that look like something but aren't. The ak47s you saw were nothing but semi-autos made to look like real ak47s. But then again liberalism is 90% perception and maybe 10% substance. I think you meant noble? Wasn't Nobel a person or something? Were you refering to Arafat again? Yes, he was a Nobel person? That didn't make him worth a *&^&, did it?

irishbanger
11-26-2004, 09:38 PM
Shane---how does one become a member of the flat earth society?