Sorry but the messenger often matters - sometimes even more than the message. </strong><hr></blockquote>
After all the talk from so many people claiming that every liberal argument is really just "They'll argue anything that's against Bush" you're going to try and make this claim?
Scott, groverat, you both get your panties in a wad when someone blasts Bush's policy and you think it's just them shooting their mouths off because they dislike Bush rather than what he says or does. Are you two going to sit back and let this argument from spaceman_spiff stand?
I can't believe it. That's hyprocrisy at its finest. Wow.
This goes a long way to showing that the conservatives around here really don't care about ideals, or helping the Iraqi people, or anything like that. Dogma, plain and simple. Bush said it? It's gospel.
This blind faith you exhibit is one that I don't share. Republican Party Line. Nothing else. Sad really.
Ofcourse the messenger matters, I got a real foul taste in my mouth when I heard this guy was an x-kkk, but that still doesn't hinder us discussing the content.
What is more worrying is that no senator without a murky past speak out more clearly...
Did I ever say "don't listen to this because he's a KKK member?" Others have criticized it but I didn't say a damned thing. If you guys can't distinguish between posters I don't see the point in talking to you.
-
bunge:
[quote]He's tried to instill a doctrine of pre-emption in war.<hr></blockquote>
That's it?!
I swear, from the way you guys try to paint him I could swear he's already killed a few million people in pre-emptive wars.
What's his crime so far, eh? Not being eloquent enough for you? Being from Texas? Not being nice enough?
<strong>Did I ever say "don't listen to this because he's a KKK member?" Others have criticized it but I didn't say a damned thing. If you guys can't distinguish between posters I don't see the point in talking to you.
-
bunge:
That's it?!
I swear, from the way you guys try to paint him I could swear he's already killed a few million people in pre-emptive wars.
What's his crime so far, eh? Not being eloquent enough for you? Being from Texas? Not being nice enough?
What a pathetic joke.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Screwing up the economy, screwing up the enviroment, now he wants to screw our world relations. This guy is clueless.
<strong>Screwing up the economy,</strong><hr></blockquote>
How?
Substance, please.
[quote]<strong>screwing up the enviroment,</strong><hr></blockquote>
How?
Substance, please.
[quote]<strong>now he wants to screw our world relations.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can make a decent case for this. But to think our relations to the world are going to be permanently harmed you're foolish. You forget about money.
<strong>Actually it isn't. It's one completely one-sided and not at all objective. It ignores many important points and its only purpose is to knock Bush down a peg or two.
That's why so many people here like it. It's pure anti-Bush and nothing more. </strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
How?
Substance, please.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree groverat, I've been trying to get scott to defend his position with substance but he hasn't. Byrd's speech was a good one, direct and to the point. I have yet to hear anything substantive otherwise.
You can make a decent case for this. But to think our relations to the world are going to be permanently harmed you're foolish. You forget about money.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aside from the enviroment read Byrd's speech. It's filled with the facts you requested. 37 billion and what did it get us? Not Bin Ladin that's for sure. And now he wants to launch a far more costly war. In a time of economic strife. After his economic repairs have failed. Like I've said before if you think times are bad now just wait and see what happens if we have a war in Iraq.
Also no one in the world will trust us. If you can't see this you're the fool. We will be the " Evil Empire ".
<strong>You know know you're trying to be funny but you're not. I ****ing hate comments like that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, Scott. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
You accuse Byrd of being "completely one-sided and not at all objective", and then, in a completely one-sided and not at all objective way, you try to use Byrd's past to completely dismiss anything he now has to say.
So, is this your inescapable logic:
Past KKK support decades ago --> Forever after wrong about anything?
Clearly, Byrd is taking quite a few partisan pot shots. This is something that the politicians you favor would never do, right? Or when if do it, they're just "telling it like it is", so that's a good thing?
Despite the partisanship, there are also some very good points Byrd is making. If you think it can all be dismissed so easily, let's see you take it apart piece by piece, rather than lazily trying to tar the whole message with generalities.
No, you weren't. Byrd really was a member of the KKK. Your little bit of charcter assassination suggested that Scott was too. What Scott said was true. What you suggested, however, wasn't true.
... just because someone made a mistake a long time ago doesn't mean he can't have a point now....</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it's so irrelevant why did Byrd lie about the level of his involvement in the KKK when he first ran for Congress? And I didn't say anything about whether or not he could have a point - just that I don't care what former Klansmen have to say.
By the way, Byrd has the unusual distinction of having voted against both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas - the only African-Americans to be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court.
If it's so irrelevant why did Byrd lie about the level of his involvement in the KKK when he first ran for Congress? And I didn't say anything about whether or not he could have a point - just that I don't care what former Klansmen have to say.
Even if that's true what's that got to do with Bush or the present situation? Other than an attempt to cloud the facts that is. That by your own admission makes it off topic.
Too bad for you then. I guess Byrd is the only person saying these things? You can't come up with someone I respect?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think so. The points he raised remain. And incidentally you haven't countered them. By the way he's not the only one saying these things. Can't you come up with something relevant to the topic?
Comments
<strong>
Sorry but the messenger often matters - sometimes even more than the message. </strong><hr></blockquote>
After all the talk from so many people claiming that every liberal argument is really just "They'll argue anything that's against Bush" you're going to try and make this claim?
Scott, groverat, you both get your panties in a wad when someone blasts Bush's policy and you think it's just them shooting their mouths off because they dislike Bush rather than what he says or does. Are you two going to sit back and let this argument from spaceman_spiff stand?
I can't believe it. That's hyprocrisy at its finest. Wow.
This goes a long way to showing that the conservatives around here really don't care about ideals, or helping the Iraqi people, or anything like that. Dogma, plain and simple. Bush said it? It's gospel.
This blind faith you exhibit is one that I don't share. Republican Party Line. Nothing else. Sad really.
What is more worrying is that no senator without a murky past speak out more clearly...
-
bunge:
[quote]He's tried to instill a doctrine of pre-emption in war.<hr></blockquote>
That's it?!
I swear, from the way you guys try to paint him I could swear he's already killed a few million people in pre-emptive wars.
What's his crime so far, eh? Not being eloquent enough for you? Being from Texas? Not being nice enough?
What a pathetic joke.
<strong>Did I ever say "don't listen to this because he's a KKK member?" Others have criticized it but I didn't say a damned thing. If you guys can't distinguish between posters I don't see the point in talking to you.
-
bunge:
That's it?!
I swear, from the way you guys try to paint him I could swear he's already killed a few million people in pre-emptive wars.
What's his crime so far, eh? Not being eloquent enough for you? Being from Texas? Not being nice enough?
What a pathetic joke.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Screwing up the economy, screwing up the enviroment, now he wants to screw our world relations. This guy is clueless.
<strong>Screwing up the economy,</strong><hr></blockquote>
How?
Substance, please.
[quote]<strong>screwing up the enviroment,</strong><hr></blockquote>
How?
Substance, please.
[quote]<strong>now he wants to screw our world relations.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can make a decent case for this. But to think our relations to the world are going to be permanently harmed you're foolish. You forget about money.
<strong>Actually it isn't. It's one completely one-sided and not at all objective. It ignores many important points and its only purpose is to knock Bush down a peg or two.
That's why so many people here like it. It's pure anti-Bush and nothing more. </strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
How?
Substance, please.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree groverat, I've been trying to get scott to defend his position with substance but he hasn't. Byrd's speech was a good one, direct and to the point. I have yet to hear anything substantive otherwise.
<strong>
That's it?! </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, that's not 'it'. It's just that it only takes one example to disprove the "Bush isn't doing anything wrong" argument.
Plus, it has nothing to do with the thread.
<strong>
You can make a decent case for this. But to think our relations to the world are going to be permanently harmed you're foolish. You forget about money.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aside from the enviroment read Byrd's speech. It's filled with the facts you requested. 37 billion and what did it get us? Not Bin Ladin that's for sure. And now he wants to launch a far more costly war. In a time of economic strife. After his economic repairs have failed. Like I've said before if you think times are bad now just wait and see what happens if we have a war in Iraq.
Also no one in the world will trust us. If you can't see this you're the fool. We will be the " Evil Empire ".
In a word ....... CLUELESS
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>You know know you're trying to be funny but you're not. I ****ing hate comments like that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, Scott. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
You accuse Byrd of being "completely one-sided and not at all objective", and then, in a completely one-sided and not at all objective way, you try to use Byrd's past to completely dismiss anything he now has to say.
So, is this your inescapable logic:
Past KKK support decades ago --> Forever after wrong about anything?
Clearly, Byrd is taking quite a few partisan pot shots. This is something that the politicians you favor would never do, right? Or when if do it, they're just "telling it like it is", so that's a good thing?
Despite the partisanship, there are also some very good points Byrd is making. If you think it can all be dismissed so easily, let's see you take it apart piece by piece, rather than lazily trying to tar the whole message with generalities.
<strong>
Just replying in kind.
No, you weren't. Byrd really was a member of the KKK. Your little bit of charcter assassination suggested that Scott was too. What Scott said was true. What you suggested, however, wasn't true.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>
... just because someone made a mistake a long time ago doesn't mean he can't have a point now....</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it's so irrelevant why did Byrd lie about the level of his involvement in the KKK when he first ran for Congress? And I didn't say anything about whether or not he could have a point - just that I don't care what former Klansmen have to say.
By the way, Byrd has the unusual distinction of having voted against both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas - the only African-Americans to be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>
If it's so irrelevant why did Byrd lie about the level of his involvement in the KKK when he first ran for Congress? And I didn't say anything about whether or not he could have a point - just that I don't care what former Klansmen have to say.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even if that's true what's that got to do with Bush or the present situation? Other than an attempt to cloud the facts that is. That by your own admission makes it off topic.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
Even if that's true...</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is true. Not that such a technicality as the truth would worry you too much.
[quote]<strong>... what's that got to do with Bush or the present situation? </strong><hr></blockquote>
What's so hard for you to get? I don't care what a former Klansmen has to say.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>
What's so hard for you to get? I don't care what a former Klansmen has to say.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
What's so hard for you to get? It's off topic garbage.
<strong>
This blind faith you exhibit is one that I don't share. Republican Party Line. Nothing else. Sad really.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's just blind faith to discount what Robert Byrd has to say? Yeah, that must be it.
<strong>
It's just blind faith to discount what Robert Byrd has to say? Yeah, that must be it.
Well I can't say I give much credence to someone who introduces off topic issues that happened 56 years ago in order to counter a point.
<strong>
What's so hard for you to get? It's off topic garbage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Too bad for you then. I guess Byrd is the only person saying these things? You can't come up with someone I respect?
<strong>
Too bad for you then. I guess Byrd is the only person saying these things? You can't come up with someone I respect?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think so. The points he raised remain. And incidentally you haven't countered them. By the way he's not the only one saying these things. Can't you come up with something relevant to the topic?
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
Well I can't say I give much credence...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh well. You'll choose to believe what you choose to believe - true or not.
<strong>
Oh well. You'll choose to believe what you choose to believe - true or not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
See, a very weak argument. So quit blowing smoke already.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>