At this point, I just think it's easier to believe that some people will believe and go for ANYTHING not U.S.-created/supported.
That's because it's the only way to support your system of beliefs. If you were actually, let's say, honest, then you'd have to change your point of view on a few things.
So, since you're too entrenched to do that, you'll lie. Fair enough. You were big enough to admit that you'll be happy with Bush simply because you're a republican. You'll probably be big enough to admit you do your best to cast the opposing view in a negative light so it's easier for you to ignore it rather than think about it.
Groverat is on record, for example, as citing the deaths of Iraqis during the years of sanctions as a justification for going to war to end all of that.
Groverat is also on record saying that the sanctions could have been improved to the point of not causing such an absurdly large humanitarian crisis.
Well, groverat, the pro-war movement isn't about the Iraqi people, so what does that matter?
Likewise for a fair part of the anti-war movement. some of us "pro-war" (misnomer IMO) folk really are into it for the Iraqi peopple. But I'm sure this post will be ignored as per AI rules against reasonable thought and debate... please continue with your little "discussion"...
Likewise for a fair part of the anti-war movement. some of us "pro-war" (misnomer IMO) folk really are into it for the Iraqi peopple. But I'm sure this post will be ignored as per AI rules against reasonable thought and debate... please continue with your little "discussion"...
I'd venture to guess there are similar odds on either side. I'm not really using that argument so much as pointing out how stupid it is for either side to pretend like it's true of the other.
That's because it's the only way to support your system of beliefs. If you were actually, let's say, honest, then you'd have to change your point of view on a few things.
So, since you're too entrenched to do that, you'll lie. Fair enough. You were big enough to admit that you'll be happy with Bush simply because you're a republican. You'll probably be big enough to admit you do your best to cast the opposing view in a negative light so it's easier for you to ignore it rather than think about it.
Ooo, bunge is on a tear!
No, it's hardly NOT the "only way" to support my system of beliefs. First, I don't need them supported and I don't have to go looking for it. I simply open my eyes, turn on the TV, open the paper, watch interviews, read columns, listen to commentators, pundits, protesters, hawks, doves, students, Republicans, Democrats, etc. and get it from that. I have my beliefs and the stuff fits that, not the other way around. I'm in NO danger whatsoever of even being CLOSE on having to change my point of view on anything. I've actually never been more confident and possessing a feeling of "right" as I have lately.
Honest? Bunge, what am I not honest about? I think I'm exceedingly honest. So much so that I often wind up on the wrong side of many here. I honestly don't get that because in the NEXT paragraph you kinda imply that I was "big enough" (ie "honest") to admit I like Bush. You had that "simply because I'm a Republican" part completely wrong, but hey.
What would I change my point of view on? When have I been inconsistent or dishonest? What views do I hold (as if you truly knew them all intimately) that I'd need to change if I were only "honest"?
On to your second paragraph: lie about what?
I don't cast the opposing view in a negative light for no other reason than I think it's silly and unrealistic and has been proven in many, many cases to be legless and often plain silly.
I'm not a thin-skinned searcher, combing around looking for things or people to "ding" so I can prop up and feel good about what I feel.
I'm completely confident and sure about what I think, why I think them and so forth.
I really, really don't get your post. You say I'm dishonest (then laud my openness). You say I'll lie, but about what?
Bunge, it's YOU (and a few prominent others here, I might add) who are in danger - for lack of a better word - of having to "change your views".
As for "being happy with Bush because I'm a Republican", I don't know where you pulled that from. I spoke earlier today about admiring his plain-spoken manner and how he seems to say what needs to be done and simply follows through. I said that as someone who leans right of center I do enjoy having someone like him in the White House more than the previous occupant, but only because he more closely represents my views, opinions and beliefs than the other fella.
What the hell is wrong with that?
ShawnPatrick preferred Clinton as President because of what he thinks and believes.
I didn't vote for Bush. I don't think he's an exceptional, flawless man or President. But he's doing what I would agree needs to be done.
If all the above - or anything else I've posted about all this stuff - isn't "honesty", please tell me what is because your post has me genuinely baffled.
I've been called many things, I'm sure. "Dishonest" is certainly a first.
As far as being "too entrenched"...what, too entrenched to see it YOUR way?
How "honest" would that be? My opinion only counts and is valid if it matches yours and others here? The most "entrenched" group of people here are on your side. The ones who keep being wrong about certain things and simply not able to admit to it and keep moving the goalposts back or qualifying every victory/success/good thing with another damn "yeah, but...".
You were big enough to admit that you'll be happy with Bush simply because you're a republican. You'll probably be big enough to admit you do your best to cast the opposing view in a negative light so it's easier for you to ignore it rather than think about it.
bunge are you serious? This has to be the most laughable thing I have seen in a while from the "logic" of the anti-bush I mean anti-war group. You on the one hand realize pscates is in support of Bush so he has a negative light "view" of the "oposing view" ? ?
What opposing view? the anti-bush group? or the Saddam regime?
I think not one person can defend the Saddam regime. I hope you are talking about the opposing view meaning the anti-bush I mean anti-war group.
I will say I for one am VERY happy for the Iraqi people at this point. I would also say there is no need to fool your self into believing that in order to be in support of the war that such a stance requires a "negative light" view of the anti-Bush er / anti-war group. The merits for support of the war stand on their own. No need for you to have a chip on your shoulder that any added "negative light" view is needed to make the point for this war.
I am amazed by the spin and accusations being leveled at the supporters of the war.
The Democratic party in the US is now making the "cost of the war" a political issue. I say to them GO FOR IT! That will fail at the polls.
You willingly ignore points because you can then write long funny paragraphs that set up and knock down strawmen, which is easier than creating a valid argument.
How many people here believed that the U.S. wasn't in Baghdad? None. But you'll talk about it like every anti-war poster believed it. That's dishonest. Sure, it makes a funny paragraph, funny enough to get you compared to ColanderOfDeath, but it's not honest.
As for "being happy with Bush because I'm a Republican", I don't know where you pulled that from.
Sorry, I don't know you to be a republican. It was just easier than writing that you share more a more conservative view of politics like Bush, rather than a more liberal view like Bubba.
Happy to have Bush around because you share a similar point of view and you're more comfortable with him in the Oval Office because of it.
I think not one person can defend the Saddam regime. I hope you are talking about the opposing view meaning the anti-bush I mean anti-war group.
I will say I for one am VERY happy for the Iraqi people at this point. I would also say there is no need to fool your self into believing that in order to be in support of the war that such a stance requires a "negative light" view of the anti-Bush er / anti-war group. The merits for support of the war stand on their own. No need for you to have a chip on your shoulder that any added "negative light" view is needed to make the point for this war.
No one can defend the Saddam regime.
Your 'joke' about the anti-Bush er / anti-war group is proof enough of what I'm saying.
Comments
Easy to tell who to root for (some people obviously need a push)!
Originally posted by Scott
From what I can tell the anti-war movement was about...
Once again showing the world how ignorant you really are.
Originally posted by pscates
At this point, I just think it's easier to believe that some people will believe and go for ANYTHING not U.S.-created/supported.
That's because it's the only way to support your system of beliefs. If you were actually, let's say, honest, then you'd have to change your point of view on a few things.
So, since you're too entrenched to do that, you'll lie. Fair enough. You were big enough to admit that you'll be happy with Bush simply because you're a republican. You'll probably be big enough to admit you do your best to cast the opposing view in a negative light so it's easier for you to ignore it rather than think about it.
Originally posted by Chinney
Groverat is on record, for example, as citing the deaths of Iraqis during the years of sanctions as a justification for going to war to end all of that.
Groverat is also on record saying that the sanctions could have been improved to the point of not causing such an absurdly large humanitarian crisis.
Originally posted by groverat
Well, Scott, the anti-war movement isn't about the Iraqi people, so what does that matter?
Well, groverat, the pro-war movement isn't about the Iraqi people, so what does that matter?
Originally posted by bunge
Well, groverat, the pro-war movement isn't about the Iraqi people, so what does that matter?
Likewise for a fair part of the anti-war movement. some of us "pro-war" (misnomer IMO) folk really are into it for the Iraqi peopple. But I'm sure this post will be ignored as per AI rules against reasonable thought and debate... please continue with your little "discussion"...
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Likewise for a fair part of the anti-war movement. some of us "pro-war" (misnomer IMO) folk really are into it for the Iraqi peopple. But I'm sure this post will be ignored as per AI rules against reasonable thought and debate... please continue with your little "discussion"...
I'd venture to guess there are similar odds on either side. I'm not really using that argument so much as pointing out how stupid it is for either side to pretend like it's true of the other.
Originally posted by bunge
That's because it's the only way to support your system of beliefs. If you were actually, let's say, honest, then you'd have to change your point of view on a few things.
So, since you're too entrenched to do that, you'll lie. Fair enough. You were big enough to admit that you'll be happy with Bush simply because you're a republican. You'll probably be big enough to admit you do your best to cast the opposing view in a negative light so it's easier for you to ignore it rather than think about it.
Ooo, bunge is on a tear!
No, it's hardly NOT the "only way" to support my system of beliefs. First, I don't need them supported and I don't have to go looking for it. I simply open my eyes, turn on the TV, open the paper, watch interviews, read columns, listen to commentators, pundits, protesters, hawks, doves, students, Republicans, Democrats, etc. and get it from that. I have my beliefs and the stuff fits that, not the other way around. I'm in NO danger whatsoever of even being CLOSE on having to change my point of view on anything. I've actually never been more confident and possessing a feeling of "right" as I have lately.
Honest? Bunge, what am I not honest about? I think I'm exceedingly honest. So much so that I often wind up on the wrong side of many here. I honestly don't get that because in the NEXT paragraph you kinda imply that I was "big enough" (ie "honest") to admit I like Bush. You had that "simply because I'm a Republican" part completely wrong, but hey.
What would I change my point of view on? When have I been inconsistent or dishonest? What views do I hold (as if you truly knew them all intimately) that I'd need to change if I were only "honest"?
On to your second paragraph: lie about what?
I don't cast the opposing view in a negative light for no other reason than I think it's silly and unrealistic and has been proven in many, many cases to be legless and often plain silly.
I'm not a thin-skinned searcher, combing around looking for things or people to "ding" so I can prop up and feel good about what I feel.
I'm completely confident and sure about what I think, why I think them and so forth.
I really, really don't get your post. You say I'm dishonest (then laud my openness). You say I'll lie, but about what?
Bunge, it's YOU (and a few prominent others here, I might add) who are in danger - for lack of a better word - of having to "change your views".
As for "being happy with Bush because I'm a Republican", I don't know where you pulled that from. I spoke earlier today about admiring his plain-spoken manner and how he seems to say what needs to be done and simply follows through. I said that as someone who leans right of center I do enjoy having someone like him in the White House more than the previous occupant, but only because he more closely represents my views, opinions and beliefs than the other fella.
What the hell is wrong with that?
ShawnPatrick preferred Clinton as President because of what he thinks and believes.
I didn't vote for Bush. I don't think he's an exceptional, flawless man or President. But he's doing what I would agree needs to be done.
If all the above - or anything else I've posted about all this stuff - isn't "honesty", please tell me what is because your post has me genuinely baffled.
I've been called many things, I'm sure. "Dishonest" is certainly a first.
As far as being "too entrenched"...what, too entrenched to see it YOUR way?
How "honest" would that be? My opinion only counts and is valid if it matches yours and others here? The most "entrenched" group of people here are on your side. The ones who keep being wrong about certain things and simply not able to admit to it and keep moving the goalposts back or qualifying every victory/success/good thing with another damn "yeah, but...".
Originally posted by bunge
You were big enough to admit that you'll be happy with Bush simply because you're a republican. You'll probably be big enough to admit you do your best to cast the opposing view in a negative light so it's easier for you to ignore it rather than think about it.
bunge are you serious? This has to be the most laughable thing I have seen in a while from the "logic" of the anti-bush I mean anti-war group. You on the one hand realize pscates is in support of Bush so he has a negative light "view" of the "oposing view" ? ?
What opposing view? the anti-bush group? or the Saddam regime?
I think not one person can defend the Saddam regime. I hope you are talking about the opposing view meaning the anti-bush I mean anti-war group.
I will say I for one am VERY happy for the Iraqi people at this point. I would also say there is no need to fool your self into believing that in order to be in support of the war that such a stance requires a "negative light" view of the anti-Bush er / anti-war group. The merits for support of the war stand on their own. No need for you to have a chip on your shoulder that any added "negative light" view is needed to make the point for this war.
I am amazed by the spin and accusations being leveled at the supporters of the war.
The Democratic party in the US is now making the "cost of the war" a political issue. I say to them GO FOR IT! That will fail at the polls.
Fellowship
Originally posted by pscates
O
Honest? Bunge, what am I not honest about?
You willingly ignore points because you can then write long funny paragraphs that set up and knock down strawmen, which is easier than creating a valid argument.
How many people here believed that the U.S. wasn't in Baghdad? None. But you'll talk about it like every anti-war poster believed it. That's dishonest. Sure, it makes a funny paragraph, funny enough to get you compared to ColanderOfDeath, but it's not honest.
Originally posted by Scott
Bunge is just disappointed that the US/UK/AU actions made so many people happy and grateful.
Today, for the first time in a long time, I was genuinely excited for the possibilities in the Mid-East.
Originally posted by pscates
At this point, I just think it's easier to believe that some people will believe and go for ANYTHING not U.S.-created/supported.
Flip-Side, baby: Fox News and certain followers.
Originally posted by bunge
Today, for the first time in a long time, I was genuinely excited for the possibilities in the Mid-East.
Iraq has a good chance.
I hope Bush makes good on the next phase. Peace between the arab muslims and Israel.
He will fail though. Like everyone before him.
Originally posted by pscates
As for "being happy with Bush because I'm a Republican", I don't know where you pulled that from.
Sorry, I don't know you to be a republican. It was just easier than writing that you share more a more conservative view of politics like Bush, rather than a more liberal view like Bubba.
Happy to have Bush around because you share a similar point of view and you're more comfortable with him in the Oval Office because of it.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I am amazed by the spin and accusations being leveled at the supporters of the war.
Flip-Side, baby. Fox News and Conservative "Talk-Radio."
Originally posted by Scott
Iraq has a good chance.
I hope Bush makes good on the next phase. Peace between the arab muslims and Israel.
He will fail though. Like everyone before him.
Afghanistan is failing, although not failed. That means it too still has a chance.
If Iraq fails, it'll be a travesty. It's closer to being 'fixed' than Afghanistan though. It'll have an easier time than Afghanistan in the long run.
Israel & Palestine could happen. But it always 'could' happen.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Flip-Side, baby. Fox News and Conservative "Talk-Radio."
Flip of what Shawn? I am happy for the Iraqi people and so is FOX and Conservative Talk-Radio.
What is all this flip side rhetoric? What are you trying to say?
Fellowship
Originally posted by bunge
Afghanistan is failing, although not failed. That means it too still has a chance.
If Iraq fails, it'll be a travesty. It's closer to being 'fixed' than Afghanistan though. It'll have an easier time than Afghanistan in the long run.
Israel & Palestine could happen. But it always 'could' happen.
How about the Last Place We Liberated?
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I think not one person can defend the Saddam regime. I hope you are talking about the opposing view meaning the anti-bush I mean anti-war group.
I will say I for one am VERY happy for the Iraqi people at this point. I would also say there is no need to fool your self into believing that in order to be in support of the war that such a stance requires a "negative light" view of the anti-Bush er / anti-war group. The merits for support of the war stand on their own. No need for you to have a chip on your shoulder that any added "negative light" view is needed to make the point for this war.
No one can defend the Saddam regime.
Your 'joke' about the anti-Bush er / anti-war group is proof enough of what I'm saying.
Strawmen fall. Real arguments don't.