"Substitue Clinton for Bush. The statement still makes sense."
Well, I can agree with that. Really, I can. Though JC is also correct. Like him or hate him, Clinton really was a corrupt man. Most people would agree with this, even if they supported his policies and ideas. Someone like me though, who feels Clinton was morally bankrupt, and also disagrees with his politics almost completely.....we have trouble with him to say the least.
I can understand when someone disagrees with Bush's policies. It's just that class warfare, disaster on the economy, "I need to give blood to g've the money to my kid's school because of Bush" rhetoric I can't take. That's really the point of the thread.
Once again, all I would need to withdraw my criticisms is an honest agenda. But they're too scared to do that. Many liberals actually want increased taxation and nationlized healthcare but are afraid to stand up for it. Poor Dems....they're cute in a pathetic kind of way. The Republicans have pretty much outlined what they want. Even people who might disagree on things like abortion and education and what not may vote that way (i.e Reagan Democrats) because at least the other party has a clear, strong message.
The left does not use logic when dealing with issue
quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
This is NOT intended to start a flame war
I do not want to start a flame war.
I do not make them wrong or think less of them for it.
its just that it is very difficult to win over a person who is to the left with logic. you need to deal with the topics from an emotional point of view. I base this on my experience as I used to be one of them and still have many close leftest friends.
It just is that most liberals come from an emotional place. Things that anger them are the things that they are passioned about. They look for facts to support their debates after they are inflamed. and as such are not nearly as impartial or do not examine the source of the facts as well. and when a fact that supports their point is disproved it does not change their mind at all as the facts that they are supporting thir point of view with have very little to do with the origin of their point.
the democratic party understands this all too well. if they want to drum up more support they speek to people emotionally. for example, they show a picture of a decapitated baby and say look what our american soldiers have done. And they are so wrapped up in the horror of it that they do not question the source. no one even needs to show evidence that it was an american did the deed. Even if it was not they will say it must be happening.
then they walk around showing their conservative friends pictures of the decapitated baby and look at us in shock wandering why we are so heartless that we do not care about all the babies that are dead and dieing.
the democratic party plays all of the emotions from love, family values, etc. and I think that they perpetuate a distrust of the government.
OK, I'll bite. The economy is not in the toilet. It certainly isn't great. I'm not really sure your serious, jimmac. Barring anything ridiculous, Bush will be reelected easily. The only variable that matters anymore is the economy, and if it improves significantly at all, it's all over for the dems. If you deny this, you are simply not living in reality.
midwinter:
I'm going to have to ask you to back that up. I've never heard that charge before. It's stuff like this that is exactly the point. Attacking Bush like that isn't going to work. I actually hope people keep spouting off BS like this. It will just make Bush stronger! I don't even know why you bother with this shit.
The title of this thread should be : SDW IS STILL IN DENIAL.
Sure Bush will win easily because there's nothing wrong with the economy ( never mind the fact the last time we saw interest rates like this I was ten years old ). I'll bet he thinks Saddam still has WOMD in Iraq. Man you are one to talk about reality.
The question to ask is if the economy does improve slightly is the voting public willing to accept serial recession like they have for the republicans in the past? I'm betting no. I think they've seen enough and are smarter than that.
I'll bet he thinks Saddam still has WOMD in Iraq. Man you are one to talk about reality.
Do you guys out there realy believe that Saddam does not have WOMD? I mean seriously! I understand that it is a great tool for making bush look bad but come on Tell the truth do you seriously believe that ?
Facts:
republican guard had thousands of chemical weapon suits and antidotes (they had these because of what?)
Saddam had no documentation for distroying any WOMD and just expected us to believe that he got rid of them
Do you guys out there realy believe that Saddam does not have WOMD? I mean seriously! I understand that it is a great tool for making bush look bad but come on Tell the truth do you seriously believe that ?
Facts:
republican guard had thousands of chemical weapon suits and antidotes (they had these because of what?)
Saddam had no documentation for distroying any WOMD and just expected us to believe that he got rid of them
Do you guys out there realy believe that Saddam does not have WOMD? I mean seriously! I understand that it is a great tool for making bush look bad but come on Tell the truth do you seriously believe that ?
Facts:
republican guard had thousands of chemical weapon suits and antidotes (they had these because of what?)
You can´t name me one army that doesn´t have biocem suits. Do all countries then have biocem weapons?
-------------
There was, like, a war going on. And in wars, unlike in soccer, there is no referee so you have to expect the worst from your enemy. EVEN WHEN ITS THE US ARMY.
"There that leftist eurocommie liberal Anders go again. How dare you accuse US of wanting to use biocem weapons"</voice of people who haven´t got a clue>
I don´t. And I don´t even think the Iraqis thought we would. But rule number 1 in war: Expect the unexpected and prepare for the worst.
There isn't enough political space for "republican lite".
i was waiting for someone to give me an opening, and i'll take it. he isn't a democrat, but i've grown to like him just the same... John McCain. Problem is, the Republicans don't like him enought to support him, and going into a third party (even Reform... ugh) is just saying "Well, I don't have a shot in hell..."
Another candidate, simply for "electibility" (is that a word?) is the recently entered Bob Graham, formerly of Florida. I was there when he was in the State Senate, and I swear the guy COULD NOT LOSE. everyone voted for him... democrats, republicans, fence-sitters. I have no idea what his stance on issues are (i was a teen when he was governor -- or was it senator? -- and i had NO interest in politics back then), but he certainly has that something about him that people took to.
anyway, just thought i should jump in here. jumping back out now...
There was, like, a war going on. And in wars, unlike in soccer, there is no referee so you have to expect the worst from your enemy. EVEN WHEN ITS THE US ARMY.---I don´t. And I don´t even think the Iraqis thought we would. But rule number 1 in war: Expect the unexpected and prepare for the worst.
Saddams guard had their chemical suits with them but were not wearing them when we attacked because they knew that we were not going to use them. everybody new that. If we wanted to do mass distruction we would have dropped a small atomic device, war over with no american deaths. their is no line of thinking which gives credibility that we would use WOMD especially with all of the anti war talks in this country, not to mention that WOMD is against the geneva convention. it is not a theory that Saddam had WOMD unless you want to dispute that as well. so, I ask you if WOMD is found will you change your position?
Saddams guard had their chemical suits with them but were not wearing them when we attacked because they knew that we were not going to use them. everybody new that. If we wanted to do mass distruction we would have dropped a small atomic device, war over with no american deaths. their is no line of thinking which gives credibility that we would use WOMD especially with all of the anti war talks in this country, not to mention that WOMD is against the geneva convention. it is not a theory that Saddam had WOMD unless you want to dispute that as well. so, I ask you if WOMD is found will you change your position?
So preemptive posting doesn´t work either.
Lo and behold what I wrote just below the part you quoted:
Quote:
Originally posted by... me:
"There that leftist eurocommie liberal Anders go again. How dare you accuse US of wanting to use biocem weapons"</voice of people who haven´t got a clue>
I don´t. And I don´t even think the Iraqis thought we would. But rule number 1 in war: Expect the unexpected and prepare for the worst.
Let me try again: Every army in the world have biochem weapons suits. It would be plain stupid if they didn´t have them just in case. So it proves nothing.
And the thing about the iraqis not wearing them under the attacks: The "coalition" didn´t wear them all the time either. So they must have been saving them for when we attacked the iraqis with biochem weapons, right?
So the behaviour of the "coalition" forces and the Iraqis were the same. Now why does that prove they have biochem weapons and at the same time proves we didn´t?
One more time: The presents of biochem suits proves nothing. Not that they had them. Not that they didn´t have them. It only proves that someone in the iraqi military had a few braincells when they bought military equipment.
The obvious next question: Do they have biochem weapons? Before the war I was 90% sure they did. Not because of the proven fabricated evidence Powell put forward at the SC but because it seemed logical. Now I am down to 40-60% since nothing have been found yet.
If the biochem suits were to be used for when the Iraqis would attack with biochem weapons why is it so damn hard to those weapons? I mean it took us less than a couple of hours to find the suits but after a couple of weeks they haven´t found the weapons. If they were to be used together I would assume that they kept the weapons in close distance to the suits.
So the non-presense of weapons within a radium of a couple of miles of the suits actually "proves" that they didn´t have any biochem weapons according to your line of thinking
If the biochem suits were to be used for when the Iraqis would attack with biochem weapons why is it so damn hard to those weapons?
well, because they moved 'em to syria, silly. or the palestinians have 'em. or maybe russia. or something... god bless the "whack-a-mole" approach to modern strategic warfare.
because they knew that we were not going to use them. everybody new that.[...] their is no line of thinking which gives credibility that we would use WOMD [...] not to mention that WOMD is against the geneva convention.
You have not been in the military or had any education on international relations have you? PREPARE FOR EVERYTHING. DON`T TRUST YOUR ENEMY. DON`T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS THAT CAN COST YOU YOUR LIFE. "Everybody knew that" just doesn´t cut it in a war
Geneva convention? Well thats something you can argue around. Don´t think it protects illegal competants. So that would just be a question on bringing in a couple of lawyers to declare all those in front of you that and then you can do whatever you want.
Quote:
Originally posted by JC
it is not a theory that Saddam had WOMD unless you want to dispute that as well. so, I ask you if WOMD is found will you change your position?
Ah. You want to make a fellowship: Since you believe that they have WoMD everything can be used to prove excatly that.
You: "The biochem suits proves they had WoMD"
Me: "We had biochem weapons as well. So according to your logic we had WoMD also?"
Comments
"Substitue Clinton for Bush. The statement still makes sense."
Well, I can agree with that. Really, I can. Though JC is also correct. Like him or hate him, Clinton really was a corrupt man. Most people would agree with this, even if they supported his policies and ideas. Someone like me though, who feels Clinton was morally bankrupt, and also disagrees with his politics almost completely.....we have trouble with him to say the least.
I can understand when someone disagrees with Bush's policies. It's just that class warfare, disaster on the economy, "I need to give blood to g've the money to my kid's school because of Bush" rhetoric I can't take. That's really the point of the thread.
Once again, all I would need to withdraw my criticisms is an honest agenda. But they're too scared to do that. Many liberals actually want increased taxation and nationlized healthcare but are afraid to stand up for it. Poor Dems....they're cute in a pathetic kind of way. The Republicans have pretty much outlined what they want. Even people who might disagree on things like abortion and education and what not may vote that way (i.e Reagan Democrats) because at least the other party has a clear, strong message.
The left does not use logic when dealing with issue
quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
This is NOT intended to start a flame war
I do not want to start a flame war.
I do not make them wrong or think less of them for it.
its just that it is very difficult to win over a person who is to the left with logic. you need to deal with the topics from an emotional point of view. I base this on my experience as I used to be one of them and still have many close leftest friends.
It just is that most liberals come from an emotional place. Things that anger them are the things that they are passioned about. They look for facts to support their debates after they are inflamed. and as such are not nearly as impartial or do not examine the source of the facts as well. and when a fact that supports their point is disproved it does not change their mind at all as the facts that they are supporting thir point of view with have very little to do with the origin of their point.
the democratic party understands this all too well. if they want to drum up more support they speek to people emotionally. for example, they show a picture of a decapitated baby and say look what our american soldiers have done. And they are so wrapped up in the horror of it that they do not question the source. no one even needs to show evidence that it was an american did the deed. Even if it was not they will say it must be happening.
then they walk around showing their conservative friends pictures of the decapitated baby and look at us in shock wandering why we are so heartless that we do not care about all the babies that are dead and dieing.
the democratic party plays all of the emotions from love, family values, etc. and I think that they perpetuate a distrust of the government.
then again its just a theory
Originally posted by midwinter
Well, I was talking about whether or not his (Bush) integrity is attackable. It is
So, attack it then. I doubt you can.8)
Originally posted by JC
uote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Well, I was talking about whether or not his (Bush) integrity is attackable. It is
So, attack it then. I doubt you can.8)
I did. There's a whole thread here, you know.
Originally posted by SDW2001
OK, I'll bite. The economy is not in the toilet. It certainly isn't great. I'm not really sure your serious, jimmac. Barring anything ridiculous, Bush will be reelected easily. The only variable that matters anymore is the economy, and if it improves significantly at all, it's all over for the dems. If you deny this, you are simply not living in reality.
midwinter:
I'm going to have to ask you to back that up. I've never heard that charge before. It's stuff like this that is exactly the point. Attacking Bush like that isn't going to work. I actually hope people keep spouting off BS like this. It will just make Bush stronger! I don't even know why you bother with this shit.
The title of this thread should be : SDW IS STILL IN DENIAL.
Sure Bush will win easily because there's nothing wrong with the economy ( never mind the fact the last time we saw interest rates like this I was ten years old ). I'll bet he thinks Saddam still has WOMD in Iraq. Man you are one to talk about reality.
The question to ask is if the economy does improve slightly is the voting public willing to accept serial recession like they have for the republicans in the past? I'm betting no. I think they've seen enough and are smarter than that.
Originally posted by jimmac
I'll bet he thinks Saddam still has WOMD in Iraq. Man you are one to talk about reality.
Do you guys out there realy believe that Saddam does not have WOMD? I mean seriously! I understand that it is a great tool for making bush look bad but come on Tell the truth do you seriously believe that ?
Facts:
republican guard had thousands of chemical weapon suits and antidotes (they had these because of what?)
Saddam had no documentation for distroying any WOMD and just expected us to believe that he got rid of them
I could go on but i think two are enough
Originally posted by JC
Do you guys out there realy believe that Saddam does not have WOMD? I mean seriously! I understand that it is a great tool for making bush look bad but come on Tell the truth do you seriously believe that ?
Facts:
republican guard had thousands of chemical weapon suits and antidotes (they had these because of what?)
Saddam had no documentation for distroying any WOMD and just expected us to believe that he got rid of them
I could go on but i think two are enough
Originally posted by JC
Do you guys out there realy believe that Saddam does not have WOMD? I mean seriously! I understand that it is a great tool for making bush look bad but come on Tell the truth do you seriously believe that ?
Facts:
republican guard had thousands of chemical weapon suits and antidotes (they had these because of what?)
You can´t name me one army that doesn´t have biocem suits. Do all countries then have biocem weapons?
-------------
There was, like, a war going on. And in wars, unlike in soccer, there is no referee so you have to expect the worst from your enemy. EVEN WHEN ITS THE US ARMY.
"There that leftist eurocommie liberal Anders go again. How dare you accuse US of wanting to use biocem weapons
I don´t. And I don´t even think the Iraqis thought we would. But rule number 1 in war: Expect the unexpected and prepare for the worst.
Originally posted by jimmac
"I mean seriously!!!"
Originally posted by sammi jo
There isn't enough political space for "republican lite".
i was waiting for someone to give me an opening, and i'll take it. he isn't a democrat, but i've grown to like him just the same... John McCain. Problem is, the Republicans don't like him enought to support him, and going into a third party (even Reform... ugh) is just saying "Well, I don't have a shot in hell..."
Another candidate, simply for "electibility" (is that a word?) is the recently entered Bob Graham, formerly of Florida. I was there when he was in the State Senate, and I swear the guy COULD NOT LOSE. everyone voted for him... democrats, republicans, fence-sitters. I have no idea what his stance on issues are (i was a teen when he was governor -- or was it senator? -- and i had NO interest in politics back then), but he certainly has that something about him that people took to.
anyway, just thought i should jump in here. jumping back out now...
Originally posted by Anders the White
There was, like, a war going on. And in wars, unlike in soccer, there is no referee so you have to expect the worst from your enemy. EVEN WHEN ITS THE US ARMY.---I don´t. And I don´t even think the Iraqis thought we would. But rule number 1 in war: Expect the unexpected and prepare for the worst.
Saddams guard had their chemical suits with them but were not wearing them when we attacked because they knew that we were not going to use them. everybody new that. If we wanted to do mass distruction we would have dropped a small atomic device, war over with no american deaths. their is no line of thinking which gives credibility that we would use WOMD especially with all of the anti war talks in this country, not to mention that WOMD is against the geneva convention. it is not a theory that Saddam had WOMD unless you want to dispute that as well. so, I ask you if WOMD is found will you change your position?
Originally posted by JC
Saddams guard had their chemical suits with them but were not wearing them when we attacked because they knew that we were not going to use them. everybody new that. If we wanted to do mass distruction we would have dropped a small atomic device, war over with no american deaths. their is no line of thinking which gives credibility that we would use WOMD especially with all of the anti war talks in this country, not to mention that WOMD is against the geneva convention. it is not a theory that Saddam had WOMD unless you want to dispute that as well. so, I ask you if WOMD is found will you change your position?
So preemptive posting doesn´t work either.
Lo and behold what I wrote just below the part you quoted:
Originally posted by... me:
"There that leftist eurocommie liberal Anders go again. How dare you accuse US of wanting to use biocem weapons"</voice of people who haven´t got a clue>
I don´t. And I don´t even think the Iraqis thought we would. But rule number 1 in war: Expect the unexpected and prepare for the worst.
Let me try again: Every army in the world have biochem weapons suits. It would be plain stupid if they didn´t have them just in case. So it proves nothing.
And the thing about the iraqis not wearing them under the attacks: The "coalition" didn´t wear them all the time either. So they must have been saving them for when we attacked the iraqis with biochem weapons, right?
So the behaviour of the "coalition" forces and the Iraqis were the same. Now why does that prove they have biochem weapons and at the same time proves we didn´t?
One more time: The presents of biochem suits proves nothing. Not that they had them. Not that they didn´t have them. It only proves that someone in the iraqi military had a few braincells when they bought military equipment.
The obvious next question: Do they have biochem weapons? Before the war I was 90% sure they did. Not because of the proven fabricated evidence Powell put forward at the SC but because it seemed logical. Now I am down to 40-60% since nothing have been found yet.
So the non-presense of weapons within a radium of a couple of miles of the suits actually "proves" that they didn´t have any biochem weapons according to your line of thinking
Originally posted by Anders the White
If the biochem suits were to be used for when the Iraqis would attack with biochem weapons why is it so damn hard to those weapons?
well, because they moved 'em to syria, silly. or the palestinians have 'em. or maybe russia. or something... god bless the "whack-a-mole" approach to modern strategic warfare.
Originally posted by JC
because they knew that we were not going to use them. everybody new that.[...] their is no line of thinking which gives credibility that we would use WOMD [...] not to mention that WOMD is against the geneva convention.
You have not been in the military or had any education on international relations have you? PREPARE FOR EVERYTHING. DON`T TRUST YOUR ENEMY. DON`T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS THAT CAN COST YOU YOUR LIFE. "Everybody knew that" just doesn´t cut it in a war
Geneva convention? Well thats something you can argue around. Don´t think it protects illegal competants. So that would just be a question on bringing in a couple of lawyers to declare all those in front of you that and then you can do whatever you want.
Originally posted by JC
it is not a theory that Saddam had WOMD unless you want to dispute that as well. so, I ask you if WOMD is found will you change your position?
Ah. You want to make a fellowship: Since you believe that they have WoMD everything can be used to prove excatly that.
You: "The biochem suits proves they had WoMD"
Me: "We had biochem weapons as well. So according to your logic we had WoMD also?"
You: "No because we didn´t and they did"
Me: "Eh?"
Originally posted by Anders the White
You: "No because we didn´t and they did"
Me: "Eh?"
so, I ask you if WOMD is found will you change your position?
EDITED: unnecessary swipes at an ena=jc possibility...
Originally posted by Anders the White
Ah. You want to make a fellowship: Since you believe that they have WoMD everything can be used to prove excatly that.
Excuse me?
Fellows