Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 233
We're winningPage 15 of 16    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
A terrorist plot has been uncovered indicating that you and your family have been targeted for death. Law enforcement has only the list of names, and the person in custody that had possession of the list. Would you insist he be sent to jail to await trial for conspiracy, or would you be amenable to taking whatever steps are necessary to identify, locate and apprehend his coconspirators? Would you protect the lives of you and your family, or would you opt to protect the terrorists “rights” to due process? So you see, it DOES matter what the bad guys do….. (Let the straw man comments begin!)


OK, I've had a chance to think about it some more, and I must admit that my first reaction would be to make the **stard talk by whatever means necessary. However, upon reflection I think that's the coward's way out. The right to life and due process isn't just for me and those who appreciate me, it's for those who want to kill me and destroy my family too. The right to due process simply means they don't get to act on their urges, but it also means that I don't either.

So, what I would do is sequester my family, make myself a _very_ hard target--well able to defend myself even if caught by surprise--and then go on about my business as best I could. I would not advocate torture of the captive. However, I would dearly love the opportunity to ask him what the hell I'd ever done to him.

We're Americans. We're strong because we're disciplined. We stick by our principles when things get tough, even when it's scary, even when it looks like we could gain advantage by cheating. Those who claim we're a Christian nation must remember the strength of the Christian martyrs, who didn't get the name by practicing mayhem in the name of their religion, but by facing down the tyranny of Rome with a peaceful demeanor, and without compromising their principles regardless of the threats that were brought against them. Who won in the long run? The Imperial Might of Eternal Rome? Not hardly. No enemy can stand in the face of principled resolve, which is the willingness to _endure_ whatever it takes, not to _do_ whatever it takes.

Would I go down for America? Yes. But not if it comes to standsfor torture. Would you?
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 234
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/11/2007 4:18:08 PM
No. Go back and read it again. I've said that those who refuse to think for themselves and instead so proudly and self-righteously parrot the party line put forward by Rush and his hate-mongering peers are UNWILLING to engage in rational or independent thought. I deplore that UNWILLINGNESS.
I did re-read, and I stick by what I originally got from your post … that being that those who agree with opinions other than your own are “bad, hate mongers, that they are incapable of rational or independent thought, that they propagate only fear and loathing…“
As for parroting the party line, isn't your classification of Rush fans the blue version of the exact same thing?


I also despise those who prey on the fear that underlies it.
Like losing freedoms to the Patriot Act? It's the same game, you just have to open your eyes and your mind so that you can hear not just the message, but the tone in which its being delivered.....


First of all, if a there was a terrorst plot targeting me and my family specifically, that wouldn't be a terrorist plot. The whole point of terrorism is to choose targets at random so as to create a climate of fear and discredit the governing regime. As the people of London figured out during the V2 attacks, the best way to respond to random acts of terror is to continue with business as usual.

Second, if I were in a position to be specifically targeted, I'd probably also have access to resources to ensure my own and my family's security. I'd either be a combatant or a visible supporter of the regime being targeted for overthrow. And for that support I'd expect adequate protection.

Third, where was the Iraqi plot to target _anyone_ in the US? If you were talking about Afghanistan and our efforts to bring bin Laden to trial, you'd have a point, but this straw man is simply irrelevant to Iraq.
You’re addressing why you wouldn’t be a good target rather than what you would do if you actually were one….



If we follow due process, it might take us longer to rout out the terrorists, but if everyone knows that we're disciplined in how we use our might, particularly the locals who just want peace and justice, they'll prefer us to the bad guys if we can give them that. But we can't give them that if we're the ones doing the torturing. So, due process and appropriate restraint might not pay off right now, but it will pay off for our grandchildren--and after all, aren't they the ones we're trying to benefit by seizing control of that oil?
Oh man, not the “War for Oil” argument, I thought you had a better grasp on the real issues, just didn’t agree with them… Since we’ve seized all that oil, per gallon gas prices have plummeted from $1.43 before the war to the paltry $3.06 it is today … and they say conservatives don’t understand economics….
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 235
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/11/2007 5:05:48 PM
A terrorist plot has been uncovered indicating that you and your family have been targeted for death. Law enforcement has only the list of names, and the person in custody that had possession of the list. Would you insist he be sent to jail to await trial for conspiracy, or would you be amenable to taking whatever steps are necessary to identify, locate and apprehend his coconspirators? Would you protect the lives of you and your family, or would you opt to protect the terrorists “rights” to due process? So you see, it DOES matter what the bad guys do….. (Let the straw man comments begin!)


OK, I've had a chance to think about it some more, and I must admit that my first reaction would be to make the **stard talk by whatever means necessary. However, upon reflection I think that's the coward's way out. The right to life and due process isn't just for me and those who appreciate me, it's for those who want to kill me and destroy my family too. The right to due process simply means they don't get to act on their urges, but it also means that I don't either.
The problem is that your position requires them to think as you do and respect the rule of law and acknowledge the existence of human rights. In accordance with due process, they would have a right to a bail hearing, suppose they made bail, would you feel your rights were being as closely guarded and preserved as his? By the way, due process means the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a jury of his peers; it isn’t a magic force field that prevents criminal acts.

So, what I would do is sequester my family, make myself a _very_ hard target--well able to defend myself even if caught by surprise--and then go on about my business as best I could. I would not advocate torture of the captive. However, I would dearly love the opportunity to ask him what the hell I'd ever done to him.
So you’re willing to sacrifice your freedom and that of your family to extend our rights to someone whose entire life centers around the removal not only of your religious freedom, but your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness….. Interesting….. You mentioned defending yourself, to what extent are you willing to go to accomplish that end? Would you use reason or bullets? You’re trying to apply our laws and culture of tolerance to them, and they're trying to impose their religious laws and culture of intolerance on you. If their own lives mean nothing to them, do you honestly think your principled stance on the issue does?

We're Americans. We're strong because we're disciplined. We stick by our principles when things get tough, even when it's scary, even when it looks like we could gain advantage by cheating. Those who claim we're a Christian nation must remember the strength of the Christian martyrs, who didn't get the name by practicing mayhem in the name of their religion, but by facing down the tyranny of Rome with a peaceful demeanor, and without compromising their principles regardless of the threats that were brought against them. Who won in the long run? The Imperial Might of Eternal Rome? Not hardly. No enemy can stand in the face of principled resolve, which is the willingness to _endure_ whatever it takes, not to _do_ whatever it takes.
This is not an updated version of the Crusades…. Trying to paint it as something other than what it is does not change the underlying pretext. Don’t tell the Spartans that no enemy can stand in the face of principled resolve, they’d be disappointed to find out they fell short. By the way, wasn’t Xerxes a Persian King?
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 237
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/11/2007 7:08:58 PM
Bookster! My tree huggin, granola chewin friend!


I'm with AceOfSpace on this one. You are misinterpreting what he said. If you read what he stated, he said, "Red propaganda ...", not, "All those who disagree with me ...". There is a huge difference between what he actually said, and what you claim he said. He was calling the "propagandists" (like Rush) hate-mongers, not the people who fall under their sway. See the difference?
No, that isn’t what he said, but allow me to help you understand... red propaganda, intended to mean conservative opinions promoted by talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh. Ditto heads, intended to mean those who agree with conservative opinions, again, promoted by conservative talk radio are



". Between you and me, I find the practice of adopting someone else's rhetoric and regarding those who disagree with contempt just as disgusting as you find "blue hypocrisy." You know who I'm talking about, and since they won't listen to anyone they suspect of being on the "blue team" (by which they mean anyone who sees things differently than they do), could you please do me a favor and tell them to grow the hell up? They do you no credit whatsoever."
This is the basis of my opinion, it is clearly not something either of you agree with, so according to your post I HAVE to be wrong because I am a conservative and you of course are not.


Actually, he addressed that too, in msg 340. You singled out one post and completely ignored the one in which he answered your question. Don't you think that's kind of odd?
You find it odd that I would respond to posts in numerical order?


Yeah, well, then you may want to contact Alan Greenspan and tell him that he doesn't have a grasp on the real issues either. Because he said himself that it was at least partially about oil:
So you can deny it if you want, but all it shows is that you don't have a very good grasp of all aspects of the situation.
Concern over the possible disruption of oil flow that could be caused by the war, is not the same as going to war for oil.... talk about spin!


You're operating under the (huge, and unwarranted) assumption that things are done for your benefit.
Selfish b astard that I am….

Instead of looking at the retail price of gas, look at the profits of the oil companies. Do you think they've gone up for down since 2003....? Here, I'll give you a hint, just to get you started:
Net income increased for domestic U.S. refining operations from just under $1 billion in 2002 to just under $18 billion in 2005, with virtually no change in volume of production (called throughput in the oil industry) at U.S. refineries.
Profit is based on percentage of investment. The profit to investment ratio has not changed, what has changed is the investment. If you get a 10% return on a $1 investment, and a 10% return on a $100 investment, have your profit "rates" increased, or simply revenues in accordance with the dollars invested? Capitalism is when companies are permitted to operate at a profit, Socialism is the antithesis, it seems you prefer the latter......

Refresh my memory, where does Bush's family get their money from again....?
Let’s see... I know GHWB used to own a small oil company, don't know if he still does or not, but I'm pretty certain it isn't / wasn't Amoco, or British Petroleum, or CITGO.... GWB used to have an oil exploration company, but it tanked in the 80's and he went on to other endeavors such as consulting and managing partner in the Texas Ranger baseball team.... Jeb was in real estate development and commercial leasing here in Florida... Marvin used to be in the security field, primarily airports, and now is an investment broker, and I believe Neal is in educational software. Feeling refreshed now?


I can think of one who doesn't seem to....

So, if by "we", we mean "major U.S. oil companies, then yes: "We" are winning.
Like that blue Kool-Aid do ya?


So far as I can tell, nobody here (except you) described it as a magic force-field.
Does that mean I win the sarcastic wit award?


And this question, I think more than any other, explains the fundamental nature of your lack of understanding. This issue came up in the "Is waterboarding torture?"-thread. I'll try to be as clear as possible: We're not doing it for them, we're doing it for us. If we change who we are, our fundamental values, because of them, then we have already lost, because we will be just like them.
Actually I think it speaks more to your fundamental lack of understanding of terrorism. If they wanted THIER game to be played nicely, it wouldn't be called TERRORism, it would be called something like FLUFFY BUNNY SLIPPERism.... When you find a way to coerce information from a terrorist by utilizing the "pretty please" method of interrogation I think then I'll consider you to be an expert, until then, you are just someone who has a different opinion. Don’t get me wrong, I think torture is wrong, but distasteful as it may be, sometimes the end actually does justify the means…

Maybe you don't see it that way, but many people in the Middle East do. And it doesn't help when our administration uses words like "crusade" in their speeches....
Since I haven't interviewed "many people in the Middle East" I can't speak for what THEY think, only for myself. Unfortunately I also haven't been contacted to contribute to the speech writing of the administration, so I guess they'll never know that both you and I think it's a poor choice of words in any current context regarding the Middle East.


The irony here is that your example actually works against you. Sure, the Spartans at Thermopolae died. But the Greeks eventually rallied and drove the Persians out of Greece. And so far as I know, the Greeks didn't turn themselves into a police-state to do it....
So you're saying superior force and strategy eventually forced the Persians out of Greece, and my use of a single battle to demonstrate that superior force and strategy are generally more effective than simple resolve is ironic? I think perhaps I need to look that word up, it clearly doesn't mean what I thought it did (more of that sarcastic wit)
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 238
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/11/2007 7:32:13 PM

No question about it, that "fact" of yours is DOA when the public record is researched.
Monty, rather than post exerpts from articles that support our opossing positions on the matter I think it more respectful of the other posters to simply include the link. If you care to read one legal article that oposses you, and has it's basis both in the UN resolution as well as the UN Charter....
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5862
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 241
We're winning
Posted: 12/12/2007 12:29:36 AM


I'm with AceOfSpace on this one. You are misinterpreting what he said. If you read what he stated, he said, "Red propaganda ...", not, "All those who disagree with me ...". There is a huge difference between what he actually said, and what you claim he said. He was calling the "propagandists" (like Rush) hate-mongers, not the people who fall under their sway. See the difference?

No, that isn’t what he said, but allow me to help you understand... red propaganda, intended to mean conservative opinions promoted by talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh. Ditto heads, intended to mean those who agree with conservative opinions, again, promoted by conservative talk radio

Tim,

Bookster got it right and you read more into it than I said. There are people out there who really don't want to think for themselves and who can't tolerate opinions or facts that contradict their doctrine, challenge their sense of entitlement, or confront their sense of self-righteousness. There are also people who take advantage of their weakness in that regard.

And yes, there are people like that on the Left as well. However, those people have already been marginalized while the empire builders continue to exploit the self-righteousness of the dittoheads.

When Conservatives make good points, I take those points into consideration. When Liberals make good points, dittoheads call them names and tune out. When confronted with something that challenges them to think, they lapse into black-and-white thinking. They cannot help but misconstrue particular criticisms as generalities and then feel self-righteous in dismissing those generalities. That happens with anyone who is doctrinaire in their thinking, but the doctrinaire thinking that's costing us $2 billion dollars a month--off the budget that the Repulbicans say they're trying to conserve--to wage a war of occupation that was started on a pretext of lies, and who are using that war as an excuse to do everything they can to undermine the rights that they claim to be upholding, happens to be promoted by people on the Right.

If Leftists were in charge and acting that way, I'd be just as critical of them and their unthinking followers.

What I don't understand about you is why you so adamantly refuse to apply the brains that God gave you to look closely at the hypocrisies of the people who purport to agree with you. They're the ones who are more likely to fool you. You're already well onto the shortcomings of the Leftist dogma.

Being eternally vigilant doesn't mean keeping an eye on "those people." It means keeping an eye on the people "on your own side" too. Doesn't it?
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 242
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/12/2007 4:58:45 AM

Bookster got it right and you read more into it than I said. There are people out there who really don't want to think for themselves and who can't tolerate opinions or facts that contradict their doctrine, challenge their sense of entitlement, or confront their sense of self-righteousness. There are also people who take advantage of their weakness in that regard.
I know you disagree that you said this, but your previous posts indicate that you feel these people are exclusively listeners to talk radio, and that simply is not the case. As an example of your disdain for anything other than the blue message, you use terms such as “self-righteous” to describe conservatives, a term that can never be considered to be anything other than derogatory. Yet you classified the blue flavored Kool-Aid talk radio as "Progressive" rather than liberal, implying, whether intentional or subconsciously, that the conservative perspective should be dismissed because it is regressive. If that’s not an indication that opposing views are inferior to your own, I don’t know what is….

And yes, there are people like that on the Left as well. However, those people have already been marginalized while the empire builders continue to exploit the self-righteousness of the dittoheads.
I think this new (and more eloquently stated) version of your argument would actually work, were it not for the fact that the ultra-conservative faction, or Ditto heads, represents only a small fraction of the Republican Party. Combine that with the indisputable fact that Democrats control both the House and the Senate, and have almost always held a sufficient number of seats in each to block every war related bill, and we get back to the only reasonable conclusion. Blatant hypocrisy. It’s the superstructure of today’s platform of the Democratic Party.

When Conservatives make good points, I take those points into consideration. When Liberals make good points, dittoheads call them names and tune out. When confronted with something that challenges them to think, they lapse into black-and-white thinking. They cannot help but misconstrue particular criticisms as generalities and then feel self-righteous in dismissing those generalities. That happens with anyone who is doctrinaire in their thinking, but the doctrinaire thinking that's costing us $2 billion dollars a month--off the budget that the Repulbicans say they're trying to conserve--to wage a war of occupation that was started on a pretext of lies, and who are using that war as an excuse to do everything they can to undermine the rights that they claim to be upholding, happens to be promoted by people on the Right.
And now you’re doing it again. Because someone does not subscribe to your rational does not automatically make them myopic, close minded or intellectually inferior. If you want to compare apples to apples, listen to the venom that comes from Air America. The hate and vitriol that is their daily bread does not appeal even to the market which they require to survive, and rather than bring the message with a more moderate tone, they blame conservative talk radio for their failure…
You absolve the blue party from any wrong doing, when the last funding bill passed the Senate with an overwhelming majority, 80-14. If the blue team were so vehemently opposed to the war, wouldn’t they at least have tried to make it the smallest possible majority? The simple fact is, both the Democratic and Republican leaders in Washington are marching down the same path. Common sense dictates that if the majority of the politicians and the electorate they represent wanted to end the war, they need only use the tools they’ve had in their possession for the past year, that being majority control of both the House and the Senate. But by all means, let’s continue to blame George Bush and Rush Limbaugh for the HUNDREDS of blue politicians elected that forgot to take their spines with them to Washington.
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 244
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/12/2007 7:13:47 AM

It wasn't true, and wasn't respected.
Because you disagree, then it's false? I think that if it were an illegal action as you have indicated, we'd be seeing sanctions against the US and we haven't... and since we haven’t, then it seems to amount to nothing more than the usual vitriol of the corrupt UN politicians and self serving hypocritical left....
I don’t doubt that you think the war is illegal, and I don’t doubt that you feel virtuous in your position, also I don’t doubt that there are many who subscribe to your school of thought, but in the end all it represents is a dissenting opinion, not a superior or enlightened one….There is nothing in either of our arguments that is going to change the others perspective, and not because either of us are close minded, but because we have different political beliefs and life experience.. Now then, I hope we can categorize this as a stalemate, and move on to debating issues rather than cutting and pasting others opinions.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 245
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/12/2007 7:52:35 AM

How do you repair the political damage when you find that you have been on the obvious wrong side of an issue. I personally don't think that you can, but I could be wrong.
For starters ... it would help to admit you were wrong, but if you've taken money from people who don't want you to stand up and admit truthful things ... that might not be so easy ... right?

As far as winning or losing, we have basically already won.
Not really ... we went in after the OIL ... they keep blowing up the doggone pipelines ... and "Dubya" is not going to leave without what he went in after.

The only possible way to lose now would be to quit, as we did in vietnam. Up 85-0 in the fourth quarter and forfiet. Thank God the american people are behind our troops this time.
I think that rhetoric is also false.

I protested the war in Vietnam (and also protest this war) ... but I never stopped being supportive of our troops no matter where they were. That's two separate issues for me as I'm sure it is for many others.

Too bad there are so many out there still (as there were then) who believe that just because one is not in favor of a war that they are against the soldiers. The troops have no choice but to do as they're told. I know a lot of them over there who are also opposed to the war ... my daughter was one.

She also told me that in some cases if one is too verbal about not being in favor of the war, there's a good chance one will go home in a body bag and it won't be because of "enemy fire". But that's a whole different thread.


But, please, someone answer the question that I asked. As for me, I'm not interested in a debate about the war.
That statement doesn't make sense. The OP / Topic is that you believe we are winning ... a clear statement about the war and yet you do not want to debate the war. If you did not want to debate the war, why put the statement in there?

If you did not want to debate the war ... then you should have just asked the question ...
"How does a politician repair the political damage when they find that they've been on the obvious wrong side of an issue?"

That question could then pertain to anything from global warming to world hunger. And you might have gotten some more focused answers as to what you claim to want to discuss.
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 246
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/12/2007 2:08:27 PM
I'm not sure if you've heard, but personal attacks are a pretty good indicator that the person using them doesn't have a real argument. Nice to know you got that announcement out of the way up front. ;)
I assure you that was in no way a "personal attack" if you find being identified with liberals so distasteful, then perhaps you should keep that in mind when penning your posts.

No. I find it 'odd' (read: disingenuous) that you would attempt to apply a certain post to your question, instead of the post where he actually answered your question. That is yet another logical fallacy (Straw Man).
My apologies, in the future please send me a list of posts you want me to respond to and indicate what particular order would meet with your favor.

You're spinning (some might say, outright lying) like a top, right now. What Greenspan talked about was NOT "concern over the effects of war on the oil supply". He stated that he repeatedly urged the administration to invade Iraq precisely to secure the oil supply. Try reading for comprehension; it's a good thing.
You should follow your own advice. I didn't put words into Greenspan’s mouth, and I find it somewhat paradoxical that you would try to put words in mine or anyone else’s after you seemed so deeply wounded by my analysis of Ace’s postings. But back to one of your original quips "personal attacks are a pretty good indicator that the person using them doesn't have a real argument".

Etc etc. The particular logical fallacy here is known as a Red Herring. Your fascinatintingly misleading soliloquey on economics notwithstanding, the fact remains (for anybody willing and able to acknowledge it) is that their profits have skyrocketed. If you follow the link I provided in the previous post, it will explain in greater detail. Or you can read the following link, where analysis shows that many of the oil companies are doing other things with their cash (stock buy-backs, increased dividends, or just sitting on it) rather than make the capital investments necessary for future supplies.
-- http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/10/oil_company_pro.html

Oil company execs always fall back on the same lame excuse, "Our profit margins aren't as high as the banking and pharma industries". So what? They feel entitled to gouge just because drug companies do it too? And there's no shortage of people who not only don't have a problem with it, they gleefully shout, "Thank you sir, may I have another?!!"

Bottom line: the oil companies are definitely "winning".
As for my fascinatingly misleading soliloquy on economics, it would have stung a bit more had you been correct and perhaps more still had you spelled it correctly, however; nobody said they didn't make more money. You seem to be so fixated on that undisputed fact that you don't care to find out why. In any free market, profit is the sole reason for investment. If I'm investing $50 and expecting a 10% return, why would I invest $100 for a 5% return? The amount of funds invested was nearly double, simple mathematics combined with a minimal amount of common sense tells anyone and everyone why there were record profit totals; because there were record investment totals! It could only be considered gouging if the rate of return had increased significantly and disproportionately. The simple fact is that it didn’t. Of course following the entire story would just lead you back to stock holders, like me, or anyone else who prefers a POSITIVE result from investments, rather than a negative one. But by all means, seek out investments for yourself that produce the financial return you seem to so desperately crave. I hear Air America is looking for your type of investor.

Translation: "I don't really have a fact-based argument to counter to with, so I'll use a non-sequitur instead". (Just in case you were wondering: yes, that is yet another logic fallacy you engaged in.)
Gosh, that’s like three personal attacks in a single post, I guess it is true what they say about the hypocrisy of the blue team, constantly proclaiming virtue, while blatantly and adamantly conducting themselves in the same manner they point out to everyone as an indication of intellectual inferiority...

For reasons of my own, I found this comment particularly amusing. Suffice it to say, you are out of your depth on this one. You don't know what you're talking about.
So.... I'm wrong because you say so? Good argument, very persuasive!

The subject of torture is a topic for another thread. I actually already addressed this question at length in the "Is Waterboarding Torture?" thread in msg 144 on page six (here's the link: http://forums.plentyoffish.com/8602059datingPostpage6.aspx ). If you respond there I'll be more than happy to explain it to you in greater depth.
I agree, it's a topic for another thread, not this one, so why do you insist on continuously bringing it up?

No, I'm not saying that, mostly because it's not true. The Greeks never had superior force when compared to the Persians under Xerxes. The Greeks were vastly outnumbered throughout the Greco-Persian Wars, but their superior resolve resulted in them wearing down the Persians until they left. Hence the irony. ;) I don't know if you need to study the definition of the word "irony" or not, but you definitely need to study more history; once again, you're out of your depth. Best for you if you quit while you're behind.
Does everyone on here need your permission to post an opinion, or is that something you reserve only for conservatives? There is nothing factually errant with my previous post, but by all means stick with that "because I say so" approach to debate, it's really working for you!

Once again, you are apparently not reading what Ace has actually said. Anybody can go through his posts and find any number of references to the failings of the Left/Democrats. But you seem intent on ignoring that and instead continue to misrepresent what he said. Do you honestly consider that an honest, adult, way to have a discussion? Really?
I don't make it a point to research every single post he makes, only those in which he responds to in the threads of interest to me. I have no doubt that he finds the blue Kool-Aid bitter at times, and when it becomes evident in the matters he and I are debating I'll comment as appropriate, that is if it meets with your approval. For the record, Ace is a big boy and I thought (as did others) that he was holding up his end of the debate quite well … that is until you stepped in.

Now if you’ll stop the flaming, we can get back to the topic, not your opinion of how I shouldn’t present my perspective on the issues.

The fact that we have had zero attacks on US soil and no attacks on US citizens abroad other than those in Iraq is an indication that the course taken was the proper one, or at least met the singular objective of stopping terrorist attacks against the US. Clearly we are winning, and there will always be those who tuck themselves safely into bed each and every night and with a hypocritical tear in their eye, proclaim the cost of freedom is too high…..
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 247
We're winning
Posted: 12/12/2007 2:19:41 PM
I know this is off topic and will get yanked because of it, but Holy Smokes this back and forth citing of everything somebody else says and responding to it is getting tedious.

For the record, I have no objection to being called a granola eating, hemp wearing, eco-freak surrender monkey. And I don't care if none of it is true, because I know it's said in jest.

And Tim is one of the few smart guys still holding up the conservative position here. There used to be lots, but just like Tim, they got tired of having to defend an administration they had lost faith in. He doesn't try to defend what he agrees is wrong, but makes cogent points about what he feels they're doing right. Ease up. It seems just about every other right winger is purely dogmatic - they'll defend Bush if he starts rounding up people with brown eyes. Lets try to nurture a lonely voice of reason on the right and hope that it becomes infectious.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 248
We're winning
Posted: 12/12/2007 2:53:51 PM
Tim,

The crux of my argument is this. The hypocrisy on one side does not excuse the hypocrisy on the other. No doubt the "blue team" has fallen short in its duty to provide appropriate checks on the excesses of the "red team."

However, that alone does not excuse the excesses of the "red team." When I hear Rush and others criticize Bush, Cheney, et. al. for their attempts to circumvent the constitution, then I'll believe that they and their listeners are actually thinking and not just allowing themselves to be bamboozled.

So keep pointing the finger away from yourself and those who agree with you, and when your grandkids wind up in a cell without access to judicial review, don't whine to me.
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 249
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/12/2007 4:23:15 PM

The crux of my argument is this. The hypocrisy on one side does not excuse the hypocrisy on the other. No doubt the "blue team" has fallen short in its duty to provide appropriate checks on the excesses of the "red team."
It's this very division that is at the root of our disagreement. The blue team is not tasked with limiting the excesses of the red team; they are tasked with following the will of their constituents. The only place I see any Congressional division on the issue is in the media, not in the Congressional record, the only place where it really matters. There is no partisan division according to the Congressional record, the blue team is voting in lock step with the red team. The only difference is the sound bytes before and after the votes! If my representatives claim to be in favor of an issue and vote accordingly, there is no hypocrisy. If they claim to be in opposition to the issue and yet still vote in favor of it, not once, not twice, but three times, then how can that blatant hypocrisy possibly be equated to some sort of global social enlightenment or heroic defense of Constitutional rights?!?!?!?!?

However, that alone does not excuse the excesses of the "red team." When I hear Rush and others criticize Bush, Cheney, et. al. for their attempts to circumvent the constitution, then I'll believe that they and their listeners are actually thinking and not just allowing themselves to be bamboozled.
Clearly you don't listen to Rush regularly because he does just that. Granted Bush bashing isn't his mantra, after all he is a republican, but he does point out his opinion of errors in the administrations policies when they deviate from the principals of conservatism. (Bush is not a conservative.)

So keep pointing the finger away from yourself and those who agree with you, and when your grandkids wind up in a cell without access to judicial review, don't whine to me.
Not pointing my finger away from the red team at all, merely shining the light on the fact that this is not "Bush's War" as the main stream media would have everyone believe. This requires the approval and continued support of both parties, which, according to the Congressional record, it has had since day one. Buying into the sound bytes that the Democrats inside the beltway oppose the war and are somehow demonstrating that by their actions is just plain ol' hogwash.
When Democrats were still the minority party last year, the Patriot Act was renewed with more than 1/3 of the democratic vote. How does that make Bush and Cheney responsible for the “circumvention” of the Constitution? Now that they are the Majority, where is the legislation to rescind it? Could it be that simply kowtowing to the extreme left in front of a microphone is far more palatable than actually taking responsibility for ones actions?
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 250
We're winning
Posted: 12/12/2007 4:32:51 PM
To make any repeal of the Patriot Act veto proof would require a 2/3's majority. And if they introduced it knowing they couldn't get the votes, you'd accuse them of wasting time. Come on, and after I defended you too.

And this is Bush's war. He lied, and even lied to his Secretary of State because he knew that Colin Powell had credibility that nobody else there did. And Powell wouldn't have repeated lines that he knew were lies - that whole credibility thing again. But now they don't have to worry about it - there isn't a single person in the administration with even the slightest hint of morality.

And I don't recall anybody but Republicans asking for powers well beyond what the Constitution gave them. Oh, unless you're picking up on some of the nonsense I've seen that Bush isn't really a conservative (and therefor not a "real" Republican) so that they don't have to be tarred with the worst President in history.
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 251
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/13/2007 5:09:27 AM

To make any repeal of the Patriot Act veto proof would require a 2/3's majority. And if they introduced it knowing they couldn't get the votes, you'd accuse them of wasting time. Come on, and after I defended you too.
I would never accuse them of wasting time if they were standing up for their principals... If memory serves, the shift of power was considered a mandate, yet there has been no reversal of anything significant. I would much prefer a brave politician waste time trying to enact what he believes to be right, than to have a cowardly one tell us how brave he is with his words, but not with his deeds.

And this is Bush's war. He lied, and even lied to his Secretary of State because he knew that Colin Powell had credibility that nobody else there did. And Powell wouldn't have repeated lines that he knew were lies - that whole credibility thing again. But now they don't have to worry about it - there isn't a single person in the administration with even the slightest hint of morality.
I'm not defending the red team at all, merely pointing out this is a non partisan issue when it counts, and only becomes a partisan issue when the microphone and cameras of CNN are running.

And I don't recall anybody but Republicans asking for powers well beyond what the Constitution gave them. Oh, unless you're picking up on some of the nonsense I've seen that Bush isn't really a conservative (and therefor not a "real" Republican) so that they don't have to be tarred with the worst President in history.
Granted Bush did ask for the authority, but it was a non partisan congress that granted it, and a non partisan congress that continues to fund it. I never said Bush wasn't a Republican, I said he wasn't a conservative. If you recall, he coined the phrase "Compassionate Conservative" which we later came to find meant socially conservative and fiscally liberal. As for his being declared the worst president in history, he may very well be. Mainly for governing during a period of such divisiveness among the US citizens and the world. Only time will tell if his approach to domestic and foreign policy was insightful, or narrow minded. I personally don't find either to be up to par, but that's just my opinion and I don't presume to be an expert on the matter. I have no idea whether the decision to go to Iraq was right or wrong, and I have no idea if going was right, but for the wrong reasons. All I know is that I find more logic for being there than I find for not being there ... and the majority of it is based on Saddam’s actions, not Bush's.
2001-2003 Republican
The 107th Congress was split 50 / 50 in both the House and Senate, significant cooperation from the opposing party is required to pass any legislation.
2003-2005 Republican
The 108th Congress was split 51 / 49 in the Senate and 52 / 48 in the House, again, significant cooperation from the opposing party is required to pass any legislation.
2005-2007 Republican
The 109th Congress was split 55 / 45 in the Senate and 53 / 47 in the House, yet again, significant cooperation from the opposing party is required to pass any legislation.
2007-2009 Democratic
The 110th Congress was split 51 / 49 in the Senate and 54 / 46 in the House, still again, significant cooperation from the opposing party is required to pass any legislation.

The original Patriot Act passed in the 107th Congress enjoyed a favorable vote of 98-1-1 in the Senate, and 357-66 in the House. The renewal of the Patriot Act by the 109th Congress, was passed with the House voting 280-138 in favor of, and the Senate voting 89-10 in favor of. Funding for the war in the 110th Congress was passed with 80-14 favorable from the Senate and 280-142 for the House. It would seem the war had, and continues to have, equal amounts of support from both sides of the aisle….

My point, while the 2 big chairs have changed, nothing else has. The Presidents agenda apparently has as much support in Congress as it always has had, enjoying support from both the red and blue teams almost equally. I’m stunned that you don’t see that as the main contributing factor, or perhaps even as I do, the real issue is divisiveness, the likes of which we have only seen twice before in our history…..
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 252
We're winning
Posted: 12/13/2007 5:49:13 AM


When I hear Rush and others criticize Bush, Cheney, et. al. for their attempts to circumvent the constitution, then I'll believe that they and their listeners are actually thinking and not just allowing themselves to be bamboozled.

Clearly you don't listen to Rush regularly because he does just that. Granted Bush bashing isn't his mantra, after all he is a republican, but he does point out his opinion of errors in the administrations policies when they deviate from the principals of conservatism.


Let me be more clear. When I hear Rush _listeners_ criticize the Bush administration for their attempts to circumvent the Constitution, then I'll believe that Rush and his listeners are actually thinking and not just allowing themselves to be bamboozled.

Let's start with you and the hyporcisies I and others have brought to your attention.

Do you think that holding the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay is constitutional? Do you think that warrantless surveillance of domestic phone traffic is constitutional? Do you think that extraordinary rendition is constitutional? If so, why? If not, who should be held accountable for those actions and what is the appropriate remedy?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 253
We're winning
Posted: 12/13/2007 5:55:26 AM
I’m stunned that you don’t see that as the main contributing factor, or perhaps even as I do, the real issue is divisiveness, the likes of which we have only seen twice before in our history…..


The real issue for me as well is divisiveness as well. I attribute that divisiveness to the rise of Right-wing talk-show hosts and the dismissive, durogatory, and cheap-shot rhetoric that they constantly engage in. I don't listen to Rush very often because for every valid point he makes, there are a dozen put-downs of people who have a different perspective than his.

You don't promote civil discourse by belittling others at every opportunity. And, you don't build up a strong body politic by pawning off emotional appeals, name-calling, straw-man arguments, and other forms of flawed reasoning on your auidence--especially without opportunity for rebuttal.

Funny, they do away with the "fairness doctrine" for broadcast media and civil discourse takes a nose dive. Why is that?
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 255
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/13/2007 7:10:18 AM
Interesting.....

Do you think that holding the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay is constitutional?
The detainees are not US citizens, and therefore not necessarily protected under the US Constitution. My understanding is that they are largely either terrorists and/or terrorist sympathizers. Even the Geneva Convention does not require prosecution of uniformed combatants prior to the secession of hostilities, seems anomalous that terrorists would be considered entitled to a higher standard of civil treatment. I have no issue with them being held as enemies of the US, but I do wish there would be a more expeditious effort to prosecute, not doing so serves to only feed the fires of negative discourse.

Do you think that warrantless surveillance of domestic phone traffic is constitutional?
I have two schools of thought on the issue. 1.) Private use of a "public" utility is not guaranteed in the constitution. The constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but as with the press, there is accountability for everyone’s actions. If you don’t want criminal activity discovered by a phone tap, then don’t discuss it on the phone. 2.) I do feel that extreme times call for extreme measures, and as bad as one may think this is, Lincoln did far worse and is considered one of, if not THE greatest President of all time. (No I’m not comparing Bush to Lincoln by any stretch of the imagination, merely pointing out historical precedent for the suspension of liberties.) There seems to be justification for a temporary reprieve of unfettered use of technology in order to preserve our freedoms. Keep in mind, the Patriot Act, which makes this legal, is filled with sunset clauses that must be revisited periodically. If we can’t have it repealed, then it seems the next Congress should consist of those who value these freedoms more than their fear of not being re-elected and take steps to defeat it, rather than talking out of both sides of their mouth as they do now.

Do you think that extraordinary rendition is constitutional? If so, why? If not, who should be held accountable for those actions and what is the appropriate remedy?
The CIA was granted permission to use rendition in a presidential directive signed by President Bill Clinton in 1995. Granted, as distasteful as it seems, it is far more palatable during war time than in peacetime. To me, it seems obvious that you cannot apply civil law to uncivilized acts, and expect a positive result. I suppose you could say I’m on the fence about the issue, but not naive…. Where I see it can be of benefit, I’d like to see minimum criteria / standards for the action approved by Congress, rather than the arbitrary tool it seems to be.
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 256
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/13/2007 9:48:22 AM
The real issue for me as well is divisiveness as well. I attribute that divisiveness to the rise of Right-wing talk-show hosts and the dismissive, durogatory, and cheap-shot rhetoric that they constantly engage in. I don't listen to Rush very often because for every valid point he makes, there are a dozen put-downs of people who have a different perspective than his.
I attribute more than an even share of it to the hypocrisy of the Democrats in Congress, and the promotion of their hypocrisy by the mainstream media. No offense, but the on air hosts of Air America makes Rush look like Miss Congeniality. I do agree with you though. Facts and issue based opinions, rather than insults are what promote positive discourse.
You don't promote civil discourse by belittling others at every opportunity. And, you don't build up a strong body politic by pawning off emotional appeals, name-calling, straw-man arguments, and other forms of flawed reasoning on your auidence--especially without opportunity for rebuttal.
Do you not see that you use the same approach to identify those that disagree with you on the issues as you claim Rush does? Because you limit your tirade to Rush listeners doesn’t make your description of them any less biting, offensive or insulting. Absolutely there are some bucket headed bellowing ass wipes that parrot the extreme conservative message because they can't create the justification for their position themselves, just as there are bucket headed bellowing ass wipes that parrot the extreme liberal message because they can't create the justification for their position themselves. Does that in itself make either position any less correct?
Funny, they do away with the "fairness doctrine" for broadcast media and civil discourse takes a nose dive. Why is that?
You have the right to tune in or tune out Jenene Garafalo or Randi Rhodes, just as others have the right to tune in or tune out Rush Limbaugh or Shawn Hannity. Removing my right to listen my version of political discussion doesn't make your position the correct one, it makes you a supporter of fascism, same as it would me if I insisted they remove all left leaning news / discussion based programs from the air waves and / or the press.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 257
We're winning
Posted: 12/13/2007 12:52:47 PM
Removing my right to listen my version of political discussion doesn't make your position the correct one, it makes you a supporter of fascism, same as it would me if I insisted they remove all left leaning news / discussion based programs from the air waves and / or the press.


Good grief! Listen to you! How dare you attribute a desire to curtail your rights to me! When you talk about divisiveness, your name calling is both divisive, offensive, and just plain wrong. And you know it!

When I criticize the intent and effects of certain forms of speech, that in no way means that I want to cut off that speech. Quite the opposite. I want MORE SPEECH, and SPEECH THAT CHALLENGES THE LOGICAL FALLACIES BEING PUT FORWARD.

Why do I get the impression that if I'd said that a constant diet Randi Rhodes makes people stupid I wouldn't hear a peep out of you. Actually, you'd probably be the first to jump in as say how enlightened I was.

Face it, you're going to say anything you can to deflect attention from the fact that a constant diet of unchallenged propaganda from any one viewpoint makes people stupid. Also, a dismissive and derisive tone detracts from civil discourse, and so those who engage in that style of rhetoric are appropriate subjects for criticism.

The fairness doctrine was intended keep people of a particular viewpoint from MONOPOLIZING the AIRWAVES--to promote a diversity of viewpoints actually being expressed over the air. It was intended to promote free speech. And guess what, it worked. The quality of reporting and editorial commentary was much higher, and there was much less divisiveness when people like Rush and their publishers knew that they would have to give equal time to diverse and conflicting opinions.

This has gone way off topic. If you want to continue associating just with dittoheads and defending their right to be as closemined as they want, that's you're right. Why on Earth you'd want to do that is beyond me, but apparently, anyone who challenges you on that is a fascist. Unbelievable!
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 258
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/13/2007 2:03:19 PM
I actually had prepared a very long response to the above, but after I finished I noticed it had nothing to do with the topic, it was just contributing to the flaming.

As my earlier points clearly indicate, we are winning, and according to the Congressional record have had the full support of both parties the entire time.
According to the Senate vote, 80-14-6, of the 51 Blue Senators (49D - 2I-D), only 10 Democrats and 1 Independant voted against the continued funding of the war efforts in Iraq. I'm fairly adept at math, and I think that's far short of even a party majority....
NO Votes ... and I don't see the Senate Majority Leaders name in this category, (nor was it in the not voting category either)....
Boxer (D-CA)
Burr (R-NC)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Dodd (D-CT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Obama (D-IL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
 Javan2
Joined: 7/9/2005
Msg: 259
We're winning
Posted: 12/13/2007 2:18:23 PM
"Have we fallen so low that we have to justify being evil. We're Americans, and Americans should be made of better stuff!"
 beetk
Joined: 3/19/2006
Msg: 263
We're winning
Posted: 12/13/2007 11:16:18 PM
"I define winning, by the other side giving up"

Unfortunatley, if that's what it takes to win, the war will never end.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 269
We're winning
Posted: 2/4/2009 8:34:56 PM
Reviving a topic thats been untouched for 14 months? That takes class......
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 270
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 2/4/2009 8:52:08 PM
From the OP ...
Now that it's clear that we are winning in Iraq ...
We are?


How are they gonna save face. Are they gonna try to take credit for the victory?
LMAO ... more like how are they gonna stay out of prison for what they have done?
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >