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
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 247
We're winningPage 16 of 16    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
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  >