Thunder, see rule #2.
Thunder, it still is. We’re all sitting around being idiots because there is nothing worthy of discussion in here… bring it.
Some threads fly, some crash and burn. Blasting in published material is a great way to kill anyone’s desire to discuss anything… especially if someone does a good job of pointing out how this has been beaten to death and the point that was trying to be made by the copied material has already been discredited by those that would benefit if it were true.
So, we’ve been left with little to go on but Zeb’s preachings on behavior… and now yours.
One holier than thou poster was probably enough, but maybe not. Carry on.
Vroom,
“So, we’ve been left with little to go on but Zeb’s preachings on behavior… and now yours.”
I am not preaching, Vroom - more than anything, I was asking for a return to a little more of a debate, no more, no less.
“One holier than thou poster was probably enough, but maybe not. Carry on.”
It doesn’t suit you to talk tough, Vroom - no matter how hard you try. No one is buying it.
For clarity, I wasn’t being ‘holier than thou’ - again, just trying to get folks to get on task. No one offered much other than ‘Jeff is an idiot’, and I thought you guys could do a little better than that.
Talking tough? I haven’t seen anyone around here trying to talk tough. Where do you get this stuff?
[quote]vroom wrote:
My point was basic - this used to be a good place to debate the issues.
Thunder, it still is. We’re all sitting around being idiots because there is nothing worthy of discussion in here… bring it.
Some threads fly, some crash and burn. Blasting in published material is a great way to kill anyone’s desire to discuss anything… especially if someone does a good job of pointing out how this has been beaten to death and the point that was trying to be made by the copied material has already been discredited by those that would benefit if it were true.
So, we’ve been left with little to go on but Zeb’s preachings on behavior… and now yours.
One holier than thou poster was probably enough, but maybe not. Carry on.[/quote]
When it’s pointed out that reasonable debate turned into a JR highschool pissing match, we’re preaching. When some of us are talked down to like little children or idiot rednecks for being conservative it’s…what? I could only imagine how it would be taken if the tables were turned.
Panther, nobody is being derided, at least not by me, for being a conservative.
You don’t have to parrot talking points and ignore reasoned discussion to qualify as conservative do you?
So, do you think folks that talk about “these issues” with statements like “fuck muslims” and “bomb mecca” come across as rednecks or ignorant people?
Or, instead, do you consider that reasoned discussion of the issues? Yes, yes, I know, it isn’t in this thread, but it is at least illustrative of a point.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Talking tough? I haven’t seen anyone around here trying to talk tough. Where do you get this stuff?[/quote]
Condescending, immature, classless, and often times clueless, but no, I’ve not seen the tough talk start yet.
Man it’s good to be back. A month or so in Montana and Wyoming gives one time to ponder. I thought some of the issues here were on me, turns out I was wrong.
I’ll go back to vroom’s post back some–this thread was doomed from the beginning, so let the barbs fly. It’s the only thing keeping this boat from sinking.
Unless, of course, you’re above that sort of thing.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Panther, nobody is being derided, at least not by me, for being a conservative.
You don’t have to parrot talking points and ignore reasoned discussion to qualify as conservative do you?
So, do you think folks that talk about “these issues” with statements like “fuck muslims” and “bomb mecca” come across as rednecks or ignorant people?
Or, instead, do you consider that reasoned discussion of the issues? Yes, yes, I know, it isn’t in this thread, but it is at least illustrative of a point.[/quote]
There are some self proclaimed conservatives here that I choose to ignore. I should be clear that I wasn’t referring specifically to you regarding the incessant name callers (although you did throw a few choice words around yourself ;-)). It seems you can at least engage in reasonable debate, which seems pretty rare around here, regardless of political orientation.
Sasquatch,
“Condescending, immature, classless, and often times clueless, but no, I’ve not seen the tough talk start yet.”
Yes, I think you are right, and I should clarify - I consider it tough talk when you let fly a big mouth with insults in a way that you wouldn’t dream of doing to someone’s face.
Sasquatch, that’s the spirit!
Thunder, does your statement imply that I’d be afraid to talk to you the way I talk here because you are so big, strong and manly or something? That might qualify as tough talk…
Anyhow, put up some reasoned discussion, show a bit of flexibility, be able to support your viewpoint with reasoning instead of talking point regurgitation… I’m waiting… still.
Okay Thunder, to get back to the issue that was initially brought up. Jeff wants us to believe that there was a valid connection between Saddam and Bin Laden. If this is proven it will reafirm his argument that the war was a just cause.
To prove this he brings out as evidence for us to accept a pro right wing, pro Bush, pro war, author and his interview by a pro Bush and pro war network.
Without all the arguing and bickering shall those of us who are of a different mindset just say we do not accept your obviously biased and in our opinion tainted evidence.
When we have done this he resorts to snide juvenile and hostile remarks because we don’t accept his offering as devine proof that his position it truth.
I guess that just leaves those of us that choose to enter into these debates in our own little quagmire of dissent.
Hey Thunder,
I’ve apparently created a monster!!!
I appreciate your attempt to encourage the peanut gallery.
Does anyone else find it alarming that the only “credible sources” are the left-wing ones?
What incentive do they have to prove their own headlines wrong?
Was it danrather/cbs who exposed the forgery?
No, it was people like us. Thinking beyond the headlines.
So far, we’ve established that the left wing guys don’t like me, Fox, you, Bush, Halliburton, etc…
I’m hoping eventually someone will find this topic interesting and bring it up to date.
Oh, Sasquatch. Welcome back. I would hope you would be able to do more than tell me I’m wrong. Show me.
JeffR
Vroom,
“Thunder, does your statement imply that I’d be afraid to talk to you the way I talk here because you are so big, strong and manly or something?”
Nope - it doesn’t imply it at all.
“Anyhow, put up some reasoned discussion, show a bit of flexibility, be able to support your viewpoint with reasoning instead of talking point regurgitation… I’m waiting… still.”
You’re claiming never support my opinions with reasoning?
Let’s put that to a vote.
Elk,
“To prove this he brings out as evidence for us to accept a pro right wing, pro Bush, pro war, author and his interview by a pro Bush and pro war network.”
That’s fine. But here is the thing - if the pro-Bush guy got his facts wrong, then that should be what is debated. I don’t doubt Hayes isn’t a disinterested observer - he is clearly partisan.
But does that make his info wrong? You guys are doing nothing but engaging in ad hominem arguments - if he is wrong, then show why he is wrong. Being for the war doesn’t negate factual information.
I personally believe Saddam had terror ties - how tightly to OBL, I don’t know.
Certain explanations - like the fact that Saddam was ‘secular’ - won’t do, and ths issue needs to be explored further. OBL buried a religious rivalry that dates back to the 7th century in order to coordinate with Hezbollah, so why would it be all that bizarre to engage in a handshake deal with Saddam for some misery-inducing sarin gas?
So that neat and lazy answer has to be dismissed. I think Jeff’s point - and I could be wrong - was that as Iraq opens up and is investigated, we are finding more and more compelling relationships.
Here’s my take - supporters of the war no doubt will cheer if more and more evidence is uncovered regarding Saddam’s terror ties, specifically al Qaeda - all because they get vindicated.
I take a different tack - I think the deeper the relationships are, the worse news it is.
Jeff
Thank you for the welcome back.
I don’t happen to believe that there was any pre existing pairing of BL and S.H. Your “proof” does not change my opinion. I suppose I can’t prove my theory, as you haven’t been able to prove yours.
I gave you credit for past posts and the material therein. This thread contained nothing more than obviously biased “reporting” and softball interviews. You need to offer more. It is your job to substantiate your story, not mine to disprove.
I’ve seen no credible evidence, only some fairly obvious revisionist history to try and make some connection that wasn’t an issue until WMD fell through.
Quite honestly, you are better than relying soley on the information you have presented as basis for your assertion. We are there and I support our situation. I have strong feelings as to how and why we went there.
RSU if you are out there. Woodwards book and alot of related info that I have looked for since have been a real eye opener.
Thunder, I don’t save information that I have read or heard over the years. If I did then I could do a better job of proving my position.
That being said scanning through my memory banks there is nothing, I can recall that leads me to believe that there was any strong or threating tie between Bin and Saddam.
Maybe they did communicate at times since they both had a common enemy us. I still don’t think that was justification for invading Iraq and I don’t really believe there was a tie as the Bush camp promoted to push their agenda.
I think the war on terror which I am all for could have been conducted truthfully and a helluva lot better then Bush and company have gone about it.
I don’t trust Bush or any of his minions and though they may have had some specks of decency in their agenda, I think ultimately their actions have little to do with caring about the average American or Iraqi and more to do with their own interests.
I realize I could be wrong, but with my ability as a human being to use my brain and thought process that is the way I see it. To me there is enough circumstantial evidence for be to believe my postition is near the mark.
Thunder, I was not saying you never discuss issues, but was referring to this thread, as presumably were you.
In any case, with respect to the points you finally got around to making…
I think we need to see something a bit more damning than the odd meeting, conversation or person located inside of Iraq.
Of course there will be all kinds of meetings between all kinds of people. Some folks may choose to live in Iraq, either with or without direct sanction.
However, in order to claim “ties” between Al Queda and Iraq, we need to see something that represents the government of Iraq actively supporting or promoting the group.
It also isn’t necessarily fair to lump all kinds of fanatic groups together, and claim that being associated with one, especially before 9/11, is equivalent to being associated with Al Queda in a post 9/11 world.
Did Iraq do anything, anything at all that we know of, to plan, aid or abet terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks? Has anyone generated one item of evidence to suggest this?
What Jerffy managed to show is that a partisan hack was able to find that there were instances where contact between various people occured.
Strangely, if you looked hard enough, it wouldn’t be hard to claim that the US was invovled with terrorists, as it has very widespread relationships with Saudi’s, some of whom are directly related to Osama himself.
Jerffy has only given us smoke and mirrors, such that if each and every claim made were to be absolutely true, it still doesn’t mean anything concrete. Well, unless you are desperate to justify the administrations actions with respect to invading a country, sacrificing thousands of soldiers, spending billions of dollars, so that you don’t look foolish because there were no WMD’s.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Vroom,
“Thunder, does your statement imply that I’d be afraid to talk to you the way I talk here because you are so big, strong and manly or something?”
Nope - it doesn’t imply it at all.
“Anyhow, put up some reasoned discussion, show a bit of flexibility, be able to support your viewpoint with reasoning instead of talking point regurgitation… I’m waiting… still.”
You’re claiming never support my opinions with reasoning?
Let’s put that to a vote.[/quote]
Thunderbolt
You are dead on point. It’s supposed to be about debate but it rarely is so anymore. Vroom is by far one of the worst. If the mods banned personal insults and attacks for one day I don’t think he would get a post thru. There’s plenty of others that apply too. They really have very little in the way of opinion other then to be against someone else’s idea and when they get blasted it’s right to name calling. For christ sakes make a point, post a topic and then talk about. Constantly bashing the other guy is just boring.
Your also right about limiting participation, people just get annoyed and or bored with the constant whining. Ultimately that loses people and believe it or not I am sure that Biotest uses this board as a marketing device. It’s not about censorship, it’s about manners. Guys feel perfectly safe acting like douche bags on the internet and always proclaim they would be the same way in person. I sincerely doubt that. You act like a douche in public, at a gym or a bar, and somebody eventually kicks your ass. Fact of life. Maybe some of these guys are that annoying that they really act out like that in public. I doubt it though. Be clear I am not threatening anyome. I am pointing out that men don’t insult groups of men in public. They get tossed out or worse but rarely respected, admired or listned too.
Hey we have all stooped to do. It at some point and I can only imagine the response I will get. The regulars used to keep the real twits in check. So I am glad to see a movement to point this out. Who knows maybe things will change. Lot of good guys stopped posting here because of this childish bullshit. Like to see some of them comeback.
Some message boards have a rule. Stay on topic, no flames, etc. My two cents is that it would improve this board and garner a lot more participation. Like I said though, it would take away most of the content for some posters.
If we take this notion of causality: that is, Bin Laden and Hussein are connected, then we can also argue that the US is attacking itself insofar as there is clearly documented proof that various US regimes have supplied weapons/ tactical information/ money/ resources etc to both regimes/ men in the past…
Unless , of course, past actions don’t actually mean anything?
The one thing I have paid attention to now that I only read the political forums and no longer post here regularly is that Vroom and Elk are constantly getting into it with someone. I swear I can list at least fifteen different people who you guys pester to no end with your childish little internet arguments and name calling. It does bring the collective IQ of the political forums down and people who have an interest in politics simply stop contributing to threads. You’ve both always got an answer for everything and I have yet to see one of you be wrong in anything. I wish the mods would disallow personal attacks such as you are… “insert insult”. Sarcasm is one thing, being snide is one thing, but you two just never quit with the straight up name calling. Every damn post turns into a battle back and forth with everyone asking you to tone it down and you calling more names supposedly tacking the “hardcore” highground. I know for a fact that you two will probably respond to this post with several very cute personal attacks on me. Oh well my voice is heard, I will go back to sleep in politics again.
V