[quote]vroom wrote:
You can’t possibly make and spend enough money to absolutely protect our borders or make security impenetrable.
That doesn’t mean an upgrade in security would not be beneficial, just not absolute.
Sasquatch,
That is decidely unfair. Nobody can say for sure we are 100% safe now either. You should at least try to hold all issues to the same standard.
Talking about see-saws being tilted. At least I’ll distance myself from fringe left wing stances, ne’er do I see you turkeys distance yourself from nutjobs like Jerffy.[/quote]
what fringe left wing stances do you distance yourself from?
vroom, you know I love ya, but I call bs on that one.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
it’s nice to see Professor X has relegated himself to only answering points raised by people who agree with him. It should certainly save him time, if nothing else.
[/quote]
Why then have I answered Zeb and Vegita directly about what they have asked? Oh, that’s right. You were lying.
[quote]what fringe left wing stances do you distance yourself from?
vroom, you know I love ya, but I call bs on that one.[/quote]
Of course you do Joe because you are another blind lemming, generally stating very little of your own and taking pot shots at those who do take the time and effort to actually express an opinion on something.
I will disagree with the likes of Al or JTF when they go overboard with their efforts – pointing to fringe material.
You wouldn’t notice, but I generally discuss my own thoughts, not simply regurgitate talking points… unlike some others. However, often these are misinterpreted as what you folks would rather I said so that you or a few other neocons can make easy pot shots.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
it’s nice to see Professor X has relegated himself to only answering points raised by people who agree with him. It should certainly save him time, if nothing else.
Why then have I answered Zeb and Vegita directly about what they have asked? Oh, that’s right. You were lying.[/quote]
nope, just referring to how you’d stopped talking to the other side and were now patting yourself on the back with the help of moriarty etc.
Careful about accusing me of lying, Professor Strawman.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
it’s nice to see Professor X has relegated himself to only answering points raised by people who agree with him. It should certainly save him time, if nothing else.
Why then have I answered Zeb and Vegita directly about what they have asked? Oh, that’s right. You were lying.[/quote]
and why did you not answer me directly but rather change the subject to something I didn’t say?
Starts wtih s…ends with n…
[quote]vroom wrote:
You can’t possibly make and spend enough money to absolutely protect our borders or make security impenetrable.
That doesn’t mean an upgrade in security would not be beneficial, just not absolute.
Sasquatch,
That is decidely unfair. Nobody can say for sure we are 100% safe now either. You should at least try to hold all issues to the same standard.
Talking about see-saws being tilted. At least I’ll distance myself from fringe left wing stances, ne’er do I see you turkeys distance yourself from nutjobs like Jerffy.[/quote]
No one can ever be “100% safe” regardless of who is in charge and what plan is put forth. Part of the plan behind the attack on Iraq was to draw out the terrorists. This has worked rather well. There are indeed many terrorists’ attacks…in Iraq! They don’t happen to be occurring in the USA.
Naturally, one can sit back and claim that they would not have happened in the USA anyway. We will never know! However, like any good plan, it does seem to have worked!
President Bush has moved the war on terror over seas. You (and many others) can question him about this. You can complain that there is still terror. You can whine about Osama not yet being captured. However, I will simply thank him for giving us 3 1/2 years of no terrorism on our shores!
Zeb, this may or may not have been true. You will hopefully acknowledge that the issue of how and why the war was started is under contention in these parts.
My concern is that the war should be started based on issues and approval upon those issues. I feel that it was started based on pushing for blanket approval due to “with us or against us” language based on fear.
If the government had done the work to sell the causes that you folks often bring up and talk about, then I wouldn’t feel queasy about the war at all. I’ve stated many times that force is a legitimate tool of diplomacy.
This has nothing to do with “Bush” or “left vs right”. It’s simply about how the war machine was packaged and sold by the media. It doesn’t match the verbage used by some folks around these parts.
[quote]vroom wrote:
This has nothing to do with “Bush” or “left vs right”. It’s simply about how the war machine was packaged and sold by the media. It doesn’t match the verbage used by some folks around these parts.[/quote]
It’s totally partisan, vroom. The ABB crowd wants to use this as a reason to defeat Bush, or at least have a reason to bitch about him.
I mean - look at ProfX’s posts - absolutely nothing but “Bush lied, people died” bullshit. It has nothing to do with the war ‘machine’ and everything to do with Bush.
And here I’d been thinking that the way the war was packaged and sold via the media was reflected in the prepackaged pablum regurgitated here by Elk and POX.
–Blind Mississippi Lemming
I think the “with us or against us” mentality had to be used. Breaking resolutions that Saddam did, if nothing else, would of gotten a “Well, lets talk about this, guys…” from NATO. You can’t negotiate with terrorists. No one wants to step up to the plate (except Bush)
[quote]Professor X wrote:
-An increase in terrorist attacks across the globe in response
check
[/quote]
Bullshit. Prove it with something other than just your word. It has no value down here anymore.
Plus - you might want to compare some numbers you throw out to prove the sky is falling. Pick ANY three year period in a previous war Viet Nam, Korea, WWII, or WWI. And post the casualty report for those 3 years.
I know you won’t because it would make you look like the partisan ABB hack that you are proving yourself to be.
And while your at it, adjust the money spent in Europe for reconstruction to today’s dollars, and then tell me we are over spendiing in Iraq. But you won’t. You would hate to be proven wrong by the facts.
Prof, I thought we just hashed this whole thing out over our last 6 or 7 posts and then you come back with a statement like this. At first this was your position, then I gave mine that being in Iraq would actually support not detract from the WOT. You gave reasons why it would detract, I gave reasons why it would support, and at the end or our discussion, you yourself said, time will tell. Which in my mind means that both arguments have valid points and only time will tell which side is the correct version. Yet here, you don’t see how anyone can see it any differently. Well since I just spent about 7 posts on as clearly as I can informing you of how someone might think the WOT would be supported by the war in Iraq and that Someone like me doesn’t think saddam was a target because we couldn’t find OBL, or to distract people away from him. It’s obvious you must not have read any of my posts, either that or you don’t regard me with any amount of respect to value my ability to think on my own and form a valid opinion of a situation all be it different than your opinion.
Basically what I’m trying to tell you is that I probably won’t be exchanging any ideas with you due to your complete lack of being open minded and objective. I’m not saying you needed to embrace my ideas as they are gospel or anything, but to state you don’t see how they can exist tells me something about you. Also, I know you probably don’t care, but you know… just making sure ya know. Feel free to disregard this message as well.
[quote]copper0521 wrote:
I don’t understand why flipping the bird is such a big deal. Let’s be honest liberals; giving the finger does not compare to receiving oral in the oval office and lying to the country. However, many American’s must feel it is, because George has an approval rating in the mid forties.
That’s actually about 10 points lower than Clinton’s was after the country found out about him screwing the pig. Also, this is lower than any 2nd term President; and lower than any President for over 50 years…incredible. Even more amazing, over 70% of the country does not approve of his economy.
I happen to be an independant; but, my votes and opinions reflect how the economy is doing(horrible by the way, ask my stocks), and more importantly, HOMELAND SECURITY. [/quote]
Does anybody else take these figures into consideration? I thought some of these numbers were astonishing.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
I must be a bit slow because I never actually understood how rampaging through Iraq was helping the ‘War on Terror’. ‘War of Terror’ more like it. Or ‘War to create more Terror’.
As I am talking mainly to the pro-war crowd here, I’ll give you a very simple analogy.
If Bill throws stones through your window, do you go and also beat up Bob who lives at the end of Bill’s street, because you don’t like him very much and beating up Bill wasn’t enough for you?
Since we’re keeping it simple…
If Bob was selling Bill the rocks, then he needs his ass kicked right along side Bill. I’d do what ever it took to keep anyone from breaking my windows again.
The problem with the anti-war crowd is they think that their broken window is their fault - and the only way to stop it is to not have anymore windows. They would board up their windows with plywood, and sit in the dark, thinking that they had actually solved the problem.
[/quote]
No, Rick, I don’t think that. I think you should beat the living shit out of whoever broke your window, then go home. I am no apologist for terrorism. I’m no total peacenik- I just believe in punishing those responsible, not someone you have a hard-on for because your daddy wanted to give them a beating 10 years before and didn’t finish the job.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Bullshit. Prove it with something other than just your word. It has no value down here anymore.[/quote]
I did that already. Your comment here just proves that not only do you not read what others post, but you may be the one with no cred. I posted this two pages ago.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
It’s totally partisan, vroom. The ABB crowd wants to use this as a reason to defeat Bush, or at least have a reason to bitch about him.
I mean - look at ProfX’s posts - absolutely nothing but “Bush lied, people died” bullshit. It has nothing to do with the war ‘machine’ and everything to do with Bush.
[/quote]
The war machine was based on false intel. People in this thread have let it be known that they thought the war in Iraq was directly related to the World Trade Center tragedy. That means the machine of war was operating on the fear of the American people, not some attempt to provide freedom for those in Iraq initially. It would be foolish to only blame Bush and not include the entire administration and the media.
[quote]copper0521 wrote:
Does anybody else take these figures into consideration? I thought some of these numbers were astonishing.[/quote]
His numbers were also consistently higher for longer than any other president in history for several years after Sept. 11th… So who cares about the numbers? It’s not as if they are at 0, like John Kerry’s, Ralph Nader’s, or David Duke’s.
Also, your bad stocks don’t make a bad economy. Neither does your saying “it’s bad” make it bad.