quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
What i find amazing in all your attacks on my viewpoints and in all your EXTREME ones is that most people here side with you. I guess 9/11 really did scare the beejezzus out of everyone to where cr@p like that above gets credence but the pattern of lies and half-truths by the Administration gets pass after pass because "it's all about the ends, stupid".
whomod, what i find about your political posts is that you speak on this issue as if you're the biblical representation of truth. our typhoid-feverish friend also sometimes slips into that mode.

like, as if whatever you say is not only right, but clearly and undeniably right to such an inane and obvious degree no mortal could possibly counter.

thus, the meager gathering of individuals here that do attempt to speak against your wishes are breaking the laws of logic.

not to disappoint you, but... that aint kosher.
Not asking disrespectfully but asking nonethless, may I ask why Dave TWB and some of the more condescending "liberals are stupid" posters don't get the same speech?

quote:
im not saying your points or claims or theories or postulates (math?) are wrong. hell, i haven't a damn clue. but your thinking that this is a clear-cut, "how can you possibly disagree" issue is not only unfair and uncalled for... its not right.

this is obviously a torn scenario. argued and debated by thousands of people much more intelligent than ... well... me. i mean, let us not forget, we're all justa buncha internet message board posters, after all, who have little-to-no access on behind the scenes info.

wonder dave's posts have been very similar from the other side of the fence, though i don't typically see his posts using the same condescending "what are you thinking?!" tone. not as much, anyway. (granted, since on this issue i'm more inclined to side closer with the wonder dave, my views are more than likely skewed, just like everyone else's)
This is what I was hinting at above, obviously. Some of Dave TWB's statements, especially when responding to T-Dave, sound awfully combative and defensive (I tend to notice it more when directed at others and outright dismiss hostility aimed at myself, it's something borne out of the necessity of my job) . Maybe there's some back history between them. i dunno. I'm just of the opinion that perhaps it's the fact that Dave TWB is closer to your and some others political biases and comfort zones so my position will undoubtedly come off as more shrill and propagandaish wheras Dave TWB's will sound more factual/heroic.

I do try to back up my posts and not with postings from "liberal attack sites" as i've been accused of plagarising from. Perhaps this is where the impression gets built that I have "the absolute truth that no mortal can possibly counter". That's the idea. It's because I try to do my homework (to the 9th degree even) so it won't get blown full of holes afterwards. After all, i'm always aware that my opinion and politics are unpopular and in the extreme minority here. I'm also aware of the fact that I'm not really well studied on the art of debate and the mechanics that are used by those who are. I'm actually quite concious of Dave's charge of me plagarising liberal sites so I go out of my way (at least of late) to rely on Administration quotes (especially quotes), memory, legitimete news sources, and then combine that with archives, clippings, and a search engine to refesh my memory and then post it here to make my points and reminders. But even then i'm reminded that the media itself is not to be trusted since they carry the taint of "liberalism". It's really a no-win situation. Damned if you don't provide specifics but damned twice if you do since you've obviously been duped somehwere along the line. Just have faith man! Oy!

quote:
now, to address the "pot, meet mr. kettle" argument... i dont mean to attack you or overly critique you or anything similar. im not posting here with a furled (furled?) brow or finger-fists. and, shit, if you'd like to keep posting however you're comfortable, by all means! i permit free reign, and you're ... permitted! dont change on my account.

what i am trying to do is just share a little third-person-perspective on how your arguments (in here -- haven't noticed a similar attitude in other of your posts) come across sometimes.


I'm a bit lost here... The only time I used a quote about kettles calling pots black was in regards to breaking UN resolutions and doing buisness with Iraq despite sanctions and I brought Halliburton of all companies into the discussion as a shining example. I dunno. Maybe I do use a sledgehammer. But by damn hypocrisy does frustrate me so. Like I said, perhaps I'm intruding on comfort zones. After all a lot to do with politics and Iraq post 9/11 has been based on faith and trust. Some of you have it in spades and some like me have none (at least in regards to some of the neocons in the Bush Admin.). I try to make my points by bringing up undisputable nonpartisan stuff like the SEC reports and government studies, reports, and sources from WITHIN the Administration (some buried or altered) that prove my points and deflate any charges of partisanship. But again, I think some people don't want to know as long as something is being done to bring some measure of comfort and security in their lives. Again, nothing I say (as far as i'm concerned) is political attack. It's just facts from as many nonpolitical sources as I can find and recall. The intention of course is not to empower the enemy but to strengthen our understanding of the issue at hand, even if it means shattering allusions and stepping on toes people don't really want stepped on or think it inappropriate to step on in "these times". After all, my goal is your goal, to preserve the American way of life and to NOT LET THE TERRORISTS WIN. When we start talking about whole groups of people being suspect on account of their religion, when we start enacting legislation that runs counter to the U.S. Constitution, when we allow a climate of fear and (self)censorship to prevade the mass media, when we attack anyone and try to ruin their livelihood because they dare to dislike the President, when we allow people on one end of the political spectrum to call any opposing viewpoints "traitors" well haven't the terrorists won then?? I mean tell me, apart from the glee some of you feel of "my side" winning, would you feel comfortable in a country where your politics are called treasonous by some and bestsellers are published and sold by some people who openly call for your incarceration or murder with absolutely no feelings that "hey, perhaps we've gone a bit too far here". Is this really America anymore? Or have the terrorists actually succeeded in doing what they set out to do, terrorize us and destroy our tolerant, democratic way of life?

Here, let me share this bit from Bill Maher's show between Maher and Gen. Clark which I thought was worth repeating

quote:
MAHER: I want to read you a quote, because I’m not saying whether you’re going to get into this or not, but Howard Dean, who is apparently the front runner now for the Democrats, he said last week, he said, “In Vermont, politics is much further to the left.” He said, “A Vermont centrist is an American liberal.”

And then his campaign manager came out and said, “That’s not an admission he’s a liberal.” [laughter] Which, quite frankly, pissed me off. Because somehow they hijacked that word, “liberal.”

Now, you’re a Democrat. You said that last week.

CLARK: Absolutely.

MAHER: Okay. [applause] I’m just – I’m just wondering, of all the people who has the credentials to say, “liberal” is not a bad word, I’m wondering if I could get you to say that.

CLARK: Well, I’ll say it right now.

MAHER: Good for you.

CLARK: We live in a liberal democracy.

MAHER: Right.

CLARK: That’s what we created in this country. [applause] That’s our—

MAHER: That’s right. Thank you.

CLARK: That’s in our Constitution. [applause continue] Let me follow on this, okay? I think we should be very clear on this. You know, this country was founded on the principals of the Enlightenment.

MAHER: Right.

CLARK: It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn’t founded on the idea that someone would get stuck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can’t lose that in this country. We’ve got to get it back. [applause]

MAHER: Thank you.

CLARK: I’d like to follow that. Can I follow that?

MAHER: Yes.

CLARK: Because, you know, a lot of people have said, “What are you interested in? Why would you even consider running?” And they say, “Isn’t it just about Iraq?” It really isn’t. Iraq is part of it. I think the foreign policy has serious problems.

MAHER: Right.

CLARK: But I think the economy and the way the administration has dealt with the economy has serious problems. But more fundamental than that, it’s about what kind of country we want to live in. I think this nation wants open, transparent government. I think it likes a two-party system. I think it likes to hear reasoned dialogue, not labeling, name-calling and hateful politics. [applause] And I think 2004 is the election that voters have to put that back in.
Now don't you think saying the media is liberal, any opposing viewpoints apart from the Administration POV is liberal lies, that liberals are destroying America, that liberals control the media, that liberals should be tried for treason, that liberals this , that liberals that, is caustic, jihadist partisanship, and unreasonable?? Some here don't seem to think so. It's everything Bush says is to be trusted implicitly regardless of what revelations or contradictions or no-bid contracts are awarded and anything counter to that is to be instantly dismissed and attacked. In other words, a game. A game where "my side" needs to win no matter what. No matter what tactics it takes to silence, discredit, gain public office, and intimidate.
quote:
my personal opinion, as i've said before, is that i really hate posting in threads like this because thats often the viewpoint taken by many of the protagonists. its silly for me to post, because, why bother? no one is listening. i'm only posting here again now because i'm retarded (one and all, feel free to quote that in a signature).

but i think if maybe each half was a little more willing to understand the rule of "just cuz i say it, doesn't make it true," ...this thread'd be a lot more pleasant to frequent.

...minus the bill mahr pics.
I had to post the Bill Maher pic because......TA DAA, I like his smirk. I'll counter your smirk with mine and all that [wink]
His website has finally updated his show transcripts by the way. This by far was my favourite ep. of the season. The one with Gen. Wesley Clark, Wolf Blitzer (trying to look dignified all throughout), D.L. Hughley and Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard (w/ Al Franken via sattellite).
http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/print/t_hbo_realtime_090503.htm

This thread is oodles of pleasure! [nyah hah] !10! pages. This is a sucessful thread Rob! [cool] [wink]

I don't think my intention is that i'm right and you're wrong, just that sometimes I think the Administration isn't being entirely factual and I have to bring it up. However feelings towards the Administration get internalized is entirely up to each indivudual I guess. I remeber back in the 9th grade, i'd routinely laugh at Culture Club and one guy that would hang around our group of freinds (who was a HUGE fan) would take it as a personal attack on him wheras I didn't have a clue anyone would ever equate dislike of a bad pop band=attack on me. Pop bands are fallible and sometimes full of shit, and so are people. No one is infallible and not everyone is honest, no matter what letter (R or D) comes after his name on the eveing news. To beleive otherwise is wishful thinking or even downright delusional. To belelive that discourse and political parties in America are now a matter or right or wrong or even life or death IMO is dangerous and completely unacfceptable and UnAmerican. Shit, I was watching the Cali debate and McClintock made the most sense out of any of the canidates. Should I remind myself that i'm being treasonous to "my side" if I think so?

But honestly, the whole of Islam is our enemy?? And i'm the unpleasant one??

BSAMS: Youy know that's just silly. No one want Sadaam to return. The argument is that it could have been handled more diplomatically, with the cooperation of the U.N., un-unilaterally, and (IMO) more honestly. We'd certainly be in better shape post-war, Sadaam would be dealt with (or not-honestly I gave a rats arse about Sadaam, I'm concerned with Bin Laden, the Saudi's and the Paki's 3 sources that have infinetely more to do with 9/11 than sadaam did if he ever did at all!), we wouldn't be single-handedly footing the massive bill and draining of military resources and the Administration wouldn't be on the defensive right now, that's for certain. Whatever side of the political spectrum you're on, you can see that this war wasn't exactly well thought out past the fighting (and utopian vision) part.

As far as the Kay report... [no no no] What can I say. I'll let the downplaying of it's signifigance as of late speak for itself (but of course i'll provide a few reminders of the past).

quote:
"Dr. Kay will be putting out a report in the very near future, and I look forward to seeing it, as everyone else does." - Colin Powell

[Kay has been]"compiling massive amounts of documents about Iraq's history of weapons of mass destruction" - White House spokesman Scott McClellan

"I would not count on reports" from Kay. "I suppose there may be interim reports". "I don't know when those will be, and I don't know what the public nature of them will be." - Condaleeza Rice on Monday.
I think someone just pissed off the CIA

CIA seeks probe of White House
Agency asks Justice to investigate leak of employee’s identity


http://www.nettrustcentral.com/war/