|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
I'm wholly unconvinced that one can or should compare postWWII German and European reconstruction to the war in Iraq and its reconstruction. Your whole comparison starts off with two "ifs."
Well, goody for you.
It is a comparison of one U.S. occupation with another. I might add that there were cries of inevitable failure in Germany and Japan in the U.S. media during those reconstructions as well. Including a LIFE magazine cover story in 1946, with the cover headline: "Are We Losing the Peace in Germany?"
And regardless of the comparison, it is liberal divisiveness and constant calls for withdrawal that manifests wavering commitment to the Iraqi people, emboldens and prolongs resistance, and thus endangers the troops on the ground.
The same troops liberals posture and allege to support.
The structure of the peace in Europe had been decided by the major parties both at Bretton Woods and Iran before the end of the fighting. The USA would step up to it's position as hegemone of the world west of the Elbe River and oversee the peace. The other players were in no position to argue about it so they signed on. Apparently Henry Luce didn't get the memo. The notion of liberal media had yet to be invented and no one considered Luce liberal about anything.
Most of the constitution concerns itself with the structure and function of the mechanics of government. The Bill of Rights, however, grants all Americans, liberal or conservative, the press or blogger, the right to express their opinion.
We all support the troops. We all pay the taxes that have made this war possible as will our children. Wars aren't lost by dissension at home. They are lost by the politicians and commanders in charge of the troops. The leaders are constrained by the people's intolerance of casualties and lack of enthusiasm for imperialist policies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I would just point out it's the RNC that produced the fundraising ad that takes quotes out of contexts. As the Slate article points out the RNC even takes a comment Boxer made that repeats what Rumsfield said 2 weeks before?!? Care to explain?
Boxer's comments are in a negative connotation, implying that U.S. troops in Iraq are losing and/or destructive to Iraq, and to remove them prematurely before Iraq's own army is ready to take over operations. ...
I doubt she agrees with how the quote was used or the implications you read into them. Here is what she said...
Boxer: They keep saying -- the President says, and Rumsfeld says, that there's 200,000 Iraqi trained troops. Fine. Let them defend their own country. We cannot do this forever. No country survives when foreign troops are in there defending the country. They have to do this.
So there's no specific timeframe, but I would say the withdrawal ought to start now, right after the elections, December 15th. We've gone up before the elections, as John Kerry said. We can start bringing those troop levels down, and I'd like to start with the National Guard.
I don't see where she's implying that the troops are losing/or destructive to Iraq. She is saying Iraq has enough troops to do what they need to be doing. And again the bit the RNC picks out is what Rumsfield said 2 weeks before.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
I just quoted a Rumsfeld interview on PBS a few days ago, on page 45 of the "It's not about oil or Iraq..." topic
HERE
The difference between Boxer's and Rumsfeld's public comments is:
Barbara Boxer advocates pulling out immediately after the Iraqi election (today, Dec 15th), whether the Iraqis are ready or not. That they should be ready and trained to defend themselves, and if they can't, too fucking bad, we're leaving. Let them sink or swim on their own at this point.
Donald Rumsfeld advocates that we think we can start to pull out troops after the election and are planning to do that. But if the Iraqis need us, no guarantees of pullout, we're ready to back them up all the way.
Also, when you place Barbara Boxer's remarks next to those of other Democrat leaders such as Howard Dean and Dick Durbin, it is difficult to see Boxer's remarks as anything but a continuation of the daily slander of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq, and another attempt to paint it as a bungled operation we need to withdraw in failure from.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Also, when you place Barbara Boxer's remarks next to those of other Democrat leaders such as Howard Dean and Dick Durbin, it is difficult to see Boxer's remarks as anything but a continuation of the daily slander of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq, and another attempt to paint it as a bungled operation we need to withdraw in failure from.
God, how you ramble! Senator Boxer has a very safe seat from The Golden State. We like her. We elected her then re-elected her twice. She speaks for her constituancy. So throw us treasonous Californians out of the Union! I dare you! I double dog dare you! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 1
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 1 |
Whoa. The double dog dare. Ralphie's gotta lick the pole now.
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Killconey said:
Whoa. The double dog dare. Ralphie's gotta lick the pole now.
Triple dog dare, not double dog.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 1
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 1 |
...
I am defeated. On the bright side, California's still a part of the Union!
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
I just quoted a Rumsfeld interview on PBS a few days ago, on page 45 of the "It's not about oil or Iraq..." topic
HERE
The difference between Boxer's and Rumsfeld's public comments is:
Barbara Boxer advocates pulling out immediately after the Iraqi election (today, Dec 15th), whether the Iraqis are ready or not. That they should be ready and trained to defend themselves, and if they can't, too fucking bad, we're leaving. Let them sink or swim on their own at this point.
If you read the entire interview you would know that is not her position.
WALLACE: No, I just wanted to ask you, though, you talk about a clear timeframe for pulling the troops out. As far as the Iraqis standing up and defending their own country, I'm sure the president would say that that's his policy, too. You say you want a clear timeframe for pulling the troops out. What is a clear timeframe?
BOXER: I've never said an exact timeframe. I think you need to be flexible on it. But the fact is it's time to tell the Iraqis we will not be there indefinitely.
And I think one of the points that the Congressman Murtha made when he came up with his proposal is we're talking about a redeployment. Many of those troops will stay in the region. They could be called back for specific raids, to help clear out a town. They don't have to be there as targets. I think it's very important.
...
So you have a timeframe based on their ability to stand up.
FOX News
Boxer isn't saying cut & run, just that it's time to start letting Iraq step into it's own.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
Killconey said:
...
I am defeated. On the bright side, California's still a part of the Union!
Just kidding. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 1
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Quote:
Killconey said:
...
I am defeated. On the bright side, California's still a part of the Union!
Just kidding.
C'mon, that would totally ruin the "Fifty Nifty United States" and we can never allow that. California stays.
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
I just quoted a Rumsfeld interview on PBS a few days ago, on page 45 of the "It's not about oil or Iraq..." topic
HERE
The difference between Boxer's and Rumsfeld's public comments is:
Barbara Boxer advocates pulling out immediately after the Iraqi election (today, Dec 15th), whether the Iraqis are ready or not. That they should be ready and trained to defend themselves, and if they can't, too fucking bad, we're leaving. Let them sink or swim on their own at this point.
If you read the entire interview you would know that is not her position.
WALLACE: No, I just wanted to ask you, though, you talk about a clear timeframe for pulling the troops out. As far as the Iraqis standing up and defending their own country, I'm sure the president would say that that's his policy, too. You say you want a clear timeframe for pulling the troops out. What is a clear timeframe?
BOXER: I've never said an exact timeframe. I think you need to be flexible on it. But the fact is it's time to tell the Iraqis we will not be there indefinitely.
And I think one of the points that the Congressman Murtha made when he came up with his proposal is we're talking about a redeployment. Many of those troops will stay in the region. They could be called back for specific raids, to help clear out a town. They don't have to be there as targets. I think it's very important.
...
So you have a timeframe based on their ability to stand up.
FOX News
Boxer isn't saying cut & run, just that it's time to start letting Iraq step into it's own.
In other words, like Dick Durbin and Howard Dean before her, she's backpedaling from stronger remarks she made prior to the interview you quoted.
Ive seen her make stronger remarks on PBS news and elsewhere, prior to the interview you quote.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
I just quoted a Rumsfeld interview on PBS a few days ago, on page 45 of the "It's not about oil or Iraq..." topic
HERE
The difference between Boxer's and Rumsfeld's public comments is:
Barbara Boxer advocates pulling out immediately after the Iraqi election (today, Dec 15th), whether the Iraqis are ready or not. That they should be ready and trained to defend themselves, and if they can't, too fucking bad, we're leaving. Let them sink or swim on their own at this point.
If you read the entire interview you would know that is not her position.
WALLACE: No, I just wanted to ask you, though, you talk about a clear timeframe for pulling the troops out. As far as the Iraqis standing up and defending their own country, I'm sure the president would say that that's his policy, too. You say you want a clear timeframe for pulling the troops out. What is a clear timeframe?
BOXER: I've never said an exact timeframe. I think you need to be flexible on it. But the fact is it's time to tell the Iraqis we will not be there indefinitely.
And I think one of the points that the Congressman Murtha made when he came up with his proposal is we're talking about a redeployment. Many of those troops will stay in the region. They could be called back for specific raids, to help clear out a town. They don't have to be there as targets. I think it's very important.
...
So you have a timeframe based on their ability to stand up.
FOX News
Boxer isn't saying cut & run, just that it's time to start letting Iraq step into it's own.
In other words, like Dick Durbin and Howard Dean before her, she's backpedaling from stronger remarks she made prior to the interview you quoted.
Ive seen her make stronger remarks on PBS news and elsewhere, prior to the interview you quote.
Senator Boxer has no need to backpedal. Her position is in line with the majority of her constituents. She has no ambitions beyond Senator from California and doesn't need to coddle conservatives.
Everybody cheer for the nice Jewish girl from Marin County!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
In other words, like Dick Durbin and Howard Dean before her, she's backpedaling from stronger remarks she made prior to the interview you quoted.
Ive seen her make stronger remarks on PBS news and elsewhere, prior to the interview you quote.
Those quotes were from the same interview the RNC used for their surrender ad. The quote they took out of context is towards the end. I think such an ugly negative portayal really demands that the burden of proof lay at those making it.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
In other words, like Dick Durbin and Howard Dean before her, she's backpedaling from stronger remarks she made prior to the interview you quoted.
Ive seen her make stronger remarks on PBS news and elsewhere, prior to the interview you quote.
Those quotes were from the same interview the RNC used for their surrender ad. The quote they took out of context is towards the end. I think such an ugly negative portayal really demands that the burden of proof lay at those making it.
I fail to see how Boxer was misrepresented. Sen Boxer herself misrepresented the Bush administration as not having a plan.
In her earlier comments, she basically said: The Bush administration says we have 200,000 trained Iraqis. So we should be able to pull out immediately after the election, and if the Bush administration is telling the truth, they should be able to defend their country themselves from this point.
Not everything in the opening news segments is posted online, but that's the gist of it.
But even that statement by Boxer, or the quoted comments in the Fox interview of Boxer you keep referring to, constantly refers to the need to withdraw, (1) for Bush to produce some timetable for withdrawal, and (2) Boxer and other Democrats then backpedal and say "Well, we're not demanding a timetable..."
Well, which is it, they are or they aren't?
It's a total, bogus liberal smear campaign, with no substance, except to say no matter what Bush does, it's wrong.
Here's a link to a Republican site that deconstructs the flaws in Sen Boxer's arguments, even the more mild and retracted comments she made in the FOX interview.
And here is an example of Sen. Boxer's style of operating that really sends my contempt for the woman into overdrive.
From January of this year, at Condoleeza Rice's confirmation heaing as Secretary of State:
Quote:
[[PBS news reporter ]KWAME HOLMAN: Condoleezza Rice came before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this morning prepared to answer questions on a wide range of foreign policy issues: The U.S. Involvement in Iraq and Middle East peace; the nuclear capabilities of Iran and North Korea; aids in Africa; the massacre in Darfur; and relief for victims of the tsunamis.
However, Rice opened her testimony by pledging to institute a fundamental change in the direction of American foreign policy, different from the directions it took over the past four years.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Sept. 11, 2001, was a defining moment for our nation and for the world. Under the vision and leadership of President Bush, our nation has risen to meet the challenges of our time, fighting tyranny and terror and securing the blessings of freedom and prosperity for a new generation.
The work that America and our allies have undertaken and the sacrifices we have made have been difficult and necessary and right. Now is the time to build on these achievements to make the world safer, and to make the world more free. We must use American diplomacy to help create a balance of power in the world that favors freedom. The time for diplomacy is now.
KWAME HOLMAN: As expected, questions about Iraq dominated the hearing, most of them about U.S. Involvement once elections are held. However, it was California Democrat Barbara Boxer who challenged Rice over the reasons for going to war in the first place, and it led to this exchange.
SEN. BARBARA BOXER: On July 30, 2003, you were asked by PBS NewsHour's Gwen Ifill if you continued to stand by the claims you made about Saddam's nuclear program in the days and months leading up to the war. In what appears to be an effort to downplay the nuclear weapons scare tactics you used before the war, your answer was, and I quote, "It was a case that said he was trying to reconstitute. He's trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year." So that's what you said to the American people on television-- "Nobody ever said it was going to be the next year."
Well, that wasn't true, because nine months before you said this to the American people, what had George Bush said, President Bush, at his speech at the Cincinnati Museum Center? "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." So here you are, contradicting, first contradicting the president and then contradicting yourself. So it's hard to even ask you a question about this, because you are on the record basically taking two sides of an issue.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Senator, I have to say that I have never, ever lost respect for the truth in the service of anything. It is not my nature. It is not my character. And I would hope that we can have this conversation and discuss what happened before and what went on before and what I said without impugning my credibility or my integrity. It was the total picture, Senator, not just weapons of mass destruction, that caused us to decide that, post-Sept. 11, it was finally time to deal with Saddam Hussein.
SEN. BARBARA BOXER: Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote. But again, I just feel you quote President Bush when it suits you but you contradicted him when he said, "Yes, Saddam could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." You go on television nine months later and said, "nobody ever said it was..."
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Senator, that was just a question of pointing out to people that there was an uncertainty. That no one was saying that he would have to have a weapon within a year for it to be worth it to go to war.
SEN. BARBARA BOXER: Well, if you can't admit to this mistake, I hope that you'll rethink it.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Senator, we can have this discussion in any way that you would like. But I really hope that you will refrain from impugning my integrity. Thank you very much.
SEN. BARBARA BOXER: I'm not. I'm just quoting what you said.
Although she's clearly not "just quoting" Rice, is she ?
Anyone can plainly see in the quoted remarks that the alleged "contradiction" that Boxer quotes of Rice is not a contradiction at all.
Rice agreed with, and was consistent with, President Bush's quote, who said that Saddam Hussein could be able to produce a nuclear weapon within one year.
Not that he absolutely could. But that Hussein was seeking it.
And that the Bush administration took preventive action to avoid that potential.
The same potential that was not forseen in North Korea. But happened sooner than expected.
The same potential that was not forseen in Libya. but happened sooner than expected.
The same potential that was not forseen in Iran. But now may happen sooner than expected.
And Sen. Boxer just snottily repeated her false allegation over and over, for the TV cameras, and for her liberal voters who despise Bush and are eager to hear any new allegations against Bush's staff, no matter how groundless, and spread them across the media as absolute fact.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
...
I fail to see how Boxer was misrepresented. Sen Boxer herself misrepresented the Bush administration as not having a plan.
In her earlier comments, she basically said: The Bush administration says we have 200,000 trained Iraqis. So we should be able to pull out immediately after the election, and if the Bush administration is telling the truth, they should be able to defend their country themselves from this point.
She's saying we can start pulling out troops after the election starting with the National Guard. Remember she said "So you have a timeframe based on their ability to stand up." I understand that as being a case where we start withdrawing troops at a rate dependent on how well the Iraqi's step into place. The RNC calls that surrender? It might be hard for you to understand but Boxer is actually taking flack from some liberals for not just demanding the troops be pulled immediatley. This is from sometime around July at the Huffington post. Huffington Post The RNC was certainly misrepresenting her comment since it was almost identical to Rumsfeld's made 2 weeks prior.
Quote:
Not everything in the opening news segments is posted online, but that's the gist of it.
But even that statement by Boxer, or the quoted comments in the Fox interview of Boxer you keep referring to, constantly refers to the need to withdraw, (1) for Bush to produce some timetable for withdrawal, and (2) Boxer and other Democrats then backpedal and say "Well, we're not demanding a timetable..."
Well, which is it, they are or they aren't?
Boxer isn't demanding a timetable chisseled in stone but one that allows the Iraqi's to start doing their own defending. Isn't that our goal? What would be the reason not to start taking the next step?
Quote:
It's a total, bogus liberal smear campaign, with no substance, except to say no matter what Bush does, it's wrong.
Well this liberal first heard the White House compare Murtha to Michael Moore one day & then they say what a great guy he his on another & that we should be having an honest debate about Iraq. Then they send out the attack dogs to do the bashing that they want to do but are to cowardly to do themselves. Remember it was the RNC that did the ad.
Quote:
Here's a link to a Republican site that deconstructs the flaws in Sen Boxer's arguments, even the more mild and retracted comments she made in the FOX interview.
This is just a Republican smear site. This partisan blogger uses the same technique as the RNC ad. I'll just stick to what she really said, thanks all the same.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Boxer isn't saying cut & run, just that it's time to start letting Iraq step into it's own.
So you're insisting that Boxer agrees with the Bush plan? I wish she'd just come out and say thet. It would help to avoid confusion. Regardless, glad to see she's on our side.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Boxer isn't saying cut & run, just that it's time to start letting Iraq step into it's own.
So you're insisting that Boxer agrees with the Bush plan? I wish she'd just come out and say thet. It would help to avoid confusion. Regardless, glad to see she's on our side.
No the difference is Boxer says it's time to start withdrawing troops now & continue withdrawing troops using some timetable dependent on how well Iraqi's can handle the change over. Bush has no timetable that feeds the insurgents' claims that we're not leaving & gives them support.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Iraq vote leaves Dems looking like the losers Well, that old Iraqi quagmire just keeps getting worse and worse, if only for the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party have contrived to get themselves into a situation where bad news from Iraq is good for them and good news from Iraq is bad for them. And as there's a lot more good news than bad these days, that puts them, politically, in a tough spot -- even with a fawning media that, faced with Kerry and Murtha talking what in any objective sense is drivel, decline to call for the men with white coats but instead nod solemnly and wonder whether Bush is living "in a bubble."
It's not just that Iraq is going better than expected, but that it's a huge success that's being very deftly managed: The timeframe imposed on the democratic process turns out to have worked very well -- the transfer of sovereignty, the vote on a constitutional assembly, the ratification of the constitution, the vote for a legislature -- and, with the benefit of hindsight, it now looks like an ingeniously constructed way to bring the various parties on board in the right order: first the Kurds, then the Shia, now the Sunni.
That doesn't leave many folks over on the other side except Zarqawi and Dean. What do the two have in common? They're both foreigners, neither of whom have the slightest interest in the Iraqi people.
And no, I'm not questioning their patriotism. Honestly, who can be bothered questioning anything so footling as Howard Dean's patriotism?
If you're a Democratic patriot and you're outraged by my linking your party to the "insurgents," take it up with your leaders: They're the ones who've over-invested the party in American failure. And instead of being angry at me you should be ashamed of them. Your party is regarded as unserious on national security because it got it wrong last time round, when Kerry spent the last half of the Cold War siding with every loser on the planet -- opposing the liberation of Grenada, supporting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.
George Clooney, the matinee idol, made an interesting point the other day. He said that "liberal" had become a dirty word and he'd like to change that. Fair enough. So I hope he won't mind if I make a suggestion. The best way to reclaim "liberal" for the angels is to get on the right side of history -- the side the Iraqi people are on. The word "liberal" has no meaning if those who wear the label refuse to celebrate the birth of a new democracy after 40 years of tyranny.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
G-man that article is just more bashing that offers nothing new to the debate. 
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
As noted in both the excerpt and the full article, the successful Iraqi election of this week would tend to underming the claims of the Democrats that we are mired in failure. The election's success is a new factor to consider in the debate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Steyn is a right-wing columnist. His views are as predictable as yours, G-man.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Are you saying, then, that the successful conduct of the election in Iraq this week, including the participation of the Sunnis (who had previously threatened to boycott same) is not a victory for both the US and the Iraqi people?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
a)The Democratic leadership have expressed the same hopes of a successful Iraqi election that Bush has. The DNC didn't produce an ad using out of context quotes to say the Republicans are waving a flag of surrender.
b)Much of the success of that election was due to the cooperation of the insurgents. What happens now? Are you saying because they voted that they're not going to go back to fighting our troops?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
If, in fact, the Democratic Leadership wanted the election to succeed, was it really a good idea for them, on the eve of same, to start making pronouncements about how we were destinied to lose the war, that the military was broken, etc.?
Not only did such statements appear to embolden the words of the terrorist leaders (see earler posts), but didn't such chilling pronouncements have the potential to scare Iraqis into not voting, for fear of increased terrorism?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
If, in fact, the Democratic Leadership wanted the election to succeed, was it really a good idea for them, on the eve of same, to start making pronouncements about how we were destinied to lose the war, that the military was broken, etc.?
Not only did such statements appear to embolden the words of the terrorist leaders (see earler posts), but didn't such chilling pronouncements have the potential to scare Iraqis into not voting, for fear of increased terrorism?
That was how some Republican windbags & the RNC chose to dress up anything the Dems said to avoid actual debate & make a bit of money bashing dems. Considering that the election was a success, guess they were wrong even about there dishonest portrayal of Dems.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
The fact that a possible threat failed to materialize does not mean that the actions that created that possible threat were justified.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
The fact that a possible threat failed to materialize does not mean that the actions that created that possible threat were justified.
I'm glad we agree about the RNC's lame attempt of using out of context quotes & windbaggery 
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
...
I fail to see how Boxer was misrepresented. Sen Boxer herself misrepresented the Bush administration as not having a plan.
In her earlier comments, she basically said: The Bush administration says we have 200,000 trained Iraqis. So we should be able to pull out immediately after the election, and if the Bush administration is telling the truth, they should be able to defend their country themselves from this point.
She's saying we can start pulling out troops after the election starting with the National Guard. Remember she said "So you have a timeframe based on their ability to stand up." I understand that as being a case where we start withdrawing troops at a rate dependent on how well the Iraqi's step into place. The RNC calls that surrender? It might be hard for you to understand but Boxer is actually taking flack from some liberals for not just demanding the troops be pulled immediatley. This is from sometime around July at the Huffington post. Huffington Post The RNC was certainly misrepresenting her comment since it was almost identical to Rumsfeld's made 2 weeks prior.
If that were truly what Sen Boxer's consistent position on the troop withdrawal was and is, then we would have no disagreement.
But what Boxer and other ratfucking Democrats are trying to pull off is:
Even though the U.S. military and the Bush administration have been following the same policy all along in Iraq, training an adequate force of Iraqis to defend their country, so we can slowly pull out and allow them to take over their own security, Democrats act like there is not a plan, and ask for exactly what Bush is doing already, following the consistent ongoing plan to withdraw, once enough Iraqi troops are trained and performing at a level comparable to U.S. forces.
Democrats posture in front of TV cameras and the media and act like Bush is not doing precisely that.
Democrats say "it's not happening fast enough" and are pushing Bush to provide regular reports of some periodic kind to prove there is a plan for withdrawal, which is, in truth, exactly what Bush is already doing !!!
Democrats offer no alternative plan, no plan specifics. They just offer the exact same plan that Bush is already enacting and say: It isn't happening fast enough, we need a timetable !
Inflammatory and manipulative Democrat rhetoric, that makes us look weak to our enemies, that emboldens them to attack our troops in Iraq, and that inspires them to continue the conflict and wait us out in Iraq, in the hope that liberals can at a not-too-distant point deceitfully leverage popular opinion against the President, and force a premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
Prolonging the conflict.
Giving aid and comfort to our enemy.
When Republicans expose this treasonous rhetoric, in ads that portray it as counterproductive as it truly is, liberals, exposed in their own deceit, simply throw up more smoke and say: "Republicans made this all up."
Well, no, they didn't.
Republicans just exposed the anti-American rhetoric of the Democrats for precisely what it was: A deliberate slander campaign of the Bush administration, and of our military on the ground in Iraq. Sheer liberal spite, that obstructs progress, prolongs the Iraq war, divides America, and ultimately, costs more American lives.
Quote:
Wonder boy said:
Not everything in the opening news segments is posted online, but that's the gist of it.
But even that statement by Boxer, or the quoted comments in the Fox interview of Boxer you keep referring to, constantly refers to the need to withdraw, (1) for Bush to produce some timetable for withdrawal, and (2) Boxer and other Democrats then backpedal and say "Well, we're not demanding a timetable..."
Well, which is it, they are or they aren't?
Quote:
Matter Eater Man said:
Boxer isn't demanding a timetable chisseled in stone but one that allows the Iraqi's to start doing their own defending. Isn't that our goal? What would be the reason not to start taking the next step?
Instead of letting the U.S. military in Iraq complete their mission, Boxer and other partisan Democrats smear the existing plan, one that is taking time, but is working, and say that Bush needs to step it up, that we need to give the Iraqis pressure, that beyond a certain date we won't be there.
Which by any other deceitful couched phrases the Democrats, including Boxer use, is demanding a timetable.
Which is what the Republican ad (which you claim is false and misleading) is actually saying truthfully.
Quote:
Matter Eater Man said :
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
It's a total bogus liberal smear campaign, with no substance, except to say no matter what Bush does, it's wrong.
Well this liberal first heard the White House compare Murtha to Michael Moore one day & then they say what a great guy he his on another & that we should be having an honest debate about Iraq. Then they send out the attack dogs to do the bashing that they want to do but are to cowardly to do themselves. Remember it was the RNC that did the ad.
That was some republican Congresswoman from God-knows-where, who made the Murtha/Moore comparison remark. I don't see a single Republican rallying behind that remark. I may think Murtha is misguided or playing partisan politics, but I don't equate him with Moore.
Neither the Republicans or Democrats are in absolute agreement within their parties, so try not to exaggerate a single uninformed remark one Republican Congresswoman made, that didn't resonate with anyone. This lady is not a leader in the party, and her remark has been supported by no one.
As contrasted with Democrat leaders like Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, etc., who pretty much daily make extreme remarks.
And I still say the ad you criticize is not misleading. It manifests Democrat hypocrisy, bashing both the President and the troops in Iraq falsely, constantly raising doubt about a plan that's working, and pushing for a pre-emptive withdrawal that would endanger the existing plan, and then backpedaling when called on their rhetoric.
And then having the audacity to allege that Republicans are misrepresenting them, after they've backpedaled from their harsher remarks.
I notice you keep ignoring the unamerican remarks of Durbin and Dean. And so do they.
Quote:
Matter Eater Man said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said: Here's a link to a Republican site that deconstructs the flaws in Sen Boxer's arguments, even the more mild and retracted comments she made in the FOX interview.
This is just a Republican smear site. This partisan blogger uses the same technique as the RNC ad. I'll just stick to what she really said, thanks all the same.
What "partisan technique" does he use ?
LOGIC ?
I can see where that would frustrate you.
You attempt to bypass the contradictions he points out in Boxer's statements, by labelling it as a "smear site".
That's so much easier than answering the valid points he raises, regarding Boxer's contradictions and gaps in logic, in her rush to make the President look bad.
At the expense of our troops on the ground.
And at the expense of the Iraqi people her and other Democrats pretend to care about.
[ I was interrupted while posting. Edited to conclude my post. ]
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
The fact that a possible threat failed to materialize does not mean that the actions that created that possible threat were justified.
I'm glad we agree about the RNC's lame attempt of using out of context quotes & windbaggery
I still remain unconvinced that a majority of the quotes were taken out of context or that the Democrats as a whole have a cohesive plan to win the war.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
...
I still remain unconvinced that a majority of the quotes were taken out of context or that the Democrats as a whole have a cohesive plan to win the war.
Well I think a big clue if quotes are being taken out of context is if the original user dissagrees with how those quotes were used. Also looking back, beyond the use of an out of context quote to support a really negative attack ad, both G-man & Wonder Boy have offered nothing else to back it up beyond what other Republicans think about those out of context quotes.
Your second point is true IMHO. The Democrats don't all have one cohesive plan. Many are moving towards Murtha's but it's not like the Republicans who are pretty much all(?) unified in backing the President.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:I still remain unconvinced that ...the Democrats as a whole have a cohesive plan to win the war.
This article from the December 16 Washington Post:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.
Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she sad.
"There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position," Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors. . . .
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said on the day [Rep. John] Murtha offered his plan [for immediate surrender], "As for Iraq policy, at the right time, we'll have a position."
In other words, the leadership of the Democratic Party is admitting they not only don't have a cohesive plan for winning the war, they don't even have a cohesive position on the war itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
In other words, the leadership of the Democratic Party is admitting they not only don't have a cohesive plan for winning the war, they don't even have a cohesive position on the war itself.
Well, y'know, geez !
Maybe we should have our troops in Iraq hand out daisies, then they and the enemy can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
Yeah, there's a lucid plan. And so much better than Bush's.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
In other words, the leadership of the Democratic Party is admitting they not only don't have a cohesive plan for winning the war, they don't even have a cohesive position on the war itself.
Well, y'know, geez !
Maybe we should have our troops in Iraq hand out daisies, then they and the enemy can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
Yeah, there's a lucid plan. And so much better than Bush's.
So you guys spend the last couple of days argueing that Dems do have a unified plan of surrender but can't wait to jump at the chance to say that the Dems don't have a cohesive plan?!? As long as it involve bashing Dems eh?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
It's the job of the administration to propose a withdrawl strategy, not the Democrats in Congress. It's the lack of policy that is the cause of all this controversy. As for ideas from the opposition, how about this. Quote:
An Invitation to Withdraw
- Theodore C. Sorensen, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., New York Times
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
From History: Kennedy's plan for exiting the Vietnam War offers lessons for Bush.
What did we not hear from President Bush when he spoke last week at the U.S. Naval Academy about his strategy for victory in Iraq?
We did not hear that the war in Iraq, already one of the costliest wars in American history, is a running sore. We did not hear that it has taken more than 2,000 precious American lives and countless -- because we do not count them -- Iraqi civilian lives. We did not hear that the struggle has dragged on longer than our involvement in either World War I or the Spanish-American War, or that by next spring it will be even longer than the Korean War.
And we did not hear how or when the president plans to bring our forces back home -- no facts, no numbers on America troop withdrawals, no dates, no reference to our dwindling coalition, no reversal of his disdain for the United Nations, whose help he still expects.
Neither our military, our economy nor our nation can take that kind of endless and remorseless drain for an only vaguely defined military and political mission. If we leave early, the president said, catastrophe might follow. But what of the catastrophe that we are prolonging and worsening by our continued presence, including our continued, unforgivable mistreatment of detainees?
Each month that America continues its occupation facilitates al Qaeda's recruitment of young Islamic men and women as suicide bombers, the one weapon against which our open society has no sure defense. The president says we should support our troops by staying the course; but who is truly willing to support our troops by bringing them safely home?
The responsibility for devising an exit plan rests primarily not with the war's opponents, but with the president who hastily launched a pre-emptive invasion without enough troops to secure Iraq's borders and arsenals, without enough armor to protect our forces, without enough allied support and without adequate plans for either a secure occupation or a timely exit.
As we listened to Bush's speech, our thoughts raced back four decades to another president, John F. Kennedy. In 1963, the last year of his life, we watched from front-row seats as Kennedy tried to figure out how best to extricate American military advisers and instructors from Vietnam.
Although neither of us had direct responsibility on Vietnam decision-making, we each saw enough of the president to sense his growing frustration. In typical Kennedy fashion, he would lean back, in his Oval Office rocker, tick off all his options and then critique them:
Renege on the previous Eisenhower commitment, which Kennedy had initially reinforced, to help the beleaguered government of South Vietnam with American military instructors and advisers?
No, he knew that the American people would not permit him to do that.
Americanize the Vietnam civil war, as the military recommended and as his successor Lyndon Johnson sought ultimately to do, by sending in American combat units?
No, having learned from his experiences with Cuba and elsewhere that conflicts essentially political in nature did not lend themselves to a military solution, Kennedy knew that the United States could not prevail in a struggle against a Vietnamese people determined to oust, at last, all foreign troops from their country.
Moreover, he knew firsthand from his World War II service in the South Pacific the horrors of war and had declared at American University in June 1963: "This generation of Americans has had enough -- more than enough -- of war."
Declare "victory and get out," as George Aiken, the Republican senator from Vermont, would famously suggest years later?
No, in 1963 in Vietnam, despite assurances from field commanders, there was no more semblance of "victory" than there was in 2004 in Iraq when the president gave his "mission accomplished" speech on the deck of an aircraft carrier.
Explore, as was always his preference, a negotiated solution?
No, he was unable to identify in the ranks of the disorganized Vietcong a leader capable of negotiating enforceable and mutually agreeable terms of withdrawal.
Insist that the South Vietnamese government improve its chances of survival by genuinely adopting the array of political, economic, land and administrative reforms necessary to win popular support?
No, Kennedy increasingly realized that the corrupt family and landlords propping up the dictatorship in South Vietnam would never accept or enforce such reforms.
Eventually he began to understand that withdrawal was the viable option. From the spring of 1963 on, he began to articulate the elements of a three-part exit strategy, one that his assassination would prevent him from pursuing. The three components of Kennedy's exit strategy -- well-suited for Iraq after the passage of a new constitution and the coming election -- can be summarized as follows:
Make clear that we're going to get out. At a press conference on Nov. 14, 1963, the president did just that, stating, "That is our object, to bring Americans home."
Request an invitation to leave. Arrange for the host government to request the phased withdrawal of all American military personnel -- surely not a difficult step in Iraq, especially after the clan statement last month calling for foreign forces to leave. In a May 1963 press conference, Kennedy declared that if the South Vietnamese government suggested it, "we would have some troops on their way home" the next day.
Bring the troops home gradually. Initiate a phased American withdrawal over an unannounced period, beginning immediately, while intensifying the training of local security personnel, bearing in mind that with our increased troop mobility and airlift capacity, American forces are available without being stationed in hazardous areas. In September 1963, Kennedy said of the South Vietnamese: "In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it." A month later, he said, "It would be our hope to lessen the number of Americans" in Vietnam by the end of the year.
Kennedy had no guarantee that any of these three components would succeed. In the "fog of war," there are no guarantees; but an exit plan without guarantees is better than none at all.
If we leave Iraq at its own government's request, our withdrawal will be neither abandonment nor retreat. Law-abiding Iraqis may face more clan violence, Balkanization and foreign incursions if we leave; but they may face more clan violence, Balkanization and foreign incursions if we stay. The president has said we will not leave Iraq to the terrorists. Let us leave Iraq to the Iraqis, who have survived centuries of civil war, tyranny and attempted foreign domination.
Once American troops are out of Iraq, people around the world will rejoice that we have recovered our senses. What's more, the killing of Americans and the global loss of American credibility will diminish. As Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Republican and Vietnam veteran, said, "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have." Defeatist? The real defeatists are those who say we are stuck there for the next decade of death and destruction.
In a memorandum to Kennedy, roughly three months after his 1961 inauguration, one of us wrote with respect to Vietnam, "There is no clearer example of a country that cannot be saved unless it saves itself." Today, Iraq is an even clearer example.
Theodore C. Sorensen and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. were, respectively, special counsel and special assistant to President John F. Kennedy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106
faggot 15000+ posts
|
|
faggot 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106 |
If we drop a nuke the whole mess in the Middle East will be over.
It won't solve anything but the Arabs will be gone.
Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!
Uschi - 2
Old Men - 0
"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921
"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
In other words, the leadership of the Democratic Party is admitting they not only don't have a cohesive plan for winning the war, they don't even have a cohesive position on the war itself.
Well, y'know, geez !
Maybe we should have our troops in Iraq hand out daisies, then they and the enemy can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
Yeah, there's a lucid plan. And so much better than Bush's.
So you guys spend the last couple of days argueing that Dems do have a unified plan of surrender but can't wait to jump at the chance to say that the Dems don't have a cohesive plan?!? As long as it involve bashing Dems eh?
No, we're bashing Democrats for consistently bashing, rushing and undermining Bush's plan that's been consistently ongoing for three years for Iraq withdrawal.
Even though Democrats have no coherent plan of their own.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
...
No, we're bashing Democrats for consistently bashing, rushing and undermining Bush's plan that's been consistently ongoing for three years for Iraq withdrawal.
Even though Democrats have no coherent plan of their own.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
That's right MEM. Play the ignorance card.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
That's right MEM. Play the ignorance card.
An easy card to play considering how well the boys back up their Dem bashing
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Card? What card? I was just pointing out your penchant for ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
