Whomod's too concerned with argumentative finesse to talk the way you do, like a teenager up in arms against what he percieves to be a backwards society; 'People need to wake the fuck up!' 'Society is so fucking stupid!' 'All of you fucking brown-nosing drones are being hypnotized by the military!' 'Fuck the war in Iraq!' etc. etc.. You basically try to give an aura of brutal and rugged honesty when it's really just pathetic.
Whomod's too concerned with argumentative finesse to talk the way you do, like a teenager up in arms against what he percieves to be a backwards society; 'People need to wake the fuck up!' 'Society is so fucking stupid!' 'All of you fucking brown-nosing drones are being hypnotized by the military!' 'Fuck the war in Iraq!' etc. etc.. You basically try to give an aura of brutal and rugged honesty when it's really just pathetic.
.
You know, I was about to take your statement seriously but then I saw the part where you said "Whomod's too concerned with argumentative finesse" and then thought "wait a minute, isn't Pariah guy the same asshole who was lecturing Whomod on how to make an argument". So what is it? Whomod has finesse or he shouldn't come back here anymore.
Hopefully most of those quotes you used are just for effect otherwise I'm pretty sure you misquoted me. Yes, I am ruggedly honest. I do recognize truths that everyone knows (military people are imperfect, 99% of people masterbate, everybody takes a dump, people tend to be shallow etc etc). Now how that's pathetic I don't get. Of course, unless your a repressed peon who pretends he lives in vacuum. Then I could understand you resenting such acknowledgements.
"Argumentative finesse" does not mean to argue a subject appropriately. It means he conveys his points (whether they make sense or not) in a clear and distinct, albeit pretentious and up-his-own-ass, manner. He's preachy without being totally immature and rash.
Quote:
I do recognize truths that everyone knows (military people are imperfect, 99% of people masterbate, everybody takes a dump, people tend to be shallow etc etc). Now how that's pathetic I don't get. Of course, unless your a repressed peon who pretends he lives in vacuum. Then I could understand you resenting such acknowledgements.
"Argumentative finesse" does not mean to argue a subject appropriately. It means he conveys his points (whether they make sense or not) in a clear and distinct, albeit pretentious and up-his-own-ass, manner. He's preachy without being totally immature and rash.
Fair enough. Not sure I buy your rationale but that's your perspective.
Quote:
Very original.
So others have said this to you? It's dimestore pychiatry but it still stands. You reject what bothers you as stupid, pointless or in this case "pathetic".
Now why would YOU phrase it like that though? Who's hiding? Why would I hide? Everything here seems like a bulb goes off in ones head that says, Wonder Boy is on MY SIDE therefore I have to run in and defend him and mock the one 'attacking' him. At least it SEEMS that way to me. Maybe I'm wrong.
.....Why did you even come back? It seems like all you're doing right now is copy/pasting articles, like before, and inviting arguments. But after Wonder Boy responds to you, you forfeit the discussion and just call him racist or insane. At least pre-exodus you actually had the impetus to respond fully to most of what people had to say.
I'm not so much trying to sponsor him as I am trying to criticize you. Rex's post was sweeping and inflammatory, but that's the nature of a troll after all. You, on the other hand, are trying to pass yourself off as a semblence of reason and intelligent debate, but you use Rex's post to try and sound witty. Bad form.
.....Why did you even come back? It seems like all you're doing right now is copy/pasting articles, like before, and inviting arguments. But after Wonder Boy responds to you, you forfeit the discussion and just call him racist or insane. At least pre-exodus you actually had the impetus to respond fully to most of what people had to say.
I'm not so much trying to sponsor him as I am trying to criticize you. Rex's post was sweeping and inflammatory, but that's the nature of a troll after all. You, on the other hand, are trying to pass yourself off as a semblence of reason and intelligent debate, but you use Rex's post to try and sound witty. Bad form.
Bad form? By providing facts and videos that support his case? He's made plenty of argument on his own. Sounds to me like the typical conservative denial of anythng that isn't part of there dogman through character assassination.
But what do I know? I am Whomond
You were saying something about someone "is on MY SIDE therefore I have to run in and defend him and mock the one 'attacking' him"?
Pariah made it clear he had a larger point than defending me, about your inability to debate the issue, and your mono-focus on insults and stereotype labels, toward those who disagree with your political views.
Whereas Halo is just knee-jerk defending you.
I'm still not convinced you're really two separate people, the posting styles, mocking, and rabid anti-conservative liberalism are identical under both I.D.'s. So I'm not sure if it's one idiot or two.
Halo is like whomod without a spellcheck.
But both bemoan a lack of civility, even as you initiate it and solicit that response from those you direct your venom at. It's your uncivility and insults, not your political views, that make you an idiot(s).
If anything raises my blood pressure, it's getting lost in personal DISTRACTING tangents like right now where one gets sidetracked into explaining how you don't think ALL troops commit atrocities and liberals don't actually all teach Islam an hate America..
Whomod, you're the one who constantly sidetracks these discussions into personal attacks and insults. And accuses me and others of things that are already proven false. Not anyone else. YOU !
We've clashed in about 4 topics since you got back to these boards around September 1st, and each time, I was politely discussing the issue and even critical of Republicans, when you laid into me with in-your-face personalized smears and insults, and accused me of being a goose-stepping Bush-ite who believes every word Republicans say, who gets my facts from Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh (despite my repeatedly for years saying my news source of choice is the PBS News Hour, and quote that and the local Sun-Sentinel about 99% of the time, and disowned O'Reilly years ago, calling him a blowhard that I never liked).
So who's falsely accusing who?
I've continuously criticized both parties, and you've continuously falsely accused me of being a Republican dupe who gets all his facts from the conservative radio commentators. Polar opposite my clearly stated and sourced views.
Look in the mirror, Whomod.
A list of topics where I posted mostly moderate views that were critical of both parties and attacked the liberal partisanship of attacking just the Republicans, where each time you entered and in off-topic fashion made it as bitterly personal as you humanly could.
You know, I tire of dancing in circles with you. You blanketly accuse "liberals" and that's a W I D E group of people there who fall under that label of every evil under the sun then you personally accuse me of accusing E v e r y s i n g l e t r o o p of atrocities and then you cry about why I get pissed at you.
If you'd stop with the generalizations and accusations, then I'll do likewise against you. As far as Rush Limbaugh, i think I've commented on how you sound just like him. I don't recall ever saying you get your info from him. But watching and hearing the blowhards on TV and radio, they tend to make the same arguments and gross generalizations, accuse their opponents of hating America and being for the enemy, and wrap their opinions in the same terminology you use so forgive me if I've ever assumed that you do. It's just uncanny sometimes. So if you don't listen to them, you're certainly in the same exact place mentally as they are.
As for your accusations. As far as name calling. yeah. I did it. You tend to piss me off just enough to reciprocate, with your hatred and accusations of all things not conservative. So I insulted you. You think someone hearing about how "liberals this" and "liberals that" might take offense when you're accusing them of things they just don't support outside of a Bill O'Reilley broadcast. (yes yes, you don't listen to him..) Take Barak Obama. I post a famous speech of his that is a call to unity and you dismiss it as a lie or something he's not serious about. Well who the fuck are you to decide what he believes? Because it doesn't fit what you want to believe about liberals? People like me. So just stop. Stop crying. Stop bitching about me being mean to you. Because you bring it upon yourself with your sweeping and generalizing disdain. Like I said many times before. I'm not here to sit back and let you go on about what liberals are all about unchallenged. If you find that to be "hate" so be it.
By the way, I don't tech Islam, you dope. Nobody I know teaches Islam. I'm a evangelical Christian that attends a very conservative church.
Pariah made it clear he had a larger point than defending me, about your inability to debate the issue, and your mono-focus on insults and stereotype labels, toward those who disagree with your political views.
Oh fer fucks sake! Tell me where I haven't discussed the issue at hand? I only sidetrack AFTER you start dissecting posts and going off topic about something. And stereotype labels? About what? It'd be nice to know what the fuck you're talking about. Now me, If I were to accuse YOU of that, could easily pull up that long rant about how liberals infuriate you because they all teach islam and hate America, sneering contemptuously etc. etc.
Quote:
I'm still not convinced you're really two separate people, the posting styles, mocking, and rabid anti-conservative liberalism are identical under both I.D.'s. So I'm not sure if it's one idiot or two.
Halo is like whomod without a spellcheck.
But both bemoan a lack of civility, even as you initiate it and solicit that response from those you direct your venom at. It's your uncivility and insults, not your political views, that make you an idiot(s).
No. See I think you believe anyone who disagrees with you politically is an idiot and filled with hate. You lob it at just about everyone who disagrees with you and then make it one of your descriptives for liberals in general.
But if you want to believe I'm Halo, then go ahead. I'll start believing you're Rush Limbaugh then. Sure, it fits. Blowhard. Florida. Filled with hate for liberals. Borderline racist. Likes to say he's being misquoted when he makes an ass out of himself.
wonderboy is an idiot. a very sad and hateful person. anyone who boils down the complex issue of racism down to "it's not real, they're just whining." and everything with him is a liberal conspiracy.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
A list of topics where I posted mostly moderate views that were critical of both parties and attacked the liberal partisanship of attacking just the Republicans , where each time you entered and in off-topic fashion made it as bitterly personal as you humanly could.
so here he talks about how moderate and bipartisan he is and then attacks the liberals because they only attack one side. the irony here would just destroy any robot. everything goes to liberals with him. i think he checks for them under the bed. it's creepy.
here's the classic wondy move. he posts a link to his own inane posts as if they were proof of his point. when really it's only proof that he's always been a moron.
I'm sorely tempted to post that "Homer Simpson hates liberals" clip again. It just brings a smile to my face seeing that after reading a Wonder Boy post.
I'm probaly wasting a time responding to you with substantive thought since you probaly won't respond with anything strawman arguments (or not at all).
Quote:
Pariah made it clear he had a larger point than defending me, about your inability to debate the issue, and your mono-focus on insults and stereotype labels, toward those who disagree with your political views.
Whereas Halo is just knee-jerk defending you.
That's maybe the first or second time I've defended Whomod...ever. He doesn't really need it. But I did this time for two reasons 1)nothing Pariah said made sense in the original quote and 2)I don't like moral compasses.
Quote:
I'm still not convinced you're really two separate people, the posting styles, mocking, and rabid anti-conservative liberalism are identical under both I.D.'s. So I'm not sure if it's one idiot or two.
You say this, but as I pointed out last time there's a simple solution. Have someone check are IP addresses. I live in New York and Whomod lives in California...pretty big diffrence. If you truly suspect we're the same check it out unless you want to be able to fall back on this same argument or you can't comprehend this incredibly simple form of action.
Quote:
Halo is like whomod without a spellcheck.
You know, your the second right wing zombie to bring up my spelling. What is it with people? Is being shallow and petty part of being Republican?
Quote:
But both bemoan a lack of civility, even as you initiate it and solicit that response from those you direct your venom at. It's your uncivility and insults, not your political views, that make you an idiot(s).
I've never bemoaned civility. I think your the only one who's whined about it. I'd, personally, rather be sincere then civil. You know what I think the problem is with conservatives like you? You've got NO imagination. You can't differentiate one liberal from another so you lump them all in as bad or venomous. BTW, I'm not liberal I just happen to take exception to right wing sophistry.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
wonderboy is an idiot. a very sad and hateful person. anyone who boils down the complex issue of racism down to "it's not real, they're just whining." and everything with him is a liberal conspiracy.
If I'm the hateful one, why are you the one lashing out with insults all the time, and I'm just making an effort to minimally respond in spite of it, to only the halfway legitimate issues you raise. Without matching the same insults and venom you relentlessly toss out in your blanket hatred of conservatives, christians, etc. ?
It always amuses me to hear you talk of hate and prejudice. Even Whomod can't match your prejudicial fanaticism.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy(post was directed at whomod)
A list of topics where I posted mostly moderate views that were critical of both parties and attacked the liberal partisanship of attacking just the Republicans , where each time you entered and in off-topic fashion made it as bitterly personal as you humanly could.
so here he talks about how moderate and bipartisan he is and then attacks the liberals because they only attack one side. the irony here would just destroy any robot. everything goes to liberals with him. i think he checks for them under the bed. it's creepy.
That ignores a lot of praise of specific Democrats I've posted --across many threads-- as individuals who "get it", regarding the Iraq war, race politics, and the global economy. Joseph Biden, Byron Dorgan, Sam Nunn, Joseph Lieberman, Christopher Dodd. Independent thinkers all.
Your slanderous remarks toward me also ignore that I've repeatedly been critical of the Republicans, on deficits, on not eliminating the tax break to pay for increased military/security spending in a time of war, not securing our borders, and for their allowing immigration (both excessive legal immigration, and unrestrained illegal immigration) combined with offshoring jobs, that combined are displacing millions of American workers from good paying jobs.
There are people from across the political spectrum who are saying this. Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, Byron Dorgan, and even Ralph Nader (who I voted for in 2000).
You ignore all this.
My attacks on liberals are focused on their flawed ideology. Yeah, I beleive in the Republican ideology (the Reagan brand, anyway), and as Patrick Buchanan detailed in Death of the West, and probably more palatable for you, in Where the Right Went Wrong, both parties are equally corrupted, and both parties are part of the campaign soft money system that is enriching corporations, destroying good paying U.S. jobs, and undermining our sovereignty.
But as Buchanan details from multiple sources, the ideology of liberals is --often unknown to them, and despite their best intentions-- rooted in Soviet propaganda designed to undermine our Christian-based Western European social structure. Soviet propaganda that has outlived the Soviet state that created it, and is similarly destroying Russia as well.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
here's the classic wondy move. he posts a link to his own inane posts as if they were proof of his point. when really it's only proof that he's always been a moron.
No, they're proof that I made reasoned arguments while you and Whomod just hurled insults and mocking derision based on nothing I said. And that you were deliberately and consistently misrepresentative of my views.
I'll give Halo this much, at least his posts, despite a few insults tossed in along the way, made an effort to discuss serious political points. I'll respond to his points in a separate post.
I'm probaly wasting a time responding to you with substantive thought since you probaly won't respond with anything strawman arguments (or not at all).
Originally Posted By: WB
Pariah made it clear he had a larger point than defending me, about your inability to debate the issue, and your mono-focus on insults and stereotype labels, toward those who disagree with your political views.
Whereas Halo is just knee-jerk defending you.
That's maybe the first or second time I've defended Whomod...ever. He doesn't really need it. But I did this time for two reasons 1)nothing Pariah said made sense in the original quote and 2)I don't like moral compasses.
My remark was directed much more at Whomod than at you, Halo.
He attacks anyone who appears to enter on my behalf (even as he and ray gang up on me), and sees no problem with you doing exactly what he just criticized Pariah for allegedly doing (and Pariah made it clear he had a larger point than defending me).
Originally Posted By: Halo82
Originally Posted By: WB
I'm still not convinced you're really two separate people, the posting styles, mocking, and rabid anti-conservative liberalism are identical under both I.D.'s. So I'm not sure if it's one idiot or two.
And as I said, you began posting here just a few days after Whomod came back to these boards after roughly a two-year absence.
You say this, but as I pointed out last time there's a simple solution. Have someone check are IP addresses. I live in New York and Whomod lives in California...pretty big diffrence. If you truly suspect we're the same check it out unless you want to be able to fall back on this same argument or you can't comprehend this incredibly simple form of action.
I inquired with our supreme commander here (Rob), and never got an answer. But I did ask.
And if you bother to compare your own posts to those of Whomod and his other known Whomod alts, and Whomod's long tradition of using multiple alts to attack those he disagrees with, the question is certainly legitimate.
But... I'm going to refrain from making further comments about the similarities between your posts and Whomod's (your reaction on any number of issues is virtually identical, even if you are two separate people), pending further comparison of your ISP's. But I'm sure there's ways around that, such as having two ISP's, or a computer at home and another at work.
But I'll treat you as two separate people now unless proven otherwise.
Originally Posted By: Halo82
Quote:
Halo is like whomod without a spellcheck.
You know, your the second right wing zombie to bring up my spelling. What is it with people? Is being shallow and petty part of being Republican?
Gee, y'know that's funny, because I've seen the identical criticism of conservatives here. Check out old posts by one of the retired main conservatives here on RKMB, wannabuyamonky (or WBAM), among others.
I'll refrain from remarks of this sort as well, if it will generate more discussion and less insults. But no matter how civil I am, it seems that certain liberals here just have to get in their nasty insults and digs, to the abandonment of serious discussion of the issue.
I hope you will be one to rise above that
Originally Posted By: Halo82
Originally Posted By: WB
But both bemoan a lack of civility, even as [they] initiate it and solicit that response from those [they] direct [their] venom at. It's your uncivility and insults, not your political views, that make you an idiot(s).
I've never bemoaned civility. I think your the only one who's whined about it. I'd, personally, rather be sincere then civil. You know what I think the problem is with conservatives like you? You've got NO imagination. You can't differentiate one liberal from another so you lump them all in as bad or venomous. BTW, I'm not liberal I just happen to take exception to right wing sophistry.
That's funny, since you just criticized (1)my pointing out the similarity of your posts to Whomod's as virtually identical, and (2)taking a shot at your spelling. So you may not call for civility in exactly the same way I do, but you do anyway.
I'm willing to take it down a notch though. Because these discussions really would be served by less personal attacks and distractions that derail so many topics here. The biggest offenders are Rex, Ray, and Whomod. There's an OFF-TOPIC forum for that kind of posting. It doesn't belong here.
Pariah made it clear he had a larger point than defending me, about your inability to debate the issue, and your mono-focus on insults and stereotype labels, toward those who disagree with your political views.
Oh fer fucks sake! Tell me where I haven't discussed the issue at hand?
Every one of the five topics I linked above. And this one.
Originally Posted By: whomod
I only sidetrack AFTER you start dissecting posts and going off topic about something.
That is an incredibly bold lie on your part. What galaxy-shattering hypocrisy.
In every one of the topics I linked, I made moderate remarks that were critical of Republicans, and only condemned your liberal partisanship that heaps all blame for 9-11, and all other political issues, solely at Republicans' door, absolving Democrats in the House and Senate, and former president Bill Clinton.
Originally Posted By: whomod
And stereotype labels? About what? It'd be nice to know what the fuck you're talking about.
In the topic I say: yeah, Sen Craig and Mark Foley are scumbags, but what about Bill Clinton and all his sexual indiscretions, what about Ted Kennedy, What about Gerry Studds, who anal/gay fucked his 17-year old intern who was still a minor (unlike Foley) who retained his Democrat support and was re-elected (unlike Foley) and based on that, despite that Foley and Craig are Republican scumbags, the Democrats have no moral high ground on which to posture, and are just as bad, or possibly worse.
And you went into an apoplectic rant about me personally, NOT the issue, and (despite my stated and often quoted PBS sources) called me a goose-stepping hatemongering right-wing-extremist idiot who gets all his talking points from conservative talk radio(which I never listen to), Bill O'Reilly (who I never watch, I've seen his show only twice in 3 years or so, and have condemned him as pure infotainment) and Rush Limbaugh (who I've also criticized for some of his more choice remarks like the one about a black NFL quarterback, that lost him an announcing job, and despite that I generally like him, haven't listened to since he had a TV show back in 1993-1994)
But yeah, you don't stereotype me or others who disagree with you. Right.
Originally Posted By: whomod
Originally Posted By: WB
I'm still not convinced you're really two separate people, the posting styles, mocking, and rabid anti-conservative liberalism are identical under both I.D.'s. So I'm not sure if it's one idiot or two.
Halo is like whomod without a spellcheck.
But both bemoan a lack of civility, even as you initiate it and solicit that response from those you direct your venom at. It's your uncivility and insults, not your political views, that make you an idiot(s).
No. See I think you believe anyone who disagrees with you politically is an idiot and filled with hate. You lob it at just about everyone who disagrees with you and then make it one of your descriptives for liberals in general.
No. I treat any number of liberals here with respect: Beardguy57, Snarf, Chant, Penwing, and a number I've made peace with after they initially got in my face, like Darknight613. These are guys I may disagree with, but who are not as deliberately offensive as you and Ray. And they're capable of a dialogue, which you're not. Every word you post is calculated to antagonize, not discuss.
"sneering contemptuously", indeed.
And even so, I only reciprocate toward a tiny fraction of the slanderous venom and insults you, Ray and Rex toss at me, and mostly just try to ignore your antics and just answer your more legitimate points.
You seem absolutely blind to how offensive what you post is, how laden with insults and solicitations to reciprocate it contains. Or at least you feign it that way. But I think you know exactly what you're doing, and calculate it to piss off and spitefully antagonize anyone who disagrees with you.
I've tried again and again to tone it down and minimally respond, keep it civil and hope you'll reciprocate. (For which courtesy, you mock me and post Homer and Comic Guy images, in an infinite show of respect, civility and reciprocity :rollseyes: ) And forgive me, when bombarded with this relentless antagonism, once in a while it pisses me off and I post something that only APPROACHES the level of bile you vomit up in pretty much every post.
Originally Posted By: whomod
But if you want to believe I'm Halo, then go ahead. I'll start believing you're Rush Limbaugh then. Sure, it fits. Blowhard. Florida. Filled with hate for liberals. Borderline racist. Likes to say he's being misquoted when he makes an ass out of himself.
I've dissected many of your posts, to expose the slanderous lies you spin about me, and more sweepingly of anyone else who disagrees with you.
If you want to see "hate", try reading your own posts, and Ray's. You guys are as intolerant as it gets.
I was watching Ken Burns' documentary on World War II this week, The War, and it shows the many screw-ups that cost the lives of many American soldiers.
Liberals will leap to find a way to discredit this good news from Iraq. It disheartens me to see such a lack of resolve regarding the Iraq war. I'm grateful this mindset didn't exist during world war II. We would have lost that war, as pure lack of commitment threatens to make us lose in Iraq.
After Iraq and Vietnam, no ally will ever trust us to remain committed again. Millions of pro-Democracy Iraqis are threatened with extermination if we leave. It was their willingness to put themselves at risk in support of democracy that got us this far in Iraq.
And yet there's talk, very serious talk, of just pulling out and leaving them to die.
There are global ramifications to losing in Iraq, that the Left absolutely refuses to see. To say nothing of abandoning people who risked everything to help us.
I was watching Ken Burns' documentary on World War II this week, The War, and it shows the many screw-ups that cost the lives of many American soldiers.
Ken Burns was talking with Bill Maher about how the soldiers felt that the war was worth it after they liberated the concentration camps and agreed that there is no such pay off with Iraq. Unlike WWII there was no threat, FDR didn't have to lie about Hitler invading countries.
Quote:
Liberals will leap to find a way to discredit this good news from Iraq. It disheartens me to see such a lack of resolve regarding the Iraq war. I'm grateful this mindset didn't exist during world war II. We would have lost that war, as pure lack of commitment threatens to make us lose in Iraq.
Again your "moderate bipartisan"-ness have blamed the liberals for doubting the war and not the guy who lied to get us into it and failed to maintain order after the invasion, and well just plain failed to run the war. your the guy who blames the commentator for doubting the team instead of the coach for fucking up the play.
Quote:
After Iraq and Vietnam, no ally will ever trust us to remain committed again. Millions of pro-Democracy Iraqis are threatened with extermination if we leave. It was their willingness to put themselves at risk in support of democracy that got us this far in Iraq.
Vietnam was also based on a lie (see: Tonkin). Vietnam was also us preventing democracy because we were afraid they would vote for the communists. So instead of bolstering the non-communists we just bombed them. Both wars were messes, both wars were to help people who didn't really want our help or wanted us to actually be competent with our help.
Quote:
And yet there's talk, very serious talk, of just pulling out and leaving them to die.
most of the violence is a reaction to us. We're foreign invaders in their country.
Quote:
There are global ramifications to losing in Iraq, that the Left absolutely refuses to see.
there are global ramifications of us staying and continuing to be invaders. There are ramifications for our having lied about why we were going in, and there are ramifications for ignoring the UN. "Stay the course" is pretty dumb when it keeps leading nowhere. And leaving our troops in to die based on Bush's stubborn refusal to admit mistakes is just evil. But I guess the left wanting to bring the troops home where they can be safe and alive is somehow wrong, while the republicans fighting a bill to extend troop leave is somehow supportive.
Quote:
To say nothing of abandoning people who risked everything to help us.
I really think you and a lot of right wingers like to see everything as some big black and white affair. We go in, kill bad guys, all is happy. We're dealing with a country that was only a country because Saddam held it together. We didn't plan for the ramifications of his removal, even though Cheney himself said what they would be 10 years ago. The reason Bush sr. didn't go to Bagdhad is because of this quagmire. What gives you the right to insist that American troops stay in a deadly place, with mounting fatalities just to prove some point? Really, where the fuck do you get off. I never served, but that goes in with my stance of not wanting wars. Did you serve? Did Bush serve (aside from his questionable Air Guard duty on US soil)? Did Cheney? Because you fuckers talk about war and troop sacrifice without ever puting yourself on the line for it. You're a fucking hypocrite.
Ray, with all due respect, the United States is not a military oligarchy. There is no requirement in the constitution that its leaders be culled from the military. Furthermore, for at least half of its history, there was--and is--no draft.
Therefore, your ranting and raving that U.S. leaders must be veterans in order to command to serve as president in a time of war is without either precedence or logic. It also means the only person you can legitimately support in this election is John McCain.
As for the "the violence is to repel invaders" argument, I thought most of the violence was the result of a "civil war" between competing factions of the Iraqi nation: Shiite, Sunni and Kurd. That's why Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer, among other democrats, advocated partitioning the country earlier this year.
Finally, I don't think you can keep calling it a "stay the course" strategy any more, given that the surge was, in fact, a change of course.
Ray, with all due respect, the United States is not a military oligarchy. There is no requirement in the constitution that its leaders be culled from the military. Furthermore, for at least half of its history, there was--and is--no draft.
I never talked about drafts or law. I talked about the morality in someone who never joined the military and went to war sending troops to war and being so gung ho about it. And I asked why people like you and Wonderboy are so gungho to leave troops in a shithole where any goal is highly unlikely but fatalities are guaranteed when you have never been in the military.
Quote:
Therefore, your ranting and raving that U.S. leaders must be veterans in order to command to serve as president in a time of war is without either precedence or logic. It also means the only person you can legitimately support in this election is John McCain.
I never said that. I, again, attacked the people who never were in the military but seem "liberal" about it's use for whatever they think might be a good idea. I believe, not that only veterans be elected, but that the troops be used for worthy causes. Now they're in harm's way based on a lie and staying to satisfy Bush's stubborn ego.
Quote:
As for the "the violence is to repel invaders" argument, I thought most of the violence was the result of a "civil war" between competing factions of the Iraqi nation: Shiite, Sunni and Kurd. That's why Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer, among other democrats, advocated partitioning the country earlier this year.
lots of violence over there, g-man. with different reasons. All of which we could've prevented had things been handled right in the beginning.
Quote:
Finally, I don't think you can keep calling it a "stay the course" strategy any more, given that the surge was, in fact, a change of course.
So, what it really boils down to is that you disagree with Bush on this particular war and that you feel it's not a worthy cause.
Okay, fair enough.
But you're not a military vet either, are you? So why does you opinion count more than your fellow nonveterans Bush and Cheney (and G-man and WB)?
Answer: it doesn't. If anything, it counts less than that of the President and Vice President since, you know, THEY WERE ELECTED TO THE JOB BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, and everything. Furthermore, McCain (whom I disagree with on a number of issues) is a highly respected military vet and he agrees with Bush and Cheney about the surge and 90% of how the war has been prosecuted.
So the "they weren't in the military" is just a dodge. You have admitted and/or demonstrated that military service (or lack thereof) is not the defining factor here.
It's really just that you don't like Bush and you don't like the war. Fine. But instead of coming up with a principled argument against the war, you've got nothing but ad hominem attacks against the President, other leaders, WB and myself.
So, what it really boils down to is that you disagree with Bush on this particular war and that you feel it's not a worthy cause.
Okay, fair enough.
But you're not a military vet either, are you? So why does you opinion count more than your fellow nonveterans Bush and Cheney (and G-man and WB)?
that wasn't the point. the point was that you and wondy and people like Bush never went into the military but are so willing to risk soldier's lives to prove a point and push your view on the world. (see:PNAC). As I said, I didn't join the military which falls in line with my over all anti-war stance. People like you are hypocrites.
Quote:
If anything, it counts less than that of the President and Vice President since, you know, THEY WERE ELECTED TO THE JOB BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, and everything.
A. Bush wasn't elected by the American people, he lost the popular vote. B. He gave faulty intel and lies to sell the war.
Quote:
Furthermore, McCain (whom I disagree with on a number of issues) is a highly respected military vet and he agrees with Bush and Cheney about the surge and 90% of how the war has been prosecuted.
I never said anything in my post about military vets making better strategists and being beyond question. I pointed out that the people who are so eager for war are ones who never went. And McCain is a party hack. He insults Bush right up until it's time for an election.
Quote:
So the "they weren't in the military" is just a dodge. You have admitted and/or demonstrated that military service (or lack thereof) is not the defining factor here.
It only works when you twist the logic and my point to go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with what i said but is easier to argue (see: republican strategy since 2000). I'm talking about people like you, wondy, and other rightwingers who are so gung ho to keep the war going instead of admitting it was fumbled by Bush are for the most part people who kept themselves out of service.
Quote:
It's really just that you don't like Bush and you don't like the war. Fine. But instead of coming up with a principled argument against the war, you've got nothing but ad hominem attacks against the President, other leaders, WB and myself.
no it's really some old man who twists words and invents arguments because the truth is just too hard for him to stick by.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
A. Bush wasn't elected by the American people, he lost the popular vote.
This is one chestnut that needs to be tossed out.
The fact that the American people support a government that enlists the use of the electoral college means that any president put into office through its use is given their blessing by default.
If they don't truly like the system, then they should revolt or move to a strictly democratic nation rather than our Federalist Republic.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
Yeah G-man.
I was watching Ken Burns' documentary on World War II this week, The War, and it shows the many screw-ups that cost the lives of many American soldiers.
Ken Burns was talking with Bill Maher about how the soldiers felt that the war was worth it after they liberated the concentration camps and agreed that there is no such pay off with Iraq. Unlike WWII there was no threat, FDR didn't have to lie about Hitler invading countries.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
A. Bush wasn't elected by the American people, he lost the popular vote.
This is one chestnut that needs to be tossed out.
The fact that the American people support a government that enlists the use of the electoral college means that any president put into office through its use is given their blessing by default.
If they don't truly like the system, then they should revolt or move to a strictly democratic nation rather than our Federalist Republic.
but G-man said (and I quoted) that the American people elected Bush. It wasn't the American people, it was a system set up before any of us was born. So the "people" didn't elect Bush. He's one of only 2 Presidents this has ever happened to. Had it not been for 9/11 and his manipulation of the fear it caused he would've faded away into obscurity by the middle of his term.
Ray's logic seems to be this: If someone was never in a dangerous job, he or she cannot expect the people who currently hold that dangerous job to risk their lives.
By that logic, if Ray's house catches on fire, he is a hypocrite to want the fire department to risk their lives to extinguish the fire and/or save his property since, presumably, Ray has never been a firefighter.
Similarly, by that logic, since Ray was never a police officer, he has no right to expect the police to chase and attempt to apprehend a suspect that robbed him.
Oh, and Ray: Bush won the popular vote in 2004. So, yes, even if you split hairs about the electoral college, the American people elected him and Cheney to the job.
Ray's logic seems to be this: If someone was never in a dangerous job, he or she cannot expect the people who currently hold that dangerous job to risk their lives.
no, you just keep showing your "legal mind" As I said the people who are gung ho for this war despite all logic saying it's not working and troops keep dying, are mostly people who avoided such hazards themselves. this is not WWII, this is worse than Vietnam. It's a pointless cause to keep trying to fix Bush's mounting mistakes so he can save his legacy.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Quote:
After Iraq and Vietnam, no ally will ever trust us to remain committed again. Millions of pro-Democracy Iraqis are threatened with extermination if we leave. It was their willingness to put themselves at risk in support of democracy that got us this far in Iraq.
Vietnam was also based on a lie (see: Tonkin). Vietnam was also us preventing democracy because we were afraid they would vote for the communists. So instead of bolstering the non-communists we just bombed them. Both wars were messes, both wars were to help people who didn't really want our help or wanted us to actually be competent with our help.
Ray, perhaps you've heard of this documentary, "War Made Easy", well worth watching and buying.
Yeah. I don't feel like talking much right now seeing as how I have a lot to do right now, so YouTube clips will have to suffice. I just bring it up because y'know... I'm sure someone is waiting in the wings to lob that complaint..
As far as Ken Burns. That would have been like me calling upon Ann Coulter to bolster my argument.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
Liberals will leap to find a way to discredit this good news from Iraq. It disheartens me to see such a lack of resolve regarding the Iraq war. I'm grateful this mindset didn't exist during world war II. We would have lost that war, as pure lack of commitment threatens to make us lose in Iraq.
Ken Burns pretty well answered that in that Real Time" clip. If there is any lack of "resolve", it' has everything to do with Bush himself and his call to American consumerism and not with the dreaded liberal conspiracy.
My remark was directed much more at Whomod than at you, Halo.
He attacks anyone who appears to enter on my behalf (even as he and ray gang up on me), and sees no problem with you doing exactly what he just criticized Pariah for allegedly doing (and Pariah made it clear he had a larger point than defending me).
Okay.
Quote:
But... I'm going to refrain from making further comments about the similarities between your posts and Whomod's (your reaction on any number of issues is virtually identical, even if you are two separate people), pending further comparison of your ISP's. But I'm sure there's ways around that, such as having two ISP's, or a computer at home and another at work.
But I'll treat you as two separate people now unless proven otherwise.
"virutually identical". I really don't see how. The only thing we really have in common is a disdain for the government and Bush. We write in very diffrent ways, I make far more spelling errors then Who', and I haven't the slightest fucking clue how to embed YouTube stuff. Your gonna have to be more specific (that is if you bring this up again but if you don't that's fine).
Quote:
Gee, y'know that's funny, because I've seen the identical criticism of conservatives here. Check out old posts by one of the retired main conservatives here on RKMB, wannabuyamonky (or WBAM), among others.
I'll refrain from remarks of this sort as well, if it will generate more discussion and less insults. But no matter how civil I am, it seems that certain liberals here just have to get in their nasty insults and digs, to the abandonment of serious discussion of the issue.
I hope you will be one to rise above that
If you've seen it before perhaps it's because there's an element of truth to it. I can guarantee you as long as you don't take a shot at me I won't take a shot at you. However, and I'm not saying this to be offensive, but guys...on the right, well all people, but especially conservatives cling to there beliefs like there balls and take it very personally when a guy like me disagrees in robust fashion.
Quote:
That's funny, since you just criticized (1)my pointing out the similarity of your posts to Whomod's as virtually identical, and (2)taking a shot at your spelling. So you may not call for civility in exactly the same way I do, but you do anyway.
That has nothing to do with civility. My problem with your saying me and Whomod are the same or "virtually identical" is because it's a baseless assumption and my problem with you pointing out my spelling is that it's the kind of trivial thing people use to deflect point, assassinate character, and change the course of conversation when they can't make an actual argument. It has nothing to do with being civil it has to do with being intelligent. And I'm not calling you stupid.
The fact that the American people support a government that enlists the use of the electoral college means that any president put into office through its use is given their blessing by default.
If they don't truly like the system, then they should revolt or move to a strictly democratic nation rather than our Federalist Republic.
That's not very realistic. To think that American's understand every single aspect of the govt. before it's put into place or inacted and give therefore anything the govt. does is okay is very attenuated. Before Bush, before the war, before the 2000 elections people didn't really pay that much attention to how the system works. That's what we have officials for. Even to this day the govt is too intricate to for any one person to be competely aware of every little detail. I've heard (but can't remember) there are good reasons for the electorial vote but there's no reason why it should overrule the popular vote.
I think Halo's glasses have the power of super hypnotism and cause people to see him and whomod as two separate people.
Weren't you talking about how we should stay on topic?
You know, everyone who talks about me and Who' being the same might wanna leave it alone before the Admin or mods reveal that we can't possibly be the same.
