Dems will put us on the defense

[Lynn7]

A campaign speech from Guliani-

Article (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3684.html)

[Thrizzle]

I think that this country has been put in a very bad spot in more ways than one. We can keep our troops in Iraq and have our military slowly exhausted and bled dry or we can pull out , re-enter the war on terror and possibly fight a new uphill battle. Both are shitty options but in the long run it makes more sense to pull out of iraqs civil war and focus our military on Al Qaeda.

[Squid Vicious]

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards not only support continuing the war in Iraq, but they haven't ruled out the possibility of bombing Iran, either.

Gee...uh...there goes that argument, I guess...

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
I think that this country has been put in a very bad spot in more ways than one. We can keep our troops in Iraq and have our military slowly exhausted and bled dry or we can pull out , re-enter the war on terror and possibly fight a new uphill battle. Both are shitty options but in the long run it makes more sense to pull out of iraqs civil war and focus our military on Al Qaeda.

This is a common sentiment- our military will be exhausted and bled dry. It is sad that we are the richest and most successful country in the history of the world and yet we are constantly being presented as weak and dying. If we cannot win this war the entire world is doomed. Are we willing to fight for our right to exist? If not then we don't deserve it.

[Thrizzle]

But we arent fighting for our existence, and troops over in Iraq are having their tours extended by 3 months because the military is running out of recruits.

[The Postmaster General]

You mean we weren't on the defensive after September 11, 2001.

That would mean Bush lied about why we went to war.

[Lynn7]

We have been on the offense since we went to war after 9-11. We invaded Iraq to be proactive instead of reactive. We also went into Afghanistan to be on offense- we try to find these guys before they strike us- we gain info and get proactive.

Of course the Dems would like to get out of Iraq, stay in Afghanistan (cause that is the only place "proven" to have terrorists, I guess) and do away with much of the Patriot Act. We should screen everyone at airports and not profile people, we should be gentle when we interrogate people, should let people go from our detention camps and of course we should not be intercepting messages from overseas into our country to suspected terrorists. Yeah, we will be really safe when the Dems take over power. :rolleyes:

[notchreturns]

I don't think it can get much worse than 9-11. When you guessed it, a republican was in charge.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
We have been on the offense since we went to war after 9-11. We invaded Iraq to be proactive instead of reactive. We also went into Afghanistan to be on offense- we try to find these guys before they strike us- we gain info and get proactive.


Bush's entire reason for invading -- he said so himself, was to DEFEND the country. To now flip it around and say we are on the offense pretty much validates every single thing anti-war protesters have been saying.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Bush's entire reason for invading -- he said so himself, was to DEFEND the country. To now flip it around and say we are on the offense pretty much validates every single thing anti-war protesters have been saying.

Don't forget that Lynn is all for war, yet never served, and her kids are not in the military. She is part of the rich who are all for this war to protect THEMSELVES, and could care less about anyone else. I think we should make everyone go through military training, and if a war comes, guess what, the best go to fight. It makes everything even for everyone in this country.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Don't forget that Lynn is all for war, yet never served, and her kids are not in the military. She is part of the rich who are all for this war to protect THEMSELVES, and could care less about anyone else. I think we should make everyone go through military training, and if a war comes, guess what, the best go to fight. It makes everything even for everyone in this country.

Are you privy to Lynn's finances?
I wouldn't be surprised if Democratic party went ape shit on the Middle East trying to show the American people how big it's sack is.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by shoe1985
I think we should make everyone go through military training, and if a war comes, guess what, the best go to fight. It makes everything even for everyone in this country.


I generally, don't give one word responses, but: No.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Are you privy to Lynn's finances?
I wouldn't be surprised if Democratic party went ape shit on the Middle East trying to show the American people how big it's sack is.

From what she has said in the past, it sounds like she is doing very well for herself.

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I generally, don't give one word responses, but: No.
This is the thing with most people, not saying you, but most are all War War War. Ask them how many family members they have serving and it will be close to 0. I believe that if you want war, you should be in the military fighting for the cause. It is similar to protesting, you want to get heard, fight for your issue. Don't go on a message board saying how we should be in war when you don't do anything to have a real opinion about it.

I don't want war, and would rather peace talks. I have protested and done what I felt I should be doing.

[EVILxxx]

The simple answer is that if you do not want to fight in combat do not join the armed services. The military doesn't need your pity.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Of course the Dems would like to get out of Iraq, stay in Afghanistan (cause that is the only place "proven" to have terrorists, I guess) and do away with much of the Patriot Act. We should screen everyone at airports and not profile people, we should be gentle when we interrogate people, should let people go from our detention camps and of course we should not be intercepting messages from overseas into our country to suspected terrorists. Yeah, we will be really safe when the Dems take over power. :rolleyes:

None of this is true. You're always defending Ann Coulter's vitriol as just "tongue-in-cheek" and yet you present it later as a legitimate argument.

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Of course the Dems would like to get out of Iraq, stay in Afghanistan (cause that is the only place "proven" to have terrorists, I guess) and do away with much of the Patriot Act. We should screen everyone at airports and not profile people, we should be gentle when we interrogate people, should let people go from our detention camps and of course we should not be intercepting messages from overseas into our country to suspected terrorists.

Reality (http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0309-23.htm) suggests (http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html) otherwise. (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3084)

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Squid Vicious
Reality (http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0309-23.htm) suggests (http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html) otherwise. (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3084)

So much for Democrats being "weak" or putting America "on the defensive". Excellent reading.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by jeo4
So much for Democrats being "weak" or putting America "on the defensive". Excellent reading.

Excellent? And then people insist they are not brainwashed and make their own conclusions. :mad:

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Squid Vicious
Reality (http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0309-23.htm) suggests (http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html) otherwise. (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3084)

Thank you, like I did not have enough of printed shit already...


When I see Israel among Chad & Co. I understand what kinda human scam I am dealing with.

I agree, leftists could be more hawkish, dangerous and relentless. I guess Rudiani was talking about "right now" with "political movement a.k.a. Islam".

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Excellent? And then people insist they are not brainwashed and make their own conclusions. :mad:

This coming on the heels of "quit whining and change the channel" when discussing Fox News.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by jeo4
This coming on the heels of "quit whining and change the channel" when discussing Fox News.

I did not use the word excellent, didn't I?

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Excellent? And then people insist they are not brainwashed and make their own conclusions. :mad:

Because when somebody's political views differ from yours, they must be brainwashed! :rolleyes:

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by shoe1985
This is the thing with most people, not saying you, but most are all War War War. Ask them how many family members they have serving and it will be close to 0. I believe that if you want war, you should be in the military fighting for the cause. It is similar to protesting, you want to get heard, fight for your issue. Don't go on a message board saying how we should be in war when you don't do anything to have a real opinion about it.

Yeah, I know why you said it, but don't think its a free country if everyone is forced into military.

Also, I have no problem with people having opinions. Very few of us on these forums are in the movie industry, but that doesn't mean we should get flack for ranting about how we think Grindhouse was mismarketed.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Don't forget that Lynn is all for war, yet never served, and her kids are not in the military. She is part of the rich who are all for this war to protect THEMSELVES, and could care less about anyone else. I think we should make everyone go through military training, and if a war comes, guess what, the best go to fight. It makes everything even for everyone in this country.

Wow. First, let me tell you that I am middle class. We have actually struggled a bit in recent years. Does that make me more worthy of your respect?

I care a lot about everyone else. I care a lot about the 3,000 people who were in the World Trade Center that day- men women, children who were trapped in a burning building calling home to their loved ones to say a tearful good bye. I care for the terrified people who were on the airplanes that day. The stewardess who had her neck slashed as she did her job and the people who knew they faced certain death as they flew into the Pentagon.And the people who bravely fought the terrorists but died in the corn fields.

I care. I care a lot. I really respect those who choose to fight in our war. They are the brave and courageous people who beleive in our country's right to exist. I also respect our police force and our firemen. Yesterday one police officer got killed on duty and another one got his arm practically blown off and that was by a US criminal who did that. Should we all sign up for the police force? Otherwise how could we ask people to sign up to such dangerous duty? and yet, I know many men who would love to be cops but there is such a long waiting list they could never get in.What is it that drives people to dangerous professions? I beleive they are brave.

I have told you I am too old to join. Why do you hate me for not serving? Because I beleive in the war? I would not believe in this war had we not been so vicously attacked on 9-11. And even today the news is talking about worries about Iran who is getting closer and closer to nuclear weapons and guess who they hate? I am sorry this is not the world you expected to live in. You grew up in a country that was somewhat insulated from such evil but now that is over. It is nothing I wanted. I hate it too. But there it is. And if we do nothing we are just going to be waiting to be taken over. Blown up. Beheaded. Oppressed. That is what we are fighting against. Beleive it.

[shoe1985]

If you honestly believe we are not safe right now, you need to get your head checked. The Republicans will push people around by saying Dems are not able to take care of us. How do they know? Most of the people in office at the time were Repubs.

I have enough friends fighting in Iraq, and want to come home to their families. If they leave and come home they will be put in jail. Most are serving their third or fourth term now. This is getting sick, these people are tired, and there are not enough people serving to replace them. So, they will be serving probably another 3 or 4 terms, so WE can be safe.

[Lynn7]

We are safe now thanks to those brave soldiers. Not totally safe but safer than we would have been if we had not been able to get rid of some really bad people and gained some good intel about plots and terror groups.

I'm sorry your friends want to come home. It is hard I'm sure and yet I also hear of others who re up cause they want to be there. People should not sign up for the military unless they are willing to give their lives. It has always been the same. To sign up and think there is no chance of fighting is a big mistake. At any time stuff can happen and people can be called up.

Why do I think the Dems would not keep us safe? It is like if the police force stopped patrolling or looking for trouble. If they just waited until something bad happened and then reacted. Trouble is that many innocents can be saved through preventative measures. If we are always reacting to bad stuff then we will play defense and will be at the disadvantage. And sometimes, once you play defense you can never bring yourself about again. Isn't our country worth fighting for? isn't our way lf life worth fighting (and dying) for?

And just so you know, I am working as a nurse now and if there was a fire, I would be willing to lay down my life to save my patients. I am the one in charge of protecting their lives and would be the last out in case of fire etc. I have signed up for that duty.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
We are safe now thanks to those brave soldiers.

*puts drill to head*

[Lynn7]

Sometimes I get really depressed when I see the attitudes around here. The things that are really wrong in the world are diminished and the things that are right are ridiculed. I'd like to see a lot more anger directed at the evil of the terrorists. I hardly see that at all here or in the media or in the human rights organizations. It's so discouraging and I think that maybe our country's days are really numbered.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I'd like to see a lot more anger directed at the evil of the terrorists.

Anger is never the solution to anything, and this country can't be run on emotions.

I think you're disappointed in this country because ultimately you want a theocracy.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I'd like to see a lot more anger directed at the evil of the terrorists. I hardly see that at all here or in the media or in the human rights organizations.

Maybe because people are realizing that violence begets more violence, and that anger towards an idea doesn't carry any weight. Human rights organizations are trying to protect the rights of those who will not do the same, to show that they won't stoop to their level and just execute them.

If anything Lynn, by asking for more "anger" towards the terrorists, you are giving them exactly what they want...that and stooping to their level of "shoot first, ask questions later".

[The Postmaster General]

Before 9/11, what is the timeline of terrorist activity on American soil - I don't mean embassies or military targets, I mean something like WTC - right here.

The reason I ask is because it seems like its been a long time. If you are going to speak of embassies or aircraft carriers, it would also make sense to count the daily attacks on America soldiers.

Dems put us on the defense? We should be more worried about box cutters and people with terrorist ties flying.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I don't buy it one bit. This is just Giuliani's way of trying to convince Republicans that he really is one of them.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Squid Vicious
Because when somebody's political views differ from yours, they must be brainwashed! :rolleyes:

No, they're just insane and irresponsible..:)

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Before 9/11, what is the timeline of terrorist activity on American soil - I don't mean embassies or military targets, I mean something like WTC - right here.

The reason I ask is because it seems like its been a long time. If you are going to speak of embassies or aircraft carriers, it would also make sense to count the daily attacks on America soldiers.

Dems put us on the defense? We should be more worried about box cutters and people with terrorist ties flying.

Bubba, two small cents before someone will make anti-Beenthere "Shut the fuck up" thing:

Last century: Israel and, hell, Europe, were not only closer targets, they were common enemies for the kinky people from the Middle East and old farts from Kremlin who supervised the process. (Many nuances omitted here but it's safe to say that the American soil was left for the future. Not anymore.) Plus the level of delirium is much higher now, paramounting and stuff.

Terrorism is a deadly tool for "nice folks who struggle to make the world better". Just one of the tools they have. I am more concerned about the rest of them. That includes a violence-oriented conversion, finding loopholes in the system, propaganda and sickening anti-Americanism, making precautions look like fears and vice-versa, exploiting non-existing backlashes, deepening the divisions and ignorance of many hot priorities including borders and Canada (:D) The poisonous combination of the government mistakes, ecstasy of "true believers", the indifference of many, paranoia and ideological wars, external instability and all fifth columns in the universe are much more dangerous than old style terrorism in the pervasive Beenthere's mind.

[The Postmaster General]

I hear you, but don't think you can make the right friends with bombs.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Beenthere
I did not use the word excellent, didn't I?

No, YOU used the words brainwashed, insane and irresponsible. When I come to a thread and offer praise to another member for something they've offered, the last thing I want is to be insulted. If you're too partisan to be objective and you feel that throwing backhanded slams at people is the answer, then maybe you need not offer your opinion. I don't know...let's ask a moderator.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
We are safe now thanks to those brave soldiers. Not totally safe but safer than we would have been if we had not been able to get rid of some really bad people and gained some good intel about plots and terror groups.

I'm sorry your friends want to come home. It is hard I'm sure and yet I also hear of others who re up cause they want to be there. People should not sign up for the military unless they are willing to give their lives. It has always been the same. To sign up and think there is no chance of fighting is a big mistake. At any time stuff can happen and people can be called up.

Why do I think the Dems would not keep us safe? It is like if the police force stopped patrolling or looking for trouble. If they just waited until something bad happened and then reacted. Trouble is that many innocents can be saved through preventative measures. If we are always reacting to bad stuff then we will play defense and will be at the disadvantage. And sometimes, once you play defense you can never bring yourself about again. Isn't our country worth fighting for? isn't our way lf life worth fighting (and dying) for?

And just so you know, I am working as a nurse now and if there was a fire, I would be willing to lay down my life to save my patients. I am the one in charge of protecting their lives and would be the last out in case of fire etc. I have signed up for that duty.

See here is the problem. My friends signed up knowing they would serve their country. They didn't know they would be over there for this long. Most expected they would have backups come in and take their place. If you think moral is down here, you should speak to those who are still waiting to come home, and when the time comes they are told they can't go.

Family is the most important thing in life, and these guys miss their family.

Remember this, Clinton was going to hit Bin Laden and probably kill him with a bomb. It was Republicans who said not to, and at the last minute Clinton didn't. This may have prevented 9/11, maybe not. I haven't seen any good come from the Republican party from this war.

Also, Lynn, whatever happened to Bin Laden? Wasn't he the main target?

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I think America, and the world for that matter, would actually benefit more from being on the defense than the offense. Whoever is president does need to cut the military's budget because, believe it or not, America's military has more than enough money. I say this because of all the shit the military has wasted time and money on. Hell, the guys at the Pentagon have admitted that they've spent billions of dollars on things that America doesn't really need (they of course were naturally not as frank about it). If we took that money and gave it to troops who can't afford body armor, that would help out in Iraq. OR, we spend that money on Homeland Security.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by jeo4
No, YOU used the words brainwashed, insane and irresponsible. When I come to a thread and offer praise to another member for something they've offered, the last thing I want is to be insulted. If you're too partisan to be objective and you feel that throwing backhanded slams at people is the answer, then maybe you need not offer your opinion. I don't know...let's ask a moderator.

Jeo- I had to go back and reread all the posts to see what gave you such great offense- I dont' get it. His last comment was accompanied by a smiley face which tells me he was joking. Let's keep things calm.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by shoe1985
See here is the problem. My friends signed up knowing they would serve their country. They didn't know they would be over there for this long. Most expected they would have backups come in and take their place. If you think moral is down here, you should speak to those who are still waiting to come home, and when the time comes they are told they can't go.

Family is the most important thing in life, and these guys miss their family.

Remember this, Clinton was going to hit Bin Laden and probably kill him with a bomb. It was Republicans who said not to, and at the last minute Clinton didn't. This may have prevented 9/11, maybe not. I haven't seen any good come from the Republican party from this war.

Also, Lynn, whatever happened to Bin Laden? Wasn't he the main target?

When I was a teen I wanted to join the marines. My dad forbid me to join- he said when you join the military, they own you body and soul. You can't do anything- you cannot make your own decisions about anything- you can't go where you want to go. I didn't care cause I wanted to do something dramatic I suppose. There was no war going on at the time anyway, but I did listen to my dad. Two of my friends did join the service about the same time and my cousin joined too. Anyway, my father was a navy guy and he did like to be in the military but he did not want his daugher in it. Different times. And actually, my dad, his brother, thier dad, my uncle on my mothers side, my great uncle and my great aunt were all in the military too. It is a great calling I think. I admire the people who join the military and do beleive they keep us safe.

I really hope that you never have to go into the military since you feel so strongly about it. But let's give Pres Bush this credit. It would've been easy to institute the draft in the past before this war became unpopular and he never did it. He has always stood against the draft. But it is the Dems who keep bringing up the draft again so watch out......Their philosophy is to keep things fair so they will beleive that all kids should be called to the military- men and women alike.


The Republicans did not tell Clinton not to kill Bin Laden with a bomb :confused: There was some criticism because the day Clinton bombed it was right before some huge development in the Lewinsky case and many people thought he was just saying that he wanted to bomb to cover up his own mess. Previous to that the general public was not in the know about Ben Laden. It was out of the blue. and it turned out there were no terrorists there anyway.

And it is thought that Bin Laden is somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan well hidden by tribes. So, how do we infiltrate that? You want to invade Pakistan? That will go over well.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I really hope that you never have to go into the military since you feel so strongly about it. But let's give Pres Bush this credit. It would've been easy to institute the draft in the past before this war became unpopular and he never did it. He has always stood against the draft. But it is the Dems who keep bringing up the draft again so watch out......Their philosophy is to keep things fair so they will beleive that all kids should be called to the military- men and women alike.


Their position now is to gradually bring troops home, not draft. But here is something i dont get....you say we're in the fight for our lives but you oppose the draft? Who will fight the war then? The military is near exhaustion, and certainly not ready to stand Iran down.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Jeo- I had to go back and reread all the posts to see what gave you such great offense- I dont' get it. His last comment was accompanied by a smiley face which tells me he was joking. Let's keep things calm.

And what did the "angry" emoticon tell you? Let's not try to be objective in discussions at all, and always be sure to defend your fellow Republican, too.

Yeah, I should be calm. :rolleyes:

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by jeo4
And what did the "angry" emoticon tell you? Let's not try to be objective in discussions at all, and always be sure to defend your fellow Republican, too.

Yeah, I should be calm. :rolleyes:

The comment he made with the angry face was no different than what I get here almost every day. It is just debate. I just don't like when things deteriorate and get really angry around here. I want everyone to like each other.

I went to the link that Squid has and that you said was excellent- was it about the Obama Illusion? Or did the article change from what it was? If it was about the Obama Illusion I am not following the point you guys are making- care to explain?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Their position now is to gradually bring troops home, not draft. But here is something i dont get....you say we're in the fight for our lives but you oppose the draft? Who will fight the war then? The military is near exhaustion, and certainly not ready to stand Iran down.

Truthfully I think their position is that Pres Bush got us into this war and it can be called his war and they can get great political advantage by slamming Bush and the war every chance they get so that they can gain a big majority in congress and gain power. Why do I think that?Because they offer no solutions. If we pull out and the terrorists gain control of the country (or Iran does) then what are we going to do? They are strangely silent about this. If they had some ideas I would take them more seriously. IF we pull out, or give a date certain for withdrawal then the terrorists will take over (or Iran). The government is not strong enough to defend itself. I'm sorry they are not, but that is just the way it is.So what are we going to do?

IF the Dems get in, and we pull out, and the terrorists have Iraq and start getting nasty with not only invasions but oil manipulations, what will we do? Iraq is sitting on a lot of oil which means huge amounts of money in the hands of the terrorists. Bush will be back in Crawford on his ranch (no more Bush to blame) and it will be just us and the Dems in power. And what is going to happen then? No draft? Don't you beleive it. Things will be a lot worse.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Truthfully I think their position is that Pres Bush got us into this war and it can be called his war and they can get great political advantage by slamming Bush and the war every chance they get so that they can gain a big majority in congress and gain power. Why do I think that?Because they offer no solutions. If we pull out and the terrorists gain control of the country (or Iran does) then what are we going to do? They are strangely silent about this. If they had some ideas I would take them more seriously. IF we pull out, or give a date certain for withdrawal then the terrorists will take over (or Iran). The government is not strong enough to defend itself. I'm sorry they are not, but that is just the way it is.So what are we going to do?

IF the Dems get in, and we pull out, and the terrorists have Iraq and start getting nasty with not only invasions but oil manipulations, what will we do? Iraq is sitting on a lot of oil which means huge amounts of money in the hands of the terrorists. Bush will be back in Crawford on his ranch (no more Bush to blame) and it will be just us and the Dems in power. And what is going to happen then? No draft? Don't you beleive it. Things will be a lot worse.

Whether or not Bush is in office or not, he'll always take the blame for this massive screw up. But you dodged my question so i'll ask it again: you say we're in the fight for our lives but you oppose the draft? Who will fight the war then? The military is near exhaustion and the current strategy hasnt had any significant impact. Overall violence in Iraq is the same (or worse, Iraq wont release figures).

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Truthfully I think their position is that Pres Bush got us into this war and it can be called his war and they can get great political advantage by slamming Bush and the war every chance they get so that they can gain a big majority in congress and gain power. Why do I think that?Because they offer no solutions. If we pull out and the terrorists gain control of the country (or Iran does) then what are we going to do? They are strangely silent about this. If they had some ideas I would take them more seriously. IF we pull out, or give a date certain for withdrawal then the terrorists will take over (or Iran). The government is not strong enough to defend itself. I'm sorry they are not, but that is just the way it is.So what are we going to do?

IF the Dems get in, and we pull out, and the terrorists have Iraq and start getting nasty with not only invasions but oil manipulations, what will we do? Iraq is sitting on a lot of oil which means huge amounts of money in the hands of the terrorists. Bush will be back in Crawford on his ranch (no more Bush to blame) and it will be just us and the Dems in power. And what is going to happen then? No draft? Don't you beleive it. Things will be a lot worse.

What a crock. I'm not a fan of the Democrats, but if you had read those THREE articles Squid posted (not one, mind you), you'd have read where no less than three Democratic candidates stand in their political views. You'd have also read that these Democrats vying for the Whitehouse are more hawkish than you think. They all have said that they will continue to fight. So that blows a crater in the statement that Democrats will "put us on the defensive".

The other thing I noticed is that you're claiming that Democrats don't have a "plan" for this war. All the while, they're the ones introducing a plan that includes not only a military budget, but a timetable to hand power over to the new government in Iraq and withdraw from the country. This means most of our forces come home and leave a minimal military occupation for training purposes. (But wait a a minute! Didin't the President say he'd veto all that?)

This puts responsibility back on the people of Iraq, thus rebuilding our military and restocking for future needs.

Meanwhile, soldiers and reservists come home to train other new recruits for future use and our military gets a little stronger and smarter.
And that means what? It means no need for a draft.

It also means we are more financially stable because we aren't spending over $80 billion a month on occupying troops and the supplies/weapons they need. And that means what, Lynn? It means we have a stronger military to handle future terror situations or beligerent nations.

And what plan does Bush have for Iraq?? None. He certainly isn't prepared to hand the country over to its citizens or rebuild our military for future needs. He's stretching the current forces in Iraq so thin, they are extending their tours by months or even years in some cases. All the while, he leaves our military forces open to attack by terrorists who have moved into the country since the US began this attack four years ago. And to both him and VP Cheney, the end is still years from completion. It sounds like Republicans are the ones who have America on the defensive.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Jeo- I had to go back and reread all the posts to see what gave you such great offense- I dont' get it. His last comment was accompanied by a smiley face which tells me he was joking. Let's keep things calm.

Thank you, Lynn. And brainwashed part (hell, I was brainwashed by the Soviet news and textbooks long time ago) was mostly about the articles writers - that's why the word "excellent" did not feel right to me.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by jeo4
And what did the "angry" emoticon tell you? Let's not try to be objective in discussions at all, and always be sure to defend your fellow Republican, too.

Yeah, I should be calm. :rolleyes:

Didn't I mention that putting Israel next to Chad seemed so ridiculous to me that it was enough for "angry face"?

If you found it "excellent", sorry, we're different. Expect more punches (within the acceptable, of course.)

P.S. I am not a conservative, I am anti-leftists and uber-liberals. I have all reasons to be. I am not sure you would like the future that was already in my past. :)

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Whether or not Bush is in office or not, he'll always take the blame for this massive screw up. But you dodged my question so i'll ask it again: you say we're in the fight for our lives but you oppose the draft? Who will fight the war then? The military is near exhaustion and the current strategy hasnt had any significant impact. Overall violence in Iraq is the same (or worse, Iraq wont release figures).

It's an easy answer- I think that if it comes to whether we want to survive as a country or not then we all must fight. This is a war. They want to defeat us. That is worth fighting for. Live free or die.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by jeo4
What a crock. I'm not a fan of the Democrats, but if you had read those THREE articles Squid posted (not one, mind you), you'd have read where no less than three Democratic candidates stand in their political views. You'd have also read that these Democrats vying for the Whitehouse are more hawkish than you think. They all have said that they will continue to fight. So that blows a crater in the statement that Democrats will "put us on the defensive".

The other thing I noticed is that you're claiming that Democrats don't have a "plan" for this war. All the while, they're the ones introducing a plan that includes not only a military budget, but a timetable to hand power over to the new government in Iraq and withdraw from the country. This means most of our forces come home and leave a minimal military occupation for training purposes. (But wait a a minute! Didin't the President say he'd veto all that?)

This puts responsibility back on the people of Iraq, thus rebuilding our military and restocking for future needs.

Meanwhile, soldiers and reservists come home to train other new recruits for future use and our military gets a little stronger and smarter.
And that means what? It means no need for a draft.

It also means we are more financially stable because we aren't spending over $80 billion a month on occupying troops and the supplies/weapons they need. And that means what, Lynn? It means we have a stronger military to handle future terror situations or beligerent nations.

And what plan does Bush have for Iraq?? None. He certainly isn't prepared to hand the country over to its citizens or rebuild our military for future needs. He's stretching the current forces in Iraq so thin, they are extending their tours by months or even years in some cases. All the while, he leaves our military forces open to attack by terrorists who have moved into the country since the US began this attack four years ago. And to both him and VP Cheney, the end is still years from completion. It sounds like Republicans are the ones who have America on the defensive.

To leave before the Iraqis are strong enough to take over is nuts. The Dems are basically saying that they don't care what happens to the innocent Iraqi citizens- they just want to get out. and this while they all say they hate what is happening in Darfur. They will cause the destruction of millions by pulling out of Iraq before the country is ready to rule.

The way I see the philosphy of the up and coming generation is that we need to be comfortable and stay away from icky things. Let others fend for themselves and as long as the terrorists don't make life too uncomfortable then let them do their thing.

History repeats itself. Many did not want to get involved when Hitler began his reign of terror. And later we saw the complete evil of that regime and cringed in horror at what he did. and yet, these terrorists are all gulity of doing what he did. They behead innocents, blow up children, torture people. They do not value life- at all.

Do you really think that if we pull out of Iraq that all will be well? You cannot even conceive of what is coming in our future. And our country will be too weak to stand because of the attitudes of a people who are too complacent from a life of video games and tv and being sheltered from the ugly things in life.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
It's an easy answer- I think that if it comes to whether we want to survive as a country or not then we all must fight. This is a war. They want to defeat us. That is worth fighting for. Live free or die.

I'm confused. You think we should draft, but you oppose the democracts doing it and applaud Bush for not doing it?

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
To leave before the Iraqis are strong enough to take over is nuts. The Dems are basically saying that they don't care what happens to the innocent Iraqi citizens- they just want to get out. and this while they all say they hate what is happening in Darfur. They will cause the destruction of millions by pulling out of Iraq before the country is ready to rule.

The way I see the philosphy of the up and coming generation is that we need to be comfortable and stay away from icky things. Let others fend for themselves and as long as the terrorists don't make life too uncomfortable then let them do their thing.

History repeats itself. Many did not want to get involved when Hitler began his reign of terror. And later we saw the complete evil of that regime and cringed in horror at what he did. and yet, these terrorists are all gulity of doing what he did. They behead innocents, blow up children, torture people. They do not value life- at all.

Do you really think that if we pull out of Iraq that all will be well? You cannot even conceive of what is coming in our future. And our country will be too weak to stand because of the attitudes of a people who are too complacent from a life of video games and tv and being sheltered from the ugly things in life.

Way to bash America yet again, Lynn. Because if you're picking at a generation that hates war, you're gonna have to go about five decades back now and deal with every generation since that time period. So you're pretty much bashing America. All for the sake of your party and its very flawed views on this war. If this is the way you feel about the people in this nation, you need to pack your shit and move right away. Iran or North Korea would love to have you, I'm sure.

And since you decided to bash the latest generation for their lack of a heart for war, you need to be reminded that its not your generation that is sacrificing lives and fighting in a nation full of whack jobs. It's the current generation that's doing that. That makes them better Americans than your generation, many of whom burned their draft cards and outright said they wouldn't go to war.

While terrorists are insane, they are fighting for their own needs and nobody elses. But they have little to no funding, supplies, or support now. So our presence is just about the only thing keeping them on the attack. And that makes any comparison between Iraq and Darfur null and void.

Bush's own words were "when Saddam Hussein is removed from power, terrorism will diminish." We went to war based on a lie. To claim that there is another Hitler or Stalin or anyone else in Iraqs immediate future is making a mountain out of an ant hill.

And yet again, after repeated attempts by others to point out that invading Iraq had NOTHING to do with terrorism or 9/11, you still throw out the terrorism bit. And that's another lie. America fought with a definite purpose...to ouster Saddam Hussein and his minions and create a free government by the Iraqi people. The claim was that Iraq could make better use of its resources and its people would flourish under a democracy. That isn't the case right now.

You claim Democrats "don't care" about this war and aren't willing to do anything. That's a HUGE lie. they outright offered the President everything he wanted in funding on the current bill. All they want is a planned schedule and timetable for withdrawal. And Bush outright said he'd veto anything with a timetable. Now again, I ask...what plan does Bush have for Iraq? And the answer is STILL NONE.

America toppled Saddam Hussein and killed his minions and his sons. America helped create a free Iraqi government that represented ALL Iraqis. America has spent hundreds of billions (upwards of trillions now) on this war. THAT Is spreading us thin and MAKING US WEAK. To say otherwise would be a delusion of mammoth proportions. Our forces need to rebuild and restock for the future. And the Iraqis need to step up and quell the insurgency themselves if they want freedom. If they don't, then our time in Iraq is being wasted. And that is a huge disservice to our military.

The points I made in my previous post were never answered. You dodged virtually evey one of them. I believe that is because you don't have a reasonable answer to them.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
To leave before the Iraqis are strong enough to take over is nuts. The Dems are basically saying that they don't care what happens to the innocent Iraqi citizens- they just want to get out. and this while they all say they hate what is happening in Darfur. They will cause the destruction of millions by pulling out of Iraq before the country is ready to rule.

We're leaving behind troops to help and train the Iraqis. So we're not leaving them high and freaking dry like you're painting it.

You have children. You know if you do every goddamn thing for them they'll never learn to take care of themselves. And the Iraqis would like us to leave eventually anyway. If we stay there without any plan on when to leave, we're eventually going to reach a magic time when we pass from an "ambivalently tolerated/welcome presence" by the population to a new "Ge the hell out of my country imperialist bastards!".

People can be grateful, but they can also turn on you when you just annoy them a little more than yesterday.

And most importantly, they're having a civil war, the Iraqis are destroying themselves, and they can do that because they're "free", but we can't undo that nor should we get in the middle of it. Do you think our Civil War would've ended any sooner or gone better if the British got in the middle of it to keep the north and south from killing each other?

On top of a civil war, they've also got terrorists sneaking into the country through borders that remained largely unprotected for too long, another example of our government's GREAT military planning. So on top of violence from a civil war, we also have to wade through daily terror and figure out "Are we in for a terrorist bombing today or a knock-down drag-out between Sunnis and Shiites?"

Oh, and then we still have Afghanistan....
.
Originally posted by Lynn7
Do you really think that if we pull out of Iraq that all will be well? You cannot even conceive of what is coming in our future. And our country will be too weak to stand because of the attitudes of a people who are too complacent from a life of video games and tv and being sheltered from the ugly things in life.

Do you really think staying in Iraq with no plan to hand over the country to the people is gonna work any better in our favor.?Face it hon, we've got "Shit" and "Crap" for options in this occupation. We just have to decide which makes us less nauseous.

[bowieee]

Originally posted by electriclite
We're leaving behind troops to help and train the Iraqis. So we're not leaving them high and freaking dry like you're painting it.

You have children. You know if you do every goddamn thing for them they'll never learn to take care of themselves. And the Iraqis would like us to leave eventually anyway. If we stay there without any plan on when to leave, we're eventually going to reach a magic time when we pass from an "ambivalently tolerated/welcome presence" by the population to a new "Ge the hell out of my country imperialist bastards!".

.


People forget that Iraqis arn't children who can't fend for themselves. They are grown adults who can find a way to function as a society. if war erupts... it erupts. Us being there definetly isn't going to make the underlying tension fade away. We are just pouring rocket fuel on an allready raging fire. Innocent people are getting gunned down in the street every day by our miltary in major cities whenever a suprise attack hits our militray. The army just begins firing into the crowd, Can you imagine how that makes them feel every time they see one of our military conveys approaching? They have been telling us to get the hell out since saddam fell. Maybe for once we should stop and listen but we are so busy setting up puppet administrations there to serve our own interests that it falls on deaf ears.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by bowieee
People forget that Iraqis arn't children who can't fend for themselves. They are grown adults who can find a way to function as a society. if war erupts... it erupts. Us being there definetly isn't going to make the underlying tension fade away. We are just pouring rocket fuel on an allready raging fire. Innocent people are getting gunned down in the street every day by our miltary in major cities whenever a suprise attack hits our militray. The army just begins firing into the crowd, Can you imagine how that makes them feel every time they see one of our military conveys approaching? They have been telling us to get the hell out since saddam fell. Maybe for once we should stop and listen but we are so busy setting up puppet administrations there to serve our own interests that it falls on deaf ears.


My "children" metaphor was merely just that. The "teach a man to fish" story would also work just as well.

It is true they're not children, but Lynn, and far too many others, are going on and on with the old white man's slogan: "The brown people need us, they don't know how to take care of themselves. They'll destroy themselves without our help."

And result ends up being that lovely laundry list of countries Squid Vicious posted in the "Iran implicated thread" (and I count other countries who perpetrated these offenses. Australia's "Lost Generation" anyone?) and generations of liberal white guilt to put up with.

I say: Let the brown people destroy themselves, and they'll have no one else to blame but themselves!

Yes, there are times of charity and then there is just opportunism and feelings of superiority.

[Vong]

Originally posted by electriclite
I say: Let the brown people destroy themselves, and they'll have no one else to blame but themselves!

Morbid, but true.
Nation building is something that has to be developed by a nations own people. Iraq must experience it's own "French Revolution" and determine its fate. It would benefit their country far greater than the US's attempts on creating a nation, which can be summed up by Uncle Sam standing on an Iraqi's neck and telling them to breathe deeper.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
I'm confused. You think we should draft, but you oppose the democracts doing it and applaud Bush for not doing it?

I dont beleive in the draft as long as our militray is getting the job done which they are. If the time came where the military is not strong enough to fight then we would have to fight. The Dems won't draft for the right reasons, they will do it so everyone will go equally- it will be a quota kind of thing rather than based on need.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by jeo4
Way to bash America yet again, Lynn. Because if you're picking at a generation that hates war, you're gonna have to go about five decades back now and deal with every generation since that time period. So you're pretty much bashing America. All for the sake of your party and its very flawed views on this war. If this is the way you feel about the people in this nation, you need to pack your shit and move right away. Iran or North Korea would love to have you, I'm sure.

And since you decided to bash the latest generation for their lack of a heart for war, you need to be reminded that its not your generation that is sacrificing lives and fighting in a nation full of whack jobs. It's the current generation that's doing that. That makes them better Americans than your generation, many of whom burned their draft cards and outright said they wouldn't go to war.

While terrorists are insane, they are fighting for their own needs and nobody elses. But they have little to no funding, supplies, or support now. So our presence is just about the only thing keeping them on the attack. And that makes any comparison between Iraq and Darfur null and void.

Bush's own words were "when Saddam Hussein is removed from power, terrorism will diminish." We went to war based on a lie. To claim that there is another Hitler or Stalin or anyone else in Iraqs immediate future is making a mountain out of an ant hill.

And yet again, after repeated attempts by others to point out that invading Iraq had NOTHING to do with terrorism or 9/11, you still throw out the terrorism bit. And that's another lie. America fought with a definite purpose...to ouster Saddam Hussein and his minions and create a free government by the Iraqi people. The claim was that Iraq could make better use of its resources and its people would flourish under a democracy. That isn't the case right now.

You claim Democrats "don't care" about this war and aren't willing to do anything. That's a HUGE lie. they outright offered the President everything he wanted in funding on the current bill. All they want is a planned schedule and timetable for withdrawal. And Bush outright said he'd veto anything with a timetable. Now again, I ask...what plan does Bush have for Iraq? And the answer is STILL NONE.

America toppled Saddam Hussein and killed his minions and his sons. America helped create a free Iraqi government that represented ALL Iraqis. America has spent hundreds of billions (upwards of trillions now) on this war. THAT Is spreading us thin and MAKING US WEAK. To say otherwise would be a delusion of mammoth proportions. Our forces need to rebuild and restock for the future. And the Iraqis need to step up and quell the insurgency themselves if they want freedom. If they don't, then our time in Iraq is being wasted. And that is a huge disservice to our military.

The points I made in my previous post were never answered. You dodged virtually evey one of them. I believe that is because you don't have a reasonable answer to them.

Do you think people who play video games and watch tv are all under 21? No way. They are people who are in their 50s and under so that is a large part of our population. People in their 60s and over might not be playing video games but they are certainly mind numbed by tv.

What do terrorists need for funding? They can make some cheap bombs and blow up hundreds in shopping malls and buildings. Or how much funding does it take to buy a few airline tickets and a shoe bomb or find a way to hijack a plane?

Terrorists are not fighting for needs. They are supporting a movement that purports to be moving the agenda of Islam against the Infidels.

Al Qaeda is funcitioning in Iraq now. If we leave (and to be stupid enough to announce when we are going to leave) will be handing over power to them. The Iraqis are not ready because they have not ever been a democracy and are trying to learn to function with different elements trying to work together. They are also working with people who infiltrate the military and the police. They need time to develop some effective intelligence. It is not so easy to run a goverenment., They need time to make it work not an artificial time table that allows others to come in and grab power. the Dems are using this issue to gain power in our country. They are not thinking of our success. They are thinking of their success. They are so drunk on the polls that they are giddy. But it is a funny thing- the polls can be with you 90% one day and then be against you 90% on the next depending on the circumstances. People are feeling safe these days and forget the threat- most don't keep up with the news and just hear the media's constant negative background anti-Bush noise.

I believe in having a philosphy and sticking to it. I beleive that Hussin broke agreements he made and was given ample time to comply0 he didn't and he got what he had coming.

I think we are in a war on terror. We need to get intel about these groups and seek them out before the strike again.

We made a committment to stand with the Iraqi people and we owe it to them to stand with them as long as they need us. They also need to be accountable to be making efforts to move ahead. If we don't stand with this country and leave early, no one would ever trust us as a nation again. The countries of the world may say they dont like us but everyone knows that we are a place who will try to stand for right. Our country is the one others go to for aid.





Electriclite- leaving behind some troops ( a token amount) will be sure death for those soldiers. Why bother? Lets not do it so we can say that we are doing something. It's all or nothing.

Your child analogy is good but I would suggest that leaving behind a 4 year old to fend for himself would be disastorous. Let's wait until he grows a bit more. Some of the problems they have faces have had to do with the leftovers from Hussein's regime and some are terrorists and probably most are due to influence from Iran. Who knows, but let's let the government have time to grow.

I'm not sure it is a civil war- just cause the Dems choose to characterize it that way does not make it true. In fact the Dems have little to no credibilty with me these days. I just don't trust most of what they say. They are inconsistent in their philosphies. They vote for war but now they run from it and condemn it. Whatever.

I agree that if the Iraqis want us to leave that we should go. They do not want us to leave yet.

I think it was poor military strategy to not block the borders. But on the other hand I dont know why we can't control our own borders either. It's a puzzle.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
If the time came where the military is not strong enough to fight then we would have to fight. The Dems won't draft for the right reasons, they will do it so everyone will go equally- it will be a quota kind of thing rather than based on need.

How would a draft fulfill a "quota kind of thing" rather than fill a need for man power? Are you trying to say that democracts will try to send rich white kids to war instead of poor people who are meant to fight battles for us? Because drafting based on race/economic status is illegal. Not to mention rich kids will always have more ways out of service in a draft than poorer americans.

Even you know you're BSing with this one lol.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Do you think people who play video games and watch tv are all under 21? No way. They are people who are in their 50s and under so that is a large part of our population. People in their 60s and over might not be playing video games but they are certainly mind numbed by tv.

What do terrorists need for funding? They can make some cheap bombs and blow up hundreds in shopping malls and buildings. Or how much funding does it take to buy a few airline tickets and a shoe bomb or find a way to hijack a plane?

Terrorists are not fighting for needs. They are supporting a movement that purports to be moving the agenda of Islam against the Infidels.

Al Qaeda is funcitioning in Iraq now. If we leave (and to be stupid enough to announce when we are going to leave) will be handing over power to them. The Iraqis are not ready because they have not ever been a democracy and are trying to learn to function with different elements trying to work together. They are also working with people who infiltrate the military and the police. They need time to develop some effective intelligence. It is not so easy to run a goverenment., They need time to make it work not an artificial time table that allows others to come in and grab power. the Dems are using this issue to gain power in our country. They are not thinking of our success. They are thinking of their success. They are so drunk on the polls that they are giddy. But it is a funny thing- the polls can be with you 90% one day and then be against you 90% on the next depending on the circumstances. People are feeling safe these days and forget the threat- most don't keep up with the news and just hear the media's constant negative background anti-Bush noise.

I believe in having a philosphy and sticking to it. I beleive that Hussin broke agreements he made and was given ample time to comply0 he didn't and he got what he had coming.

I think we are in a war on terror. We need to get intel about these groups and seek them out before the strike again.

We made a committment to stand with the Iraqi people and we owe it to them to stand with them as long as they need us. They also need to be accountable to be making efforts to move ahead. If we don't stand with this country and leave early, no one would ever trust us as a nation again. The countries of the world may say they dont like us but everyone knows that we are a place who will try to stand for right. Our country is the one others go to for aid.

You didn't answer one thing I said in the last two posts, Lynn. You simply went back to "Dems are to blame for everything" and "America has no heart for war". You bash anyone who isn't in full support of the White House. Plain and simple. That kind of thinking belongs in a theocratic dictatorship that demands unwavering support. Iran would welcome your company.

But since you did bring this up...How do you think the terrorists can "follow us to America" if their funding is completely cut off?? Gosh...maybe some Iraqi politicians already fund this fight. Maybe they just don't want our help.

And again, Bush and co. have had five fucking years to fix Iraq. And four years after Bush landed on a carrier with the banner "Mission accomplished" sprawlied across it, things have gotten progressively worse instead of better.

Oh, and um...

...he didn't and he got what he had coming.

Judge not, lest ye be judged, Lynn. I hope you'll actually put to mind what was said in other posts instead of going back to your anti-American rhetoric. Sadly, though, I somehow doubt you'll even take other members posts into consideration.

[bowieee]

Originally posted by Lynn7


I agree that if the Iraqis want us to leave that we should go. They do not want us to leave yet.



Did they write us a nice thank you letter with please stay written in puffy paint all over it? The interviews I've seen of the general public show them being grateful that we took care of Saddam but they are ready to try to fix their country themselves and have us get the hell out. Not having us stand over them like an adult teaching a child. If I was an iraqi I would be pissed at the child comparison. We are talking about a nation not a preschool class. Yes it's got a religous civil war going on but we sure as hell arn't going to be the band aid that fixes it no matter how long we stay there.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7

Electriclite- leaving behind some troops ( a token amount) will be sure death for those soldiers. Why bother? Lets not do it so we can say that we are doing something. It's all or nothing.

Well apparently the president didn't agree with your "all or nothing" assessment, because he didn't send the amount of troops that everyone with more than an iota of military experience was suggesting. Now, he's doing it, but only after he's thrown in everything but the kitchen sink!

Originally posted by Lynn7
Your child analogy is good but I would suggest that leaving behind a 4 year old to fend for himself would be disastorous. Let's wait until he grows a bit more. Some of the problems they have faces have had to do with the leftovers from Hussein's regime and some are terrorists and probably most are due to influence from Iran. Who knows, but let's let the government have time to grow.

I hate using the child metaphor for the people, but I am using it for the government. Kids learn to walk, they fall, it sucks, and it is painful but the the end result is worth it.

When our country was taking its first baby steps towards democracy, it was dangerous and we faced the possibility of falling into oblivion with every step, but NO ONE held our hand or stood over us to prop us up, and look what became of us because of it!

You can't grow confined under the control of an occupation. The reason we're scared to leave is because then things won't work along the lines of our control. We can't mold the country to our liking, which then brings us to repeating the same mistakes we have littered in our history of trying to mold countries to our liking and ending up with horrific consequences.

We may be big and powerful, but we don't control fate.

Originally posted by Lynn7
I'm not sure it is a civil war- just cause the Dems choose to characterize it that way does not make it true.

Its not the freaking Dems calling it a Civil War, its the MILITARY saying it! You know, the guys who are actually over in Iraq!

Its not the Dems fault certain news organizations don't want to run that important little piece of info.

The only thing I see people do when trying to avoid that categorization, is play a game of semantics, and a bad one at that.

The Sunnis and Shias are fighting within the country to take control of the central sovereign government. That's pretty much the definition of a civil war. And if its not, then whatever it is, looks to be just as dangerous.


Iraq's Civil War (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html)

Scholar's Agree Iraq Meets The Defintion of Civil War (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/26/news/civil.php)



Originally posted by Lynn7
In fact the Dems have little to no credibilty with me these days. I just don't trust most of what they say. They are inconsistent in their philosphies. They vote for war but now they run from it and condemn it. Whatever.

Something them AND the republicans now have in common.

Originally posted by Lynn7
I agree that if the Iraqis want us to leave that we should go. They do not want us to leave yet.

I've quoted articles here to the contrary.

Originally posted by Lynn7
I think it was poor military strategy to not block the borders. But on the other hand I dont know why we can't control our own borders either. It's a puzzle.


Someone get a camera, I agree!!!! (although its not a puzzle to me)

[The Postmaster General]

anyone else catch how George Bush says we can't let people know when we plan on leaving because it gives them a vantage point....

5 years after giving a time table on when we'd invade Iraq to take out Saddam, and then on that promised day, sending slow moving tanks across the desert over the course of 10 hours to do it!

So... telling people when we'll leave is a big no-no, but scheduling an attack one month in advance, with the goal of taking out one singe person - that works just fine?

[Lynn7]

All I can say to all of you is wait and see what happens. Me talking about this stuff obviously has no impact- you guys are so virulently against Bush that you would like to believe this whole Iraq war is something he did to flex his muscles. History repeats itself. Unfortunately, the new Hitler is associated with many other powers and assisting in our demise are all of the other countries who are too chicken to take a stand. It's going to be very hard to withstand the attacks from the terrorists because they will not come in the form of an army but as single attackers who will wreak great damage in many free countries. Some day you will fondly recall these present days as a time of great peace. People will wish Bush was still in office but he will be gone and the damage of our congress not supporting him when they had the chance will be devastating because we will have lost a great opportunity.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
All I can say to all of you is wait and see what happens. Me talking about this stuff obviously has no impact- you guys are so virulently against Bush that you would like to believe this whole Iraq war is something he did to flex his muscles. History repeats itself. Unfortunately, the new Hitler is associated with many other powers and assisting in our demise are all of the other countries who are too chicken to take a stand. It's going to be very hard to withstand the attacks from the terrorists because they will not come in the form of an army but as single attackers who will wreak great damage in many free countries. Some day you will fondly recall these present days as a time of great peace. People will wish Bush was still in office but he will be gone and the damage of our congress not supporting him when they had the chance will be devastating because we will have lost a great opportunity.


He vetoed the bill, it's not like congress can really do anything. The only opportunities lost will be on Bush's part.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
All I can say to all of you is wait and see what happens. Me talking about this stuff obviously has no impact- you guys are so virulently against Bush that you would like to believe this whole Iraq war is something he did to flex his muscles. History repeats itself. Unfortunately, the new Hitler is associated with many other powers and assisting in our demise are all of the other countries who are too chicken to take a stand. It's going to be very hard to withstand the attacks from the terrorists because they will not come in the form of an army but as single attackers who will wreak great damage in many free countries. Some day you will fondly recall these present days as a time of great peace. People will wish Bush was still in office but he will be gone and the damage of our congress not supporting him when they had the chance will be devastating because we will have lost a great opportunity.


I strongly supported Bush following the 1st election, and through Afghanistan, so nice try.

Bush doesn't support basic military strategy, and that's my sole beef with his part in this war. You - instead of trying to attack an ideology that some of us may or may not share, why don't you step up and address my point about how he flip-flops what is good strategy based solely on what he wants to do - ie, scheduling a withdraw date somehow being bad, when scheduling our arrival TO THE HOUR as being a daft military move. How come the only consistency so far has been that he does what he wants?

[jeo4]

I also staunchly supported the President in his first term and in Afghanistan. I even supported the ouster of Saddam Hussein. So nice try, Lynn. Bush blew it. He lied about the cause of our invasion, he lied about Hussein's terrorist ties, he lied about the mission being quick and easy ("When Saddam Hussein is gone, terrorism will diminish." HIS WORDS, NOT MINE.)

And yeah, Bubba makes a great point. And I'm going to add my two cents here...

Bush has simply abused his power in office and the military by doing whatever he wants. And the results in Iraq have been nothing short of chaotic. And he STILL has no answer to how this mess can be cleaned up and our troops can move forward. And by forward, I mean to actual terror hot spots instead of babysitting a nation unwilling to police itself, even after its worst leadership ever was oustered in favor of a democratic government.

[Lynn7]

See, here is the problem- the intel of not only our country but of the UK came up with certain interpretations and not only the President but the entire congress decided to go forward. So when you criticize why say Bush lied? Those are very strong words. Even if we did have a lying president (which we don't) it is the congress' responsiblity to protect one man from going wacko. In this case the congress blames Bush and excuses themselves from any blame- so hypocritical and they are the ones who lie. They are cowards to the max.

And the invasion and take over went very smoothly- I don't think even one of our guys died in the doing of it. But what happened afterwards has been terrible and it is representative of the enemy we fight now. They do not fight as an army but in singles. They plant roadside bombs. If this strategy was implied in this country what would you propose to do? You can blame Bush for being incompetent or evil, but what is the solution to dealing with this enemy? Is there a clean way to deal with them?

Bush's strategy is to try to get to their cells before they can enact terror plots. What is your side's strategy?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Bush's strategy is to try to get to their cells before they can enact terror plots. What is your side's strategy?


To first come up with a strategy.

This is what I refer to - sure, initially everything went as it should, but now - now there's little doubt its time to rethink our approach. Bush is saying things that simple are not true in regards to giving the terrorists a date of when we will pull out as being a big mistake. Just as you said - they are not an army, therefore it isn't like we are keeping them at bay or anything.

If you were playing chess with someone, telling them months in advance that you were going to be challenging them to a match - that gives them time to study your, get their self in order.... Thats how we went into Iraq. Now, I'm not going to say we keep getting put into check, but stalemate is hard to disagree with. Now, how does telling someone, "after this match I need to quit and go study this game some more.' --- How does that make them stalemate you better or even get a chance to beat you? It doesn't and that's why I find it comical how Bush flip-flops what is good Iraq strategy - he doesn't have one. He is making it up as he goes along, hence what worked before, he says is a bad move now.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
See, here is the problem- the intel of not only our country but of the UK came up with certain interpretations and not only the President but the entire congress decided to go forward. So when you criticize why say Bush lied?

The British government is just as guilty for doing the same thing the US did. They distorted the facts to get support for their war.

UK's dossier on Iraq copied from thesis paper of student in california (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/838540/posts)

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
See, here is the problem- the intel of not only our country but of the UK came up with certain interpretations and not only the President but the entire congress decided to go forward. So when you criticize why say Bush lied? Those are very strong words. Even if we did have a lying president (which we don't) it is the congress' responsiblity to protect one man from going wacko. In this case the congress blames Bush and excuses themselves from any blame- so hypocritical and they are the ones who lie. They are cowards to the max.

And the invasion and take over went very smoothly- I don't think even one of our guys died in the doing of it. But what happened afterwards has been terrible and it is representative of the enemy we fight now. They do not fight as an army but in singles. They plant roadside bombs. If this strategy was implied in this country what would you propose to do? You can blame Bush for being incompetent or evil, but what is the solution to dealing with this enemy? Is there a clean way to deal with them?

Bush's strategy is to try to get to their cells before they can enact terror plots. What is your side's strategy?


1. You're going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that Bush DIDN'T know that the statement "When Saddam Hussein is gone, terrorism will diminish" wasn't a BOLD FACED LIE? You're fooling nobody but yourself. He knew going into this that Hussein had no ties to Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda. In fact, bin Laden made a point of expressing his distaste for the former Iraqi leader. That's a well publicized fact. And Bush LIED about their ties to gain support for the war. So yeah, Bush lied. Sorry to bust your bubble.

2. I'm glad we agree that when the Congress was controlled by the Republicans, they didn't do anything to restrain Bush, cowards and ass kissers that they were. And now that new leaders are in charge, they want to see some positive changes. Don't like hearing it about Republicans? How do you think everyone else feels about you smearing Democrats at every turn of the corner?? You do it every chance you get and it is extremely hypocritical when the facts are all accounted for.

3. NOBODY is arguing that the military invasion didn't go over well. In fact, many people here have stated that removing Hussein was a good move. It's the insurgency that's the problem. And you never addressed that, either. Way to ignore my point. Read on...

4. If Bush's strategy is to 'try to get to their cells before they can enact terror plots', then why did he go to Iraq in the first place? And by the way, that is NOT a strategy. That's a goal. There's no strategy behind it. And that's the problem the American public has with our current occupation of Iraq.

Have you ever actually listened to al Qaeda recordings or read their material? One of their goals is to bleed the US of funds and men through the overuse of its military and resources. Their strategy is to draw our military into extended occupations and fights, attacking with hit and run strategies. While that is an obviously spineless move on the part of these thugs, the objective is met. It's working because we are still there.

Part of planning a withdrawal is to do just what I've said in my previous posts, Lynn (all of which you've conveniently ignored). We need to restock our military, rebuild our army, and wait it out. If we made our trips shorter and more meaningful, then terror cells wouldn't be achieving the goal of exhausting the US both militarily and financially.

That's what other leaders in Congress are saying. We are wasting time, money and lives doing what we are doing. The Republicans that once controlled congress just signed off on whatever Bush wanted. This new congress is trying to create a new more intelligent path for our forces to take. If we take the time to hear them out, we hear some very valid points.

I'm not a Democrat, but I'm not sitting here inventing ways to smear them the way you have, Lynn. You've insulted basically anyone who doesn't agree 100 percent with your view and that of President Bush. You've insulted a relatively new congress, America's youth and pretty much the majority of the country in the name of the Republican party.

With behavior like this, I'd question anyone's beliefs both as a Christian and as a member of a democracy that supports a multiple party system.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by jeo4
3. NOBODY is arguing that the military invasion didn't go over well. In fact, many people here have stated that removing Hussein was a good move. It's the insurgency that's the problem.


I'm arguing that it didn't go well AND that removing Hussein was a bad move. Hussein, as much of an asshole as he was, did run a stable and organized government. After all those years of sectarian violence Iraq was actually doing fairly well. I don't sympathize with Hussein and I'm sure he's rotting in Hell for all of those innocent people he killed, but I think America should've just tolerated Hussein. If Hussein ever did attack America, it would have been with weapons that our beloved and infallible Ronald Reagan sold to him (yet, we invade and he didn't even have THOSE weapons anymore).

I find it hilarious that our government can actually help put a man like Auguste Pinochet in power and with a straight face tell the American people that Saddam Hussein was a bad man. I just don't understand these times we live in.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
See, here is the problem- the intel of not only our country but of the UK came up with certain interpretations and not only the President but the entire congress decided to go forward. So when you criticize why say Bush lied? Those are very strong words. Even if we did have a lying president (which we don't) it is the congress' responsiblity to protect one man from going wacko. In this case the congress blames Bush and excuses themselves from any blame- so hypocritical and they are the ones who lie. They are cowards to the max.

And the invasion and take over went very smoothly- I don't think even one of our guys died in the doing of it. But what happened afterwards has been terrible and it is representative of the enemy we fight now. They do not fight as an army but in singles. They plant roadside bombs. If this strategy was implied in this country what would you propose to do? You can blame Bush for being incompetent or evil, but what is the solution to dealing with this enemy? Is there a clean way to deal with them?

Bush's strategy is to try to get to their cells before they can enact terror plots. What is your side's strategy?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by jeo4
1. You're going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that Bush DIDN'T know that the statement "When Saddam Hussein is gone, terrorism will diminish" wasn't a BOLD FACED LIE? You're fooling nobody but yourself. He knew going into this that Hussein had no ties to Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda. In fact, bin Laden made a point of expressing his distaste for the former Iraqi leader. That's a well publicized fact. And Bush LIED about their ties to gain support for the war. So yeah, Bush lied. Sorry to bust your bubble.

2. I'm glad we agree that when the Congress was controlled by the Republicans, they didn't do anything to restrain Bush, cowards and ass kissers that they were. And now that new leaders are in charge, they want to see some positive changes. Don't like hearing it about Republicans? How do you think everyone else feels about you smearing Democrats at every turn of the corner?? You do it every chance you get and it is extremely hypocritical when the facts are all accounted for.

3. NOBODY is arguing that the military invasion didn't go over well. In fact, many people here have stated that removing Hussein was a good move. It's the insurgency that's the problem. And you never addressed that, either. Way to ignore my point. Read on...

4. If Bush's strategy is to 'try to get to their cells before they can enact terror plots', then why did he go to Iraq in the first place? And by the way, that is NOT a strategy. That's a goal. There's no strategy behind it. And that's the problem the American public has with our current occupation of Iraq.

Have you ever actually listened to al Qaeda recordings or read their material? One of their goals is to bleed the US of funds and men through the overuse of its military and resources. Their strategy is to draw our military into extended occupations and fights, attacking with hit and run strategies. While that is an obviously spineless move on the part of these thugs, the objective is met. It's working because we are still there.

Part of planning a withdrawal is to do just what I've said in my previous posts, Lynn (all of which you've conveniently ignored). We need to restock our military, rebuild our army, and wait it out. If we made our trips shorter and more meaningful, then terror cells wouldn't be achieving the goal of exhausting the US both militarily and financially.

That's what other leaders in Congress are saying. We are wasting time, money and lives doing what we are doing. The Republicans that once controlled congress just signed off on whatever Bush wanted. This new congress is trying to create a new more intelligent path for our forces to take. If we take the time to hear them out, we hear some very valid points.

I'm not a Democrat, but I'm not sitting here inventing ways to smear them the way you have, Lynn. You've insulted basically anyone who doesn't agree 100 percent with your view and that of President Bush. You've insulted a relatively new congress, America's youth and pretty much the majority of the country in the name of the Republican party.

With behavior like this, I'd question anyone's beliefs both as a Christian and as a member of a democracy that supports a multiple party system.

Even when I try to answer your posts I get blamed for not answering some of your points. Just so you know, many of my points don't get addressed by people too. That's the nature of a bb

Bush is probably one of the most honest people we have ever had in office

2. Thank God the Republicans were in control during that time period. I shudder to think of what would've happened if Nancy had been in charge or one of the other knucklehead leaders from the Dems. Do I bash the Dem congressmen? Yep. I can hardly think of any I respect as a person. Really. Many of them are really dishonest in the way they conduct themselves. I really loved the way most of them threw Joe Lieberman overboard to appeal to their constituencies. Nice people.

3. Insurgency-and interference from Iran and of course the terrorists.
4. I have said it so many times- we went into Iraq cause when Hussein invaded Kuwait we chased him out and allowed him to remain in power as long as he made certain agreements. He did not abide by them and grew more blatant as each year went by- after 9-11 we needed to send the world a message- we are not a paper tiger- don't mess with us.

Al Qaeda has the advantage over us- they can drain our resources unless we begin to fight like they do. We can do suicide bombers too and we can plant roadside bombs too but we will be killing innocent people and we just do not like that. We are at a disadvantage because of our values. I am so proud of the way our country stands for freedom and does not deliberately kill innocents.

I don't have any anger toward people who disagree with President Bush. I abhor the way people call him a liar and evil and stupid. I hate the way Rosie O'Donnell and others insinuate he blew up part of the World Trade Center and other hideous accusations like the Pentagon was not really attacked. To me these things are not only irrational and based on nothing, they are aiding and comforting the enemy.

I am proud to insult the Democratic congress who stands for almost everything I disrespect. They are hateful and small people whose values leave me scratching my head. Do they ever smile? Do they always spew venom? With the exception of Barack Obama, they seem to have hard eyes and cold natures. The reason Obama is popular is probably because he looks like such a nice guy as compared to all the others. Too bad he has no experience governing anything.

I do think that the majority of this country right now is lazy and does not follow world events. They are shown pictures of celebrities and know who they are but cannot name the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority leader. They often don't even know the name of the Vice President. They don't even know the names of the three branches of government That is a real liability. And people are proud of their ignorance and even laugh about it. So let me be guilty of insulting such laziness.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
But it is the Dems who keep bringing up the draft again so watch out......Their philosophy is to keep things fair so they will beleive that all kids should be called to the military- men and women alike.

The reason to bring up a draft is that the military is tired. How can these people continue fighting when reserves are not coming in fast enough? They can't, the draft is the only option to keep us from losing.

I laugh at how you say the Dems are the enemy. You can't say we would be in worse shape right now because you don't know.

Here is the difference from you and most people these days:
most people could be a Republican, but would vote Democrat, and vice versa. You know why? Simple, people vote for the best candidate to improve their lives.

Like I said before, if McCain is the Republican candidate he will get my vote over anyone. I am a Democrat, but I believe John has the right ideas. If Rudy is the Repub candidate, he will not get my vote ever. The guy is a moron, and did a poor job of running New York.

I bring up Rudy because this is how the topic started. The only reason he is getting any praise is that people saw how he reacted on 9/11 and like him for it. They don't know how bad New York was at the time.

George Bush is going to go down as one of the worst President's ever.

Saddam was able to keep Iraq under control. Iraq will probably always be a battle ground. We can try as hard as we want to stop it, but it is too late.

The reason for this war was oil, and while Bush and company get rich, our pockets get smaller and smaller.

Lynn, don't believe you know everything. Maybe you are doing well with Bush is in office, but many others are not. We lose jobs and gain minimum wage jobs. We have seen manufacturing jobs leave us and replaced with lower paying jobs. Bush is part of the problem, the rest lied with the government who couldn't keep jobs here because of money thrown at them.

I don't know everything, but I love to learn. Listen to people that are not doing well right now. Listen to people who were doing well at places like Ford or any company that made something and lost their job because it is better for Big Business to send jobs overseas, or to bring foreign companies here. These companies pay much less, yet prices go up. Great philosophy.

[RicochetShaw]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
The military is near exhaustion,



Any evidence?

[Thrizzle]

Extended tours, mental ill and wounded soldiers sent out into the field, plummeting recuitment standards; these stories pop up now and then and piecing them together along with all the other stories its not hard to see.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-24-army-study_x.htm

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Bush is probably one of the most honest people we have ever had in office

Compared to who? I mean, they're all politicians, they all have to lie either for themselves or to maintain the stability and united front of their party. It is impossible for a politician to NOT lie.

Hence the question, "Compared to whom?"

And don't say Clinton. We all remember, the dress, and the "is", and all that. You can think of others.

Originally posted by Lynn7
2. Thank God the Republicans were in control during that time period. I shudder to think of what would've happened if Nancy had been in charge or one of the other knucklehead leaders from the Dems. Do I bash the Dem congressmen? Yep. I can hardly think of any I respect as a person. Really. Many of them are really dishonest in the way they conduct themselves. I really loved the way most of them threw Joe Lieberman overboard to appeal to their constituencies. Nice people.


I'll give you most of that. The quality of our political leaders has been circling around the drain for far too long and the Dems are in danger of going out like Bull-Mooses and the long list of other late political parties. I firmly believe that if America had another prominent party to choose from during the last mid-term elections, the Dems wouldn't be where they are now.

But people chose the Dems because when they asked Republicans for answers and specifics they replied to the public like one would a small child or senile old woman. And there is just only so long that can go on before people think you're either hiding something or have no idea what to do, especially with the stakes we're in.

The Republicans did a good job in the beginning, that's why they got that majority they had during Bush's first term. The public saw their actions and decided that the Republicans were teh way to go.

On the Dems side, they didn't elect the Dems by what they did, but by what the Republicans did. Which puts the fault of where the Republicans are on the Republicans.

Originally posted by Lynn7
3. Insurgency-and interference from Iran and of course the terrorists.
4. I have said it so many times- we went into Iraq cause when Hussein invaded Kuwait we chased him out and allowed him to remain in power as long as he made certain agreements. He did not abide by them and grew more blatant as each year went by- after 9-11 we needed to send the world a message- we are not a paper tiger- don't mess with us.

Up to the date of the invasion Saddam was still trying to keep Iran at bay. Its what dictators do. They keep enemies from attacking them by being cruel and either having or giving the allusion they have the means to fight back. By being a dick and trying to manipulate inspections, he kept Iran from thinking he was weak and starting another war. Which is actually in our best interest.

Saddam was fucked either way. If he allowed the US to enter and find no weapons, Iran would start lining up the military at the border. Which probably would've had us in the position to actually help Saddam AGAIN, because we sure as hell don't want Iran taking anymore land and power.

But now, we've taken out Saddam and now certain "rogue" groups in Iran are sending in weapons and insurgents to take over the country through the largely unguarded border.

And then the other option, which is what you believe Lynn: Let Saddam stay in power and talk the talk but not really walk the walk, let his sons eventually take power and procure WMDS down the line. . . . like their father. . . didn't.

Those are some wonderful options we had.



Originally posted by Lynn7
Al Qaeda has the advantage over us- they can drain our resources unless we begin to fight like they do. We can do suicide bombers too and we can plant roadside bombs too but we will be killing innocent people and we just do not like that. We are at a disadvantage because of our values. I am so proud of the way our country stands for freedom and does not deliberately kill innocents.


We site history enough for you to know that last part isn't always true.

There are great things about this country, and those of us here who bash politicians do so, not because of some sort of party loyalty, which I can assure you on my end, I have none. We criticize so vehemently because we love our country and when we see a party, of whatever type, taking it places we object to, dammit, we're gonna be harsh! Because no matter how much we criticize its past errors, we do not take kindly to others from outside our country bashing it. Why? Because we do love it.

Originally posted by Lynn7
I hate the way Rosie O'Donnell and others insinuate he blew up part of the World Trade Center and other hideous accusations like the Pentagon was not really attacked. To me these things are not only irrational and based on nothing, they are aiding and comforting the enemy.

I think it'd be more in the realm of logic and emotional control to say: They're attention seeking ass-clowns... but that's just me.



Originally posted by Lynn7
I do think that the majority of this country right now is lazy and does not follow world events. They are shown pictures of celebrities and know who they are but cannot name the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority leader. They often don't even know the name of the Vice President. They don't even know the names of the three branches of government That is a real liability. And people are proud of their ignorance and even laugh about it. So let me be guilty of insulting such laziness.

Just remember this, when asked during the 2000 elections, people thought Dubya was his father. Idiocy knows no party line. And no doubt, both sides take advantage of it.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by RicochetShaw
Any evidence?

This is a joke right? Do you know anyone who is serving in Iraq at all? People are serving 3 or 4 consecutive duties over there. Do you know what that means? It means they can't come home because there are not enough people to replace them. Why do you think colleges and high schools have recruiters there so much? I know my college has had the Army and Marines there at least 10 times this semester alone.



electriclite, excellent post. I won't quote it because it is too long, but excellent post.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I don't have any anger toward people who disagree with President Bush. I abhor the way people call him a liar and evil and stupid. I hate the way Rosie O'Donnell and others insinuate he blew up part of the World Trade Center and other hideous accusations like the Pentagon was not really attacked. To me these things are not only irrational and based on nothing, they are aiding and comforting the enemy.

"Irrational and based on nothing"....you don't know ironic that is considering the posts you make in the "Religion" threads.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Vong
"Irrational and based on nothing"....you don't know ironic that is considering the posts you make in the "Religion" threads.


Ugh, for the love of tiny little atoms, don't get going there!

[The Postmaster General]

Lynn is the only schmoe who consistently dodges my points.

[Lynn7]

I have never dodged points. I regularly take great pains to address all the points in a post. On the other hand, many times I take a lot of time to make some points and I am answered by a simple snide remark. I don't think I have ever done that. Bubba, you have done that to me many times.
Since you accuse me in such a broad way of consistently dodging your points, I just wont' try as hard anymore since it doesn't matter anyway.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I have never dodged points. I regularly take great pains to address all the points in a post.


Unfortunately, this just isn't the case. Three posts I've made in this thread alone have had major points completely ignored. And I was only addressing you.

And while you may get snide remarks, you certainly make enough of them in generalities about Democrats, the American public, and anyone else who doesn't agree with your party's line of thinking. I'm not a Democrat and I don't entirely disagree with you in some cases, Lynn, but you're turning into a broken record for the propaganda jukebox. And you're just not addressing most of the points presented.

[Lynn7]

Well , go back and see how many of my points get answered and how they are answered. And I can go and see how everyone answers posts around here and I will say that I am one of the posters most likely to answer people's points. I think many times I take great pains to answer many points and then someone will pcik something kind of obscure and say I did not answer that. It's slightly frustrating.

If I sound like I am a propaganda jukebox it is no different than anyone else around here. Be consistent when you apply these labels.

[Lynn7]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jeo4
Way to bash America yet again, Lynn. Because if you're picking at a generation that hates war, you're gonna have to go about five decades back now and deal with every generation since that time period. So you're pretty much bashing America. All for the sake of your party and its very flawed views on this war. If this is the way you feel about the people in this nation, you need to pack your shit and move right away. Iran or North Korea would love to have you, I'm sure.

And since you decided to bash the latest generation for their lack of a heart for war, you need to be reminded that its not your generation that is sacrificing lives and fighting in a nation full of whack jobs. It's the current generation that's doing that. That makes them better Americans than your generation, many of whom burned their draft cards and outright said they wouldn't go to war.

While terrorists are insane, they are fighting for their own needs and nobody elses. But they have little to no funding, supplies, or support now. So our presence is just about the only thing keeping them on the attack. And that makes any comparison between Iraq and Darfur null and void.

Bush's own words were "when Saddam Hussein is removed from power, terrorism will diminish." We went to war based on a lie. To claim that there is another Hitler or Stalin or anyone else in Iraqs immediate future is making a mountain out of an ant hill.

And yet again, after repeated attempts by others to point out that invading Iraq had NOTHING to do with terrorism or 9/11, you still throw out the terrorism bit. And that's another lie. America fought with a definite purpose...to ouster Saddam Hussein and his minions and create a free government by the Iraqi people. The claim was that Iraq could make better use of its resources and its people would flourish under a democracy. That isn't the case right now.

You claim Democrats "don't care" about this war and aren't willing to do anything. That's a HUGE lie. they outright offered the President everything he wanted in funding on the current bill. All they want is a planned schedule and timetable for withdrawal. And Bush outright said he'd veto anything with a timetable. Now again, I ask...what plan does Bush have for Iraq? And the answer is STILL NONE.

America toppled Saddam Hussein and killed his minions and his sons. America helped create a free Iraqi government that represented ALL Iraqis. America has spent hundreds of billions (upwards of trillions now) on this war. THAT Is spreading us thin and MAKING US WEAK. To say otherwise would be a delusion of mammoth proportions. Our forces need to rebuild and restock for the future. And the Iraqis need to step up and quell the insurgency themselves if they want freedom. If they don't, then our time in Iraq is being wasted. And that is a huge disservice to our military.

The points I made in my previous post were never answered. You dodged virtually evey one of them. I believe that is because you don't have a reasonable answer to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Do you think people who play video games and watch tv are all under 21? No way. They are people who are in their 50s and under so that is a large part of our population. People in their 60s and over might not be playing video games but they are certainly mind numbed by tv.

What do terrorists need for funding? They can make some cheap bombs and blow up hundreds in shopping malls and buildings. Or how much funding does it take to buy a few airline tickets and a shoe bomb or find a way to hijack a plane?

Terrorists are not fighting for needs. They are supporting a movement that purports to be moving the agenda of Islam against the Infidels.

Al Qaeda is funcitioning in Iraq now. If we leave (and to be stupid enough to announce when we are going to leave) will be handing over power to them. The Iraqis are not ready because they have not ever been a democracy and are trying to learn to function with different elements trying to work together. They are also working with people who infiltrate the military and the police. They need time to develop some effective intelligence. It is not so easy to run a goverenment., They need time to make it work not an artificial time table that allows others to come in and grab power. the Dems are using this issue to gain power in our country. They are not thinking of our success. They are thinking of their success. They are so drunk on the polls that they are giddy. But it is a funny thing- the polls can be with you 90% one day and then be against you 90% on the next depending on the circumstances. People are feeling safe these days and forget the threat- most don't keep up with the news and just hear the media's constant negative background anti-Bush noise.

I believe in having a philosphy and sticking to it. I beleive that Hussin broke agreements he made and was given ample time to comply0 he didn't and he got what he had coming.

I think we are in a war on terror. We need to get intel about these groups and seek them out before the strike again.

We made a committment to stand with the Iraqi people and we owe it to them to stand with them as long as they need us. They also need to be accountable to be making efforts to move ahead. If we don't stand with this country and leave early, no one would ever trust us as a nation again. The countries of the world may say they dont like us but everyone knows that we are a place who will try to stand for right. Our country is the one others go to for aid.


__________________________________________________ _

So I was accused of not answering your points in this post- let's look.

You accsused me of bashing the younger generation- I clarified that I did not refer to just the young and gave an example of how the older people are just as guilty.

You say that the young generation is more worthy than the older generation. Since I was not focusing my criticism on the young generation and I cleared that up in the first paragraph I didn't think I needed to address it again. But since you want me to respond I will say that many more people gave their lives in the Vietnam war so it is not fair to bash that generation. They did their duty too. It was a small minority that dodged the draft.

I addressed your point about funding but I guess I should add that I disagree that if we were not fighting that they would not be attacking. I agree they would not be attacking in Iraq if we were not there. They would be here in the US attacking.
I responded to your point about why we went into iraq but if you want me to be specific I will say that if he said terrorism will be diminished I can only say that George W was right. It has diminished with so many cells caught and intel gained.

I addressed your remark about how we should leave Iraqis to stand for themselves- I said we should wait until they are strong enough. If you want me to respond to your statement about our being weakened because of the war, I will say that if we do not respond then we are totally impotent against this terrror threat. We would be telling them through our inaction that we are not capable of respodning against their kind of attacks. And truthfully, we are not capable of responding to terror except in the way we are, which is to engage them and try to get intel.

In the future, if you want me to address a certain point just reask it and I will,. It's not like I am not making an effort here or something.

[Vong]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Lynn is the only schmoe who consistently dodges my points.

Join the club...

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Well , go back and see how many of my points get answered and how they are answered. And I can go and see how everyone answers posts around here and I will say that I am one of the posters most likely to answer people's points. I think many times I take great pains to answer many points and then someone will pcik something kind of obscure and say I did not answer that. It's slightly frustrating.

If I sound like I am a propaganda jukebox it is no different than anyone else around here. Be consistent when you apply these labels.

No, YOU be consistent. You've repeated your propaganda over and over again but you ignore MAJOR points to my posts. And I'm not the only one.

And as far as consistency goes, I only apply the label when it is deserved. You can't really say that.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
In the future, if you want me to address a certain point just reask it and I will,. It's not like I am not making an effort here or something.

Let's see here:

1. You're going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that Bush DIDN'T know that the statement "When Saddam Hussein is gone, terrorism will diminish" wasn't a BOLD FACED LIE? You're fooling nobody but yourself. He knew going into this that Hussein had no ties to Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda. In fact, bin Laden made a point of expressing his distaste for the former Iraqi leader. That's a well publicized fact. And Bush LIED about their ties to gain support for the war. So yeah, Bush lied. Sorry to bust your bubble.

This wasn't addressed. It was completely skirted around.

2. I'm glad we agree that when the Congress was controlled by the Republicans, they didn't do anything to restrain Bush, cowards and ass kissers that they were. And now that new leaders are in charge, they want to see some positive changes. Don't like hearing it about Republicans? How do you think everyone else feels about you smearing Democrats at every turn of the corner?? You do it every chance you get and it is extremely hypocritical when the facts are all accounted for. ]

You answered this with more propaganda about how the Democrats are dishonest and stupid. This is yet another attempt at transferrence instead of answering with any honesty. And quite frankly Republicans calling a Democrat dishonest or stupid is the cauldron (as opposed to the pot) calling the kettle black to me. So no, you didn't answer this.

3. NOBODY is arguing that the military invasion didn't go over well. In fact, many people here have stated that removing Hussein was a good move. It's the insurgency that's the problem. And you never addressed that, either. Way to ignore my point. Read on...

You answered with:

"3. Insurgency-and interference from Iran and of course the terrorists."

What the fuck is this?! Tell me you aren't passing this off as an answer.

4. If Bush's strategy is to 'try to get to their cells before they can enact terror plots', then why did he go to Iraq in the first place? And by the way, that is NOT a strategy. That's a goal. There's no strategy behind it. And that's the problem the American public has with our current occupation of Iraq.

You actually DID reply to this:

"4. I have said it so many times- we went into Iraq cause when Hussein invaded Kuwait we chased him out and allowed him to remain in power as long as he made certain agreements. He did not abide by them and grew more blatant as each year went by- after 9-11 we needed to send the world a message- we are not a paper tiger- don't mess with us."

What kind of "message" are we sending when the entire UN disagrees with us? Oh and we sent our message in Afghanistan. This is a huge cop out. And again, it doesn't address strategy or a real plan for setting goals to hand power back to the Iraqi government.

Have you ever actually listened to al Qaeda recordings or read their material? One of their goals is to bleed the US of funds and men through the overuse of its military and resources. Their strategy is to draw our military into extended occupations and fights, attacking with hit and run strategies. While that is an obviously spineless move on the part of these thugs, the objective is met. It's working because we are still there.

Part of planning a withdrawal is to do just what I've said in my previous posts, Lynn (all of which you've conveniently ignored). We need to restock our military, rebuild our army, and wait it out. If we made our trips shorter and more meaningful, then terror cells wouldn't be achieving the goal of exhausting the US both militarily and financially.

That's what other leaders in Congress are saying. We are wasting time, money and lives doing what we are doing. The Republicans that once controlled congress just signed off on whatever Bush wanted. This new congress is trying to create a new more intelligent path for our forces to take. If we take the time to hear them out, we hear some very valid points.


You actually answered this part:

"Al Qaeda has the advantage over us- they can drain our resources unless we begin to fight like they do. We can do suicide bombers too and we can plant roadside bombs too but we will be killing innocent people and we just do not like that. We are at a disadvantage because of our values."

I agreed with this 100 percent. Then you took three more paragraphs to explain how people who insult president Bush are bad, how Democrats are hateful and small people whose values leave you scratching your head. Hypocrisy at its finest. And it answers nothing all while bashing everyone who doesn't agree with Bush and the Republicans. Yet again.

"Do they ever smile? Do they always spew venom?"

Funny. I was going to ask the same of Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, and a few other White House aides. And don't tell me the Republicans are better than the Democrats about their dispositions. Because that's an opinion not supported by any facts at all.


"I am proud to insult the Democratic congress who stands for almost everything I disrespect."

Peace, good foreign relations, a balanced budget, jobs for all Americans and comprehensive health benefits? Insult them all you want, but you better get your facts straight before you dismiss THEM as the evil ones. Or does the Republican agenda actually take precedent over any religious views?? You left yourself open for this when you gave such a ridiculous answer as this. It's propaganda for the conservatives and nothing more. So again, maybe YOU need to be consistent enough to support your answers.

"I do think that the majority of this country right now is lazy and does not follow world events. They are shown pictures of celebrities and know who they are but cannot name the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority leader. They often don't even know the name of the Vice President. They don't even know the names of the three branches of government That is a real liability. And people are proud of their ignorance and even laugh about it. So let me be guilty of insulting such laziness."

This is a huge generalization. It smacks of ignorance about the American public and it puts everyone into the same box instead of examining legitimate issues. It also slams anyone who doesn't agree with your party (again). Like I said before:

With behavior like this, I'd question anyone's beliefs both as a Christian and as a member of a democracy that supports a multiple party system.

Give my regards to Kim Jong Il.

[Lynn7]

I don't expect you to beleive this but I was trying to communicate honestly with you. Maybe we are just on two different wavelengths and we won't be able to connect. That happens sometimes.



But I would like to say that the way you characterize Dems is not he way I would- I would say they are pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, divisive on racial and economic issues, and are enviromentalist to the extreme that they choose to support environment even at the expense of people. The list of things you gave describing the Dems- they do say those things and sound so nice while they are saying them.


"Peace, good foreign relations, a balanced budget, jobs for all Americans and comprehensive health benefits? Insult them all you want, but you better get your facts straight before you dismiss THEM as the evil ones"


Peace- not being in the Iraq war is not the same as wanting peace. They also claim to want to be in Afghanistan. Don't they want to go into Darfur?What do they want to do when we get there?

Good foreign relations- they want everyone to like us. But that comes at the expense of listenting to what everyone else wants us to do and other countries do not have the best of US interests at heart.

Jobs for all Americans- they would like to have Welfare available for all Americans. That is not the same. Their policies of high taxation and very high business regulations and envirnomental regulations and union support have helped chase many of our companies out of the country which helps ensure that not every American will get a job.

Comprehenive Health benefits- you mean they want nationalized health care and from what I have heard is a nightmare. All I have to know is what I have heard about HMOS and how bad those can be where you can't choose your own doctor etc. If fact just about everything that is run by the government is bad news so I can't even imagine how bad nationalized health care would be. Have you ever had to work with city/state/federal workers before? They are not always customer friendly and they cannot be fired so they just don't care.

"Give my regards to Kim Jong Il."

I don't understand why you can't just talk about the issues we disagree on- why do you have to resort to stuff like this?

[Thrizzle]

Lynn, do you believe that global warming and the predicted consequences of it are part of the rapture?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Lynn, do you believe that global warming and the predicted consequences of it are part of the rapture?

The rapture is a term most used by the Jehovah's Witnesses so you would be better asking Siren. I do beleive in end times and there are some Christians who speak of the rapture. I do know that in the end times there will be some cataclysmic events that have to do with the solar system and other things.

I am not convinced that we have global warming anyway. There are some areas of science that i don't put my full trust in scientests on. It depends on how much they know about the subject they are commenting on. Global warming is a fairly recent conclusion and there is such pressure to conform to this thinking in the scientific community that it makes me wonder just how objective scientests can be when they are not free to opine. Peer pressure can effectively supress dissenting viewpoints and conclusions and after all , scientests are people too.

[Thrizzle]

Rapture - end of days, tomatoe - tomahtoe. Essentially the same thing no?

The point im trying to make is that we are on different wavelengths. You say Democrats are pro-abortion, pro euthenasia (correct term is pro choice for both but whatever), pro-environment, because we base opinion on science and fact. We arent pro environment at the expense of people, we are pro environment FOR people. We dont want to see millions of people starve to death from drought or mass extinctions.
But to the religious community, those things are part of a religious destiny - end times - salvation and a good thing. The same thing applies to the Iraq war and war in general: you see things in a religious context that has a destiny and an ending. You can't rationalize that way of thinking to me because IMO the entire concept of religion and destiny is irrational. For us to have a debate it would have to be in one context or the other, not mixed.

So from a religious context, what i don't understand is why the religious community won't act to stop war or global warming. God has ultimate control and will determine the end of days, so why do humans think they understand or can control when it comes? Shouldnt we do all that is possible to prevent earths collapse and let God intervene when he sees fit?

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The rapture is a term most used by the Jehovah's Witnesses so you would be better asking Siren. I do beleive in end times and there are some Christians who speak of the rapture. I do know that in the end times there will be some cataclysmic events that have to do with the solar system and other things.

That's just not the case at all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture)

According to this page:

"This is a common belief among Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Baptists, and many independents. While almost all Christian groups believe that those who are saved will have eternal life, the term "rapture" is applied specifically to the event in which all Christians on earth simultaneously ascend to join Christ, and are transformed into immortal bodies."

Because you have kept my word of patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial which is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell upon the earth.

Rev 3:10

Originally posted by Lynn7
I am not convinced that we have global warming anyway. There are some areas of science that i don't put my full trust in scientests on. It depends on how much they know about the subject they are commenting on. Global warming is a fairly recent conclusion and there is such pressure to conform to this thinking in the scientific community that it makes me wonder just how objective scientests can be when they are not free to opine. Peer pressure can effectively supress dissenting viewpoints and conclusions and after all , scientests are people too.

So are Republicans and you sell their schtick 24/7.

But wait a minute... (http://globalwarming.net/)

Monday, 02 April 2007
The Supreme Court ordered the federal government today to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars. In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars. Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion. The case is Massachusetts v. EPA, 05-1120.

Greenhouse gases, flowing into the atmosphere and oceans at an unprecedented rate, are leading to larger extreme climatic events, rising sea levels and other marked ecological changes.

The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the court agreed last year to hear its first global warming case. Business leaders are saying they are increasingly open to congressional action to reduce greenhouse gases emissions, of which carbon dioxide is the largest. Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned.

The Supreme Court is now primarily...Republican. So if they lend serious credibility to the effects of Greenhouse gases, then maybe (just maybe!) you are mistaken about Global Warming. Maybe it isn't subjective. Maybe with each passing event, science is being proven right and through updated research, analysis is revealing that the damage we do to this planet is quite real. Maybe you should re-read that Bible...

The land mourns because of our sin against each other and God—creatures are dying because of our sin. Our sin brings violence and the destruction of land.

(Hosea 4:1-3; Jeremiah 4:18-28)

God’s judgment will reward those who revere Him, and destroy those who destroy the earth.

(Revelation 11:18)

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
But I would like to say that the way you characterize Dems is not he way I would- I would say they are pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, divisive on racial and economic issues, and are environmentalist to the extreme that they choose to support environment even at the expense of people. The list of things you gave describing the Dems- they do say those things and sound so nice while they are saying them.

Pro-Abortion - I believe if you don't want a child you should be able to abort it before it gets to far, you should have 1 month to abort it. Safe sex should be practiced more, starts with the parents, someone like you Lynn. Plus, it isn't your problem whether a woman and man have a child. Do you want people to say you shouldn't have a child, or you should? It is about choice, the child hasn't been born yet and has no real choices.

Pro-Euthanasia - I am neutral on this, but would go pro if i had to make a decision. People have rights.

divisive on racial and economic issues - I am with them.

environment even at the expense of people - If global warming proves to be real, wouldn't you be much happier to know they took precautions to prevent it, even if it meant losing a few jobs? Is it that hard to make cutbacks in life?

I laugh at your comments Lynn because you honestly don't get it. We need to think future and not just present. Bush is in a bad situation similar to Hoover was during the Great Depression. There was no way to stop that, but we could have prevented the deficit from reaching the highs they did. Like mentioned before, Clinton had us sitting pretty. We had lots of jobs, a surplus, money to spend on things, and if given even one more term he could have fixed Social Security. We will never know, but we were in a positive direction.

Now you could say taxes were higher. I agree, but hey the right people were taxed. Look at the rich now, they are running like monopolies. It is so hard for a small business to come out because big business has the President and all of Congress in their pockets, Dems and Repubs. You can't blame it all on Bush, but that is where the finger will be pointed.

I honestly believe we should get rid of social security and take that money and put it in our 401k plans. It would make sure we have it when we retire. I hate knowing I am paying for this and I won't have it.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I have never dodged points. I regularly take great pains to address all the points in a post. On the other hand, many times I take a lot of time to make some points and I am answered by a simple snide remark. I don't think I have ever done that. Bubba, you have done that to me many times.
Since you accuse me in such a broad way of consistently dodging your points, I just wont' try as hard anymore since it doesn't matter anyway.


See, this is what you do -- Every time someone makes a point, you turn it personal, you make accusations that are not true, and go on NEVER ADDRESSING THE POINT.

And yes, when I make a point and you reply with a rant about democrats - that is above and beyond any insult that can come from any snide remark. Most often, you accuse me of making a snide remark, where one was not intended, while failing to address any of my points.

Maybe you are confusing me with another liberal, because based on your continued responses, I'm beginning to think we all might as well just be one person, that way you can respond in your broad brush stroked insults, and feel self-congratulatory about finally getting something off your chest. There are at least a dozen examples in this thread of you doing exactly that - dodging points by responding to things that were never said or implied, but are things that you assume all liberals believe - whether we are talking about it or not makes no difference.

Many times you have replied to me not based on what I've most recently said, but based on an argument other liberals have given you some time in the past --- It doesn't even matter what I say, because you will pull some ideology that you don't believe in, and attribute it to me, then continue responding in a manner that has nothing to do with what I've said. And time after time I've politely pointed this out to you, but it has never once gotten you to actually go back and address my original point.

Of course, none of the above is ever an issue if you either agree with me, or have thought about it before, and know what your response should be. Too bad for you that the Liberal Media hasn't been making a big deal about Bush's war strategy inconsistencies that seem only based on what he wants to do --- If it had, I'm sure you would have been able to respond by now.

Oh, and your recent response - another attempt to dodge a point. Most any one else would have read that and gone back to address that point - Not you though - whether it be that all liberals think the same, or that you are being picked on, or that things are being implied that aren't --- Whatever it is, it is in your head. The fact that you keep refusing to address point after point - that is very much real and again, there are dozens of examples in this thread alone.

I wish those of us who are attempting to reasonably speak with you were more organized. If we had our shit together more, we'd not be replying to you until we assured that you address the most recent point.

What you do is a text book example of "wagging the dog" - Oh, it doesn't matter what points anyone makes about the discussion, because you are going to make a much bigger deal about things totally unrelated, as that is much easier to deal with and argue that the actual ideas that are shared.

You know, if it weren't for your good use of grammar and spelling, I really would have no problems believing you were The President himself. He also likes to turn real issues into personal ones.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Rapture - end of days, tomatoe - tomahtoe. Essentially the same thing no?

The point im trying to make is that we are on different wavelengths. You say Democrats are pro-abortion, pro euthenasia (correct term is pro choice for both but whatever), pro-environment, because we base opinion on science and fact. We arent pro environment at the expense of people, we are pro environment FOR people. We dont want to see millions of people starve to death from drought or mass extinctions.
But to the religious community, those things are part of a religious destiny - end times - salvation and a good thing. The same thing applies to the Iraq war and war in general: you see things in a religious context that has a destiny and an ending. You can't rationalize that way of thinking to me because IMO the entire concept of religion and destiny is irrational. For us to have a debate it would have to be in one context or the other, not mixed.

So from a religious context, what i don't understand is why the religious community won't act to stop war or global warming. God has ultimate control and will determine the end of days, so why do humans think they understand or can control when it comes? Shouldnt we do all that is possible to prevent earths collapse and let God intervene when he sees fit?

Rapture is not a term in the bible- there is a term "caught up" which some say is rapture. There are differning opiniosn on what will happen- Pretrib, post tirb etc.

If you are talking about end times, then we all beleive in that and we do beleive that all beleivers will be with God forever and live in Heaven. Some beleive we may have to suffer through end times cataclysms and many do not.

If the Globe is warming then I'm not sure what we can do about it. There is a lot of global warming preaching going on but even the "preachers" are not setting the example of giving up private jet planes and big houses so how are the small folk who aren't into deprivation going to comply? And even if every person did conserve how would that reverse a process that is so powerful? I really don't get it when you follow the thinking through to its logical conclusion. People are not going to conserve. Even if they are forced to concerve they will find ways not to. People like to have their comforts. What can we do?

Yeah, we don't beleive we are in control of the Earth and we do belevie that God is in full control but he does allow us to reap the consequences of our actions. I try to conserve and I try not to waste resources if that makes you feel any better about me. And, I voted to recycle soda cans and I also belonged to Masspirg for many years which is an environmental organization. I had to withdraw membership in recent years when my membership was being used to support politiicans who are hateful to President Bush (like Ted Kennedy).


Jeo, I think I addressed your points here too. If there is global warming what would we do about it? If I buy into it or don't buy into it, it doesn't really matter does it? It's just a cause celeb right now.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Pro-Abortion - I believe if you don't want a child you should be able to abort it before it gets to far, you should have 1 month to abort it. Safe sex should be practiced more, starts with the parents, someone like you Lynn. Plus, it isn't your problem whether a woman and man have a child. Do you want people to say you shouldn't have a child, or you should? It is about choice, the child hasn't been born yet and has no real choices.

Pro-Euthanasia - I am neutral on this, but would go pro if i had to make a decision. People have rights.

divisive on racial and economic issues - I am with them.

environment even at the expense of people - If global warming proves to be real, wouldn't you be much happier to know they took precautions to prevent it, even if it meant losing a few jobs? Is it that hard to make cutbacks in life?

I laugh at your comments Lynn because you honestly don't get it. We need to think future and not just present. Bush is in a bad situation similar to Hoover was during the Great Depression. There was no way to stop that, but we could have prevented the deficit from reaching the highs they did. Like mentioned before, Clinton had us sitting pretty. We had lots of jobs, a surplus, money to spend on things, and if given even one more term he could have fixed Social Security. We will never know, but we were in a positive direction.

Now you could say taxes were higher. I agree, but hey the right people were taxed. Look at the rich now, they are running like monopolies. It is so hard for a small business to come out because big business has the President and all of Congress in their pockets, Dems and Repubs. You can't blame it all on Bush, but that is where the finger will be pointed.

I honestly believe we should get rid of social security and take that money and put it in our 401k plans. It would make sure we have it when we retire. I hate knowing I am paying for this and I won't have it.

Shoe- if your "tissue" had been aborted within a month by your mother, you would not be writing here to me right now. That is real. What this thinking really translates to is that if we can't see the child and he or she is not capable of communicating for many years to come, we don't have to address his or her rights at all. He or she will just be gone and never to be known and never missed. One million abortions each year in the Us.

Euthanasia- people have the right to choose. Well, they are free to choose to kill themselves. Who is stopping them? But why bring the medical profession into it? This is the beginning of the slippery slope when people are considered to old or past their use and it is better if they are dead. Wait until health costs come into account. It is too expensive to treat your father. We should consider giving him a cocktail to euthanize him- he won't feel a thing. Everything neat and tidy. (His place will not be missed by the medical or insurance communtiy).You want to give that power to people in these industries? You trust them with that?

I'm not talking about global warming here. I am talking about how sometimes there will be a case of some poor slob whose right to control his own land is challenged by environmentalists. I can't think of a case off hand but they come up from time to time.

I am sorry I don't get it but I am so glad I amuse you.

I remember when Clinton was in office. He was very busy in office. That is true. He truly was a man who enjoyed his power to the full.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
See, this is what you do -- Every time someone makes a point, you turn it personal, you make accusations that are not true, and go on NEVER ADDRESSING THE POINT.

And yes, when I make a point and you reply with a rant about democrats - that is above and beyond any insult that can come from any snide remark. Most often, you accuse me of making a snide remark, where one was not intended, while failing to address any of my points.

Maybe you are confusing me with another liberal, because based on your continued responses, I'm beginning to think we all might as well just be one person, that way you can respond in your broad brush stroked insults, and feel self-congratulatory about finally getting something off your chest. There are at least a dozen examples in this thread of you doing exactly that - dodging points by responding to things that were never said or implied, but are things that you assume all liberals believe - whether we are talking about it or not makes no difference.

Many times you have replied to me not based on what I've most recently said, but based on an argument other liberals have given you some time in the past --- It doesn't even matter what I say, because you will pull some ideology that you don't believe in, and attribute it to me, then continue responding in a manner that has nothing to do with what I've said. And time after time I've politely pointed this out to you, but it has never once gotten you to actually go back and address my original point.

Of course, none of the above is ever an issue if you either agree with me, or have thought about it before, and know what your response should be. Too bad for you that the Liberal Media hasn't been making a big deal about Bush's war strategy inconsistencies that seem only based on what he wants to do --- If it had, I'm sure you would have been able to respond by now.

Oh, and your recent response - another attempt to dodge a point. Most any one else would have read that and gone back to address that point - Not you though - whether it be that all liberals think the same, or that you are being picked on, or that things are being implied that aren't --- Whatever it is, it is in your head. The fact that you keep refusing to address point after point - that is very much real and again, there are dozens of examples in this thread alone.

I wish those of us who are attempting to reasonably speak with you were more organized. If we had our shit together more, we'd not be replying to you until we assured that you address the most recent point.

What you do is a text book example of "wagging the dog" - Oh, it doesn't matter what points anyone makes about the discussion, because you are going to make a much bigger deal about things totally unrelated, as that is much easier to deal with and argue that the actual ideas that are shared.

You know, if it weren't for your good use of grammar and spelling, I really would have no problems believing you were The President himself. He also likes to turn real issues into personal ones.

Bubba.
If you really want me to answer a specific point then isolate it and ask it alone. Maybe I am not good at reading through paragraphs of statments and picking out the points people want to have answered and to do it in a concise way. I have tried to converse with people here and I do make an effort.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
If the Globe is warming then I'm not sure what we can do about it. There is a lot of global warming preaching going on but even the "preachers" are not setting the example of giving up private jet planes and big houses so how are the small folk who aren't into deprivation going to comply? And even if every person did conserve how would that reverse a process that is so powerful? I really don't get it when you follow the thinking through to its logical conclusion. People are not going to conserve. Even if they are forced to concerve they will find ways not to. People like to have their comforts. What can we do?

Yeah, we don't beleive we are in control of the Earth and we do belevie that God is in full control but he does allow us to reap the consequences of our actions. I try to conserve and I try not to waste resources if that makes you feel any better about me. And, I voted to recycle soda cans and I also belonged to Masspirg for many years which is an environmental organization. I had to withdraw membership in recent years when my membership was being used to support politiicans who are hateful to President Bush (like Ted Kennedy).


I remember you always used to say that government should listen to experts (i agree). The president should listen to his generals in matters of war, and economists in matters of the economy. So why ignore scientists when it pertains to science? They think global warming is man made and we can make a real difference but we have to act now.

And if government stepped in a real difference could be made. And not by enforcing sacrififces, but funding solar and wind power, and really putting its resources behind those projects and others designed to help the envoironment. Lord knows the US can generate the capitol needed. Im really sick of conservatives (not you) who say that doing so will hurt the economy and we should let the free market even things out in the future. That's utter nonsense. If government didnt internvene in matters of nature, there wouldve been mass extinctions of animals decades ago. We'd be in huge trouble and fighting over food.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Shoe- if your "tissue" had been aborted within a month by your mother, you would not be writing here to me right now. That is real. What this thinking really translates to is that if we can't see the child and he or she is not capable of communicating for many years to come, we don't have to address his or her rights at all. He or she will just be gone and never to be known and never missed. One million abortions each year in the Us.

It would have been their choice. People have the right to make decisions. Now if I was born and they decided to get rid of me through death I believe that is wrong. It is my way of thinking. America is about freedoms and rights. Parents deserve the right to decide whether they should have children. Most families can't afford kids nowadays and if they could stop it from happening by 1 month, yes 1 month, I am for it. When things truly develop then they shouldn't be allowed to stop it.

Originally posted by Lynn7 Euthanasia- people have the right to choose. Well, they are free to choose to kill themselves. Who is stopping them? But why bring the medical profession into it? This is the beginning of the slippery slope when people are considered to old or past their use and it is better if they are dead. Wait until health costs come into account. It is too expensive to treat your father. We should consider giving him a cocktail to euthanize him- he won't feel a thing. Everything neat and tidy. (His place will not be missed by the medical or insurance communtiy).You want to give that power to people in these industries? You trust them with that? [/B]

I honestly am neutral on this. I see pros and cons for it, but I don't know what to say other then being neutral.

Originally posted by Lynn7 I'm not talking about global warming here. I am talking about how sometimes there will be a case of some poor slob whose right to control his own land is challenged by environmentalists. I can't think of a case off hand but they come up from time to time.

I am sorry I don't get it but I am so glad I amuse you.

I remember when Clinton was in office. He was very busy in office. That is true. He truly was a man who enjoyed his power to the full. [/B]

You do amuse me a lot. I respect your opinions, but if you could really read your views you might find them to be a little crazy. Global warming could turn out to be fake. I don't know, I am not a scientist. But I believe we need to begin taking care of the Earth a little bit more. If it means hurting the economy, well would you rather a future or none at all? You have children, do you want their kids to have a future?

Clinton did have his sex problems, but he did a great job in office. I am curious, what, besides the affair, did he do wrong in your opinion?

You like to put Dems down, but all the Repubs are doing is trying to put fear in us. We pay people to keep us safe. I put my safety in their hands. Now it works both ways though because we have to tell them if we know anything that could hurt the country. Most Americans don't even pay attention to any warnings anymore because of what they have done. The goal was Osama not Saddam. Remember that.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Rapture is not a term in the bible- there is a term "caught up" which some say is rapture. There are differning opiniosn on what will happen- Pretrib, post tirb etc.

If you are talking about end times, then we all beleive in that and we do beleive that all beleivers will be with God forever and live in Heaven. Some beleive we may have to suffer through end times cataclysms and many do not.

If the Globe is warming then I'm not sure what we can do about it. There is a lot of global warming preaching going on but even the "preachers" are not setting the example of giving up private jet planes and big houses so how are the small folk who aren't into deprivation going to comply? And even if every person did conserve how would that reverse a process that is so powerful? I really don't get it when you follow the thinking through to its logical conclusion. People are not going to conserve. Even if they are forced to concerve they will find ways not to. People like to have their comforts. What can we do?

Yeah, we don't beleive we are in control of the Earth and we do belevie that God is in full control but he does allow us to reap the consequences of our actions. I try to conserve and I try not to waste resources if that makes you feel any better about me. And, I voted to recycle soda cans and I also belonged to Masspirg for many years which is an environmental organization. I had to withdraw membership in recent years when my membership was being used to support politiicans who are hateful to President Bush (like Ted Kennedy).


Jeo, I think I addressed your points here too. If there is global warming what would we do about it? If I buy into it or don't buy into it, it doesn't really matter does it? It's just a cause celeb right now.

No, not really. You didn't address my post much, anyway. I'm sure some religions don't buy into the Rapture. Of course, I think most of those are completely wrong. (See also: Catholicism.)

As far as mention in the Bible, it goes by the name "harpazo" in Greek. (1 Thessalonians 4:17)

The term may not otherwise appear in the Bible, but make no mistake the subject is thoroughly covered.

You may not believe in global warming and its effects, but teh US government does. And it is taking this issue very seriously. If you want a bigger "cause celeb", then look no further than Iraq.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by shoe1985
It would have been their choice. People have the right to make decisions. Now if I was born and they decided to get rid of me through death I believe that is wrong. It is my way of thinking. America is about freedoms and rights. Parents deserve the right to decide whether they should have children. Most families can't afford kids nowadays and if they could stop it from happening by 1 month, yes 1 month, I am for it. When things truly develop then they shouldn't be allowed to stop it.





You raise an interesting point. Let's say that a couple has been living together for 2 years. The girl is a cashier but the guy has a great job as a lawyer or something. The girl gets pregnant and they are really happy and excited about the baby coming. Well, the guy meets a girl at work and falls madly in love with her (love at first sight) and knows that she is the one he loves and wants to be with. The baby is 2 weeks old. He does not want any ties to follow him into this new relationship- to be saddled with taking care of this baby of a relationship he no longer wants. He does not want to have to pay for the support of the girl and the baby.

The girl is devastated that he is leaving her and knows that she will be saddled with taking care of the baby 24/7 and she really wants to get out there into the dating market and meet someone new and feels that the baby will hinder her chances - a new man may not want to take on another man's child.

They both agree that they would like to euthanize the baby- they dont want to adopt it out cause that would make them feel bad but they know they can have the baby have a legal injection that will be pain free- the baby will die a peaceful death. (Many women who have abortions say they could never deal with having their baby adopted and they would rather abort so this reason is not far fetched).

So, if it is the right of these two parents to make decisions and the baby is simply 8 months older than the month that you said and cannot talk or think etc at this point. He or she would never know. Is it ok for those two consenting adults to make their own decision about what is best for their lives to euthanize that 2 week old baby? Can it be their decison?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by jeo4
No, not really. You didn't address my post much, anyway. I'm sure some religions don't buy into the Rapture. Of course, I think most of those are completely wrong. (See also: Catholicism.)

As far as mention in the Bible, it goes by the name "harpazo" in Greek. (1 Thessalonians 4:17)

The term may not otherwise appear in the Bible, but make no mistake the subject is thoroughly covered.

You may not believe in global warming and its effects, but teh US government does. And it is taking this issue very seriously. If you want a bigger "cause celeb", then look no further than Iraq.

From about.com

Continued - What is the Rapture?
Brief History of the Rapture
The term "Rapture" first became popular in the United States toward the end of the 19th century through the teachings on premillennialism and dipensationalism by John Nelson Darby, an Irish evangelist. The rapture theory continued to grow in popularity among evangelicals largely due to a preacher named William Eugene Blackstone (1841-1935). His book, Jesus is Coming, sold more than one million copies.

In the late 1960's and 1970's, during the Jesus Movement, the Rapture theory made its way into many popular secular songs such as Are You Ready? by Pacific Gas & Electric and In The Year 2525 by Zager and Evans.

The Rapture theory gained even greater interest during this time due to the books of Hal Lindsey.

In The Late Great Planet Earth Lindsey predicted an imminent Rapture based on global conditions at the time.

In 1972 Russell S. Doughten produced a four-part movie series beginning with A Thief in the Night. The film recorded the events surrounding the Rapture in a terrifying way, creating widespread public interest in the theory.

In 1991 the film The Rapture, with Mimi Rogers was released. It recorded one woman's experience through the Rapture.

Currently, the very popular Christian book series, based on the events surrounding the Rapture is the Left Behind series, by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.

Not All Christian Faiths Accept the Rapture Theory

Roman Catholics do not accept a Rapture theory. They believe the concept to be a confused understanding of the second coming of Christ.

Eastern Orthodox also reject the Rapture theory. From the beginning it has never been taught by any of their bishops.

Other mainline Protestant faiths and ministers have challenged the idea of the Rapture because of the inconsistencies and various interpretations of the previously noted Bible verses.

Speculation About the Rapture

For those who believe in a future Rapture, it is regarded to be a sudden and cataclysmic event that will be unlike any other phenomenon in history. Millions of people will disappear from the Earth without warning. As a result, tragic and unexplained accidents will occur on a wide scale basis, ushering in the tribulation period. Many speculate that the non-believers left behind who may have known of the Rapture theory, yet previously rejected it, will finally come to belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior as a result of the Rapture. Others left behind will remain in unbelief, finding theories to "explain away" the bizarre event.

__________________________________________________ ___


So it is not something most Christians talk about much. We do believe in end times and talk about that quite a bit, especially in recent times when many things that have been prophecised about in the Bible are happening.

This is what Jesus said:
"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. "

One interesting thing is the appearance of this guy in Florida who is claiming to be Jesus and has millions following him. That is one of the prophecies that Jesus foretold of- one more occurence that points to the fig leaves coming out so to speak. One small one among many.

So, back to global warming. Ok- me and all conservatives have finally come to agree that we need to act on global warming. What are we going to do? If it is a great catastrophe should we take away cars? Close down factories? How long will it take to convert the population to solar power? Who will pay for all of this? We should shut down the factories too. What else should we do and how long will it take us to save the world from global warming?

What do we do it people do not comply with all the new laws (because they can't or won't )? After all, the world is at risk so the penalties should be severe if people don't fall in line, right? But some people may want to but wont be able to do it because they don't have the means. Can the goveernment afford to pay for all of these changes? There may be problems with the economy as we lose work places and transportation so we may not have as many tax dollars coming in. And what if we make all these changes but other countries do not?

The issue isn't as simple as using one piece of toilet paper or driving a smaller car. Global warming would be a catastrophe calling for drastic measures, not an issue of conservation. If the spokespeople really beleived this they would not ever THINK of using a private jet or living in massive houses. That would be abhorrent to them.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
You raise an interesting point. Let's say that a couple has been living together for 2 years. The girl is a cashier but the guy has a great job as a lawyer or something. The girl gets pregnant and they are really happy and excited about the baby coming. Well, the guy meets a girl at work and falls madly in love with her (love at first sight) and knows that she is the one he loves and wants to be with. The baby is 2 weeks old. He does not want any ties to follow him into this new relationship- to be saddled with taking care of this baby of a relationship he no longer wants. He does not want to have to pay for the support of the girl and the baby.

The girl is devastated that he is leaving her and knows that she will be saddled with taking care of the baby 24/7 and she really wants to get out there into the dating market and meet someone new and feels that the baby will hinder her chances - a new man may not want to take on another man's child.

They both agree that they would like to euthanize the baby- they dont want to adopt it out cause that would make them feel bad but they know they can have the baby have a legal injection that will be pain free- the baby will die a peaceful death. (Many women who have abortions say they could never deal with having their baby adopted and they would rather abort so this reason is not far fetched).

So, if it is the right of these two parents to make decisions and the baby is simply 8 months older than the month that you said and cannot talk or think etc at this point. He or she would never know. Is it ok for those two consenting adults to make their own decision about what is best for their lives to euthanize that 2 week old baby? Can it be their decison?

Ok Lynn, I am neutral on euthanize. There situations where things like this should happen, but this is not the case. The baby is now born, and if she had problems like mentally, I would say they should do what they feel, otherwise they must face the consequences of their actions.

See Lynn, you can be either Dem or Repub, but we have this great built in thing where we can think for ourselves.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
From about.com

Continued - What is the Rapture?
Brief History of the Rapture
The term "Rapture" first became popular in the United States toward the end of the 19th century through the teachings on premillennialism and dipensationalism by John Nelson Darby, an Irish evangelist. The rapture theory continued to grow in popularity among evangelicals largely due to a preacher named William Eugene Blackstone (1841-1935). His book, Jesus is Coming, sold more than one million copies.

In the late 1960's and 1970's, during the Jesus Movement, the Rapture theory made its way into many popular secular songs such as Are You Ready? by Pacific Gas & Electric and In The Year 2525 by Zager and Evans.

The Rapture theory gained even greater interest during this time due to the books of Hal Lindsey.

In The Late Great Planet Earth Lindsey predicted an imminent Rapture based on global conditions at the time.

In 1972 Russell S. Doughten produced a four-part movie series beginning with A Thief in the Night. The film recorded the events surrounding the Rapture in a terrifying way, creating widespread public interest in the theory.

In 1991 the film The Rapture, with Mimi Rogers was released. It recorded one woman's experience through the Rapture.

Currently, the very popular Christian book series, based on the events surrounding the Rapture is the Left Behind series, by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.

Not All Christian Faiths Accept the Rapture Theory

Roman Catholics do not accept a Rapture theory. They believe the concept to be a confused understanding of the second coming of Christ.

Eastern Orthodox also reject the Rapture theory. From the beginning it has never been taught by any of their bishops.

Other mainline Protestant faiths and ministers have challenged the idea of the Rapture because of the inconsistencies and various interpretations of the previously noted Bible verses.

Speculation About the Rapture

For those who believe in a future Rapture, it is regarded to be a sudden and cataclysmic event that will be unlike any other phenomenon in history. Millions of people will disappear from the Earth without warning. As a result, tragic and unexplained accidents will occur on a wide scale basis, ushering in the tribulation period. Many speculate that the non-believers left behind who may have known of the Rapture theory, yet previously rejected it, will finally come to belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior as a result of the Rapture. Others left behind will remain in unbelief, finding theories to "explain away" the bizarre event.

__________________________________________________ ___


So it is not something most Christians talk about much. We do believe in end times and talk about that quite a bit, especially in recent times when many things that have been prophecised about in the Bible are happening.

This is what Jesus said:
"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. "

One interesting thing is the appearance of this guy in Florida who is claiming to be Jesus and has millions following him. That is one of the prophecies that Jesus foretold of- one more occurence that points to the fig leaves coming out so to speak. One small one among many.

So, back to global warming. Ok- me and all conservatives have finally come to agree that we need to act on global warming. What are we going to do? If it is a great catastrophe should we take away cars? Close down factories? How long will it take to convert the population to solar power? Who will pay for all of this? We should shut down the factories too. What else should we do and how long will it take us to save the world from global warming?

What do we do it people do not comply with all the new laws (because they can't or won't )? After all, the world is at risk so the penalties should be severe if people don't fall in line, right? But some people may want to but wont be able to do it because they don't have the means. Can the goveernment afford to pay for all of these changes? There may be problems with the economy as we lose work places and transportation so we may not have as many tax dollars coming in. And what if we make all these changes but other countries do not?

The issue isn't as simple as using one piece of toilet paper or driving a smaller car. Global warming would be a catastrophe calling for drastic measures, not an issue of conservation. If the spokespeople really beleived this they would not ever THINK of using a private jet or living in massive houses. That would be abhorrent to them.

You addressed a little more here and I appreciate that. However:

While I agree that the end time discussion is certainly more prevalent among all denominations and in the Bible, evidence shows that most acknowlege the Rapture and that scriptures reference the event. Ignoring this event or trivializing it is a mistake to most denominations.

Again, you missed where the Bible states that we as a people are supposed to take care of the Earth according to Gods command. If you are as much of a Christian as you say you are, you need to take conservation issues more seriously.

Getting away from the Biblical discussion, I also disagree with the notion that private jets or living in large homes are the major offenses you make them out to be. Especially sine there are so few who own them. I also think you are trivializing this issue in many ways.

Cars aren't the only issue, but they are one of the main issues with greenhouse gases. And the US is the largest consumer/user as far as this is concerned. Technology can change and become both common and affordable. This will make a huge impact on US consumers, considering the staggering prices of fuel and the overwhelming poor fuel economy and pollution rates of most vehicles on the market.The US will have to be the nation that sets the benchmark because vehicles here are the worst offenders.

Again, greenhouse gases are a very serious issue. If the US government takes the issue seriously, then there are already some valid arguments behind the concern. Recycliing is nice, and it's a good start. But you just can't keep doing the finger pointing, Lynn. Politicians should set examples, but so should everyone else. And both North America and European nations are the worst polluters in the world. So they need to be the ones initiating changes. Yeah, I agree that penalties should be stiff for offenders, especially corporations and large government agencies that commit the offenses. Obviously we need large scale changes to reverse the negative effects on this planet. Everyone can help in many ways, of course. But this needs to go much higher than just everyday changes of habit

I'm going to try to get back onto the subject of the war now.

[The Postmaster General]

I take it back Lynn, you are more like Bill Clinton than I realized. You are trying to redefine the term "long posts" to meet your needs.


Originally posted by Lynn7
Bubba.
If you really want me to answer a specific point then isolate it and ask it alone. Maybe I am not good at reading through paragraphs of statments and picking out the points people want to have answered and to do it in a concise way. I have tried to converse with people here and I do make an effort.


See, now you are throwing out the classic "Bubba's posts are too long to comprehend" strategy, but let's look at my repeated attempts to have you address my single point - keep in mind, I'm quoting my entire posts, without editing them down:

Posted by me:

anyone else catch how George Bush says we can't let people know when we plan on leaving because it gives them a vantage point....

5 years after giving a time table on when we'd invade Iraq to take out Saddam, and then on that promised day, sending slow moving tanks across the desert over the course of 10 hours to do it!

So... telling people when we'll leave is a big no-no, but scheduling an attack one month in advance, with the goal of taking out one singe person - that works just fine?


To which your next response was:

All I can say to all of you is wait and see what happens. Me talking about this stuff obviously has no impact- you guys are so virulently against Bush that you would like to believe this whole Iraq war is something he did to flex his muscles. History repeats itself. Unfortunately, the new Hitler is associated with many other powers and assisting in our demise are all of the other countries who are too chicken to take a stand. It's going to be very hard to withstand the attacks from the terrorists because they will not come in the form of an army but as single attackers who will wreak great damage in many free countries. Some day you will fondly recall these present days as a time of great peace. People will wish Bush was still in office but he will be gone and the damage of our congress not supporting him when they had the chance will be devastating because we will have lost a great opportunity.


You were presented with a valid point, and instead of answering it, or even humoring it, you used the "You people" argument.

So I reply:

I strongly supported Bush following the 1st election, and through Afghanistan, so nice try.

Bush doesn't support basic military strategy, and that's my sole beef with his part in this war. You - instead of trying to attack an ideology that some of us may or may not share, why don't you step up and address my point about how he flip-flops what is good strategy based solely on what he wants to do - ie, scheduling a withdraw date somehow being bad, when scheduling our arrival TO THE HOUR as being a daft military move. How come the only consistency so far has been that he does what he wants?


Wow, really not long paragraphs, or even my usual tangents.

How did you respond? (With multiple paragraphs, I hope)

See, here is the problem- the intel of not only our country but of the UK came up with certain interpretations and not only the President but the entire congress decided to go forward. So when you criticize why say Bush lied? Those are very strong words. Even if we did have a lying president (which we don't) it is the congress' responsiblity to protect one man from going wacko. In this case the congress blames Bush and excuses themselves from any blame- so hypocritical and they are the ones who lie. They are cowards to the max.

And the invasion and take over went very smoothly- I don't think even one of our guys died in the doing of it. But what happened afterwards has been terrible and it is representative of the enemy we fight now. They do not fight as an army but in singles. They plant roadside bombs. If this strategy was implied in this country what would you propose to do? You can blame Bush for being incompetent or evil, but what is the solution to dealing with this enemy? Is there a clean way to deal with them?

Bush's strategy is to try to get to their cells before they can enact terror plots. What is your side's strategy?


So, I read through that, and replied:

To first come up with a strategy.

This is what I refer to - sure, initially everything went as it should, but now - now there's little doubt its time to rethink our approach. Bush is saying things that simple are not true in regards to giving the terrorists a date of when we will pull out as being a big mistake. Just as you said - they are not an army, therefore it isn't like we are keeping them at bay or anything.

If you were playing chess with someone, telling them months in advance that you were going to be challenging them to a match - that gives them time to study your, get their self in order.... Thats how we went into Iraq. Now, I'm not going to say we keep getting put into check, but stalemate is hard to disagree with. Now, how does telling someone, "after this match I need to quit and go study this game some more.' --- How does that make them stalemate you better or even get a chance to beat you? It doesn't and that's why I find it comical how Bush flip-flops what is good Iraq strategy - he doesn't have one. He is making it up as he goes along, hence what worked before, he says is a bad move now.



To which you respond... Well, you didn't. After three strokes back and forth with me REPEATING THE EXACT SAME THING, you, having obviously read through my relatively short posts (compared to yours), still refused to touch on my single point. So my point became about your dodging my point, with you instantly and directly responding that I'm insulting and that my posts are too long for you to comprehend.

It seems strangely convenient that your posts, being much longer than mine in total, were swiftly and thoroughly addressed and responded to by me, but my posts, which were shorter --- Well that was just too much reading for you (Your implication, not mine)

Either way, both of my points are very clear, and very much backed up with evidence.

[jeo4]

It seems Bush has no intention of cooperating even if the bill sets SIMPLE GOALS. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070509/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq)

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I take it back Lynn, you are more like Bill Clinton than I realized. You are trying to redefine the term "long posts" to meet your needs.





See, now you are throwing out the classic "Bubba's posts are too long to comprehend" strategy, but let's look at my repeated attempts to have you address my single point - keep in mind, I'm quoting my entire posts, without editing them down:

To which you respond... Well, you didn't. After three strokes back and forth with me REPEATING THE EXACT SAME THING, you, having obviously read through my relatively short posts (compared to yours), still refused to touch on my single point. So my point became about your dodging my point, with you instantly and directly responding that I'm insulting and that my posts are too long for you to comprehend.

It seems strangely convenient that your posts, being much longer than mine in total, were swiftly and thoroughly addressed and responded to by me, but my posts, which were shorter --- Well that was just too much reading for you (Your implication, not mine)

Either way, both of my points are very clear, and very much backed up with evidence.

You think you've got it bad? Go check out the "Why is the U.S. war weary?" thread, where she won't even begin to address a single point I made, despite the fact that I repeatedly broke down her posts and countered them point-by-point, because she is "overwhelmed" by my apparently mammoth post of less than 500 words (far less than the average Drudge "Report") It sure is convenient how she shifts not only her ideologies, but her self-reported posting style to meet her needs when she can offer no counter argument. I guess when presented with irrefutable facts that don't gel with her unfounded opinions, Lynn gets too "discouraged" to reply reasonably.

I seriously don't know why most of us here entertain her in debate. It seems a total waste of our time, effort, and energy. While the majority of schmoes here will consult references, news reports, and studies and rather eloquently express their beliefs, Lynn would prefer to let you know how she feels about things based on a story she heard about, chain letter she received, or what a friend at church told her. Most aggravatingly, while literally every other schmoe here is capable of debating one another and having back-and-forth discussions based on the contents of someone's post, Lynn insists only on debating the imaginary liberal that lives inside her head and hates America. So why do we bother arguing with a brick wall?

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
You think you've got it bad? Go check out the "Why is the U.S. war weary?" thread, where she won't even begin to address a single point I made, despite the fact that I repeatedly broke down her posts and countered them point-by-point, because she is "overwhelmed" by my apparently mammoth post of less than 500 words (far less than the average Drudge "Report") It sure is convenient how she shifts not only her ideologies, but her self-reported posting style to meet her needs when she can offer no counter argument. I guess when presented with irrefutable facts that don't gel with her unfounded opinions, Lynn gets too "discouraged" to reply reasonably.

I seriously don't know why most of us here entertain her in debate. It seems a total waste of our time, effort, and energy. While the majority of schmoes here will consult references, news reports, and studies and rather eloquently express their beliefs, Lynn would prefer to let you know how she feels about things based on a story she heard about, chain letter she received, or what a friend at church told her. Most aggravatingly, while literally every other schmoe here is capable of debating one another and having back-and-forth discussions based on the contents of someone's post, Lynn insists only on debating the imaginary liberal that lives inside her head and hates America. So why do we bother arguing with a brick wall?

If you call your posts "entertainment" you definitely think too much of yourself. :rolleyes: I am o.k. with the peremptory, directive and bullying Quentin but narcissistic and self-complimentary? I am not sure I am ready for that... :)

Lynn, I think Quentin is right about debating too much. Maybe just summarizing comments on the topic are enough. We can't find the "common" truth or change each other positions and POVs on practically everything. Let's focus on finding news worthy reports instead.

Thank you.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Beenthere
If you call your posts "entertainment" you definitely think too much of yourself. :rolleyes: I am o.k. with the peremptory, directive and bullying Quentin but narcissistic and self-complimentary? I am not sure I am ready for that... :)

Lynn, I think Quentin is right about debating too much. Maybe just summarizing comments on the topic are enough. We can't find the "common" truth or change each other positions and POVs on practically everything. Let's focus on finding news worthy reports instead.

Thank you.

From dictionary.com:

en·ter·tain –verb (used with object)

3. to admit into the mind; consider: He never entertained such ideas.
4. to hold in the mind; harbor; cherish: They secretly entertained thoughts of revenge.

Entertaining an argument is not the same as "entertainment" like the circus. I won't hold your misunderstanding of the English language against you, since I know it's not your native tongue, but would appreciate it if in the future you maybe double-checked a word you weren't sure of before calling me narcissistic and self-congratulatory based on it.

You also clearly didn't understand my point, it was far from "we debate too much," in fact sort of the opposite. My problem is that most of the schmoes here end up debating AT Lynn rather than with her, because she's obviously busy debating an imaginary liberal that lives in her head, because it is that figment's unspoken statements she usually ends up responding to, rather than what we here in reality have posted.

And we don't have to change each other's views, but the point of debate is to challenge one another's views and respond in an honest and direct way. Having your views challenged shapes and can reinforce or expand your belief system, but only if you actually consider what others have to say.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
From dictionary.com:

en·ter·tain –verb (used with object)

3. to admit into the mind; consider: He never entertained such ideas.
4. to hold in the mind; harbor; cherish: They secretly entertained thoughts of revenge.

Entertaining an argument is not the same as "entertainment" like the circus. I won't hold your misunderstanding of the English language against you, since I know it's not your native tongue, but would appreciate it if in the future you maybe double-checked a word you weren't sure of before calling me narcissistic and self-congratulatory based on it.

You also clearly didn't understand my point, it was far from "we debate too much," in fact sort of the opposite. My problem is that most of the schmoes here end up debating AT Lynn rather than with her, because she's obviously busy debating an imaginary liberal that lives in her head, because it is that figment's unspoken statements she usually ends up responding to, rather than what we here in reality have posted.

And we don't have to change each other's views, but the point of debate is to challenge one another's views and respond in an honest and direct way. Having your views challenged shapes and can reinforce or expand your belief system, but only if you actually consider what others have to say.

Quentin, please check "sarcasm" in the dictionary. Did you see quotation marks? And I did not exactly call your narcissistic...

It's very difficult to argue with someone who's so dead serious all the time. ;)

What I recommended Lynn was not based exactly on what you wrote but rather how. Not everybody is a big fan of "patronizing" tone or, may I say with a doubt, a disparagement. Comments based on a belief system, as you mentioned, or humorous ones would be enough in our very divisive universe. Less confrontations, comparisons and, God forbid, compliments - better for everyone. I'd save them for Movies threads where debates are artistically oriented and much more fun.

On the other hand, if we were playing soccer (I am old but still playing) your "asperity" would be highly appreciated. I like brutality in sports.

P.S. Long time ago, while studying Linguistics, I compared Slavic languages and English. I kinda knew "word roots - parts of speech" differences and connections.
To be honest, the Philology girls at my University were so awesome I could have missed a few important lessons. :(

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Beenthere

Lynn, I think Quentin is right about debating too much. Maybe just summarizing comments on the topic are enough. We can't find the "common" truth or change each other positions and POVs on practically everything. Let's focus on finding news worthy reports instead.

Thank you.

I don't like contentious arguments but I do like discussing issues. I discuss issues with my friends like I do here but they don't accuse me of not answering their points and dodging. They like me. :D

I am not trying to change people's minds but I do think you have a valid point about getting too in depth on certain things. People can quote facts and figures at each other for ever and it changes nothing. Firgures can come from liberal websites or conservative websites. Ideological papers and websites will cherry pick the statistics that will support their position and disregard the ones that don't. Hey, that's the way of the world.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by QUENTIN

I seriously don't know why most of us here entertain her in debate. It seems a total waste of our time, effort, and energy. While the majority of schmoes here will consult references, news reports, and studies and rather eloquently express their beliefs, Lynn would prefer to let you know how she feels about things based on a story she heard about, chain letter she received, or what a friend at church told her. Most aggravatingly, while literally every other schmoe here is capable of debating one another and having back-and-forth discussions based on the contents of someone's post, Lynn insists only on debating the imaginary liberal that lives inside her head and hates America. So why do we bother arguing with a brick wall?

If you don't like to debate me that is fine but the way you phrased your issues with me its like the kid who tries to turn the group against a single person: Let's not talk to Lynn- let's ignore her! Go ahead and ignore me. I am not aware of any BB rules that I have to respond to points in a certain perscribed manner or I would not be posting here -I would just take a course at school and earn a grade.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
II discuss issues with my friends like I do here but they don't accuse me of not answering their points and dodging. They like me. :D


If I didn't like you, I'd have you on my ignore list, or not respond to you much at all. There's a handful of people on these boards that I've made that stand with. Also, I wouldn't share personal information with you, and also occasionally consult you via PM on matters that I think you are learned & experienced in.

As a point of perspective - I can't figure out how you would think my repeated attempts to have you address my points - how does thst indicate that I don't care what you say, or have no respect for what you're saying.

On the other hand, your continued refusal to address the single topic-related point I've made in this thread, and restated simplistically 3 times....

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
So, back to global warming. Ok- me and all conservatives have finally come to agree that we need to act on global warming. What are we going to do? If it is a great catastrophe should we take away cars? Close down factories? How long will it take to convert the population to solar power? Who will pay for all of this? We should shut down the factories too. What else should we do and how long will it take us to save the world from global warming?

What do we do it people do not comply with all the new laws (because they can't or won't )? After all, the world is at risk so the penalties should be severe if people don't fall in line, right? But some people may want to but wont be able to do it because they don't have the means. Can the goveernment afford to pay for all of these changes? There may be problems with the economy as we lose work places and transportation so we may not have as many tax dollars coming in. And what if we make all these changes but other countries do not?

The issue isn't as simple as using one piece of toilet paper or driving a smaller car. Global warming would be a catastrophe calling for drastic measures, not an issue of conservation. If the spokespeople really beleived this they would not ever THINK of using a private jet or living in massive houses. That would be abhorrent to them.

The government could enforce builders to use recycled materials and build energy efficient buildings. San Francisco is constructing office buildings with solar panels and wind turbines built in, and can generate 40% of the power it consumes. So much can be done using existing technologies, not to mention energy thats not far off like hydrogen fuel. If a company doesnt want to start doing things efficiently, they wont be in business for very long because there will be plenty of companies who will. The government can subsidize energy efficient car manufacturers, give tax rebates to people who buy energy efficient products, etc. If the Gov can spend billions of dollars building bridges to nowhere, it can afford to do this, easily. Its not very complicated, but it wont happen overnight. The point is: the longer we put it off the worse things will be in the future.

Imagine what will happen to this economy when gas hits 8 dollars a gallon. How would the economy handle that? We're using a finite resource that could hit its peak any day now. To not do anything to avoid this catastrophe would be insane.

Being more energy efficient is better for the economy. Take for example this new compact flourescent light bulb. It consumes 70% less power than the common incandescent, and can save a consumer over 30 dollars a year. Thats just one light bulb. If every house in america replaced one light bulb with the CFL, it would be like taking 1 million cars off the road. Now imagine that the government made using the CFL mandatory, and every household on average had a dozen lightbulbs. 12 million cars off the road, 36 billion dollars saved a year put back into the general economy. Easy.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
The government could enforce builders to use recycled materials and build energy efficient buildings. San Francisco is constructing office buildings with solar panels and wind turbines built in, and can generate 40% of the power it consumes. So much can be done using existing technologies, not to mention energy thats not far off like hydrogen fuel. If a company doesnt want to start doing things efficiently, they wont be in business for very long because there will be plenty of companies who will. The government can subsidize energy efficient car manufacturers, give tax rebates to people who buy energy efficient products, etc. If the Gov can spend billions of dollars building bridges to nowhere, it can afford to do this, easily. Its not very complicated, but it wont happen overnight. The point is: the longer we put it off the worse things will be in the future.

Imagine what will happen to this economy when gas hits 8 dollars a gallon. How would the economy handle that? We're using a finite resource that could hit its peak any day now. To not do anything to avoid this catastrophe would be insane.

Being more energy efficient is better for the economy. Take for example this new compact flourescent light bulb. It consumes 70% less power than the common incandescent, and can save a consumer over 30 dollars a year. Thats just one light bulb. If every house in america replaced one light bulb with the CFL, it would be like taking 1 million cars off the road. Now imagine that the government made using the CFL mandatory, and every household on average had a dozen lightbulbs. 12 million cars off the road, 36 billion dollars saved a year put back into the general economy. Easy.

That was a perfect reply. We don't need to make massive changes as explained in your reply to Lynn. We as Americans can make changes at home. I know my family has put in CFLs and we have seen a difference in our light bill. Now it isn't a massive decrease, but we do have a few extra bucks a month.

We could make cutbacks in driving to reduce pollution. We could get better fuel efficient cars instead of gas hog suvs. I can't even tell you how many people in my area have just recently purchased the new H3 Hummer. Yet they are the ones who complain about gas prices. I average $20 a week on gas. I was driving to college, work, any hobbies I may have, and visiting friends. This was all done at $2.94 for a gallon of gas. I see others driving around, like I said in the H3, and paying $70 or more doing less driving than me. I don't drive a Hybrid either.

Like Thrizzle said, factories don't need to make massive changes. They could easily install solar panels, or push for carpooling for their employees. They could setup carpooling programs where they could schedule people that live close together to work at the same time. Imagine the energy usage that would be reduced.

Lynn, don't make excuses. Think smart and how we can make our and our children's future better. Even if Global Warming is proven false, at least you could make others feel better by doing something to help keep pollution down. What is so wrong with that?

[Lynn7]

There is nothing wrong with being smart about certain things but as I read through you guys' posts I keep thinking you guys are dreaming if you think the general public would ever comply with this stuff. The general public willnot be deprived of anything. I think the people who are ecologically minded and would practice any of these things is a miniscule percentage of the population.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
If I didn't like you, I'd have you on my ignore list, or not respond to you much at all. There's a handful of people on these boards that I've made that stand with. Also, I wouldn't share personal information with you, and also occasionally consult you via PM on matters that I think you are learned & experienced in.

As a point of perspective - I can't figure out how you would think my repeated attempts to have you address my points - how does thst indicate that I don't care what you say, or have no respect for what you're saying.

On the other hand, your continued refusal to address the single topic-related point I've made in this thread, and restated simplistically 3 times....

Thats what I had thought but then you end up saying things that I interpret as being hostile at times. I do not understand what points I have missed. As I said, isolate the question and I will try to answer it. But I will say that if people want me to respond to statistics I can't do that because as I said before, statistics can be raised on any side of an issue to support the cause. I don't want to get into tit for tat. I prefer to discuss ideologies and philosphies.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
There is nothing wrong with being smart about certain things but as I read through you guys' posts I keep thinking you guys are dreaming if you think the general public would ever comply with this stuff. The general public willnot be deprived of anything. I think the people who are ecologically minded and would practice any of these things is a miniscule percentage of the population.

If history has shown us anything, most of the people that fight for the country are the minorities. It is like white people, I am white by the way, just believe they should treat other races like trash. I am all for defending my freedoms. I am against war, but I believe if you believe in something, you fight for it. I guess most parents didn't teach their kids that.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
There is nothing wrong with being smart about certain things but as I read through you guys' posts I keep thinking you guys are dreaming if you think the general public would ever comply with this stuff. The general public willnot be deprived of anything. I think the people who are ecologically minded and would practice any of these things is a miniscule percentage of the population.

You greatly underestimate the American public.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
There is nothing wrong with being smart about certain things but as I read through you guys' posts I keep thinking you guys are dreaming if you think the general public would ever comply with this stuff. The general public willnot be deprived of anything. I think the people who are ecologically minded and would practice any of these things is a miniscule percentage of the population.

I have been watching news on all the big 3 networks, Abc cbs and Fox, and someother news channels. They were discussing the Presidential election and they had polls. All of the polls say that Americans are most worried with the war, more than the economy, illegal immigration, and even healthcare. It is very close, around 60%, that Americans want the troops home. You could say it is 50/50 though because of how close it is. If these past elections for Congress say anything, it is time for a change. I don't know if bringing troops home now is the best thing, but Iraq must start doing more on their own. We gave them freedom, now they must learn to use it.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
There is nothing wrong with being smart about certain things but as I read through you guys' posts I keep thinking you guys are dreaming if you think the general public would ever comply with this stuff. The general public willnot be deprived of anything. I think the people who are ecologically minded and would practice any of these things is a miniscule percentage of the population.


So the strategy is to cater to the ones who aren't smart about certain things?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by shoe1985
If history has shown us anything, most of the people that fight for the country are the minorities. It is like white people, I am white by the way, just believe they should treat other races like trash. I am all for defending my freedoms. I am against war, but I believe if you believe in something, you fight for it. I guess most parents didn't teach their kids that.

I don't know how history has shown us that-care to elaborate?

White people think they should treat other races like trash. I have never met people like that except seen them on tv or observed the rare self-destructive idiot that everyone laughs at behind his back.

Everyone is against war for war's sake. War should be to fight against something. There are people who look for war- they look to invade or to kill like murderers and then people have to respond to the threat they represent.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by jeo4
You greatly underestimate the American public.

No- I simply observe human behavior. It's all around us. And if the people who are so devoted to the cause cannot deprive themselves then how can you expect others who couldn't care less about ecology to give up their comforts. The member of the general public wakes up and goes to work and takes care of their kids. They don't wake up and think of saving the world. Its not a criticism just an observation.

I think of John Lennon's song imagine (which I hate) but anyway, in it he talks about how he wishes the world would come together and live as one. Not gonna happen. And if people can't come togehter and live in peace they certainly will not come together and work for ecology. You could force issues, I suppose, through laws.


__________________________________________________ _
Bubba
So the strategy is to cater to the ones who aren't smart about certain things?
__________________________________________________ __

No, it's just being realistic about expectations. The people who are going around promoting all this stuff don't have average jobs for the most part. They tend to be actors, singers and politicians who are in between gigs. Also, they are academicians who have some extra time on their hands, or who actually benfit their careers through their attendance at these rallies. Meets and greets, so to speak. And students get involved too while they are in college and while it is the thing to do but few follow through once they leave.

[Thrizzle]

Lynn you are right. People wont initiate change themselves. But the government can. Why shouldnt the government intervene? It wouldnt be hard, and clearly a lot of the population is willing (and that number is growing daily with every record breaking heat wave).

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I think of John Lennon's song imagine (which I hate)

LOL! Who knew? :rolleyes:

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I think of John Lennon's song imagine (which I hate)


I'll usually defend you when somebody attacks you excessively but if someone accuses you of having no soul I won't argue.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
No, it's just being realistic about expectations. The people who are going around promoting all this stuff don't have average jobs for the most part. They tend to be actors, singers and politicians who are in between gigs. Also, they are academicians who have some extra time on their hands, or who actually benfit their careers through their attendance at these rallies. Meets and greets, so to speak. And students get involved too while they are in college and while it is the thing to do but few follow through once they leave.


I really don't understand. An elected official doesn't have an average job either - how does that mean they shouldn't be smart about certain things.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
I'll usually defend you when somebody attacks you excessively but if someone accuses you of having no soul I won't argue.

I don't have a soul because I hate the song Imagine?! Why is that?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I really don't understand. An elected official doesn't have an average job either - how does that mean they shouldn't be smart about certain things.

What I mean is that the people who are most active in the environmental/global warming movement (rallies/demonstrations etc) tend to be from the groups that I mentioned. Those groups are a small part of the population and you can't expect to find that level of global warming committment from car mechanics, nurses, accountants, firemen etc.

Politicians know that they need to please the people who have the power to damage them which is why they will often pander to the people with the loudest voices. The Dems politicians please the environmentalists and the REpubs please the prolifers even though both these groups might not represent the majority of people in the US they are loud and complain.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I don't have a soul because I hate the song Imagine?! Why is that?


Well, it gives the impression that you're more of the Michael Bolton type....and it is a well-known fact that Michael Bolton fans have no soul.


Besides, it's Imagine. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the message it's a kickass song.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by shoe1985
If history has shown us anything, most of the people that fight for the country are the minorities. It is like white people, I am white by the way, just believe they should treat other races like trash. I am all for defending my freedoms. I am against war, but I believe if you believe in something, you fight for it. I guess most parents didn't teach their kids that.

What are you talking about? The majority of America's military is white men.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
No- I simply observe human behavior. It's all around us. And if the people who are so devoted to the cause cannot deprive themselves then how can you expect others who couldn't care less about ecology to give up their comforts. The member of the general public wakes up and goes to work and takes care of their kids. They don't wake up and think of saving the world. Its not a criticism just an observation.

I think of John Lennon's song imagine (which I hate) but anyway, in it he talks about how he wishes the world would come together and live as one. Not gonna happen. And if people can't come togehter and live in peace they certainly will not come together and work for ecology. You could force issues, I suppose, through laws.

I didn't say anything about living in peace. And you are making broad, generalized statements about the people of this country. I think it would be very bigoted to lump everyone into this category. And I think you are dead wrong in your assessment of "spoiled America" .

Americans not only work to save money, but they try to be efficient on every level. Hell, that's becoming corporate America's new catch phrase. And in the efforts to be more efficient, Americans aren't stupid. Their wallets are draining at the pump and they know it. That alone is motivation enough to send millions of fuel efficient cars flying off the showroom floors. Dealers can't even keep them in stock because the demand is both high and immediate. Fuel prices are also effecting the housing market. Ask anyone who had a $500 gas bill this winter if it matters.

As far as ecology goes, corporations are the primary offenders. They need to take the steps to be more efficient and they need to set examples. It's up to the government to regulate this. Many elected officials come from corporate backrounds and won't do anything to make waves. It's going to take a smarter, more forward thinking government to implement changes that will protect the environment and end our dependency on foreign petroleum. Say what you will about the American public, Lynn...but little changes just won't do. Leadership needs to change and companies need to be held accountable first.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
What are you talking about? The majority of America's military is white men.

Yes, but what is the biggest group to usually die? Look in World War 2, most of the people Latinos. It wasn't shocking to see the last name of a person named Sanchez in WW2.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Well, it gives the impression that you're more of the Michael Bolton type....and it is a well-known fact that Michael Bolton fans have no soul.


Besides, it's Imagine. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the message it's a kickass song.

The tune is pretty but the message is anti-Christian so it is no surprise that I hate the song.

I have never been a Michael Bolton fan. I can't think of a Bolton song I have ever enjoyed. As a person he seems like a nice guy- his singing is overwrought.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by jeo4
I didn't say anything about living in peace. And you are making broad, generalized statements about the people of this country. I think it would be very bigoted to lump everyone into this category. And I think you are dead wrong in your assessment of "spoiled America" .

Americans not only work to save money, but they try to be efficient on every level. Hell, that's becoming corporate America's new catch phrase. And in the efforts to be more efficient, Americans aren't stupid. Their wallets are draining at the pump and they know it. That alone is motivation enough to send millions of fuel efficient cars flying off the showroom floors. Dealers can't even keep them in stock because the demand is both high and immediate. Fuel prices are also effecting the housing market. Ask anyone who had a $500 gas bill this winter if it matters.

As far as ecology goes, corporations are the primary offenders. They need to take the steps to be more efficient and they need to set examples. It's up to the government to regulate this. Many elected officials come from corporate backrounds and won't do anything to make waves. It's going to take a smarter, more forward thinking government to implement changes that will protect the environment and end our dependency on foreign petroleum. Say what you will about the American public, Lynn...but little changes just won't do. Leadership needs to change and companies need to be held accountable first.


I know you didn't speak of peace but peace should be more motivating than conservation but people can't pull it off.

You are talking about the difference between Dems and Repubs philosophy here. The Dems beleive that everything should be regulated and restricted by government. Of course it stands to reason that if the Dems beleive in global warming and the destruction of the earth that they will create laws that will heavily restrict our lives.

You may think it is a great solution but it sends chills down my spine when I think of what all that is going to do to our economy and our quality of life.

And even with changes I am not convinced it would be enough to reverse what global warming people are saying are such devastating issues that are supposedly violently impacting our world .

But perhaps the Dems are guilty of using some fear tactics to get their long term agenda enacted? Environmentalism has been around for many decades and what better way to get people to fall in than if the whole survival of the world is at stake.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The tune is pretty but the message is anti-Christian so it is no surprise that I hate the song.

I have never been a Michael Bolton fan. I can't think of a Bolton song I have ever enjoyed. As a person he seems like a nice guy- his singing is overwrought.

I was just messing with you, Lynn. Although, many people I know who hate Lennon love Bolton for some reason.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
You are talking about the difference between Dems and Repubs philosophy here. The Dems beleive that everything should be regulated and restricted by government. Of course it stands to reason that if the Dems beleive in global warming and the destruction of the earth that they will create laws that will heavily restrict our lives.

You may think it is a great solution but it sends chills down my spine when I think of what all that is going to do to our economy and our quality of life.

And even with changes I am not convinced it would be enough to reverse what global warming people are saying are such devastating issues that are supposedly violently impacting our world .

But perhaps the Dems are guilty of using some fear tactics to get their long term agenda enacted? Environmentalism has been around for many decades and what better way to get people to fall in than if the whole survival of the world is at stake.

Damn those government restrictions and regulations. A small piece of me died the day i was told i could no longer eat baby Giant Panda meat or dump my toxic waste in the river. How else am i to get substinence or dispose of mercurcy? Insanity!!

But seriously, i know that when i ask you to explain how eco-friendly government policies would hurt the economy you wont respond with any evidence because the opposite is true. It would greatly help the economy, and every american. It would improve our quality of life as well, unless you like breathing in polluted air.

In summation: Environmentalism is good for the economy and quality of life (see: facts and logic). Government restriction and regulation is necessary (see: every law in the great country of ours).

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
What I mean is that the people who are most active in the environmental/global warming movement (rallies/demonstrations etc) tend to be from the groups that I mentioned. Those groups are a small part of the population and you can't expect to find that level of global warming committment from car mechanics, nurses, accountants, firemen etc.

Politicians know that they need to please the people who have the power to damage them which is why they will often pander to the people with the loudest voices. The Dems politicians please the environmentalists and the REpubs please the prolifers even though both these groups might not represent the majority of people in the US they are loud and complain.



I forgot that you feel winning votes is more important than "being smart about certain things". You're right. I'm a dreamer.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Damn those government restrictions and regulations. A small piece of me died the day i was told i could no longer eat baby Giant Panda meat or dump my toxic waste in the river. How else am i to get substinence or dispose of mercurcy? Insanity!!

But seriously, i know that when i ask you to explain how eco-friendly government policies would hurt the economy you wont respond with any evidence because the opposite is true. It would greatly help the economy, and every american. It would improve our quality of life as well, unless you like breathing in polluted air.

In summation: Environmentalism is good for the economy and quality of life (see: facts and logic). Government restriction and regulation is necessary (see: every law in the great country of ours).

There is no yes or no or black and white here. It is all a matter of degree. I have no problem with outlawing dumping toxic waste into our waterways. But if the government is going to say that someone cannot buy an SUV then he or she might have a problem with that. Maybe he needs an SUV for some reason. It makes me nervous when government takes too much control over our lives but I guess in the US we are protected from that by our system of government. If the gov gets too restrictive then they will be voted out in the next cycle. People just aren't going to go for those heavy restrictions.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I forgot that you feel winning votes is more important than "being smart about certain things". You're right. I'm a dreamer.

It's just being realistic about people. Maybe you know a more altruistic group of people than i do. But in my experince, people from all walks of life are disintersted in "practicing" good enviornmental conservation. And people hardly ever talk about it during the course of any day in my entire life (except in school as part of a class or on a politics bb).

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
It's just being realistic about people. Maybe you know a more altruistic group of people than i do. But in my experince, people from all walks of life are disintersted in "practicing" good enviornmental conservation. And people hardly ever talk about it during the course of any day in my entire life (except in school as part of a class or on a politics bb).

I do agree with this you on this reply. Many people just don't care and that is why the government needs to step in. Do you honestly believe people would stop dumping into the rivers if there were no laws? I no some people wouldn't do it, but a lot would just to get rid of their garbage.

I know I never think what happens to my garbage once it gets picked up and leaves my house.

As for your previous comment about SUVs. I believe we need a minimum miles per gallon for every car. It would help reduce gas prices, and reduce emissions into the air. I read they want it to be 35mpg by 2020, this seems too much. I would say something closer to 20 or 25mpg. It is more realistic.

[Thrizzle]

And people could still have their SUVs, they would just run on ethanol, bio diesel, hydrogen, or some other alt fuel. For 1/6 the cost of the Iraq war, the government could convert every car in the US to ethanol.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/gallery/050207_TheCostofWar?pg=5

Imagine the US not needed middle eastern oil. No strategic disadvantage, no looming economic crisis........... no war?
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
If the gov gets too restrictive then they will be voted out in the next cycle. People just aren't going to go for those heavy restrictions.


So then you would agree with things if, instead of restrictions, the government gave people incentives to change certain trends?

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
And people could still have their SUVs, they would just run on ethanol, bio diesel, hydrogen, or some other alt fuel. For 1/6 the cost of the Iraq war, the government could convert every car in the US to ethanol.

BUT OMG THRIZZLE IF WE DO THAT THN THE TERRORISTS WIN!!!!!!!11111111111111111

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
And people could still have their SUVs, they would just run on ethanol, bio diesel, hydrogen, or some other alt fuel. For 1/6 the cost of the Iraq war, the government could convert every car in the US to ethanol.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/gallery/050207_TheCostofWar?pg=5

Imagine the US not needed middle eastern oil. No strategic disadvantage, no looming economic crisis........... no war?
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece

Ethanol won't work. We could make the whole Earth corn fields and it still wouldn't be enough to fill just the United States.

I come from the country and I know a lot about things that deal with farming. Ethanol is only a short term solution. If we were to use hydrogen we could, not saying it is possible, run out of water, or have shortages.

It isn't as easy as we think it is. We need to make vehicles get better miles for their buck.

Here is an idea I had:
In the summer is there any reason why people are driving SUVs? For many, the answer is no. Most people own 2 cars today, one is usually a SUV, the other a car. Why not drop insurance in the summer for the SUV and use the car? In the winter drop insurance on the car and put it back on the SUV. Think of the amount of money you save in insurance money. Now for those who both spouses work, well use the car to drop the other off. Try to build your schedule around the other so you can do a pickup. I know many jobs are allowing this anymore so employees don't ask for raises because of gas prices.

Also, when you go to purchase a new vehicle, why not purchase a vehicle that gets good gas miles instead of one that is all power?

Really, nobody should complain about gas prices. You make choices everyday. Did you really need to make an extra trip to the store when you could have waited until the next week? Instead of that Sunday drive why not go for a nice walk or run?

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
If the gov gets too restrictive then they will be voted out in the next cycle. People just aren't going to go for those heavy restrictions.

Well if anyone has learned from the last election, people are more worried with the war, and those people coming up for re-election might want to do what their people are asking of them. Both sides are vulnerable at the moment, and I know I am watching both extremely close.

Lynn, have you ever voted for someone other than a Republican? I vote for who I believe is the best person, not because of who they are aligned with.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Well if anyone has learned from the last election, people are more worried with the war, and those people coming up for re-election might want to do what their people are asking of them. Both sides are vulnerable at the moment, and I know I am watching both extremely close.

One odd thing I noticed about the way this country works is how unusual it is that millions of people's beliefs can make a complete 180 degree turn in only a four year period. In 1988 George Bush beat Michael Dukakis by pretty good (although grossly overexaggerated by some historians) margin. Only four years later he gets beaten by Clinton by a similar margin.

[Lynn7]

Shoe- I used to vote totally Dem straight vote. Now I vote Repub straight vote. I do consider the candidate though. I would vote for a Dem president if he or she more closely represented my beleifs than the Repub candidate. It' s hard to think of any Dem like that right now. There are a few but they have retired out of politics-I would vote for Lieberman over Bloomberg for instance.

Brando- the reason Clinton won that year is cause Ross Perot split the Republican vote, otherwise he never would have won- his percentage was low. He was very unpopular his first few years and then Dick Morris helped him stage a brilliant comeback by having him standing for everything people wanted via poll. Also, he was supposedly really big on family values during his campaign for reelection. If it wasn't for Morris Clinton would've never gotten back in.


Thrizzle, Electriclite and Shoe- I think that no matter what ideas are come up with their will be an uproar or people will just ignore any conservations tips. If the gov enforces it the people will be very unhappy and vote the leaders out and if they give incentives then there will be some who will do things to earn them but not enough to make a big difference. Lots of people do not choose to use coupons at the grocery store cause they can't be bothered to cut the things out. Our population is just not used to deprivation- we will adjust if things get so bad that the world is falling down around us but it sounds like global warming people say it will be too late then.

[Thrizzle]

Lynn correct me if im wrong but im getting the impression that you have lost some faith in the resolve of the American public throughout this war in Iraq.

In any case, we really can't allow the enviornmental worst case scenario to happen. Even the conservative projections are disturbing. We have to do something at the governmental level regardless of the consequences at the polls. I realize that a lot of people think the rapture, or end of days, is approaching but we cant make gov policy based on interpretations of 2000 year old books.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Lynn correct me if im wrong but im getting the impression that you have lost some faith in the resolve of the American public throughout this war in Iraq.

In any case, we really can't allow the enviornmental worst case scenario to happen. Even the conservative projections are disturbing. We have to do something at the governmental level regardless of the consequences at the polls. I realize that a lot of people think the rapture, or end of days, is approaching but we cant make gov policy based on interpretations of 2000 year old books.

Yes you are right. The public has lost its resolve because there haven't been terrorist attacks that impact them. Right after 9-11 they were ready to fight anyone. They did not care about waiting for evidence or anything- they wanted blood.

And that is the same thing with global warming. They will not have resolve unless things start to happen that scare them.

As far as the end times goes, Christians are instructed to keep living their lives the way they usually do. And in fact the Bible talks about how when it happens people will still be getting married etc. It is going to be a surprise (although we are supposed to be able to recgnize the signs as the time draws near). I don't think any one is making poliices based on the Bible in the way you suggest. He prays and is led by God (IMO and in his). He is always aware of the way that restrictions can devastate an economy and people's livlihoods. He has also proposed drilling in Alaska but environmentalists do not want this.

With gas prices going up so high isn't it a shame that we have not built more refineries? That is because no one wants to build them due to environmental reasons. Now that will impact our economy.Gas prices rise and then everyone who uses gas to transport products will have to raise their prices and there will be layoffs etc. Devastating.

[The Postmaster General]

When I think about how the general population has changed, I think more about the heroes aboard United Flight 93. I think they are a better role model than politicians and generals.

[Thrizzle]

If George Bush signed a bill that made energy efficient products mandatory, and funded research in alt fuels with tax payer money would you support him?


He is always aware of the way that restrictions can devastate an economy and people's livlihoods.

Back this up with some examples, because i dont think its true. The industry that wouldnt benefit from eco friendly technology is the oil industry. When you talk about restrictions devestating the economy and ruining livelihoods, thats who you are protecting. Everyone else would benefit.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
One odd thing I noticed about the way this country works is how unusual it is that millions of people's beliefs can make a complete 180 degree turn in only a four year period. In 1988 George Bush beat Michael Dukakis by pretty good (although grossly overexaggerated by some historians) margin. Only four years later he gets beaten by Clinton by a similar margin.

I think it is because Americans expect to live a certain way and if someone isn't helping them live that way they will do a 180 next election. As we have seen in this last election, the war isn't going well and Americans want a new direction so they vote the other way.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Brando- the reason Clinton won that year is cause Ross Perot split the Republican vote, otherwise he never would have won- his percentage was low. He was very unpopular his first few years and then Dick Morris helped him stage a brilliant comeback by having him standing for everything people wanted via poll. Also, he was supposedly really big on family values during his campaign for reelection. If it wasn't for Morris Clinton would've never gotten back in.


That's not necessarily true. You need to see the documentary "The War Room." It's an actual behind the scenes look at the Clinton campaign that follows James Carville and George Stephanopolous from the first primaries to the actual election day. When Ross Perot dropped out, those guys were really happy and Clinton's margins shot straight up. However, when Perot came back in, Clinton fell in the polls and the margins were much closer. Perot did steal more Republican votes, that's true, but if anything most of those votes came from energized voters who otherwise wouldn't have voted. This can be pretty much proved by the 1996 election results. Less people voted for Perot and more voted for Clinton.

Clinton wasn't popular his first year and a half, but his popularity boomed once the economy started showing improvements. Dick Morris had nothing to do with Clinton's popularity...he had a lot of charm and charisma.

I know it's hard to accept the fact that George Bush in all of his glory lost to Bill Clinton, but it's something you need to come to terms with.

[Lynn7]

Bill Clinton was still his charming self when his polls were plummenting during his first term. He was a joke. One of the first things Morris did for Clinton was to limit his exposure cause the guy was on tv constantly. He was not taken seriously at all.

I know why George HW lost the election. He did the same thing his son does. Thinks the public will understand without trying to sell. George HW keps saying-wait- the things we have done for the economy are going to kick in and it is going to do great. Be patient. Instead the public voted in Clinton and of course the economy began to boom just like HW had said! Clinton got the credit of course although he hadn't done anything to influence the economy at that point. That's politics.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Bill Clinton was still his charming self when his polls were plummenting during his first term. He was a joke. One of the first things Morris did for Clinton was to limit his exposure cause the guy was on tv constantly. He was not taken seriously at all.

I know why George HW lost the election. He did the same thing his son does. Thinks the public will understand without trying to sell. George HW keps saying-wait- the things we have done for the economy are going to kick in and it is going to do great. Be patient. Instead the public voted in Clinton and of course the economy began to boom just like HW had said! Clinton got the credit of course although he hadn't done anything to influence the economy at that point. That's politics.

Clinton was able to help it by keep it moving.

Also, remember it was George HW who pushed for all these free trade agreements, which we know now was a terrible idea because our middle class is dying.

[Lynn7]

Repubs are split on North American Free Trade. I'm not sure if I think it is good or not.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Repubs are split on North American Free Trade. I'm not sure if I think it is good or not.

Consider this, it has opened up for the most outsourcing this country has ever scene. Most companies send jobs to Mexico now because of how cheap it is to do the work there compared to here without worry about all the expensive costs it had before.

A lot of jobs have been lost. Middle class jobs at that.