Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I'm proud to be an East-coast residin',? capachino drinkin', Noam Chomsky readin', Al Franken lovin,' Michael Moore watchin', Cindy Sheehan cheerin', Bush/Cheney bashin', war protestin', blue-state livin', pro-choice supportin', Capital Punishment hatin', evolution believin' liberal.

Liberal is not a bad word. Say it loud and say it proud.

LIBERAL'S ROCK!!!

To each his own.  Thats what makes this country great.  We don't have to kill eachother for being so far apart politically.

Good man.

hahaha...

Where is Birkenstock wearin'? Is that in there?

Gotta get that in there!!

Personally I loved being a liberal in Utah. I stuck out like a sore thumb and rubbed everybody wrong...it was great.  :hihi: There are too many of my kind here in Tampa, everybody agrees with my ass!  :hihi: It's like singing ballads all the time.

I'm proud to be an East-coast residin', capachino drinkin', Noam Chomsky readin', Al Franken lovin,' Michael Moore watchin', Cindy Sheehan cheerin', Bush/Cheney bashin', war protestin', blue-state livin', pro-choice supportin', Capital Punishment hatin', evolution believin,' Birkenstock wearin' liberal!!!

Liberals also save kittens around the world.

Vote liberal!

(http://tinypic.com/i44ikp.jpg)

AHHA, that rules!

Al Franken. I fixed it, because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh-darn-it, people like me.

 I often wrote letters blasting the local government/church that were published in the newspapers from time to time. The responses I would get in follow up editions were usually furious and aplenty.  :hihi: Hence, SLCPUNK was born.............

The demographic is slowly changing in that city believe it or not. It will be right wing for a loooong time, but I'd love to see old Orrin get the boot in the meantime. I wll be back soon to piss of the local nut jobs the best way I know how.

In a way, I hate the term "progressive" more than liberal. People somehow get progressive associated with progress. Progressively higher taxes and bigger government by the mediocre, maybe.

Liberal is a better label than Democrat because there are many liberal spies in the Republican party, who like to call themselves "moderates". It's a bad word because it's a bad thing. You guys have the same logic about things like genocide, which have been around longer than liberalism. It isn't always bad; we would be in trouble if we were still at war with Neanderthals (the Bible called them giants; their power was still remembered after thousands of years! Ditto for dragons, which are known in many cultures). Don't be hypocrites!

Another great thing about being a liberal is that you won't have to listen to shit like that all the time. ^

Neocon gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Neocon gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Neocon's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Neocon reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Neocon dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Neocon begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members
fought and died for these working standards. Neocon's employer pays these standards because Neocon?s employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Neocon is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noontime and Neocon needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Neocon's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Neocons's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Neocon has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Neocon and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Neocon is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal (FDR) stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, quiche-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Neocon wouldn't have to.

Neocon gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans fought against every protection and benefit Neocon enjoys throughout his day.

Neocon agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Did you write that? Cheers!

haha, naw. I wish I had, but I found it somewhere a while back. Great isn't it?

The water was clean before liberalism existed. The water is clean now, too clean. Chemicals are used to kill harmful bugs like E Coli, but weaker ones that would train one's immune system are killed as well.


The FDA was a reactionary measure against quacks and snake oil sellers. Anyone educated and with a little sense could figure out who was a real doctor and who wasn't. Many good medicines are discarded because the FDA think they're too risky, but what about the freedom to accept risks and personal responsibility? Oh yeah, libs don't like that!


His employer could have paid him in cash instead of with a medical plan, but arcane tax laws designed by liberals deny this. Meat prepared by butchers is better than packed meat, and meat has been eaten safely for as long as man has existed. It's only become unclean after surplus populations expanded.


Reputable businesses would put all of the ingredients in their products to attract customers anyway. Environmentalism is not handled well by liberals; clean air is a relatively minor issue. They tackle minor issues to pat themselves on the back. He pays for the subway through taxes.


He pays taxes and loses pay as well, and those benefits don't make up for the amount paid in.


All investments carry risk, even banking. Liberals somehow don't understand this. Banks are bailed out by TAX DOLLARS.


He could have gotten a standard loan anyway. He pays for the federal student loans through taxes, and then some. There is no free lunch.


American made cars are high quality because of American workers and innovation. Electrification and RHA loans unfairly benefitted rural residents at the expense of city dwellers. Stealing from Peter to pay Paul.


Social Security's return is miserable compared to the DOW. If he died early, he wouldn't get his money back. Company pensions can be wiped out with bankruptcy; it's just a plot to give workers "benefits" instead of real money. And the government, and liberals, approve!


Why wouldn't they fight against these "protections" that he didn't need? They're all of dubious value, like a Mafia protection racket.


Damn straight. Self-made values are American ideals. Even if he wasn't 100% self-made, it's the attitude and the spirit that counts. No Greek was like Odysseus, but they still celebrated the ideal. By the way, he DID take care of himself, AND THEN SOME, BY PAYING TAXES.

PS- Neocon does not equal conservative. He's probably an insecure "moderate" still in the closet.

Blah blah blah boring......... ::)

I could slice and dice you, but I'm too tired, and agreed some time ago that I would ignore your posts in particular. No matter how easy they are to shred. In fact I'm breaking my own rule now.

Off to bed.

Stereotyping is the first sign of ignorance.

i am communist

When I meet an intelligent republican that doesn't lie, I may begin to believe what you just said.

So democrats dont lie and republicans do?

They all lie, that is why they are politicians

Everything I say is a lie.

Except for that.

And that.

Exactly, ya Goddamn hippies! Hasn't your mother ever told you to do what you are told and to respect your elders? Homosexuals, women, Muslims and environmentalists are the devil! Ya hear me? The Devil!

And if I was a Muslim I'd say homosexuals, women, infidels and environmentalists are the devil. Alah Ackbar!!!

if I was a liberal I'd say breeders, white men, christians and anyone who works is evil!


Liberalism is an infantile, submissive world view.  It is the world view of men who do not have the moral toughness to stand up and do single combat with life, who cannot adjust to the reality that the world is not a huge, pink-and-blue, padded nursery in which the lions lie down with the lambs and everyone lives happily everafter.

Oh and SLC, show me some stats on how many people are even in unions anymore.? I have the stats, but I want to see you squirm while you try to pull some numbers out of your ass.? And please save the dramatic name calling like racist, moron and liar for another day.

Wanting universal healthcare, holding leaders accountable for starting immoral wars, and wanting people to be fed and have housing does not equal "not able to adjust to the reality that the word is not a huge, padded nursery in which the lions lie down with the lambs."

And that.

And that.

And that.

As a conservative, I think anyone can have as many children as he wishes, as long as he can afford healthy food, private school, whatever college his child wants, a clean environment, and enough money to help his child start a business if he wishes. Naturally, most people can't afford this, since the world is overpopulated and most people can't afford these "luxuries". It's a sad state of affairs.  :(

A liberal would say to limit everyone to 2 children, so that it's all equal. A conservative strives towards having the best conditions and quality of life for his children, and if he can manage, will have as many if he wishes if he can provide adequate opportunities. This, of course, makes liberals who can't afford the best for their offspring, upset. They want taxes and redistribution of wealth so everyone can grow up and be mediocre, just as they are.

A good example of why I try to stay away from political discussions over here.

A thread full of generalizations. How does anything constructive come out of this? And why is it always about the party, and not about the ideas?

Put some ideas on the table and we can talk about it.

Well, let's start with that one. About the parties?

Why is it that when a topic is set, it automatically divides people... And the dividing factor being the party that they're 'rooting for', and not the topic itself? It seems to me that it's something that is done so much in America, that the actual topics loose meaning, and every topic becomes about which party is right, and not about what solution would be best for the country. Do you see this 2 party system as a good, healthy solution, or should there propably be more? Or would more parties mean just confusion to the average citizen? Is politics made more approachable with only 2 parties? Is it then more like a sport where you pick up a favorite, and stick with them no matter what?

I agree, Skeba. I don't like attacking subdivisions of liberals (Democrats, feminists, socialists), since it's much more effective attacking the entire philosophy. Plus, a single political party exists in only one country, where a philosophy can be found anywhere. I do pay attention to 3rd parties like the Constitution party and the Libertarian party.

I think the effectiveness is a bit questionable, since it also makes it really easy not to pay attention to it. As I am not an American, I don't feel that I would stand behind either party. So for me it's always about the topics and the facts or opinions that back them up, not about a party's opinion on a subject.

And why should people be targeted instead of ideologys? Sure it gets people's blood going, and sometimes more involved if you attack them instead of their thoughts, but again - I think it tends to make stuff a lot more about who's right, and who gets the glory, than actually solving the problems that are being discussed.

wel because the party you are rooting for kinda summarize your thoughts on some subjects
like for example, i could state my opinions on a lot of subject (economy, unemployment, wolrd market, death penalty ) yes, i could  ... but if i say i'm socialist, it's faster and easier and you'll kinda figure what i think (on 80% of the subjects ...)

and generalization are not bad, when they're on Concepts, not people.

Perspective is so funny. ?I would hate to be associated or considered by anyone to be liberal. ?People like Michael Moore, Al Fraken and Cindy Sheehan are an embarrassment to this country imo. ?I could never imagine protesting a war we are currently fighting. ?I would never do that to our troops. ?Even if I thought the war was wrong, I'd never pull what Michael Moore or Sheehan did. ?It is a digrace. ?I could never imagine being against the death penalty or caringto much what happens in gitmo to the prisoners. ?I cannot imagine attacking a sitting a president either. ?I supported Clinton when he was in office (I never voted for him but once he became president, I supported him). ?I was against his impeachment. ?I consider him a low life for not being able to control his sexual urges at his age and in his position as president, ?I consider him a low life for doing it in the oval office. ?I consider him a low life for the pardons he handed down. ?In hindsight it appears he could have had bin Laden on a silver platter and refused on 3 occasions. ?But regardless, I supported him as president and was against attacking him for those things while he was president. ?I grew up being taught respect for the office of president. ?That's not to say that I agree with each man who has been president or each policy, just that viscious attacks against that office are wrong. ?What Michael Moore did was wrong. ?And anyone that supported that is, again imo, a loser. ?Again, perspective is everything. ?There are obviously a lot of people who think protesting an ongoing war or attacking a sitting president is acceptable. ?To each his own. ?I just wouldn't want to be associated with it.

That is not to say that I don't agree with some liberal views. ?I believe too much in action and I dispise protest for the sake of protest. ?I grew up in Maine which is basically a neutral state (it leans left a tad). ?I moved to Rhode Island that is very very liberal, and now I live in Orlando which is basically a 50/50 mix. ?Of those 3 places, the most corruption and the people with the lowest morals resided in RI. ?It is coincidence?

And someone asked or commented on slc's name....it is taken from a very bad movie about a rebellious kid from Salt Lake City.

well you are what we can call a cheerleader. you cheer. you support. you follow. you adore. it's simple.
you are proud of the football players while they are running on the field and you are drinking beer sitting.
that's it :)
you need to separate yourself from the rest of the world. live by yourself, not by what your country does or think
:)

You really have a point there. A multi party system in the US would be a good idea. There could be run-off elections until a winner is proclaimed.

As to why more emphasis is placed on parties rather than issues? People have very strong differing beliefs in which direction the US should go. Issues like abortion, Iraq, social security are very divisive. In 2004, Kerry and Bush were seen as champions to their parties cause--even if Kerry was too far to the right for a lot of us lefties. Over the years, since the Neo-cons have highjacked the White House and have come to power illegitimately, political discussion has became more partisan and more nasty.

But to answer your question; In short, a politician becomes a champion and people put a lot of faith in their candidate of choice.

I knew Kerry was just a middle-of-the-road democrat, and that he wouldn't have been a great president, but I got wrapped up in the whole 2004 election. And as I volunteered for Kerry and talked with folks, I became more and more zealous.

If it were 1976 and it were Carter and Ford, maybe it could be about the issues, but not now. Bush and the Republicans must be stopped. They are ruining the country, the world. But like every American, all I can do is participate in the campaigns, and talk with people about their political beliefs.

in the end it all comes back to 2 parties anyway.
we have lots of parties in france, but eventually, people have to choose between 2 concept / ideologies ...
multiple choices end up being close to ONE at the end
i think it's because, at the time of choice, people need it to be simple, and it's easier to choose between A and B , than a b c d and e ....

And that, it America. Unless you pay attention to black (democrats) getting turned away at the voting booths because they were listed as? felons" ( by a republican data base). Enough being turned away to turn an election for a certain somebody in the white house. A law suit brought on by those people, was won, yet virtually ignored by the "liberal media". Or if you pay attention to touch screen voting booths with no paper trail who were created by a company that was a huge donator to the republican party. Things like that, are not America and should be stopped. Not only stopped but brought up on charges and punished. It was one of the worst days for America, worse than the mess we are in now. Because is was the begining of the end of democracy.

The rest: participating in campaigns,voting and talking to people is America and should be encouraged by both sides.

It might sound strange but that's pretty much the same reason people DO protest wars. What good is it for a president/PM or whatever it my be to turn around after a number of years fighting an immoral and illegitimate war and say 'oh sorry we should never have started that war in the first place, my bad' after thousands upon thousands of people have already died as a direct result. I think building a war on lies and personal agendas and sending a bunch of troops to fight and die is more disrespectful than someone saying that a war is wrong and should not have happened in the first place. Ask yourself who is disrespecting the troops, the leaders that send them to war for no reason or the people in the streets making their voice heard and saying that they are losing their lives for nothing?

Well, that's kinda what I was talking about.

You said earlier that people are rooting for parties because it summarises about 80% of their thoughts, but as you narrow down the parties to just 2, then the party you were rooting for, might not be one of them, thus shrinking the percentage in worst cases to less than 50% with both parties. Then it becomes a situation of smaller of two evils, just like in the last US election. People were voting for Kerry, not because of the ideas that he had or the party he represented, but just because he wasn't Bush. And it seems to continue, and reflect to every debate and discussion.

And this is something that I think needs to be addressed. I think, no matter who the sitting president is, the decisive organs of the community should be more diverse, than a 2 party system. Now it seems, that every discussion leads to  republican/democrat-debate, and the goals everyone is trying to reach seem to fade away.

I would never send my troops to fight on a lie for starters. That might be one way to respect our troops. That is what pisses me off about you guys so much. You blab all day about "the troops" yet find it perfectly ok that they were marched of to die on a lie: WMD. For NOTHING. That is ok. But if somebody says "war is bad" then all of a sudden "We are sending the wrong message to our troops" what a load of shit.

Also, there is no evidence that protesting the war is bad for the troops. You have provided none-right wing articles do not count. While plferk has provided evidence that the moral as at an all time high.

Let me ask you something Charity: These troops are getting shot at, having limbs blown off, killed and seeing their buddies killed. Do you really think some people here protesting the war (on the other side of the world) is going to get back to them and diminish their morale? You can't hardly be serious.

You think that is more profound then being fucking shot at? Or having things blown up around you? Or having your buddies killed? You really believe that?

I do believe that people not being behind a war does affect the troops morale... It is one thing to put your life on the line every day because of what you believe in and what the whole country believes is right, than to be fighting with a feeling that you're fighting someone else's war. I believe, that sometimes in the middle of all that is horrible, one of the only things that keeps you going is that you know that you're doing it for a reason.

I'm not sure what to say about the polls on the troops' morale. A big percentage of the troops will give higher ratings for the morale as they know that low morale feeds on itself (dunno if that made any sense).

That's what Charity Case prolly meant when he wrote about perspective. From his point of view protesting would be a slap in the troops' face with real affect on the troops, while you seem to think that it doesn't.  It is a difficult subject... How do you get the attention of the leaders of the country without affecting the people fighting the war in a way that can be fatal in a combat situation.

Were the German citizens of the 30s and 40s ok not to have spoken up against Hitler, simply because it would have damaged the morale of the German troops? If your country is doing something wrong, it is your obligation as a citizen of the world to say so.

Are you comparing Hitler's actions to what Bush has been doing? I believe that what Bush is doing is wrong, but I really don't think that a realistic comparison can be made between the two.

No, I don't think Bush is as bad as Hitler. But I am asking, Bush aside, should the German people have accepted the actions of Hitler and supported his policies in order to ensure the morale of the troops?

No, I don't think that they should've accepted his policies. There was something so profoundly wrong with what he was doing. His policy got so many people killed, and would've gotten a lot more killed, with no justification, and out of pure insanity.

Indeed

Aren't they fighting for ours and others right to free speach? :hihi:

And I think there is something profoundly wrong with what Bush has done and is doing. Is it as bad as Nazi Germany? No. But is it bad? Yes.

I understand your point.

But instead of putting the focus on the war protestors, the main goal should be in getting the troops back and getting some sort of order to Iraq, so that the country won't be in mayhem after the troops have been pulled.

And that is something that needs everybody's attention on the political view, no matter what the your party is or whether you were for the war or not.. And I, for one, don't believe that either extreme solution is good.. Just pulling out could be a disaster, just as leaving the troops there without any info on when they're coming home is no plan either. But I think that some good progress will be made in the next few coming weeks. I hope.

Just pulling out could lead to disaster, but "staying the course" to nowhere is also a bad idea. No matter what the US does, people will get killed.

I think your protesting on a gnr message board doesn't demoralize the tropps.  I think that when someone like Sheehan pulls what she pulled and it becomes a story all over the world...I think that could have a negative impact on the troops.  The bigger problem with so much protesting and so many blatant attacks on the president is not so much the message it sends to the troops as it is the message it sends to the enemy.  I think the enemy loves it when Americans protest the war.  So if the enemy loves the protest (which is logical don't you think) then I don't want to be associated with it in any way.  I think you have to be a loser to some degree to knowingly do something you know helps the enemy.  It is fundamental.  I don't want to do anything during war time that could either demoralize our troops or give encouragement to our enemies.  Very simple concept.

I think people like Sheehan and Moore are danagerous.  I think they cause the US more harm than anything.  I'm sure the terrorists loved Farenheit 911.  I'm sure they love seeing Sheehan demostrate the way she did.  Hell, they can't buy that kind of propaganda.  So, if you know it is encouraging the enmey...why do it?  Only reason I can think of is people like that are unAmerican or ignorant.

As for you and the liberals here,...I think healthy dialogue is perfectly fine.  I think discussing the subject is a good thing.  However, when you are unwilling to say even the smallest good thing about our country (and slc I haven't seen you post one positive thing about the US ever), and when everything comes across as a whining fit, you lose my attention.  For example, during the past few days we talked about using propaganda in war.  Many liberals here posted articles showing how aweful it is that we would do that.  I stated that it is a good stratgey and that it has happened in every war to date.  Pilferk at least stated that he agreed that using propaganda during the war is a good idea.  See, I have no problem with someone who is on the opposite side of a discussion but can concede to the obvious.  slc, not to pick on you, but I have never seen you concede anything.  I have seen everyone else on both sides of this arguement concede points, except you.  You continue to look at things through such bias and you are are obviously so prideful, that you can't concede anything to the opposition (even something obvious like leaving Iraq now would be the wrong thing to do).

Very true.  So if that is given, what options do the the US have?  Only one that I can see, and that is to see this through to the end.  To stay there and follow through with the plan that has been stated for a while now:

1.  Train Iraqi's to take care of their own country

2.  Get a government in place that represnts the people

3.  Make sure stability is attainable

4.  Leave

I mean that is pretty dumbed down, but it makes perfect sense..as it did in Bush's 2005 State of the Union address and every time it has been stated since.  The Iraqi's are obviously making progress.  So we stay put and help out until that progress is sufficient to allow them to do things on there own.  A timetable hasn't been given beause no one knows for sure yet when that might happen.  I think when Bush's term i sup, tpeople will have a more positive view of this war (at least I hope).

a soldier is not there to talk or think. it's a machine. he and his rifle. :)
if soldiers start debating on sheehan or whatever ... they can go home. they chose to be soldiers. military stability is based on the fact that you don't think. you just obey.

am i right or am i right ? am i right ?
:)

Your are right except you are forgetting 1 important thing.  They are not robots.  They are actual real people with emotions and feelings.  When we create a soldier with no feelings and no emotions, we will be invincible.  But that is a discussion for a cloning topic.

 :confused:

If u want to see what soldiers without feelings do read up about the war Nazi Germany fought against the USSR. Didn't make them invincible but it did kill about 30 million people.

If u want to see soldiers with no feelings in a more recent context check the pictures of US troops abusing Iraqi prisoners.

And if u want to see someone with absolutely no clue what they are talking about check posts by Charity Case

What ''encourages'' the ''enemy'' is an invasion of their home, involvement in Israel and a quite understandable belief that America is out to get them because they are Muslim

That's what gets them blowing up troop convoys not political debates on tv


The ol' patriotism angle - i love it. I also love how those that dare to think independently are ignorant while those that instinctly back the flag are the open minded ones :confused:


Thank god for that!


Lol - so the value of posts correlates with your pro-American position

And SLC regularly posts in a way that shows his love of America - maybe u should read a few more of his posts?


 :rofl:

A propoganda war being a good thing? Twisting the truth a good strategy. :hihi:

If what the glorious west is doing is ''right'' - why do we need propoganda?

Isnt it a bit dishonest of you to blame liberals when you discovered, under pretty embarassing circumstances, that a Republican senator has a major problem with it as well?

I blame the liberals here because it is the liberals here that are posting the articles.  If there are non-liberals out there that think using propaganda in war is wrong, then they are just as wrong about this subject imo.  But I was specifically talking about the board members as can be seen by "Many liberals hereposted..."

And why would I be embarassed about being lied to?  You mock Hannity for his tactics and then turn around and use the same tactics.  Are they legitimate tactics or not?  We've been over this.  I didn't respond to the content of that post, only the person you lied about being the author.  I think you know by now my feeling on the content of the post.  The guy is wrong. 

Izzy you really are clueless.  How on god's earth can you label US Soldiers as calloused and cold, lacking all emotions because they took nude pictures of Iraqis.  Calloused and could would be the Islamic terrorists who target and behead innocent civilians.  Then again, you've already stated that this behavior is acceptable because it works for their culture.  You're so full of bullshit and just thinking about your blind arrogance and tolerance of racism and sexism makes me irate.  Your arguments are so fundamentally flawed in both reality and logic.  Take your latest dump for example:  US soldiers possess no emotion because they "tortured" Iraqis.  An intelligent an objective person might argue that US troops "tortured" Iraqi POWs because of the outrage and for the revenge of comrades killed by these bastards.  Your hypocrisy will never end.  Have you ever actually participated in an intelligent debate and been complimented by the other side because your arguments and claims are laughable at best.  Fortunately no person in any sort of power or influence shares your outrageous views, I mean you're. out there even for Chirac.

If youre going to talk about fundamentally flawed logic, pretending that the behavior of U.S. soldiers is somehow relative to the behavior of terrorists would be a decent example.

?

Absolute absurdity.? Perhaps you dont consider the U.S. government, military, and judiciary as objective entities, but theyve denounced the actions on every conceivable level.? And we havent even seen the worst of the photos.

"The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here." - Sen. Lindsey Graham

"It was pretty disgusting, not what you'd expect from Americans" - Sen. Norm Coleman

"I don't know how the hell these people got into our army" - Sen. Ben Campbell

Just a few Republican reactions...

And thats not even addressing the inherently dishonest approach you take to this discussion by putting "torture" in quotations and minimizing its seriousness with your "Its just a few naked pictures" attitude.  From U.S. Major Tagubas report:

Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet.
Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees.
Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing.
Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time.
Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear.
Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped.
Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them.
Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture. 
A detainee forced to stand on boxes
Writing "I am a Rapeist" [sic] on the leg of a detainee alleged to have raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked.
Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture.
A male MP guard raping a female detainee.
Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees and MPs posing with cheerful looks.
Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees.
Threatening detainees with a loaded 9mm pistol.
Pouring cold water on naked detainees.
Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair.
Threatening male detainees with rape.
Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell.
Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting and severely injuring a detainee.

That you defend this sadism and its place in our countrys military is actually sickening.  Its not even necessary to address this further.

Booker if you had a clue you'd realize that 99% of those events listed are standard practice in any intelligence gathering when the enemy doesn't want to cooperate.  If you can't see the difference between taking a nude picture and cutting off someone's head then there's nothing I can do to help you.  I'm not condoning the behavior of those hill jack reservists, in fact I'm condeming it.  However you'll never see Izzy pointing fingers at the Islamic extremists and their real torture.  In fact, he does the opposite and defennds the practices of those extremists. 

However I have to state that not all your claims have been proven and are even rebutted by the Pentagon.  Please show me proof of a US soldier raping a female Iraqi prisoner.  Furthermore, show me the video of those soldiers raping that detainee in the name of Alah and sending it to the media to rally behind the American cause, ::)

Some of you are really stretching for validation here.  I understand you are against the war and even resent those who have the courage to actually make a difference in the world, i do.  However, to equate US soldiers with Islamic fundamentalists and if you want to argue that perception is accepted and valued in the mainstream international commuinty you truly are lost.

Those who are lost are the ones who use the terrorist's actions to set the standard for our soldiers.

You may be willing to set the bar that low for yourself, and it shows. But America was always about setting the high standard and that is what we preached and lived.

Pointing the finger out is not taking responsibility for what wrong we have committed. Lowering our standards is a copout and an excuse to avoid accountability. Making matters worse is what it does for our image that we desperately need to restore.

Basically, even though you are not aware of it, YOU allow the terrorists to set the bar for decency, for us to judge ourselves upon. That is pretty fucked up if you ask me. America is/was about setting the standard and leading the way. Not  breaking laws and then pointing fingers at other atrocities to make light of our own.

You did not answer my question, I'd like to hear an answer. So here it is again.

Let me ask you something Charity: These troops are getting shot at, having limbs blown off, killed and seeing their buddies killed. Do you really think some people here protesting the war (on the other side of the world) is going to get back to them and diminish their morale? You can't hardly be serious.

In other words, do you think that people exercising their freedom of speech brings a soldier down more than the first hand experience of war itself?

1. This sounds suspiciously like youre defending that behavior, which of course contradicts this statement:


But have it both ways if you like. ?

2. If you can back that claim up with evidence, Id be glad to see it. ?Id also like to see that these soldiers were even authorized, legally or illegally, to "interrogate" detainess.

3. Major Tagubas report  (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2004/800-mp-bde.htm) determined that these were "egregious acts and grave breaches of international law" and hardly standard practice by any means.



What does the behavior of our soldiers in treating detainees (not convicted terrorists/criminals) have to do with what terrorists do? ?Thats the fundamental flaw in logic I pointed out previously: Acting as if our conduct is somehow conditional upon that of terrorists. ?Not to mention that any argument excusing despicable conduct because its better than cutting heads off is just intellectually embarassing. ?That you hold the standard of the American military to that of terrorists who sever heads is, again, sickening.


 ::)?

(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/050906_050912/0509010_PollStory_hsmall.widec.jpg)

"Heck of a job youre doing, 'Music."


Really? ?Youre welcomed to back that up. ?In the meantime, Major General Antonio Tagubas (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/printedition/bal-te.taguba06may06,0,5522560.story?coll=bal-pe-asection) report, in conjunction with pictures deemed so horrible that the Pentagon refuses to release them (but confirms their existence), seems reliable.


Two more ridiculous premises:

1. That ones position on the war has any relevance to their position on this abuse.
2. That resentment for war policy or these actions and its perpetrators equates to resentment toward our honorable troops. ?

Youre really at the bottom of the barrel...

?
I spoke too soon. ?:no:

It is you that keeps tying the actions of these soldiers to terrorists.

...and up until this point the thread went on just fine.

This is turning into another Iraq thread, and I you can continue the discussion there.

I think it depends on how the exercising of the freedom of speech is carried out.  It is fact that the exercising of freedom of speech (in this case antiwar protests) demoralized the troops in Vietnam.  How many times have you seen Vietnam vets say that the war protesting homeside was demoralizing?  Fucking hippes.   :rant:

Do I think the war protesting has reach that point in the US for this war, no, not yet anyway.  If the Sheehan thing had taken off and if there had been more morons like her, it could have gotten to that point.  As I stated, I'm more concerned with the war protesting taking place in Washington.  I think it sends a bad message to the enemy.  I know if I was fighting an enemy who had lowering support from their own leaders, it would give me encouragement.  It worked in Vietnam for the enemy.  I would aregue that war protesting does NOTHINg good for the troops.  There is no good on the war front that could possibly come from war protsting stateside.  We need to stay and finish this job, and I think anyone with a clue agrees.  That being given, we send the wrong signals to everyone when we protest the war or our leaders fight over exit strategies.  Bush has the right approach.  We don't need to be laying our game plan on the table for everyone to see.  Only the liberals think this is bad strategy.

It got the ball rolling, and it doesnt seem to be slowing down much.

Is it not worse for somebody who thinks a war is wrong to "support" the policy as it claims the lives of soldiers?? If the policy is wrong, is it not up to the people of this democracy to try and change it?


 ::)

It shapes public opinion and pressures politicians to bring them home so theyre less likely to be killed for reasons that arent worth it to many Americans.? So surely you can understand why some would disagree with you.?


Jack Murtha has 37 years of honorable military service, including Korea and Vietnam, visits Iraq, and regularly speaks to military leaders and Iraqi veterans.? Can you tell me what "clue" you have that he doesnt?

Blah blah blah

You still did not answer my question! Which pretty much sums it up, you avoided it like the plague. Answer the question.

Not to mention you are using that convenient memory loss of yours again. I remember Pilferk pointing out the (correctly) difference between the protesters during the Vietnam mess and the anti war group now. Point being that during Vietnam they often protested towards the troops, where now they do not. So please, I ask you not to lie and pretend that you don't remember this being pointed out to you. To compare the two is inaccurate, and dishonest since you have already been schooled more than once on the faulty comparison.

I'm asking you to answer my question and quit avoiding it. I am well aware that you think protesting "aids the enemy". I want an answer to my question.

I honest;y thought I answered your question.  I meant to anyway.  Why the hostility?  Your gonna blow a valve like that man.  I thought I answered your question.  You asked:

"Do you really think some people here protesting the war (on the other side of the world) is going to get back to them and diminish their morale?  In other words, do you think that people exercising their freedom of speech brings a soldier down more than the first hand experience of war itself?"

I answered:

"I think it depends on how the exercising of the freedom of speech is carried out.  It is fact that the exercising of freedom of speech (in this case antiwar protests) demoralized the troops in Vietnam.  How many times have you seen Vietnam vets say that the war protesting homeside was demoralizing?   

Do I think the war protesting has reach that point in the US for this war, no, not yet anyway.  If the Sheehan thing had taken off and if there had been more morons like her, it could have gotten to that point."

What more of an answer do you need?  You asked nicely and I tried to reply.  They you said "blah blah blah" and called me a liar.  Typical.  And just so you know...just because pilferk says so, doesn't make it so.  He is stating his opinions ans we all are.  I think war protesting during the actual conflict, in the way a Sheehan or Moore or Murtha has protested, is fucking weak.  I doubt very much there will be anything you can say to change my opinion, just as I know there is no way to change yours.  You are firmly planted on the side of yellow dog liberalism.  Not much anyone here is going to do to change that. 

Actually, pilferk provided some documented proof and evidence that the Iraqi war protests were nothing like the Viet Nam war protests.  He provided a bunch of evidence that contradicts your opinions (such as opinion surveys conducted amongst the troops).  He also asked you to provide proof of your assertion that it DID effect the troops...which you never did provide and instead backpedaled and restated it was an opinion (which, apparently from your last post, you've now backed off from).

What's it been...about 6 weeks?

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22706.msg402576#msg402576

do you think that people exercising their freedom of speech brings a soldier down more than the first hand experience of war itself?"


Nobody is getting hostile. I just get tired of you avoiding my question, it isn't hard.

I'm am asking you if you honestly believe that those who protest the war bring the soldiers morale down more than the bombs and bullets they face every day. I can not see how anybody against the war can be worse then the violence they face daily and I want you to address that.

THAT IS THE QUESTION. I know that you are against the protesters and like to forget facts provided to you by us about that. But that is not my question. I am not asking you if you think the protesters are "aiding the enemy."

And, just to add a bit of fuel to the fire...3 guesses who said the following:


http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22706.msg401590#msg401590


http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22706.msg401642#msg401642

How about mine?  My posts are being avoided a lot lately between you, Shades and D, and Im offended.  Could you address my last post (http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?action=post;quote=425172;topic=24087.60;num_replies=73;sesc=558cddfde9fa6856d4bd7243759c7f24#top)? 

too fuckin bad,
(SEE ALL OF THE ABOVE)

maybe if they would have been wearing the uniform of an established government army, and not out killing innocent women and children, and beheading Americans, or setting up roadside bombs that killed and mamed anyone within blast range they WOULD be getting treated like human beings afforded rights under the Geneva convention.
But their not
So the fact that they get exposed to things not much worse than a college hazing really doesnt matter to me.

That attitude, besides being simple-minded and sociopathic, undermines the fundamental principles of our country and military.  Thats not how our country operates (or is supposed to operate) and the governments response confirms as much.

The Taguba report estimates that 60% of the prisoners were "not a threat to society" and that the screening process was so inadequate that innocent civilians were often detained indefinitely.  So you should reevaluate your opinion, because youre embarassingly uninformed. 

This is sort of related to the topic...

First, things arent looking too great for former presidential hopeful Bill Frist:

Frist votes aid HCA's business interests

Review of 10 years in Senate shows pattern of favoring firm

But Frist need not feel lonely.  Hes not the only Republican senator in hot water:

Burns did about-face after cash from lobbyist (http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2005/12/03/news/mtregional/news04.prt)

By JENNIFER McKEE Missoulian State Bureau

HELENA - U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., changed his stance on a 2001 bill after receiving a $5,000 donation from a lobbyist's client who opposed the legislation, records show.

The client hired Jack Abramoff as a lobbyist to defeat the kind of bill Burns voted against. Prior to receiving the payment, Burns did not oppose an identical bill that unanimously passed the Senate in 2000, Senate documents show.

Burns, who is up for re-election next year, told the Missoulian State Bureau on Friday that the campaign contribution had nothing to do with his vote, but said it happened so long ago, he couldn't remember why he opposed the 2001 measure. Burns said he may have initially not opposed the legislation's unanimous passage because it was politically more expedient not to stand in the way of a popular bill.

?Any time you put a hold on a bill, you expend political capital,? Burns said.

The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post both have reported that Burns is among four lawmakers caught up in a U.S. Justice Department investigation into Abramoff and his lobbying activities. The papers cited anonymous sources. Burns representatives have said the Justice Department has never contacted the senator.

The 2001 bill dealt with labor and immigration controls in the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Islands, a constellation of 14 islands between Hawaii and the Philippines that is controlled by the United States. The measure grew out of reports that many workers in the islands' garment industry were Chinese immigrants earning less than the U.S. minimum wage.

Because the islands are a U.S. territory, their products could be imported into the United States with a ?Made in USA? label.

In 2000, records show, the U.S. Senate took up a bill that would have broadened federal oversight of immigration and labor rules on the islands. The bill came before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on which Burns served. The bill passed out of committee, records show.

However, because of the way the vote was recorded, it's impossible to tell how any individual senators, including Burns, voted.

On the floor, the bill faced no resistance, passing by unanimous consent. The Senate did not actually vote on the bill. Rather, senators agreed to pass it unanimously without taking a vote. Any one senator, including Burns, could have opposed the unanimous passage.

Burns said Friday that because there was not an actual vote on the bill, it's impossible to say that he definitely supported the measure.

?Not always can it be assumed that a piece of legislation that passes on unanimous consent can you definitely say, ?That's a yes vote,' ? said Burns.

The bill then went to the House, where it died in committee.

Senators proposed an identical bill in 2001.

That year, the Saipan Garment Manufacturers Association hired Abramoff as a lobbyist, records show. Saipan is one of the larger islands in the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Islands.

Abramoff's lobby registration shows the association hired him to ?prevent enactment of legislation to impose federal control over local labor and immigration rules.?

The same document lists Shawn Vassell, Burns' former state staff director, as a lobbyist on the issue. Vassell worked for Abramoff at the Greenberg Traurig lobbying firm.

The association paid Abramoff $460,000 that year to defeat the bill, records show.

The Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands also hired Abramoff in 2001 to defeat the bill, paying him $1.1 million. Vassell was also listed as a lobbyist on the issue.

On April 20, 2001, a Saipan man named Eloy Inos donated $5,000 to Friends of the Big Sky, Burns' political action committee, federal campaign finance records show. Inos listed his employer as Tan Holdings.

Tan Holdings owns, among other things, garment manufacturing facilities on the Marianas Islands. It is a member of the Saipan Garment Manufacturers Association, according to the company's Web site.

On May 23, 2001, the bill again came before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for a vote. In an unusual move, Burns requested that each member's vote be recorded next to their names - a so-called ?roll call? vote. Oftentimes, such votes are recorded by voice only. On a voice vote, there is no record of how each member voted and it is impossible to tell from a transcript of the meeting how an individual senator voted.

Burns' roll call request meant that his vote would be a traceable part of the public record.

This time, Burns reversed course and voted against the bill. He was one of four committee members to do so.

The vote came one month and three days after Burns received the $5,000 donation.

Burns said he doesn't remember why he requested a roll call vote.

?I haven't a clue why,? he said. ?You're talking four or five years ago.?

The bill then passed out of committee, but the full Senate never acted on the measure, records show. The bill has never become law.

?Burns actually voted for the bill before he voted against it,? said Matt McKenna, a spokesman for the Montana Democratic Party. ?The only thing that happened in between is he got paid.?

The Montana Democratic Party already has run two television ads linking Burns to Abramoff in anticipation of his 2006 re-election campaign.

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee has also been investigating Abramoff for months on whether he swindled Indian tribal clients out of millions of dollars.

In 2003, Burns helped one of Abramoff's tribal clients, the Saginaw Chippewa tribe in Michigan, obtain a $3 million congressional grant to build a school. Because of its Indian gambling, the tribe is one of the richest in the U.S.

The Montana senator has denied any wrongdoing. Burns, who headed a Senate subcommittee overseeing the grants, said he pushed for the grant to the Saginaw Chippewa tribe at the urging of Michigan's two U.S. senators, both Democrats.

Burns received $136,500, more than any other lawmaker, from Abramoff's tribal clients from 2001 and 2004, a Bloomberg News database showed.

What is your point?  I am not backing down from those statement.  I have said that protesting the war emboldens the enemy.  I agree with that statement as much today as the day I wrote it.  And I think protesting the war has a negative impact on the troops if it is taken to the extreme that Sheehan and Moore have taken it.  Do I think you guys protesting on this board is harmful..hardly.  If you took the streets and acted like sheehan, then I think you would be hurting morale.  One this is for sure it wouldn't be helping them in anyway.  They need to stay now.  So anything but our undivided support is weak. 

slc, your questions is basically which is worse for the soldiers...war protesting in the States or getting shot at in Iraq?  Right?  If that is your question then the answer is obvious.  One can get you killed quick.  That doesn't mean the other isn't harmful.  My opinion is and was that protesting the war is not good for morale.

Booker, I am not avoiding your posts...I am just in discussion with slc and pilferk to a degree.  I can't get into to many discussions because it takes up too much time.  Sorry, it is not intentional.

...Glad that you at least acknowledged it (thats more than a few others can say).  And you know where to find the question when you get the time, but Ill post it again for convenience:

That is about as UNAMERICAN as you can get.

No real point.? Just adding context to your current statements.? What you said before was pretty black and white, and certainly not qualified? (as you are doing now) with "degrees" of protest.

does the Tagabu report roll into a circle about the size of ...say  your recycleing shute

 ???

1. Youve proven more than once that your attempts at humor are even lamer than your attempts at composing a decent argument.? Please stop...for your own sake.

2. Youve once again failed at providing any meaningful counterpoint.? Calling me out for referencing the official military report on the subject of discussion... :o You got me!? Im not sure whether or not youre ignoring the facts or just incapable of handling them, but either way youve copped-out and thats just fine by me.? After all, its nothing new.?  (http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=23982.msg425247#msg425247)

Are you serious?

That is your answer?

I think it's just about time for us to label the troll a troll.

He's proven incapable of adding anything meaningful to any discussion, really.

I'm almost ready to start giving? him the "Walk" treatment.....

Agreed.

I already have........