Here Today... Gone To Hell!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16068589/

It only took them how many years to figure this one out?

oh they figured it out a while back - but they kept going to see how close they could get to duplicating Vietnam, all they are waiting for now is 55,000 more body bags, and the ''insurgents'' are working on that

Remember, this is our government at work.

Nothing is true until validated by comittee, after spending month reviewing data, and more months concocting 100+ page reports that distill down into 3 sentence of meaningful information. 

You should see the committee put together on whether GW uses correct "wiping" techniques after taking a dump.....

:)

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/22/iraq.report/

Add the civilian death toll figures into that and we are on our way.

(http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/4833/missionaccomplished02hisi3.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

That picture does nothing more than invoke an emotional response to a very complex and detailed issue.  The last thing we need is emotion being brought into this argument.  Then again, emotion based arguments is all you ever offer SLC.

What a cop out.  Give me a break.  The fact of the matter is that troops are dying, you don't see the caskets and the bodies torn apart by IEDs on the news - all we get are how many troops have died in a week or a month.  SLC's picture is a painful reminder at the real cost of this war beyond the billions of dollars - US lives.

I think we need MORE emotion when talking about Iraq and less political speak.  It'd be one thing if this was a war worth fighting, worth dying for, but we all know its not - to not admit that or face the reality of that, THAT is the last thing that we need!!!

Nonsense.

Commitee says Bush policy in Iraq "Not working"...

No shit... :rant:

There's the problem right there...

This is clearly never going to happen since the Bush Regime "does not negotiate with terrorists, or those with terrorist ties, blah blah.

What, 'policy in Iraq, not working'?? Gee, it's only what the rest of the world, plus half the US population has been saying for what, 3 years now? ::)

What is the solution then? anyone? It's like everything else we do, halfass this we halfass that. We either go ALL IN or we turnaround and go home cuz this isn't, hasn't and won't work

Two more years of this shit???????

Don't we go to war only when we have to and then figure how to avoid war the next time.  Is war the answer for everything with this guy?  I wonder if his father is proud.  There's nothing but continued death over there.

Any why the fuck are gas prices going up again?  Stayed at just above $2 for while and the its up 30 cents in a week.

(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2006/12/06/steve.jpg)

Because the Bush Regime and their oily contracts know they have everyone by the balls.. :-\

We need gas to get around, therefore we have to pay whatever unreal figure they come up with for that day.

"Unfortunately, the Iraq Study Group report does too little to change the flawed mind-set that led to the misguided war in Iraq. Maybe there are still people in Washington who need a study group to tell them that the policy in Iraq isn't working, but the American people are way ahead of this report.

While the report has regenerated a few good ideas, it doesn't adequately put Iraq in the context of a broader national security strategy. We need an Iraq policy that is guided by our top national security priority - defeating the terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11 and its allies. We can't continue to just look at Iraq in isolation. Unless we set a serious timetable for redeploying our troops from Iraq, we will be unable to effectively address these global threats. In the end, this report is a regrettable example of `official Washington' missing the point." - Russ Feingold

Yeah, spot on.  Misguided and jumped the gun. The world's a better place now that Suddam is locked up but that shit should have been a world decision.  We dont need to be the cops of the world. We invaded because of womd that did not exist. Oops.

Bandita, that was going to be my reply when I read the first post in this thread.   :beer:
word for word.   :)
 :peace:

I gave facts for years and you told me I was a traitor.

Guess who turned out to be right about Iraq? (Hint: Not you).

You lost the last election and you have been proven 100% wrong on Iraq. All you have left now is going after me (I saw no mention of the article posted.)

Pathetic.

When i saw the thread title, first thing that popped in my head was:

It took a whole committee to come to that conclusion? :hihi: :hihi:

More words from perhaps the greatest politician I know:

"The fact is this commission was composed apparently entirely of people who did not have the judgment to oppose this Iraq war in the first place, and did not have the judgment to realize it was not a wise move in the fight against terrorism. So that's who is doing this report. Then I looked at the list of who testified before them. There is virtually no one who opposed the war in the first place. Virtually no one who has been really calling for a different strategy that goes for a global approach to the war on terrorism. So this is really a Washington inside job and it shows not in the description of what's happened - that's fairly accurate - but it shows in the recommendations. It's been called a classic Washington compromise that does not do the job of extricating us from Iraq in a way that we can deal with the issues in Southeast Asia, in Afghanistan, and in Somalia which are every bit as important as what is happening in Iraq. This report does not do the job and it's because it was not composed of a real representative group of Americans who believe what the American people showed in the election, which is that it's time for us to have a timetable to bring the troops out of Iraq." - Russ Feingold

Not One Retired Military Officer on the panel! Sounds Good!

Do the slightest bit of research and you'll find DOZENS of generals/military people, both active and retired, who have spoken out against this war and the way its been handled. 

Cooking the books on Iraq..... Now everybody here knows that Bush would NEVER LIE to us all to get his way, right? Looks as if they scaled the acts of violence down to 1/10 th of the actual figures.

Fraud, lying to the citizens of this country, time for impeachment.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq_violence_figures


WASHINGTON - U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in Iraq in order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said.

In its report on ways to improve the U.S. approach to stabilizing Iraq, the group recommended Wednesday that the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense make changes in the collection of data about violence to provide a more accurate picture.

The panel pointed to one day last July when U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. "Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence," it said.

"The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases." It said, for example, that a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack, and a roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count, either. Also, if the source of a sectarian attack is not determined, that assault is not added to the database of violence incidents.

"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals," the report said.

A request for Pentagon comment on the report's assertions was not immediately answered.

Some U.S. analysts have complained for months that the Pentagon's reports to Congress on conditions in Iraq have undercounted the violent episodes. Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq watcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in a November report that the Pentagon omits many low-level incidents and types of civil violence.

haha.....what? Maybe it doesn't count unless they report it in person  ::)

Good to know that the safety of the troops is more important than that of the people.

I agree with the first part, but disagree with the last part.  Whether it was our creation or not, this war is now linked to the broader war against the ideology that attacked us on 911.

Yea, it's linked alright. It is creating more terrorists.

No truer words ever said.  Nice post SLC.  Is it just me or has anyone else listened to Civil War lately and put together in their mind's eye a kick-ass video?  Some cinema major with access to video news clips could put together a hell of a video for Civil War.  The past 5 years and tens of thousands of deaths are summed up pretty damn well by GNR's Civil War.

Computer technology would produce a great image of a power hungry general pulling out cases of soldiers off the shelf.  Drunk and stumbling to the check-out aisle he places them down.  The camera zooms to a close-up of the check-out conveyor belt which is actually a war-torn area of Iraq.  The soldiers are fighting bravely, the camera pans back out to the general angry at newspaper headlines criticizing the war, he looks over to the check-out girl as the all-american check-out girl all decked out in red, white, and blue and support our troops ribbons morphs into the grim reaper as what were young, brave soldiers are now flag-draped coffins being loaded into grocery bags.

"Look at the shoes you're filling..."  has a fade-in of combat boots, then a fade-out, then a fade-in of the prosthetic legs situated in the combat boots and a quick shot of the 18-yearold amputee soldier's eyes.  Quick shots of the heartbreak of Iraqi parents who have lost their children. 

I could go on and on for hours, but I know it's all very disturbing.  Sorry about that.  I just think a kick-ass video could be made.

   

It was Osama bin Laden - a fundamentalist nutbar with too much money - and 19 of his fundamentalist mortar-shell catchers that attacked the United States on 9/11. It had nothing to do with ideology. Terrorism does not qualify as one.

Crediting the Taliban's strategies as  being rooted in ideology is a generous, over-the-top exhaggeration of their organisation. The Taliban never operated based on any sort of ideology. More like an absence of it! In their formative years during the 80s, they could barely even coordinate their armies for collaborative operations against the Soviets, as they were too caught up with infighting, tribal disputes, inexperienced leadership, etc. The Taliban regime that was established in 1996 brought stability to the region, at the cost of the gains made during the soviet period (such as a blossoming education system, religious reforms, persecution of fundamentalism, and some women's rights).

Because of its repressive nature, the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan couldn't breed a group of ideologists even if had wanted to. You'd need to give people the opprotunity for education and debate for that, and fundamentalism doesn't allow for such things.

We are entering a period of insanity. The Iraqi Commission stated we should leave Iraq by 2008. That means all the guys who get killed between now and then are dying to "train the Iraqi forces". The report also says that this in itself is open to question as to whether it will be a success. In other words, from here on out, its suckers dying for a lie. Who is going to want their son, brother, daughter, mother, or sister to die under those preconceptions? The events of the last few days have brought everything open to question.

Blunt as it may sound, I think the majority of people would tell you that's been the case all along.

While it's slightly off-topic, your phrase of 'dying for a lie' brings to mind the one - and only - occasion that I was actually impressed with lame-duck Presidential candidate, John Kerry. His statement to congress in 1971(?) is a riveting articulation of the sense of betrayl and dismay among some of the troops that were coming home from Vietnam at the time. Worth reading. I would imagine there's a lot of similar feelings among the US forces involved now, especially given the findings of this report.

The silence of the conservatives on this thread is deafening. An extraordinary month, where Bush fired his two top stooges, Rumsfeld and Bolton, for doing what he told them to do. Great hope is held out for Gates, a hope that he will not do what Bush wants him to do. The whole thing has become a comic tragedy. If Bush was a real patriot, he would do the right thing for his country and get Cheney to resign so he could appoint McCain VP, and then resign himself. Instead we have this stupid game, where a Bush I stooge is brought in to see if he can fix the mess Bush Jr created. No wonder his dad is balling like a pussy.

I forgot, the terrorism is our fault; it's our creation.? Just like its the Jews fault in Israel.? Just like it is the Hindu's fault in Kashmir.? Just like it is the Christian's fault in Sudan.? Just like it is the Russian's fault in Chechnya.? Just like it was the Brits fault on July 7.? Just like it was America's fault on September 11 (actually that was a self-inflicted attack).? Just like it was Spain's fault for the train bombings occuring.? Same for the Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, and other places on the globe where non-muslims are fighting muslims.? If all of these countries would just give the radical muslims what they want and quit fighting them, there would be peace.? I think we should start with the US pulling out of Iraq, and then we can give Israel to the Palestineans.?

That should solve most of the problems.  We don't have to worry about Osama and Al Qaeda.  They were just a creation of the US Government to cover up the attack that Bush planned on 911 so that he could start a war with Iraq to get his oil buddies in Texas rich, help Cheney's shares in Halliburton, and get revenge for his father. 

 ::)

The above post has to be one of the most boneheaded, inept attempts at sarcasm that I've read on the internet.

Hits close to home, eh?

I guess the real question is at what time did you realize it was sacarsm?? I can just picture you reading it, nodding your head in agreement, and then all of the sudden realizing it was meant as sarcasm.? I'll bet you caught it on the last line about Osama?? Sometimes I fall for the trap and think that all of you guys believe the 911 conspiracy theory.? I guess it's nice to know that it's only a select few.

You can NOT create TERRORISM, and still adopt policies and perform actions that create TERRORISTS.  You take people who were not, prior to occupation or whatever, sympathetic to the terrorist cause and make them sympathetic because they view the terrorists as the only viable ally in their fight against you. They see it as fighting for their homes and their country...no matter who is providing the guns, training, and additional troops (which, FYI, the terrorists will view as a "favor", which they will, you can be sure, expect to collect on later).  Whether you now want to call them terrorists or not, whether they believe in the terrorist dogma with their whole hearts or not, they are still furthering the cause of the terrorists.  I tend to lump those two groups together....if it makes you feel better to semantically differentiate them, fine by me.  For me...they're the guys shooting at our troops....I don't much mind homogonizing them.

And note...by most accounts the terrorists weren't in Iraq, in any great number or organizational force, prior to our invasion.  We GAVE them a globally prominent front to fight us on, we GAVE them a spot ripe for recruitement (aka people dissasisfied with our occupation or actions in Iraq), we CREATED an instability in that region in which they could thrive.  We might not have created the roaches, but we sure as hell opened up one hell of a roach motel (and not one of the Black Flag varieties, either).

Closer to a swing-and-a-miss... I don't see things in the black and white terms you put forward here.
Hate to disappoint you, but I caught it within the first few words. I was expecting such a post, given that Bud Fox was fishing for some conservative reaction to things.

You aren't completely off-target on everything though. Let's have a look, shall we?

Well, to a great degree, it is. It stems largely from Western governments' ignorance of Middle Eastern radicals and their resentment toward our policies over the past 50 years, does it not? We didn't have to arm Osama and the Mujahideen in the 80s - the Soviets would've lost that affair regardless. But we chose to anyway, and now the fundies have relatively modern armaments as opposed to boards with nails in them.
Well, again, to a great degree, it is their fault. They didn't have to invade Lebanon over a measly border raid and 2 kidnappings. But they took the opprotunity to do so nonetheless, as they didn't want to look 'weak' to their arab neighbours. They are a first-world country with a third world foreign policy.The first concession in that conflict has to come from Israel, simply because they are the only country involved that is in a position to do so.
Seeing as how the nearly the entire Indian government - save for the Sikh puppet they appointed [read: not elected] as PM - ?is composed of Hindus, that wouldn't be a great stretch of the imagination. There is definately some religious bias involved.
Seeing as how it was Stalin who forcibly relocated the Muslim population to that corner of Russia during his later years in power, and given their Soviet heritage of Athiesm and opposition to multiculturalism, yes, it is largely the Russians' fault in Chechnya.
Those countries opted to jump onboard for an ill-conceived war in Iraq, launched by a group of oil barons, American zionists and Born Again nutbars. What did they think was going to happen? They were unfortunate incidents, sure, but that sort of retaliation was to be expected, I think.
Well, as long as we're putting for ridiculous suggestions, I'd sooner purge the fundamentalists from office the world over - beginning in North America, so that we'll finally have some leaders who think with their heads as opposed to their hearts.
That would be a bad idea, regardless of your stance on the invasion. It's a disaster as is, but it'll be even more of a wreck if US forces leave. I expect troops will [should?] be there until 2012.
Might've been feasible 50 years ago, but not today. I'm so fed up with both parties, I don't have any suggestions for that situation! ?
I'm sure that President Bush would agree with you here - he hasn't been concerned with them since 2003!
Oh, come on now. The only people who believe that one are the French... :P

LOL, I like this guy! ^

 :hihi:

Funny you mention that, since his oil buddies did get rich(er), Halliburton's stock doubled, and it is on the record that Bush wanted in Iraq well before 9-11.

you took the words right out of my mouth..

I won't take part in the discussion, but just say that it's a helluva week for me. I've had an anti-Bush/anti-war movie on the internet for several months now, with the expectation that this dumb fuck President would be called out eventually, no matter how much control his family has over the majority of the U.S. media. And I actually wrote the script almost a year ago!  :hihi:

Great pic SLC...

Im not comfortable with it.  Its cheap and lazy.  Simply juxtaposing the president with dead soldiers or caskets can be done in any conflict, no matter how justified it may be.  So in itself, it proves no substantive point.  The issue isnt that soldiers died per se, as thats a terrible fact in any war; its that they died in such a grossly unjustified, terribly planned, terribly executed war.  Such a simple attempt at satire doesnt appeal to me much. 

War? I still remember when it was called an invasion.

so now pro-bush understand what we all said 3 years ago ? or they're still in denial , that they've been fucked over.?

Bottom line- we need to get out of Iraq and give the govt there a chance to be able to control their own country. It will get to a point where we are going to have to tell them they need to wipe their own asses and that's it. We can only do so much. Things are getting better, but slowly, media doesnt cover those stories though. The worst thing we could do is hand over the reigns to Iran like they have suggested. One Iran is bad enough.

Really?  Please expound.

Do you really think it was meant to be satire?



Ready to "cut n run"?

Unless the intent of the pictures creator was to earnestly connect the "Mission Accomplished" slogan with dead soldiers, and we know it wasnt, it would be classified as satire.  Cheap, simple-minded satire.

I'm not sure what the original intent was, although I disagree with using satire as a way to define it.

If I remember correctly the majority of soldier deaths occured since Bush claimed "Mission Accomplished".

Its obvious that the intent was ironic; your usage implies that much.  You dont really think the picture was meant to be non-ironic, do you? 

Satire denotes use of ridicule, irony, sarcasm, etc., to expose folly or vice or to lampoon an individual.  Thats clearly what it was intended for, and thats clearly how you used it.


Thats right.  Whats your point?

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant when I said "connect the slogan with dead soldiers."  I didnt mean the literal "Mission Accomplished" event or slogan.  I meant the sentiment with which the picture was made and whether it was meant to be non-ironic.

I see it as a method to make a serious point, not poke fun at Bush.

 ???

Most satire does make a serious point - it does so through sarcastic or ironic means, as that picture does. 

I should also clarify that Im not necessarily offended by it - the only offensive part to me is its laziness.  I actually posted something similar myself during the John Kerry nonsense, in which photographs of fallen soldiers were played during Bushs delightful "Where are the WMDs?" bit, though I posted it despite the commentary and not because of it (it was the first version of the speech I found).  I didnt have much of an issue with it because I felt the point was relevant, unlike this picture.  It pointed out the inappropriateness of the commander-in-chief goofing on his own bogus justification for war while soldiers are dying for of it.  This picture makes no similarly substantive point.   

alright, guys, enough semantic :)

Who are you kidding. You take every oppurtunity to "poke fun" at Bush even if it means using the deaths of American soldiers as an angle. ?You have so much respect for the dead and the sacrifices that they believed in making (remember the vast majority of military members support the war) that you use them in your personal agenda and for something they wouldn't support. ?You're no different than that nitwit Cindy Sheehan who exploits her son's unfortunate death in Iraq. ?Did anyone ever stop to ask if her son would support her cause? ?Obviously the answer would be no since he volunteered to go back there a second time and believed in what he was doing.

You do and can make valid arguments SLC without invoking emotional responses that dishonor the dead. ?Don't try to backpedal and claim it was something else. ?All of your pictures are simplistic "answers" that lack any merit and only appeal to the uneducated and stupid. ?Anti-abortion nuts use the same techique when they spam towns with pictures of aborted fetuses. ?You're no different and both acts are dishonest.

I do poke fun at Bush quite a bit as he deserves it.

But I find nothing funny about dead Americans coming home. In fact it really pisses me off. Maybe your guys getting put into a meat grinder over a bunch of fucking lies is ok with you, but it ain't with me. Like I've said in the past, my family is military and against the war. If anybody is "for the troops" it is me, the guy who didn't want to send them into that hellhole for a bunch of trumped up charges in the first place.

The rest of your post is not worth responding to. I have about 6k in political posts I bet, I've addressed plenty. Take your lies about me, your non thinking yellow ribbon waving ass, and shove it.

Are you shitting me?? You're mister "I got a picture for every response" and you're saying I don't think.? You repeat the same rhetoric day in and day out and delude yourself into thinking you know something most don't.? I've told you a million times that I was against the war from the start, but I'm not gonna use the deaths of people who died for a cause they supported to push my personal agenda.? Basically what you're doing is calling the dead troops to stupid to be able to decide if their cause was worthy.? You buy into bullshit conspiracy theories such as 9/11 was orchestrated by the govt (don't you even dare rebut this, you made it clear as crystal on your personal site) that standup to no scientific scrutiny, yet I don't think.?

You address dick, you post pictures that appeal to your xenophobic base that has no interest in learning or understanding what is going on.? They've had their opinions pre-made and spoon fed and ain't nothing gonna change their mind.? Attack me for waiving a yellow ribbon, but when is the last time you submitted a care package?? ?If you care so much, why do you spend endless hours bitching on a GN'R forum.  Actually go out and do something.

You continue to lie about me, says a lot about you.

I post all kinds of pictures, but that would probably make up about 1-2% of my posts (political and non political.)

Same rhetoric huh? Yup, I have not wavered from my stance since day one, if that is what you mean. And I have been right. I was right about everything regarding Iraq. I know you guys hate hearing that. The NIE report concluded what I have said since day one.

My personal agenda? Care to explain what that is?

My "agenda" is that we don't invade countries under false pretenses. That we don't slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians for nothing. That we don't, as Americans, torture people. That we don't spy on our citizens, and lie to our citizens. That we start acting like who we say we are: America. Not some fascist regime with a stooge at the helm.

The only thing I claimed was that we should accept different opinions of 9-11. That there is overwhelming evidence that we were not told the entire truth about that day (this would fall under: not lie to our citizens.) But you keep posting that I "believe all these conspiracy theories." Why do you keep lying like this?

You are really out of your mind nuts man.

Not that SLC needs defending, but....


True, usually to be humorous, sometimes to be poingant.  Why are pictures any less of a way to communicate than words are?  Why do you think people have been using them to communicate for the last, oh, few thousand years?


Pot. Kettle. Black.   Ain't mirrors the most wonderous things?


Yet you do...because you continue to say things like this:

"You're no different than that nitwit Cindy Sheehan who exploits her son's unfortunate death in Iraq.  Did anyone ever stop to ask if her son would support her cause?"


Do you know anything about the military?   I mean..the real front line troops who do the serving and the shooting and the protecting and most of the dying?  You don't get to "decide if your cause is worthy". You follow orders.  You protect your fucking country and do what the CIC says.  It's not your JOB to agree with him, or make policy decisions, or even objective decisions.   Being a soldier means not having the luxury you and I do to debate what's right and what's not....a luxury THEY provide, I might add...other than the fact they get to vote same as you and me every 4 years.  It's not about "being stupid"...or anyone thinking "the troops are stupid"...they do their job, and do it well.  They're loyal and honerable men and women.  SLC is calling the CIC "stupid"....not the troops.  Any assertion to the contrary is an outright lie.


Might want to read his site again.  Because he does no such thing, nor has he ever said he believes our government orchestrated 9/11.  He's said there are lots of unanswered questions (true) and we have not been told EVERYTHING about what led up to the attack (also true).  Both of those assertions stand up to scrutiny just fine.


Then you're not paying attention.


Not true, on any level.  They just contradict your way of thinking so you choose to rail against them.


Says the guy who quoted Ann Coulter but refused to cite her as a source.  Please.....might want to examine your own batch of knowledge and opinions....



First off, wave the yellow ribbon all you want.  To me..that means supporting the troops.  As for what I (or SLC, or anyone) does for the troops and their families.......just like the charity discussion...that's between me and my family.  And you bringing it up is crude, crass, and classless on SOOO many levels, it doesn't even bear discussion.

As for posting on a GnR forum...how many posts do you have again?  That Kettle's gettin' blacker and blacker by the second....

Pilferk, don't lecture me on the role of a soldier in following orders.  I know this first hand and deal with it every day.  Funny when asked what YOU do to help the troops that you claim to support, you get offended and say "non of your business."  I come here for entertainment and don't think I'm making a difference by partaking in discussion on a band's forum.  I get the impression that some of you consider bitching behind your computer the equivalent of actually trying to make a difference.  I have 850 post vs 8k.  granted he's been registered on his account twice as long as I have, but that doesn't equate to 7200 more post. 
The problem with a picture for a response is that it's not original and allows the poster to claim it holds a different meaning after they're called out.  If we're here to have discussions, let's do such. 

Finally, I didn't cite the Ann Coulter piece because it would be denounced in the first few seconds.  Ann Coulter is a right wing nut, that doesn't mean she doesn't make a good point here or there, just as it doesn't mean Al Franken or Michael Moore don't have good points.   No one seemed to have a problem with rejoicing in Al Gore's global warming video, why the double standard?  I love to hear the view points of different sides and opinions.  Others just want to blast anything that doesn't conform to their views.  You can't say someone is stupid or doesn't think when you yourself go to the same source to have all your thinking done for you.  The reason I come to this part of the forum is to get other viewpoints, I'm obviously the minority here.

I find it funny Flagg that rather then talk about the ACTUAL TOPIC of this thread (Iraq is "not working") you want to change the subject to SLC and his picture posts. 

How very republican of you - I'm surprised you haven't tried to turn this thread into a Gay rights issue or flag burning debate  :hihi:

There is no double standard. Gore provided scientists from around the globe as his sources while Coulter was most recently caught plagiarizing in the last book she wrote.



It's always about me man. These guys attack the messenger all day long, they have done it for years, making sure I defend myself against their poor man swift boat antics rather than facing the facts (and they are facts.)

Ditto.  And the membership of the local and state police and fire departments too.  So, if you THINK you know it first hand, why make the statement you did?  Because anyone that knows anything about our troops would tell you the same thing.  Saying you KNOW about following orders, and then making the statement you did to SLC, makes it all the worse...because you KNOW what you were saying is untrue.


I'm not offended (not really) but I say it's not your business because, well, it's not.  Just like I don't discuss my charitable contributions, my investment porfolio, my income level, or any of my other PERSONAL financial information. That's between me, my family, and those I choose to help (if I choose not to be anonymous). For you to try to even bring it up speaks volumes and is rude, crude, and crass....not to mention, it has NOTHING to do with the discussion at hand.


Then you get the wrong impression....


Lets really look at your post stats, eh?
In your first 6 mos, you had about 45 posts.
In your next 6..about 200.
In the last year..about 600.
Active is active, sir. And posting to this board is posting to this board.  Telling someone else, essentially, to "get a life" when you're engaging in the same activity smacks of hypocrisy.


As far as I can tell, when asked, SLC has been pretty steadfast in how HE interprets the picture.  That YOU don't seems to be a failing of yours, or a disconnect on your part, rather than on his.  He's even explained it to clarify his position.  If you feel he's being less than honest.....or disingenious....one would question why you think that.  I suspect it's because of your differences of opinion, rather than anything based in evidence.


When you accuse someone of something, and there is ample evidence that you've done the same sort of thing.....one wonders if you're projecting.  From reading your past rhetoric and diatribes......Pot. Kettle. Black.


Nice there...trying to change the subject.  We're talking about YOU engaging in precisely the acts you accuse others of.  Not Al Gore's video or Ann Coulter's article, per se.


No, you don't.  You love to argue your viewpoint.  You don't respect anyone else's view unless it mirrors your own..or at least there is no evidence that you do .  You're combative, inflammatory, derogatory and generally argumentative.  Much like (and SLC knows I say this with every ounce of "love" possible) SLC is (except I HAVE seen SLC respect contrary viewpoints when presented well.....).  That's why when you accuse him of things that you, yourself, are doing or have done, it's so "amusing"...and it bears pointing out.

I suspect the ACTUAL reason you come here is because the viewpoints expressed here, by and large, burn your britches...and you can't abide by letting them go "free" without your comments.  And there is more than enough evidence to support that suspician, and precious little to support yours, at present.