View Full Version : WHO'S THE PARTY OF LINCOLN?
Who's values does this quote represent? Tax raisers and business regulators or Republicans (The party founded by Lincoln)
"You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."- Abraham Lincoln
The next time you blame the government for not "saving" a bunch of idiots from the flood waters of Katrina, remember this quote. Those people could have and should have saved themselves.
Next time Hilary goes off into hysterics about "seizing" profits for the great good, remember her values and her party are inconsistent with this quote.
Next time lib leaders call for universal health care at the expense of the wage payer, remember that that is inconsistent with Lincolns values.
Now who is the party of Lincoln? :lol:
What's that I hear? Must be Abraham Lincoln rolling around in his grave.
------ -------- --------
Similarities and differences between Bush and Lincoln:
SIMILARITIES
Bush is a Republican.
Lincoln was a Republican, and the first Republican to be elected President.
Bush took few trips outside the United States prior to his presidency.
Lincoln had no international experience. His only trip outside American borders was to the Canadian side of Niagara Falls.
Bush is a Bible reader, and frequently acknowledges the importance of God's will in human affairs and in his personal life. Lincoln was a Bible reader and acknowledged the role of Divine Providence in human affairs.
Neither Bush nor Lincoln was elected to the presidency by a majority of the popular vote
DIFFERENCES
Bush was born rich.
Lincoln was born poor.
Lincoln was an avid reader.
Bush is not
Lincoln was intellectually curious, and fascinated by science and technology. He is the only American President to hold a patent.
Bush is not considered to be intellectually curious.
Lincoln was a liberal.
Bush is ultra-conservative. Many consider him not just to be controlled by the right wing of American politics, but to be right wing himself.
Bush is an active Methodist.
Lincoln never joined a church.
Lincoln believed in a strong federal government.
Bush emphasizes states rights and denigrates the role of government.
Bush seems to have a casual regard for pronunciation and word choice. Lincoln loved words, was a fine extemporaneous speaker, and good with a clever quip or story.
Bush is an asshole.
Lincoln was not.
------- ------- ------
Compassionate conservatism?
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/v/f/barbara_bush_underprivileged.jpg
What's worse than Katrina?
http://www.busoknoz.com/images/bush-katrina.jpg
What's that I hear? Must be Abraham Lincoln rolling around in his grave.
------ -------- --------
Similarities and differences between Bush and Lincoln:
SIMILARITIES
Bush is a Republican.
Lincoln was a Republican, and the first Republican to be elected President.
Bush took few trips outside the United States prior to his presidency.
Lincoln had no international experience. His only trip outside American borders was to the Canadian side of Niagara Falls.
Bush is a Bible reader, and frequently acknowledges the importance of God's will in human affairs and in his personal life. Lincoln was a Bible reader and acknowledged the role of Divine Providence in human affairs.
Neither Bush nor Lincoln was elected to the presidency by a majority of the popular vote
DIFFERENCES
Bush was born rich.
Lincoln was born poor.
Lincoln was an avid reader.
Bush is not
Lincoln was intellectually curious, and fascinated by science and technology. He is the only American President to hold a patent.
Bush is not considered to be intellectually curious.
Lincoln was a liberal.
Bush is ultra-conservative. Many consider him not just to be controlled by the right wing of American politics, but to be right wing himself.
Bush is an active Methodist.
Lincoln never joined a church.
Lincoln believed in a strong federal government.
Bush emphasizes states rights and denigrates the role of government.
Bush seems to have a casual regard for pronunciation and word choice. Lincoln loved words, was a fine extemporaneous speaker, and good with a clever quip or story.
Bush is an asshole.
Lincoln was not.
------- ------- ------
Compassionate conservatism?
As is usual, the confused libtard mind unconciously attempts to obfuscate the argument. We're not talking about Bush today, Jr. We're talking about PARTY VALUES
Your opinions aside, read the quote again
"You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."- Abraham Lincoln
You can name call all you want. You can throw out the word "asshole" and attack the man's percieved intelligence all you want.
Doesn't change a thing. Your party wants to steal from one group and give it to another. All dem campaigns, all dem rhetoric represents "us vs them", "rich vs poor" class warfare pandering.
And I know you're just regurgitating the shit they throw at you at your local LGBT socialist meetings, but Lincoln, like Bush, held Christian beliefs. Point to church membership all you want, but the man's heart and words clearly contradict what you've been taught to believe-
"Both [North and South] read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes."
Hmmm, bible, pray, Almighty? LMAO
Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.- Lincoln
Wait, that flew over your head I'm sure of it. "PATRIOTISM", "CHRISTIANITY". Whoa! Don't piss your pants. I know both those words are tough for you to read. :peanutbutter
I am a patient man — always willing to forgive on the Christian terms of repentance; and also to give ample time for repentance. Still I must save this government if possible. - Lincoln
In short, you better go back and tell those fags in no uncertain terms!
"LINCOLN WAS CHRISTIAN, BITCHES!"
Sorry to break your heart.
We're talking about values here, boy. Not your childish personal attacks against Bush. Party VALUES
Values
chefmike
03-03-2007, 12:34 AM
Lincoln is dead.
chefmike
03-03-2007, 12:38 AM
BTW, great post LG...
TFool is made a fool of once again...
Now there's a shocker.
Yo TFool - jesus is coming, and boy is he pissed!
BTW, great post LG...
TFool is made a fool of once again...
Now there's a shocker.
Yo TFool - jesus is coming, and boy is he pissed!
Better tell him to hurry up before climate change gobbles me up! Actually, better tell him to hurry up because you've been trying to gobble my knob.
Hurry o Lord! The Pastafarians are after me!
trish
03-03-2007, 08:59 AM
...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."- Abraham Lincoln
yeah...i think he was talking about setting up and defending a democratic government in Iraq.
gummi baer
03-03-2007, 11:51 AM
Republicans say: A Rising Tide lifts All BoatsKatrina survivor says: "Boats? There were Boats?" Just watch out that the length of your anchor chain is longer than the height of the tide. :wink:
...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."- Abraham Lincoln
yeah...i think he was talking about setting up and defending a democratic government in Iraq.
No, he was talking about the class-warfare that is one of the pillars of libtard values.
trish
03-03-2007, 06:38 PM
mmmm, let's see
...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."- Abraham Lincoln
nope, that was about Iraq.
guyone
03-03-2007, 07:14 PM
You're abosolutly right and if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it would be acomplished by now.
TFan, how do you counter the facts I have mentioned? Or are you saying that Bush does not represent what the Republican party is all about? If so, why was he their presidential candidate on two occasions?
trish
03-03-2007, 09:19 PM
You're abosolutly right and if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it would be acomplished by now.
that's right neo...go do yourself...don't expect others to do it for you.
Quinn
03-03-2007, 09:52 PM
You're abosolutly right and if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.
Yeah, that's the problem. It's not a matter of poor planning or implementation on the part of the Bush Administration. It's people complaining.
Within the Republican party itself, discontentment runs deep due to the view that Bush's Neoconservativism has strayed far from traditional Republican values – particularly with regard to both his fiscal polices, or lack thereof, and foreign policy.
Seriously, why do you think Giuliani and McCain are receiving so much support form the moderate wing of the Republican Party? They're not Neoconservatives.
-Quinn
chefmike
03-03-2007, 10:42 PM
mmmm, let's see
...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."- Abraham Lincoln
nope, that was about Iraq.
Well said, Trish.
From your lips to the fool on the hill...and of course his groveling lackeys such as TFool...
You're abosolutly right and if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.
Yeah, that's the problem. It's not a matter of poor planning or implementation on the part of the Bush Administration. It's people complaining.
Within the Republican party itself, discontentment runs deep due to the view that Bush's Neoconservativism has strayed far from traditional Republican values – particularly with regard to both his fiscal polices, or lack thereof, and foreign policy.
Seriously, why do you think Giuliani and McCain are receiving so much support form the moderate wing of the Republican Party? They're not Neoconservatives.
-Quinn
That's a poor diversion of the intent of guyone's statement.
Quinn
03-03-2007, 10:56 PM
You're abosolutly right and if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.
Yeah, that's the problem. It's not a matter of poor planning or implementation on the part of the Bush Administration. It's people complaining.
Within the Republican party itself, discontentment runs deep due to the view that Bush's Neoconservativism has strayed far from traditional Republican values – particularly with regard to both his fiscal polices, or lack thereof, and foreign policy.
Seriously, why do you think Giuliani and McCain are receiving so much support form the moderate wing of the Republican Party? They're not Neoconservatives.
-Quinn
That's a poor diversion of the intent of guyone's statement.
If you say so, but the points still stand.
-Quinn
You're abosolutly right and if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.
Yeah, that's the problem. It's not a matter of poor planning or implementation on the part of the Bush Administration. It's people complaining.
Within the Republican party itself, discontentment runs deep due to the view that Bush's Neoconservativism has strayed far from traditional Republican values – particularly with regard to both his fiscal polices, or lack thereof, and foreign policy.
Seriously, why do you think Giuliani and McCain are receiving so much support form the moderate wing of the Republican Party? They're not Neoconservatives.
-Quinn
That's a poor diversion of the intent of guyone's statement.
If you say so, but the points still stand.
-Quinn
Which point? That you opportunistically distorted the mans words?
Quinn
03-03-2007, 11:03 PM
You're abosolutly right and if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.
Yeah, that's the problem. It's not a matter of poor planning or implementation on the part of the Bush Administration. It's people complaining.
Within the Republican party itself, discontentment runs deep due to the view that Bush's Neoconservativism has strayed far from traditional Republican values – particularly with regard to both his fiscal polices, or lack thereof, and foreign policy.
Seriously, why do you think Giuliani and McCain are receiving so much support form the moderate wing of the Republican Party? They're not Neoconservatives.
-Quinn
That's a poor diversion of the intent of guyone's statement.
If you say so, but the points still stand.
-Quinn
Which point? That you opportunistically distorted the mans words?
LMAO..... You are joking, right? Seriously, have you seen guyone's posts, let alone your own? How am I doing anything you and other posters (lefties and righties) don't routinely do? You're just upste because you disagree with the message.
-Quinn
You're abosolutly right and if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.
Yeah, that's the problem. It's not a matter of poor planning or implementation on the part of the Bush Administration. It's people complaining.
Within the Republican party itself, discontentment runs deep due to the view that Bush's Neoconservativism has strayed far from traditional Republican values – particularly with regard to both his fiscal polices, or lack thereof, and foreign policy.
Seriously, why do you think Giuliani and McCain are receiving so much support form the moderate wing of the Republican Party? They're not Neoconservatives.
-Quinn
That's a poor diversion of the intent of guyone's statement.
If you say so, but the points still stand.
-Quinn
Which point? That you opportunistically distorted the mans words?
LMAO..... You are joking, right? Seriously, have you seen guyone's posts, let alone your own? How am I doing anything you and other posers (lefties and righties) don't routinely do? You're just upste because you disagree with the message.
-Quinn
You can make this personal if you want. The point stands. Your dishonest attempt to distort guyone's post is manipulative and weak.
Quinn
03-03-2007, 11:18 PM
You're abosolutly right and if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.
Yeah, that's the problem. It's not a matter of poor planning or implementation on the part of the Bush Administration. It's people complaining.
Within the Republican party itself, discontentment runs deep due to the view that Bush's Neoconservativism has strayed far from traditional Republican values – particularly with regard to both his fiscal polices, or lack thereof, and foreign policy.
Seriously, why do you think Giuliani and McCain are receiving so much support form the moderate wing of the Republican Party? They're not Neoconservatives.
-Quinn
That's a poor diversion of the intent of guyone's statement.
If you say so, but the points still stand.
-Quinn
Which point? That you opportunistically distorted the mans words?
LMAO..... You are joking, right? Seriously, have you seen guyone's posts, let alone your own? How am I doing anything you and other posers (lefties and righties) don't routinely do? You're just upste because you disagree with the message.
-Quinn
You can make this personal if you want. The point stands. Your dishonest attempt to distort guyone's post is manipulative and weak.
The only thing weak here is your hypocrisy. Stop whinning, deal with it, and move on.
-Quinn
Nothing short of a personal attack. You're standing on nothing. Just empty words.
Quinn
03-03-2007, 11:42 PM
More whining about an exchange started by your own hypocrisy. So far as any measurement of empty words is concerned, there is no greater testament to said phenomenon than the extremely low regard the forum at large has repeatedly shown for you and your sactimonius opinions.
-Quinn
You done with the pissing contest?
Quinn
03-03-2007, 11:47 PM
You engaged me, so how about answering your own question?
-Quinn
I engaged your words. You engaged in personal attacks.
Quinn
03-04-2007, 12:20 AM
TFan, don’t be obtuse. Guyone responded to Trish’s point concerning Iraq (blood for oil, etc.), at which point I responded to his post – by citing the Bush Administration’s poor performance and the results of that performance. You couldn’t argue the point, so you took it upon yourself to issue forth the following drivel: “your dishonest attempt to distort guyone's post is manipulative and weak.” Furthermore, given your record of personal attacks on this forum, your position is, once again, little more than hypocrisy.
Seriously, be man enough to stand behind your conduct. Don’t behave like some passive-aggressive teenage girl.
-Quinn
TFan, don’t be obtuse. Guyone responded to Trish’s point concerning Iraq (blood for oil, etc.), at which point I responded to his post
No, you didn't respond. You made a manipulative attempt to distort what he said..... misrepresent it. You know that's not what he meant but you went on anyway, "Yeah, that's the problem. It's not a matter of poor planning or implementation on the part of the Bush Administration."
Talk about "passive aggressive teenage girl". You went on the offensive with words and when called on those words, you're sheepishly attempting to parse them.
chefmike
03-04-2007, 12:29 AM
Passive-aggressive? You took the words right out of my mouth, Quinn!
Take it easy on T Fool though, he's a pair of pliers or two short of a toolbox...or maybe I should have said TFoolbox.
Quinn
03-04-2007, 12:51 AM
Well, I guess you are that obtuse after all – so I’ll explain it as simply as possible. Try to keep up:
1. Trish made a comment about the US doing for Iraq what she felt Iraq should be doing for itself;
2. Guyone responded that “if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it would be accomplished by now,” which, by any reasonable act of interpretation, clearly puts the blame for Iraq dragging on with individuals who dissent against the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy.
3. I responded by making clear that it was the Bush Administration’s poor planning and implementation that was responsible, following it up with a point about the effects said administration’s deleterious policies have had even among the Republican base.
Guess what? That response is entirely appropriate to the point at hand. You couldn’t deal with it, so you attempted to characterize said point – and by extension me – as dishonest. Once again, stop whining like a passive-aggressive teenage girl and stand behind your conduct – hypocritical though it may be.
Fact One: You constantly insert yourself into people's threads and attempt to turn their posts into a liberal vs. conservative argument when that is not what the poster intended or even referenced.
Fact Two: You constantly engage in personal attacks (your sig is but one of many examples).
Fact Three: You are being a hypocrite right now.
-Quinn
chefmike
03-04-2007, 01:01 AM
TFool cleary isn't up to this, Quinn.
His obfuscation and prevarication skills aren't even on par with WMC...
Well, I guess you are that obtuse after all – so I’ll explain it as simply as possible. Try to keep up:
1.Trish made a comment about the US doing for Iraq what she felt Iraq should be doing for itself;
2.Guyone responded that “if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it would be accomplished by now,” which, by any reasonable act of interpretation, clearly puts the blame for Iraq dragging on with individuals who dissent against the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy.
3.I responded by making clear that it was the Bush Administration’s poor planning and implementation that was responsible, following it up with a point about the effects said administration’s deleterious policies have had even among the Republican base.
Guess what? That response is entirely appropriate to the point at hand. You couldn’t deal with it, so you attempted to characterize said point – and by extension me – as dishonest. Once again, stop whining like a passive-aggressive teenage girl and stand behind your conduct – hypocritical though it may be.
-Quinn
No need to characterize. All I need do is put your quote in context with guyone's post.
Let's take a third look at guyone's quote-
You're abosolutly right and if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.
So how do you make the leap from "blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda" to "Within the Republican party itself, discontentment runs deep due to the view that Bush's Neoconservativism has strayed far from traditional Republican values – particularly with regard to both his fiscal polices, or lack thereof, and foreign policy."?
You made a deliberate, aggressive attempt to distort the mans words and now that you've been called on it, you're sheepishly attempting to refine what you said. Passive-aggressive.
And I didn't come into this thread, I started it.
chefmike
03-04-2007, 01:54 AM
And I didn't come into this thread, I started it.
Quinn
03-04-2007, 02:11 AM
No need to characterize. All I need do is put your quote in context with guyone's post. .
Agreed, but let’s put the whole thing in so that simpletons like you can hopefully grasp what is painfully obvious to everyone else. Guyone responded to Trish’s posts on Iraq with the following:
. . . . if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it would be acomplished by now.
Being smart enough to recognize this for what it is – the uninformed opinion of a 19-year old who lives at home with his parents – I responded with the following:
Yeah, that's the problem. It's not a matter of poor planning or implementation on the part of the Bush Administration. It's people complaining.
Within the Republican party itself, discontentment runs deep due to the view that Bush's Neoconservativism has strayed far from traditional Republican values – particularly with regard to both his fiscal polices, or lack thereof, and foreign policy.
Seriously, why do you think Giuliani and McCain are receiving so much support form the moderate wing of the Republican Party? They're not Neoconservatives.
So, what don’t you get? Is it my use of clear, unambiguous, and well written English that confuses you? Would you prefer that I write it in Spanish? Maybe if I included a diagram with stick figures?
Now, tell me where I “distorted the mans words.” He put the blame for Iraq dragging on with the dissenters against the Bush Administration’s policies (otherwise known as the overwhelming majority of the United States). I refuted it by blaming the Bush Administration's poor planning/impelementation and then providing supporting statements as to just how serious the effect of Bush’s failed policies has been – even going so far as to divide the Republican Party (if you wish to dispute that, I can provide plenty of articles to support what is obvious to everyone).
Now, you can whine like a little bitch about distorting someone else’s statement to make my own argument (something you are known for) or making personal attacks (something else you are known for), but the fact is you are both a hypocrite and a fool whose opinions are among the least respected on this forum. Once again, be a man and stand by your conduct – even if it is hyporciritical.
-Quinn
P.S. Unlike you, I don’t engage in personal attacks and then passive-aggressively whine about someone else doing it. I simply do it when I feel it’s appropriate – like right now – and stand by it.
Now, tell me where I “distorted the mans words.” He put the blame for Iraq dragging on with the dissenters against the Bush Administration’s policies (otherwise known as the overwhelming majority of the United States). I refuted it by blaming the Bush Administration's poor planning/impelementation and then providing supporting statements as to just how serious the effect of Bush’s failed policies has been – even going so far as to divide the Republican Party (if you wish to dispute that, I can provide plenty of articles to support what is obvious to everyone).
Still using that word "respond"? :lol: Ok, I'll give you that word. But your response was an attempt to mischaracterize what guyone said as "Bush Administrations poor planning" He said nothing as such.
Like I said from the outset. "That's a poor diversion of the intent of guyone's statement."
Let's take yet another look at guyone's post and then your response-
Guyone said-
You're abosolutly right and if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.
You responded-
Yeah, that's the problem. It's not a matter of poor planning or implementation on the part of the Bush Administration. It's people complaining.
Yeah, that's the problem? See here, you start off in agreement then manipulate from there. Then, you strawman guyone's post "It's not a matter of poor planning......"
You're weaving a complex web of misrepresentation and manipulation.
chefmike
03-04-2007, 02:51 AM
LMFAO...the goddamn left wing and their smoke and mirrors...
TFool is on the ropes....no...he's on the mat now...TFool is struggling to get up.....OOHHHH!!
DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!
And TFool has been knocked out once again!
LMFAO...the goddamn left wing and their smoke and mirrors...
See, this is the difference between human beings and sheep, sheep.
Human beings aren't constantly looking over their shoulders for the huckster. You are. You are because you possess a suspicious mind, distrustful of all people. Largely because your own intentions are bad.
So, being a good human being, I'll disregard the balance of your angry bullshit post as the ramblings of a bitter, old man.
Quinn
03-04-2007, 03:28 AM
LMFAO!!!! That’s it????? That’s all you have?????? You know, TFan, though I’ve often disagreed with your positions on Bush and religion (we have actually agreed on things, too, like Israel, etc.), I used to think you were fairly intelligent. Clearly, I couldn’t have been more wrong in that regard as your grasp of basic written English couldn’t be more underwhelming. That said, let the lesson begin. This will probably hurt a little:
. . . your response was an attempt to mischaracterize what guyone said as "Bush Administrations poor planning" He said nothing as such.
OK, for starters let’s make sure you comprehend the meaning of the word “mischaracterize,” which is as follows:
Verb: mischaracterize
1. To characterize falsely or erroneously; to give a wrong character to.
Now, why don’t you explain to those of us who don’t live in an alternate reality how that portion of my response to Guyone’s post on Iraq, posted below, mischaracterizes his post as stating or even implying anything about the “Bush Administration’s poor planning” – rather than serving as refutation of his own ridiculous assertion that people whining is why we haven’t won in Iraq yet?
Yeah, that's the problem. It's not a matter of poor planning or implementation on the part of the Bush Administration. It's people complaining.
Face it, you just disagree with the post and don’t have a cogent argument to counter it. As such, you came out with the only intellectually bereft response you could: a ridiculous allegation not supported by even the most forgiving of interpretations, an allegation far more relevant to your own conduct than anyone else’s.
-Quinn
P.S. On a positive note, at least you’ve stopped hypocritically whining about my engaging in “personal attacks.” Now if we can just deal with your other glaringly obvious hypocrisy.
Quinn
03-04-2007, 03:46 AM
LOL... I know, Chef. Talk about a guy having less than nothing to work with. I'm actually starting to feel bad for TFan. This is so damn one-sided, it's actually starting to get ugly, though that has more to do with the lunacy and weakness of TFan's position than anything else.
-Quinn
guyone
03-04-2007, 06:23 AM
It's not poor planning on the part of the Bush administration. It's just that the left resents having one of their own dethroned. Sadam being a good little socialist will get the support of the left. So the left will do anything they can to undermine America's policy. Even to the detriment of America itself.
Quinn
03-04-2007, 07:17 AM
It's not poor planning on the part of the Bush administration. It's just that the left resents having one of their own dethroned. Sadam being a good little socialist will get the support of the left. So the left will do anything they can to undermine America's policy. Even to the detriment of America itself.
Tell me how the following applies to Iraq:
. . . if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.
Specifically, explain to me how the US would have been out of Iraq already if it were not for people "whining" about the inadequacies of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy (now the overwhelming majority of US citizens).
Futhermore, what about the many current and former high ranking military officials who do blame the Bush Administration for its poor implementation/planning in Iraq? Let's take a look at just a few of the many such comments:
1. -Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak, Air Force chief of staff, 1990-94:
We have a force in Iraq that's much too small to stabilize the situation. It's about half the size, or maybe even a third, of what we need.
2. -Former CENTCOM commander Gen. Anthony Zinni:
When I was commander of CENTCOM, we had a plan for an invasion of Iraq, and it had specific numbers in it. We wanted to go in there with 350,000 to 380,000 troops. You didn't need that many people to defeat the Republican Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath.
When I left in 2000, General Franks took over. Franks was my ground-component commander, so he was well aware of the plan. He had participated in it; those were the numbers he wanted. So what happened between him and Rumsfeld and why those numbers got altered, I don't know, because when we went in we used only 140,000 troops, even though General Eric Shinseki, the army commander, asked for the original number.
3. A panel of retired generals told a United States Senate committee today that sending 21,500 additional troops to Iraq will do little to solve the underlying political problems in the country. "Too little and too late," is the way Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former chief of the Central Command, described the effort to the Senate Committee.
4. -Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st US Army Division in Iraq:
I think the current administration repeatedly ignored sound military advice and counsel with respect to the war plans.
I suspect, going way back five years to the beginning of this whole war, there were ample times when people said to him, as General Shinseki did, "We need more." In the case of General Shinseki, he was retired early.
When decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision-making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes.
5. -Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, who commanded the 82nd Airborne in Iraq:
Well I don't agree with Secretary Rumsfeld's management of the war. Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there to achieve our strategic objectives.
I really believe that we need a new Secretary of Defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him. And I'll speak briefly about that. But it goes back to insufficient forces to attack north to Baghdad and subsequently fight the insurgency.
I could go on and on, but the point has been made.
-Quinn
guyone
03-04-2007, 11:05 AM
If the world stood together and with one voice condemned the current violence taking place in Iraq it would be a lot easier to contain the 'rabble rousers'. As long as enemy combatants can poison the trust between the government and its people there will not be any peace.
trish
03-04-2007, 04:14 PM
If the world stood together and with one voice condemned the current violence taking place in Iraq it would be a lot easier to contain the 'rabble rousers'. As long as enemy combatants can poison the trust between the government and its people there will not be any peace.
i was told by a reliable source that we already have a vast coalition of the willing behind us.
Quinn
03-04-2007, 05:19 PM
If the world stood together and with one voice condemned the current violence taking place in Iraq it would be a lot easier to contain the 'rabble rousers'. As long as enemy combatants can poison the trust between the government and its people there will not be any peace.
That’s a fine sentiment, but it addresses neither the realities on the ground in Iraq nor the following statement on your part:
. . . if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.
Once again, specifically explain to me just how the US would have been out of Iraq already if it were not for people "whining" about the inadequacies of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy (now the overwhelming majority of US citizens).
Once again, your assertion – that it’s dissenters “whining” and not the Bush Administration’s poor planning/implementation that has resulted in Iraq dragging on – is not supported by any interpretation of the military realities on the ground in Iraq:
1. -Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak, Air Force chief of staff, 1990-94:
We have a force in Iraq that's much too small to stabilize the situation. It's about half the size, or maybe even a third, of what we need.
2. -Former CENTCOM commander Gen. Anthony Zinni:
When I was commander of CENTCOM, we had a plan for an invasion of Iraq, and it had specific numbers in it. We wanted to go in there with 350,000 to 380,000 troops. You didn't need that many people to defeat the Republican Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath.
When I left in 2000, General Franks took over. Franks was my ground-component commander, so he was well aware of the plan. He had participated in it; those were the numbers he wanted. So what happened between him and Rumsfeld and why those numbers got altered, I don't know, because when we went in we used only 140,000 troops, even though General Eric Shinseki, the army commander, asked for the original number.
3. A panel of retired generals told a United States Senate committee today that sending 21,500 additional troops to Iraq will do little to solve the underlying political problems in the country. "Too little and too late," is the way Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former chief of the Central Command, described the effort to the Senate Committee.
4. -Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st US Army Division in Iraq:
I think the current administration repeatedly ignored sound military advice and counsel with respect to the war plans.
I suspect, going way back five years to the beginning of this whole war, there were ample times when people said to him, as General Shinseki did, "We need more." In the case of General Shinseki, he was retired early.
When decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision-making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes.
5. -Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, who commanded the 82nd Airborne in Iraq:
Well I don't agree with Secretary Rumsfeld's management of the war. Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there to achieve our strategic objectives.
I really believe that we need a new Secretary of Defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him. And I'll speak briefly about that. But it goes back to insufficient forces to attack north to Baghdad and subsequently fight the insurgency.
That’s just the tip of iceberg so far as military critics of the Bush Administration's poor planning/implementation in Iraq are concerned. Their assessments, which are backed by both extensive education and experience in such matters, represent an objective reality that you have yet to recognize, let alone effectively address or event refute.
-Quinn
chefmike
03-04-2007, 08:02 PM
LOL... I know, Chef. Talk about a guy having less than nothing to work with. I'm actually starting to feel bad for TFan. This is so damn one-sided, it's actually starting to get ugly, though that has more to do with the lunacy and weakness of TFan's position than anything else.
-Quinn
Ain't it the truth, Quinn. Please allow me to quote the learned George Costanza on such matters:
"He's beboppin' and scattin' all over the place!"
chefmike
03-04-2007, 08:12 PM
Isn't it ironic that we don't have a single veteran on this board who is pro-bushevik/neocon? :lol:
And yet our resident CHICKENHAWKS still have the unabashed temerity to deny their so richly deserved CHICKENHAWK label... :roll: :P
Talk about a guy having less than nothing to work with. I'm actually starting to feel bad for TFan. This is so damn one-sided, it's actually starting to get ugly, though that has more to do with the lunacy and weakness of TFan's position than anything else.
http://cbs.sportsline.com/images/centuryender/photos/sumo.jpg
Above: Little TFan trying hard to win an argument.
guyone
03-04-2007, 08:59 PM
If FDR had a 35% approval rating and all those generals mouthing off as well we would all be speaking German & Japanese.
I just don't understand how so many Americans can side with our enemies on a constant basis. It almost as if America suffers from some self loathing personality disorder.
trish
03-04-2007, 09:13 PM
i just don't understant neo, why you would rather type over here, than fight over there. it's as if your suffering from cowardice or some other weakness of character.
guyone
03-04-2007, 09:23 PM
Are you talking about the same cowardice & weakness of character that the entire left wing of our political system suffers from? Not really because I've been waiting here at the recruiting station for you guys to show up. None have...go figure.
trish
03-04-2007, 09:33 PM
Are you talking about the same cowardice & weakness of character that the entire left wing of our political system suffers from?
No, I thought was pretty clear, I'm talking about YOUR COWARDICE.
chefmike
03-04-2007, 09:41 PM
If FDR had a 35% approval rating and all those generals mouthing off as well we would all be speaking German & Japanese.
I just don't understand how so many Americans can side with our enemies on a constant basis. It almost as if America suffers from some self loathing personality disorder.
What a heaping, steaming, stinking pile of shit!
guyone
03-04-2007, 09:44 PM
You may not want to face it but it's pretty accurate!
chefmike
03-04-2007, 09:44 PM
Are you talking about the same cowardice & weakness of character that the entire left wing of our political system suffers from? Not really because I've been waiting here at the recruiting station for you guys to show up. None have...go figure.
Quinn is an Army vet, and I'm a Navy vet.
Trish is a girl.
So what's your excuse, chickenhawk?
guyone
03-04-2007, 09:51 PM
I am busy serving the nation in different but equally important ways.
trish
03-04-2007, 09:56 PM
oh top secret....wink wink...need to know basis...wank wank....serving the nation in an EQUALLY IMPORTANT WAY...let's hear it, neo...what are you doing that equally important, that's worth letting others get killed and maimed for your cause, while you do the oh sooo important thing that you do for us.
guyone
03-04-2007, 09:57 PM
I heat and light the Earth.
trish
03-04-2007, 10:00 PM
in your virtual world.
guyone
03-04-2007, 10:03 PM
Which is the world where you reside.
trish
03-04-2007, 10:04 PM
in your dreams
chefmike
03-04-2007, 10:04 PM
I am busy serving the nation in different but equally important ways.
Listening to your fellow chickenhawks Limbaugh and Hannity doesn't count as military service....it's just more delusion on your part.
guyone
03-04-2007, 10:05 PM
Which are your realities. So there...
Quinn
03-04-2007, 10:10 PM
If FDR had a 35% approval rating and all those generals mouthing off as well we would all be speaking German & Japanese.
I just don't understand how so many Americans can side with our enemies on a constant basis. It almost as if America suffers from some self loathing personality disorder.
All you have is a very poorly thought out hypothetical for a response????? LMAO………So, what you’re essentially saying is that – despite my giving you multiple opportunities to do so – you can’t even begin to support the following statement with any specifics:
. . . if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.
That’s what I thought. More empty, unsupported, uneducated generalizations…
Furthermore, your irrelevant hypothetical fails, once again, to recognize, let alone effectively address or event refute the realities on the ground in Iraq:
1. -Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak, Air Force chief of staff, 1990-94:
We have a force in Iraq that's much too small to stabilize the situation. It's about half the size, or maybe even a third, of what we need.
2. -Former CENTCOM commander Gen. Anthony Zinni:
When I was commander of CENTCOM, we had a plan for an invasion of Iraq, and it had specific numbers in it. We wanted to go in there with 350,000 to 380,000 troops. You didn't need that many people to defeat the Republican Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath.
When I left in 2000, General Franks took over. Franks was my ground-component commander, so he was well aware of the plan. He had participated in it; those were the numbers he wanted. So what happened between him and Rumsfeld and why those numbers got altered, I don't know, because when we went in we used only 140,000 troops, even though General Eric Shinseki, the army commander, asked for the original number.
3. A panel of retired generals told a United States Senate committee today that sending 21,500 additional troops to Iraq will do little to solve the underlying political problems in the country. "Too little and too late," is the way Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former chief of the Central Command, described the effort to the Senate Committee.
4. -Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st US Army Division in Iraq:
I think the current administration repeatedly ignored sound military advice and counsel with respect to the war plans.
I suspect, going way back five years to the beginning of this whole war, there were ample times when people said to him, as General Shinseki did, "We need more." In the case of General Shinseki, he was retired early.
When decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision-making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes.
5. -Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, who commanded the 82nd Airborne in Iraq:
Well I don't agree with Secretary Rumsfeld's management of the war. Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there to achieve our strategic objectives.
As previously noted, these comments represent only the tip of the iceberg so far as military critics of the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy are concerned.
One more thing regarding your ridiculous hypothetical. To the best of my knowledge FDR never saw his ratings drop below the low 50s (I believe they stayed around the 70s during the war period), whereas Bush’s approval ratings have reached lows that put him in the same disgraceful territory as this nation’s two other post-war failures: Carter and Nixon. FDR never faced such broad criticism from the military, when Bush does, for a reason: FDR committed the resources necessary to win that war, whereas Bush went out of his way to do the opposite in Iraq – and is still doing it (the current "troop surge" is far too small to be effective and is mostly cosmetic)?
-Quinn
guyone
03-04-2007, 10:21 PM
That's your opinion.
Quinn
03-04-2007, 11:15 PM
That's your opinion.
Your admission of defeat is accepted. Still, let’s review the facts for shits and giggles:
1. You idiotically stated that the Iraq conflict is dragging on for the following reason: “. . . if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.”
Not surprisingly, when repeatedly challenged to do so, you couldn’t provide a single specific fact to support your asinine statement. Wow, there’s a shock.
2. When I asserted that the Iraq conflict has dragged on due to poor planning and implementation on the part of the Bush Administration – being sure to provide supporting evidence by citing just some of the overwhelming criticism coming from senior military sources, including those who served in Iraq – you couldn’t debate the facts so you put forth some poorly thought out and irrelevant hypothetical scenario.
Once again, your failure to support your point or debate anything of a factual, objectively real nature doesn’t come as any surprise.
3. After I destroyed your comically inept and irrelevant hypothetical scenario – in part by citing historical facts that render it irrelevant (approval ratings, etc.) – you responded with “That’s your opinion," failing to respond with anything of a factual or even hypothetical nature.
The funny things is that it is clearly you who have utterly failed to put forth anything other than your own uninformed, completely unsupported opinions. I, by contrast, have supported my statements with relevant facts, not fanciful and ill conceived hypothetical scenarios. Nice job, Patton. Maybe you should leave this to people who can actually support their statements. What a joke.............
-Quinn
Quinn
03-04-2007, 11:27 PM
Are you talking about the same cowardice & weakness of character that the entire left wing of our political system suffers from? Not really because I've been waiting here at the recruiting station for you guys to show up. None have...go figure.
Since I’m a committed Independent and moderate, this doesn’t necessarily apply to me, but I take issue with your hypocrisy none the less. If memory serves, Chef served on the flight deck of the USS Kitty Hawk, one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. What have you done? I served with the US Army and saw action during Operation Desert Storm. Once again, what have you done? Oh, that’s right, you’re a 19-year old kid who lives at home with his parents and has never done anything other than sit around whining on a TS Forum. What a sanctimonious dullard you are.
-Always Out Front!!!
guyone
03-04-2007, 11:28 PM
I didn't admit defeat. I just disagree with your views and as neither of us are employed by the DOD they are just viewpoints.
Quinn
03-04-2007, 11:53 PM
I didn't admit defeat. I just disagree with your views and as neither of us are employed by the DOD they are just viewpoints.
You don't need to verbally admit it. Your inability to support any of your ridiculous statements, which have been thoroughly refuted, says it for you. See below:
1. You idiotically stated that the Iraq conflict is dragging on for the following reason: “. . . if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.”
Not surprisingly, when repeatedly challenged to do so, you couldn’t provide a single specific fact to support your asinine statement. Wow, there’s a shock.
2. When I asserted that the Iraq conflict has dragged on due to poor planning and implementation on the part of the Bush Administration – being sure to provide supporting evidence by citing just some of the overwhelming criticism coming from senior military sources, including those who served in Iraq – you couldn’t debate the facts so you put forth some poorly thought out and irrelevant hypothetical scenario.
Once again, your failure to support your point or debate anything of a factual, objectively real nature doesn’t come as any surprise.
3. After I destroyed your comically inept and irrelevant hypothetical scenario – in part by citing historical facts that render it irrelevant (approval ratings, etc.) – you responded with “That’s your opinion," failing to respond with anything of a factual or even hypothetical nature.
The funny things is that it is clearly you who have utterly failed to put forth anything other than your own uninformed, completely unsupported opinions. I, by contrast, have supported my statements with relevant facts, not fanciful and ill conceived hypothetical scenarios. Nice job, Patton. Maybe you should leave this to people who can actually support their statements. What a joke.............
-Quinn
P.S. I served in the US Army so I did, in fact, work for the DOD. I also hold an MA in International Relations (with a specialty in Foreign Policy Analysis and Security Studies, and a subspecialty International Political Economy). Translation, I know what the fuck I'm talking about; you don't.....
guyone
03-04-2007, 11:59 PM
My only viewpoint was that I supported my countries policies. Seems to me that you have some deep seated anger issues.
Quinn
03-05-2007, 12:23 AM
My only viewpoint was that I supported my countries policies. Seems to me that you have some deep seated anger issues.
LMAO...... Is it because I'm dealing with you in precisely the same disrespectful manner you consistently show toward the liberals on this forum (I can provide plenty of examples where you call them cowards and much more)? Maybe it's because I've singularly smashed each of your moronic and uninformed assertions? I'll tell you what, junior, you tell yourself whatever self-deluded nonsense you have to. You record of intellectual incompetence clearly stands for all to see:
1. You idiotically stated that the Iraq conflict is dragging on for the following reason: “. . . if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.”
Not surprisingly, when repeatedly challenged to do so, you couldn’t provide a single specific fact to support your asinine statement. Wow, there’s a shock.
2. When I asserted that the Iraq conflict has dragged on due to poor planning and implementation on the part of the Bush Administration – being sure to provide supporting evidence by citing just some of the overwhelming criticism coming from senior military sources, including those who served in Iraq – you couldn’t debate the facts so you put forth some poorly thought out and irrelevant hypothetical scenario.
Once again, your failure to support your point or debate anything of a factual, objectively real nature doesn’t come as any surprise.
3. After I destroyed your comically inept and irrelevant hypothetical scenario – in part by citing historical facts that render it irrelevant (approval ratings, etc.) – you responded with “That’s your opinion," failing to respond with anything of a factual or even hypothetical nature.
The funny things is that it is clearly you who have utterly failed to put forth anything other than your own uninformed, completely unsupported opinions. I, by contrast, have supported my statements with relevant facts, not fanciful and ill conceived hypothetical scenarios. Nice job, Patton. Maybe you should leave this to people who can actually support their statements. What a joke.............
-Quinn
guyone
03-05-2007, 12:38 AM
Obviously you need to boost your self confidence by anonymously berating other people that have different viewpoints. Peoples views are their views. I wouldn't take this so seriously. It's not too healthy.
Quinn
03-05-2007, 02:58 AM
Obviously you need to boost your self confidence by anonymously berating other people that have different viewpoints. Peoples views are their views. I wouldn't take this so seriously. It's not too healthy.
Says the guy who spends a rather large amount of time bashing others whose views differs from his own – on the political section of a transsexual forum of all places.
Rather than hypocritically shifting your stance when it suits your conduct. you really should pick a position.
1. Is it this:
People who constantly have to revert to foul language and name calling only do so because they can't debate very well.
or is it this:
Wow! What an ungrateful bastard you are.
2. Is it this:
Why do debates have to devolve into personal attacks? Isn't a free exchange of ideas the building blocks of democracies? What does the debate gain from name calling?
or is it this:
Are you talking about the same cowardice & weakness of character that the entire left wing of our political system suffers from?
or maybe this:
But a liberal democrat is the same thing as a BOLSHEVIK!
Futhremore, you seem to shift stances when it comes to debating, taking contradictory positions when is suits you.
3. When you put forth unsupported assertions – like those that were so handily refuted in our recent debate – you are happy to rely upon fallacious conjecture:
they are just viewpoints.
By contrast, when other posters have done the same thing you have told them things like:
Proof not conjecture my friend.
In the end, the most appropriate response to your penchant for making outrageous and factually unsupported assertions are the very words you once said to another poster:
The issue I have with your posts is that they are so outlandish and unsupported by documented facts.
Do us all a favor and make up your mind just which set of standards you want to apply.
LMFAO!!!! That’s it????? That’s all you have?????? You know, TFan, though I’ve often disagreed with your positions on Bush and religion (we have actually agreed on things, too, like Israel, etc.), I used to think you were fairly intelligent. Clearly, I couldn’t have been more wrong in that regard as your grasp of basic written English couldn’t be more underwhelming. That said, let the lesson begin. This will probably hurt a little:
. . . your response was an attempt to mischaracterize what guyone said as "Bush Administrations poor planning" He said nothing as such.
OK, for starters let’s make sure you comprehend the meaning of the word “mischaracterize,” which is as follows:
Verb: mischaracterize
1. To characterize falsely or erroneously; to give a wrong character to.
Now, why don’t you explain to those of us who don’t live in an alternate reality how that portion of my response to Guyone’s post on Iraq, posted below, mischaracterizes his post as stating or even implying anything about the “Bush Administration’s poor planning” – rather than serving as refutation of his own ridiculous assertion that people whining is why we haven’t won in Iraq yet?
Yeah, that's the problem. It's not a matter of poor planning or implementation on the part of the Bush Administration. It's people complaining.
Face it, you just disagree with the post and don’t have a cogent argument to counter it. As such, you came out with the only intellectually bereft response you could: a ridiculous allegation not supported by even the most forgiving of interpretations, an allegation far more relevant to your own conduct than anyone else’s.
-Quinn
P.S. On a positive note, at least you’ve stopped hypocritically whining about my engaging in “personal attacks.” Now if we can just deal with your other glaringly obvious hypocrisy.
I take this post as a sign of your defeat. When you choose to get into pissing contests over word usage, spelling, punctuation and or grammar, it means you can no longer support your beliefs. That post doesn't even come close to making your point, nor does it even attempt to.... probably because you can no longer support the point in the face of my question.
But I like to punish the confused, so I'll ask the question again.
How do you make the leap from "blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda" to "Within the Republican party itself, discontentment runs deep due to the view that Bush's Neoconservativism has strayed far from traditional Republican values – particularly with regard to both his fiscal polices, or lack thereof, and foreign policy."?
Quinn
03-05-2007, 03:52 AM
Wow, TFan, you really are glutton for punishment, which is fine with me, but you really should figure out just what point you are trying to make. Is it this:
1.
your response was an attempt to mischaracterize what guyone said as "Bush Administrations poor planning" He said nothing as such.
For which you provided the following quotations:
Guyone said-
You're abosolutly right and if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.
You responded-
Yeah, that's the problem. It's not a matter of poor planning or implementation on the part of the Bush Administration. It's people complaining.
Or is it this:
2.
Let's take a third look at guyone's quote-
You're abosolutly right and if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.
So how do you make the leap from "blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda" to "Within the Republican party itself, discontentment runs deep due to the view that Bush's Neoconservativism has strayed far from traditional Republican values – particularly with regard to both his fiscal polices, or lack thereof, and foreign policy."?
So, which point are trying, yet failing miserably, to make? Are you sticking with the claim that my first statement was an attempt to distort the meaning of guyone’s post, or are you now returning to the failed argument that it was the second paragraph. Wow, no wonder you have such a hard time grasping the clear and concise English that everyone else so easily understands.
Still, since I’m in a charitable mood, and I really am curious to see if it’s humanly possible for you to make an even bigger fool and laughing stock out of yourself than you already have, I’ll humor both points.
Guyone responded to Trish’s posts on Iraq with the following:
. . . . if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it would be acomplished by now.
Being smart enough to recognize this for what it is – the uninformed opinion of a 19-year old who lives at home with his parents – I responded with the following:
Yeah, that's the problem. It's not a matter of poor planning or implementation on the part of the Bush Administration. It's people complaining.
Within the Republican party itself, discontentment runs deep due to the view that Bush's Neoconservativism has strayed far from traditional Republican values – particularly with regard to both his fiscal polices, or lack thereof, and foreign policy.
Seriously, why do you think Giuliani and McCain are receiving so much support form the moderate wing of the Republican Party? They're not Neoconservatives.
So, what don’t you get? Is it my use of clear, unambiguous, and well written English that confuses you? Would you prefer that I write it in Spanish? Maybe if I included a diagram with stick figures?
Now, tell me where I “distorted the mans words.” He put the blame for Iraq dragging on with the dissenters against the Bush Administration’s policies (otherwise known as the overwhelming majority of the United States). I refuted it by blaming the Bush Administration's poor planning/implementation and then providing supporting statements as to just how serious the effect of Bush’s failed policies has been – even going so far as to divide the Republican Party (if you wish to dispute that, I can provide plenty of articles to support what is obvious to everyone).
Now, you can whine like a little bitch about distorting someone else’s statement to make my own argument (something you are known for) or making personal attacks (something else you are known for), but the fact is you are both a hypocrite and a fool whose opinions are among the least respected on this forum. Once again, be a man and stand by your conduct – even if it is hypocritical.
See how easy that was, stupid.. It's like they say, Reading Is Fundamental (RIF). If your reading comprehension was a little better, maybe you wouldn't be the only one who sees this the way you do. Maybe you wouldn't be the sad little clown you have become.
-Quinn
You're not answering the question.
I'll ask again-
How do you make the leap from "if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it would be accomplished by now" to "Within the Republican party itself, discontentment runs deep due to the view that Bush's Neoconservativism has strayed far from traditional Republican values – particularly with regard to both his fiscal polices, or lack thereof, and foreign policy."?
guyone
03-05-2007, 04:01 AM
Hey Quinn!
Truce...
You're going to burst a blood vessel.
Quinn
03-05-2007, 04:05 AM
You're not answering the question.
I'll ask again-
How do you make the leap from "blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda" to "Within the Republican party itself, discontentment runs deep due to the view that Bush's Neoconservativism has strayed far from traditional Republican values – particularly with regard to both his fiscal polices, or lack thereof, and foreign policy."?
You see, this is where RIF comes in. You inability to comprehend written English, when everyone else clearly understands and agrees with my point, really is an issue you should work on. The answer, whicih is contained below, is the reason you originally abandoned this argument in favor of your second argument, which also failed thus requiring you to return to this one. Maybe I really should include diagrams with stick figures if you are that bafflewit, which you clearly are:
Guyone responded to Trish’s posts on Iraq with the following:
. . . . if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it would be acomplished by now.
Being smart enough to recognize this for what it is – the uninformed opinion of a 19-year old who lives at home with his parents – I responded with the following:
Yeah, that's the problem. It's not a matter of poor planning or implementation on the part of the Bush Administration. It's people complaining.
Within the Republican party itself, discontentment runs deep due to the view that Bush's Neoconservativism has strayed far from traditional Republican values – particularly with regard to both his fiscal polices, or lack thereof, and foreign policy.
Seriously, why do you think Giuliani and McCain are receiving so much support form the moderate wing of the Republican Party? They're not Neoconservatives.
So, what don’t you get? Is it my use of clear, unambiguous, and well written English that confuses you? Would you prefer that I write it in Spanish? Maybe if I included a diagram with stick figures?
Now, tell me where I “distorted the mans words.” He put the blame for Iraq dragging on with the dissenters against the Bush Administration’s policies (otherwise known as the overwhelming majority of the United States). I refuted it by blaming the Bush Administration's poor planning/implementation and then providing supporting statements as to just how serious the effect of Bush’s failed policies has been – even going so far as to divide the Republican Party (if you wish to dispute that, I can provide plenty of articles to support what is obvious to everyone).
Now, you can whine like a little bitch about distorting someone else’s statement to make my own argument (something you are known for) or making personal attacks (something else you are known for), but the fact is you are both a hypocrite and a fool whose opinions are among the least respected on this forum. Once again, be a man and stand by your conduct – even if it is hypocritical.
-Quinn
P.S. You really are the best, Tfool. I haven't laughed this hard in at least a month. Thank you for that.
Quinn
03-05-2007, 04:07 AM
TFan.
Agreed. This isn't getting us anywhere. Have a good evening.
-Quinn
You haven't answered the question, but that's ok.
guyone
03-05-2007, 04:19 AM
Hey Grandpa
I'm not nineteen and I don't live with my parents. My name is Mike and I'm a chef in New York City.
Quinn
03-05-2007, 04:29 AM
You haven't answered the question, but that's ok.
You are the only one who sees it that way. It's right there in plain, unambiguous English. I guess for the sake of the truce, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that point and leave it at that.
-Quinn
Ugh! If there's one phrase that gives me asco, it's "Agree to disagree".
How about "I know you're wrong and you know I'm wrong"? :D
Quinn
03-05-2007, 04:53 AM
LOL.... I'm not a fan or said phrase either and felt "off" writing it, but I couldn't, for the life of me, think of another way to put it.
-Quinn
Hey Grandpa
I'm not nineteen and I don't live with my parents. My name is Mike and I'm a chef in New York City.
Hi Mike! :peanutbutter
What are your favourite recipes. At least then we might agree on something.
:D
You haven't answered the question, but that's ok.
You are the only one who sees it that way. It's right there in plain, unambiguous English. I guess for the sake of the truce, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that point and leave it at that.
-Quinn
And all of that, in a nutshell, is why I don't hang out much in this part of the forums anymore. Anyway, for this and your previous posts, Quinn, I salute you.
:claps :claps :claps
Although I'm looking forward to hearing Mike's recipes. Is guyone actually chefmike's neocon alter-ego?
chefmike
03-05-2007, 08:07 AM
You haven't answered the question, but that's ok.
You are the only one who sees it that way. It's right there in plain, unambiguous English. I guess for the sake of the truce, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that point and leave it at that.
-Quinn
And all of that, in a nutshell, is why I don't hang out much in this part of the forums anymore. Anyway, for this and your previous posts, Quinn, I salute you.
:claps :claps :claps
Although I'm looking forward to hearing Mike's recipes. Is guyone actually chefmike's neocon alter-ego?
I just threw up in my mouth a little...I'm gonna pretend that I didn't hear that, LG.
Quinn
03-05-2007, 08:10 AM
Thanks, LG.
-Quinn
Although I'm looking forward to hearing Mike's recipes. Is guyone actually chefmike's neocon alter-ego?
I just threw up in my mouth a little...I'm gonna pretend that I didn't hear that, LG.
:lol:
Well, he says he's a chef and his name is Mike...
qeuqheeg222
03-05-2007, 10:19 AM
what happened to the lincoln and the original republicans thread?liguistics and wage earners versus wage suppliers,blah blah blah..how come tfan doesnt post in the general discussion threads?
what happened to the lincoln and the original republicans thread?liguistics and wage earners versus wage suppliers,blah blah blah..how come tfan doesnt post in the general discussion threads?
I do alllll the time.
qeuqheeg222
03-05-2007, 11:45 AM
where
qeuqheeg222
03-05-2007, 12:18 PM
where?
Run a search, noob!
http://www.hungangels.com/board/search.php
trish
03-05-2007, 10:37 PM
To the question, "how old are you guys?" neo replied:
19.
To the suggestion that he join the service rather than let others fight for his cause neo replied:
I am busy serving the nation in different but equally important ways.
When asked what he does that EQUALLY important his response was,
I heat and light the Earth.
Now we learn from him that:
I'm not nineteen and I don't live with my parents. My name is Mike and I'm a chef in New York City.
I'm tempted to draw the conclusion that working as a chef in NYC is of equal value to our country as getting the job done in Iraq. Perhaps neo meant equal in value to one soldier fighting for Iraqi freedom. It's tempting to conclude that either neo doesn't think much of our mission in Iraq or he has an inflated estimation of his skills as a chef. But I'll just leave the conclusions to you, dear reader. (yes yes, i know...neo was joking...at least i hope so...irony is wasted on the web...in any case: neo, it's time for you to enlist)
chefmike
03-05-2007, 11:23 PM
And still we haven't a single vet here who defends the bushevik/neocon lies...only chickenhawks who have yet to even grow a pair, let alone enlist.
guyone
03-06-2007, 03:23 AM
Actually I do heat & light the earth.
And still we haven't a single vet here who defends the bushevik/neocon lies...only chickenhawks who have yet to even grow a pair, let alone enlist.
Which lies do you speak of?
trish
03-06-2007, 05:53 AM
Actually I do heat & light the earth.
what else do you have in common with a muskrat trained to light it's own farts.
guyone
03-06-2007, 07:56 AM
In order to do that you would have to first train a muskrat to ignite some kind of flame based ignition source (e.g. a lighter, matches). Convincing an animal to do that without it jumping ten feet in the air is pretty difficult. Then you have the next impossible task of teaching a muskrat to fart at will. How do you possibly communicate to a rodent that you want it to be flatulent at a certain moment in time. Finally you have to convince this poor animal to light his escaping gas on fire. I know some humans are capable of this but animals seem to have a bit more common sense.
trish
03-06-2007, 04:40 PM
quit stalling neo
ENLIST TODAY...JOIN THE SURGE...BE AN ARMY OF GUYONE
God puts us all where we need to be. For me, I thought it was the Air Force, but it turns out that God intended me to fight the war at home.... so take the war to libtards, I WILL!
guyone
03-07-2007, 03:53 AM
I'm already enlisted and fighting in the war against...The Bolshevik!
chefmike
03-07-2007, 04:01 AM
God puts us all where we need to be. For me, I thought it was the Air Force, but it turns out that God intended me to fight the war at home.... so take the war to libtards, I WILL!
What kind of a dickless geek can't even be accepted to the air force? :roll:
What happened...? :lol:
Did you get a chubby at your physical, Liberace...? :wink:
Nevertheless, I bet that you're a whiz at the whole neighborhood watch thing, twinkletoes... :wink:
Do you squat when you pee, Rambo...? :P
Jamie Michelle
03-07-2007, 04:55 AM
Who's values does this quote represent? Tax raisers and business regulators or Republicans (The party founded by Lincoln)
"You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."- Abraham Lincoln
The next time you blame the government for not "saving" a bunch of idiots from the flood waters of Katrina, remember this quote. Those people could have and should have saved themselves.
Next time Hilary goes off into hysterics about "seizing" profits for the great good, remember her values and her party are inconsistent with this quote.
Next time lib leaders call for universal health care at the expense of the wage payer, remember that that is inconsistent with Lincolns values.
Now who is the party of Lincoln? :lol:
It's not that the U.S. government tried to help people. Rather, the U.S. government intentionally made things as bad as they could during the Katrina hurrricane, in order to provide a pretext for setting the precedent of enacting martial law, confiscating people's firearms, and rounding people up into detention camps.
These actions included blocking companies and countries from delivering aide (e.g., food and water), blocking shipments of fuel coming in, literally cutting off communication lines (such that the local police had to stand guard of their radio towers to prevent the federal government from physically cutting their lines), preventing people leaving or coming in to deliver aide, not distributing food and water that they had available, etc.
As well, it may well be the case that the U.S. government blew up the levees in order to cause this crisis, based upon what the local residents said about the matter (i.e., they reported loud explosions, followed by the flooding). What is certain is that the levees were holding up just fine days after the storm had passed. And the water-level was receding all during that time. So by the time the levees were breached, the pressure on them was far less than it had been during the hight of the storm days earlier. That doesn't make any sense, just going by physical terms (unless of course sabotage is involed).
Concerning Abraham Lincoln, he was a white supremacist who wanted the blacks shipped off to Africa. One of his first cases was representing a slave owner in order to force the return of a black slave who had escaped.
As well, Lincoln was exceedingly likely a gay man, based upon his self-admitted lack of interest in women and his enjoying sleeping with men when he had the opportunity (e.g., Joshua Fry Speed, Lincoln's friend, and David Derickson, Lincoln's bodyguard). I don't bring this up because I have a problem with gay men (since, like pretty much everyone here, I'm also a faggot), but because it just goes to show that what people commonly regard as history is little more than the victors' propagada, i.e., how the conquerors wanted their descendants to remember them--moreover, how the extant state desires to invoke the fabled past to justify its present actions.
But Lincoln, like all latter U.S. presidents, is simply a puppet of his ruling elite backers. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt noted:
""
The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson--and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W.W. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States--only on a far bigger and broader basis.
""
(From President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a letter to Col. Edward Mandell House, November 21, 1933; contained in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt [New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950], pg. 373.)
Roosevelt in the above letter mentioned President Woodrow Wilson ("W.W."). Below is what Woodrow Wilson himself wrote concerning this same matter:
""
Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.
...
[A]nd we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world--no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.
""
(From Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People [New York and Garden City: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1913] http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14811/14811-8.txt .)
God puts us all where we need to be. For me, I thought it was the Air Force, but it turns out that God intended me to fight the war at home.... so take the war to libtards, I WILL!
What kind of a dickless geek can't even be accepted to the air force? :roll:
What happened...? :lol:
Did you get a chubby at your physical, Liberace...? :wink:
Nevertheless, I bet that you're a whiz at the whole neighborhood watch thing, twinkletoes... :wink:
Do you squat when you pee, Rambo...? :P
Look sheep, I don't squat when I "pee". LMAO
"Pee"? You're a homo! Which is it you do? "Pee" or "Piddle"? LMAO!
It's not that the U.S. government tried to help people. Rather, the U.S. government intentionally made things as bad as they could during the Katrina hurrricane, in order to provide a pretext for setting the precedent of enacting martial law, confiscating people's firearms, and rounding people up into detention camps.
These actions included blocking companies and countries from delivering aide (e.g., food and water), blocking shipments of fuel coming in, literally cutting off communication lines (such that the local police had to stand guard of their radio towers to prevent the federal government from physically cutting their lines), preventing people leaving or coming in to deliver aide, not distributing food and water that they had available, etc.
As well, it may well be the case that the U.S. government blew up the levees in order to cause this crisis, based upon what the local residents said about the matter (i.e., they reported loud explosions, followed by the flooding). What is certain is that the levees were holding up just fine days after the storm had passed. And the water-level was receding all during that time. So by the time the levees were breached, the pressure on them was far less than it had been during the hight of the storm days earlier. That doesn't make any sense, just going by physical terms (unless of course sabotage is involed).
Look, I know you do drugs but I think someone should point something out for you. It appears that drugs have distorted your thinking and you've gone straight into the deep-end of the loony-bin. LMAO.
Jamie Michelle
03-07-2007, 05:59 AM
It's not that the U.S. government tried to help people. Rather, the U.S. government intentionally made things as bad as they could during the Katrina hurrricane, in order to provide a pretext for setting the precedent of enacting martial law, confiscating people's firearms, and rounding people up into detention camps.
These actions included blocking companies and countries from delivering aide (e.g., food and water), blocking shipments of fuel coming in, literally cutting off communication lines (such that the local police had to stand guard of their radio towers to prevent the federal government from physically cutting their lines), preventing people leaving or coming in to deliver aide, not distributing food and water that they had available, etc.
As well, it may well be the case that the U.S. government blew up the levees in order to cause this crisis, based upon what the local residents said about the matter (i.e., they reported loud explosions, followed by the flooding). What is certain is that the levees were holding up just fine days after the storm had passed. And the water-level was receding all during that time. So by the time the levees were breached, the pressure on them was far less than it had been during the hight of the storm days earlier. That doesn't make any sense, just going by physical terms (unless of course sabotage is involed).
Look, I know you do drugs but I think someone should point something out for you. It appears that drugs have distorted your thinking and you've gone straight into the deep-end of the loony-bin. LMAO.
I know that you do drugs as well. So on that count, we're both even. Regarding your other charges, those are the logical fallacies of ad hominem attack and non sequitur, and hence are logically fallacious arguments.
Regarding the "conspiracy" charge in the picture you provided (depicting a person such as yourself), you're making that charge as an ad hominem attack: a hypocritical and self-refuting attack, at that, since you also believe in conspiracies.
A conspiracy is simply when two or more people take part in a plan which involves doing something unrightful or untoward to another person or other people (of which plan may or may not be kept secret, i.e., secrecy is not a necessary component for actions to be a conspiracy).
Conspiracies are ubiquitous (witness all the laws on the books against conspiracy, and how many people are routinely charged under said laws), and the most egregious perpetrators of murderously brutal conspiracies are governments upon their own innocent citizens. More than six times the amount of non-combatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes killed from 3,500,000 to over 4,300,000 of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians. The Soviet government murdered over 61 million of its own non-combatant subjects. The communist Chinese government murdered over 76 million of it own subjects. And Germany murdered some 16 million of it own subjects in the past century. And that's only a sampling of governments mass-murdering their own non-combatant subjects within the past century. (The preceding figures are from Prof. Rudolph Joseph Rummel's website at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ .)
All totaled, neither the private-sector crime which government is largely responsible for promoting and causing or even the wars committed by governments upon the subjects of other governments come anywhere close to the crimes government is directly responsible for committing against its own citizens--certainly not in amount of numbers. Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout history has always been the people's very own government.
Needless to say, all of these government mass-slaughters were conspiracies--massive conspiracies, at that.
Like I said. Drugs have distorted you. The more you type, the clearer it becomes.
trish
03-07-2007, 07:27 AM
I'm already enlisted and fighting in the war against...The Bolshevik!
that's a lame excuse even for a coward.
guyone
03-07-2007, 03:28 PM
Not half the coward you are!
trish
03-07-2007, 10:01 PM
correct...you're about ten times the coward i am...and i'm one hell of a coward...that's why i'm saying get our troops out of the crossfire. you're the one who want's them to sacrifice for your sacred cause. so go join them COWARD.
guyone
03-08-2007, 01:28 AM
You're in dire need of therapy.
You're in dire need of therapy.
LOL RAH RAH RAH!
trish
03-08-2007, 05:12 AM
You're in dire need of therapy.
and your country is in dire need of your service, baby...enlist already.
guyone
03-08-2007, 05:19 AM
I've done more for my country in one day than you'll do in your entire life.
trish
03-08-2007, 06:07 AM
The point is, coward, that you are not making ( and have not ever made) the sacrifice for your country that you're asking others to make on your behalf.
trish
03-08-2007, 06:08 AM
and puking up your idiotic ideologies on the web does not constitute service to your country.
guyone
03-08-2007, 06:37 AM
While insanity can not be cured Trish, with the proper care and medication you can improve. You can look forward to the day you step outside of the asylum for the first time. Then again maybe not.
trish
03-08-2007, 04:20 PM
the state of my sanity is independent of your cowardice. i would've thought you knew some elementary logic. apparently not. GO ENLIST COWARD.
qeuqheeg222
03-08-2007, 09:07 PM
yeah and while yer bitchin about payin taxes to the govt.you could be earnin 90g's a year tax free driving big oil rigs and supply trucks in iraq for halliburtonn.thats right tax free!!!so if you dont serve your military,you can still earn the big bucks tax free..
guyone
03-09-2007, 12:58 AM
Okay.
trish
03-09-2007, 04:21 AM
whoa :lol: looks like little virtual man doesn't like it when he's expected to make the sacrifices he expects of others. there's a name for that. what is it. oh, yeah...coward.
guyone
03-09-2007, 04:34 AM
How's Bobby?
qeuqheeg222
03-09-2007, 08:41 AM
dont you want those tax free halliburton bucks?
trish
03-09-2007, 08:54 AM
Neo, neo, neo. I may or I may not fuck dogs, donkeys and horses. I may or may not be suicidal. I may or may not engage in whatever perversion your sad little neo-con gutter mind can google up. But your case is different from mine. We know what you think, and we know what you want. You want to keep our troops in the cross fire between the Shiites and the Sunnis. If it means some of our soldiers have to die, the sacrifice is worth it. If some of them have to lose arms and legs, the sacrifice is worth it. If some of them live the rest of their lives with a bullet in their brain, the sacrifice is worth it. And what in your brain are we buying for all this suffering? We’re saving the world from bolshevism!!! What time-machine did you drop in on? When you claim that your service to our country is equal to the service our men and women in Iraq perform every day, I’m inclined to agree with you. But only if the value of their service is measure in what their brave sacrifices are accomplishing over there. For their dangerous labor, Halliburton profits; little george saves face, America’s image is dragged through the muck and the mire and more anti-American zealots join the sacred cause against us. But I prefer to measure their service by the sacrifices may make every day and by their commitment to our shared ideals. By that measure you do nothing for our country except piss on it. You’re not willing to fight the war. You’re not willing to pay for the war. You’ve proven yourself to be coward and now a filthy minded pig as well. I’m sure your family is proud.
qeuqheeg222
03-09-2007, 09:02 AM
she has a point.if you dont pay your taxes then you dont support our troops becacuse how are their paychecks funded?ooh that socialist taxation system at work again....if you bitch about paying taxes are you emboldening the terrorists?
she has a point.if you dont pay your taxes then you dont support our troops becacuse how are their paychecks funded?ooh that socialist taxation system at work again....if you bitch about paying taxes are you emboldening the terrorists?
No one is bitching about taxes, bitch boy. We're bitching about ridiculous taxation on corporate America and private citizens to pay for shit like the welfare your on.
qeuqheeg222
03-09-2007, 09:08 AM
no one is on welfare here and why arent you over there?you claim to be kickin all of this ass?why dont you kick some jihadist ass and do it tax free?
no one is on welfare here and why arent you over there?you claim to be kickin all of this ass?why dont you kick some jihadist ass and do it tax free?
I'm kicking your jihadist ass, ain't I? I've destroyed point after point that you've made til the point that you're looking like an 18 year old with a modem. Give it a rest. Get a real job and find out what the real world is about.
qeuqheeg222
03-09-2007, 09:15 AM
ditto,rush.
ditto,rush.
That's "MEGA DITTOS", you little puke.
qeuqheeg222
03-09-2007, 09:28 AM
mega dittos to go along with the maga dose of viagra fer his little pill lazy pee-pee....
mega dittos to go along with the maga dose of viagra fer his little pill lazy pee-pee....
That just means he's getting pussy. Pissed it ain't your pussy? Is that the problem? :lol:
qeuqheeg222
03-09-2007, 10:13 AM
no.and i dont need all of the pharmaceuticals
no.and i dont need all of the pharmaceuticals
That's cool. You seem like a cool dude and I've been over the top with you. Sorry, let's continue.
qeuqheeg222
03-09-2007, 11:16 AM
they got a lot of pill shops her in south flerda...rush i know that back pain is bad but just say no....
they got a lot of pill shops her in south flerda...rush i know that back pain is bad but just say no....
That's fine. I tried to make peace with you.
guyone,
that was a stupid ass pic that you posted- gross and unfunny. Man, I was beginning to like you. I really thought you were better than that.
And you still haven't answered Trish's question. How exactly are you serving your country. In a previous post you actually said you were a chef, did you not (or was that a joke?)? Then you said that you "heat and light the earth" which, I suppose, means that you either work for the electricity company or you're actually the sun. How does that serve the nation in "different but equally important ways".
Sitting at your PC and annoying the fuck out of liberals does not consitute a public service.
I don't say it's a bad thing that you're not out their fighting man, but you're not helping your argument. People in glass houses should not throw stones.
TFan,
That last sentence goes for you as well. Jihadist ass? What the fuck man? You think the guys on this forum are your enemies? You think anyone here is an enemy of the US? Wait till you fight out in the field. Why don't you ask some of the veterans on these boards about their experiences? You said that "God intended me to fight the war at home". So what do you do then? And "I sit on the internet all day and make bullshit posts" is not a valid answer.
You think you're helping your country? Well, do you do charity work? Do you do any social work? Promote safe sex or gun control or fight drug abuse or sexual discrimination? Do you write your congressman? Do you hold vigils, organise marches, write letters to newspapers. Maybe, but I doubt it, becuase you seem to be so damn satisfied with your country and yourself that you can't see what's wrong with either.
I really don't want to argue with you man, but not becuase I can't. I'm just fed up, that's all.
Take a moment to think about the above.
peace
guyone
03-09-2007, 04:36 PM
I really don't have to answer to anyone on a message board.
I can't believe you are using your affection for me as a weapon. You've just been using me all along. After all the hard work I put in getting you to notice me, the sacrifices I made at my job, family, community and now all of that hangs by a thread...do you think that's fair? Do you think it's fair to use my emotions like that? After all we've been through? I thought we had something strong...something everlasting, but no you were simply using me all that time...stringing me along until this day when you reached down my throat and pulled out my heart. Alas LG at least we had the time we had. What more can I ask for?
Excuse me I have to go back to heating and lighting the Earth.
I really don't have to answer to anyone on a message board.
I can't believe you are using your affection for me as a weapon. You've just been using me all along. After all the hard work I put in getting you to notice me, the sacrifices I made at my job, family, community and now all of that hangs by a thread...do you think that's fair? Do you think it's fair to use my emotions like that? After all we've been through? I thought we had something strong...something everlasting, but no you were simply using me all that time...stringing me along until this day when you reached down my throat and pulled out my heart. Alas LG at least we had the time we had. What more can I ask for?
Excuse me I have to go back to heating and lighting the Earth.
:lol:
That's more like it guyone. I always knew you had a sense of humour.
You are joking aren't you?
trish
03-09-2007, 09:04 PM
I really don't have to answer to anyone on a message board.
of course not dearie. you just come along inside and ignore those bolshevik brutes.
chefmike
03-09-2007, 09:46 PM
:roll:
chefmike
03-09-2007, 11:34 PM
Nice try, TFool...but you repug chickenhawks have about as much in common with Lincoln as you do with Jefferson...
Nice try, TFool...but you repug chickenhawks have about as much in common with Lincoln as you do with Jefferson...
Well your chickenhawk theory has been shot to shit. LMAO!
specialk
03-10-2007, 04:09 PM
>>>>>>>>>>
chefmike
03-10-2007, 09:08 PM
:lol:
olite71
03-10-2007, 11:37 PM
Now, tell me where I “distorted the mans words.” He put the blame for Iraq dragging on with the dissenters against the Bush Administration’s policies (otherwise known as the overwhelming majority of the United States). I refuted it by blaming the Bush Administration's poor planning/impelementation and then providing supporting statements as to just how serious the effect of Bush’s failed policies has been – even going so far as to divide the Republican Party (if you wish to dispute that, I can provide plenty of articles to support what is obvious to everyone).
Still using that word "respond"? :lol: Ok, I'll give you that word. But your response was an attempt to mischaracterize what guyone said as "Bush Administrations poor planning" He said nothing as such.
Like I said from the outset. "That's a poor diversion of the intent of guyone's statement."
Let's take yet another look at guyone's post and then your response-
Guyone said-
You're abosolutly right and if everyone stopped whining about this and that (blood for oil and the rest of the communist propaganda) and just get the job done it wouldr be acomplished by now.
You responded-
Yeah, that's the problem. It's not a matter of poor planning or implementation on the part of the Bush Administration. It's people complaining.
Yeah, that's the problem? See here, you start off in agreement then manipulate from there. Then, you strawman guyone's post "It's not a matter of poor planning......"
You're weaving a complex web of misrepresentation and manipulation.
Man---you need to give it up TFAN. YOu have absolutely NO credible argument here. If you actually believe in what you're writing (as opposed to just being a pain in the ass devil's advocate who won't admit he's wrong) then, I'm impressed because I believe what I'm seeing here is delusion on a DEFCON 1 level, and you don't see DEFCON 1 delusion that often.
Quinn
03-13-2007, 06:04 AM
Inciteful analysis, olite71.
-Quinn
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.