• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Democrats love to flip/flop

I've been out of the country for the past couple of weeks so maybe I missed something. But are we still seriously having the WMD debate? I could have sworn that I saw a news report, granted it was on the BBC and not Fox so you Neo-cons probably wouldn't believe it, but it said that even the Bush White House has now admitted there were no WMD's and the search has ended. So by my count we've gone from "it's a slam dunk" to "we're still looking, they're there we just haven't found them yet" to "he sent them all to Syria, in black trucks, at night, through the desert" to "well, we didn't find WMD's based on "your new liberal definition" of WMD's" to now "there were no WMD's."
 
I just wanted to know if anyone else heard of that story to see if there was some truth to it.
 
"UN investigators found evidence that the bombs were made about the same time as the nerve gas bombs that were used on the Kurdish."

>I just wanted to know if anyone else heard of that story to see if there was some truth to it.< Meserschmitt

Of course there's no truth to it.

Nerve agents sarin and tabun have a shelf life of 5 years, VX a bit longer; botulinum toxin and liquid anthrax, if kept in ideal conditions, are potent for about 3 years.
Anything made about the time of the Kurd gassing...1988, I believe, would be worthless, harmless goo now.
By 1996, it is reported that the inspectors in Iraq had destroyed all equipment and facilities, needed to build new WMD.
There were no WMD.
Saddam lied. He wanted the world to think he was a wild and crazy guy.
Bush lied. He lied about the connections between Saddam and AlQaeda, he lied about the war being a "cakewalk," he lied about Iraq being a "democratic role-model," he lied about chemical/ biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, he lied about Iraq having an additional 250,000 trained Iraqi troops by the end of 2004, he lied about not being a nation builder when he first ran for President...the list goes on and on...some would call this flip-flopping. Republicans call it a man of values who stands by his word.
You got me?
Iran here we come.
 
Hoot, I believe you might have used the wrong words... give Bush the benefit of the doubt. If he didn't lie, then his is just incompetent, out of touch, inept and out of control. He likes to compare himself to the great Ronald Reagan, but forgot his famous quote, "trust but verify", when it came to his own advisors, intelligence community and military.

I can understand your point, and the logical conclusions would be that a person who achieved the Presidency of the United States couldn't be as incompetent as portrayed, so it seems logical that he simply lied. But then again, a devout Christian who speaks directly with God couldn't ever do that.... so I go back to my original thought. He's just incompetent.
 
Contrarian said:
Hoot, I believe you might have used the wrong words... give Bush the benefit of the doubt. If he didn't lie, then his is just incompetent, out of touch, inept and out of control. He likes to compare himself to the great Ronald Reagan, but forgot his famous quote, "trust but verify", when it came to his own advisors, intelligence community and military.

I can understand your point, and the logical conclusions would be that a person who achieved the Presidency of the United States couldn't be as incompetent as portrayed, so it seems logical that he simply lied. But then again, a devout Christian who speaks directly with God couldn't ever do that.... so I go back to my original thought. He's just incompetent.
It's a well known fact that, "Birds of a feather flock together."

Given that the numerical margin achieved by GWB on election day far outpaced the number of registered Republicans who voted, are you saying that quite a few million registered Democrats crossed over because they, too, are incompetent for not holding the same politically correct views as you?
 
It is true that W won a plurality, but it was the smallest for an incumbent President since Calvin Cooledge...hardly a "mandate" by the people. By the way, have you seen W's the latest job approval ratings... below 47%... the lowest for a second term incumbent in recent history. IS this "buyers remorse"??

Further, I agree with you that far more people outside of the registered Republican voters, crossed the line to vote for Bush, but not because they were incompetent, but rather because they were ignorant lemmings who bought into the fear mongering rethoric produced by the GOP machine, and the fact that they had a weak, no message, Democrat trying to be Republican alternative. KArl Rove was brilliant. It is a basic premise of marketing.... and you and I have had this discussion in other threads... to influence the masses with the premise of pleasure or pain. Being an astute "believer" of that school of marketing, the GOP scared the ignorant masses into a doomsday scenario convincing them to follow his cause..... gee, does this sound like a pattern? Follow me and I will lead you to the promised land.... it worked once, and his audience still buys into that crap, so why not give a divinely inspired path for them to follow... Rove is brilliant.

By the way, I guess that wasn't too politically correct to call these mentally weak folk, ignorant lemmings.... but there you have it... as Forrest Gump said... "stupid is as stupid does"
 
Contrarian said:
It is true that W won a plurality,

No. That is not correct. A plurality is victory in an election in which there are three or more candidates, none of whom receives 50% of the votes. In his two presidential elections, Clinton won by a plurality each time. He never received a majority of the popular vote. GWB received a majority of the votes cast in November.

but it was the smallest for an incumbent President since Calvin Cooledge...hardly a "mandate" by the people. By the way, have you seen W's the latest job approval ratings... below 47%... the lowest for a second term incumbent in recent history. IS this "buyers remorse"??

There is only one president and his responsibility is to do the best job he can; not to be a 'semi-president' because some folks think he didn't get enough votes to be a 'full president'. Those who are still fighting the 2000 election would be well advised to 'get over it'. Like him or not, they're stuck with him for four more years.

Further, I agree with you that far more people outside of the registered Republican voters, crossed the line to vote for Bush, but not because they were incompetent, but rather because they were ignorant lemmings who bought into the fear mongering rethoric produced by the GOP machine, and the fact that they had a weak, no message, Democrat trying to be Republican alternative. KArl Rove was brilliant. It is a basic premise of marketing.... and you and I have had this discussion in other threads... to influence the masses with the premise of pleasure or pain. Being an astute "believer" of that school of marketing, the GOP scared the ignorant masses into a doomsday scenario convincing them to follow his cause..... gee, does this sound like a pattern? Follow me and I will lead you to the promised land.... it worked once, and his audience still buys into that crap, so why not give a divinely inspired path for them to follow... Rove is brilliant.
As I have noted before, it was all over the first time Kerry promised to take back the Bush tax cuts and GWB responded by saying that not only would the tax cuts stick, but he was planning some new ones, too.

The Dems evidently didn't realize how many of their constituents had moved a few rungs up the ladder to higher incomes which would mean greater tax liability.

They also forgot the cardinal rule: "People vote their pocketbooks."

By the way, I guess that wasn't too politically correct to call these mentally weak folk, ignorant lemmings.... but there you have it... as Forrest Gump said... "stupid is as stupid does"

It's your post. Call 'em whatever you like. As the old saw goes, "ignorance is bliss." Just remember, when April 15th rolls around, they'll be rejoicing.
 
I stand corrected on the terminology. Thank you for pointing out my error, however the point is the same. W did not win a landslide. Most people voted AGAINST a candidate, not for them. The election was decided because of three factors:

#1 - FEAR - Plain old scare the sh*t out of people, assuring them that only W and Dick would keep them safe at night. The tactic that works every time! In addition, the clear message was, if you don't agree with the President in a time of war, than you are not a good American ("Traitor" - Ann Coulter). These are very powerful motivators which drove many Dems and Independents to the Bush camp. They drank the Kool-Aid :drink

#2 - KERRY - Though a very smart guy, he had no message, no delivery system, no real party, no Karl Rove and couldn't inspire the confidence of the people that he was able to protect them. He, as you say, flip flopped around trying to find a marketing plan. He just wanted to get elected and basically ran on the "I'm not Bush", platform. He deserved to lose.

#3 - GOD - This country is clearly undergoing a "spiritual revival", and the Preacher in Chief capitalized on it by whipping up a feeding frenzy over gay marriage etc., so he could get Grandma and other non-participants out of their pews and into the polls. Rove further rode on the coat tails of Mel Gibson using a carefully crafted message that the moral high ground belonged to Bush. When Kerry clumsily tried to up his God quotion, he not only looked disingenuous, some Catholic clergy issued statements telling their flock that it was a sin to vote for a sinner. That whole hell and damnation gig again. And, afterall, as I said before, how can you not vote for a guy who has a direct line to God?

The whole voting ones pocketbook to second place to all the issues listed above. Had it been the primary motivator people would have stormed the WHite House demanding to know why the public checkbook has been so abused. The puny little tax break that the average guy will receive won't buy their family a dinner at Applebee's. It is just more hype and :spin:

You stated> There is only one president and his responsibility is to do the best job he can;

Yes he does, and here in lies the problem. He needs to accept responsibility for mistakes and correct them using the resources available to him. That is what real chief executives do who aren't megalomanics. Even the best of men makes mistakes. The great ones fess up to it and correct their errors, they don't stand there and make arrogant statements that their "election validated their actions". He does not have to make decisions that are popular for all the people, but he does need to BRING THE COUNTRY together as Americans to solve the problems facing us. You don't do that by throwin' good ole fashioned Texas high test gas on the perverbial unification BBQ.

So to answer the big question of this thread: Democrats and ALL politicians flip / flop, it is just a matter of how skillfully it is managed to market the candidate. It's all about getting elected. It has nothing to do with principals or policies which change in the breeze. Here is the new campaign plackard :ws
 
Contrarian said:
I stand corrected on the terminology. Thank you for pointing out my error, however the point is the same. W did not win a landslide. Most people voted AGAINST a candidate, not for them. The election was decided because of three factors:

#1 - FEAR - Plain old scare the sh*t out of people, assuring them that only W and Dick would keep them safe at night. The tactic that works every time! In addition, the clear message was, if you don't agree with the President in a time of war, than you are not a good American ("Traitor" - Ann Coulter). These are very powerful motivators which drove many Dems and Independents to the Bush camp. They drank the Kool-Aid :drink

#2 - KERRY - Though a very smart guy, he had no message, no delivery system, no real party, no Karl Rove and couldn't inspire the confidence of the people that he was able to protect them. He, as you say, flip flopped around trying to find a marketing plan. He just wanted to get elected and basically ran on the "I'm not Bush", platform. He deserved to lose.

#3 - GOD - This country is clearly undergoing a "spiritual revival", and the Preacher in Chief capitalized on it by whipping up a feeding frenzy over gay marriage etc., so he could get Grandma and other non-participants out of their pews and into the polls. Rove further rode on the coat tails of Mel Gibson using a carefully crafted message that the moral high ground belonged to Bush. When Kerry clumsily tried to up his God quotion, he not only looked disingenuous, some Catholic clergy issued statements telling their flock that it was a sin to vote for a sinner. That whole hell and damnation gig again. And, afterall, as I said before, how can you not vote for a guy who has a direct line to God?

The whole voting ones pocketbook to second place to all the issues listed above. Had it been the primary motivator people would have stormed the WHite House demanding to know why the public checkbook has been so abused. The puny little tax break that the average guy will receive won't buy their family a dinner at Applebee's. It is just more hype and :spin:

You stated> There is only one president and his responsibility is to do the best job he can;

Yes he does, and here in lies the problem. He needs to accept responsibility for mistakes and correct them using the resources available to him. That is what real chief executives do who aren't megalomanics. Even the best of men makes mistakes. The great ones fess up to it and correct their errors, they don't stand there and make arrogant statements that their "election validated their actions". He does not have to make decisions that are popular for all the people, but he does need to BRING THE COUNTRY together as Americans to solve the problems facing us. You don't do that by throwin' good ole fashioned Texas high test gas on the perverbial unification BBQ.

So to answer the big question of this thread: Democrats and ALL politicians flip / flop, it is just a matter of how skillfully it is managed to market the candidate. It's all about getting elected. It has nothing to do with principals or policies which change in the breeze. Here is the new campaign plackard :ws

Thank you for an excellent critique of the Combination Republican Victory and Democratic Loss in the Election of 2004.

I won't dispute any of the points you made and consider that the addition of my 'pocketbook' issue completes the picture.

However, that's what politics is all about, isn't it? Projecting one's candidate's strengths and exploiting the weaknesses of one's opponent? The point is winning. If you don't win, what's the point?

With respect to mistakes; every action that does not achieve 110% of a stated, implied, or expected goal is immediately siezed upon by the opposition as an opportunity to hurl slings, arrows, and harpoons at the incumbent.

Any incumbent who confesses to having made a mistake is immediately crucified, then taken down to be drawn and quartered. Such is the nature of the media.

What higher form of validation can there be than re-election, especially considering the visciousness with which the long and grueling Democratic campaign was conducted.

It is well understood in marketing circles that in order to capture market share, a product must differentiate itself from the competition. So, too, is it with politics. Each side develops policies, practices, and programs which are designed to show how beneficially different it is from the other. These, in toto, comprise the party platform which is flogged by the candidates.

Since each platform is different, voters tend to gravitate toward the one that is the closer match to their perception of their needs, wants, and desires. To an extent, it's like the kid in the sweet shop who can make only one choice. Will it be the candy or the ice cream?

Since the last 'event' which united the country was the Second World War, I hope that it never comes together again.
 
The original objective was not winning at all cost, it was to institute policies etc., to improve the country. It should not be to manufacture strengths that do not exist because they appeal to the market at that time. To create falsehoods that incorrectly portray the opponent. Don't you long for a candidate / President with a solid vision and principals that transcend popularity as in Lincoln, Reagan or FDR?... and please don't compare W to Reagan, the poor man will begin to spin in his grave.

In responding to a mistake, there are a few approachs. Humble acceptance of the error and letting the people know you are human... hoping for the best while throwing yourself at the feet of the electorate. OR You can "discover" the mistake within your administration and FIRE some people for the screw up, showing both that you are a leader and decisive, even if you are having your people fall on swords for you. Then there is the George W method, of arrogantly thumbing your nose (flipping the bird is more accurate) at the nation and the world. Defiantly refusing to hold any of the cabinet members or agency people accountable for small foibles like the 9/11 intelligence train wreck. There should have been a shake up and strong messages sent that making the President look like he doesn't know what is happening, will not be tolerated.... did it happen? No - All we got was the defiant rants of an out of control bar room challenge... "yer either with me... or agin' me". It's even bad "reality" TV.

I also wish to remind you that the last event to unite the people of the US was 9/11... W had approval ratings in the 90's. He had the momentum and lost it because he didn't handle the screw ups well, and decided to compound it by initiating a campaign to git the guy who threatened his Daddy, without fully vetting his info. He HAD the country 110% behind him until he decided to tack his personal agenda onto national policy and now it has blown up on him. He was so full of himself and his Texas machismo, it made many of us sick. No little lady, I'm not a swaggerin'... in Texas, we call that walkin' Just what I want to hear from my President.
 
Fantasea said:
Yep, we got you. You're the guy who has no conception of the definition of the word 'lie'.

I am more than prepared to back up every statement I make in this forum.

I will preface my remarks by saying I do get carried away sometimes.
Often when I say "Bush," I may be referring to the Bush administration, or particular members.
I'll try to be clearer about this in the future, but to me it doesn't make much difference. They've all lied...From Bush to Rumsfield to Rice to Cheney or just about anyone else you'd care to mention in the Bush cabinet.
If you have Defense Secretary Rumsfield assurring reporters on March 20, 2003 that...

"We know where Iraq's WMD are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Well, gee...we still had UN weapons inspectors in Iraq at this time!
Why didn't Rumsfield share this information with the inspectors on the ground in Iraq before chasing them out of the country when he launched the war?

I consider this a lie by "Bush" as Rumsfield is a member of the Bush cabinet.

Perhaps Republicans considered this the quaint meanderings of a doddering old fool?

I call it a deliberate deception to the American public, or "lie" for short.

The truth hurts sometimes.
 
Contrarian said:
The original objective was not winning at all cost, it was to institute policies etc., to improve the country. It should not be to manufacture strengths that do not exist because they appeal to the market at that time. To create falsehoods that incorrectly portray the opponent.

I am reminded of a few lines from a song sung by the late Ray Bolger, best known for his portrayal of the Strawman in the film, "The Wizard of Oz", from the musical "Where's Charley".

Love and marriage,
Love and marriage
Go together
Like a horse and carriage
This I tell you brother
You can't have one without the other​

The object lesson here is found in the last line. The party candidates must first be elected or else their policies, practices, and programs can never be turned into legislation.

You can't have one without the other, can you?

Don't you long for a candidate / President with a solid vision and principals that transcend popularity as in Lincoln, Reagan or FDR?... and please don't compare W to Reagan, the poor man will begin to spin in his grave.

It is for a good reason that the president is known as the 'standard bearer'. It is not the president, but the philosophy of the party that controls the congress that determines what happens during his term of office. As a recent example, after the first two years of his presidency, Clinton was unable to do anything that the Republicans didn't want done.

In responding to a mistake, there are a few approachs. Humble acceptance of the error and letting the people know you are human... hoping for the best while throwing yourself at the feet of the electorate.

As the current teen age vernacular would put it, "Yeah, right!"

OR You can "discover" the mistake within your administration and FIRE some people for the screw up, showing both that you are a leader and decisive, even if you are having your people fall on swords for you.

This is much closer to the way the game of popular politics is played. And for good reason. The president of the US is more than just that. Like it or not, he plays a major role on the world stage. All else aside, he cannot be percieved to be a 'weakling'.

Then there is the George W method, of arrogantly thumbing your nose (flipping the bird is more accurate) at the nation and the world. Defiantly refusing to hold any of the cabinet members or agency people accountable for small foibles like the 9/11 intelligence train wreck. There should have been a shake up and strong messages sent that making the President look like he doesn't know what is happening, will not be tolerated.... did it happen? No -

Ah yes. Can't you just see the celebration throughout the Muslim world when Al Jazeera flooded the airways with endless repetition of the news that not only did the terrorists bring down both World Trade towers, but they brought down the Bush government, as well.

I fear that you have much to learn about the practical conduct of politics in the twenty-first century. Like it or not, on the world stage, perception is reality. In the words of Flip Wilson portraying 'Geraldine', the hot chick, "Whut yew see is whut yew git."

All we got was the defiant rants of an out of control bar room challenge... "yer either with me... or agin' me". It's even bad "reality" TV.

Right. The image of the tough Texas sheriff who takes no guff, who assembled the posse and took off after bad guys is probably the main reason why we haven't had another attack on the homeland.

I also wish to remind you that the last event to unite the people of the US was 9/11... W had approval ratings in the 90's. He had the momentum and lost it because he didn't handle the screw ups well,

How long did it last? Only until the Democrats thought they saw the first opportunity to begin their attack. Their sniping started in early 2002 and escalated all through the runup to the primaries at which time it shifted into overdrive.

and decided to compound it by initiating a campaign to git the guy who threatened his Daddy, without fully vetting his info. He HAD the country 110% behind him until he decided to tack his personal agenda onto national policy and now it has blown up on him. He was so full of himself and his Texas machismo, it made many of us sick. No little lady, I'm not a swaggerin'... in Texas, we call that walkin' Just what I want to hear from my President.

What else could he do? Clinton refused to stand up to an attack on a former president. He refused to stand up to an attack on US embassies in Aftica. He refused to stand up to the attack on the USS Cole. And the list goes on.

On the other hand, we could have had Al Gore, instead. As Clinton's protoge' he'd still be contemplating his navel trying to figure out what it was that we did to cause those Arabs to be so nasty. After all the Chinese loved us after we gave them the technology that finally got their ICBMs to work.
 
Hoot said:
The truth hurts sometimes.

Yes. But not as much as the damage inflicted, and the aid and comfort given to the enemy, by 'patriots' who believe that in times of stife, the best course of action is not to get the job finished, but to immediately, brutally, constantly, consistently, and vociferously attack, attack, attack, their own Commander-in-Chief.

Monday morning quarterbacking is close to becoming an Olympic event. However, the medals it awarded as a result of this activity are not round shaped in gold, silver, and bronze. They are heart shaped in purple.

Yes, one has the right to speak out. However, one also has the responsibility to sometimes refrain from doing so.
 
This is just bad. Of course there's a "connection" between Iraq and Al Qaeda, just as there is a connection between Al Qaeda in many other countries. In fact, it could be said the the United States harbors Al Qaeda terrorists. They are known to have a presence right here in the good ol' US of A. If anyone looks hard enough at any Muslim country (and probably many industrialized countries) I'm willing to bet you will find a connection, however slight it may be, between them and Al Qaeda. The point is Iraq was a bad choice for war (and there really were no good choices, but I would have hoped Mr. Bush would have done something with the Palestinian crisis instead of engaging an unneeded country that had no plans of harming us). Saddam had, for whatever reason, stopped his mass murders. So much for the humanitarian argument. Any WMD's Saddam may have had were supplied by the USA, NOT Al Qaeda. There goes any significant connection. Now we just sit and wait for Bush's next excuse, uh I mean valid reason, for invading Iraq.
 
Fant said:
Yes. But not as much as the damage inflicted, and the aid and comfort given to the enemy, by 'patriots' who believe that in times of stife, the best course of action is not to get the job finished, but to immediately, brutally, constantly, consistently, and vociferously attack, attack, attack, their own Commander-in-Chief.

Yes we should just go along with whatever our Commander-in-Chief decides to do. Every decision he makes is PERFECT! Let him do whatever he wants! While we're at it, we can forgive him if he takes money from the government to buy a new car. Hey why doesn't he create a castle with government money! Great idea! How about tearing up the Constitution? Who needs that silly thing anyway?

The point is, the decisions the "Commander-in-Chief" (funny, he was in the Champagne Division during the Vietnam war and he's the LAST person I'd want military advice from) have been totally irrational. It's our DUTY to critique the president and his decisions in hopes that he will correct his errors.

He's just a silly country boy being manipulated because of his familiy and his stupidity. He doesn't run anything anyway. Have you seen him speak? 'Nuff said.
 
you are correct in all but one thing...

W is not a "good ole boy", simple man of the people. That is a well crafted facade to appeal to the masses. He is the son of one of New England oldest, stuffiest patrician lineages around. He is CT wealth and power in a cowboy wrapper. He is a spoiled child of big money who had everything bought for him through the influence of BOTH sides of his family. The most elite private Prep schools; his family legacy got his dumb ass into Yale and later Harvard Business School. Neither of which he was qualified for. His Daddy got him into the No Show Guard instead of in country (Vietnam) with the little people. His Daddy got him his oil business which he tanked, his baseball team which he screwed up, HIS GOVERNORSHIP through political cronies. Then the big prize.

His record is consistent. Daddy and the family bought it... and little Georgie screws it up. It would be like Jenna Bush (the partying one) deciding in 15 years she wants to run for office>>> CONSIDER THIS:

From "the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree" department, or perhaps just from "a child left behind" when US history or geography was being taught or during several campaign visits W made to Iowa - where was Ms. Bush?

On the last day of the campaign, Jenna Bush, recently graduated from the
Univ. of Texas, declared that she and her sister, Barbara, would be
joining their parents in an Iowa town, Sioux City, which Jenna
pronounced "Sigh-yocks City."

NY Times 1/20/05

It's one thing not to get into Yale even with Daddy and Grandpa's considerable leverage, but to be just like the old man is... priceless.
 
heyjoeo said:
Yes we should just go along with whatever our Commander-in-Chief decides to do. Every decision he makes is PERFECT! Let him do whatever he wants! While we're at it, we can forgive him if he takes money from the government to buy a new car. Hey why doesn't he create a castle with government money! Great idea! How about tearing up the Constitution? Who needs that silly thing anyway?

First, let me point out that your attempt at sarcasm falls flat. If you wish it to improve, I suggest that you expand your vocabulary and practice your editing skills bearing in mind that 'brevity is the soul of wit'.

Secondly, I knew this would happen. My failure to explain things in sufficient detail, caused you to fail to grasp the meaning I intended to convey. However, since you don't like lengthy commentary, I thought I would try being brief. It seems I was wrong. It didn't work.

The point is, there is a time and a place for everything. As an example, preparing the next day's menu was not the best thing to be doing while the Titanic was sinking.

If you take the time to read the books of the North Vietnamese military commanders, you will learn that the whipping they took during the January, 1968 Tet Offensive brought them to their knees and had them trying to figure out a way to end the hostilities. During the next two months, while they were getting their act together, waves of 'lefty' inspired protest broke out across the US. When they recognized that the war was being won in the streets of the US, they regrouped and instead of head to head battles, they just concentrated on raising the US KIA count through guerilla tactics.

In their books they write that the activities of the protestors gave them the heart to continue for the next three years until the US finally was worn down and went home.

Yes, the protestors were exercising a right. However, in the intervening three years, there were an additional 20,000 US KIA. It seems that free speech is not always free.

The point is, the decisions the "Commander-in-Chief" (funny, he was in the Champagne Division during the Vietnam war and he's the LAST person I'd want military advice from) have been totally irrational. It's our DUTY to critique the president and his decisions in hopes that he will correct his errors.

It's the duty of the socialist-lib-dems to scratch and claw any way they can to try to regain the political power they once enjoyed but have frittered away. The only way they can do this is to incessently yap and snap at the heels of the president. If duty was their concern, they would want to do anything they could, a la World War II to get this thing finished ASAP.

The terrorists were doing everything they could think of in an effort to get Bush out of the White House. I wonder why?

He's just a silly country boy being manipulated because of his familiy and his stupidity. He doesn't run anything anyway. Have you seen him speak? 'Nuff said.

No, I have never seen him speak. But this is because I do not hear with my eyes.
 
Last edited:
Fant said:
'brevity is the soul of wit'

You fool. You are the LAST person to talk about brevity. What did I tell you? You are a pseudo-intellectual that hides behind verbosity. Your pretentious "opinions" are so off-base that it isn't worth my time to rebuttle. All of what you said in the previous post can be summed up into: "Wahhhh. It's those dirty liberals fault for KIAs in Vietnam! Those liberals shouldn't be bashing anything! They lost, so they don't have a right to critique because they are just angry!"

*shakes head* Poor, poor Fant...
 
heyjoeo said:
You fool. You are the LAST person to talk about brevity. What did I tell you? You are a pseudo-intellectual that hides behind verbosity. Your pretentious "opinions" are so off-base that it isn't worth my time to rebuttle. All of what you said in the previous post can be summed up into: "Wahhhh. It's those dirty liberals fault for KIAs in Vietnam! Those liberals shouldn't be bashing anything! They lost, so they don't have a right to critique because they are just angry!"

*shakes head* Poor, poor Fant...
My comment was, "Brevity is the soul of wit." When I post a witticism, it is brief. However, when I offer an explanation, it must contain whatever number of words are required to ensure that there will be no misunderstanding. But that doesn't always work either, does it? No, it doesn't.

You read my comments and you understand them. That's all that matters. Whether you rebut or not is of no consequence. When you can, you will and when you don't, you can't.

Your comment, quoted above, is a perfect example of what I mean.
 
Fant said:
Your comment, quoted above, is a perfect example of what I mean.

Thanks for admitting that I'm right. You do hide behind the cloak of words and end up whining and blaming everything on "socialist-lib-democrats" isn't that the word you use?
 
heyjoe... even a broken clock is right twice a day.

It is however disturbing that someone who is obviously passionate about your beliefs, you fail to see the importance of attempting to know or even research the facts. While I agree with Fantasea on very little, I do respect the effort and thought that goes into the presentation of his opinion. YOU are the one who is out of line in calling Fantasea a "fool" and a "pseudo-intellectual" simply because he has the capability of putting a sentence together as part of a comprehensive paragraph. You should try it some time.

Disagreement with someones opinion is the purpose of this forum. Denegrating someone as a person is not.

The depth of your intellect is not served by your drive-by shooting style.

Fantasea, I repeat: "Never argue with an idiot, people will not be able to tell the two of you apart" - William F. Buckley
 
Last edited:
I'm just jumping in here...LOL

>>In their books they write that the activities of the protestors gave them the heart to continue for the next three years until the US finally was worn down and went home. <<Fantasea

One difference I'd like to point out between Vietnam and Iraq..

Am I changing the subject? LOL

The South Vietnamese asked us to help with the agression from the North.

No one asked us to help Iraq.
This is the first time in the history of our nation that we attacked and invaded a country that didn't attack us. Makes all of us proud to be Americans, right? LOL

I can understand how Vietnam era protestors hurt the war effort. I agree they probably did.
But this was the first war that was broadcast nightly on the news.
I can remember watching the boob tube and the major networks would have a total dead count in the corner of the screen while talking about Vietnam!
What was it? 68,000... or something like that?

That was hard to take.

Even harder was the fact that the average age of those in Vietnam was 19!

But at least we went into Vietnam for 'just' reasons.

It's just our dumb luck we have a president that takes us into this mess.
 
Contrarian, there is a difference. He isn't saying anything important. It's like when you sit down, and a teacher gives you a 500 word essay. You write 300 words. "Oh no! I need more words!" so you bullshit your way through it. You have all this extra crap, but you still mean those 300 words. Not only that, but he continuely makes very racist and snobbish remarks and sweeping generalizations that denegrate those groups of people. He's nothing but a snob with way too much time on his hands.

My drive by shooting style is only because, unlike Fant, I don't have 1-2 hrs a day when I can sit around proving why Fant is wrong on most issues.

Fant can make sentences you are right. However he hides behind the cloak of a large vocabulary. These kinds of people don't deserve my respect. You may think he's "intellectual" but he isn't. I see right through him.
 
Heyjoe, everyone's opinion is important. It separates us as Americans from a major chunk of the world. I may not agree with what Fant says, but I will defend his right to say it.

A persons opinions and ideology are fair game, but a personal attack lowers the standing of the person who does it. Regardless of what you believe you "know". Fant takes the time to research his position and come to conclusions based upon how he interprets that information. In my humble opinion, I think it is distorted right wing spoon fed nonsense, based upon a self righteous holyer than thou conservative drivel.... but Fant IS intellectually endowed, and deserves respect as such. The President who he supports, deserves respect for the OFFICE he holds, regardless of the fact that he is NOT the brightest bulb on the christmas tree and he is a spoiled megalomaniac who never learned to play with the other kids in the sand box. His policies and his competency to do the job are fair game, but he might be a very nice person when he isn't killing people.

You are obviously a smart person as well, as I said, don't diminish who you are by making outburst attacks on the person. You look bad, and should be the voice of reason. Win the arguement with your version of the facts and a strong defense of your belief systems. Back up whatever you say and it cannot be defeated.
 
Back
Top Bottom