• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

Ditto Adolph!

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The following is an exerpt from Mein Kampf with the words "Jew" and "Germany" replaced with "Liberal" and "America" respectively:

"It must be admitted that all this was partly the result of extraordinary crafty tactics on the part of Liberals on the one hand, and obvious official stupidity or naïveté on the other hand. The Liberals were too clever to allow a simultaneous attack to be made on the whole of their Press. No one section functioned as cover for the other. ...the national papers, also in Liberal hands, knew how to camouflage themselves as model examples of objectivity. They studiously avoided harsh language, knowing well that blockheads are capable of judging only by external appearances and never able to penetrate to the real depth and meaning of anything. ... This form of human frailty was carefully studied and understood by the Liberal Press..

Certainly in days to come the Liberals will raise a tremendous cry throughout their newspapers once a hand is laid on their favorite nest, once a move is made to put an end to this scandalous Liberal Press and once this instrument which shapes public opinion is brought under Conservative control and no longer left in the hands of Liberals and enemies of the people. I am certain that this will be easier for us than it was for our fathers. The scream of the twelve-inch shrapnel is more penetrating than the hiss from a thousand Liberal newspaper vipers. Therefore let them go on with their hissing..

By means of the Liberal Press, the Liberals spread the colossal falsehood about 'American Militarism' throughout the world and tried to inculpate America by every possible means, while at the same time the Democratic Party refused to assent to the measures that were necessary for the adequate training of our national defense forces. .

What soon gave me cause for very serious consideration were the activities of the Liberals in certain branches of life, into the mystery of which I penetrated little by little. Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Liberal did not participate? On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Liberal who was often blinded by the sudden light.

In my eyes the charge against Liberalism became a grave one the moment I discovered the Liberal activities in the Press, in art, in literature and the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. ... Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was being infected..

I was happy at last to know for certain that a Liberal is not an American."

Sound familiar?

Source: zenpickle.com.
See also: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1220-20.htm
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
argexpat said:
Yes, just listen to Rush Limbaugh, or any of his copycat blowhards on right-wing radio. The similarities are uncanny.
I don't know. Perhaps this cold winter weather is causing my brain to hybernate. Would you care to explain the similarities to which you refer?
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
Would you care to explain the similarities to which you refer?
"The Liberals were too clever to allow a simultaneous attack to be made on the whole of their Press."

Hitler claimed the Jews contoled the press. Republicans claim liberals not only control the press, but "the media."

"...the national papers, also in Liberal hands, knew how to camouflage themselves as model examples of objectivity."

Republicans claim the media, controled by liberals, pretends to be objective when really it's biased. Hence Fox News's laughable "fair and balanced" slogan.

"By means of the Liberal Press, the Liberals spread the colossal falsehood about 'American Militarism' throughout the world and tried to inculpate America by every possible means, while at the same time the Democratic Party refused to assent to the measures that were necessary for the adequate training of our national defense forces... "

Republicans accuse the "blame America first" liberals of treason for criticizing American imperialism, and want to weaken it by blocking defense spending. (This charge was the cornerstone of Bush's baseless and despicable attack on Kerry.)

"Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Liberal did not participate?"

Liberal Hollywood? Culture wars? Hello!

"I was happy at last to know for certain that a Liberal is not an American."

Republicans claim the "blue states" aren't real America, and Democrats don't represent real Americans, and they are the standard bearers of patriotic American ideals.

These are all standard Republican talking points hammered incessantly in the right-wing press.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
argexpat said:
"The Liberals were too clever to allow a simultaneous attack to be made on the whole of their Press."

Hitler claimed the Jews contoled the press. Republicans claim liberals not only control the press, but "the media."

"...the national papers, also in Liberal hands, knew how to camouflage themselves as model examples of objectivity."

Republicans claim the media, controled by liberals, pretends to be objective when really it's biased. Hence Fox News's laughable "fair and balanced" slogan.

"By means of the Liberal Press, the Liberals spread the colossal falsehood about 'American Militarism' throughout the world and tried to inculpate America by every possible means, while at the same time the Democratic Party refused to assent to the measures that were necessary for the adequate training of our national defense forces... "

Republicans accuse the "blame America first" liberals of treason for criticizing American imperialism, and want to weaken it by blocking defense spending. (This charge was the cornerstone of Bush's baseless and despicable attack on Kerry.)

"Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Liberal did not participate?"

Liberal Hollywood? Culture wars? Hello!

"I was happy at last to know for certain that a Liberal is not an American."

Republicans claim the "blue states" aren't real America, and Democrats don't represent real Americans, and they are the standard bearers of patriotic American ideals.

These are all standard Republican talking points hammered incessantly in the right-wing press.
It seems to me that you have the makings of a Hollywood blockbuster here. Perhaps you should hook up with Michael Moore of Farenheit 9-11 fame. I think he's ready for his next piece of fiction. :p
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
It seems to me that you have the makings of a Hollywood blockbuster here. Perhaps you should hook up with Michael Moore of Farenheit 9-11 fame. I think he's ready for his next piece of fiction. :p
Oh my GAWD! That's genius! Here's the pitch: Hitler, cryogenically preserved after WWII, is thawed and gets his own show on Fox News!...I'm calling Moore's agent now!
 

Kevin Johnson

New member
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
25
Reaction score
1
Location
Springfield, IL
So basically you're saying the American right looks like WWII Nazi Germany because they recognize the liberal bias in the mainstream media?

What an amazing leap of imagination. Your parents must be very proud.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kevin Johnson said:
So basically you're saying the American right looks like WWII Nazi Germany because they recognize the liberal bias in the mainstream media?
No, the American right looks like WWII Nazi Germany because they demogogue a phantom liberal bias, engage in specious argumentation and pander to ignorance and bigotry for political gain, to be precice.:soap

My parents are quite proud, thank you!
 

Kevin Johnson

New member
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
25
Reaction score
1
Location
Springfield, IL
argexpat said:
No, the American right looks like WWII Nazi Germany because they demogogue a phantom liberal bias, engage in specious argumentation and pander to ignorance and bigotry for political gain, to be precice.:soap

My parents are quite proud, thank you!
WHO panders to ignorance and bigotry? Surely you must be joking. Michael Moore absolutely RELIES on the ignorance of liberals to accept his propaganda. Luckily for him there's plenty of ignorance on the liberal side of the aisle to keep him going for years. And bigotry? I've never seen more intolerance than I have from the democrats. Been to Democratic Underground lately? The bigotry and intolerance there easily rivals the worst hatred and vitriol of the KKK in their worst days.

I guess your parents love hypocrites.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kevin Johnson said:
WHO panders to ignorance and bigotry?
The corner stone of Bush's political attack ads against Kerry was an exploitation of voter's ignorance of senate voting procedure. ("Kerry voted six million times to eliminate the defense budget and send our troops into battle with spit balls...")

Calling for a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage is naked pandering to Christian homophobia...and it worked!


Kevin Johnson said:
Michael Moore absolutely RELIES on the ignorance of liberals to accept his propaganda.
Dude, the only people that take Michael Moore seriously are Republicans. To the rest of us he's a fat guy who makes entertaining documentaries. He, along with all his blowhard counter parts on the right like Limbaugh and O'Reilly and Coulter, should be taken with industrial sized grains of salt.

Moore makes a two-hour documentary every few years. (He's had two TV shows that got canceled after short runs.) His audience has to specifically seek him out and plunk down money to see his
movies. All tolled, his four documentaries equal roughly eight hours of material. He works in a genre that is notoriously unglamorous, obscure and difficult. (Can you name one other famous documentary filmmaker?) No one makes documentaries to get famous, let alone rich. In spite of this, Moore has been spectacularly successful.

Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, reaches tens of millions of people on free commercial radio in virtually every market in the country for several hours FIVE DAYS A WEEK. And he's done this for over a decade. Dittoheads are legion. Add to that the dozens of other Limbaugh copycats (including Bill O'Reilly, Sean
Hannity and the hate-mongering Michael Savage) and there's several more million listeners daily. And aside from the recently launched Air America network, there is no partisan liberal counterpart to this right-wing monopoly of free broadcast radio.

Again, Moore doesn't make policy, he makes films. (To you it's agitprop, to me it's political satire. That's the beauty of free speech!) Moore is a classic Republican straw bogeyman, and all this Moore-bashing is just a red herring to divert attention from the real power center. Republicans control Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court and most state governorships. But Michael Moore is on Letterman? Man the battle stations!

And speaking of Rush, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he an official advisor to both Bushes? I know for a fact both GW and Cheney were guests on his show during the campaign. And this is the guy who compared Abu Ghraib to a fraternity prank (http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444) and despite a
self-proclaimed "relentless search for the truth" never seems to find it:

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html
http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/limbaugh.html

http://mediamatters.org/archives/se...+Limbaugh&topic=&topic=&go=Search&t=0&p=0&t=0

Moore was never an advisor to the Kerry campaign, or any other democrat as far as I know. You Republicans need a Moore-ectomy...right after you get that Clinton-ectomy.

Lastly, here's proof of Republican ignorance:

Iraq, WMD, and al Qaeda
"A large majority of Bush supporters believe that before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or a major program for building them. A substantial majority of Bush supporters
assume that most experts believe Iraq had WMD, and that this was the conclusion of the recently released report by Charles Duelfer. A large majority of Bush supporters believes that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda and that clear evidence of this support has been found. A large majority believes that most experts also have this view, and a substantial majority believe that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Large majorities of Kerry supporters believe
the opposite on all these points."

P.S. Yes, I misspelled hypocrite...you got me!
 

Kevin Johnson

New member
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
25
Reaction score
1
Location
Springfield, IL
Good Lord, where do I start? Guess the beginning is as good a place as any...

argexpat said:
The corner stone of Bush's political attack ads against Kerry was an exploitation of voter's ignorance of senate voting procedure. ("Kerry voted six million times to eliminate the defense budget and send our troops into battle with spit balls...")
Whatever procedure is, the evidence is there in black and white. Are you saying Kerry did NOT vote against nearly every vote to fund military programs? Think hard before you answer, because you and I both know he did.

Kerry depended on the ignorance and apathy of the electorate at large. He thought he could get away with just spouting platitudes and claim he had secret plans to fix everything. Unfortunately for him, American's are starting to get tired of words without substance.

Calling for a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage is naked pandering to Christian homophobia...and it worked!
It's called responding to the wishes of the vast majority of the nation, which incidentally also happens to be the republican base. All you have to do is look at the numbers in every state where a gay marriage initiative was on the ballot. They were almost all overwhelmingly defeated. And it has nothing to do with homophobia. Nobody is afraid of homosexuals. I just don't see the need to give them tacit approval of their lifestyle by legitimizing it with marriage. Personally, I couldn't care less if a person is gay, but don't expect me to approve of it and don't expect me to stay silent just because they think they should be able to get married.

Dude, the only people that take Michael Moore seriously are Republicans. To the rest of us he's a fat guy who makes entertaining documentaries. He, along with all his blowhard counter parts on the right like Limbaugh and O'Reilly and Coulter, should be taken with industrial sized grains of salt.
Seems to me you take him seriously. You're still calling his crap "documentaries" when they're nothing close. As far as Coulter, Limbaugh & O'Reilly go, I really don't listen to them or read their work, so I can't really speak for what they do.

Moore makes a two-hour documentary every few years. (He's had two TV shows that got canceled after short runs.) His audience has to specifically seek him out and plunk down money to see his movies. All tolled, his four documentaries equal roughly eight hours of material. He works in a genre that is notoriously unglamorous, obscure and difficult. (Can you name one other famous documentary filmmaker?) No one makes documentaries to get famous, let alone rich. In spite of this, Moore has been spectacularly successful.
He's been successful because he DOESN'T make documentaries, he peddles fantasy as if it's real. I recall the "Blair Witch Project" was quite successful at the same thing. Much of Moore's success was due to the publicity his outlandish actions and outright lies in his movies. It's like a train wreck, you don't want to stare but you just can't help it. And face it, people are always thrilled to hear what they want to believe, no matter how outlandish it is. That's why you still have goofball democrats claiming the 2004 election was stolen and there's some vast conspiracy to keep republicans in the White House.

Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, reaches tens of millions of people on free commercial radio in virtually every market in the country for several hours FIVE DAYS A WEEK. And he's done this for over a decade. Dittoheads are legion. Add to that the dozens of other Limbaugh copycats (including Bill O'Reilly, Sean
Hannity and the hate-mongering Michael Savage) and there's several more million listeners daily. And aside from the recently launched Air America network, there is no partisan liberal counterpart to this right-wing monopoly of free broadcast radio.
As you said about Michael Moore, it's not like anyone is forced to listen to these people. Obviously a large percentage of American's identify with and share their views, and this last election bears that out. I know it must suck to realize your progressive secular views are the minority view in this country, but it's just a simple fact of life. Get used to it, because conservative America is tired of the liberal "progressive" minority pretending they're the majority, and you're going to get put back in your place over the next several years.

Again, Moore doesn't make policy, he makes films. (To you it's agitprop, to me it's political satire. That's the beauty of free speech!) Moore is a classic Republican straw bogeyman, and all this Moore-bashing is just a red herring to divert attention from the real power center. Republicans control Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court and most state governorships. But Michael Moore is on Letterman? Man the battle stations.
Political satire or documentary? Please make up your mind and pick one. Obviously you believe most of the crap he spews or you wouldn't be defending him so vigorously. What he does isn't satire, because he tries to present it as fact. It's nothing more than pure slander & libel. The "war" against Moore is nothing more than refuting and debunking the lies he tells on a daily basis.

And speaking of Rush, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he an official advisor to both Bushes? I know for a fact both GW and Cheney were guests on his show during the campaign. And this is the guy who compared Abu Ghraib to a fraternity prank (http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444) and despite a
self-proclaimed "relentless search for the truth" never seems to find it:

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/...es-reality.html
http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/limbaugh.html

http://mediamatters.org/archives/se...rch&t=0&p=0&t=0
What do I care if Rush is an advisor to the Bush's? They have a right to employ anyone they want. Rush is obviously a smart guy, so if they want advice from him in addition to all the other advisors he has, that's his prerogative.

Moore was never an advisor to the Kerry campaign, or any other democrat as far as I know. You Republicans need a Moore-ectomy...right after you get that Clinton-ectomy.
Who cares? He's still a fat lying piece of garbage, a propaganda artist who peddles his lies to anyone dumb enough to pay money for his fairy tales. As far as Clinton, I believe this is the first time he's come up in our conversations, and YOU'RE the one that brought him up, not me. He's an irrelevant has-been in my book. He seems to be on your mind though. Perhaps there's some Freudian action going on there with you...

Lastly, here's proof of Republican ignorance:

Iraq, WMD, and al Qaeda
"A large majority of Bush supporters believe that before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or a major program for building them. A substantial majority of Bush supporters
assume that most experts believe Iraq had WMD, and that this was the conclusion of the recently released report by Charles Duelfer. A large majority of Bush supporters believes that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda and that clear evidence of this support has been found. A large majority believes that most experts also have this view, and a substantial majority believe that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Large majorities of Kerry supporters believe
the opposite on all these points.
So now any republican opinion is just "ignorance"? Give me a break. You'd have to be an idiot to think Saddam wasn't working on a WMD program. Perhaps YOU can dismiss all the increased traffic of heavy trucks into Syria just before the military action began, but most people with a functioning brain can put 2 and 2 together. If you can't, just go watch another Michael Moore fantasy, it's obviously more your speed.

If you're really a student, I feel sorry for your instructors. They must go nuts having to explain the simplest things to you over and over again, all the while knowing you still don't and probably never will get it.

Send them my sympathies.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
argexpat said:
Iraq, WMD, and al Qaeda
"A large majority of Bush supporters believe that before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or a major program for building them. A substantial majority of Bush supporters
assume that most experts believe Iraq had WMD, and that this was the conclusion of the recently released report by Charles Duelfer. A large majority of Bush supporters believes that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda and that clear evidence of this support has been found. A large majority believes that most experts also have this view, and a substantial majority believe that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Large majorities of Kerry supporters believe
the opposite on all these points."
For several months, I've been trying to get someone, anyone, to list the names of a couple of a couple of prominent individuals who, prior to the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, publicly stated that they believed that Iraq did not possess any WMDs.

Thus far, I have been unsuccessful. Who can do it? Who is willing to try?
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70913FE3E5A0C738DDDAA0894DC404482

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1010-01.htm
http://slate.com/id/2105434

Besides, considering the consequences, isn't it the president's job to know what's really going on? His job isn't to "believe" he's doing the right thing, it's to actually do the right thing. If I make a collosal blunder at work that causes the company harm, I can't say "I thought it was the right thing to do at the time." I'd get my ass canned, and rightly so.
 

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
I would have expected links from sources prior to actually going to war - Example: February 2003. Not from links of articles printed during an election year from bastions of neutrality such as provided mentioning people who said they said they didn't think there were any.
 

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
And re: the entire premise of this thread - YOU ARE RIGHT! Oh MY GAW! I must enlist now to round up all the liberals and get started on those concentration camps. After all, you've made the connection so clear - it is the Nazi/Republican way. Oh wait. It's not. And you're not. And they weren't.

You know what makes Nazis and Republicans different in a way that shows Conservatives have got it right? In addition to abiding by our Constitution, we actually believe in it strictly! *Gasp* And, we have the strength of character to allow completely childish viewpoints and ill conceived notions without creating a violent genocidal uprising as long as you're not getting physical about it either.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
argexpat said:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70913FE3E5A0C738DDDAA0894DC404482

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1010-01.htm
http://slate.com/id/2105434

Besides, considering the consequences, isn't it the president's job to know what's really going on? His job isn't to "believe" he's doing the right thing, it's to actually do the right thing. If I make a collosal blunder at work that causes the company harm, I can't say "I thought it was the right thing to do at the time." I'd get my ass canned, and rightly so.
The inaccuracy of your response which cites web pages dated in the year 2004 indicates that you have either misread or misunderstood my challenge. Therefore, I've repeated it below and have highlighted the qualifying phrase.

For several months, I've been trying to get someone, anyone, to list the names of a couple of a couple of prominent individuals who, prior to the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, publicly stated that they believed that Iraq did not possess any WMDs.

Thus far, I have been unsuccessful. Who can do it? Who is willing to try?
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
The inaccuracy of your response which cites web pages dated in the year 2004 indicates that you have either misread or misunderstood my challenge. Therefore, I've repeated it below and have highlighted the qualifying phrase.

For several months, I've been trying to get someone, anyone, to list the names of a couple of a couple of prominent individuals who, prior to the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, publicly stated that they believed that Iraq did not possess any WMDs.

Thus far, I have been unsuccessful. Who can do it? Who is willing to try?

From the Slate Magazine article:

"But if those of us who thought Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons are to escape censure, minimal fairness demands that those who said Iraq did not possess these weapons be accorded some belated respect. But with very few exceptions (the Boston Globe is one), the press in the United States continues to treat Ritter as either a leper or a clown. To some, the very fact that Ritter was right is precisely what causes offense. Columnist Collin Levey in the April 16 Seattle Times, complained that Ritter wants credit and glory as a prophet for saying that Iraq's WMD programs were a myth or at least severely curtailed. In February, he wrote a self-satisfied told-ya-so piece in the International Herald Tribune. "Not everyone was wrong," he wrote. "I, for one, was not."

But if Ritter is blowing his own horn, that may be because nobody else is going to blow it for him. I bet he'd have preferred to blow it on the op-ed page of the New York Times or Washington Post, two places where his byline has lately been scarce."

Scott Ritter was a weapons inspector who knew there weren't any WMD, and he stated it publically before the war.

But you chose to ignore the bigger question I posed. So I'll state it again: considering the consequences, isn't it the president's job to know what's really going on? His job isn't to "believe" he's doing the right thing, it's to actually do the right thing. If I make a collosal blunder at work that causes the company harm, I can't say "I thought it was the right thing to do at the time." I'd get my ass canned, and rightly so. Bush eigther lied or was ignorant, which was it?
 
Last edited:

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From Factcheck.org http://www.factcheck.org/article153.html:

"Bush has portrayed a Kerry deficit-cutting bill from a decade ago as a proposal to "slash" spending on intelligence in the face of a rising threat of terrorism. The fact is that what Kerry proposed and voted for in 1994 amounted to less than 4 percent of all intelligence spending at the time. Back then, the*focus of intelligence spending was still the former Soviet Union, which was disintegrating, and Republicans were proposing cuts in intelligence spending, too. Even the current director of Central Intelligence, appointed by Bush, co-sponsored a deficit-elimination bill that contained a proposed*20 percent cut in intelligence personnel the year after Kerry proposed his much smaller percentage cut in overall spending."

What Bush didn't tell you is that Cheney proposed the same or similar cuts when he was Defense Secretary, thus exploiting Republican ignorance of not just Senate voting procedure, but history itself.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kevin Johnson said:
If you're really a student, I feel sorry for your instructors. They must go nuts having to explain the simplest things to you over and over again, all the while knowing you still don't and probably never will get it.

Send them my sympathies.
Dude, spare me your withering ad hominem attacks and infantile schoolyard taunts. It's tiresome and belies a lack of argumentation skills. If you have an argument to make then do so and leave me, my parents and my instructors out of it.
 

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
argexpat said:
But you chose to ignore the bigger question I posed. So I'll state it again: considering the consequences, isn't it the president's job to know what's really going on? His job isn't to "believe" he's doing the right thing, it's to actually do the right thing.... Bush eigther lied or was ignorant, which was it?
For the record, the *bigger* issue here is not the *I gotcha* moment you'd like to have with the President for beginning a war that was to come about some day - it's the war itself. This WMD issue is a pissant pre-election issue serving no purpose other than to make you feel smug.

The argument you've presented for rebuttal is based on the premise Bush was wrong. I will only concede that it was very convenient WMDs that meet the strict liberal standards were not *found*. And, BTW I'm so glad you found one reference to some obscure guy even the NYT and Post won't print. But let's still take a count of all the people who believe Saddam had them then. America, Britain, some other countries who saw fit to assist, blah blah blah. Then let's take a look at the fact that we announced our war plans and hundreds of trucks drove out of the desert into Syria. All very circumstantial, but then so is trying to prove a negative. Let's just either say the jury is still out on the WMD issue or, I'll even judge acquitted, but without prejudice.

Wouldn't it have been so much easier if France, Russia and China had piped up and said they knew Saddam didn't have any WMDs that meet the very strict liberal definition because they'd developed a lucrative "business arrangement" (European definition of Oil for Food Program) and of course Saddam would never jeopardize the sincere deal they all had going on together? I think maybe that would have opened up talks for another round of diplomatic tactics.
 

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
And one more thing, since you brought up the situation of what you'd be responsible for in a similar predicament at your work:

If you took over a position in a company, got intel about awful things happening with no redress on the previous guy's watch and worse yet to come, and the agencies who were supposed to be regulating were getting kickbacks and not inclined to look into your complaints, so then you and a couple of your work friends see fit to make a change in the company's policy to make the company responsible to citizens and its employees even at the expense of a little blood letting and fiscal concern, I'd hope the shareholders would see fit to keep you on as an honest man doing an honest job.

But you'd probably be right that they'd try to hang you out to dry...damn capitalists.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kevin Johnson said:
WHO panders to ignorance and bigotry?
The Republican party.

Kevin Johnson said:
Surely you must be joking. ?
Nope, totally serious.

Kevin Johnson said:
Michael Moore absolutely RELIES on the ignorance of liberals to accept his propaganda. ?
Last I checked, Moore wasn't on any ballots, George W. Bush was. Big difference. Let me remind you, because apparently you're confused about this: Michael Moore makes films, not policy. George W. Bush is the president of the United States. When he lies, people die.

Kevin Johnson said:
Been to Democratic Underground lately??
No. Never heard of it. But you have. Interesting, isn't it?

Kevin Johnson said:
I guess your parents love hypocrites.?
Ad hominem attacks are evidence of a small, feeble mind. (Please let me know if you need "ad hominem" defined.)
 
Last edited:

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
Kevin Johnson said:
WHO panders to ignorance and bigotry?

argepax said:
The Republican party.
Argepax - You have shown MINIMAL ability to debate without insinuations or direct slanderous generalizations against the Party being the centerpiece of your "rebuttal". This is a debate forum.

You should bring your own ideas with clarifying points - not just links to other people's articles and tart snide remarks.

I think the reference to DU was to encourage you to go someplace a little more your speed because you are not adding anything of value to the debates at this forum. At DU, you can stick with like-minded individuals that you don't have to articulate your true underlying values which make up your position. You can call the President a lying, ignorant, pompous ass in every thread and not be obligated by the forum ideology to explain yourself each time.

See, at the bottom of the website there is a plea for respecting others ideas and values here. The actual person with whom you're having an actual debate is trying their darnedest to enlighten you as to why they feel the way they do. Not everyone fits into your Nazi - Bigot - Homophobic - Ignorant labels so neatly. It wastes time if we all have to begin by proving that to you.

So, If you're not going to reciprocate with something more than one-liners or other people's work, again, maybe a different forum is for you.
 
Last edited:

Kevin Johnson

New member
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
25
Reaction score
1
Location
Springfield, IL
argexpat said:
The Republican party.
You're obviously not paying attention if you think it's the Republican party that panders to ignorance & bigotry.

Nope, totally serious.
That's probably the saddest part of all. You really do believe the garbage you spew.

Last I checked, Moore wasn't on any ballots, George W. Bush was. Big difference. Let me remind you, because apparently you're confused about this: Michael Moore makes films, not policy. George W. Bush is the president of the United States. When he lies, people die.
See, this is where I get the distinct impression you're not too bright. I'll make the connection for you. Michael Moore makes films, and his films influence the people who elect our policy makers. He has a responsibility to the people to be truthful and accurate with his influence, otherwise he's doing nothing more than misleading poor misguided folks who don't know any better than to believe a liar.

No. Never heard of it. But you have. Interesting, isn't it?
I'm sure you haven't. It's something you should check out, it's where all the anti-American Bush haters hang out, free from any vestige of dissent or having their ideas challenged. Anyone who remotely resembles a conservative or dares to challenge the status quo there is quickly removed, so you can post all your anti-Bush stuff with no chance of having any of it refuted. You'll be all warm and safely insulated from any kind of truth whatsoever. Check it out!

Ad hominem attacks are evidence of a small, feeble mind. (Please let me know if you need "ad hominem" defined.)
You obviously don't know the difference between an ad hominem and a simple observation based on your posts here. Hypocrisy and ignorance are two traits you've demonstrated at great length on this board. It's not an ad hominem to notice these traits and point them out. Remember, the first step to fixing a problem is recognizing that a problem exists! Good luck with that, I hope I've been able to help in some small way.
 
Top Bottom