Karl "Blood and Guts" Rove, American Hero!

[26 X World Champs]

Liberals never disappoint me, when they have no facts to debate with they resort to name calling and insults.

Name calling? I'm stupid, remember? Please show me where in his post that he did any name calling? It sure seemed to me like he was agreeing with the Republican point of view, and he articulated it beautifully.

As far as insults go Squawk, maybe you need to reread this post?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=32439&postcount=35
:mrgreen: :2wave:

I think there was some name calling here:

The left will hurt our troops and our Country, just for the sake of making President Bush and the Republican party look incompetent.

 

[Squawker]

Ahhhh, yes, Champs hit list of supposed insults and attacks from myself. Did I call you, Champ a moron? Did I call you an idiot? Did I call you a Prick? I did not. I referred to Liberals as in "liberal philosophy." If you are insulted because your party makes mistakes and is hypocritical, then change parties like I did. Name calling is referring to a person on this forum as a bigot, dimwit, puke face or some other derogatory name. Please learn the difference.
I forgot to answer your guestion of what makes his post a personal attack.

And, like you, I outsource my opinions to those who know more than I do, like Rush Limbaugh. That's because I really don't have a coherent ideology (and I'm lazy). I just side with whoever talks tough, because I'm a powerless little cog in an immense machine whose intricacies I can't begin to fathom.

You makes it personal to me vs Republicans which makes it general. I wish I could listen to Rush, but I have to work when he is on. I suggest you two fella's read the rules again, and take particular note of rule # 5. RULES

 

[Stinger]

What's your evidence to support that claim?

Moveon.org, Michael Moore, et al.

 

[Stinger]

ACtually, on that note, Dean's performance last night on the Daily show was awesome. I actually enjoyed listening to him talk. "Love thy neighbor as yourself and you can't pick your neighbor."-that is what he said the motto for Dems is. REally suggest you take a look, I can give you a link if you want.

ROFL and can you give some examples of Dean "loving his neighbor"!

 

[Stinger]

A better question is not to ask whether or not he has been over in Iraq and fighting terrorist....but has he EVER been in the armed forces at all.....

So is it your position that we should only elect or appoint people to positions which control the military who have such experience? If that is not your point the just what the heck is it?

 

[LaMidRighter]

No he does lie. He was just on my TV lying about Social Security going bankrupt. And what he said about the left wanting to give "therapy" to the terrorist is just another in a long list of his lies.

All I am going to touch on this one is the social security argument. SS is absolutely on the verge of bankruptcy, I am currently a financial planner and must study the market constantly to keep up with indexes so that I can best advice potential and actual clients so I do have a pretty good grasp of how finances work(credibility statement). First off, there is no more backing capital in the social security trustfund, it has all been replaced by I.O.Us which must be paid to workers upon retirement, this hasn't been a problem yet because the average life expectancy held against the old tables, A.L.E is currently increasing while births per household are on the decline, meaning the upcoming generations of retirees will expand while their benefits will be fully funded by current F.I.C.A. contributions with no money to back up the difference. The original system had backing capitol and a retiree-worker ratio of 1:2 respectively, currently that ratio has shifted to I believe 2:1(R/W) which will increase in the upcoming decade to 3:1, if you had a bill that it took 3 paychecks a month to pay and it is a recurring account, amongst other incoming bills you would be in essence in the process of bankruptcy, this is the current problem that S.S.I. is facing and is no different than a household budget.
You also made a statement about the U.S. having no creditors as concerns the Social Security system, that is not accurate, every American that has contributed 40 quarters into the system(10yrs.) is owed a retirement pension under the system by U.S. law, meaning they are creditors by that very definition, the bankruptcy statement therefore stands as true.

*edit- I got my ratios wrong, they should be flipped
old system 2:1, currently 1:2, next 10 1:3(R:W)

 

[Pacridge]

All I am going to touch on this one is the social security argument. SS is absolutely on the verge of bankruptcy, I am currently a financial planner and must study the market constantly to keep up with indexes so that I can best advice potential and actual clients so I do have a pretty good grasp of how finances work(credibility statement). First off, there is no more backing capital in the social security trustfund, it has all been replaced by I.O.Us which must be paid to workers upon retirement, this hasn't been a problem yet because the average life expectancy held against the old tables, A.L.E is currently increasing while births per household are on the decline, meaning the upcoming generations of retirees will expand while their benefits will be fully funded by current F.I.C.A. contributions with no money to back up the difference. The original system had backing capitol and a retiree-worker ratio of 1:2 respectively, currently that ratio has shifted to I believe 2:1(R/W) which will increase in the upcoming decade to 3:1, if you had a bill that it took 3 paychecks a month to pay and it is a recurring account, amongst other incoming bills you would be in essence in the process of bankruptcy, this is the current problem that S.S.I. is facing and is no different than a household budget.
You also made a statement about the U.S. having no creditors as concerns the Social Security system, that is not accurate, every American that has contributed 40 quarters into the system(10yrs.) is owed a retirement pension under the system by U.S. law, meaning they are creditors by that very definition, the bankruptcy statement therefore stands as true.

*edit- I got my ratios wrong, they should be flipped
old system 2:1, currently 1:2, next 10 1:3(R:W)

For someone with a back ground in finance you seem to have a poor grasp of bankruptcy. But even if I do accept your excuse for why he would make, and continue to make, the bankruptcy claim. It doesn't explain why he would make statements that conflicted with the trustees report.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I suggest you two fella's read the rules again, and take particular note of rule # 5. RULES

Sounds like a threat, or is this an official warning? Threat or warning? Higher standards are a two way street I believe.

Maybe everyone should know that there's been a movement started by a certain someone to get me removed from this community because he does not like what I post. Not that I'm breaking any rules, but because of my politics.

That's right, this particular person, who shall go nameless, has tried multiple times to get me tossed off. Maybe this person wants this community to be Republican only? I don't know, can't speak for him. What I do know is that he hates liberals with a passion, and that when a liberal proves to be right that the effort to have me removed increases. If I were able to tell you who this accuser is you would all know right away the hypocrisy involved.

Not very American is it? You don't like your opposition, so you work behind the scenes to get him removed, end of problem. Sounds more like Communism to me, but I'm no expert. I'm just a bleeding heart liberal.

How typical is it for someone to hide behind rules that he himself is guilty of violating? Double standard you say? No argument from me.

The most amazing thing is when people like this say that Liberals put their personal political agenda ahead of the good of the nation, that Liberals will go as far as purposely endangering the lives of their fellow Americans just to get elected. The sick thing is that they really believe this to be true.

You know when I write tirades against Bush and his henchmen it's specifically against them. I never group ALL Republicans together and make statements like: "Anytime you can P*ss GOP's off is a good day." Making sweeping nasty posts about Liberals, especially regularly doesn't seem appropriate to me.

I have absolute respect for Republicans. I find them to be sincere in their beliefs, driven by a passion to do what they feel is right, fiercely loyal to their party and very patriotic. Guess what? The exact same thing can be said about Democrats / Liberals. IMHO only the teeny minded amongst us make post after post after post attacking Liberals in general, rather than a specific politician (except Clinton, but that is so 20th Century).

That's what I perceive to be the difference between me (Liberal), and some people who call themselves Republicans in this community. I attack with all guns blazing Bush and his lackeys, but I never attack Republicans in toto.

Writing that "Liberals are the most hate filled group in America." is just evil, vicious, and of course hate filled....ironic, isn't it? Maybe not when you consider the source.

 

[Pacridge]

I don't hate anyone Champ, where did you get that bit of nonsense?

That is true Pac, SS is going bankrupt. I don't have a link to prove it isn't a lie -- do you have one proving it is? I see you have narrowed in on the word "therapy." I suppose that means the other two things he said were proven as true.

I focused on the word therapy the same way I would had someone said , Bush/Clinton is a liar, an awful President and a child molester. It just seemed to be the most glaring example and therefore easily provable of his lies.

 

[Squawker]

Maybe everyone should know that there's been a movement started by a certain someone to get me removed from this community because he does not like what I post. Not that I'm breaking any rules, but because of my politics.

That's right, this particular person, who shall go nameless, has tried multiple times to get me tossed off. Maybe this person wants this community to be Republican only? I don't know, can't speak for him. What I do know is that he hates liberals with a passion, and that when a liberal proves to be right that the effort to have me removed increases. If I were able to tell you who this accuser is you would all know right away the hypocrisy involved.

Champ is mistaken. The people here are not stupid Champ. They can figure out that you are referring to me. I contend it is the other way around. You have been harassing Teacher, Fantasea, myself and other Republicans. The other Mods will deal with you not myself, other than to remind you of the rules when you flame people. If I didn't want to be in a diverse forum there are some Republican only sites. I want you to respect other people and their opinion Champ, so get off your high horse. Liberals are fun to pick on, so don't be ruining my fun. :duel

 

[26 X World Champs]

Champ is mistaken. The people here are not stupid Champ. They can figure out that you are referring to me. I contend it is the other way around. You have been harassing Teacher, Fantasea, myself and other Republicans.

I must be the stupid one then? I never mentioned you or anyone else because that would be against the rules that you seem to want to manipulate to suit your purposes, again.

Pointing out that someone who refers to Frenchmen as Frogs, that France SUCKS and that Gay people are Fags & Fudgepackers is making bigoted remarks or calling someone out when they are lying over and over again on this board, proving conclusively that the poster had written lie after lie or reposting the constant hate posts that someone posts against anything Liberal is simply telling the TRUTH.

For those of you who are OK with bigotry, lies and all the time hate posts about Liberals you're having a field day @ Debate Politics. For most of us, however, that type of posting / behavior is morally objectionable.

The other Mods will deal with you not myself, other than to remind you of the rules when you flame people. If I didn't want to be in a diverse forum there are some Republican only sites. I want you to respect other people and their opinion Champ, so get off your high horse.

I have no respect for bigots, liars and hate mongers, do you?

Tell me Squawk, do you think it's OK to call the French Frogs? Is it OK to call Gay people Fudgepackers? Is it OK to post constant lies? Is it OK to make post after post after post saying things like ""Anytime you can P*ss Lib's off is a good day."

Do you think that's all OK? Do you? Is that how Moderators @ Debate Politics are supposed to be? Tell me, because I'm too dimwitted to understand. In other words, being a bigot, a liar and a hate mongers is acceptable behavior on Debate Politics, but the person who points out that these posters are Bigots, Liars & Hate Mongers are breaking the rules?

Whistleblowers are not allowed here?

 

[Squawker]

We have a system for reporting offensive post as you well know Champ. They have all been dealt with in an appropriate manner. Debate Politics takes complaints seriously, and no one is exempt from following the rules, not me or even you. Sorry, but that is the way it works.

 

[26 X World Champs]

We have a system for reporting offensive post as you well know Champ. They have all been dealt with in an appropriate manner. Debate Politics takes complaints seriously, and no one is exempt from following the rules, not me or even you. Sorry, but that is the way it works.

I asked you this, why don't you reply?

Do you think that's all OK? Do you? Is that how Moderators @ Debate Politics are supposed to be? Tell me, because I'm too dimwitted to understand. In other words, being a bigot, a liar and a hate mongers is acceptable behavior on Debate Politics, but the person who points out that these posters are Bigots, Liars & Hate Mongers are breaking the rules?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Maybe you guys should get a room.

Take a break. Step back and smoke a cup of coffee or something.

 

[Squawker]

Maybe you guys should get a room.

No need to, I just put him on my ignore list. He can complain to the other Moderators and see how far he gets. Bye Champ. :2wave:

 

[gordontravels]

LOL :duel

 

[akyron]

No need to, I just put him on my ignore list. He can complain to the other Moderators and see how far he gets. Bye Champ. :2wave:

Blah,
How can you do that?
That is no fun at all.
Liberal frothing at the mouth rants are part of why I enjoy this site.
Dont change a thing champ.
We need you.
Stay away from bulldozers.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Blah,
How can you do that?
That is no fun at all.
Liberal frothing at the mouth rants are part of why I enjoy this site.
Dont change a thing champ.
We need you.
Stay away from bulldozers.

I feel your love!

 

[ShamMol]

Yeah, seriously, it is stupid to just put someone on your ignore list. You could just...ignore them. You know, not pay attention? It's kinda like a big ape is ripping apart my home in front of me, but instead, I pay attention to a plastic bag that is floating in the air, drifting like the angelic demon it is, softly melting away...anyway, you get my point. You can just conventionally ignore him.

Personally, I like 26x, he is funny at times, and can be very serious. You just have to learn how to take it (except when someone accuses you blatantly of being a pedofile for absolutely no reason...batman...thank god he is gone, what a f-n douche).

 

[loverofpeace]

Very well said! Perspective is always good....

Thank you for your kind remarks.

 

[loverofpeace]

I have fought in war and know that ALL the soldiers have independent minds. I also know that they are well trained and understand that their actions in the war zone can save their fellow soldier's life as well as their own. It is a strong incentive to perform as you were trained. I also know that when I was in war it was a war governed by a majority of Democrats of which I was one at the time.

When you are a soldier and in a war zone, if you oppose that war, it is very far down on your list of priorities. I have 4 contacts in Iraq, 2 Marines, 1 Regular Army and 1 National Guard; 3 men and 1 woman. Everyone of them, and I have heard from all in the last week, say the morale of the troops and the morale they hold themselves is excellent. I know. That is the way it is when you have a job to do. They all have one complaint though:

They want to know what is wrong with our media and why it is so negative about Iraq when there is so much good being done in the country and they are speaking from their own experiences. One of the soldiers is directly working in logistics for the construction battalions and wants to know if we know about the new schools, hospitals, electricity and clean water projects among the thousands of projects going on in Iraq. Do you?

I know there are those here that think if you hear a report about the attacks against our troups it is fodder for their anti-war arguement. If they hear a story or reference to the good our troups are doing in Iraq then they believe they are being lied to. I am satisfied that our troops are doing what they are trained for and whether they are liberal or conservative, for or against the war; they do their job with pride. The only ignorance is our mass media that thinks we don't think. :duel

Thank you for your comments. I totally understand where you are coming from and I am glad that you are able to have fought in a war and not only come home safely, but are able to speak about your experiences. I apologize for not replying sooner, but these forums are very fast paced, and by the time I get online, two or three pages of posts have already gone by.

Anyways.. never did I make a statement that soldiers are untrained or unprepared for their job. Never did I say that soldiers do not save their fellow soldiers' lives. And I'm not sure what war you fought in.. but I'll take your word that it was governed by a bunch of Democrats.

I hope that I am never a soldier -not because I am a coward, but because I am a conscientious objector to war and a pacifist- and I hope that if I am ever in a war zone I am a nurse and not a soldier. I am very lucky that there are others willing to volunteer their service in the military. Of course, I also wish that they didn't have to... Remember, opposing the war is NOT opposing our troops. I do support our troops. In the way I feel is most patriotic: by bringing them home safely. (Of course, this is just MY opinion)

I believe that you have contacts in Iraq. I was not trying to question your credibility, only your assumptions. And I'm glad to hear that the morale reports your connections have given you are good. I too have connections in Iraq, and they are not doing as well. Yes, I am also aware that there are a lot of positive efforts going on in Iraq right now, but don't forget there are a lot of negative ones too. Yes, I am aware of the new schools and hospitals. I'm not as sure about the clean water and electricity... I also have an Iraqi connection who has lost both because of the war.

Please don't think that I feel our troops are evil. I understand their situation and feel no such emotions towards them. I would also agree that our mass media thinks we don't think. And to some scale, I believe it. (I also think our media has more of a conservative bias than a liberal one) I feel that too many Americans don't think and only accept what they hear. This is a huge problem: question, question, question, and never stop questioning. Research facts yourself and come to your own conclusions and opinions. Don't allow yourself to become spoonfed or fooled by anyone.

Again, I have no doubts in our troops training and abilities, I only wish that they didn't have to use them. I have hope for a world without war.

P.S. I'm not quite sure what the smileys on your post that are dueling it out mean. Is it supposed to be a touché! in my direction? Or is it symbolizing political discourse? If it is the former, I feel that is a bit arrogant, don't you think?

 

[argexpat]

So... you're a hypocrite? You're a christian for the parts that suit your beliefs? I don't understand though I really would like to. It sounds bogus from here.

Yes, that's exactly right, I'm a hypocrite. I have absolutely no qualms about being a Christian and supporting pre-emptive war and capital punishment and gutting government programs that help the poor and tax cuts for the rich and the demonization of gays. Like all of us on the Christian Right, I cherry pick the parts of the Bible that cater to my ignorance and bigotry. And as a born-again Christian, I even go so far as to condemn other Christians for not being as Christian as I am. That's because my Christianity isn't borne of a compassion for human suffering; it's a way to ameliorate my feelings of inadequacy for being a failure. Even though I made a mess of my life, now that I've accepted Jesus as my personal savior, I'm going to heaven, and you're not, which means I'm better than you. It's really just a form of pompous elitism. It's so much easier to condemn non-believers to hell than to actually make the world a better place.

 

[ShamMol]

^Is that sarcasm or you actually saying that, I can't tell...I hope it is sarcasm.

 

[argexpat]

So is it your position that we should only elect or appoint people to positions which control the military who have such experience? If that is not your point the just what the heck is it?

The position is that if Rove is going to drag out the tired stereotype of the the wimpy, enemy-appeasing bleeding-heart liberal (never mind that "liberal" is never defined, except to mean anyone who disagrees with the Bush administration) who is justifiably ambivalent about war, he risks looking like a cowardly chicken hawk who advocates putting someone else's money (U.S. soldiers) where his mouth is, then uses it to smear his opponents.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives are happy to have others fight and die for them.

 

[Stinger]

The position is that if Rove is going to drag out the tired stereotype of the the wimpy, enemy-appeasing bleeding-heart liberal

He doesn't have to drag it out the liberals scream out thier positions quite clearly and he is correct in his characterisation of it.

(never mind that "liberal" is never defined, except to mean anyone who disagrees with the Bush administration)

I don't recall Buchannan being labeled a liberal. But the fact remains that Moveon.org, Dennis Kucienich, and even Kerry all called for the "understanding" of the terrorist, and wanted to "indict" them and bring them to court. Just as Rove stated. What I find amusing is how the left is trying to run from it's own stated position.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives are happy to have others fight and die for them.

Then how do you explain that the vast majority of those serving in the military are conservative. But please elaborate, do you believe that only those who have served in the military and fought for the military should be placed in positions of having to send the military into action? If not then please explain exactly what you are saying.