Is "W " crazier than TWC

[The Curmudgeon]

We all laughed at The Wild Card's devotion to Dennis Green. Is W any less delousional?

[Mibrilane #56]

Well, first off, TWC's last post on here was in October 2006 (http://forums.azcardinals.com/showpost.php?p=176445&postcount=9) and you joined in November 2006, so I'm not sure where you're getting this "we" bit from - you came on here after TWC's heyday.

Second, if you're talking about W as in George W. Bush, the POTUS, perhaps you could indicate what makes you think that he's delusional? I'm gathering this is related to his speech tonight, which explained quite thoroughly why he and others believe we should continue the fight in Iraq. I'm guessing you disagree with that assessment, but what brings you to the conclusion that his position is based on delusion? Beyond standard issue BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), that is?

Further, let's assume you mean that his position regarding continued efforts in Iraq is delusional. What would your alternate solution be? Also, what would be the consequences of those actions that you would propose as a solution to the situation?

It's easy to put forth quick one-liners about such things, but if you don't have any rational alternative or are unwilling to acknowledge the severe consequences of those alternatives, whatever they may be, you have no position of standing in the debate. Post your alternatives and we'll discuss them, but you can keep your "Bush is nuts!" discussions between you and your playground friends.

[Northern Soul]

Dont want to start anothe political in fight, but watching our morning news this morning I'm more confused than George Bush standing by a hoe and a shovel and being told to take his pick.

A few months ago GWB sends in 30,000 extra troops as a 'surge'.
He then gets an army man (after firing all the ones who disagreed with him) to stand before congress or the house or whoever it was earlier this week, and say what a sucess it was having the extra personnel.
And today we hear the US are reducing the numbers there by 6k.

Now to me that just means the USA have increased the numbers by 24,000, but hearing a White house spokesman talk about having a 'precise exit strategy'. I had to wonder why my maths dont resemble George Bush's. I may have gone to University to do a Maths degree. I may be working on the inflation figure the the British government so use mathematical formula every day of my working life, but I still cant work out how the USA are reducing numbers by sending in 30k and then reducing the number there by 6k.

Answers please to:
The Pentagon
Capitol Hill
Washington
D.C.

Actually, if George's lap dog General who read the script he was told to read from is correct, and having the extra troops there actually IS helping, where is the sense in then bringing some of them home and reducing the effect??

Confused of South Wales.

[The Curmudgeon]

Well, first off, TWC's last post on here was in October 2006 (http://forums.azcardinals.com/showpost.php?p=176445&postcount=9) and you joined in November 2006, so I'm not sure where you're getting this "we" bit from - you came on here after TWC's heyday.

Second, if you're talking about W as in George W. Bush, the POTUS, perhaps you could indicate what makes you think that he's delusional? I'm gathering this is related to his speech tonight, which explained quite thoroughly why he and others believe we should continue the fight in Iraq. I'm guessing you disagree with that assessment, but what brings you to the conclusion that his position is based on delusion? Beyond standard issue BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), that is?

Further, let's assume you mean that his position regarding continued efforts in Iraq is delusional. What would your alternate solution be? Also, what would be the consequences of those actions that you would propose as a solution to the situation?

It's easy to put forth quick one-liners about such things, but if you don't have any rational alternative or are unwilling to acknowledge the severe consequences of those alternatives, whatever they may be, you have no position of standing in the debate. Post your alternatives and we'll discuss them, but you can keep your "Bush is nuts!" discussions between you and your playground friends.

Good point on the spelling correction. I didn't elaborate because I wanted to provoke a discussion. You don't have to join the forum to read it. So the join date is of little consequence. Also the stuff is still available.
The consequence of leaving Iraq will be the same whenever it happens. The differrence is how many American kids will sacrifice their lives or limbs. If W is so smart why didn't he know what would happen before he attacked. Cheney did and stated his position clearly back while W's dad was still POTUS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
I was in the Navy with my playground friends before you were born, I went to Viet Nam and I didn't see W, Cheney, Rove etc there, even though they were all eligible (and obviously warriors). I actually do admire Senator McCain even though I disagree with him. At least he served his country.
I am old and I won't be paying taxes to support this fiasco for the next 30 years, but you will. So unless you loaded up on Halliburton stock before the war started the financial consequences for you will be severe.
As far as quick one liners go how about
"They hate us for our freedom", or the classic "bring it on".
I don't mind being a yearly Cardinal kool-aid drinker, but W's brand has gotten pretty sour.

[Cardsfan2000]

Good point on the spelling correction. I didn't elaborate because I wanted to provoke a discussion. You don't have to join the forum to read it. So the join date is of little consequence. Also the stuff is still available.
The consequence of leaving Iraq will be the same whenever it happens. The differrence is how many American kids will sacrifice their lives or limbs. If W is so smart why didn't he know what would happen before he attacked. Cheney did and stated his position clearly back while W's dad was still POTUS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
I was in the Navy with my playground friends before you were born, I went to Viet Nam and I didn't see W, Cheney, Rove etc there, even though they were all eligible (and obviously warriors). I actually do admire Senator McCain even though I disagree with him. At least he served his country.
I am old and I won't be paying taxes to support this fiasco for the next 30 years, but you will. So unless you loaded up on Halliburton stock before the war started the financial consequences for you will be severe.
As far as quick one liners go how about
"They hate us for our freedom", or the classic "bring it on".
I don't mind being a yearly Cardinal kool-aid drinker, but W's brand has gotten pretty sour.

Your posting style really reminds me of TWC, and seeing how (as mib pointed out) you came after him, this does raise suspicion.

[NJCardFan]

Good point on the spelling correction. I didn't elaborate because I wanted to provoke a discussion. You don't have to join the forum to read it. So the join date is of little consequence. Also the stuff is still available.
The consequence of leaving Iraq will be the same whenever it happens. The differrence is how many American kids will sacrifice their lives or limbs. If W is so smart why didn't he know what would happen before he attacked. Cheney did and stated his position clearly back while W's dad was still POTUS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
I was in the Navy with my playground friends before you were born, I went to Viet Nam and I didn't see W, Cheney, Rove etc there, even though they were all eligible (and obviously warriors). I actually do admire Senator McCain even though I disagree with him. At least he served his country.
I am old and I won't be paying taxes to support this fiasco for the next 30 years, but you will. So unless you loaded up on Halliburton stock before the war started the financial consequences for you will be severe.
As far as quick one liners go how about
"They hate us for our freedom", or the classic "bring it on".
I don't mind being a yearly Cardinal kool-aid drinker, but W's brand has gotten pretty sour.

Let me ask you something. Did you see Bill/Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, ect. there? No? Then I guess service in Vietnam shouldn't matter. Keep reading the DNC and Moveon.org playbook because you seemed to have missed the part where you're supposed to tell everyone that you were also a Reagan conservative as well.

[The Curmudgeon]

Your posting style really reminds me of TWC, and seeing how (as mib pointed out) you came after him, this does raise suspicion.
Touche! that is funny.

Let me ask you something. Did you see Bill/Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, ect. there? No? Then I guess service in Vietnam shouldn't matter. Keep reading the DNC and Moveon.org playbook because you seemed to have missed the part where you're supposed to tell everyone that you were also a Reagan conservative as well.

Didn't see any of them attacking a sovereign coutry either. Why was it we attacked? WMD!! Where are they? I know Sadaam smuggled them into Iran, because they are such close friends. I remember a courageous Marine Major who repeatedly told us there was no WMD. He was swift-boated by the Rupert Murdock network that apparently is your major source of information. And yup I did vote for Reagan and Bill Clinton.

[kjbad]

I'm not sure what to make of Tony Snow stepping down from Bush's Press Secretary post for "financial reasons", but the timing sure does seem interesting. We may never know what's really going on in there until the documentary is on the History Channel.

[The Curmudgeon]

I'm not sure what to make of Tony Snow stepping down from Bush's Press Secretary post for "financial reasons", but the timing sure does seem interesting. We may never know what's really going on in there until the documentary is on the History Channel.

Tony is pretty sick. I certainly don't believe a word he says, but I wish him well in his battle against cancer.

[kjbad]

No matter who has the job, it's a thankless one.

[NJCardFan]

Didn't see any of them attacking a sovereign coutry either. Why was it we attacked? WMD!! Where are they? I know Sadaam smuggled them into Iran, because they are such close friends. I remember a courageous Marine Major who repeatedly told us there was no WMD. He was swift-boated by the Rupert Murdock network that apparently is your major source of information. And yup I did vote for Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Um, Clinton attacked Bosnia, no? As for WMD's, are you going to make me repost for the hundredth time all of those high ranking Democrats who also said there were WMD's in Iraq? Please don't make me because it's getting a bit old. But you're right. Saddam was the salt of the Earth.

[Mibrilane #56]

Second, if you're talking about W as in George W. Bush, the POTUS, perhaps you could indicate what makes you think that he's delusional? I'm gathering this is related to his speech tonight, which explained quite thoroughly why he and others believe we should continue the fight in Iraq. I'm guessing you disagree with that assessment, but what brings you to the conclusion that his position is based on delusion? Beyond standard issue BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), that is?
After reading The Curmudgeon's responses, it seems "standard issue BDS" was spot on.

Further, let's assume you mean that his position regarding continued efforts in Iraq is delusional. What would your alternate solution be? Also, what would be the consequences of those actions that you would propose as a solution to the situation?
Still waiting for the answer to this. I'm not going to hold my breath.

[The Curmudgeon]

After reading The Curmudgeon's responses, it seems "standard issue BDS" was spot on.


Still waiting for the answer to this. I'm not going to hold my breath.

BDS must be pretty common apparently more than 66% of the population suffers from it. While you obsess on counting people's posts. http://forums.azcardinals.com/showthread.php?t=24542
I am not looking to provide an answer to your second question. I responded that the same thing will happen whether we stay another 10 years or pull out tomorrow. You cannot win a war where you can't identify an enemy. How do you define winning ? Who has to surrender ? We could bomb Al Sadr's folks into submission. Would we win then? If someone defined a real objective I believe our military would achieve it. In the mean time they are being forced police a civil war with inadequate protection.

At least we can agree on one thing. The Cards kick butt tomorrow. See ya at the game.

Um, Clinton attacked Bosnia, no? As for WMD's, are you going to make me repost for the hundredth time all of those high ranking Democrats who also said there were WMD's in Iraq? Please don't make me because it's getting a bit old. But you're right. Saddam was the salt of the Earth.

We agree Saddam was the scum of the earth. Unfortunately it will probably be someone just like him who finally replaces him. Continuing to expect the people in Iraq to join together for a common cause does not appear to be a reasonable expectation. Saddam did stop the endless sectarian violence, although he apparently waged his own form of it.
You got me on Bosnia. It doesn't stick in your mind because we did not sustain the endless casualties.

[arizona_cards_11]

Didn't see any of them attacking a sovereign coutry either.

Bill Clinton
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

oooops.....

[The Curmudgeon]

You are absolutely right. Poor choice of words. Should have said invading. What was the casualty count for the US ? My whole point in this diatribe has been exposing US troops to danger for no good reason.

[Mibrilane #56]

BDS must be pretty common apparently more than 66% of the population suffers from it.
Being against the war and saying GWB is "crazier than TWC" and "delusional" are not the same thing.

While you obsess on counting people's posts. http://forums.azcardinals.com/showthread.php?t=24542
What does that have to do with anything being discussed here? Don't tell me you have ADD as well... :wink:

I am not looking to provide an answer to your second question. I responded that the same thing will happen whether we stay another 10 years or pull out tomorrow.
I'm just asking "if you disagree with A strategy, what would be your B strategy to replace A?"

Your answer seems to be "immediately withdraw all of our troops and let the Iraqi-on-Iraqi bloodbath ensue." Why not simply say this directly, instead of trying to repeatedly rationalize said unstated outcome as acceptable because it seems inevitable?

You cannot win a war where you can't identify an enemy.
Who then do you think we've been shooting at for the past few years?

How do you define winning ? Who has to surrender ? We could bomb Al Sadr's folks into submission. Would we win then? If someone defined a real objective I believe our military would achieve it.
Our "real objective" is to quell the violence to the point where internal Iraqi security forces can deal with any remaining violence in an effective manner, such that political processes can occur without being overly affected by the violence, and we can withdraw the majority of our troops with a reasonable assurance that further wide-scale outbursts of sectarian violence will not accompany same.

There is no "kill X and it will be over" objective, because the situation does not have a singular enemy to overcome. That does not mean there is no "real" objective, but because the "real objective" requires a political as well as military solution, the military alone cannot achieve it.

The failure to understand this basic truth led to the failure in Southeast Asia and will likely lead to failure in the Middle East, though this might be averted by some folks having actually learned from the previous failure.

In the mean time they are being forced police a civil war with inadequate protection.
What is "adequate protection" in your opinion?

At least we can agree on one thing. The Cards kick butt tomorrow. See ya at the game.
Indeed, that's a good common denominator. :thumbsup:

[BigDinGlenDale]

You are absolutely right. Poor choice of words. Should have said invading. What was the casualty count for the US ? My whole point in this diatribe has been exposing US troops to danger for no good reason.

Woodrow Wilson invaded Mexico in 1914, Haiti in 1915, the Dominican Republic in 1916, Mexico again in 1916 (and 9 more times before the end of his presidency), Cuba in 1917, and Panama in 1918, not to mention he sent money to aid the "White" side of the Russian civil war, blockaded the Soviet Union in 1918, and sent expeditionary forces to Murmansk, Archangel, and Vladivostok. He was also an outspoken white supremacist.

JFK and the Bay of Pigs, the Spanish American war...etc. etc.

No one seems to care unless the president is republican. Why?

And MIB...glad to see the pain train!

[Mibrilane #56]

No one seems to care unless the president is republican. Why?
That is indeed the question. If President Gore would have done everything that GWB did over the past few years, would he have been raked over the coals for it? History says this scenario would be improbable.

And MIB...glad to see the pain train!
Who isn't? :wink:

[DUSK884]

Deeep Hurting was my vote lol

[Mibrilane #56]

On the whole "66% of the American people... blah...blah..." argument that I see raised by anti-war folks:

We are not a pure Aristotelian democracy.

Our leaders are elected to take posts where they can be informed to an extent beyond the level to which we, the public, can easily be informed, or expect to be informed. They they make decisions as our representatives in light of this knowledge. This is especially true of the leaders in Congress and in the Presidency who have access to intelligence information that we, the public, do not see.

We elect them as trustees of our country to do what is in the best interest of us and our country, regardless of whether the majority actually supports each and every decision made on their behalf. The majority elects people to represent them, but they do not make every decision for that representative, and vice versa. Nor should the representative be expected to directly follow the whims of the majority - that's the whole point of electing representatives to government instead of just having a direct popular vote on everything.

Many decisions, especially military ones, are not decisions the public at large can make in an informed manner. We are not privy to the information our representatives are given. Even the information that is made public (the Petraeus testimony before Congress, for example) is not seen by the vast majority of the population. Therefore, to expect rational and informed decision-making by the national public on such issues is ludicrous.

What I especially abhor is the way that many elected representatives do not use their position to be more fully informed of things, deferring instead to political whims and tides of the uninformed masses. I don't want the public at large making foreign policy decisions, and neither should you. But if a representative deliberately writes off information provided to them as irrelevant or lies (see again the Petraeus testimony before Congress, especially Hillary Clinton's "suspension of disbelief" comments) without actually weighing that information and using it to inform their decision making process, again in deference to politics, that's the real shame of our political system.

We are not a country willing to have everything decided by a small group of experts, but we also cannot have everything decided directly by clueless masses. We strive for a compromise position of informed representation. Too often it fails, but it is the best system we've been able to achieve.

[DUSK884]

I would have just said, welcome to the Republic! :cardinals:

[The Curmudgeon]

I will agree that Hillary was way out of line, and the moveon.org attack on General Petraeus was despicable. That is because I support our troops. That being said I want them to be safe.
Remember Rumsfield (sp?) saying we were doing all we can to armor the Hummers? That's strange I didn't see the weld shops in town working round the clock on armor. I don't see the Bush girls driving Hummers though Baghdad, but W would be perfectly happy to have your kid driving one.
Why do you think Gore would have went into Iraq? Do you think he would have picked Karl Rove and Cheney as his advisors?
Remember Rummy saying you don't go to war with the Army you want you go with the Army you have. Well that uis perfectly true when Hitler is attacking. I suspect we had time to get ready for Saddam.
I hope you are happy with Rudy after you elect him.

Woodrow Wilson invaded Mexico in 1914, Haiti in 1915, the Dominican Republic in 1916, Mexico again in 1916 (and 9 more times before the end of his presidency), Cuba in 1917, and Panama in 1918, not to mention he sent money to aid the "White" side of the Russian civil war, blockaded the Soviet Union in 1918, and sent expeditionary forces to Murmansk, Archangel, and Vladivostok. He was also an outspoken white supremacist.

JFK and the Bay of Pigs, the Spanish American war...etc. etc.

No one seems to care unless the president is republican. Why?

And MIB...glad to see the pain train!


You left out LBJ arguably the worst president in history, but who said this was a Democrat vice Republican thing.

[NJCardFan]

I do have a silly question concerning the 66% thing. The anti-war left feels that since 66% of Americans oppose the war then we should get out because it's what a majority of Americans want. OK, if that's their criteria for how the government should work then why do they oppose a restructuring of our current tax system. Something tells me that the percentage of Americans who are opposed to the IRS would be considerably higher than 66% so why not do what the anti-tax crowd wants? Can somebody please answer this for me? Anyone? Bueller?

[Ditship]

I do have a silly question concerning the 66% thing. The anti-war left feels that since 66% of Americans oppose the war then we should get out because it's what a majority of Americans want. OK, if that's their criteria for how the government should work then why do they oppose a restructuring of our current tax system. Something tells me that the percentage of Americans who are opposed to the IRS would be considerably higher than 66% so why not do what the anti-tax crowd wants? Can somebody please answer this for me? Anyone? Bueller?Because the IRS isn't killing and dismembering American kids?

[NJCardFan]

Because the IRS isn't killing and dismembering American kids?

And neither is the Iraq War. That said, exactly what does this have to do with why the left says we should do what the majority wants when it comes to the war but not when it comes to taxes. Better yet, don't answer because it's obvious you don't have the faculties to do so intelligently.

[Mibrilane #56]

Because the IRS isn't killing and dismembering American kids?
As NJ said, neither is the war in Iraq. To serve in the American armed forces, one must be 18 years old. All 18-year olds are legally adults in our society. Therefore, by definition, the war in Iraq is not killing and dismembering American kids.

Liberals often try to characterize our armed forces as "kids", with the built-in implication that they are incapable of making the decision to volunteer for the armed forces, and thus have somehow been conned into service. I think that such thinking is extremely disrespectful to our soldiers.

As I've pointed out before, liberals seem to think that all soldiers sent into combat are sent there with the express purpose of sacrificing them to the enemy. To suggest that our military commanders of today are like those commanding the British troops at the Somme, sending their troops into the oncoming machine gun fire in wave after wave of cannon fodder, is ludicrous. Our military is mission-based, and no mission ever is "go die for our country." Our troops are expected to complete their missions without dying and without getting seriously injured.

[Ditship]

Debating whether Bush is right or wrong in his actions is honestly a waste of time. He's going to do pretty much what he wants until he's out and he's proven that. If you guys feel he's doing right more power to you and no debate is going to change that. In the end hope it's not your brother or sister, nephew or niece, son or daughter coming home in a body bag.

I'm not even remotely left wing, I just don't see what this war is accomplishing at this point. I don't pretend to have inside information nor do I act like some pompous *** clown just because I feel it's important to support my political views right or wrong.

You guys got me on the kids thing though.. man.. Because 18 years old isn't a kid by law. They're still dead either way.

[The Curmudgeon]

As NJ said, neither is the war in Iraq. To serve in the American armed forces, one must be 18 years old. All 18-year olds are legally adults in our society. Therefore, by definition, the war in Iraq is not killing and dismembering American kids.

Liberals often try to characterize our armed forces as "kids", with the built-in implication that they are incapable of making the decision to volunteer for the armed forces, and thus have somehow been conned into service. I think that such thinking is extremely disrespectful to our soldiers.

As I've pointed out before, liberals seem to think that all soldiers sent into combat are sent there with the express purpose of sacrificing them to the enemy. To suggest that our military commanders of today are like those commanding the British troops at the Somme, sending their troops into the oncoming machine gun fire in wave after wave of cannon fodder, is ludicrous. Our military is mission-based, and no mission ever is "go die for our country." Our troops are expected to complete their missions without dying and without getting seriously injured.

The day I turned 18 I enlisted, I wouldn't claim I had tremendous common sense, but it was a way to get away from home.
I currently have a 19 year old at home. he is not currently inclined to join the military. I would not encourage him to do so since I do not believe our country supports the war or the POTUS.
As I stated previously if the COUNTRY was at war instead of just our courageous troops, there would be round the clock endeavors to support them. They would have the best of everything. We would not have Texas companies like previous Halliburton subsidy Brown and Root getting rich on undelivered promises. My dad fought WWII and Korea and frequently told me of the sacrifices the civilian population made to support the effort. What are we giving up to make our troops lives better?
This morning Sec Gates went to great lenghts to explain why the Webb amendment ,which would merely require out troops to have as much time at home as in Iraq, was undoable, because we don't have enough military.
Why don't a couple of you W loving chicken hawks sign up and give a hero a break. I did 6 years active duty for OUR country.

[Torsus]

what is he on crack or what We all laughed at The Wild Card's devotion to Dennis Green. Is W any less delousional?

[Avondale_Larry]

I enlisted at 17.

Funny how people on this board who support the war in Iraq somehow got lost on the way to the recruiter.

There's a word for that.....

Oh, yeah... (http://www.azcentral.com/php-bin/commphotos/view.php?id=80144)

[The Curmudgeon]

I really don't think W is on crack. Surely you are not referring to me:) Welcome to the board.

[Mibrilane #56]

Why don't a couple of you W loving chicken hawks sign up and give a hero a break. I did 6 years active duty for OUR country.
I enjoy the ease with which liberals who served in the military call people who support the war effort "chicken hawks" without knowing anything about that person.

So, I can't support the troops and their mission without being in the military?

For your information, when I was 18 back at the end of the '80s I tried to enlist the Marines, as all of the men in my family previously had served in the military and I wanted to continue that honorable tradition. However, my uncorrected vision back then was 20/325 and thus I was ineligible, as I could not pass the physical. So, because I was unable to serve, how does that mean I can't have a position on our military and its mission?

It's one of the dumbest and logically unsound arguments people can raise about the war - one does not have to actually be a thing to have an opinion about it.

I am not a doctor, but I have opinions on health care.

I am not a border patrol officer, but I have opinions on border security.

I do not work for the Federal Reserve, but I have an opinion on monetary policy.

So, don't sit there lecturing me that I'm not qualified to have an opinion regarding our military because I haven't served (and am unable to serve) in the military. It is an arrogant and ignorant thing to say.

If you don't support the mission, that's your prerogative. I do support the mission, and I'm free to do so. That does not make me a "chicken hawk", nor does it make George W. Bush delusional or crazy, a statement that you still haven't explained in this thread.

[The Curmudgeon]

I enjoy the ease with which liberals who served in the military call people who support the war effort "chicken hawks" without knowing anything about that person.

So, I can't support the troops and their mission without being in the military?

For your information, when I was 18 back at the end of the '80s I tried to enlist the Marines, as all of the men in my family previously had served in the military and I wanted to continue that honorable tradition. However, my uncorrected vision back then was 20/325 and thus I was ineligible, as I could not pass the physical. So, because I was unable to serve, how does that mean I can't have a position on our military and its mission?

It's one of the dumbest and logically unsound arguments people can raise about the war - one does not have to actually be a thing to have an opinion about it.

I am not a doctor, but I have opinions on health care.

I am not a border patrol officer, but I have opinions on border security.

I do not work for the Federal Reserve, but I have an opinion on monetary policy.

So, don't sit there lecturing me that I'm not qualified to have an opinion regarding our military because I haven't served (and am unable to serve) in the military. It is an arrogant and ignorant thing to say.

If you don't support the mission, that's your prerogative. I do support the mission, and I'm free to do so. That does not make me a "chicken hawk", nor does it make George W. Bush delusional or crazy, a statement that you still haven't explained in this thread.

Nor does it make you a warrior

[Mibrilane #56]

Nor does it make you a warrior
I believe my discussion with you is at an end.

[The Curmudgeon]

that is correct.
Avondale Larry thank you for serving your country.

[Avondale_Larry]

that is correct.
Avondale Larry thank you for serving your country.

And you too. I'm retired now and wondering how I'm going to teach school tomorrow with no voice. Should be a hoot.

[Avondale_Larry]

And Milbrane, if you were 18 in the late 80s, you're still young enough to enlist in the army. They aren't nearly as picky about vision as the Marine Corps.

But I have a feeling you already knew that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsktNLgpCs8

[The Curmudgeon]

And you too. I'm retired now and wondering how I'm going to teach school tomorrow with no voice. Should be a hoot.

Me too, I haven't screamed so much in years. Please teach those kids to have a critical questioning mind.

[Mibrilane #56]

And Milbrane, if you were 18 in the late 80s, you're still young enough to enlist in the army. They aren't nearly as picky about vision as the Marine Corps.

But I have a feeling you already knew that.
With a V4 vision grade I would not be eligible for combat, only support operations positions.

But I have a feeling you already knew that. :wink:

Good job in descending into name-calling once again. It's to be expected, I suppose. Why bother having a substantive discussion regarding the war when you can just call people who support the mission "chicken hawk" and be done with it? :Rolleyes:

[The Curmudgeon]

We need support personnell to give the troops a break. Go put on your Bill Kristol tapes and meditate you know you are right.

[BigDinGlenDale]

Why don't a couple of you W loving chicken hawks sign up and give a hero a break. I did 6 years active duty for OUR country.

Because some of us have committed to other things, such as school and fighting the No Child Left Behind Act, which is a much more troubling issue than the war in Iraq.

[The Curmudgeon]

You don't like NCLB ? I heard they were going to ensure that every school kid could read Harold the Goat before they graduated. They will need to be able to finish it in less than 8 minutes.:idea:

[Avondale_Larry]

With a V4 vision grade I would not be eligible for combat, only support operations positions.


Well, plenty of the people killed or injured in Iraq were performing support positions. Jessica Lynch and Lori Piestewa are but two examples. But risking one's life, or spending months on end living in a tent in the desert aren't for everyone.

Some people would rather stay at home and suggest other people go find WMDs.... I mean bring democracy...I mean keep gas prices nice and low.

[NJCardFan]

OK, another logic break. Since, according to Curmudgeon and Larry, one cannot comment on anthing military unless they served in the military, does this logic also hold true for all aspects of life? Are cops immune to those who have never been one? Let me carry this a bit further. If Larry and Curmudgeon think Bush is doing such a horrible job, can they comment considering neither one have ever been President? Oh, speaking of Presidents, Clinton never served. Is he a chickenhawk?

Now, on the chicken hawk thing, since I wear a uniform everyday and my life is on the line every day, does this still qualify me as a "chicken hawk"? I don't even get to carry a weapon. But, that's right, this rule only applies to those of us with conservative views.

[Mibrilane #56]

OK, another logic break. Since, according to Curmudgeon and Larry, one cannot comment on anthing military unless they served in the military, does this logic also hold true for all aspects of life? Are cops immune to those who have never been one? Let me carry this a bit further. If Larry and Curmudgeon think Bush is doing such a horrible job, can they comment considering neither one have ever been President? Oh, speaking of Presidents, Clinton never served. Is he a chickenhawk?

Now, on the chicken hawk thing, since I wear a uniform everyday and my life is on the line every day, does this still qualify me as a "chicken hawk"? I don't even get to carry a weapon. But, that's right, this rule only applies to those of us with conservative views.
Further, according to Liberal Logic, since neither Curmudgeon nor Larry has ever been a player for the Cardinals or part of the organization, they are not allowed to support the team or root for them to win. They are "chicken fans" who have never even tried to be part of the team.

Bye now, fellas. :wave:

[The Curmudgeon]

OK, another logic break. Since, according to Curmudgeon and Larry, one cannot comment on anthing military unless they served in the military, does this logic also hold true for all aspects of life? Are cops immune to those who have never been one? Let me carry this a bit further. If Larry and Curmudgeon think Bush is doing such a horrible job, can they comment considering neither one have ever been President? Oh, speaking of Presidents, Clinton never served. Is he a chickenhawk?

Now, on the chicken hawk thing, since I wear a uniform everyday and my life is on the line every day, does this still qualify me as a "chicken hawk"? I don't even get to carry a weapon. But, that's right, this rule only applies to those of us with conservative views.

Please explain what you mean by Conservative views. Do you mean a Conservative interpretation of the constitution as the term originally meant? Is having Alberto G justify continuing invasion of your constitutional rights Conservative?
NEOCONS the new liberals :)

[The Curmudgeon]

Further, according to Liberal Logic, since neither Curmudgeon nor Larry has ever been a player for the Cardinals or part of the organization, they are not allowed to support the team or root for them to win. They are "chicken fans" who have never even tried to be part of the team.

Bye now, fellas. :wave:

What did you do to root for the troops today? Have you sent any CARE packages like DVDs, snacks etc., or did you watch FOX news for an hour and nod your head while Bill Kristol enlightened you on how the world works.

[BigDinGlenDale]

You don't like NCLB ? I heard they were going to ensure that every school kid could read Harold the Goat before they graduated. They will need to be able to finish it in less than 8 minutes.:idea:

As a future teacher, no I don't support NCLB.

[The Curmudgeon]

As a future teacher, no I don't support NCLB.

As the husband of an ex reading teacher and the grandfather of 3 wonderful kids. I don't support NCLB either, but I have to ask. Isn't NCLB a "W" program? Another part of his wonderful legacy.

[NJCardFan]

Please explain what you mean by Conservative views. Do you mean a Conservative interpretation of the constitution as the term originally meant? Is having Alberto G justify continuing invasion of your constitutional rights Conservative?
NEOCONS the new liberals :)

OK, please name me whar rights Alberto G has violated of mine. I'll wait.

[Avondale_Larry]

As the husband of an ex reading teacher and the grandfather of 3 wonderful kids. I don't support NCLB either, but I have to ask. Isn't NCLB a "W" program? Another part of his wonderful legacy.

Yep. An unfunded mandate Designed by GWB and rubber-stamped by the GOP congress.

As a teacher, every available moment I have in class is spent preparing kids to take the AIMS test twice a year. Elective courses such as PE, music, theater, and art are curtailed or outright canceled.

If something cool in the world of Science comes along, I have to carefully check the State Standards to see if I can afford to spend any time discussing it in class.

I think it's great teachers are being held accountable for what they present to the kids in class. It's just a shame that teaching the test has replaced real education.

[Avondale_Larry]

OK, please name me whar rights Alberto G has violated of mine. I'll wait.

Following are examples of freedoms which President Bush and his fellow Republicans in Congress have already expunged (as reported by the Associated Press):

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

[Mibrilane #56]

Yep. An unfunded mandate Designed by GWB and rubber-stamped by the GOP congress.
Actually, NCLB was largely bi-partisan effort spearheaded by Senator Edward Kennedy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/25/AR2007032500910.html) (D-Mass) for the Democrats and George W. Bush for the Republicans.

Far from being passed in partisan fashion by Republicans, NCLB received broad bi-partisan support (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h107-1#votes):

May 23, 2001: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were 384 Ayes, 45 Nays, 4 Present/Not Voting.
View Votes (House of Representatives roll no. 145)

Jun 14, 2001: This bill passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals were 91 Ayes, 8 Nays, 1 Present/Not Voting. View Votes (Senate roll no. 192)

Now, I'm not disagreeing with your feelings regarding "teaching to the test" because of NCLB - many people agree that's the wrong approach to education, including myself, and I'm also against Federal control over local schooling, preferring that such things be handled by local government, which knows more about the needs to local citizens than the Feds do. So, don't get in a pissing match with me about NCLB, I agree with you. I'm just correcting your assertion that it was "designed by GWB", which as you can se, isn't really the case.

Also, Bush's chief opposition on NCLB seems to come from the GOP, which has worked to de-fund many of its provisions. NCLB is seen as a "big government" program that goes against the concepts of conservatism and State's rights.

Following are examples of freedoms which President Bush and his fellow Republicans in Congress have already expunged
Interesting, because I was under the impression that HR 3162 passed through the Senate with a vote of 98-2 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313).

I don't recall there being 98 Republican Senators at the time...

Oh yeah, HR 3199, the extension bill that continues the Patriot Act, passed (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR03199:@@@R) in rather convincingly bi-partisan fashion as well.

(as reported by the Associated Press):
Yet, curiously, the no one that quotes this "reported by the Associated Press" article seems to be able to link to the original. It cannot be found at AP's website. I'm not saying it definitely doesn't exist, I'm just saying it doesn't seem to be referenced by anyone in any direct manner, which leads me to wonder if indeed such a list was actually "reported by the Associated Press." Not that I would be overly surprised if it were.

Also, the list that everyone keeps repeating is all quite vague, basically being talking points without reference to the provisions of the Patriot Act that actually do what each item on the list says. How is each provision implemented in a way that will affect the "ordinary" citizen? No one seems to want to bother people with such details, preferring the short list of egregious constitutional violations that is (obviously) quite easy to repeat on a wide scale. Who wants to read how any of that stuff actually works, or really if the points stated are even true to the character of the actual provision in the actual legislation?

Also, there is a lack of examples of where this authority was abused and used against people who weren't in some way associated or suspected of association with terrorists. But, again, that would require some sort of research and analysis, and possibly some actual thinking on the part of the reader, instead of just parroting the text copied verbatim to all sorts of civil rights sites.

Most sane people realize that the Patriot Act was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 and really is all of the things the FBI has wanted to have in place for decades, long before Bush was in office. The FBI was asked what it would need to better combat terrorism domestically and the Patriot Act is a codification of the response to that question.

Again, it was voted upon and passed by 98 out of 100 Senators before it went to President Bush, so if you're going to blame anyone for it, blame the Senate in its (near) entirety, Democrat and Republican.

If provisions are truly unconstitutional, this can and should be rectified by cases coming before the Supreme Court, where the unconstitutionality of provisions enacted by the other two branches of Federal government is to be decided.

Strangely, that hasn't happened yet, after 5 years of the Patriot Act being in effect.

In actuality, many of the provisions of the Patriot Act that this "as reported by Associated Press" listing decries are not applicable to the vast majority of Americans and have more than a few conditions attached that rule out having the provisions abused against "normal" folks (i.e. people who aren't suspected terrorists). The Patriot Act is composed in a manner such that its ability to be challenged in Court is minimal.

Interestingly, the ACLU withdrew its case (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/28/AR2006102801001.html) challenging the constitutionality of the Patriot Act:

The Justice Department argued last month that amendments approved by Congress in March had corrected any constitutional flaws in the Patriot Act.

The lawsuit, filed in July 2003 on behalf of the Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor, Mich., and five other nonprofit groups, was the first legal challenge to Section 215. That part of the Patriot Act lets federal agents obtain such things as library records and medical information.

The ACLU said the revisions allow people receiving demands for records to consult with a lawyer and challenge the demands in court.
Note how the actual description of the provision doesn't exactly match the hysterical bulletin points of the article "as reported by the Associated Press."

Interesting, that.

And, Larry, at least you could have modified the intro written by the guy who posted this in June on this message board (http://www.politicsforumpoliticalworld.com/political-science/4091-having-fun-bush-fair.html). No doubt he copied it from somewhere else verbatim as well, intro and all. That's just being lazy.

Perhaps its expecting a bit much to ask people to studiously reference things by doing quick Google searches to back up some of their points, but a little something would be nice. :wink:

[Mibrilane #56]

And Larry, I just wanted to mention that I respect your decision to be a teacher - I have quite a few friends who are teachers/administrators, and I know how tough it can be these days.

Just don't go off the deep end like this guy (http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_6879506).

[Ditship]

OK, another logic break. Since, according to Curmudgeon and Larry, one cannot comment on anthing military unless they served in the military, does this logic also hold true for all aspects of life? Are cops immune to those who have never been one? Let me carry this a bit further. If Larry and Curmudgeon think Bush is doing such a horrible job, can they comment considering neither one have ever been President? Oh, speaking of Presidents, Clinton never served. Is he a chickenhawk?

Now, on the chicken hawk thing, since I wear a uniform everyday and my life is on the line every day, does this still qualify me as a "chicken hawk"? I don't even get to carry a weapon. But, that's right, this rule only applies to those of us with conservative views.

Further, according to Liberal Logic, since neither Curmudgeon nor Larry has ever been a player for the Cardinals or part of the organization, they are not allowed to support the team or root for them to win. They are "chicken fans" who have never even tried to be part of the team.

Bye now, fellas. :wave:So after reading these two posts I have a simple question:
Do you two feel that serving in the military is not the greatest sacrifice a person can make for one's country?

You make comparisons to Police officers and Football players. I understand the logistics of it, and perhaps it's just me, but I think you both come off as absurd with these posts lowering the standards to what these two did and could have ultimately sacrificed for OUR country.

I for one did not serve and have no lame duck excuses for why I didn't, I just didn't. I respect those that do and did though. I also VALUE human life and respect those that are willing to sacrifice their's for MINE. You two should be ashamed.

[Mibrilane #56]

What did you do to root for the troops today? Have you sent any CARE packages like DVDs, snacks etc., or did you watch FOX news for an hour and nod your head while Bill Kristol enlightened you on how the world works.
That's twice you've referenced Bill Kristol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol), who I had never heard of before reading the reference in your posts. I've never seen him appear on Fox News, either.

Since he seems to draw the ire of liberals, perhaps he's worth looking into. Thanks. :thumbsup:

[Mibrilane #56]

So after reading these two posts I have a simple question:
Do you two feel that serving in the military is not the greatest sacrifice a person can make for one's country?

You make comparisons to Police officers and Football players. I understand the logistics of it, and perhaps it's just me, but I think you both come off as absurd with these posts lowering the standards to what these two did and could have ultimately sacrificed for OUR country.
My post has nothing to do with the valor of military service - of course it is the greatest sacrifice one can make for their country. I have said nothing to the contrary.

What I am doing in my post about the Cardnals is showing how absurd the "chicken hawk" argument is logically by applying the same logical parameters to something else. The discussion is about the logic of the "chicken hawk" argument, not the valor of our soldiers for serving our country.

I for one did not serve and have no lame duck excuses for why I didn't, I just didn't.
My explanation of my non-service is not a "lame duck excuse", it is an explanation of why I was unable to join the military at the time I was attempting to do so.

I respect those that do and did though. I also VALUE human life and respect those that are willing to sacrifice their's for MINE. You two should be ashamed.
Now you're just constructing a straw man and ascribing to me a position I've never taken. When have I ever said I don't "value human life and respect those that are willing to sacrifice" their lives for the protection of us all? When have I impugned Curmudgeon or Larry's military service? I have not.

I have stated that I support our troops (although I must confess haven't sent a care package - I didn't know that was a requirement) and that I support their objective in Iraq. I find nothing shameful in either assertion.

(Edit: Just wanted to add that I haven't read NJ expressing any of the views your ascribing to the two of us either. Since when does NJ not value human life and respect soldiers for their sacrifice? I've never read such things on here, have you?)

[NJCardFan]

So after reading these two posts I have a simple question:
Do you two feel that serving in the military is not the greatest sacrifice a person can make for one's country?

You make comparisons to Police officers and Football players. I understand the logistics of it, and perhaps it's just me, but I think you both come off as absurd with these posts lowering the standards to what these two did and could have ultimately sacrificed for OUR country.

I for one did not serve and have no lame duck excuses for why I didn't, I just didn't. I respect those that do and did though. I also VALUE human life and respect those that are willing to sacrifice their's for MINE. You two should be ashamed.

Hmm, I believe you should re-arrange the letters in your handle as you so un-cleverly did in the first place because you are fitting this nicely. As Mib said, please go back through my 2000+ posts and tell me where I said, a)didn't value human life and b)didn't honor the sacrifice the men and women in uniform make. I'll wait.

OK, times up. You didn't find anything did you? Didn't think so. I was trying to make the same point as Mib that this chicken hawk thing is not only the new liberal buzzword but for some reason it only applies to conservatives who didn't serve. Since it's mostly conservatives who support the troops I'm somewhat confused by that argument in the first place. That said, my other point about my being in law enforcement, I was saying that as our soldiers, I too put my life on the line and I too make sacrifices on a daily basis yet I'm called a chicken hawk because I didn't serve in the military. Mib's comment on football was a tongue-in-cheek statement pointing out the absurdity of the chicken hawk comments.

This is called logic. Look it up.

[The Curmudgeon]

I thought I would let this fester for a day before I added anything else.
A lot of name calling and invalid assumptions on many participants parts (obviously myself included). Some obvious bad assumptions that I can correct. I have been called Liberal, Democrat and Hillary lover, anyone who knows me would be astounded to hear any of those attributes attributed to me. Mib you can throw Ted Kennedy in the list with Hillary, I am sure I consider him every bit as despicable as you probably:idea: do.
I do not consider the current administration to be Conservative. They spend money like a sailor in Subic Bay. I wish they were investing more of it in the kids that Larry and BigdinGlendale aspire to teach. Those kids are the future of our country and need to be treated as our most valuable natural resource.
I will not use the chicken hawk term again nor will I refer to our YOUNG WARRIORS as kids.
Veterans share a certain bond; if you haven't served your opinion on war does not carry the same water with those of us that did. Just a fact not an accusation.

Mib I assumed you were a Republican, I see in the link you provided that you are actually Independent, so am I. I was regestered Republican until 2 years ago.
The only person that I have ever voted for whom I consider to be a Liberal was George McGovern and that was out of pure disgust with Nixon. I don't consider Bill Clinton to be a Liberal although his wife probably fits the description.
Mib I was surprised you did not know Kristol his dad is normally considered the father of the NEOCON movement, and he isn't real bashful about getting on TV. He has even been on the Daily Show where Stewart had some good natured fun with him regarding their common Jewish background.
I guess that no one here is going to change anyone elses mind which is fine. It amazes me how people can come to such disparite positions, but if you look at 2 of my favorite senators. McCain (AZ) and Webb (VA). They have extremely similar backgrounds but totally different positions on the war. Both were raised in military families by fathers who were high ranking military officers. Both attended Annapolis. Both were legitimate heroes in Viet Nam. You all know McCain's story, well Webb received the Navy cross as a Marine Capt. Believe me the Corps does not hand those out as party favors. Webb subsequently served as Sec of the Navy under Reagan. He resigned because he disagreed with cutbacks in funding for Navy ships. He later became somewhat controversial for his stands on Tailhook and women in combat.
Both Webb and McCain currently have sons in the Corps who have served in Iraq. But McCain favors the surge and staying the course while Webb senses futility in the operation. He does not espouse an immediate pull out but believes our roll needs to be reduced. he also was disrespectfull to the POTUS at the initial meeting of the new senators this year, but he had his personal reaasons.
If these 2 with their very similar backgrounds can't reach common ground. I guess we won't either.

One last jab at Rove and company. Both McCain who was a viable candidate for POTUS in 2000 (until Jerry Falwell gathered the religious right for W), and Webb who was accused of being a pornographer http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1720926/posts by the right wing in the VA election have been either subtlely or blatantly been Swift-boated. I realize that the Liberal left uses similar tactics but they do not seem as insidious. I would attribute the thought process to Rove, but I can't offer sustantive proof.

Anyway I am out of this discussion. I would urge all of you 30 somethings that are participating to seriously consider before you elect another old man as POTUS. We need someone with some new ideas. maybe the best candidate has not yet appeared.
Best regards and :cardinals:

[The Curmudgeon]

It took so long to type the above that I could not go in and correct the typos. There is a 25 minute limit. Of course it should have been proofed before it was submitted.

[NJCardFan]

I realize that the Liberal left uses similar tactics but they do not seem as insidious.

So then coming up with bogus paperwork about the service of W and trying to use it against him was not insidious? Face it, both parties are slapnuts. What bothers me is that most elections come down to mud slinging and name calling and not about the issues. And sure the current Republican party isn't the most conservative but I hardly would consider supporting the current Democratic party who seems to be going so far to the left that Marx would be doing cartwheels. This is why I vote for a 3rd party in most elections.(I voted for W in '04 mostly because I did not want to see Mr. Flippy-Flop as President) Problem is that the Libertarian party and such can't grab a foothold because they can't get the same financial backing.

[The Curmudgeon]

So then coming up with bogus paperwork about the service of W and trying to use it against him was not insidious? Face it, both parties are slapnuts. What bothers me is that most elections come down to mud slinging and name calling and not about the issues. And sure the current Republican party isn't the most conservative but I hardly would consider supporting the current Democratic party who seems to be going so far to the left that Marx would be doing cartwheels. This is why I vote for a 3rd party in most elections.(I voted for W in '04 mostly because I did not want to see Mr. Flippy-Flop as President) Problem is that the Libertarian party and such can't grab a foothold because they can't get the same financial backing.

I reluctantly voted for W in 04 because Kerry should have agressively attacked the swiftboaters. When he didn't I questioned his intestinal fortitude. I did not ever want to see another Jimmy Carter debacle. :peace:
By the way does the electoral college system remove the possibility of a 3rd party being successfull/