is it just me?

Agreed, in principle. Just because I don't agree with someone doesn't automatically make them an idiot. I don't bash law-abiding protestors, because I've been one at various times and for various reasons; HOWEVER - the ones who are violent ARE idiots; their message is, "I'm young and dumb and this is an excuse to get back at the world for that."

Again, agreed in principle - just because you don't agree with me doesn't make you narrow-minded. There are plenty of other things that clearly indicate your narrow-mindedness besides your disagreement with some of my views.

Thanks, but I'll skip your suggestion. I'd rather listen to many sides and try to understand all viewpoints before I form an opinion.

This isn't a point, it's a fact. "Fed" is an inflammatory phrase, and totally unwarranted. The fact is, there ARE several different reasons as to why we are prosecuting a war against Iraq. Some are more important than others, some mean more to different factions, but the FACT is that there are many reasons why we are doing this.

Not at all. Perhaps what has changed is your awareness of those reasons.

I sympathize. We fear and distrust that which we don't know or don't understand - it's a natural reaction. A classic primitive survival instinct.

There are a significant number of politicians unworthy of trust, both Democrat and Republican. There are many who are worthy of a little trust, but not all the time. There are a few who are worthy of trust, but they are of course quite rare.

Again, I sympathize with your lack of trust. After the 2000 elections I wasn't quite sure of the President even though I felt he was a better choice than the former Vice President. I had the opportunity last year to meet and speak at length with President Bush, and I was struck by how genuine and sincere the man is. I suspect the only exposure you've had to Mr. Bush is via TV and news media, which at best presents a one-dimensional view, and at worst a slanted view.

I never met Clinton, but I did meet some of his advisors and staff, and most of them were slimeballs.

Implicit in my remarks was the position that the war on terrorism is a multi-faceted, multi-theater, multi-resource endeavor that will continue for quite some time. Iraq is just one piece of the puzzle.

See, I told you you wouldn't get the subtleties!

 

and another thing...

IF you actually knew anything about Bush and didn't believe everything liberals say, you would know that Bush is probably one of the most honest, straight forward politicians you will ever find.
Hell, that is probably one of his "weak points"! If he were as devious and kniving as Clinton, he'd probably have the French conned into fighting Iraq for us!

 

Respectful debate becomes a pointless argument when you insist that you are right and that the other person is wrong. It becomes an inflammatory argument when you also add anger and demonize your opponent. Respectful debate is really cool. Pointless arguments are just that - pointless. Inflammatory argument should be avoided at all costs.

 

(This is too good to pass up, as much as I like RSDad.)

Uhh, so in other words people who disagree with administration policy shouldn't be making wife-beater remarks about the President?

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rodger Doyle


The biggest "debt" we have to settle with Iraq is that we owe the Iraqi civilians dearly. After failing to go to Bagdad and nail that MFer Saddam in 91, Bush #I asked the Shiites and the Kurds to rise up against Saddam and that we would support them. .

Rodger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Tracey Doyle aka Repoman replied:

"Dearist cousin:
The UN resolution in 1990 was to get Iraq out of Kuait, *NOT* to off Saddam. If we would have offed Saddam, then we would hear the chourus of "Impeialist America the Aggressor" etc... "

Tracey, you can't use that excuse now b/c I know that neither you nor I give a shit about what the UN's position was then or is now. And don't forget that Bush didn''t care either -- he asked the Shiites and the Kurds to rise up on the promise of the US support thme and then let them swing in the wind.

So there I win, again!! Haahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!! I love winning!!!!!

Doyle 1, Doyle 0.

Rodger

 

John:
I posted a response to this last time that you criticized my remark. You, unfortunately misinterpreted my remarks to imply spouse abuse when I meant it to mean taking a beating as in a 'pounding' or some other celebratory lay like on your birthday or anniversary. I tried to explain that and I also posted a clarification and apology when it was brought up on another thread. Cut me some slack. I'm better than that.

 

I hearby nominate James Greeson for the Pollyanna of the Year Award!!!!

Tank Boy said: "Bush is probably one of the most honest, straight forward politicians you will ever find."

James, do you really believe this? It just sounds so . . . cute!

Honest politician? Hahahahahahahahahaha.





I think you must be undercaffinated.

Rodger

 

JU

It was another kind of beating that RSDad was referring to.

 

Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently I have lost my ability to understand the meaning and context of words in contemporary English. Please forgive me...

Moving on, I'm in favor of anything that raises the level of discussion above the all-too-common name-calling and implication of, for lack of a better phrase, evil-ness on the part of anybody who disagrees with a given name-caller.

 

You rang?

 

I couldn't agree more. The need to 'demonize' an opponent in debate is an unfortunate trend. Hatred stinks, no matter what.

 

I don't want to beat a dead horse - well, actually I do, but that's another story - but here are three posts I've made over the last couple of days in response to the misunderstanding of my comment about GWB. I don't want to be inaccurately characterized (accurate characterizations and insults continue to be welcome).

"Not the literal "beating", the figurative "beating". The celebratory "beating" that you get on birthdays, anniversaries, when you attack another country, etc."


"Go read the rest of the posts. Beating. Pounding. Celebratory screwing like you get on your anniversary, birthday, when you invade a country.

Lighten up."


"I would never accuse someone of being a wife-beater. If that is how the post was interpreted, I'm sorry for my bad choice of slang. OK?

I don't hate GWB. I don't hate anyone. I'm a pacifist, remember?

 

I didn't see those other posts. Add to my list of faults:

Obviously wasting too much time working instead of monitoring the BBS!

 

Get back to work. I'm done with last month's issue.

 

call me a simpleton or whatever, but I ain't BBSing to any post that long with umpteen different points that need responding. In person we could rangle all evening and probably have a good time.

I pop in here as a work distration a few minutes at a time. I get paid to write (plus do it for my degree) and don't care to spend an hour banging out a response. (I'm a word whore, I don't give it away for free )

 

Those who practice the legal profession ought to remember that a) a significant majority of politicians are lawyers, and b) the general public views lawyers as being at best the equal of politicians in the honesty department.

Having said that - I have met a few honest politicians. I have also met a few honest lawyers. Interestingly enough, none of those honest politicians were lawyers.

 

I never really liked the word "simpleton," and in this case I don't think it applies so I'll just call you whatever....


Dear Mr. Whatever:

I knew you'd find some excuse to duck me! You know I'm right so you're turning tail and running! You left-wing assclowns are all the same!

It's a pretty good excuse though.

 

Public opinion against politicians was promoted by the right-wing extremists like Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, Bob Dornin, etc. in order to help the Republicans take control of Congress back in 1993. Their media puppets (Rush, Hannity, Novak, Sinunu) spread the mantra for them. Remember "Throw the bums out".

The campaign against lawyers is a result of the Republican Party's indebtedness to big corporations for their enormous campaign contributions. Limiting damage awards against companies for plaintiffs in civil negligence claims is a BIG priority for large corporations. A well developed and implemented public relations campaign against attorneys has worked very well in turning public opinion against plaintiffs in big settlements against companies.

Public Relations works well. Whether something is true or not, as long as you say it enough times, people will begin to incorporate it into their conversations. Examples: "Welfare mothers", "Liberal media", "Academic Elite"...

 

RSDad - you CAN'T be serious. American politicians, regardless of party affiliation, have been denounced by the public as crooked and dishonest since George Washington.

Lawyers have been condemned since the dawn of time. Ever read any Shakespeare?

To try to paint this as a modern-day phenomenon, or something associated specifically with the Republicans of the past decade is absolutely ridiculous.

You don't really believe what you wrote, do you? I hope not. I hope you were just kidding. If you do believe it, you really need to go back and read up on political history.

 

clinton got elected. are you saying that he didn't do it with corporate funds? whitewater anyone?