Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 11

 

2006-04-03 05:54:31
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6874

lowing wrote:

uh huh......I noticed you didn't answer my question......and....you didn't deny my claim.

you are wrong about being a totalitarian state ( might wanna try looking it up )

and as a fascist state, maybe 40 years ago before civil rights, but no longer.

liberism of today, unfortunatlely, fits the exact definition of socialism or communism. If it doesn't, please show me on what is on the liberal agenda that doesn't apply to this form of govt. I dare ya.
You're sarcasm detector is way out of whack there.  I made a tenous connection from the moderate to the extreme right, just as you did for the moderate to extreme left.  Sorry I forgot the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags, I know you get confused without them.

Since you want to continue to assert that moderate left is the same as extreme left, then I'll continue to assert that moderate right is the same as extreme right:

Totalitarian states maintain political power by means of secret police (United States Secret Service/Homeland Security), propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media (Trust us, we have proof that these people are bad, but we just can't tell you), regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism (tear gas at protests, and permits denied to have protests in the first place), the use of mass surveillance (USA Patriot act), and widespread use of terror tactics (violence or threat of it to get what they want).

Fascism is typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. The fascist state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production (through exploitative labour in less developed nations). Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it (Go USA, we're number one!). Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness (we can beat the terrorists and keep screwing the world without those filthy bastards getting us back); and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality (the conservative chant: love it or leave it).

Care to show me anything that's on the conservative agenda that doesn't apply to this form of govt.?
2006-04-03 06:14:43
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6872|USA

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

lowing wrote:

uh huh......I noticed you didn't answer my question......and....you didn't deny my claim.

you are wrong about being a totalitarian state ( might wanna try looking it up )

and as a fascist state, maybe 40 years ago before civil rights, but no longer.

liberism of today, unfortunatlely, fits the exact definition of socialism or communism. If it doesn't, please show me on what is on the liberal agenda that doesn't apply to this form of govt. I dare ya.
You're sarcasm detector is way out of whack there.  I made a tenous connection from the moderate to the extreme right, just as you did for the moderate to extreme left.  Sorry I forgot the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags, I know you get confused without them.

Since you want to continue to assert that moderate left is the same as extreme left, then I'll continue to assert that moderate right is the same as extreme right:

Totalitarian states maintain political power by means of secret police (United States Secret Service/Homeland Security), propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media (Trust us, we have proof that these people are bad, but we just can't tell you), regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism (tear gas at protests, and permits denied to have protests in the first place), the use of mass surveillance (USA Patriot act), and widespread use of terror tactics (violence or threat of it to get what they want).

Fascism is typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. The fascist state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production (through exploitative labour in less developed nations). Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it (Go USA, we're number one!). Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness (we can beat the terrorists and keep screwing the world without those filthy bastards getting us back); and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality (the conservative chant: love it or leave it).

Care to show me anything that's on the conservative agenda that doesn't apply to this form of govt.?
Yup I will, making note of the fact  that you STILL haven't denied my claim and proved me wrong.

You are using the secret service as your "secret police"? that is so reaching it doesn't warrant a retort, but to say this, psst. they were around during every democratic presidency as well. And I assume would be during, GOD FORBID, Hitlery Clintons term.

Also the press isn't state run, and there is no regulation against free discussion...if it were the Bush bashing wouldn't be going on and this forum wouldn't exist.

Mass survailence? explain why the govt. would give a shit about the life of ordinary Joe american?. You simply aren't that important. But we are in a war, spying, gathering intel, etc. is part of war, and yes, even on the people in America, if there is reason t obelieve you are a threat to this country. I didn't know defending your country against terrorism is a terrorist act......Just because we have taken the fight to the terrorist in their backyard doesn't make us terrorsit. Would you prefer to fight it here?

your defintion of fascism in America is off target as well. There is no state control over all aspects of life etc..if there is prove it just don't say it .and like I said I bowed to the fact that 40 years ago America had fascist practices and ideals.

As far as sarcasm in MY post, there isn't any....I meant every word I said.

Last edited by lowing (2006-04-03 06:15:49)

2006-04-03 06:54:25
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6992|Atlanta, GA USA

Skruples wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

One of the many things Liberals strongly desire is an      "Equality of Outcome "

A leveling of all. Everyone has exactly the same.


One of the many things Conservatives want is an         "Equality of Opportunity "

Everyone is given the Exact same Opportunity.
Please, tell me where this equality of opportunity is. My father is middle class. I went to private schools, I had access to all the educational resources I could hope for. I am now a member of Mensa. How was my opportunity equal to that of someone who, say, was born into an *legal* immigrant family that can barely make ends meet. Who is forced to go to public schools that are desperately underfunded and understaffed. Who needs to get a job at the age of 15 to help put food on the table. Where is the equality?

I've seen alot of talk about how Conservatives are all about helping the individual succeed, and the Liberals are about making it so people dont have to succeed on their own. Give me a break. Spend a few days in the slums and then tell me why we dont need social reform in this country.
That's bullshit.  So, because they went to public school, they are automatically going to get a shitty education?  I went to public school, went on to go to college (on scholarships and later student loans and grants) and now have a BS in Electrical Engineering.  I had none of the private schools and money you have, yet I was still able to better myself.
My father grew up on a farm in Western Kentucky, went to a one room school for most of his (pre-college) education, got one pair of shoes a year when he was younger, and ended up with a Masters in Accounting and his CPA.  If that isn't bettering yourself, I don't know what is.
2006-04-03 07:22:05
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6874

lowing wrote:

As far as sarcasm in MY post, there isn't any....I meant every word I said.
There are mild, moderate and extreme version of each political wing, but you just think that there are separations and graduations of belief on the right hand side of the spectrum.  Hence you can conveniently view liberals as communists without seeing conservatives as facists.  Lucky you, if it's true that ignorance is bliss.
2006-04-03 07:40:21
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6872|USA

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

lowing wrote:

As far as sarcasm in MY post, there isn't any....I meant every word I said.
There are mild, moderate and extreme version of each political wing, but you just think that there are separations and graduations of belief on the right hand side of the spectrum.  Hence you can conveniently view liberals as communists without seeing conservatives as facists.  Lucky you, if it's true that ignorance is bliss.
I asked you , or even dared you by definition, to explain how liberalism ISN't socialism or communism. Are you going to do it or not?? i am not being sarcastic, or demeaning about it.

I don't see conservatisim as fascisism simply because the definition does not apply. there is not 1 thing in your description on fascism that apply to our govt. ESPECIALLY state run media or control over freedom of discussion or information........The internet is a pretty good indicator of this.

lol and your attempt to dodge me challenge is conspicuously apparant.
2006-04-03 07:41:32
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6872|USA

atlvolunteer wrote:

Skruples wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

One of the many things Liberals strongly desire is an      "Equality of Outcome "

A leveling of all. Everyone has exactly the same.


One of the many things Conservatives want is an         "Equality of Opportunity "

Everyone is given the Exact same Opportunity.
Please, tell me where this equality of opportunity is. My father is middle class. I went to private schools, I had access to all the educational resources I could hope for. I am now a member of Mensa. How was my opportunity equal to that of someone who, say, was born into an *legal* immigrant family that can barely make ends meet. Who is forced to go to public schools that are desperately underfunded and understaffed. Who needs to get a job at the age of 15 to help put food on the table. Where is the equality?

I've seen alot of talk about how Conservatives are all about helping the individual succeed, and the Liberals are about making it so people dont have to succeed on their own. Give me a break. Spend a few days in the slums and then tell me why we dont need social reform in this country.
That's bullshit.  So, because they went to public school, they are automatically going to get a shitty education?  I went to public school, went on to go to college (on scholarships and later student loans and grants) and now have a BS in Electrical Engineering.  I had none of the private schools and money you have, yet I was still able to better myself.
My father grew up on a farm in Western Kentucky, went to a one room school for most of his (pre-college) education, got one pair of shoes a year when he was younger, and ended up with a Masters in Accounting and his CPA.  If that isn't bettering yourself, I don't know what is.
So much for that notion huh??...........
2006-04-03 07:43:10
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7058
I love the " Some people may encounter an obstacle in life ! " argument.

I never said " it was oh so easy "

And I never said success or goals would be achieved in a finite period of time.

You work towards your goal till you achieve them. Not met your goals yet?

Simple, You aren't done working.

Does the kid whose dad is squared away and planning his future for him at an advantage? Yes

I have had poor kids (Lease Horses) and Compete in the Medal McClay Finals at Madison Square Garden against the "Firestones " and " Clea Neuman " ( Pual Neumans kid )

They worked their asses off Braiding Other peoples horses at 3 am. for the money.

My colt broke her nose one hour before  a jumping event and she competed in it.
A week later right before a show, The doctor reset her nose ( Re broke it ) and she competed in that one to.

Did she have big obstacles in her path ? Yes

Did Clea Neuman riding a 200k horse ( in the 70s ) have a substantial advantage? No shit.

This kid ( at 15)  made herself a valued and skilled employee.
The kid had a goal and went after it. She showed up one day with a YMCA group, saw the horses and said " this is what I am gonna do".
She was 12 years old ( pretty late to start riding really, I told her so ) at the time. .I didn't even want or need her working for me and I told her so. " I can't have a kid working here "  She waited at the Ready untill one day I said " can you do me a favor and get me..." Instant Results, Fast, Every time, Cleaned everthing, organizied everything, Every tool was in its place and she could produce, Nothing could stop her. She ended up at Drew university Don't try and bullshit me.
2006-04-03 07:53:42
tF-afrojap
Member
+124|7068|SF
What’s interesting here is that, when you take away the labels and definitions like “liberal” and “conservatives” and just look at the ideas behind them, our poster’s views aren’t that different.

We all want “Equal opportunity” over “Equal rewards”.

We start to see deviations in opinion when we talk about the methods to bring about this equal opportunity, but for the most part I think the statement above is something we all agree on. Seeing how the title of the thread started as “True Definition of Liberal Please”, I don’t blame you guys for fussing over the meaning of the word, but I think we got caught up in the details, and lost the big picture.

I still stand by my statement that every successful society requires both liberal (the force for reformation) and conservative (force for preservation) parties to be in equilibrium. And this balance to be governed by our government.
I don’t keep up with America’s political scene too well, so it’s hard for me to contrast this view with our current government, anyone got any opinions on this?
2006-04-03 07:59:32
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6883|USA
OKay....both Liberals and Republicans answer this question.


Are you unpatriotic if you are a against a war your country is fighting?
2006-04-03 08:02:48
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6872|USA

tF-afrojap wrote:

What’s interesting here is that, when you take away the labels and definitions like “liberal” and “conservatives” and just look at the ideas behind them, our poster’s views aren’t that different.

We all want “Equal opportunity” over “Equal rewards”.

We start to see deviations in opinion when we talk about the methods to bring about this equal opportunity, but for the most part I think the statement above is something we all agree on. Seeing how the title of the thread started as “True Definition of Liberal Please”, I don’t blame you guys for fussing over the meaning of the word, but I think we got caught up in the details, and lost the big picture.

I still stand by my statement that every successful society requires both liberal (the force for reformation) and conservative (force for preservation) parties to be in equilibrium. And this balance to be governed by our government.
I don’t keep up with America’s political scene too well, so it’s hard for me to contrast this view with our current government, anyone got any opinions on this?
Well for me anyway, my posts are in response to posts that gave the "literal" definition of liberal. And are directed toward those that defend liberalism as the American way. I have no problem with fence riders.
2006-04-03 08:03:33
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7058

tF-afrojap wrote:

What’s interesting here is that, when you take away the labels and definitions like “liberal” and “conservatives” and just look at the ideas behind them, our poster’s views aren’t that different.

We all want “Equal opportunity” over “Equal rewards”.

We start to see deviations in opinion when we talk about the methods to bring about this equal opportunity, but for the most part I think the statement above is something we all agree on. Seeing how the title of the thread started as “True Definition of Liberal Please”, I don’t blame you guys for fussing over the meaning of the word, but I think we got caught up in the details, and lost the big picture.

I still stand by my statement that every successful society requires both liberal (the force for reformation) and conservative (force for preservation) parties to be in equilibrium. And this balance to be governed by our government.
I don’t keep up with America’s political scene too well, so it’s hard for me to contrast this view with our current government, anyone got any opinions on this?
I agree some what but that time is almost past. We are fighting a War now and lives are at stake.

Also leave me ot of that first statment.

I dont say what to think or who sucks.

I tell people what I think and becuase of what I Saw.
2006-04-03 08:09:02
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6872|USA

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

OKay....both Liberals and Republicans answer this question.


Are you unpatriotic if you are a against a war your country is fighting?
Nope not at all, I never said anyone was, that sentament comes from those that can't defend a reason WHY we shouldn't be in this war. They can't come up with a reason other than, wars are bad. So they claim that they are called unpatriotc because it is their only hope of taking the spot light off of them and their accoubtability for their words and place it somewhere else.......If you take the time to re-read all the postings, from me at least, you never seen me accuse anyone of being unpatriotic for denouncing the war.
2006-04-03 08:42:40
tF-afrojap
Member
+124|7068|SF

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

OKay....both Liberals and Republicans answer this question.


Are you unpatriotic if you are a against a war your country is fighting?
The question you pose is irrelevant. Here’s why.
If you consider patriotism to be the act of loving and defending your country and it’s actions then yes, willing against what is happening in the country would make you unpatriotic. But being "patriotic" does not automatically mean a good thing, and is completely dependant on what you are supporting. Being a patriot in Nazi Germany wouldn’t be a good thing would it? What's important is not about you being a patriot or not, but what you are supporting.

edit: Then again, being engaged in a war is just one aspect of the country, so I wouldn't simply call one unpatriotic for not supporting the war.
2006-04-03 08:55:59
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7058

lowing wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

OKay....both Liberals and Republicans answer this question.


Are you unpatriotic if you are a against a war your country is fighting?
Nope not at all, I never said anyone was, that sentament comes from those that can't defend a reason WHY we shouldn't be in this war. They can't come up with a reason other than, wars are bad. So they claim that they are called unpatriotc because it is their only hope of taking the spot light off of them and their accoubtability for their words and place it somewhere else.......If you take the time to re-read all the postings, from me at least, you never seen me accuse anyone of being unpatriotic for denouncing the war.
Here I depart, I feel once we are in a War, We must Protect Our Own At all costs.

I feel the Term "Our Own " is not open for debate. If you are not with us, you are against us.

There may be shades of black and White in peace.

But there "IS A LINE in WAR Time " it should not be crossed in WAR Time.

"If you are against us in a time of WAR. = Treason "

Right, wrong, lies, bad Intel can be sorted out later. Our people are in Harms way now.

I realize this is somewhat simplistic and harsh. However I believe it is an Absolut.

Also or enemies are Simplistic and harsh, and see America as just this way.

Having been kept in the Dark for so long by their leaders,
they cant Imagine a society where the man who shot the President Can ask " to go home for Easter " and people actually debate its merits.
or A man can say "F*CK you to the VP in front of his Armed body guards with no fear at all.

To them there is a clear line also,
They believe Dissenters are on their side.
This is moral building for them.
So You are indeed " Aiding the Enemy. "

I would Hang all. Starting with jane fonda and tom hayden.
No statute of limitations, I kid you not. Peoples brothers, sons, fathers, daughters are fighting right now.

Battlefield dead are gone forever.
2006-04-03 09:05:25
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6915|San Francisco

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

OKay....both Liberals and Republicans answer this question.


Are you unpatriotic if you are a against a war your country is fighting?
You'll begin to run into the Patriotism vs. Nationalism debate with this question.  It's not unpatriotic at all to be against a war, it just comes down to whether you particularly support War or not.  Patriotism is the love and devotion you have to your country.  Nationalism explains the extreme forms of patriotism, where you get the whole "with us or against us" attitude, plus feel that your country is superior to others.
2006-04-03 09:25:53
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7058

Marconius wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

OKay....both Liberals and Republicans answer this question.


Are you unpatriotic if you are a against a war your country is fighting?
You'll begin to run into the Patriotism vs. Nationalism debate with this question.  It's not unpatriotic at all to be against a war, it just comes down to whether you particularly support War or not.  Patriotism is the love and devotion you have to your country.  Nationalism explains the extreme forms of patriotism, where you get the whole "with us or against us" attitude, plus feel that your country is superior to others.
Again, I know its Harsh, But..War is harsh.

Please replace my word ( Simplistic ) with ( Clear-cut ).

In War Time, I become a Nationalist. My Devotion turns Extreme. My Patriotism becomes Extreme.

Conversely I see Dissent as Extreme also.

In War time, I do believe it becomes "  Exactly " a case of  " US vs THEM "

That is what creates my extreme devotion to Us.

I do feel my Country is Superior to theirs Morally, Ethically, Technically and Militarily.
2006-04-03 09:29:32
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6883|USA

Horseman 77 wrote:

Marconius wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

OKay....both Liberals and Republicans answer this question.


Are you unpatriotic if you are a against a war your country is fighting?
You'll begin to run into the Patriotism vs. Nationalism debate with this question.  It's not unpatriotic at all to be against a war, it just comes down to whether you particularly support War or not.  Patriotism is the love and devotion you have to your country.  Nationalism explains the extreme forms of patriotism, where you get the whole "with us or against us" attitude, plus feel that your country is superior to others.
Again, I know its Harsh, But..War is harsh.

Please replace my word ( Simplistic ) with ( Clear-cut ).

In War Time, I become a Nationalist. My Devotion turns Extreme. My Patriotism becomes Extreme.

Conversely I see Dissent as Extreme also.

In War time, I do believe it becomes "  Exactly " a case of  " US vs THEM "

That is what creates my extreme devotion to Us.

I do feel my Country is Superior to theirs Morally, Ethically, Technically and Militarily.
"Thiers" being....?  Everyone?
2006-04-03 10:14:15
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,978|6853|949

I strongly disagree with Horseman77.  I think it is ridiculous to say we should blindly follow what our "elected" leaders say and do in wartime.  To say, "you are either with us or against us" is ignorant.  People can support the president but not the war and vice-versa.  Do you think George Bush supports our troops?  There can be arguments made for and against.  I think being patriotic is doing what you believe is best for the country you live in to better it for everyone.  Being patriotic is NOT agreeing with the people in power on everything, just because we are engaged in war.  Treason is such a strong word to be thrown out here.  I support our troops, in the fact that I strongly feel emotionally for all the people in our armed forces risking their lives every day they are over in another country fighting.  I do not agree with our government's reasoning in going to war, and I think the "War on Terror" is going to become worse than Vietnam, so does that make me unpatriotic?  All I want is the best for my country (fellow citizens of the US), and it just so happens that I think the best for my country is not to be engaged in a war that drains our resources.  Also, I would love to debate anyone who thinks the U.S.A. is morally/ethically superior all other countries.
2006-04-03 11:00:19
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7058

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I strongly disagree with Horseman77. I think it is ridiculous to say we should blindly follow what our "elected" leaders say and do in wartime.
I never said " Blindly follow," I have come across this type of rebuttal before, If you can, Just address what I said not what you think I meant or wish I said.
These people are not stupid they can read.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

To say, "you are either with us or against us" is ignorant.
Starts with the name calling, nice ! Its a War. If locked in a struggle for my life, my friend stands by and does nothing, I call him a friend no longer.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

People can support the president but not the war and vice-versa.
You cannot actively oppose this WAR without aiding the Enemy. The President was not part of that argument.
If you are addressing me than address my argument. If you can.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Do you think George Bush supports our troops?
yes

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

There can be arguments made for and against.
not applicable

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I think being patriotic is doing what you believe is best for the country you live in to better it for everyone.
In a War that means Backing it up until the WAR is over. This War will only be over if the Enemy's will ebbs. We have beaten down better men than these. Do not aid their morale by using defeatist activities and  telling them They are winning, going to win, etc.,

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Being patriotic is NOT agreeing with the people in power on everything, just because we are engaged in war.
I never said this either. I have come across this type of rebuttal before, If you can, Just address what I said not what you think I meant or wish I said.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Treason is such a strong word to be thrown out here.
It is. I also said it was Harsh, It is relative because we are in a WAR. War is harsh and harsh messures are called for encouraged and awarded.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I support our troops, in the fact that I strongly feel emotionally for all the people in our armed forces risking their lives every day they are over in another country fighting.  I do not agree with our government's reasoning in going to war,
Noted. Not an applicable argument to my post.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

and I think the "War on Terror" is going to become worse than Vietnam, so does that make me unpatriotic?
Yes.

This War will only be over if the Enemy's will ebbs. We have beaten down better men than these. Do not aid them morally. By using defeatist activities like telling them " They are winning" "going to win" etc. You are giving them Aid and comfort you are boosting their moral. That might give one insurgent just enough optimism and faith in his own leader to fire one more round at one more American soldier. Better to err on the side of caution until the war is over.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

All I want is the best for my country (fellow citizens of the US), and it just so happens that I think the best for my country is not to be engaged in a war that drains our resources.
I believe you. Fuck resources, Bill me. Its to late now for that. The time for careful applications of resources was after the WTC 93 strike. People are Dying. We all know the WAR is bad for everyone even the environment It will be 10 times worse For everyone and everything, Even for the Terrorists if we don't win it

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Also, I would love to debate anyone who thinks .
3rd time now. A pattern is beginning to show. I never said " the U.S.A. is morally/ethically superior all other countries"
I said Verbatim " I do feel my Country is Superior to theirs Morally, Ethically, Technically and Militarily. "

Although I have not become hostile, I do believe you misquote me and skew my meaning intentionally.
I have come across this type of rebuttal before, If you can, Just address what I said, not what you think I meant. Not what you wish I said.
All my words are there for all to read as are yours.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

"One ought, every day at least, to hear a little song, read a good poem, see a fine picture, and if it were possible, to speak a few reasonable words.".
I also have and read poetry. I create art. Paint Sculpt. I buy my GFs kids books of Art, verse etc. I wish I knew how to make Sigs Because I believe sketches I have made on a moving subway are a cut above others I have seen here. It would be fun to have people wiegh in on the merit or lack of in my work.

I also believe Some one who yells " lets says Kick their Asses " when his countriy is at War is not instantly guilty of being Ignorant, Redneck etc. ( Add your favorite condesending phrase.)

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-04-04 11:53:48)

2006-04-03 11:38:01
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,978|6853|949

I appreciate the time to go through my statement and offer your views on it.  I would like to know how I am unpatriotic or aiding the enemy because I actively do not support the war.  I never said they were winning, simply that the WAR ON TERROR will become another quagmire like Vietnam.  I think our views on what being a patriot is differs slightly.  Furthermore, if George Bush supports our troops, why is he sending them into harms way without the necessary protection (body armor)?  Personally, if I were going to subject my soldiers to war, I would want to make sure every step was taken to ensure that they are able to fight with the best equipment available.  This is one case where GW does not support our troops.  For what it is worth, I never called you ignorant, just the statement.  I agree with your rebuttal, but do not think that it is relevant to the argument, if for the only reason that this war is not as personal as your statement is.  I believe the word you meant to use is morale, not moral.  Morals are ethical convictions, morale is the psychological mindset of a person.  Lastly, my response was not a direct attack at you or your beliefs, you just got me started on something that I feel strongly about.  Some of my statements were directed at you, and some were directed at the general forum audience.  I apologize for not making that clearer.  And please define "their" in "I do feel my Country is Superior to theirs Morally, Ethically, Technically and Militarily."  My point being that we as a nation have very convoluted morals and ethics, and it is debatable whether the US is superior to others in that regard.
2006-04-03 11:40:14
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6883|USA

DIEHARDBULLDOG wrote:

Ever notice Conservatives have the most powerful land animal on the planet as their mascot, the Elephant, whereby the Liberals use the Jackass?  Enough said.
These  symbols were created by a political cartoonists before you were thought of. By a republican. Nuff said. Back on topic.

Edit: Technically, its the Democrats that use the jackass rather than liberals. Oh nevermind...same thing in your world.

Last edited by Mason4Assassin444 (2006-04-03 11:49:10)

2006-04-03 11:44:56
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,978|6853|949

Horseman 77 wrote:

I also have and read poetry. I create art. Paint Sculpt. I buy my GFs kids books of Art, verse etc. I wish I knew how to make Sigs Because I believe sketches I have made on a moving subway are a cut above others I have seen here. It would be fun to have people wiegh in on the merit or lack of in my work.
That's good, some people fail to take the time to realize how art can be very therapeutic in this hustle and bustle world.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-04-03 11:46:38)

2006-04-03 15:21:55
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6874

Horseman 77 wrote:

Right, wrong, lies, bad Intel can be sorted out later. Our people are in Harms way now.
I declare war on Horseman_77, he's been making chemical weapons in his basement despite numerous warnings and false promises he would stop.  We can sort out whether it was right or wrong once it's over.  Everybody, if you don't support me you will be put against the wall and shot.  I know it's kind of harsh, but this is war people.

Note:  <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags omitted.
2006-04-03 15:33:01
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6872|USA

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

Right, wrong, lies, bad Intel can be sorted out later. Our people are in Harms way now.
I declare war on Horseman_77, he's been making chemical weapons in his basement despite numerous warnings and false promises he would stop.  We can sort out whether it was right or wrong once it's over.  Everybody, if you don't support me you will be put against the wall and shot.  I know it's kind of harsh, but this is war people.

Note:  <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags omitted.
before you go to war against horeseman77 be sure to get approval from congress and the UN like Bush did.
2006-04-03 15:42:55
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6874

lowing wrote:

before you go to war against horeseman77 be sure to get approval from congress and the UN like Bush did.
Don't think congress have authority over the internet (yet), so it should be enough to fail to get UN approval like Bush did.  I just tried ringing Kofi Annan but the phone line was busy... but I'm sure he'd say no anyway so let's just assume I don't have UN backing until the war is over, ok?

Hang on a minute, I hope you aren't saying you don't support this war?  (At this point UnO starts assembling a firing squad, just to be on the safe side).

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 11

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard