You can take the....

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sputdr, Mar 29, 2006.

  1. Which ET posters do you think will be the first volunteers when the Nazi Flag goes up in D.C.
     
    #21     Mar 30, 2006
  2. Why is it hypocrisy? I am discussing current events, I have no interest in discussing ancient history. Your desire to change the subject and sputr's daily rants about Bill Clinton are obvious attempts to obfuscate the discussion of today's serious issues though.
     
    #22     Mar 30, 2006
  3. Don't you think that Bill Clinton's refusal to address terrorism and when Sudan offered up Bin Laden is relevant to current events?

    Can you make the connection?
     
    #23     Mar 30, 2006
  4. which serious issues?

    my point is that invading countries is nothing new.

    some i have supported (regardless of the party affiliation of the curent president) and some i don't

    recognizing that this is hardly a new edifice of the evul neocon bush cabal (tm) is instructive in giving perspective though

    something i am sensing you lack
     
    #24     Mar 30, 2006
  5. Of course it is nothing new and I never said it was. It just does not make it any less wrong than it was before, it does not make the brainwashed, ignorant and blind supporters of this invasion any less brainwashed, ignorant and blind than their predesessors. Whether the democrats or republicans were idiots 50 years ago is irrelevant now, today republicans are.
     
    #25     Mar 30, 2006
  6. That's exactly my point, you keep whining about ancient history (Bill Clinton) as if it's supposed to justify this total failure of a president that you voted for twice and whose completely moronic and incompetent policies you have blindly supported for almost 6 years.

    Whether the sudanese offer did or did not happen, whether Clinton could or could not accept it and prosecute OBL, whether it was a mistake or not is absolutely irrelevant to the disaster Bush and republicans have been during the last 6 years, including BTW being asleep at the wheel on 9/11 and not being able to catch OBL and Mullah Omar.

    Whether you like it or not but a disproportionately high number of american casualties from terrorism happened under republican administrations - Reagan and GWB. Why is it by the way you're not whining that Reagan and Bush Senior did not address terrorism, that they actually created and armed OBL and that Reagan ran from Lebanon with his tail between his legs?
     
    #26     Mar 30, 2006
  7. Every

    Single

    Time

    The

    Right

    Wingers

    Bring

    Up

    Clinton

    Or

    Any

    Other

    Democrats

    When

    Criticism

    Is

    Directed

    At

    Bush

    It

    Is

    A

    Straw

    Man

    Fallacy.

    Bottom line:

    If the democratic USSR had invaded Iraq claiming Saddam had WMD, the right wingers would be up in arms screaming about a Soviet invasion and agression....they would not be cheering that the Iraqi people had been liberated, that "democracy" was being given to the people of Iraq.

    Let's not dance around the truth, this is/was a war of U.S. imperialism, not at all about National Security, not about human rights, and not at all about National Security because Saddam, like so many two bit dictators, wanted to have nukes. EVERY SINGLE DICTATOR WANTS NUKES....Castro has access to them, why is he in power?
     
    #27     Mar 30, 2006
  8. The reason people bring up Clinton is because he is the only Dimocrap with any significant political power in the last 14 years.......
     
    #28     Mar 30, 2006
  9. maxpi

    maxpi

    The centrist Democrats. Like the Nazis they use the press as their propaganda machine, they are internally socialistic and externally anti communistic, in their view people are children of nature not children of God, children are property of the state not their parents, etc.
     
    #29     Mar 30, 2006
  10. i really detest elitism like this

    case in point

    "brainwashed, ignorant and blind supporters of this invasion "

    there are many for and against the invasion.

    regardless, being on either side does not suggest, imply, or mean that there is blindness, ignorance, or brainwashing

    SOME on either side are all of the above. but it doesn't follow

    it is a common ploy, and one i see more often on the left, and i read Mother Jones, the Nation, etc. and other leftwing pubs constantly - that people who have a different POV are either 1) stupid, blind, ignorant, etc. or 2) evil

    i see this constantly

    one can disagree with the invasion or agree with it. one can disagree with another on that point. fwiw, there is disagreement AMONG repubs, dems, green, libs, etc. heck lots of dems were for it. the point is that having a pro-invasion POV does not imply brainwashing, ignorance, etc.

    i do not disrespect those who were against the invasion by claiming that.

    THAT is a classic way to attack the person vs. the idea, and also has little basis in the reality of why and how people analyze data to make decisions
     
    #30     Mar 30, 2006