You appear to be confused. You quote a post of mine addressed to Madison. Did you miss my posts that replied to you? Go back a few pages. I never claimed that we needed to spend "TAX DOLLARS to right every wrong in the world." You asked, "[W]hy haven't we stuck our noses into the business of other countries with similar human rights violations??" I replied: Anyway, if you really cared about your taxes, you'd be a huge Bush fan, for having pushed tax cuts more fervently than anyone since Reagan. Frankly, I don't think you care about the $60 billion price tag you put on the war - or what the real costs of the war will be compared to the Federal Budget or the GDP, over the course of several years, or what the cost of a bigger war a few years from now would be after we withdrew from the region and Saddam re-armed - I think you just want something to complain about. Why can't you read the answers? Why can't you engage on the actual arguments? Who gives a fuck what you give a fuck about? Who gives a fuck how many capital letters you use? Apparently, you don't "give a fuck" about what happens elsewhere in the world. Most people didn't give a fuck about the Taliban, for instance: Newsflash - Al Qaeda took Afghanistan over, and used it as a base of operations to plan and train terrorists who would like nothing better than to see people like you and me dead, whether we gave a fuck about them or not. If we don't handle problems early, we end up having to handle them later, at much greater pain and cost. Finally, on the WMD issue: For months, we've been discussing the diverse moral and strategic justifications for the war. On another thread, I recently analyzed the Administration's case for the war in some detail - it went far beyond possession of deliverable WMDs. I believe, in short, that Saddam was a threat even without WMDs - as the world agreed he demonstrated in '90-1. If you're interested, I could provide you the links, but something tells me that you're too committed to your HAL scenario even to consider alternative views seriously. I provided one scenario for what I believe may have happened with Iraqi WMD programs. You go on as though you have complete and perfect knowledge. I see nothing but distortions and assumptions that give you the chance to shout and curse.
Funny how the "RIGHT" favors the protestors in Iran, yet didn't favor the protestors of the war here at home....suggesting that their protests were "anti-American" and unpatriotic. Oh well, I guess when you are "RIGHT" you are always right.
MSFE....you are a joke! Why can you not speak for yourself? What is the purpose of posting a link from a meaningless website designed and maintained by fanatics? What is your purpose of posting on ET at all other than to be inflammatory? Isn't there a place you can go that you would feel more at home? Somewhere you could feel welcomed and not universally found as an intruder of no redeeming value? Obviously there are others on our planet who empathize with your beliefs. Fortunately, not many, and virtually none in America. So why not take your hatred where it will be appreciated? I heard about some caves in Afghanistan that may feel like home for you. There is also a paradise vacation spot in Guantanamo Bay where you would probably be welcomed and even have your accommodations paid for by American taxpayers. RS
AAA and Kymer....I respect both of you. You express your beliefs clearly and make strong arguments using your beliefs (as misguided as they may be). The problem is, you are both almost as fanatical as MSFE. There is no objectivity at all in your points of view. Bringing up the "left" in virtually every post as some kind of danger to the "American Way" is really getting tiresome. Who "wailed" and when? Where were they when they did? And if they did, who did they represent? Some of your arguments, while well expressed, are just factually inaccurate. Talking about Bush's and Reagan's "tax cuts" is an example of looking at an issue without any regard for the true effect and facts of the issue. Quoting John Kerry and then making innacurate deductions from the words is just plain cheating. Dirty tactics. Does the word "IF" have any meaning???? I have said this before....when Rush Limbaugh makes outrageous claims, it is "entertainment". How you guys can take this stuff so seriously is beyond me. Again, nothing is so black and white as you guys seem to see it. (I am hopeful you are both to some degree putting on an "act" like Rush does...it troubles me to think you are not). Peace, RS
Perhaps if you used the word "Fuck" in capital letters, or underlined it, or made it a bigger type face it would be more effecitve in getting your point across.
(golf clap) great example of the neocon 180:* a reversal of historical acts and actors so obviously and arrogantly false that one is at a loss as to how to respond. those that held up white-powder vials with conviction, and chanted "mushroom cloud" and "sarin" for 8 months on national television are now "careful hedgers;" those that asked for evidence have now become not only "endless wailers," but "wailers" that, instead, didn't ask for evidence. and this ploy goes on and on, switching and reversing - until, presumably, people just get sick of listening, and things can proceed as planned. * prime example being kristol, one of the most aggressive proponents of the war and constant talking-head lecturer on the specific, concrete, immediate dangers of iraq, recently foxnewsing that maybe the intelligence provided to Bush was wrong, and that the people that provided it should be investigated. lol.
Being middle-of-the-road, or unaffiliated, or uncertain, or maybe moderately liberal, or inconsistent doesn't make you wiser or more objective, it just makes you middle-of-the-road, unaffiliated, uncertain, maybe moderately liberal, or inconsistent. Objectivity, in this context, would include the ability and willingness to take each argument on its own terms, regardless of the actual or suspected political affiliation of the individual who offered it. Blanket judgments and vapid generalizations don't qualify as objective merely because the person who offers them is urging moderation. As for references to "the Left," this discussion is, among other things, a political discussion, and political affiliations and affinities naturally come into play. Sometimes, the political label serves as a kind of shorthand, and not everyone is embarrassed by the idea of being associated with an overarching political perspective or definable group. Sometimes, the labels come up in the context of assessing the political correlation of forces. Sometimes, they come up in a more aggressive way, though often it's just self-defense. I've never criticized people for protesting or otherwise voicing their opinions. I certainly have criticized some of their actual statements and some of their approaches, and some of those statements and approaches have arguably qualified as "anti-American" and/or unpatriotic. On the other hand, have you noticed how many times people have tried to lump me together with some stereotyped group of talk-radio listeners or Fox News watchers - as if doing so somehow responds to whatever argument I happen to have been making? Have you noticed how frequently the purveyors of some conspiracy theory or some extremely cynical or slanderous view of Bush Administration policy have claimed that anyone who disagrees with them is "stupid," or "blind," or "naive" - or "fanatical" or worse? Apparently, you haven't noted how often those who disagree with AAA or me or the rest of us have been unable to offer cogent responses, and instead have resorted to name-calling, personal attacks, blanket characterizations, guilt by association, and irrelevant side-issues. Apparently, you've somehow not been struck by how frequently the Right and its political representatives have here been accused of warmongering, inhumanity, racism, dishonesty, corruption, stupidity, and so on. It seems to me that you haven't felt moved to speak up at those times, presuming you were even aware of them, because you lack objectivity, and because that kind of thing bothers you only when you suspect it's being applied to those with whom you sympathize. In this regard, making a show of dismissing msfe doesn't count for much as proof of your objectivity. I believe AAA and I have both striven to offer arguments supported by some logical and factual basis. I don't see much of that on the other side in these parts, I'm sorry to say. I don't catch Fox very often - possibly even not as often as Madison, it would seem - and I catch Rush Limbaugh even less frequently - possibly even loss frequently than you do, it would seem - but I have caught some discussion in both venues that certainly rose above the average level of ET chit-chat. And even if I was a big Fox fan or ditto head, what difference would or should it make? Either my arguments and my information are sound, or they aren't. If anyone has a better argument or better information, he or she should produce it.
Fairly typical example of the Madison 180: Using an exaggerated and insulting blanket characterization in order to criticize what he perceives to be an exaggerated and insulting blanket characterization.
RS, The Kerry article was a cut and paste from Drudge. His characterization, not mine, although I think it is typical of Kerry trying to be on all sides of an issue. The problem with being President is sometimes you have to made an actual decision without all the facts. The American people seem pretty comfortable with this President making the tough calls. ps. When I say the Left I mean the NYTimes/hollywood/media/europacifist/antiUS/antiglobalization/envirowacko crowd.