User information for Ron

Real Name
Ron
Nickname
Warhawk
Email
Concealed by request
Description
To prevent further misconception, the nick comes from the 85-ton assault mech that was a personal favorite in the MechWarrior game. But, then again, you probably don't care. But maybe you do....
Homepage
None given.
Signed On
July 27, 2004
Supporter
-
Total Posts
3853 (Veteran)
User ID
21411
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
3853 Comments. 193 pages. Viewing page 193.
Newer [  1    178  179  180  181  182  183  184  185  186  187  188  189  190  191  192  193  ] Older
105.
 
Is it 5 pm yet???
Aug 3, 2004, 15:14
Is it 5 pm yet??? Aug 3, 2004, 15:14
Aug 3, 2004, 15:14
 
Just got it at Best Buy - took an early lunch to pick it up at the Arden store in Sacramento - the other local stores supposedly have it too. I also picked up a Logitech gaming mouse (getting tired of the original 4-year-old MS Explorer) with instant $10 off if you buy both. Also got a pair of headphones. Best part is, I had $75 in those Reward Zone certificates and a couple gift cards, so it was all FREE!

Back to work (grumble, grumble...)



Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? - Ripley
44.
 
Re: best buy?
Aug 3, 2004, 14:13
44.
Re: best buy? Aug 3, 2004, 14:13
Aug 3, 2004, 14:13
 
"Anyone find it at a regular best buy yet? Not at one of the midnight ones I mean? I have a $10 voucher from the rewards card thing that I'd like to use, and would love to go over after work if they'd have em in yet."


Yes - just took an early lunch to pick it up at the Arden store in Sacramento - the other local stores supposedly have it too. I also picked up a Logitech gaming mouse (getting tired of the original 4-year-old MS Explorer) with instant $10 off if you buy both. Also got a pair of headphones. Best part is, I had $75 in those Reward Zone certificates and a couple gift cards, so it was all FREE!

I have a AXP 2500+, 1 GB RAM, and 5700U card - hopefully will get time to load it and play a bit tonight.

Back to work (grumble, grumble...)


Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? - Ripley
197.
 
Re: Warhawk
Aug 2, 2004, 14:47
Re: Warhawk Aug 2, 2004, 14:47
Aug 2, 2004, 14:47
 
And I really like Kerry's plans for Iraq - "I have a secret plan that I am not going to share with anyone until I am elected".

WTF is that?!?!? A secret plan? You want to be elected PRESIDENT and you aren't going to share your plans and goals with the people? How can anyone evaluate your approach to this "problem" if you won't share it with anyone? This is what I mean - he CANNOT and WILL NOT elaborate on how he intends to approach this issue. That should really make you pause about voting for this guy.



Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? - Ripley
196.
 
Re: Warhawk
Aug 2, 2004, 12:54
Re: Warhawk Aug 2, 2004, 12:54
Aug 2, 2004, 12:54
 
"And considering the nature of the intelligence, which we now understand was not very reliable"

True, but THAT WAS NOT BUSH's FAULT! You cannot blame him for the CIA blowing their part of the job. Is that too complex to understand?

"Obviously we need to give law enforcement the ability to enforce the law, but not with sweeping pieces of broadly worded legislation that can be very easily abused."

I agree, but what harm has it done? I don't want an essay, give me ONE concrete example of how you personally are harmed by the Patriot Act. Just one. You can't - because your freedoms have not been infringed upon in the least.

"So you still think that invading Iraq was NECESSARY to protect this country?"

In the long run, yes. The country was a known supporter of terrorism (see previous posts) and we had verified threats of upcoming Iraq terrorist attacks against America or American interests from the Russian intelligence agency. You may disagree, but I would rather hunt down the enemy where they live than fight them on our own soil. I guess you'd rather wait for another 9/11 to happen before pulling your own head out of the sand and see the problem.

"And on that childish note, I think I've wasted enough time talking to you. Your most recent post was far too long to bother wading through, so I won't."

It wasn't childish - Kerry has stated that he would want the world's approval for action (including our "alienated" allies of France and Germany) prior to acting on the world stage. We were enforcing the multiple UN resolutions - WE ALREADY HAD THE BACKING OF THE UN.

Convenient that you don't want to comment on the material I posted. You can't refute it, so why bother, huh?

"That's like calling someone "nerd" because they're intelligent. Situations change, and new information comes to light. "Sticking to your guns" is a fucking stupid way to lead. Bush's position on stem cell research was idiotic, and still is. But you've gotta applaud his consistency, right? Wrong."

There is a difference between changing your mind with new information and flopping on your initial support. One is "I originally supported it, now I am opposed". The second is "I never supported it" - a lie. Kerry may be the former, but he always expresses the latter, which is despicable. He DID support the war, but constantly lies about it. What else will he lie about? How often, once he gets in office, will he flop? How can you trust anything the guy says? He can't keep any of his stories straight.

Also - I never said I agree with Bush on stem-cell research - in fact I disagree. I just mentioned it as an example of a President stating a position in his candidacy and keeping that stand after being elected despite intense political pressure. Even though I disagree with him on this issue, you knew where he stood prior to the election and hasn't wavered on that stand. Bush knows where he stands on the issues and so do you. The same CANNOT be said for Kerry, for whom you get different answers to the same question depending on the month you ask him.

This comment was edited on Aug 2, 12:56.

Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? - Ripley
195.
 
Re: Warhawk
Aug 2, 2004, 12:25
Re: Warhawk Aug 2, 2004, 12:25
Aug 2, 2004, 12:25
 
"I could write 10 pages on how many misleading, shortsighted, stupid, and plain old FALSE concepts are in that paragraph."

Doubt it - the info is true.

Did we not crush the Taliban?
Haven't we put a serious hurt on al-Qaida?
Didn't Libya open up about their arms program and let in inspectors?
Didn't we get Saddam?

What part of that DIDN'T happen? Anyone? Thought so.

Pull your own head out and wake up, or at least follow world events once in a while. You are the brainwashed one, my friend.

I, too, wish us luck, but you need to make your own, not just hope for it to arrive.


Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? - Ripley
191.
 
Re: Warhawk
Aug 2, 2004, 01:16
Re: Warhawk Aug 2, 2004, 01:16
Aug 2, 2004, 01:16
 
"Repeatedly calling Kerry a "flip-flopper", which is a very tired party-line, says a lot about your reasoning, or lack thereof."

It's the TRUTH! That's the reasoning.

"Anyone can make a list of flip-flops by just about anyone, and CERTAINLY about Bush."

Then where is it? Where is the list of substantial positions he has taken and made dramatic reversals on? The war? No. Stem cell research? No. Is there anything? Come on, post a list of quotes of flip-flops on important issues if you can.

"Bush has demonstrated, if anything, that he DOES NOT have what it takes to do this correctly!"

How? By annoying the French? Sorry if it doesn't make my eyes misty. In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation. It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

We found Sarin gas and mustard gas in shells in Iraq. If those aren't WMDs, what are?

"He pissed off EVERYBODY: half his own country, the international community, the UN, you mention it, he handled it wrongly."

He handled it the best way possible at the time. Half the country hated Bush from the moment he won the election, just because his name has an "R" next to it. The UN left of it's own accord because Saddam wasn't cooperating. They left because the situatuion, before the war started, was "unstable". They bailed on the situation, and you're upset because we went into this "unstable" country to enforce the resolutions the UN was too weak and spineless to do on it's own? That's rich. Really, you've got to be kidding.

"Then he made it even worse by having a web of interconnected interests representing huge money currents flowing from iraq to people in his inner circle of friends and associates, including the ridiculous relationship of the vicepresident with halliburton."

Ok, again, where is this "web" everyone talks so much about? According to CNN:

"Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Texas-based Halliburton Co., one of the world's largest service providers to the oil and gas industry, from 1995 to 2000, when he resigned to run for vice president. ... the deferred compensation was set up two years before he became a vice presidential candidate in 2000 and that he assigned all his stock options to a charitable trust just before being sworn in."

Yeah, Cheney is really raking in the dough because if the war. I also wonder who would be better at performing the work Halliburton is doing? Which company is more qualified, more able, and more capable to do the work? You cannot call up Joe Schmo contractor and say, "Here, fix Iraq". I am not defending Halliburton or saying it was the only choice for the work, but there are damn few companies capable of doing the work and the Pres and VP are NOT making money on it. If you think the US went to war with approval of Congress and backing to make Halliburton rich, you are a delusional. Exactly what are England, Poland, and the rest of the countries backing the liberation of Iraq getting out of this without Halliburton connections?

Iraq was supporting terrorists:

http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive_Index/A_Decade_of_Deception_and_Defiance.html#support

Iraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of international terrorism. UNSCR 687 prohibits Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Saddam continues to violate these UNSCR provisions. Patterns of Global Terrorism 2001: Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism; US Department of State; May 21, 2002.

* In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.

* Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians. Ibid.

* Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer. Ibid.

* Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq. Ibid.

* In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue." "Jenin Families Pocket Iraqi Cash"; The Washington Times: London Daily Telegraph; May 31, 2002.

* Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

"If anything, by sheer logic, Kerry should have the benefit of the doubt, at least you know he's smart, educated, and a pretty tough guy, as a man."

Why? Did he graduate from Yale like Bush? You can't say that that's an easy place to get a degree. A pretty tough guy?

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/airborne_combat_engineer/2004/01/whats_the_true_.html

"The Harvard Crimson newspaper [specifically Samuel Goldhaber, the article's author who is now a cardiologist attached to the Harvard School of Medicine] followed a youthful Mr Kerry in Boston as he campaigned for Congress for the first time in 1970. In the course of a lengthy article, "John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress", published on February 18, the paper reported: "When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy." Dr. Goldhaber, contacted recently, said he doesn't remember every detail, but does remember that John Kerry never contacted him to dispute anything he had written."

and:

"According to Kerry's own description in Douglas Brinkley's Tour of Duty, the Dec. 2, 1968, mission behind what he has claimed to be his first Purple Heart was "a half-assed action that hardly qualified as combat." Indeed. Kerry was stationed with Coastal Division 14 at Cam Ranh Bay. At that time he piloted a small foam-filled boat, known as a Boston Whaler, with two enlisted men in the darkness of early morning. The intent, apparently, was to patrol an area that was known for contraband trafficking, but it was an undocumented mission. Upon approaching the objective point, the crew noticed a sampan crossing the river. As it pulled to shore, Kerry and his little team opened fire, destroying the boat and whatever its cargo might have been.

In the confusion, Kerry claims to have received a "stinging piece of heat" in the arm, the result of a tiny piece of shrapnel. He was not incapacitated and continued with regular swiftboat-patrol duty. William Shachte, who oversaw this ad hoc mission, was quoted by the Boston Globe as saying Kerry's injury, from whatever source, "was not a serious wound at all."

But Kerry met with his immediate superior officer, Lt.Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, the next morning and requested a Purple Heart for his wound. Hibbard recalls that Kerry had a "minor scratch" on his arm and was holding in his hand what appeared to be a fragment of a U.S. M-79 grenade, the shrapnel that had caused the wound. "They didn't receive enemy fire," Hibbard tells Insight. Since this was an essential requirement for the award, the commander rejected Kerry's request. Hibbard does not remember that Kerry received medical attention of any kind and confirms that no one else on the mission suffered any injuries.

Shortly thereafter, Kerry was transferred to Coastal Division 11 at An Thoi. Apparently, Kerry petitioned to have his Purple Heart request reconsidered. Hibbard remembers getting correspondence from Kerry's new division, asking for his approval. In the hurried process of moving to a new command himself, Hibbard thinks he might have signed off on the award. If so, "it was to my chagrin," Hibbard remembers. Kerry's second commander, Lt.Cmdr. G.M. Elliott, says he has no recollection of such an event ever occurring."


OK, there's your "hero". Don't get me wrong, I salute the man for fighting for our country and take nothing away from his service in Vietnam. But, he only went because he wasn't allowed a deferrment to go to Paris to study and whined his way to medals he may not have rightfully earned. Then, to top it off, he admits "atrocities" were commonplace by he and his men, and never REPORTS them? Then he tosses his ribbons in war protests (keeps the medals, though, mind you - why?) and then touts his war experience in his acceptance speech?

AGAIN - take a stand on one side of the issue and stick with it!

This comment was edited on Aug 2, 01:24.

Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? - Ripley
190.
 
Re: Warhawk
Aug 2, 2004, 00:33
Re: Warhawk Aug 2, 2004, 00:33
Aug 2, 2004, 00:33
 
"Huh? If you believed before the war that there were WMDs, then learned that there weren't, the responsible thing to do is to stick by your original belief? That's idiotic."

That's not what I said, if you'd bother to read carefully. I said, don't waffle on your initial support (don't lie about the support you gave initially). If you change your mind later, don't single out the President and say "It's your bad war" when you voted for it too. Suck it up and admit it, don't say you didn't vote for it or support it wholeheartedly. Also, don't blame the president for the shortfalls of the intelligence agency. He was in office less than a year - the intelligence problems predated his administration. That is a finding of the commission as well.

"It spoke of the atmosphere of "groupthink," the fact that the administration seemed determined to go to war regardless of the accuracy of intelligence."

Possibly, but it also stated that the administration NEVER influenced the intelligence decisions in the least - it let them draw the conclusions it could ON ITS OWN, and then acted on the conclusions/recommendations drawn. The Bush administration DID NOT influence the data acquired and analyzed. The conclusion that Iraq had WMDs were not the result of the administration's interference. That was their INDEPENDENT conclusion.

"And Bush is the guy who may have told us that "God instructed him to strike at Saddam." "

This isn't worth responding to. The article says it doubts he EVER said this, and you know he didn't or it would be everywhere on the media. Quit posting drivel.

"But seriously, the flip-flopping attack is so weak, give it a rest."

Refute it, don't just try to pawn it off. This guy wants to be president and he CANNOT MAKE A DECISION AND STICK WITH IT. He always has to lie and change his opinion. I cannot believe you think that's OK in any way, manner, shape or form.

"Please. Propoganda. But hey, let's trade more liberty for security."

Again, the truth isn't refuted by you, just glossed over and hopefully forgotten. There were communications and data-sharing problems outlined in the report and the cause was, to a large extent, the Clinton administration employees handcuffing the transfer of data. It's true, it's a finding of the report, and Gorelick was a big part of the problem. I don't know about you, but my rights have not been infringed upon. Name one right of yours you have personally lost that was guaranteed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Yeah, I thought so....

"You're grasping at straws."

No, I'm outlining why Bush has been doing the things NECESSARY to protect this country. Things Kerry probably wouldn't have the guts to do without the French holding his hand and saying, "It's OK, we approve". The US needs to be able to act alone, with the support of congress (which Bush had, pretty much unanimously) to enforce UN resolutions on rogue (sp?) governments intent on wiping out neighboring countries and attacking us.


Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? - Ripley
187.
 
Re: Warhawk
Aug 1, 2004, 17:44
Re: Warhawk Aug 1, 2004, 17:44
Aug 1, 2004, 17:44
 
"The senators were acting on the information they were being given."

Exactly, the same info Bush had. If they were all signed on prior to the war based on the info they had, then don't flip-flop later if the info turned out to be bad. Before the war it was:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

After the war it was: This is Bush's evil war. Bad, Bush, bad.

They keep flopping for political gain. If the info changed, then do like Bush did - suck it up, say the info looks like it was bad, can the head of the CIA as the man responsible, and immediately begin implementing changes to make sure it doesn't happen again. What's wrong with that? It's the respectible course of action.

Of course, one of the major problems with intelligence was a member of the commission, Jamie Gorelick, helped prevent information from being shared during Clinton's presidency.

For example:

Attorney General John Ashcroft (search) pointed out that a 1995 memo written by Gorelick during her tenure as second in command at the Justice Department helped build the "walls" that, according to Ashcroft's testimony, prevented the FBI from being able to effectively communicate and go after terrorists. "We did not know an attack was coming because for nearly a decade our government had blinded itself to its enemies," Ashcroft said in his opening remarks. "Our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls, handcuffed by government-imposed restrictions and starved for basic information technology."

and

"She's investigating herself and there's no way an independent commission can come up with an independent conclusion when you have one of the participants, in what appears to be a significant part of the problem, sitting in the commission meeting and having a vote in the commission," Sensenbrenner said.

"I believe the commission's work and independence will be fatally damaged by the continued participation of Ms. Gorelick as a commissioner," the U.S. representative wrote in a statement calling for her resignation.

"Commissioner Gorelick's memo directing a policy that 'go[es] beyond what is legally required' indicates that her judgment and actions as the deputy attorney general in the Reno Justice Department are very much in question before the commission."

Sensenbrenner noted that Ashcroft called the Justice Dept. policy in question "the single greatest structural cause for September 11 ... [and] embraced flawed legal reasoning."

"Commissioner Gorelick is in the unfair position of trying to address the key issue before the Commission when her own actions are central to the events at issue," Sensenbrenner wrote, noting that it's "regrettable the conflict" wasn't brought to light sooner. "The public cannot help but ask legitimate questions about her motives."

Sensenbrenner said Gorelick would be more valuable and less controversial as a witness, not a commission member.

People like former FBI Director Luis Freeh and current FBI chief Robert Mueller, Ashcroft, former presidential adviser Richard Clarke and Rice, who have all testified, "would have rightly sparked indignation about a conflict of interest had these individuals also been members of the commission," Sensenbrenner wrote.


I do not blindly follow the Republican mantra and I have voted for Dems including Diane Feinstein, because they were the best candidate at the time. Right now, we need real leadership and foresight to take us through this war on terrorism. Kerry just doesn't have what it takes.


Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? - Ripley
185.
 
Re: Warhawk
Aug 1, 2004, 15:38
Re: Warhawk Aug 1, 2004, 15:38
Aug 1, 2004, 15:38
 
Hey, I'm not saying that Bush is perfect or that Rep. don't flop or make mistakes. What I am saying is that the last 3 Dem. candidates and the current Dem. members of congress, in particular, cannot take a stand on an issue and stick by it with any regularity. They are ALWAYS blowing in the wind - a signal of weakness to an enemy.

I do not think the war was perfectly fought or always conducted in the way it should have been, but this is WAR. The purpose of an army is to "kill people and break things", not rebuild a country after it has been defeated or be a security force. Do I wish the UN and other agencies were more involved - yes. The reason they are not is their own corruption and lack of will to enforce their own resolutions.

I think it is disgraceful for a candidate to parade himself around as a Vietnam hero after saying that he and other soldiers had "committed atrocities" including murdering unarmed villagers, rape, torture, and plundering. Either he's lying to gain status with the liberals who disliked Vietnam (as if anyone thinks it was "great"), or he committed these acts and should be, as an officer who did not report them, held for dereliction of duty and court-martialed. He can't have it both ways.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/25/hughes.kerry.vietnam/

"I would rather have a president who was capable of changing his mind once new information is gathered. While an unwaivering faith in oneself and conviction in one's actions might be admirable, it starts to look really stupid when new info's available and you're still incapable of admitting that you were mistaken."

There's a big difference between analyzing new evidence (and changing a position occasionally) and what Kerry does. Changing his opinion is a pathological habit with Kerry. He does it like changing his socks. He cannot make a decision and stick with it. At some point in your life you have to develop a moral center and base your important overall decisions on your beliefs. I have yet to see or hear him do that. At his age, you have to stand for something and stick to your guns when it's important, not follow the pols or the latest party dogma. The man has no firm convictions he can stick to on most of the important issues.

Then, if he does decide to take a stand, he cannot articulate any specifics, he just speaks in grand platitudes which leave the unwashed masses feeling warm and fuzzy but never says anything concrete. "I'm for the environment" or the poor, or education, or whatever. WHO ISN'T??? We're all for protecting the environment, for example, but there's different ways to do it, and Kerry never gives concrete examples of what he'd do. He just bashes Bush. I'm sorry, just being against the status quo isn't a valid position.

This comment was edited on Aug 1, 15:39.

Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? - Ripley
180.
 
Halsy
Jul 31, 2004, 15:36
Halsy Jul 31, 2004, 15:36
Jul 31, 2004, 15:36
 
"You really are just a simple creature aren't you? If you can't even grasp that much you have no business even talking to me, much less anyone else about politics."

"Like the rest of you undereducated clowns on the right you're simply to proud to admit it. ... Most of us actually have civil discussions about politics, but than trolls like you or Josh or one of another handful of right-wing idiots jumps in and starts slamming the left for no apparent reason, and that's when things break down."



I like the fact you do not argue any points that do not support your claims, just ignore them and attack the poster. Mature, especially for someone with multiple degrees. Why can't you debate the facts themselves?

Face it, EVERYONE thought there were WMDs in Iraq - Clinton (Bill and Hillary), Kerry, Edwards, the CIA, Russia, Britian, EVERYONE. They are all on record saying so. I think all but Russia are also on record supporting Bush and the war. Just admit that the Dems are floppers and trying to have it both ways. I don't want someone like that representing me to the world.

I think the posting of accurate information refuting your claims is not "slamming", it's just that the more reasonable members of society are tired of being put down for taking a stand and speaking up for what's RIGHT.

I realize right and wrong are foreign concepts to many on the left (and the EXTREME right), but we are not currently watching the candidate on the right lie, hide, and run away from statements he made regarding:

Vietnam, medals won, and support of the war
and
Iraq, Saddam, and WMD

If you want to represent our country, be a man, take a position and stick with it. DO NOT WAFFLE OR KEEP CHANGING YOUR MIND. America deserves better.

This comment was edited on Jul 31, 17:22.

Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? - Ripley
179.
 
Re: Halsy
Jul 31, 2004, 15:21
Re: Halsy Jul 31, 2004, 15:21
Jul 31, 2004, 15:21
 
I doubt we agree on much, but these claims of yours are comedic.

The war NOT about WMD? Kerry didn't support the war initially? Just for starters:

http://www.ron-siddell.com/WMD.htm
http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacenter/read.aspx?ID=2439
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

And before you attack my choice of references - WTF does it matter where the documentation is organized for easy reference, if it's true, which it is, it's true. You keep trying to shoot the messanger because you do not like the message. It's the same message, whether it's delivered from Fox or CNN or Ultra-Lib-Media.com, except your choice of approved sites doesn't show the stuff you do not "agree with".

More to come....

This comment was edited on Jul 31, 17:24.

Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? - Ripley
131.
 
Re: DNC
Jul 27, 2004, 10:47
Re: DNC Jul 27, 2004, 10:47
Jul 27, 2004, 10:47
 
"A fetus is not a person."

That is your opinion. A viable human being, to me, is a person. I am not saying abortion in EVERY case is bad, but it is used WAY too often as just another method of contraception. Think about that BEFORE you drop your undies, not after. I still have no idea how abortion = right to privacy.

"No one is pro-abortion."

I disagree - have you ever seen all those pro-abortion rallies that take place in DC (with all the lib actresses leading the way)? They are pro-abortion, not just pro-choice (to me it's all semantics anyway, if you are for one, you're for the other). Whatever happened to the oath "Do no harm" when becoming a doctor, an oath specifically renouncing abortion?

"It is, however, a personal choice"

It is, however, murder of someone incapable of defending him- or herself.

"I was just curious how someone who claims life is so sacred can possibly be in favor of an instrument of death."

Because of some little thing called the Constitution. I like to think it's still the law of the land. The point is, guns are the great equalizer (when used properly) - old ladies and other "weaker" members of society can protect themselves against against anyone. It's called self-defense.

"The statistics prove you wrong."

In fact, they do not. When has someone who has been put to death for a crime ever committed another? Kinda difficult 6 feet under. A rationally and correctly applied death penalty and revamped sentencing system would greatly reduce crime. The problem is, stockbrokers get 20 years for stealing money in trades and gang members get 5 years for killing someone and do it again within a week of release. Does any of this make sense to you?

"We subsidize everything else - and to far greater degree - so why not people? Trillions in subsidies and tax breaks for corporations and the rich is ok, but helping out people who really need it is wrong? Why not just execute them? Slave labor camps maybe? They're indentured servants already."

That's the problem, the vast majority of these subsidies need to be abolished. You assume I agree with a lot of things I do not. I do not see how some people who cannot get off the couch and find a job is "someone who really needs it" - apparently they just do not want to work for it. I have no problem with a very limited form of welfare to help out those who need a hand for a couple months, but it has become a lifestyle, a dependency on others that does nobody any good. When did I say anything about camps or executions? You're being absurd. This position on welfare obviously does not include those medically unable to work (through birth defects, accidents, etc., however, drug dependency and other willful choices do not qualify here).

"I guess being anti-choice is how you assuage your guilt for everything else."

I have no guilt "for everything else" - why should I? I want everyone to take responsibility for their actions. You do not work, you do not get the rewards for work (a place to live and free money paid for by those who do). You act irresponsibly, there are consequences for your actions. You wantonly kill people - have a nice time in a toasty place hanging out with the 9/11 attackers, sped up a bit by the judicial system.

There is no hypocricy in being pro-life and pro-death penalty. One is taking of a life which deserves to live, the other is speeding up the end of a life deemed forfeited by the law and judicial system based on that person's willful disregard for human life. Sorry if that is difficult to comprehend.

This comment was edited on Jul 27, 11:50.

Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? - Ripley
115.
 
Re: DNC
Jul 27, 2004, 00:52
Re: DNC Jul 27, 2004, 00:52
Jul 27, 2004, 00:52
 
"Ahh anti-choice. Let me guess, you're pro-gun, pro-war, pro-death penalty, and anti-social programs, right?"

If you ask me, there's no other platform that makes sense.

Choice = murder of the unborn. What, 5 minutes before delivery is OK (abortion isn't murder)? 5 minutes after in the restroom at a school prom OK with you as well?

What's wrong with pro-gun? I personally do not have one in the house but I strongly support the ownership. I really like the low murder rate in Switzerland where many homes have them (all military age men have guns at home). It's what the idiots here do with guns, not the guns themselves. I wish the existing laws were stringently enforced and everyone had background checks and a waiting limit - no real reason not to for the type of purchase we're discussing.

Without war, one cannot have peace. A superior military and the proper use of it has a great influence on enemies. I am not specifically addressing any particular war with this comment.

Death is a heck of a deterrant to the repeat offenders of murders and other very serious crimes. What is the use of life sentences? Same thing, just quicker.

I do not like the government taking the money I worked for and giving it to lazy slobs on couches. You can always write an extra check to Uncle Sam if you feel you aren't paying enough. Government should be there for national defense (including locking down the borders), infrastructure, R&D, police, fire, hospitals, regulatory oversight. Things such as welfare and social programs are a waste of valuable resources. That money could be better spent.


Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? - Ripley
3853 Comments. 193 pages. Viewing page 193.
Newer [  1    178  179  180  181  182  183  184  185  186  187  188  189  190  191  192  193  ] Older