Mickey

Every question I ask, you ignore. However, I'll keep answering your questions anyway. His point is that New Yorkers are a bunch of elitist liberal cowards. The evidence, and I use the term loosely, that he relies on is two fold: service statistics and that they allow others to die for them. What refutes the "elitist liberal coward" thing is that in fact, 67 New Yorkers have died in this war. I think that evidence, that fact, is a far more powerful statement regarding the courage of New Yorkers than uncited service statistics. It is certainly a direct refutation of the "instead allowing" South Dakotans to die for them reference in the post. Instead of what? Instead of dying themselves. Besides, is there all that much of a difference? The more who enlist from NY, the more who die from NY. The poster, clumsily, uses the two interchangably, enlisting and dying. He is right, they really are basically the same thing. As for the leap in logic you ask me about, you are misstating my argument. He said: New Yorkers are elitist cowards who let others die *instead*. I responded: New Yorkers are not cowards, in fact, many have died in this war. I would have thought that dying in the service of one's country would be the obvious logical response to a charge of cowardice. The argument you are defending is: New Yorkers are elitist cowards despite the New Yorkers who have enlisted and regardless (he made no exception in his charge of cowardice) of those from NY who have died because, on a per capita basis, South Dakotans have enlisted and died more. How many New Yorkers have to die for me to be offended that he called the whole state and city of NY elitist liberal cowards?

There is no need to explain it if you read the rest of it including the part about "instead allowing" South Dakotans to die for them. He calls NYC a bunch of elitist liberal cowards. Am I allowed to at least object to that or can you explain how that wasn't really meant as an insult, how I am just a quest to be offended? Is "elitist liberal coward" been parroted so much around here that it is no longer seen as an offensive insult?

His actual point is that New York City is a bunch of elitist liberal cowards who let South Dakotans die for them. His evidence for that point is (I can only guess since he offered no links a fact which doesn't seem to cause much concern on your part) that apparently more South Dakotans serve on a per captia basis. I attacked his point with evidence to the contrary. If you or anyone else thinks that service statistics actually say something about the courage or cowardice of an entire state, more power to you. I think the fact that 67 New Yorkers have died all on its own refutes the idea that New Yorkers let others die for them. At the same time, I value just as highly the 8 soldiers from South Dakota who have died. Then again, I am not the one counting numbers or insulting an entire state. Who serves in the military and why is a very complicated issue having as much to do with the distribution of military bases as a whole host of other factors I could cite. Why bother? This post was clearly meant as nothing more than an insult to people with whom the poster not only disagrees with but apparently hates with a passion. If that is what this board is for, an insult forum, fine. I guess the world needs insult forums.

Since you ignored it the first time, I'll try it again: These men died. They were from NYC. Please explain why per capita numbers, numbers you do not cite or provide sources for as I have, justify your claim that New Yorkers are cowards despite the sacrifices of these men? Maybe you could explain to me why the 8 people who lost their lives from South Dakota are a more meaningful contribution than the 67 New Yorkers who have died or the 166 Californians or even the 39 from Michigan. I am sure their families will understand that on a per capita basis, the people of New York, Michigan and California are a bunch of elitist cowards who let South Dakotans die for them.

The numbers show that plenty of Americans from large cities and "blue" states have died in this war and I for one resent your attack on the Americans who have fought and died for their country who happen to come from a different zip code than you. Your insults against your fellow Americans is nothing less than shameful. Map of casualites in Iraq by US citites. Map of US fatalities by state Let me provide some of the names of the people you insulted just to get a sense of how "patriotic" your post is to those of us not privileged to live where ever it is that you live. I'll leave it to you to argue the numerical values of per capita sacrifices. Me, I just see them as Americans, all of them. Julian Melo: Staff Sgt., from Brooklyn NY was killed Decemeber 21, 2004 by a suicide bomber in Mosul. Vicotor Martinez: From the Bronx, was killed by a sniper in Babil on December 14, 2004. He was 21. Henry Irizarry: Killed December 3, 2004 in Taji, NW of Baghdad in an IED attack. He was also from the Bronx. Pablo Calderon: From Brooklyn, he was killed in Fallujah last November. He was a Sgt. in the 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division. Christian P. Engeldrum: From the Bronx, he was killed on November 29 of last year in Baghdad. Frederick Akintade: From Brooklyn, was killed in an RPG attack in Balad on 10/28/04, he was a Specialist in the U.S. Army National Guard 2nd Battalion, 108th Infantry Regiment. Luis A. Moreno: Of the Bronx, he died on 01/29/04 when he was shot by a sniper. He was part of Battery A, 4th Battalion, 1st Field Artillery, US Army. Rayshawn S. Johnson: Of Brooklyn, he died on 11/03/03 in an IED attack in Tikrit. He was a Private 1st Class in the U.S. Army, 299th Engr. Bat., 4th Infantry Div. (Mech.). He was only 20. There are many more but numbers are not the point. These are people, not statistics. To all of them and to all our soldiers, wherever they come from and whatever their politics are, thank you and God keep you safe.

It was an opportunity for some humor Mr. Serious.

By "no one" do you mean the 57,288,974 people who voted for Kerry?

Where have I defended the Post in this thread? I haven't read the article and don't plan to because it would be a waste of time, like this thread. Stupid issues, stupid articles and stupid complaints. Three stupids don't make a relevant.

They don't "simply provide a product" Bill. They have lied and lied and lied in lawsuits, Senate Hearings and to the public. They have specifically engineered their product to burn faster so you smoke more and to be even more addictive than they would be otherwise. They have marketed to children. If making a product that kills people in droves is negative press, then yes, they have recieved lots of negative press. If getting caught shredding documents, burying studies and lying under oath generates negative press, then yes they have recieved plenty of negative press. I am not losing any sleep over the plight of tobacco companies. People have a right to protest and the past actions of tobacco companies pretty much leaves them open to withering criticism. They reap what they sow.

My God man, do you really want to see that keester in something besides pantsuits? Be grateful for what you have been spared.

I am torn as to which is the more irrelevant non-story, Cheney's wardrobe, the Post's complaints or the complaints about the Post's complaints.

Right, all democrats are far left wing radicals, blah, blah blah. Howard Dean cut taxes in Vermont and balanced its budget while reducing its overall debt. He was so much of a fiscal conservative that he earned the nickname, "the frugal crusader". Like President Bush and Vice President Cheney, he favors civil unions for homosexual couples. His brother, a CIA agent, was caught in the Mekong River by communists in 1974 and executed. He went to Laos in 2002 to try and find his body. Yeah, he is a "far left wing radical". Isn't that the automatic label for anyone who opposed the invasion of Iraq?

Are you referring to the WP story or the post that started this thread?

They want to publicly flog him. This was the best way to get him to put his own head into the stocks.

I haven't heard the President "lambaste" him so using your logic, I guess he must support Ward Churchill's lunatic point of view. The campus is going crazy over this, professors and students. The school's public statement saying that they hope that all who disagree with this nut show up and make their opinions known clearly illustrates their motive here. They want to provide an opportunity for this idiot to be confronted and shown to be just what he is. What they are "complicit" in is setting this guy up for the public flogging he so richly deserves. Hamilton College draws most of its students from the NYC area. This creep is from Colorado. They couldn't drag him by his pony tail to get intellectually pilloried by the people who suffered most on 9/11 so instead, they invited him to speak. Pretty clever don't you think?

If you meant "far left wing radicals" then it might have been a good idea to say "far left wing radicals" as opposed to "liberals" which is the word you actually used and which certainly is a far more broad and encompassing term than "far left wing radical". Why do you say the percentage of liberals who agree with him is "apparently...pretty high"??? Please cite your source for that conclusion. Pretty much the entire campus is up in arms over this, is that not enough? They are college students so we can assume that they are all liberals, right?

Actually, most of the students and faculty protesting this guy speaking at Hamilton are in fact liberals. Too bad you hate them. Did it ever occur to you that they invited him so that his point of view could be exposed for the stupidity that it is? The whole purpose may very well be to create an opportunity to ridicule and discredit this fool.

It is a nothing statement. "Jp getting a long look", well what the heck is he supposed to say? "JP will only get a short look" in camp? Of course it is an open competition, it always is. If one guy out plays another guy in camp, then he starts. It won't matter if 7 months before that the QB coach called the QB position "closed" or "open". Can you imagine that conversation: MM: Gee, JP is playing great in camp, way better than Drew. TC: Yeah, he sure is, no question about it, he is the best QB on the roster. SW: Too bad we can't play him, damn, if only we hadn't said the competition at QB was "closed" back in January. MM: I know, but what can we do now? We're stuck.

Thanks for the links but a lot of that stuff isn't exactly worthy of front page news. Some artillery guys win a competition to be the fastest firing howitzer over there and I am sure some people find that pretty interesting but the general public isn't really very interested in something like that. I don't think there is a liberal media conspiracy to hide the truth of unit v. unit competition results. The nature of the beast is that a car bomb killing a bunch of Iraqi police or US soldiers or civilians or some combination thereof is going to get headlines while briefly detaining 14 "suspected" insurgents, confiscating some weapons, cell phones and cash and unit competition results are hardly going to be noticed. Look, I want things to go well over there. I want the "insurgents" dead, our guys home and a peaceful, prosperous Iraq going strong. I don't care if that results in a Republican majority from now until the end of time. As bad as I want things to go well over there, I am not willing to just pretend they are and dismiss all news to the contrary as biased or incomplete. I appreciate those links but in my opinion they don't really shed any light on whether this war is being botched or not. A peaceful Iraq was one of our goals. Iraq is not peaceful. The interim grade is F or better, "incomplete". So far so bad but it isn't over yet. Plenty of time to get it turned around.

I see, it doesn't matter what their actual position is, any support for any regulation of any kind is tantamount to seeking a ban on all guns. Hmmmm.

I'm not arguing any specific gun control legislation. I'm simply arguing that to pin the democrats with the charge that they are out to ban all guns is not accurate. In fact, "liberals", as a subset of democrats, if you want to make that distinction, aren't out to "ban all guns" either.

My argument in this context is that the democrats are not out to "ban all guns". Disagree?

By all means, if you can't find even a tiny hole in my tight as a drum arguments, go after my typing skills. I am a liberal and it is by no means a cause of mine to "get rid of guns". Do I think there are some reasonable restrictions worth imposing? Sure. Reducing that position to a blanket "get rid of guns" is worse than overstatement.

They are terrorists, they don't have countries or shores. They have bank accounts and passports. That is all they need. There is no "wall", not here, there or anywhere. Our ability to prevent a car bombing in St. Louis is only marginally better than our ability to prevent one in Fallujah.

From the Democratic Pary Platform 2004: "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do." If you want to beat up the party, go ahead but at least let it be over their actual policies.