Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Unlike 'Nam, we had a long and thorough period to protest this action priot to our Congress overwhelmingly approving the same action. Today is the time for support. Back to Patriotism- isn't it fitting that during this whole period of the lead-up and action in Iraq the only people bringing up Patriotism are those who seem to express doubts about their own! 223911[/snapback] My congressmen ALL voted NAY for the war... That speaks volumes as to the lack of support my state had for this action. I didn't bring it up to start... I just cannot believe people question it when legitimate concerns are raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 A tolerator of Communism??? Fighting AGAINST Communists was toleration? WHAAAAA? Ohhh, you know... Eisenhower met with Communists while in uniform, so I guess HE was a traitor as well. 223899[/snapback] It's not how he behaved IN THEATER, it's what he did OUT OF THEATER that I'm speaking of. He met, without authorization, with NVA and Viet Cong officials while in uniform and in the service of his country. That, IMO, makes him a filthy traitor. And yes, Eisenhower met with Soviet officials....IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckeyeBill Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 First this thread should be in politics, but I digress. Just like most I respect the hell out of the sacrifices the military makes for the greater good. My problems not about the military, it’s about the mission. I'm sorry but what have we done in the last year to defend the right you just spoke of. Free speech? Rights? How have any of America’s actions been remotely close to those goals? If anything the path we have taken has had a negative impact on Americans. I'm just confused, just like many I have friends involved in this. I just don't understand any of it. Sometimes any decision is better then indecision, and while that philosophy may have floated at first it shouldn't anymore. Its like were stuck with our hand in the jar. Everybody knows we shouldn't be there but rather then admit that we just keep insisting its ok. Unfortunately the rest of the world won’t buy into to our sweet talk. At least for Bush the world suffered a major catastrophe in the Tsunami. That bought him at least a couple more months to try and find a legitimate reason for any of this. Crazy liberal Democrat signing off 222966[/snapback] Crazy liberal Democrat, that's right! This war is EXTREMELY justified. Why don't you just cry, because Scary Kerry didn't get elected, or he would have taken out our guys immediately, and there wouldn't have even been an election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 My congressmen ALL voted NAY for the war... That speaks volumes as to the lack of support my state had for this action. I didn't bring it up to start... I just cannot believe people question it when legitimate concerns are raised. 223929[/snapback] Outside of San Francisco, there is no more liberal a haven than the state of Vermont. IIRC, did they not elect a socialist governor at one point? Oh, and I know this as I have relatives who are 20-year residents of Rutland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Outside of San Francisco, there is no more liberal a haven than the state of Vermont. IIRC, did they not elect a socialist governor at one point? Oh, and I know this as I have relatives who are 20-year residents of Rutland. 223932[/snapback] I completely disagree!!! Our state is a balance of ideas that comes together with tremendous understanding and wisdom that few states have these days. I love its ideals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I completely disagree!!! Our state is a balance of ideas that comes together with tremendous understanding and wisdom that few states have these days. I love its ideals 223938[/snapback] Oh please, I'd be willing to bet that if you took a poll of people living in Bennington whether they considered themselves liberal, moderate or conservative, you'd find that the overwhelming majority consider themselves liberal. Waiiiiiiitaminute. I know (knew) a Bills fan who lived in Vermont. Hrm....Could you be him? Are you really....no, it's not possible. Last I saw of him, he had just been beaten silly byt the Erie County Sheriffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 Is it just me or are terrorists, the French and American liberals the only people in the world who are disappointed about the election results in Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Oh please, I'd be willing to bet that if you took a poll of people living in Bennington whether they considered themselves liberal, moderate or conservative, you'd find that the overwhelming majority consider themselves liberal. Waiiiiiiitaminute. I know (knew) a Bills fan who lived in Vermont. Hrm....Could you be him? Are you really....no, it's not possible. Last I saw of him, he had just been beaten silly byt the Erie County Sheriffs. 223945[/snapback] I'd expect most of them consider themselves moderate - mostly because they want to avoid the stigma of being a liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 They didn't need it... it was right on the television every night, despite the official government position. 223919[/snapback] Are you intentionally trying to make my point for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Is it just me or are terrorists, the French and American liberals the only people in the world who are disappointed about the election results in Iraq? 223952[/snapback] Actually, the French seem cautiously optimistic about the vote - cautiously because of the limited Sunni participation. Given that the Sunnis are driving the insurgency and that their limited participation could lead to even deeper feelings of alienation among the Sunni population, the caution is hardly unwarranted. I have heard, though, that the elected assembly is already starting to consider ways to further engage the Sunni minority in the governmental process - offering them greater representation in the government through executive appointment (e.g. ministerial positions) than their electoral participation would otherwise dictate, for example. If so...it totally blows my mind, having in essence grown up watching Saddam's idiotic bumbling, that Iraqi politics can actually produce a smart idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 engage the Sunni majority 224005[/snapback] MINORITY you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 MINORITY you mean. 224031[/snapback] Yes I did, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 So, if we're truly "liberating" Iraq, what happens when they choose to do things against our interest? oh, that's right. Nobody's being liberated at all. We're merely colonizing them with the illusion of freedom. No different than before, in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 So, if we're truly "liberating" Iraq, what happens when they choose to do things against our interest? oh, that's right. Nobody's being liberated at all. We're merely colonizing them with the illusion of freedom. No different than before, in that regard. 224097[/snapback] Which explains why Saddam got over 99% of the vote yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Which explains why Saddam got over 99% of the vote yesterday. 224119[/snapback] Because we know who they voted for already, don't we. Incidentally, haven't we seen similar threads like this about three times already? Weren't people saying the same thing after Iraq was defeated so quickly? And after Saddam was captured? And after Fallujah was taken so quickly? I know I'm talking to a brick wall here, but to the more sane right-wingers on the board, I would suggest not getting too excited just yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Which explains why Saddam got over 99% of the vote yesterday. 224119[/snapback] Didn't you know, the U.S. hand-picked the candidates on the ballot. They were not choosing Iraqi candidates, but nothing more than U.S. puppets disguised as Iraqi candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Even a liberal could understand the term "percentages" if they wanted to accurately discuss my original proposition. Since the facts about those percentages completely contradict your post and fully support mine, I'll simply assume you're so embarrased by your lack of support for the honorable mission of our troops overseas that you're willing to resort to distortion to hide that embarassment. Stick with the facts- they're irrefutable ;-) 223820[/snapback] Since you ignored it the first time, I'll try it again: "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." 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 The links you provided do not address the point AKC was making in his post. Do you have the stats for the number of people who volunteered for military service, since that is the actual point AKC is arguing? 223860[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 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. 224215[/snapback] In your never-ending quest to try to be offended about something, please explain the following quote to me: "yet elite New York City sends the nationwide lowest percentage of Americans to the fight" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 In your never-ending quest to try to be offended about something, please explain the following quote to me: "yet elite New York City sends the nationwide lowest percentage of Americans to the fight" 224226[/snapback] 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts