Mickey Posted September 13, 2005 Author Share Posted September 13, 2005 Did he use his own funds, or those of the monks that he shook down? Seriously, the doctor saved his child. There was certainly a debt to be repaid. It was a nice thing to do, but can we not cannonize Gore just yet? PS: Be sure to let the voters of his home state just how wonderful he is. Just having fun. 438668[/snapback] I know you're just having some fun but there is a serious side to this little episode. I think my exact words were "Al Gore is a good man". I don't think that could be fairly termed as either a public blow job or a nomination for sainthood as several posters have characterized it. Frankly, it ended up being more of an invitation for the more viscious and mean spirited here to show their true colors. The guy is a nobody now, a political non-entity and still, even when he does something very good, he has to be attacked and on a personal basis at that. This is exactly why politics and this board have become so polarized. It isn't enough to show that a guy is wrong, you have to show that he is an !@#$ and that is wife is a B word and that he "...doesn't care about black people". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Thanks! 438713[/snapback] Look what happens when you actually read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 13, 2005 Author Share Posted September 13, 2005 I do? News flash: I'm dead-set against most of the high dollar value programs the Pentagon's indulging right now...which I wouldn't expect you to know, as you've never asked. I only support the occupation of Iraq because I believe we're morally obligated to stabilize the country, since we destabilized it to begin with. Of course, you don't know that, because no one in this friggin' asylumn is capable of discussing either in remotely intelligent fashion without "Flightsuit! Halliburton!" Hell, most people can't even see past their preconceived notions to understand the reason we invaded Iraq, even though it's been staring them in the face for years now... The only reason I seem to support things more than I do is because I support the media even less. If they indulged even remotely accurate reporting, I'd be expressing my criticism more frequently. As it is, I'm too busy bashing the media to properly bash the administration. 438692[/snapback] So many moles to whack and so little time. On a "side" note, are we really morally obligated to stabilize it? Wasn't it a pretty twisted wreck to begin with? I know the poverbial trains ran on time but other than that, wasn't it a nightmare of oppression and lord knows what long before we ever crossed the border? I'm still struggling over what the best course in Iraq might be, not that it matters. We are going to follow whatever course Bush wants until '08 anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 I know you're just having some fun but there is a serious side to this little episode. I think my exact words were "Al Gore is a good man". I don't think that could be fairly termed as either a public blow job or a nomination for sainthood as several posters have characterized it. Frankly, it ended up being more of an invitation for the more viscious and mean spirited here to show their true colors. The guy is a nobody now, a political non-entity and still, even when he does something very good, he has to be attacked and on a personal basis at that. This is exactly why politics and this board have become so polarized. It isn't enough to show that a guy is wrong, you have to show that he is an !@#$ and that is wife is a B word and that he "...doesn't care about black people". 438726[/snapback] OK Mickey, but certainly you will agree that it works both ways. A leftist loonie (who I happen to like ) on this board called Laura Bush a "murderer" numerous times because a person died in an automobile accident in which she was involved as a young girl. I don't think that a person in Washington can be found (repub or dem) that doesn't like Barbara Bush, yet she is demonized on this board; and the Bush twins have been called "drunken sluts," etc. I personally don't have much admiration for Gore, but he did the right thing for a guy that saved his kid. I am just not going to get all giddy about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 So many moles to whack and so little time. On a "side" note, are we really morally obligated to stabilize it? Wasn't it a pretty twisted wreck to begin with? I know the poverbial trains ran on time but other than that, wasn't it a nightmare of oppression and lord knows what long before we ever crossed the border? I'm still struggling over what the best course in Iraq might be, not that it matters. We are going to follow whatever course Bush wants until '08 anyway. 438735[/snapback] I believe that, yes, we are morally obligated to "stabilize" (i.e. provide a measure of safety and security to the population in general) things in Iraq after we've "destabilized" (i.e. removed a great measure of safety and security) it. I don't particularly like it...the idea of a years-long commitment of the military to police-work is to me a gross misuse of the military. But I'd like it even less if we invaded a country, toppled the central government, then pulled out with a "Well...good luck to you." tossed over our shoulders at everyone while leaving. That would be rather like...oh, I don't know, maybe pulling people out of the Superdome and abandoning them on a bridge with instructions to walk "thataway". The bottom line is that I believe when you accept responsibility for something or someone, you don't do it halfway. And you can feel free to disagree with me...that's only my belief, not a hard-and-fast fact. But if you want to convince me I'm wrong, you're going to have to convince me that invading a country does not involve taking responsibility for the aftermath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 13, 2005 Author Share Posted September 13, 2005 OK Mickey, but certainly you will agree that it works both ways. A leftist loonie (who I happen to like ) on this board called Laura Bush a "murderer" numerous times because a person died in an automobile accident in which she was involved as a young girl. I don't think that a person in Washington can be found (repub or dem) that doesn't like Barbara Bush, yet she is demonized on this board; and the Bush twins have been called "drunken sluts," etc. I personally don't have much admiration for Gore, but he did the right thing for a guy that saved his kid. I am just not going to get all giddy about it. 438740[/snapback] Actually, the title of that thread was "Laura Bush Killed a Guy", I never called her a murderer, that is what the folks on the right immediately accused me of doing even though every word of my post was absolutely accurate, she in fact killed a guy. Kind of like how I started a thread here stating "Al Gore is a good man" and the reaction accused me of giving him a public blow job and/or nominating him for sainthood. The point of that long ago thread by the way was to show that you can say something totally factually correct and still not really be telling the truth. Without context, a statement compeltely true on its own can leave an entirely false impression of the truth. Laura didn't kill a guy on purpose, she wasn't grossly reckless even, it was just an accident. I am sure that if Hillary did it, we would still be talking about Hillary the assassin despite the accidental nature of the incident but that is a whole other issue. "Clinton lied under oath" is one of those kinds of statements that, without context, loses a lot of truth. Ditto Gore's charitable gifts in 1997. Calling the Bush girls drunks is like that. Sure, it is true that they have absolutely had some issues with the law on that score but again without context, that info can be meaningless. Besides, I am a big fan of drunken sluts anyway so I can't stand it when drunken sluttery is maligned by those who just don't understand their social value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 13, 2005 Author Share Posted September 13, 2005 I believe that, yes, we are morally obligated to "stabilize" (i.e. provide a measure of safety and security to the population in general) things in Iraq after we've "destabilized" (i.e. removed a great measure of safety and security) it. I don't particularly like it...the idea of a years-long commitment of the military to police-work is to me a gross misuse of the military. But I'd like it even less if we invaded a country, toppled the central government, then pulled out with a "Well...good luck to you." tossed over our shoulders at everyone while leaving. That would be rather like...oh, I don't know, maybe pulling people out of the Superdome and abandoning them on a bridge with instructions to walk "thataway". The bottom line is that I believe when you accept responsibility for something or someone, you don't do it halfway. And you can feel free to disagree with me...that's only my belief, not a hard-and-fast fact. But if you want to convince me I'm wrong, you're going to have to convince me that invading a country does not involve taking responsibility for the aftermath. 438748[/snapback] The "security" they had was to be hauled off and jailed without trial, tortured and killed. I think they had order, not security. Do they have even less security and order now? I truly don't know. As a material threat to us, assuming for the sake of argument that Saddam was a such a threat, we had a right to attack and remove him. We did. Why do we have to fix things now before we leave? Lets say that there is a whack job living next door to you who every so often fires a gun into your window. You would be justified in going over there and beating him with a stick to end his ability to threaten you. Would you then be responsible for providing for his family now facing financial ruin due to your having done in their bread winner? Would you feel responsible for fixing any furniture you broke in the process? If the creep's family said to you, with regard to your offered help, "thanks but no thanks" woud you still push this help on them? I totally have not mad up my mind on this. I too feel sort of responsible for the troubles there and feel like we should stay and fix things but I am not so sure that morally we really do have a duty to stay. Of course, an argument could be made that we have no duty to obey any moral imperative here at all even if we decide that doing so would require us to stay. There was a threat, we took him and his regime out so we are done. Time to go. If some other freak rises there, we go back and do it again. That is how that argument would go. In a Macciavelian sense, that might be the best thing for our own national security. If it were so, should we endanger our security trying to be "moral"? Again, I have no clue, I am just thinking about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Actually, the title of that thread was "Laura Bush Killed a Guy", I never called her a murderer, that is what the folks on the right immediately accused me of doing even though every word of my post was absolutely accurate, she in fact killed a guy. Kind of like how I started a thread here stating "Al Gore is a good man" and the reaction accused me of giving him a public blow job and/or nominating him for sainthood. The point of that long ago thread by the way was to show that you can say something totally factually correct and still not really be telling the truth. Without context, a statement compeltely true on its own can leave an entirely false impression of the truth. Laura didn't kill a guy on purpose, she wasn't grossly reckless even, it was just an accident. I am sure that if Hillary did it, we would still be talking about Hillary the assassin despite the accidental nature of the incident but that is a whole other issue. "Clinton lied under oath" is one of those kinds of statements that, without context, loses a lot of truth. Ditto Gore's charitable gifts in 1997. Calling the Bush girls drunks is like that. Sure, it is true that they have absolutely had some issues with the law on that score but again without context, that info can be meaningless. Besides, I am a big fan of drunken sluts anyway so I can't stand it when drunken sluttery is maligned by those who just don't understand their social value. 439031[/snapback] Mick, YOU were not the leftist looney who called her a murderer. It was a different one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 In that context, I see no reason why a post from me on the hurricane involving the rescue of 270 people aided by a well known political figure would be as out of left field 438699[/snapback] Here's the problem Mick. Why a well known plolitical figure, one who agrees with your political philosophy and not a sports figure, actor, fire fighter. As AD said when you bring that up and you get posts busting your nuts you freak...what the hell do you expect. Jeez Very transparent............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Mick, YOU were not the leftist looney who called her a murderer. It was a different one. 439060[/snapback] Yeah, remember it was someone he said he liked..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Yeah, remember it was someone he said he liked..... 439066[/snapback] That person is also a good man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 439194[/snapback] That is f*cking hilarious! Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 13, 2005 Author Share Posted September 13, 2005 439194[/snapback] laugh of the day fer shur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 439194[/snapback] Yeah, now Debbie will chime in bitching about using the word retarded. So does that make me super retarded for arguing a point on the internet about being retarded for arguing on the internet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 20, 2005 Author Share Posted September 20, 2005 Lets see..............I'm calling...............BULL sh--!! You're so transparent Mickey, Geeeze..... 438407[/snapback] Where is the "manifesto" in pointing out that Al Gore did a nce thing when in fact, he did. I'm not arguing for higher taxes, abortion rights or the environment. In fact, if he ever decided to run for President again it would be a race between how long it would take me to load a gun and blow my brains out and passing out from a seizure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 Where is the "manifesto" in pointing out that Al Gore did a nce thing when in fact, he did. I'm not arguing for higher taxes, abortion rights or the environment. In fact, if he ever decided to run for President again it would be a race between how long it would take me to load a gun and blow my brains out and passing out from a seizure. 448330[/snapback] You went back and read the whole thread again didnt you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 21, 2005 Author Share Posted September 21, 2005 You went back and read the whole thread again didnt you? 448351[/snapback] Good thing, I apparently missed one of your posts, can't let that free wisdom go unheard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Where is the "manifesto" in pointing out that Al Gore did a nce thing when in fact, he did. I'm not arguing for higher taxes, abortion rights or the environment. In fact, if he ever decided to run for President again it would be a race between how long it would take me to load a gun and blow my brains out and passing out from a seizure. 448330[/snapback] Hey Mickey, will there be a similar race if Kerry gets the nod once again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 21, 2005 Author Share Posted September 21, 2005 Hey Mickey, will there be a similar race if Kerry gets the nod once again? 448941[/snapback] Kerry v. Jeb Bush Gawd no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts