OnTheRocks Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 a war to set up a puppet government 505645[/snapback] i thought it was a war about oil. or was that last week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 i thought it was a war about oil. or was that last week? 505664[/snapback] Week before last. Last week it was about dad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Week before last. Last week it was about dad. 505680[/snapback] It is actually a rotating thingy: Haliburton Revenge for Daddy Oil Lather Rinse Repeat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 It is actually a rotating thingy: Haliburton Revenge for Daddy Oil Lather Rinse Repeat 505694[/snapback] You forgot how we have to tell the whole world, and the terrorist how and when we're going to pull out of Iraq. Now there's a plan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Note to self: OTR, Tom, and Ken obviously think that a fuggin' birthday is more newsworthy than the Iraq war. Anyone else have a birthday party recently that y'all think should be carried on the nightly news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Note to self: OTR, Tom, and Ken obviously think that a fuggin' birthday is more newsworthy than the Iraq war. Anyone else have a birthday party recently that y'all think should be carried on the nightly news? 505705[/snapback] i never said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 It is actually a rotating thingy: Haliburton Revenge for Daddy Oil Lather Rinse Repeat 505694[/snapback] Every now and then it's also a war for Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Note to self: OTR, Tom, and Ken obviously think that a fuggin' birthday is more newsworthy than the Iraq war. Anyone else have a birthday party recently that y'all think should be carried on the nightly news? 505705[/snapback] Yeah, that has to be it. Funny, what was going on in the world when Lott was crucified by the left for his birthday party attendance? Oh, wait...If it involves Republicans, it is newsworthy. If it involves Dems, it is not. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Every now and then it's also a war for Israel. 505737[/snapback] I forgot that one. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Note to self: OTR, Tom, and Ken obviously think that a fuggin' birthday is more newsworthy than the Iraq war. Anyone else have a birthday party recently that y'all think should be carried on the nightly news? 505705[/snapback] What birthday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Yeah, that has to be it. Funny, what was going on in the world when Lott was crucified by the left for his birthday party attendance? Oh, wait...If it involves Republicans, it is newsworthy. If it involves Dems, it is not. Got it. 505757[/snapback] It was NOT for his attendance and you know it. There would have been ZERO story on any network anywhere if Lott didn't say what he did about advocating the birthday boy's presidency. Just the same way there is no story here for being at the party but there sure would have been if the Dem said something similarly stupid at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 It was NOT for his attendance and you know it. There would have been ZERO story on any network anywhere if Lott didn't say what he did about advocating the birthday boy's presidency. Just the same way there is no story here for being at the party but there sure would have been if the Dem said something similarly stupid at it. 505886[/snapback] Yeah, telling an old man he would've made a great president is a scandal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 17, 2005 Author Share Posted November 17, 2005 It was NOT for his attendance and you know it. There would have been ZERO story on any network anywhere if Lott didn't say what he did about advocating the birthday boy's presidency. Just the same way there is no story here for being at the party but there sure would have been if the Dem said something similarly stupid at it. 505886[/snapback] Say, Campy, while we are talking about Byrd, I'd apppreciate your comment as to why he sued (succesfully) to overturn a law passed by Congress, and heartlily desired by Clinton, re line item veto? Do you approve pork and of Byrd's efforts to deny a remedy? Let's never forget which camp fought for slavery and then enacted state-by-state Jim Crow laws, or which camp spit on children in Little Rock, or fought like h*ll against the Civil Rights Amendendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 It was NOT for his attendance and you know it. There would have been ZERO story on any network anywhere if Lott didn't say what he did about advocating the birthday boy's presidency. Just the same way there is no story here for being at the party but there sure would have been if the Dem said something similarly stupid at it. 505886[/snapback] So, what did she say at the birthday party? As far as the Dem being held to the same standard as a Republican, just look at Byrd's comments as recently as a few years ago and you will see that your statement is incorrect: "There are white n*ggers. I've seen a lot of white n*ggers in my time; I'm going to use that word." (Robert Byrd - March 4, 2001 - Television interview) What would have happened if Lott used that word? Let me help you. Lott lost his leadership position for saying something equally or less divisive that this. Byrd kept his leadership position and there have been no repercussions. The comments were just swept under the carpet. Hell, even the NAACP called Byrd's comments "repulsive" but failed to do anything more about it. How did they react to Lott? Byrd apologized and everything is OK. Lott apologized (repeatedly) and he lost his leadership position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Say, Campy, while we are talking about Byrd, I'd apppreciate your comment as to why he sued (succesfully) to overturn a law passed by Congress, and heartlily desired by Clinton, re line item veto? Do you approve pork and of Byrd's efforts to deny a remedy? Let's never forget which camp fought for slavery and then enacted state-by-state Jim Crow laws, or which camp spit on children in Little Rock, or fought like h*ll against the Civil Rights Amendendment. 505907[/snapback] WTF does that have to do with your assertion that Hillary going to a birthday party is "news?" Nice spin attempt, though, I'll give you points for that. EDIT: I just re-read your post. Actually, it was a pretty weak spin attempt. Pulling out that Dems were strong in the South and therefore in favor of slave-labor? Holy shiite. That's pitiful. You can do better than that, can't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 So, what did she say at the birthday party? As far as the Dem being held to the same standard as a Republican, just look at Byrd's comments as recently as a few years ago and you will see that your statement is incorrect: "There are white n*ggers. I've seen a lot of white n*ggers in my time; I'm going to use that word." (Robert Byrd - March 4, 2001 - Television interview) What would have happened if Lott used that word? Let me help you. Lott lost his leadership position for saying something equally or less divisive that this. Byrd kept his leadership position and there have been no repercussions. The comments were just swept under the carpet. Hell, even the NAACP called Byrd's comments "repulsive" but failed to do anything more about it. How did they react to Lott? Byrd apologized and everything is OK. Lott apologized (repeatedly) and he lost his leadership position. 505918[/snapback] VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY! CLINTON BAD! "BUSH WAR" GOOD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 17, 2005 Author Share Posted November 17, 2005 WTF does that have to do with your assertion that Hillary going to a birthday party is "news?" Nice spin attempt, though, I'll give you points for that. EDIT: I just re-read your post. Actually, it was a pretty weak spin attempt. Pulling out that Dems were strong in the South and therefore in favor of slave-labor? Holy shiite. That's pitiful. You can do better than that, can't you? 505933[/snapback] Everything construed as an attack..everything viewed as an agenda...always a snippy response. See ya.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY! CLINTON BAD! "BUSH WAR" GOOD! 505935[/snapback] Funny, I thought that you would actually want members of both parties to be held to the same standard. It looks like I was wrong and you feel there should be different standards depending on your party affiliation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshockeyguy7 Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Well, since this has turned into a big argument over the Iraq war instead of the initial intention, i think i will opine! In the US, we have a strong sense of following precedence. In the past years we have structured our foreign policy around that of promoting our definition of freedom and democracy, because it has worked so well for us. Before the actual war, it was admitted by both sides of partisanship that WMD's were being manufactured and handled by Saddam Hussein and Iraq. I remember many democrats, including Hillary voicing support of our president and the neutralization of Saddam. It is also important to remember, that WMD's might of been the focus point of the "war," but our strong ties to promoting human rights, freedom, and democracy played a big role in our invasion. This wasn't anything new either, as both US and UN sanctions and warnings etc had been used in the previous 10-15 years before 9-11 to keep Iraq under control. So obviously this has been a long-standing problem regardless of which party held office. So is it really that hard to comprehend the decision of Bush in starting this war? He had majority Bi-Partisanship support at every level of government, precedence told him that Iraq would continue to oppress, torture, and kill its own people. And there was a strong chance of production of potential WMD's that could kill many more. Add all this up, and then throw in 9-11 and every Americans desire to get some sort of retribution and i do not think a reasonable person can really disagree with our initial invasion. So why is it such a big deal now? We have the left calling the right a bunch of lying, torturing religious zealots who mislead the american people. And the right calling the left "un-american" because of a wide lack of support for our government and our troops. I don't care which party made the decision or why we are over there, but to see some people publicly and blatantly express disgust in our administration and our troops is just ridiculous. Many thousands of our own are over there fighting for what they believe in. I can almost guarantee regardless of the cause, or their orders, those 2,000 noble americans were proud to give their lives in the pursuit of freedom, and the protection of the american people. As a whole we are losing focus, and sending a horrible message to these heros that we no longer support them. They understand that lives are lost sometimes at the pursuit of something bigger. So why can't we? Where is the finger pointing going to get us? Anyways, both sides need to stop the bull sh-- and start fixing the problem. If the left wants to keep calling Bush a liar and a traitor, then it must do so to their own beloved senators and representatives, because they told us the same exact thing. Bush and the administration as a whole need to reach some sort of end-plan as to what they want to accomplish now. The american people and the troops deserve to know what the end result will be, and when it will be. The left needs to stop pointing fingers, and instead needs to work within its party and with the right to come to a conclusion to this. We shouldn't be messing with our soldiers lives without a focus anymore. In conclusion, i feel a lot safer as an american citizen for both my life, and the lives of others on American soil with Saddam out of power, and i still have not heard a viable argument that could convince me otherwise. I have no clue why i decided to write all of this, strong feelings and support for my country i guess. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Well, since this has turned into a big argument over the Iraq war instead of the initial intention, i think i will opine! In the US, we have a strong sense of following precedence. In the past years we have structured our foreign policy around that of promoting our definition of freedom and democracy, because it has worked so well for us. Before the actual war, it was admitted by both sides of partisanship that WMD's were being manufactured and handled by Saddam Hussein and Iraq. I remember many democrats, including Hillary voicing support of our president and the neutralization of Saddam. It is also important to remember, that WMD's might of been the focus point of the "war," but our strong ties to promoting human rights, freedom, and democracy played a big role in our invasion. This wasn't anything new either, as both US and UN sanctions and warnings etc had been used in the previous 10-15 years before 9-11 to keep Iraq under control. So obviously this has been a long-standing problem regardless of which party held office. So is it really that hard to comprehend the decision of Bush in starting this war? He had majority Bi-Partisanship support at every level of government, precedence told him that Iraq would continue to oppress, torture, and kill its own people. And there was a strong chance of production of potential WMD's that could kill many more. Add all this up, and then throw in 9-11 and every Americans desire to get some sort of retribution and i do not think a reasonable person can really disagree with our initial invasion. So why is it such a big deal now? We have the left calling the right a bunch of lying, torturing religious zealots who mislead the american people. And the right calling the left "un-american" because of a wide lack of support for our government and our troops. I don't care which party made the decision or why we are over there, but to see some people publicly and blatantly express disgust in our administration and our troops is just ridiculous. Many thousands of our own are over there fighting for what they believe in. I can almost guarantee regardless of the cause, or their orders, those 2,000 noble americans were proud to give their lives in the pursuit of freedom, and the protection of the american people. As a whole we are losing focus, and sending a horrible message to these heros that we no longer support them. They understand that lives are lost sometimes at the pursuit of something bigger. So why can't we? Where is the finger pointing going to get us? Anyways, both sides need to stop the bull sh-- and start fixing the problem. If the left wants to keep calling Bush a liar and a traitor, then it must do so to their own beloved senators and representatives, because they told us the same exact thing. Bush and the administration as a whole need to reach some sort of end-plan as to what they want to accomplish now. The american people and the troops deserve to know what the end result will be, and when it will be. The left needs to stop pointing fingers, and instead needs to work within its party and with the right to come to a conclusion to this. We shouldn't be messing with our soldiers lives without a focus anymore. In conclusion, i feel a lot safer as an american citizen for both my life, and the lives of others on American soil with Saddam out of power, and i still have not heard a viable argument that could convince me otherwise. I have no clue why i decided to write all of this, strong feelings and support for my country i guess. Thanks. 505944[/snapback] Nice post. I agree with all of it except the "when it will be part". If the future could be seen with precision, then I would not have a problem with saying everything will be wonderful or FUBAR'd on x date. Unfortunately, none of us know what the future holds, and cannot say y will happen on z date. I do not have a problem though with the administration providing a listing of individual goals that are to be accomplished and then allowing the American people to decide on their own whether progress towards the goals are being made at a satisfactory pace. I believe a lot of those goals have been put out there, but perhaps more specificity would help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts