Rant: Anti-War Protestors are idiots

[Darth Wong]

Arthur, took sides so many times in all of his post and he doesn't have the sack to claim it.. At least some of us will stand up and say I support the war, the troops, and the Prez.. If he doesn't agree fine, but have some stones and admit it..

Well then, in case I haven't made my own position clear, I support the troops, I'm not too sure about the war (it's an "end justifies the means" situation, hence it's hard to tell whether it's a good idea until you know for sure what the end will be), and I sure as hell don't support your president.

[theski]

I respect your opinion and that you made it clear..

[Knife]

Haven't you been listening? I didn't have a side. I don't take sides in politics.

BS, you originaly brought up the 2000 election as a reason why Bush was a fucktard. While he may be a fucktard, the fact that the election process had so many hicups on so many sides, makes it that Bush nor his political party can be held soley responsible. Like it or not, you have picked a side. Hating Bush and being apathetic of the rest is still a political postion.

Other politicians may be arrogant, but they're good at hiding it. Bush's blatant arrogance (among other "traits")has reversed post-9/11 pro-American sentiment, and that's no mean feat.

Ok, now we have boiled it down to just arrogant. What does it matter if some are good at hiding it? They are still arrogant. As for the post 9/11 sympathy, while I am sure alot is genuine, alot of the sentiment I atribute to a funeral style setiment. Nobody talks shit about someone at their funeral, alot of people just gave lip service to the 9/11 tragedy. (Disclaimer: It is not my position that all people just gave lip service, just some.) So it is not exactly hard to lose the sympathy of some, when they never had it to begin with.

A style which happened to belong to Clinton...

You seem obsessed with Clinton. Are you sure your not a Rebulican?

I never gave any evidence of having thought that. The difference is the scale. Clinton ordered many military actions (most of them for shitty reasons or with shitty results), but he never led us to war.

Again, BS. You wrote:

4. He's taken us to war at the cost of the lives of soldiers with bright futures for bullshit reasons

as a reason as to why Bush will go down in history as the worst President. Ordering military action is not a unique action in a Presidency and therefore just the act of doing so will not contribute to the negitive legacy of Bush. The actual results of the war will go towards his legacy weather it be positive or negitive. And you are back on Clinton again I see, when I gave two or three others besides him as an example.

Poor people do not hold stock, and the middle class does not hold anywhere near as much as the rich. I never said (at least I didn't mean to) that non-rich don't get helped at all, but that his tax cuts favor the wealthy disproportionately

Again, you wrote:

6. He cut taxes for the rich, and cut programs for the poor.

While the tax cuts will benifit the rich, they also benifit the middle class and poor who also hold such stocks or indirectly if they have retirement and or savings attached to such stocks. It should be hardly surprising that 10% of a thousand is more than 10% of a dollar, but thats an argument for another time.

You just said it again. You don't have to be explicit to be clear. If I don't like someone for ideological reasons that would make me both a sheep and an ideologue. And why are you psychoanalyzing me to find the reasons I don't like the real Axis of Evil when I just gave them?

If a difference of opinion on political issues (which you claim you don't have) makes you a sheep, let alone an ideologe, then we are all in trouble. And I am not psychoanalyzing you, I chalked up that particular argument to a difference of political opinion (which you claim you don't do) and you go off on a psyco-babble response.

Rumsfeld was the person who acted as the initial go-between for Saddam and the US government in 1983, and was most responsible for the Reagan administration's warming up to Saddam.

Ok, so he was the point man to intitiate a relationship with Iraq so that we could marginaly help in a conflict inwhich Iraq seemed to be the lesser of two evils. I can see why you don't like him, but I doubt that Rumsfeld will contribute to Bush being the worst President ever.

Sorry, it's hard not to lump you in with people like Durran Kor when I'm responding to both at the same time.

OK.

Still shouldn't have been there, and it reveals Ashcroft's true colors.

Ok, I too have no love for Ashcroft.

[Durandal]

No, I mean 50%. The 70% support for the war has only come about in the past 12 days or so. People were protesting long before than, and when they were protesting, polls showed that the country was split 50/50 on whether or not they wanted to go to war. That was when Bush unilaterally declared that he was going to be an arrogant prick not only to the rest of the world, but to half his people, as well.

At the risk of stating the obvious, when it's a 50/50 split, you will be ignoring half the nation one way or another.

You're missing the point. I'm not criticizing his decision; I'm criticizing the way he went about reaching it. He explicitly stated that he would ignore all voices of dissent and not even listen to them. If he'd made an effort to understand the anti-war position, then he'd deserve some credibility, but it's quite obvious that he intended to go to war from the minute he started pointing fingers at Iraq, and that nothing was going to stop him.

First, it was because Iraq allegedly had connections to Al Quaeda, which he never proved. Then it was because Iraq was disobeying UN resolutions, something Israel has been doing for a long time. Can we say "double standard"? Now, it's because he's wanted to free the Iraqi oil -- er, people, all along. The fact that he's been jumping all over for reasons to invade and then abandoning those reasons when they turn out to be illegitimate makes his position extremely questionable, at best. There are good reasons to go to war with Iraq (we're responsible for the current regime over there, and by extent, the torture chambers and acts of cruelty by Saddam), but Bush has done an utterly piss-poor job of presenting those reasons, and as a result, made himself look like a president who has no problem dismissing alternatives before even looking at them.

[SirNitram]

No, I mean 50%. The 70% support for the war has only come about in the past 12 days or so. People were protesting long before than, and when they were protesting, polls showed that the country was split 50/50 on whether or not they wanted to go to war. That was when Bush unilaterally declared that he was going to be an arrogant prick not only to the rest of the world, but to half his people, as well.

At the risk of stating the obvious, when it's a 50/50 split, you will be ignoring half the nation one way or another.

You're missing the point. I'm not criticizing his decision; I'm criticizing the way he went about reaching it. He explicitly stated that he would ignore all voices of dissent and not even listen to them. If he'd made an effort to understand the anti-war position, then he'd deserve some credibility, but it's quite obvious that he intended to go to war from the minute he started pointing fingers at Iraq, and that nothing was going to stop him.

He's an arrogant ass, I thought we all learned that a while ago.

[Durandal]

And I'll continue blasting him for it until the day finally comes when he's out of the office for good.

[MKSheppard]

And I'll continue blasting him for it until the day finally comes when he's out of the office for good.

Which won't be for another 5 years

[Durandal]

And I'll continue blasting him for it until the day finally comes when he's out of the office for good.

Which won't be for another 5 years

We'll see. Though the cynicist in me expects stupidity on the part of the voting populace, so you may be right.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Arthur, took sides so many times in all of his post and he doesn't have the sack to claim it.. At least some of us will stand up and say I support the war, the troops, and the Prez.. If he doesn't agree fine, but have some stones and admit it..

Does everything have to be spelled out for you? Of course I'll adopt a position of a side if I think it makes sense, but I mean what I said, I don't fucking take political sides.

Let me tell you something, I support the troops. Pro-war people do not, because they support sending them off to kill and die for fucking horseshit reasons.

[Stravo]

And I'll continue blasting him for it until the day finally comes when he's out of the office for good.

Which won't be for another 5 years

And then...horrors of horrors as some Conservatives have been whispering you have Jeb Bush that can come up next for ANOTHER 8 years. The thought of the embolism that would cause amongst some of the more left leaning folks in the media is almost worth hoping that it happens.

[phongn]

And then...horrors of horrors as some Conservatives have been whispering you have Jeb Bush that can come up next for ANOTHER 8 years. The thought of the embolism that would cause amongst some of the more left leaning folks in the media is almost worth hoping that it happens.

I don't think Jeb Bush is being groomed for presidency; other rumours have Rice in that role

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Haven't you been listening? I didn't have a side. I don't take sides in politics.

BS, you originaly brought up the 2000 election as a reason why Bush was a fucktard. While he may be a fucktard, the fact that the election process had so many hicups on so many sides, makes it that Bush nor his political party can be held soley responsible. Like it or not, you have picked a side. Hating Bush and being apathetic of the rest is still a political postion.

No, I didn't. You don't have to be a Democrat to critize Republicans, and vice versa. I think the democrats are overwhelmingly a bunch of mercenary political prostitues who would sell out anyone and any ideal. To clarify: I didn't mean that I won't take a side on a specific issue, only that I don't side with political parties or schools of thought, because that introduces an emotional need to want to obscure the truth.

Ok, now we have boiled it down to just arrogant. What does it matter if some are good at hiding it? They are still arrogant. As for the post 9/11 sympathy, while I am sure alot is genuine, alot of the sentiment I atribute to a funeral style setiment. Nobody talks shit about someone at their funeral, alot of people just gave lip service to the 9/11 tragedy. (Disclaimer: It is not my position that all people just gave lip service, just some.) So it is not exactly hard to lose the sympathy of some, when they never had it to begin with.

That may be true for many of our Middle Eastern "allies" (*cough* Saudi Arabia *cough*) but losing the support of Europe and South Korea took some serious doing.

About his arrogance, you're right, talking how nice of a guy he is, it wouldn't matter whether people are good at hiding it (in fact that would make them a worse person rather than better), but I was talking about it in relation to his job as president, and that's why it matters that he doesn't hide it.

A style which happened to belong to Clinton...

You seem obsessed with Clinton. Are you sure your not a Rebulican?

.... I'm confused, and too lazy to go back and read the original posts, what were we talking about?

I never gave any evidence of having thought that. The difference is the scale. Clinton ordered many military actions (most of them for shitty reasons or with shitty results), but he never led us to war.

Again, BS. You wrote:

4. He's taken us to war at the cost of the lives of soldiers with bright futures for bullshit reasons

as a reason as to why Bush will go down in history as the worst President. Ordering military action is not a unique action in a Presidency and therefore just the act of doing so will not contribute to the negitive legacy of Bush. The actual results of the war will go towards his legacy weather it be positive or negitive. And you are back on Clinton again I see, when I gave two or three others besides him as an example.

Bush alienated a lot of people with this war. Even if we win, we still lose.

Poor people do not hold stock, and the middle class does not hold anywhere near as much as the rich. I never said (at least I didn't mean to) that non-rich don't get helped at all, but that his tax cuts favor the wealthy disproportionately

Again, you wrote:

6. He cut taxes for the rich, and cut programs for the poor.

While the tax cuts will benifit the rich, they also benifit the middle class and poor who also hold such stocks or indirectly if they have retirement and or savings attached to such stocks. It should be hardly surprising that 10% of a thousand is more than 10% of a dollar, but thats an argument for another time.[/quote]
The question is, why do you need to cut the rich man's taxes by the same 10% as you cut the poor one's? I'm not saying the rich should be taxed all to hell, but it seems pretty logical to give the biggest tax break to the ones who need it the most. If he were interested in uplifting the poor, he would be giving tax credits on food, not dividends.

I don't see how my quote implies that he didn't cut taxes for middle and lower class people as well, just that the tax cuts were aimed at primarily benefitting the rich.

You just said it again. You don't have to be explicit to be clear. If I don't like someone for ideological reasons that would make me both a sheep and an ideologue. And why are you psychoanalyzing me to find the reasons I don't like the real Axis of Evil when I just gave them?

If a difference of opinion on political issues (which you claim you don't have) makes you a sheep, let alone an ideologe, then we are all in trouble. And I am not psychoanalyzing you, I chalked up that particular argument to a difference of political opinion (which you claim you don't do) and you go off on a psyco-babble response.

I didn't say I didn't have political opinions, just that I don't pick a side and conclude that they're right before examining evidence. And it's not that having a difference in opinion makes you a sheep, but hating someone because of ideology and not facts does.

Rumsfeld was the person who acted as the initial go-between for Saddam and the US government in 1983, and was most responsible for the Reagan administration's warming up to Saddam.

Ok, so he was the point man to intitiate a relationship with Iraq so that we could marginaly help in a conflict inwhich Iraq seemed to be the lesser of two evils. I can see why you don't like him, but I doubt that Rumsfeld will contribute to Bush being the worst President ever.

Rumsfeld is very hawkish, he undoubtedly wants us to move on and make war on someone else after Iraq, which I have little doubt we will.

Sorry, it's hard not to lump you in with people like Durran Kor when I'm responding to both at the same time.

OK.

Still shouldn't have been there, and it reveals Ashcroft's true colors.

Ok, I too have no love for Ashcroft.[/quote]

[Durandal]

And I'll continue blasting him for it until the day finally comes when he's out of the office for good.

Which won't be for another 5 years

And then...horrors of horrors as some Conservatives have been whispering you have Jeb Bush that can come up next for ANOTHER 8 years. The thought of the embolism that would cause amongst some of the more left leaning folks in the media is almost worth hoping that it happens.

Jeb Bush is obviously the smarter of the two kids, but he's also much more low profile (he rigged the 2000 election without even being investigated, after all ). By the time 2008 rolls around, the Democrats will have either come up with a worthy candidate, or they'll control the Congress. The nation's going to get tired of this frivolous spending of money that we don't have eventually.

[Kelly Antilles]

Is there anyone who is decent enough to actually BE president? Those already throwing their hats into the ring are idiots. (John Edwards, fucking got into the Senate for NC JUST so he could start his goddamn presidential campaign. He doesn't give a fuck about my state.)

[theski]

Without trying to hijack the thread.. I guess for Prez in 2008 is
1. Dem Hillary Clinton
2. Rep Colin Powel

[Durandal]

Is there anyone who is decent enough to actually BE president? Those already throwing their hats into the ring are idiots. (John Edwards, fucking got into the Senate for NC JUST so he could start his goddamn presidential campaign. He doesn't give a fuck about my state.)

John Edwards? The guy that talks to the dead?

The most promising candidate, at least from my view, is Gephardt. I don't know much about the Democratic candidates at this point, but Gephardt's very passionate about his views, and he seems like a reasonable guy. He publicly blasted the whole "Freedom Fries" thing, making sure to completely disassociate it from his party (it was a Republican proposal).

That said, I really do wish Gore would run again. Yeah, he's got about as much personality as a brick, but he's a well-respected figure world-wide, environmentally conscious, wants campaign finance reform, and he's very intelligent, and I can chalk his professed negative opinion of atheism up to rallying for public opinion (maybe). Basically, he's a squeaky-clean version of Bill Clinton, minus the charisma but with the international respect.

Basically, Gore and Gephardt are two guys I could sit down with and have an intelligent conversation with, and I'd know that they'd be listening to what I had to say. With Dubya, it'd be more like talking to Scoot.

[Durandal]

No flame wars here. You have been warned.

[Enforcer Talen]

Arthur, took sides so many times in all of his post and he doesn't have the sack to claim it.. At least some of us will stand up and say I support the war, the troops, and the Prez.. If he doesn't agree fine, but have some stones and admit it..

Does everything have to be spelled out for you? Of course I'll adopt a position of a side if I think it makes sense, but I mean what I said, I don't fucking take political sides.

Let me tell you something, I support the troops. Pro-war people do not, because they support sending them off to kill and die for fucking horseshit reasons.

hm. I dont believe Ive had the honor of being introduced, but I find I am glad I have not. your obviously an idiot. in fact, In terms of sheer idiocy, Id put you up with darkstar.

I am prowar, and many of the people I associate with are. But your bigoted attempts at looking at the world apparently missed the fact that, although I support the war, I am not a bloodthirsty jingoist. You claiming we just want troops to die is as pathetic an attempt at slaming the opposition as saying all the peaceniks hug trees and riot over the slightest reasons. Those people, while real, represent a minute minority.

I dont want them to die, and I want the war over as soon as possible. I am prowar, but that doesnt mean war itself is any more glamourized to me then it is to you. My father is in the military, and I well know the fear of losing someone close to you - he is after all, been stationed in s. korea, oman, and saudi.

When you pull your head out of your ass, maybe Ill pay more attention to your opinions.

[theski]

Arthur, If you spout that "I support the troops" bullshit again, it only proves what a biased liberal you really are.. The left says I support the troops "but" they should'nt be there.. If you didn't say "I support the troops no one would even bother to listen to your shit.. You are Irrelevant..

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Does everything have to be spelled out for you? Of course I'll adopt a position of a side if I think it makes sense, but I mean what I said, I don't fucking take political sides.

Let me tell you something, I support the troops. Pro-war people do not, because they support sending them off to kill and die for fucking horseshit reasons.

hm. I dont believe Ive had the honor of being introduced, but I find I am glad I have not. your obviously an idiot. in fact, In terms of sheer idiocy, Id put you up with darkstar.

Sweet! Someone who I've always had an enormous amount of disrespect for hates me. I must be doing something right.

I am prowar, and many of the people I associate with are. But your bigoted attempts at looking at the world apparently missed the fact that, although I support the war, I am not a bloodthirsty jingoist. You claiming we just want troops to die is as pathetic an attempt at slaming the opposition as saying all the peaceniks hug trees and riot over the slightest reasons. Those people, while real, represent a minute minority.

I find people are less likely to use such pathetic attempts when they find out how it feels. Now that you some of you know how it feels when someone says you don't support our soldiers, I hope you stop doing it to others.

I dont want them to die, and I want the war over as soon as possible. I am prowar, but that doesnt mean war itself is any more glamourized to me then it is to you. My father is in the military, and I well know the fear of losing someone close to you - he is after all, been stationed in s. korea, oman, and saudi.

When you pull your head out of your ass, maybe Ill pay more attention to your opinions.

I don't care if you ever pay attention to a single word I say. I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm trying to change the minds of people with brains and personal identities (as opposed to group identities).

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Arthur, If you spout that "I support the troops" bullshit again, it only proves what a biased liberal you really are.. The left says I support the troops "but" they should'nt be there.. If you didn't say "I support the troops no one would even bother to listen to your shit.. You are Irrelevant..

Looks like I found the right button. Now you know what it feels like when someone says you don't support our troops.

[Enforcer Talen]

name one time Ive said someone doesnt support our troops.. no? shot down.

[EmperorMing]

Without trying to hijack the thread.. I guess for Prez in 2008 is
1. Dem Hillary Clinton
2. Rep Colin Powel

No. Not Hillary.

I would much rather have Powell.

[Stuart Mackey]

Arthur, took sides so many times in all of his post and he doesn't have the sack to claim it.. At least some of us will stand up and say I support the war, the troops, and the Prez.. If he doesn't agree fine, but have some stones and admit it..

Holy fuck! I agree with theski!
Excepting that I dislike your President and his war..I do however support your army in what they are doing.

[Isil`Zha]

Ok, yeah, I think this war needed to be done in order to get rid of Saddam, no diplomacy was ever going to work with him. I do not, however, agree with the way Bush went to start it. Saddam was never going to stop lying, and the only option left to remove him was by force - But Bush alienated several major allies in the way he went about doing it. And that's all I have to say.


Stuwart: I can't believe you still have that quote in your sig. lol