Diebold
63 RepliesJump to last post
How can you, with a straight face, say;
[quote=BondGuy] Fox news, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and the Heritage Foundation seem to be the primary sources of information. [/quote]
And then follow it up with this?
[quote=BondGuy]As for open and honest debate of the issues, this isn't the forum for it. [/quote]
Pot, kettle, black....
[quote=TOPBROKR]You're just like those hypocritical "church-going" folks who turn out to be pedophiles or embezzle millions from the church coffers.[/quote]
Bond Guy: I hope you aren't suggesting that this individual intends to have an "open and honest debate" about anything.
[quote=BondGuy]
One guy here, mikebutler(assume the poster is male) keeps comparing Iraq to the Battle of the Bulge. Which I have to admit, I don't get the reference. [/quote]
It should be clear the reference has to do with eventual victories having hard, hard setbacks. An example of “plans” not surviving the first bullet being fired, not making things neat and perfect during a war. Periods when it’s very easy to panic and claim all is lost, especially if you have a political agenda that calls for it. Setbacks often forgotten, especially by those unaware of military history, once the victory is earned. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Fox news, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and the Heritage Foundation seem to be the primary sources of information.
Typical leftist spin when people actually formulate ideas based on reasoning and research that don't fall into "your" party line. Accuse them of being mindless drones for media talking heads. I believe, in psychological terms, that is called projection when you put your faults, foibles and other internal ideas upon other people.
Why is it that the left constantly takes this position, that Republicans must have a group think thing going on? Because it is the way that they think. Step outside the herd mentality (Joe Lieberman) and get your nuts in a wringer. The laugh is on the Democrats here when Joe beats what's his name to a pulp in this election. Maybe they will get a clue......nah.
You also forgot to mention the other usual suspects and boogeymen who are mind controlling the Republican party and turning people into zombies. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity....oh and a new one actually on CNN, of all places, Glen Beck. Sheesh.
[quote=BondGuy]
TB, relax. You were warned upfront that this solid republican country. Fox news, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and the Heritage Foundation seem to be the primary sources of information.
Attacking the poster is a popular way to punish noncompliant thinking. Say something they disagree with and they resort to name calling, or other childish games like picking on spelling or grammer. More times than not you will not get honorable debate, or answers. You will get non answers, the name calling etc.,rather than speaking to the issue. Yet, these people consider themselves mature independant thinkers who have the right answer. Unfortunately, rather than giving that answer, they name call. Personally, I don't get it.
I too took the poster to be more concerned with taxes than our predicament in Iraq. Of course to some here, there is no predicament in Iraq. Everything is fine. Just the war taking its normal course. One guy here, mikebutler(assume the poster is male) keeps comparing Iraq to the Battle of the Bulge. Which I have to admit, I don't get the reference. And more than likely if I ask for clarification he won't explain it to me without calling me a name. So, why waste my time. But, again the point is Iraq isn't a problem, just a war in progress. And anyone who questions the war is a defeatocrat.
So, to fit in here do your best not to elucidate any republican shortcomings. Tell this group that with all the republicans coming out of the closet lately that the repubicans should change their mascot to the moth, not appreciated here. And whatever you do don't say anything positive about any democrats. This group is just fine with the non checks and balances of the current power consolidation in government.
Preemptive war, Ok here.
Warrentless wiretaps, Ok here.
Suspension of Habeas Corpus, Ok here
Take from the poor, give to the rich via eminent domain, OK here.
War, I don't have to go, my kids don't have to go, war is Ok here
Osama still out there, Ok here
Stem cell research is unacceptable because it is murder, Ok here
You just have to understand the thinking. Get a blow j** and you're a criminal. Out a CIA agent, which is treason, under Bush, not a crime. And they can give you chapter and verse as to why.
If you're looking for answers to Financial services industry questions, maybe this forum will help. Though quite frankly, I'm finding it less effective in that role than it was at one time. Way too much childishness, with picking on newcomers for spelling, grammer ,etc. That chases away new people who don't get the dynamic and diminishes the roll of those of us who try to earnestly help these people.
As for open and honest debate of the issues, this isn't the forum for it. But at times it can be entertaining to engage the predictable.
Question that? Just watch.
[/quote]Actually BondGuy I agree with many of your posts, and those with which I do not agree I still find to be thought provoking.
My position is simply this-Mr. Bush is far from perfect. In fact, he may not even be bright. But, he's dealing with a very difficult situation in this world, and too many folks simply don't want to face the fact that we're at war with a people who want to eradicate our way of life. He has made some mistakes, but is doing what he thinks to be best, regardless of what it may cost him in terms of popularity.
He may not be super smart, but he is a man of principles and convictions, and acts according to what he thinks is in the best long-term interests of our country, not the Republican party. He has been savvy enough and humble enough to also surround himself with some pretty bright people.
The media, however, has such a super-strong liberal bias, that they don't give the guy a chance, IMHO. And, too many people out there take everything that the popular media says solely at face value. (Such as that whole Dan Rather fiasco.)
I also have a hard time swallowing those on the left who would argue(and believe their own arguments) that Bush and Co. concocted the story about WMD's solely to facilitate war on Iraq. I'm not sure if I think that view is extremely naive, or extremely cynical. Based upon the information we had at hand, there was reason to believe that Hussein had WMD's. Many of his own people thought he had WMD's. This aside from him ignoring 10 years worth of UN resolutions and baiting the U.S. Air Force just about every single day for that last 10 years. He had to go.
[quote=babbling looney]
Fox news, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and the Heritage Foundation seem to be the primary sources of information.
Typical leftist spin when people actually formulate ideas based on reasoning and research that don't fall into "your" party line. Accuse them of being mindless drones for media talking heads. I believe, in psychological terms, that is called projection when you put your faults, foibles and other internal ideas upon other people.
Why is it that the left constantly takes this position, that Republicans must have a group think thing going on? Because it is the way that they think. Step outside the herd mentality (Joe Lieberman) and get your nuts in a wringer. The laugh is on the Democrats here when Joe beats what's his name to a pulp in this election. Maybe they will get a clue......nah.
You also forgot to mention the other usual suspects and boogeymen who are mind controlling the Republican party and turning people into zombies. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity....oh and a new one actually on CNN, of all places, Glen Beck. Sheesh.
[/quote]
Thank you for making my point
[quote=BondGuy][quote=babbling looney]
Fox news, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and the Heritage Foundation seem to be the primary sources of information.
Typical leftist spin when people actually formulate ideas based on reasoning and research that don't fall into "your" party line. Accuse them of being mindless drones for media talking heads. I believe, in psychological terms, that is called projection when you put your faults, foibles and other internal ideas upon other people.
Why is it that the left constantly takes this position, that Republicans must have a group think thing going on? Because it is the way that they think. Step outside the herd mentality (Joe Lieberman) and get your nuts in a wringer. The laugh is on the Democrats here when Joe beats what's his name to a pulp in this election. Maybe they will get a clue......nah.
You also forgot to mention the other usual suspects and boogeymen who are mind controlling the Republican party and turning people into zombies. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity....oh and a new one actually on CNN, of all places, Glen Beck. Sheesh.
[/quote]
Thank you for making my point
[/quote]
This proves your point...how? What is your point anyway?
[quote=babbling looney]
Fox news, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and the Heritage Foundation seem to be the primary sources of information.
Typical leftist spinactually I'm almost completely in the center when people actually formulate ideas based on reasoning and research that don't fall into "your" party lineAnd what would that party be? I'm registered as an independent. Accuse them of being mindless drones for media talking headsI didn't say that. Where do you get that? These people and entities are far from mindless. Especially The heritage foundation, which, even though bought and paid for by the right, does some good work. . I believe, in psychological terms, that is called projection when you put your faults, foibles and other internal ideas upon other people.Again with the name calling and accusations of faulty reasoning for those who disagree with your position. here's an idea. Instead of calling those who disagree mentally ill, how about showing them how your POV might be a healthier way of looking at the issue. That is, if your way is better. And you ask how did you make my point for me? You're kidding right?
Why is it that the left constantly takes this position, that Republicans must have a group think thing going on? Because it is the way that they think. Step outside the herd mentality (Joe Lieberman) and get your nuts in a wringer. The herd being who? Connecticut democrats who oppose the war? The laugh is on the Democrats here when Joe beats what's his name to a pulp in this election. Maybe they will get a clue......nah.
You also forgot to mention the other usual suspects and boogeymen who are mind controlling the Republican party and turning people into zombies. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity....Now, these guys are mindless, McNabb average?oh and a new one actually on CNN, of all places, Glen Beck. Sheesh.
[/quote]On the Iraq matter, Clinton was spot on in 1998 when he said...
"But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.
There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us….
…The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too."
I'm almost completely in the center.
If you're in the center I'd love to see your map of the political landscape.
Accuse them of being mindless drones for media talking heads
I didn't say that. Where do you get that?
Maybe it was this part;"Fox news, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and the Heritage Foundation seem to be the primary sources of information."
Again with the name calling and accusations of faulty reasoning for those who disagree with your position.
From where I sit that accurately sums up your first entry into this thread...that and distorting positions others hold.
Step outside the herd mentality (Joe Lieberman) and get your nuts in a wringer.
The herd being who? Connecticut democrats who oppose the war?
The herd being those who didn't think there was a place for Joe in the DNC and then lost the Fall election in a walk-off.
TJ, I still think you da man (even though you da BLUE man!), but saying that this isn't a place for open and honest debate is selling a lot of us short. Absolutely, there's a lot of red on this board, and my purple is a bit red biased at the moment...I'm OK with confessing that, but I'm open to debate, even if it gets a bit spirited and some name-calling is involved. I'll stand by the gist of my message on the lack of literacy and maturity in TB's posts. My message is grow up and post like the professional you desire to be. If TB wants to be blue when he grows up, that's fine by me, but I'm deeply offended by an ignorant and bigoted statement like "...or Fundimental Christian- which is even worse than Fundimanetal Islamist.. At least the Islamists want to kill just a percentage of the population. The Rapture-seekers want us ALL to go down!!" I don't know how you remove illiterate and immature from such a statement, much less bigoted and hateful. After seeing such crap, I didn't feel the least bit guilty about doing a little "profiling", and I still believe that I'm closer to the truth than TB is willing to admit.
My congressional district has a fine Democratic candidate...moderate on many of his views. I'd like to vote for him. Frankly, I'm sick of the Republican incumbent and disagree with several of the positions he's taken over the years, even with my red bias. Oddly enough, the incumbent voted against the war in Iraq, so I will give him credit for taking a stand for his principals, as I respect that. That vote is not why I don't care for him. However, had the Democratic candidate ran against him in the Republican primary, there is no question I would have voted for him over the incumbent. My struggle with voting for him has to do with some of the folks he is likely to place in power. While I think his win is inevitable, and I believe that the House will go firmly blue, on principal, I will not vote for him, but will reluctantly vote for a candidate that will most likely be replaced anyway. I want to be able to say that I had nothing to do with making Nancy Pelosi speaker of the house. She does not represent my values, but oddly enough, her win would probably mean amnesty for illegal aliens, as that is something she and the current president seem agree on...politics does make strange bedfellows...
Bottom line is, TJ, there are plenty of us somewhere in the middle that would be happy to have a mostly civil debate, but I don't mind fighting fire with fire either.
This is off topic, but did any of you see 60 minutes last Sunday? They had a politician on from Arizona who attacks pork in proposed bills. He's Republican but gets attacked from his own party as well as the Democrats. Talk about fighting a losing war...
Okay, how about this: Instead of voting for people to represent us in all branches of the government, we draft 'em from the general population. Random drawings of everyone within the legal age limits for the position.
Then we'll make it a pay-for-performance position. If you're in congress and your state does well you get paid. If the country as a whole does well you get paid. If not you're out at the end of your term and that's that.
C'mon, it'll be fun! This way we can still have an all volunteer military AND reinstitute a form of the draft! Everybody plays, everybody wins...
[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]
One guy here, mikebutler(assume the poster is male) keeps comparing Iraq to the Battle of the Bulge. Which I have to admit, I don't get the reference. [/quote]
It should be clear the reference has to do with eventual victories having hard, hard setbacks. An example of “plans” not surviving the first bullet being fired, not making things neat and perfect during a war. Periods when it’s very easy to panic and claim all is lost, especially if you have a political agenda that calls for it. Setbacks often forgotten, especially by those unaware of military history, once the victory is earned. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
[/quote]
Mike thank you for making your position clear.
As for your example, I have a hard time seeing the connection. The battle of the Bulge wasn't a setback. If anything it facilitated the end of the battle for Europe. It so weakened the Germans that it forced an unconditional surrender.
As "an example of plans not surviving the first bullet", how do you mean this with regard to the BoB? Maybe for the Germans, as they were the only ones who did any planning here. All we did was react. The combination of some extremely heroic fighting, brilliant tactical commanders, and the weather brought us victory in this battle. But at a huge cost for both sides.
The BoB was brought by a well trained, well equipped conventional army. We responded in kind. It was over in a month. And again the historical comparison would more likely side us as the Germans. A superior force being slowed, stopped and eventually pushed back. Right now we're at the stopped stage. An ugly comparison, but true on many levels.
By comparision, in Iraq the superior force is being fought to a standstill by a ragtag army who have figured out how to bring down a Blackhawk with an RPG. We could use some of those Brilliant WWII commanders about now. Of course we ignored the smartest guy at the table, Powell.
For us, the BoB represented no plan, other than how to survive, and no setback.
I understand your point that war is hell, and that it doesn't always go to plan. My problem is that there was no plan. At least no plan that could possibly lead to another outcome than the one we have.
Our guys were suppose to be back home in the fall of 2003. Iraqies were suppose to greet us in the streets in a VE like day, with roses. Our preemptive war was a first step to set up a democracy in the middle east to win the hearts and minds of all in the region. None of that has happened. If we had a plan that put Iraq's new government firmly in control, I believe everyone would support it.
The Battle of the Bulge was a fight against tyranny. Now in the eyes of the world, or at least Muslims in the Middle East, who are the tyrants? Look in a mirror, it's you and me.
Freedom may never fully take hold in Iraq - but it certainly could not have been expected to take less than five years. We're in new territory here. However, it is still worth putting forth American might to give it every chance to succeed. A free state in the middle of the Arab world would likely be a historical development unlike any other in the region in its history.
Don't believe the rhetoric from the left, however, that America is some kind of tyranny. Those are the words of al Qaeda and Saddam loyalists. The majority of the remaining Iraqis are glad Saddam is going to hang, and are praying that their country is ready to fend on its own when the Americans leave.
[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
One guy here, mikebutler(assume the poster is male) keeps comparing <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq to the Battle of the Bulge. Which I have to admit, I don't get the reference. [/quote]
It should be clear the reference has to do with eventual victories having hard, hard setbacks. An example of “plans” not surviving the first bullet being fired, not making things neat and perfect during a war. Periods when it’s very easy to panic and claim all is lost, especially if you have a political agenda that calls for it. Setbacks often forgotten, especially by those unaware of military history, once the victory is earned.
[/quote]
Mike thank you for making your position clear.
As for your example, I have a hard time seeing the connection. The battle of the Bulge wasn't a setback. [/quote]
“Wasn’t a setback”???? You would have had a hard time selling that at the time. At the time, when the final result was in doubt, it was an unimaginable error, a disastrous, casualty-filled retreat. A major calamity. Almost 20,000 casualties, out of the blue.
[quote=BondGuy]
As "an example of plans not surviving the first bullet", how do you mean this with regard to the BoB?[/quote]
There’s an old military expression about no plan surviving the first bullet fired. We had a plan, it was the best that the experienced professionals on the ground could have produced. It was to concentrate troops elsewhere, in the most likely avenues of the enemy’s advance, , make a dash and cover thinly the wooded approaches the Germans chose to attack through (obviously not expect their attack to come there). The troops there were green and just getting organized when the attack began.
[quote=BondGuy] Maybe for the Germans, as they were the only ones who did any planning here. [/quote]
No, we had a plan, and you’re wrong to assume otherwise, as you’re wrong to make that assumption now. Units didn’t end up there by accident. The enemy had another plan. That’s my point.
[quote=BondGuy] The combination of some extremely heroic fighting, brilliant tactical commanders, and the weather brought us victory in this battle. [/quote]
This was after we were caught completely off-guard, lost almost 20,000 troops, suffered mass surrender. Came razor close to being tossed off the European continent. Some victory.
The point is Patton, Ike, Bradley, et al weren’t fools, they had a plan. The enemy had another plan and for a significant period of time our eventual victory was in doubt. We were thrown off balance, off schedule and suffered massive, unexpected loses.
[quote=BondGuy]
By comparision, in Iraq the superior force is being fought to a standstill by a ragtag army who have figured out how to bring down a Blackhawk with an RPG. We could use some of those Brilliant WWII commanders about now. [/quote]
They (our Brilliant WWII commanders) proved no one is immune, and I think your description of “stand-off” to be an exaggeration. There’s no danger that the insurgents will be taking or holding ground. There’s no chance they’ll inflicting massive causalities or organizing a counter-government. The best they can do is sniper and use IEDs. There’s no offensive coming out of them. Their only hope is to hang on until the “we’ve lost, let’s leave” crowd here gains sway.
[quote=BondGuy]
I understand your point that war is hell, and that it doesn't always go to plan. My problem is that there was no plan. [/quote]
You said we had no plan in the period just before the BoB and you were wrong then, too.
[quote=BondGuy]
Our guys were suppose to be back home in the fall of 2003. [/quote]
I don’t know you told you that.
[quote=BondGuy] Iraqies were suppose to greet us in the streets in a VE like day, with roses. [/quote]
In some areas, like among the Kurds, that’s exactly what happened.
[quote=BondGuy]
If we had a plan that put Iraq's new government firmly in control, I believe everyone would support it. [/quote]
I have to disagree. There are a great many who wouldn’t support it until it was achieved and complete, and then they would claim they were for it all along. But, every step of the way, they’d be running to microphones to tell us how it wasn’t working, we don’t have a plan, Bush is to blame, etc., etc., etc..
[quote=BondGuy]
The Battle of the Bulge was a fight against tyranny. Now in the eyes of the world, or at least Muslims in the Middle East, who are the tyrants? Look in a mirror, it's you and me.
[/quote]
You have got to be kidding…..where to even begin with that… you figure we’re really the tyrants because some in the Arab street miss Saddam, or want a radical Islamic state? Did the German population view themselves as tyrants? Even the most negative polls taken among the Iraqis say they want us around until they have their government on its feet. Their PM made that point just the other day.
[quote=mikebutler222]
I'm almost completely in the center.
If you're in the center I'd love to see your map of the political landscape.
Just a little left of center. Let's see:
Pro the war on terror red
Pro stem cell research blue
pro a womans right to choseblue
pro lower taxesred
pro gay marriageblue
pro right to free speech via burning the flag. blue
pro medical liabilty limitsred
pro less governmentred
pro strong defensered
con immigrant amnestyred
con preemptive warblue
con suspension of Habeas Corpusblue
con eminent domainblue
con increasing the national debtred
con social security reformblue
Hows that map mike? Wanna call me a moonbat or something equally derisive?
How about your map, care to share?
Accuse them of being mindless drones for media talking heads
I didn't say that. Where do you get that?
Maybe it was this part;"Fox news, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and the Heritage Foundation seem to be the primary sources of information."
Malkin, Coulter, represent commentators who speak in defense of the right. Again, where did I take a shot at them? It was BL who interjected "mindless" into the debate. But to be clear, why I said what I said; what I read here reminds me of what I read or hear from Malkin or Coulter. Call me Molly Ivins but I see similarities. And we all know that, at least you, if no one else here, gets info from the Heritage foundation. Is that a negative? No, I think not. It's a fact. Again, I didn't make any mindless drone statements or comparisons. That came from Babs. Maybe a little oversensitive, I don't know, but she made the comparo, not me. That's not close to my thinking.
Again with the name calling and accusations of faulty reasoning for those who disagree with your position.
From where I sit that accurately sums up your first entry into this thread...that and distorting positions others hold.
You say this while distorting my position. And with a straight face no less. If you really believe this then we are having a real Strother Martin moment.
Step outside the herd mentality (Joe Lieberman) and get your nuts in a wringer.
The herd being who? Connecticut democrats who oppose the war?
The herd being those who didn't think there was a place for Joe in the DNC and then lost the Fall election in a walk-off.
Lost? Was this election held already? I thought it was today? Joe got the boot for good reason. Like it or not, his constituents are largely anti Bush, anti war. Lieberman was failing to represent them, so they rightfully fired him. He is now running as the defacto republican as the republican candidate is compromised by some personal history. The combo of Lieberman democrats and republicans will give Joe the seat. I like Joe, but agree that any representative not representing the will of the people he was elected to represent, has got to go. And this proves what, that the misrepresented were wrong?
[/quote]Okay, so my last post solved most issues in American Politics, with this I'll solve the problem of Iraq. Ready? Take notes:
We're having a heck of a time determining who's a terrorist and who isn't. From what I can tell we're waiting for them to shoot at us then we kill them. However, I'd be willings to bet dollars to dinars (or whatever) that the Iraqi's know who's who in their neighborhoods. Lets give every man, woman, and child in Iraq a gun, and teach them how to use it. Then we just take off.
I know, I know: "We'll be arming the terrorists as well". Don't worry! I've taken this into consideration.
From everything that I hear there are FAR more Iraqi's who want freedom and safety than there are terrorists. The terrorists will be outgunned!
"But oh! The terrorists are scattered all over the country"! Luckily, so are the Iraqi's! In less time than it would take us to route all the terrorists the Iraqi's wil have done it. Everybody plays, everybody wins!
And besides, who doesn't like free guns?
[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222]
I'm almost completely in the center.
If you're in the center I'd love to see your map of the political landscape.
Just a little left of center. Let's see:
You're uniformly left of center form what I've seen
Pro the war on terror red
Uh, only after you disconnect Iraq from that war on terror. Sorry, that's Nancy Pelosi's line too...very blue,...
Pro stem cell research blue
Federal gov't already funds ESC research on existing lines. Non-gov mony is free to go elsewhere...
pro a womans right to choseblue
You've defined that pretty broadly. I'd limit it after the frist 3 months. You pick the color for that...
pro lower taxesred
Hmmm, there isn't an element of the tax cuts of the last five years you'd change?
pro gay marriageblue
pro gay union, pick the color.
pro right to free speech via burning the flag. blue
Same
con immigrant amnestyred
"Amnesty" menaing recognizing people who've been here for a long time? That's the WSJ position and even Bush's. It's mine as well.
con suspension of Habeas Corpusblue
Even framing the issue that way is blue...
con eminent domainblue
Huh? I don't know you figure that one's blue...
con increasing the national debtred
Con increased taxes, con increased social spending, not worried about current debt levels
con social security reformblue
Pro reform
Hows that map mike? Wanna call me a moonbat or something equally derisive?
Only if you're going to intone Coulter and Malkin again...
Accuse them of being mindless drones for media talking heads
I didn't say that. Where do you get that?
Maybe it was this part;"Fox news, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and the Heritage Foundation seem to be the primary sources of information."
Malkin, Coulter, represent commentators who speak in defense of the right. Again, where did I take a shot at them?
You took a shot at those who disagree with you for linking us to them as "information sources".
It was BL who interjected "mindless" into the debate.
No, her's was a response to yours.
And we all know that, at least you, if no one else here, gets info from the Heritage foundation.
If that's how you want to characterize me providing you with DoD numbeers on the demographics of the military that refuse your stereotype, fine.
Again, I didn't make any mindless drone statements or comparisons.
I think you don't realize just what your first post said.
Again with the name calling and accusations of faulty reasoning for those who disagree with your position.
From where I sit that accurately sums up your first entry into this thread...that and distorting positions others hold.
You say this while distorting my position. And with a straight face no less. If you really believe this then we are having a real Strother Martin moment.
I suggest you re-read your first post again, escepially where it talks about the inability to get a reasoned debate here.
Step outside the herd mentality (Joe Lieberman) and get your nuts in a wringer.
The herd being who? Connecticut democrats who oppose the war?
The herd being those who didn't think there was a place for Joe in the DNC and then lost the Fall election in a walk-off.
Lost? Was this election held already?
You can't possible believe that Joe isn't going to win this in a walk.
Joe got the boot for good reason. Like it or not, his constituents are largely anti Bush, anti war. Lieberman was failing to represent them, so they rightfully fired him.
No, the fringe of the Democrats decided there was no room in the DNC for a guy unwilling to cut and run. Lieberman's been vocal about how he thinks the war's being fought, he ALSO said we can't simply walk away, the cost would be too high. They kicked out a latter-day Scoop Jackson, and the rest of the state will give them a wake-up call on that tonight.