Case in point.  I am against the smoking bans.  All of them.  They are broad and not balanced at all.  I own a cigar company.  I love to smoke a great cigar.  In fact I smoke 3 - 5 a day...  But I have chosen not to complain about the communists that are taking my freedom to smoke OUTSIDE away from me (I get the inside thing...except bars, cigar lounges and smoke shops...WTF...who goes into a cigar lounge and gets offended by smoke?).

So...I lobby to those that can make a difference and work towards what I want...I just don't get caught up complaining about something that I, alone can not change...

OK, you all win…I’m a liberal, Clinton loving, pansy ass who thinks that we should send hugs n’ kisses to the terrorists. I love Iran and North Korea and think we should stick our tails between our legs and go running home…



Sounds like a Dude to me. Glad you opened up and let us know who you really are. CIndy Sheehan would be proud of you.

" I really truly believe this."

This is what is wrong with religion as the center of a person's life (not that it is the center of yours). Belief does not equal reality. If one REALLY reallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreally believes something, it has no bearing on the reality.

And even if it were [true], is this war the ONLY solution? Couldn't we cut off their suppy to their energy? What if we spent $20 billion dollars on energy solutions? Mega projects that pipe geo cooled air into homes instead of using air conditioners. Slot car highways that travel faster and safer than the killing field/iron icefloes* that claim so many each day. Tidal flow electric generation, More fuel efficient cars. More energy efficient homes.  Etc Etc Etc?

If we could turn to the Middle East and say. "Keep it!"  Then what? What if we had no more business interests in the region (Let's keep Isreal off to the side for right now)? How much would they care about our lifestyle?

"the women who are free to dress as they please "

Are you confusing Afghanistan and Iraq? I think you are. Iraq wasn't the Burka state.

"a few stories that talk about the kids that are now going to school,"

As if they weren't going to school before we blew up the school, killed the teachers and destroyed the economic infrastructure that suported them (yes, I read the article).

"First of all, I don't think people give GW enough credit for making what he felt was the best decision in a historically difficult situation."

So if I disagree with him I'm not giving the credit for the decision?

But you are right (in MY case) I don't think that his decision was in any way based on that historically difficult situation. It was a foregone conclusion that we were going to go to war against Iraq. The doctrine of Preemptive Strike was floated in the GHBush administration, it was just looking for a way out (this would prove in the NeoCons minds that this Bush was really one of them, as opposed to his Poser father).

The plans for Iraq were discussed from day ONE of this Presidency.

This is a big reason why it's hard to believe in the "this is the front line on the war on terror" line.

"Sometimes I think that we forget that this was literally the very first time the continental U.S. was attacked by a foreign enemy essentially in modern history. "

And what, in the cold light of day did we come to realize from it? One thing that we learned is that we are far too big of a nation and an economy for terrorists to be anything more than a nuisance to.

Do you REALY think that there is a country on the planet that could overcome the USA?

When Colin Powell sat there in the UN and said "If Saddam can get his weapons here he could destroy an area 8 times the size of NYC.!"

IF he got EVERYTHING here he could destroy an area less than 240 miles in diameter. No fun for sure, I'm within that circle. But it wouldn't even put more than a dent in the USA. Natural disasters can do worse (remember the floods of the mid 90's? They destroyed an area 60 miles either side of the the Mississippi, we barely flinched).

Our lifestyle is at zero risk from terrorists. Our lifestyle is at risk of fear. We as individuals may be at risk from terrorists, but our nation is not.

And every nation on Earth, every thinking leader knows this. It takes egos with armies as had both Napoleon and Hitler to attempt otherwise (they both made the mistake with Russia). There is no one even remotely on the horizon with this combination.

Mr. A

* Iron Icefloes...

I like that one! As we allow our demented parents to climb into automobiles and drive them down to Florida. It's like a lottery, with they make it or am I coming into an inheritance?

I kill me!

Mr. A

[quote=AirForce]OK, you all win...I'm a liberal, Clinton loving, pansy ass who thinks that we should send hugs n' kisses to the terrorists. I love Iran and North Korea and think we should stick our tails between our legs and go running home.....

Sounds like a Dude to me. Glad you opened up and let us know who you really are. CIndy Sheehan would be proud of you.[/quote]

Ah, what this country has become. If you can't attack the belief attack the believer. Desent is unpatriotic as is anything less than 100% unconditional support for what our government is doing. Sad really, considering that our country was built on desent and questioning the status quo.

Of course there are many countries where desent is not an option, nor is questioning government. They are not pleasant places to live. We, unless we are very careful, could become one of them.

And then there's Cindy Sheehan. A right wing lightning rod. Everyone who desents on Iraq is a Cindy Sheehan lover. Personally, I find her to a very mild antiwar protester, as antiwar protesters go. By Vietnam era standards she wouldn't even register on the national scene. But the right wing handlers decided to campaign her as the anti-Bush.Their followers fell for it hook, line and sinker, as is evidenced by AF's post. PT Barnum said it right. Amazing to watch people who don't even know they're being sold a line of propaganda.

As for Iraq, I'm on board early as saying we shouldn't have invaded. Bush is on record as having an Iraq agenda 911 was excuse to execute it. At the time the terrorist were consentrated in Afganistan. Then I supported the war thinking that maybe bringing democracy to that country would be a good thing. However, now we are caught in their civil war.

The Vietnam War was lost sometime between 1968 and 69. Staying until 1975 did nothing but double the number of dead American soldiers. And then as now the battle cry was we can't leave. The reasoning was something known as the Domino Theory. That is if we allowed the communist to over run South Vietnam the entire pacific rim would fall to communism like Dominos, one after the other. That theat then is as real as terrorism is today. The Domino Theory was wrong.

I don't know what the answer is for Iraq, but, repeat after me: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of ?

Want to attack me on something else, try this

It took a lawsuit and a court order to get FEMA to reinstate housing, which was taken away, to Katrina victims. And "to get" is the wrong tense because FEMA has yet to restore that housing. Nice huh? Can't pin that one on Brownie. I sure hope my family never needs these guys.

The word is “dissent”.  If you’re going to debate an issue, please use the verbiage correctly.

It took a lawsuit and a court order to get FEMA to reinstate housing, which was taken away, to Katrina victims. And "to get" is the wrong tense because FEMA has yet to restore that housing. Nice huh? Can't pin that one on Brownie. I sure hope my family never needs these guys.

Once again, the inability to stay on topic and throw everything up against the wall to see what sticks.  The subject of this tread is Victory  in Iraq not the FEMA ineptitudes or what color jammies George Bush wears to bed.

I, like some of the other posters consider myself a moderate.  Conservative in fiscal issues, moderate to liberal on social issues and very conservative and militant when it comes to the safety of my Country AND myself. 

I also resent being pushed into a stereotype as a Bush loving clone because I support certain actions AKA: using military force to control if not eradicate radical Islamists who wish us no good.  I also resent the stereotyping of "BushMcChimpHilter" by the left in this country and their seeming Amazing Kreskin like abilities to read his mind and motives.  That's a really good power that I hope you all are using in your careers as financial advisors. 

I don't think Bush is a "God" or a perfect human being.  I do think that he has the best interests of our Country and its citizens at heart.  We can take issue with some of his decisions, but trying to demonize and denigrate the human being only negates any validity of your arguments.  When people stoop to that level they have lost any credibility in my eyes.

Presenting opinions in a debate as opinions is a qualified tactic as long as you support those opinions with FACTS and not just more opinions. 

Its my opinion that the "War on Terror" consists of a wider swath that just Iraq and is not just a recent development.  Here are some supporting factual events upon which I draw my conclusion.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/mod ern.html

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

The left focuses laser like on a small area of Iraq and on one person (Usama Bin Laden) and is willfully ignoring of the wider picture.  The wider geographic picture and the wider demograpchic picture. The left focuses on one person to blame (George Bush) and ignores the historical events that have brought us to this. Have we, the United States, made diplomatic mistakes in the last 20 years that have led up to this juncture.....sure.  But we can't continually look backward and whine about it.    We must go forward.

The left wants it all to just go away.  Well it won't. They think we should talk and play nice with psycopathic killers. Well, I won't.

It is my opinion that just putting "more troops on the ground" in Iraq is going to be a futile disaster unless we also go in with the determination to "kick a$$ and take names".... as they say in my neck of the woods.  Tying one hand behind our backs is not a way to win a war.  The Military has been gradually reduced and marginalized for decades.  We are now paying the price.

An essay by Pat Conroy's book "My Losing Season" via a link from Power Line.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=397352

Hope this gives some perspective to all of you young posters who mean well.   Pat thought he was in the right also. 

Hope this also gives you guys some perspective on my mindset and my perspective.   Those years aren't just history that I have read about in books or that have been filtered through the distorted lense of college professor's biases to me. I lived through those years and don't want to see them happen again.

"I do think that he has the best interests of our Country and its citizens at heart."

That's a really good power that I hope you all are NOT using in your career as financial advisor. 

Bush has displayed that he is not interested in the opinions or needs of those not with him. You're either with us or you're against us.

"The left focuses laser like on a small area of Iraq and on one person (Usama Bin Laden) and is willfully ignoring of the wider picture. "

OSAMA AND IRAQ ARE NOT THE SAME ISSUE!

That you will still bring those two up in the same sentence shows a fundamental disconnect with the FACTS of this issue. 

"The left focuses on one person to blame (George Bush) and ignores the historical events that have brought us to this. Have we, the United States, made diplomatic mistakes in the last 20 years that have led up to this juncture.....sure.  But we can't continually look backward and whine about it.    We must go forward. "

OK, so we're wrong to ignore the past and wrong about looking at the past?

You are babbling. I'm sorry to have to say so, but the evidence is clear.

"as they say in my neck of the woods"

Your neck of the woods ought to be spending it's time looking for the blockage, 'cause there's no blood getting to the brains of your woods!"

"The Military has been gradually reduced and marginalized for decades. "

Who did that? You want to know? He was Secretary of Defense under President Bush I. His name was DICK CHENEY! Look it up!

"Presenting opinions in a debate as opinions is a qualified tactic as long as you support those opinions with FACTS and not just more opinions. "

Point out the facts that you have presented please.

I pointed out mine and I pointed out my opinions too. Will you do the same?

Bet you won't.

Oh, and it will also be nice if your fact support some sort of conclusion too (as opposed to the fact that you mentioned about the downsized military which runs counter to your assertion that we have men of talent in office.)

Mr. A

"An essay by Pat Conroy's book "My Losing Season"

I guess if an essay is written by someone who has read a book is good, then an essay by someone who has written a book must be better and an essay written BY a book must be even bestest!

Mr. A

[quote=Starka]The word is "dissent".  If you're going to debate an issue, please use the verbiage correctly.[/quote]

Whew, did I write that? OK, which one of you guys is using my screen name?

Actually I've had a life long battle with malapropism. I've tried everything, Malaprops Anonymous, The Mrs. Malaprop Clinic, and the Just Spell No Program. Yet the back sliding continues.

I've used this disability to my advantage. Once while in a high class night club(they let me in anyway) my small group got into a debate about the meaning of a word. I thought it meant one thing and the rest of the group thought it meant something else. To settle the debate we determined that we needed a qualified outside opinion. An opinion that could only be rendered by the most beautiful woman in the club. Since I couldn't act as arbiter I decided that I should be our group's emissary. So off I went. Turned out that I was wrong. And later that night she showed me just how wrong I was. That led to an long term relationship. The word: Asexual. After that relationship ended my best friend and I realized we had hit on something with the malaprop thing. Typical in these clubs woman would ask what you did for a living. We'd answer that we were Malaproptologist. If they answered "Where's your office?" we knew we had a live one. So malapropism has been good for me.

As for your suggestion I'll pass. You can look upon my bad grammar, misspellings, and malopropisms as a gauge of my intelligence. Or you can look at them as I do, scars on fine leather. The choice is yours. Of course I already know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.

If you can't attack the belief attack the believer.

I'll bet you leave the E off potatoe too!

Mr. A

[quote=babbling looney]

It took a lawsuit and a court order to get FEMA to reinstate housing, which was taken away, to Katrina victims. And "to get" is the wrong tense because FEMA has yet to restore that housing. Nice huh? Can't pin that one on Brownie. I sure hope my family never needs these guys.

Once again, the inability to stay on topic and throw everything up against the wall to see what sticks.  The subject of this tread is Victory  in Iraq not the FEMA ineptitudes or what color jammies George Bush wears to bed.

I, like some of the other posters consider myself a moderate.  Conservative in fiscal issues, moderate to liberal on social issues and very conservative and militant when it comes to the safety of my Country AND myself. 

I also resent being pushed into a stereotype as a Bush loving clone because I support certain actions AKA: using military force to control if not eradicate radical Islamists who wish us no good.  I also resent the stereotyping of "BushMcChimpHilter" by the left in this country and their seeming Amazing Kreskin like abilities to read his mind and motives.  That's a really good power that I hope you all are using in your careers as financial advisors. 

I don't think Bush is a "God" or a perfect human being.  I do think that he has the best interests of our Country and its citizens at heart.  We can take issue with some of his decisions, but trying to demonize and denigrate the human being only negates any validity of your arguments.  When people stoop to that level they have lost any credibility in my eyes.

Presenting opinions in a debate as opinions is a qualified tactic as long as you support those opinions with FACTS and not just more opinions. 

Its my opinion that the "War on Terror" consists of a wider swath that just Iraq and is not just a recent development.  Here are some supporting factual events upon which I draw my conclusion.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/mod ern.html

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

The left focuses laser like on a small area of Iraq and on one person (Usama Bin Laden) and is willfully ignoring of the wider picture.  The wider geographic picture and the wider demograpchic picture. The left focuses on one person to blame (George Bush) and ignores the historical events that have brought us to this. Have we, the United States, made diplomatic mistakes in the last 20 years that have led up to this juncture.....sure.  But we can't continually look backward and whine about it.    We must go forward.

The left wants it all to just go away.  Well it won't. They think we should talk and play nice with psycopathic killers. Well, I won't.

It is my opinion that just putting "more troops on the ground" in Iraq is going to be a futile disaster unless we also go in with the determination to "kick a$$ and take names".... as they say in my neck of the woods.  Tying one hand behind our backs is not a way to win a war.  The Military has been gradually reduced and marginalized for decades.  We are now paying the price.

[/quote]

First- The problem with Iraq is not a marginalized military. Inept leadership from the top has brought us to this place. The war was ill conceived and is ill executed. Our military was marginalized after Vietnam, yet as bad as things were Desert Storm's mission was accomplished with ease. So the problem isn't a marginallized military. The problem is a failure to understand the big picture.

Second- Inept is as inept does. The same inept leadership that has bungled Iraq and the war on terror is the same group that has bungled the Katrina response. Ok, we can just talk about a limited area of the ineptitude but the two are one. The problem with Iraq isn't in Iraq, it's in Washington DC. The problem with the Katrina response isn't on the Gulf Coast, it's in Washington DC.

Third- The war on terror can't be won militarily. Idealogic wars never are. Communism comes to mind. This isn't about who has the biggest military and the most guns. It's about winning hearts and minds. How are we doing in that department in the middle east?

Fourth- If the Iraqi people can't stand alone they can't stand at all. It's time for another vote. Not here, but there. Should we stay or should we go? Let the purple fingers decide.

Looks like there were a few deletions of posts…

[quote=mranonymous2u]

I'll bet you leave the E off potatoe too!

Mr. A

[/quote]

Float like a butterfly

Sting like a bee

I am the smartest

Potato no E?

And even if it were [true], is this war the ONLY solution? Couldn't we cut off their suppy to their energy?

No, we couldn't. We were even losing the sanction and after 12 years of Saddam not living up to his agreements...

 What if we spent $20 billion dollars on energy solutions?

AQ doesn't care what energy sources you lose. It's just amazing how people continue to fail to understand them.

If we could turn to the Middle East and say. "Keep it!"  

Even if the entire world could do that, that not what this is about...

.It was a foregone conclusion that we were going to go to war against Iraq.

Fiction...

 The plans for Iraq were discussed from day ONE of this Presidency.

Given that regime change was official US policy since 1998 and since Clinton had to attack Iraq twice to get Saddam to live up to his agreements to the US and UN it would have been foolish not to cosider that contingency.

This is a big reason why it's hard to believe in the "this is the front line on the war on terror" line.

Even if you can't bring yourself to believe Bush, perhaps you could believe AQ. They say the same thing.

And what, in the cold light of day did we come to realize from it? One thing that we learned is that we are far too big of a nation and an economy for terrorists to be anything more than a nuisance to.

Simply delusional. 3,000 Americans were killed, the economy went into the tank and it was a "nuisance". Just amazing...

Do you REALY think that there is a country on the planet that could overcome the USA?

"Overcome"? As in occupy? You really haven't a clue as to what's going on here...

IF he got EVERYTHING here he could destroy an area less than 240 miles in diameter.

I feel much better now...

Our lifestyle is at zero risk from terrorists.

I had to read that twice. It's simply stunning....

Ah... Rod McCuen, gotta love him.

Mr. A

 And then there's Cindy Sheehan. A right wing lightning rod. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

If you like, I can give you dozens of cites from the MSM and liberal/left writers about how "Peace Mom" was the catalyist for the "peace movemnent". It's rather strange to see that twisting into "right wing lightening rod"

 Personally, I find her to a very mild antiwar protester, as antiwar protesters go. By <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Vietnam era standards she wouldn't even register on the national scene.

I donno, she blamed the president for the death of her volunteer, re-enlisted son and that the terrorists who actually killed him were innocent. Saying Bush is the world’s biggest terrorist. Posing with Chavez. What does she have to do, appear in a video with some guys about to cut the head off an “infidel”?

But the right wing handlers decided to campaign her as the anti-Bush.

I have to assume that’s a typo. It sure wasn’t the “right wing” to made “Peace Mom” what she is.

Bush is on record as having an Iraq agenda 911 was excuse to execute it.

I don’t even know what that means. If you’re saying Bush said POST-9/11 we can’t let Saddam shake off sanctions having never submitted fully to WMD inspections, I agree. If you’re saying Bush linked Saddam to 9/11, well, no.

 At the time the terrorist were consentrated in Afganistan.

AQ members and other terrorists had been living the fat life in Saddam’s Iraq long before we went to Afghanistan.

It took a lawsuit and a court order to get FEMA to reinstate housing, which was taken away, to Katrina victims.

Let me guess, FEMA was following regs about how long they were to provide housing before state and local agencies were supposed to take over the job. FEMA can’t win. They made it easy to get funds and help to people and there was outrage a short time later when it turned out money flowed too quickly to be well accounted for. Now they get banged for not being lenient enough. I have news for you, I went through a hurricane and the resulting FEMA process, it’s never neat and tidy, it’s catch as catch can in a disaster area.

[quote=babbling looney]

Once again, the inability to stay on topic and throw everything up against the wall to see what sticks.  [/quote]

It's the wack-a-mole debating method. It's often used by people who know each and every one of their specific talking points can't withstand a close examination.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"I do think that he has the best interests of our Country and its citizens at heart."

That's a really good power that I hope you all are NOT using in your career as financial advisor. 

Bush has displayed that he is not interested in the opinions or needs of those not with him. You're either with us or you're against us.

So.  I agree with this.  You are either with us or against us.  Why should I care about the opinions and needs of my enemies?

"The left focuses laser like on a small area of Iraq and on one person (Usama Bin Laden) and is willfully ignoring of the wider picture. "

OSAMA AND IRAQ ARE NOT THE SAME ISSUE!

Where did I say that?  Do you have reading comprehension issues.

That you will still bring those two up in the same sentence shows a fundamental disconnect with the FACTS of this issue. 

"The left focuses on one person to blame (George Bush) and ignores the historical events that have brought us to this. Have we, the United States, made diplomatic mistakes in the last 20 years that have led up to this juncture.....sure.  But we can't continually look backward and whine about it.    We must go forward. "

OK, so we're wrong to ignore the past and wrong about looking at the past?

When did I say that?  We should learn from the past.  We should not dwell on the past.

You are babbling. I'm sorry to have to say so, but the evidence is clear.

"as they say in my neck of the woods"

Your neck of the woods ought to be spending it's time looking for the blockage, 'cause there's no blood getting to the brains of your woods!"

Thank you for proving again that the left cannot long hold a discussion without getting nasty and calling names.   Do I make fun of your typos and call you names?

"The Military has been gradually reduced and marginalized for decades. "

Who did that? You want to know? He was Secretary of Defense under President Bush I. His name was DICK CHENEY! Look it up!

So what?  Again ...looking at the past and pointing fingers instead of trying to look ahead and fix the mistakes that have been made by decades of both Democrats and Repbulicans.  Do you dispute that the military has been reduced and marginalized . That they have, among other things, been ejected from recruiting in institutions of higher learning.....now there is an oxymoron.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1730016/posts

Opinions in a debate as opinions is a qualified tactic as long as you support those opinions with FACTS and not just more opinions. "

Point out the facts that you have presented please.

I pointed out mine and I pointed out my opinions too. Will you do the same?

Bet you won't.

Sure I did.  Those little blue underline thingies are links to listings of historical events upon which I draw my conclusions.  I see that you have conveniently deleted them. 

Oh, and it will also be nice if your fact support some sort of conclusion too (as opposed to the fact that you mentioned about the downsized military which runs counter to your assertion that we have men of talent in office.)

Point out to me where I said we have men of "talent" in office.  You can try to put words in my mouth all you want, but it won't work.  You can spin like a top and screw yourself into the ground. Making up things isn't helpful.

Mr. A