Yes, you all know who he is. I will now respond to the two questions he’s been howlingly repeating because, y’know…why not? And the rub of it is, he probably won’t understand either answer.
Response number one: The fact that I have not disagreed with his assessment of my veracity is not an indicator that what he says has worth. Rather, it’s an indicator of my belief that his opinion of me is, in fact, worthless.
Response number two: He has demanded to know how any of our individual lives are hurt or worsened because of the actions of George W. Bush…a man who needlessly launched a war that’s resulted in the deaths of 1600+ Americans and thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis. The answer is quite simple:
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of they friends or of thine own were; any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
–John Donne
And thus am I Donne with the clod.
PAD
• 
“Jerry has been writing these lengthy pro-democratic analyses and has insisted that he’s been including obvious summaries people can walk away from his posts with.”
You really can’t read, can you?
I’ve never made any such claim. I’ve stated that I would rather go point by point and stated that I don’t care for sound bytes or bumper sticker one liners. I don’t find any true debating value in them. I also stated point blank that you won’t find many or, in some cases, any of them in my posts.
The closest I came is pointing out, after you went on and on and on and on about it, that you could boil down some of my points about Bush into, “Bush lied. People died.” But I don’t because must people who support Bush will just brush aside the bumper sticker logic as mindless Lib ranting and say that it is without merit. A list of facts is harder to deny or defend.
I also said in several posts that it’s great to have different people with differnt styles in the debate. My going with long lists of facts or point by points with you and the shorter post style you claim to like covers all the bases.
But, somehow, you read all that to be, “Jerry has been writing these lengthy pro-democratic analyses and has insisted that he’s been including obvious summaries people can walk away from his posts with.” Never said it. I just said that I thought most people here were smart enough that they could read it and take away from it what they wanted for their own summaries.
“But as I demonstrated in my post, the democrats aren’t issuing soundbytes even *they* believe.
None of poor who voted for Bush believe the neo-cons are resolved to wage war for oil, or to lie and kill people. But as I demonstrated in my post, the democrats aren’t issuing soundbytes even *they* believe.”
You either can’t read or you don’t live in the same world as this blog’s page. I said that, in ref to me, I, me and me alone, just me, me, myself and I don’t buy into or believe the sound bytes and bumper stickers as a stand alone argument. So you take that as me saying that NO Democrat or Lib does? I gave you a number of web sites where those same bumper stickers are sold by the thousands and where you can read posts and hear comments that show that many people do believe the bumper stickers like, “No war for oil.” And you showed that you couldn’t figure out that simple, basic and obvious point with your next few posts as you ranted on about what good they are since I, and just me, myself and I in the case of our posts, don’t even believe in them.
“None of poor who voted for Bush believe the neo-cons are resolved to wage war for oil, or to lie and kill people. As inane as the neo-con soundbytes are, most people believe they are issued honestly.
“This leaves the poor only hearing soundbytes anyone believes from the neo-cons.”
No. Only the ones who want to believe. The same as the ones who want to believe the Dem bumper sticker logic. As I said before; you can’t win over the most of the people who want to believe their sides bumper stickers with only other bumper stickers no matter what. But you can win over the ones who want to know what is going on and will only respond to facts.
But this is a point that seems to keep going right over your head.
Jerry, I’ve tried having detailed debates with some Bush supporters, and even used fact-based lists. Some have very good responses, and make interesting points. There are lots of folks that post to this very board that support Bush and the GOP, generally, that make very good conversationalists. We generally disagree, but that’s an ideology difference.
Personally speaking, a very good acquantance of mine, someone I generally regarded as educated and well-informed, proved to me that some Bush supporters just cannot be debated. There’s a difference here: when exchanging posts with Iowa Jim or Mr. Bjorlin, I’m not really expecting that I’m going to “convert” them away from the GOP…but at the very least, they admit certain facts, and are willing to discuss them.
The folks I refer to as “kool aid drinkers” are those that simply dismiss an argument simply because it’s labeled a democratic/liberal position, usually by dismissing the source (“you need to stop listening to those liberal news sources”) I think maybe the worst line I heard was “the only thing liberals are good for is to remind us why all their ideas are bad.”
I’m all for getting into a debate, but when a portion of the other side (and I’m aware that this reaction isn’t exclusive to the GOP) flat out refuses to even hear your argument, there really is no debate.
Eventually, I stop trying to have those discussions with certain people….it gets tiring, working out a long, detailed post, only to see some smary GOP sound bite posted in response, which usually is very far removed from the point you were trying to make.
Since Jerry addressed me:
Uh, right, Jerry. You haven’t been insisting anything — even when you insisted things. It’s the fault of us illiterates the democrats keep losing
Jeesus should have gone at the end of the post
Posted by X-Ray : “Hottest thread this site has ever seen!” Posted by Zeek: “Wrong. I’ve seen them in the 300s. Ego much?”
——–
Ever seen them in the 400’s, smart guy?
HOTTEST THREAD EVER!
Ever seen them in the 400’s, smart guy? HOTTEST THREAD EVER!
But remember, the count increased exponentially after we stopped talking to/about you.
“Posted by: Jerry at June 12, 2005 10:02 PM
I don’t use or buy into 90% of the bumper stickers or sound bytes out there from any side because they are often without any real substance.”
————————————————-
Posted by: Mike at June 13, 2005 01:52 PM
“Since Jerry addressed me:”
“What good then are democratic bumper stickers you don’t even believe in?
But if you want one I believe in:
I have said in posts that Bush lied, people have died and that many who died would not have if Bush had not lied. I just don’t care for shouting, “Bush lied. People died” and not backing it with anything but more bumper sticker and sound byte arguments. Now, can you put two and two together this time without getting seven?”
“Jerry has been writing these lengthy pro-democratic analyses and has ***insisted that he’s been including obvious summaries*** people can walk away from his posts with.”
“You really can’t read, can you?”
“I’ve never made any such claim.”
“Uh, right, Jerry. You haven’t been insisting anything — even when you insisted things. It’s the fault of us illiterates the democrats keep losing”
————————————————-
What I said was:
“I’ve never made any such claim. I’ve stated that I would rather go point by point and stated that I don’t care for sound bytes or bumper sticker one liners. I don’t find any true debating value in them. I also stated point blank that you won’t find many or, in some cases, any of them in my posts.
The closest I came is pointing out, after you went on and on and on and on about it, that you could boil down some of my points about Bush into, “Bush lied. People died.” But I don’t because must people who support Bush will just brush aside the bumper sticker logic as mindless Lib ranting and say that it is without merit. A list of facts is harder to deny or defend.”
******
So, I did the short version thing for an example because YOU KEPT ASKING FOR IT and somehow that means that I’m insisting that I am putting obvious summaries into my posts?
“But as I demonstrated in my post, the democrats aren’t issuing soundbytes even *they* believe.”
And, again, my not believing in some things said without the backing of thought or fact and saying so does not speak for the many people who walk around all do showing that they do. Do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster? Do you believe that it’s a plesiosaur? If you don’t and you know one other person who doesn’t do you then claim that no one does despite the huge number of people out there saying and showing that they do? If you can’t work that out then you are an idiot.
Again, you’ve only spent the last day showing the following things:
1) You can’t understand a dámņëd thing that you read.
2) You’re very good at cut and pasting to take something out of context.
3)You’re very good at addressing points that weren’t made.
4) You suck at math. Why? Because taking 90% of something away still leaves 10%. Figure it out ****head.
5) You’re an idiot who can’t hold a real coversation or debate without resorting to taking what is said and twisting out of context to create a lesser point that you can then debate with some low level of skill.
6) You throw boarderline nut job comments into the dabate like that whole old couples, old ladies, back of your hand, in hand line. That makes you look very unhinged.
7) Anyone who spends too much time debating you may also be an idiot if they don’t sooner or later come to realize that it is pointless to argue with an stone cold idiot who twists points and quotes to the point of being a boarderline liar.
8) I’m not an idiot and I’m also now done with you.
I just had a horrifying thought. If Hillary Clinton and John McCain run against each other in 2008, they might have to resort to talking about substantive, actual issues. Most likely this would see the end of the modern news media, as a whole industry of parroting pundits finds it is unable to actually speak intelligently about real issues. Journalists might have to relearn how to do research on their own. 24-Hour news channels would have to fill about 20 hours of programming with constant news coverage of the rather unnewsworthy Michael Jackson appeals process; ratings and advertising revenues would plummet.
Jerry,
Your proof that I can’t read rested on this, which you cite from me:
To which I referred from your post:
..and for this you depict me as an idiot?
I’m sorry Jerry, but that’s officially fûçkëd up. No one told you to challenge my “final point” pos
George Bush is out jogging one morning and notices Little Johnny on the corner with a box.
Curious, he runs over to Little Johnny and says, “What’s in the box, kid?”
Little Johnny says, “Kittens, they’re brand new kittens.”
George Bush laughs and says, “What kind of kittens are they?”
“Republicans,” says Little Johnny.
“Oh that’s cute,” he says and he goes on his way.
A couple of days later, George Bush is running with his buddy Ðìçk Cheney and he spies Little
Johnny with his box just ahead.
George Bush says to Ðìçk, “You gotta check this out,” and they both jog over to Little Johnny.
George Bush says, “Look in the box Ðìçk, isn’t that cute? Look at those little kittens. Hey, kid, tell
my friend Ðìçk what kind of kittens they are.”
Little Johnny replies, “They’re Democrats.”
“Whoa!” George Bush says, “I came by here the other day and you said they were Republicans.
What’s up?”
“Well,” Little Johnny explains, “their eyes are open now.”
A Republican enters a Bar and orders a drink. After sitting there for a while, he yells to the bartender, “Hey, you wanna hear a joke about Democrats?”
The bar immediately falls absolutely quiet. In a very deep, husky voice, the woman next to him says, “Before you tell that joke, sir, I think it is just fair that you should know five things:
“1 – The bartender is a Democrat.
“2 – The bouncer is a Democrat.
“3 – I’m a 6 foot tall, 220 lb. Democrat with a black belt in karate.
“4 – The guy sitting next to you is a Democrat and is a professional weight lifter.
“5 – The lady to your right is a Democrat and is a professional wrestler.
“Now think about it seriously, Mister. Do you still wanna tell that joke?”
The man thinks for a second, shakes his head, and says, “Nah, Not if I’m gonna have to explain it five times.”
PAD (thank God, the level of discussion went back up) wrote, But the point you’re making is ALSO irrelevant. The point you’re making is this: We’re doing some good in Iraq, so therefore the ends justifies the means. And I’m saying, No, it doesn’t, it never has, and it never will, and you’re a Bush apologist no matter which way you slice it.
Isn’t that a far, far too simplistic way of looking at it? Setting aside the grammatical quibble– we all know what you meant– almost any action has to be evaluated by some form of ends-means balancing, and truly critical ends can justify some fairly horrific means. Sixty years ago we bombed the crud out of Germany, firebombed Berlin and Tokyo, nuked two cities in Japan, and justified it all as necessary pour encourager les autres. We were right to do so. I’m sure the Eighth Air Force would have preferred to conduct the war along General Sherman’s methodology– destroy lots of property but very few lives in the course of destroying the enemy’s will and ability to fight– but that’s difficult, if not impossible, to do in any reasonable fashion through a bombing campaign, particularly before the advent of “smart” weaponry. More recently, we held the world hostage through Mutual Assured Destruction, and kept the peace for forty years. I think we all have to accept that sometimes, the ends do justify quite a lot of means. There are some means that no end will justify, admittedly, and quite a few more that require “saving the world from fascism” to excuse. But it needs to be a more nuanced analysis than you implied.
“and millions of people took advantage of their fought-for right to vote.”
Yes, I’m sure that meant a lot to the tens of thousands of innocents who died to achieve it.
See above. Six hundred thousand Americans died between 1861-1865, with our modern nation-state as the end result. I can’t say it wasn’t worth fighting for. We’ve been insanely lucky as a people– the civilian casualties in our wars have been far, far lighter than most countries have had to endure– including Germany, which lost 20,000,000 lives in being de-Nazified at gun point, and Japan, which we bombed flat. I frankly was never that crazy about the Iraq war, even when I had faith about the WMD intelligence reports, which as we all know now was (theory A) three parts bad intel and one part blindness, or (theory B) fabricated. But I accept force as an occasionally necessary instrument of foreign policy, and I’m prepared to eat crow 20 years from now if there is a functioning democracy in Iraq.
Wow!
A bar full of Democrats who are all blond!
What are the odds of that?
🙂
“Well, the big story — Hillary Clinton will be running for president in 2008. You know why I think she’s running? I think she finally wants to see what it’s like to sleep in the president’s bed.” –Jay Leno
“There’s already speculation that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee for the Democrats in 2008. Well, you have to admire the dedication of the Democratic party. They just lost an election, and they’re already hard at work planning to lose the next one.” —Bill Maher
“Hillary Clinton said today that she wants legislation to allow all ex-felons to vote. See, this way all the Clinton’s former business partners can vote for her in 2008.” –Jay Leno
“According to a new poll, Democrats are favoring Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nominee for 2008. Democrats say they are looking for a fresh and exciting new way to get their áššëš handed to them.” –Tina Fey
“President Bush told the reporter that he saw his re-election as the approval by the American people to continue the war in Iraq. Kind of like how Clinton thought his re-election meant the American people wanted him to continue cheating on Hillary.” –Jay Leno
“At a Barnes & Noble, Hillary Clinton had a book signing and a lot of people showed up. 1,200 people showed up and statistically speaking that means 1 in 10 of those people slept with her husband.” —David Letterman
“In her book Hillary Clinton said she could have divorced her husband for all of his infidelities, but decided to get counseling instead. In a related story Bill Clinton announced the name of his new book is ‘What Does It Take To Get This Woman To Leave Me?'” —Craig Kilborn
“According to USA Today, former President Clinton has already read his wife’s new book five times. In fact, the former president has now spent more time in bed with the book than he has with Hillary.” —Conan O’Brien
“In the book Hillary says she and President Clinton kept their marriage together through counseling. Yeah, that and living in different cities and never seeing each other.” —Craig Kilborn
“Hillary Clinton has written a book — it’s a 600-page memoir — eight years in the White House. Six hundred pages, that’s amazing. Not bad for a woman who, when she was there had no idea what was going on.” —David Letterman
Joe V.
1 more hillary joke.
“CNN found that Hillary Clinton is the most admired woman in America. Women admire her because she’s strong and successful. Men admire her because she allows her husband to cheat and get away with it.” —Jay Leno
joe v.
“It was nice to see the Canadian figure skaters finally get their gold medal. It’s funny how things work out. One minute you’re in second place. Then there is this huge controversy. Everybody’s protesting. It’s on the front page. Next thing you know you’re in first place. You know right about now, Al Gore is going, ‘Hey what about me?'” —Jay Leno
“Today is President’s Day. Or, as Al Gore calls it, Monday.” —David Letterman
“A new survey found that 62 percent think Al Gore looks better without his beard. Not only that, 92 percent of Americans think the beard looks better without Al Gore.” —Conan O’Brien
“Have you seen the new Al Gore? He’s wearing a beard. He’s hoping that the rabbi look will help him next time in Florida.” —David Letterman
“President Bush today was hammering nails in 100 degree heat — God bless him — down in Texas at one of those Habitat for Humanity projects. This is a terrific group. They build houses. He was building a home for an unemployed man. I tell you, Al Gore really appreciated it.” —Jay Leno
“Remember Al Gore? He was Vice President for a little while. Now, he is teaching school at Columbia, teaching a journalism class. Since the election the guy has put on 40 pounds. It’s gotten so bad that every time he turns around, his ášš erases the blackboard. … He got on the scales today and demanded a recount.” —David Letterman
“Al Gore is back in the news. You haven’t thought about Al Gore in a while. Don’t feel guilty about it. Al Gore has put on 40 pounds since losing the election and experts contribute this to depression. That’s right. In a related story, Michael Dukakis now weighs 12,000 pounds.” —Conan O’Brien
He’s so fat, Clinton is thinking of hitting on him.” —from David Letterman’s “Top Ten Responses To The Question, ‘How Fat Is Al Gore?'”
“It’s kind of ironic. He always wanted to distance himself from Bill Clinton. Now that he’s out of politics and overweight, he is Bill Clinton.” —Jay Leno, on Al Gore
“Show me anyone who hasn’t put on a few winter pounds. I bet he’s thinking: I don’t have to be on CNN, I can have the cheeseburger.” —Former Al Gore flack Julia Payne, on the former vice president’s reported weight gain
“You knew this was the kind of thing that was going to happen when they had all of that monkey stuff going on in November, then December and then January; a newspaper in Florida got a hold of the ballots and recounted them. According to their information, Al Gore actually won the election in Florida. Al Gore could not be reached for comment, he was in the teachers lounge at Colombia University mimeographing Friday’s pop quiz.” —David Letterman
“Hillary Clinton has a brand-new office. Over on the East Side, she’s got a huge office space. The rent for this office space — $500k a year. I wonder if that’s taxpayer money? Bill Clinton has an office — $500k a year rent. Meanwhile, Al Gore is operating out of a Kinkos up on 96th street.” —David Letterman
“Yesterday the Secret Service caught a former IRS employee outside the White House after he fired three shots from a gun. That is right, the man was immediately arrested and given a job at the post office. … The Secret Service said that the last weirdo who came that close to the White House before being stopped was Al Gore.” —Conan O’Brien
joe v.
“This past weekend, the Democratic National Committee made it official — electing former governor and one-time shoe-in Howard Dean as their new party chairman. As a doctor they’re hoping he can reattach the ášš handed to the Democrats in the past election. … You know, there’s something stirring about the peaceful transfer of no power.” —Jon Stewart
21 Ways to be a Good Democrat
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
5.You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth’s climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV’s.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can’t teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don’t care about nature, but urban activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
10. You have to believe that having self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, and Thomas Edison.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.
17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried is because the right people haven’t been in charge.
18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bëšŧìálìŧÿ should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.
21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.
joe v.
LAST ONE for tonight, i promise,
http://www.fortliberty.org/patriotic-humor/liberals-and-conservatives.shtml
The division of the human family into its two distinct branches, liberals and conservatives, occurred some 20,000 years ago. Until then all humans coexisted as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers.
A thousand generations ago, in the pivotal event of societal evolution, beer was invented. This epochal innovation was both the foundation of modern civilization and the occasion of the great bifurcation of humanity into its two distinct subgroups.
Once beer was discovered, our prehistoric forebears decided it was time to settle down. Making beer required grain, and securing a steady supply of it ordained the invention of agriculture.
After that was accomplished, ancient man quickly, and unfairly, consigned actual cultivation to women.
Men couldn’t just run off, willy-nilly, however. Neither the glass bottle nor the aluminum can had yet been invented, so it was necessary to stick pretty close to home, and the brewery.
This left our male ancestors with a lot of time on their hands, and led to the division of the species, which persists to this day.
Some men tried to conserve remnants of the old way of life (hence the term “conservative”) by spending their days in the open field in the dangerous pursuit of big game animals. At night they would roast their prey at a big barbecue, and afterwards sat around the fire drinking beer, passing wind and telling off color jokes.
Other, more timid, souls stayed closer to home. They are responsible for the domestication of cats and the invention of group therapy. Mostly, they sat around worrying about how life wasn’t fair and concocting elaborate schemes to “liberate” themselves from inequity (thus their designation as “liberals”).
In the evening they gathered around their fire, nibbling on fruit and nuts, sharing their innermost feelings.
Today some liberals try to pretend they’re really sort of conservative, and sometimes succeed in confusing people. The following are a few tips to use in distinguishing the two types.
By definition liberals believe in big government and high taxes. Life is unfair and the government is there to do something about it. Most people are too stupid to spend untaxed income wisely, they say, and high taxes allow liberals in government to do a better job of it.
Conservatives don’t like government, and, aside from the military, wish it would just go away. They hate taxes, regulations, speed limits, and small cars.
Typical conservatives are Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh and, up there with the Big Man in the Sky, the incomparable John Wayne.
Typical liberals are Dustin Hoffman, Shirley McLaine, Pee Wee Herman, Martin Sheen, Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Ted Turner and his former wife, the traitor ***** Jane Fonda.
All conservatives drink beer. American beer.
Some liberals like imported beer, but most prefer white wine or foreign water from a bottle.
Liberals like to drive Volvos and Saabs because they’re made in socialist Sweden. They like to eat weird food because it’s un-American.
Your basic conservative vehicle, especially in Alaska, is the Chevy Suburban. It’s big, it’s American, it’s four wheel drive, and it sucks up the gas. Conservatives eat beef, which they (surprise!) like to barbecue.
Big game hunters are conservative. Interior decorators are liberal.
Liberals invented the designated hitter rule in baseball because it wasn’t “fair” to make the poor pitcher take his turn at bat.
Conservatives, inspired by a remark of the legendary Pittsburgh Steeler linebacker Jack Lambert, believe quarterbacks should be required to wear skirts, so they can more easily be distinguished from real football players.
James Brown and Ray Charles are conservatives. Michael Jackson and Milli Vanilli are liberals.
Most social workers, personal injury lawyers, journalists, and group therapists are liberals. Most ranchers, loggers, professional soldiers, and steeplejacks are conservatives.
Liberal jurors distrust the prosecutors and police. Conservatives figure the defendant must be guilty or he wouldn’t be on trial.
Most conservatives not only believe in the death penalty, they would cheerfully implement it, personally, if called upon to do so.
Liberals think capital punishment is a barbaric relic, and unfair to boot.
Liberals believe Europeans are, generally speaking, far more enlightened than Americans. Conservatives think they’re basically decadent, as evidenced by their complete absence in wars.
Typical conservative movies are “Raising Arizona”, “Patton”, and “Conan the Barbarian”.
Typical liberal movies are “Prince of Tides”, “Last Tango in Paris”, and “The Big Chill”.
The quintessential liberal is the handicapper, the person who decides how much extra weight to saddle the faster horses with in order to make the race “fair”.
The American cowboy, of course, is your basic, full bore conservative. A hundred years ago an Englishman in South Dakota was trying to find the owner of a huge cattle ranch. He rode up to one of the ranch hands and asked, “Excuse me, but could you tell me where to find your Master?” To which the cowboy replied, “That sumbitch hasn’t been born.”
Joe…
Given that at least as many jokes could easily be transcribed about Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, et al, was there actually some kind of point to all that? Or was it just late, and you felt the need to amuse yourself, with a lot of time on your hands…?
I’m just impressed he can keep his balance, considering how wide that brush is he’s painting with.
-Rex Hondo-
I can’t say it wasn’t worth fighting for
This doesn’t automatically make every cause worth fighting for though, does it?
Obviously, with the continued violence in Africa, there are some that our government (and likely the population of this country) doesn’t feel is worth fighting for, even though more lives are being lost every day there than under Hussein.
So, sometimes when you look at the big picture, you do see that you’re fighting the wrong cause. And right now, that wrong cause is Iraq.
David Bjorlin makes some good points, but I see a missing bridge between him and the “ends do not justify the means” opinion.
I see the “cost” of the entrenchment in Iraq as a sunk cost…however we got there, we broke things, now we need to fix them. Which I fully agree with. Whatever the history, Iraq is in the state it is today because of our actions, and it’s our responsibility to restore peace and stability, if we can.
But that’s outside the discussion: doing what we must doesn’t mean that we can or should stop demanding that those that made the mistake (or told the lie, depending on your opinion) of justifying this action accept responsibility and the ramifications of those actions.
Personally, I think at the very least, Rumsfeld should resign…I’m a little concerned that the President could resign over making a mistake in judgment, as it sets a potentially bad precedent.
However, if it does turn out that Bush and his administration did fabricate, or even tweaked, the evidence to support an aggressive action, I see that in a very different light. If that does turn out true, then I see every need for the removal of this administration, either through resignation or impeachment. I don’t expect our government to tell me the whole truth, and I even expect that the government might need to lie, from time to time. I draw the line at our government presenting facts, creating facts, or altering the truth in such a way that it advocates an action of war when none is called for.
Another thing about Democrats: We post our sources. The following is from portland.indymedia.org.
I’m posting it because I consider it sauce for the goose and therefore appropriate. But if this thing starts devolving into a jokefest, I *will* shut it down.
24 Ways to be a Good Republican
1. You have to believe that the AIDS virus can be cured by ignoring it.
2. You have to believe that teachers should be more effective, yet not want to pony up any extra tax dollars to pay a reasonable wage that
might actually attract qualified candidates.
3. You have to believe that having the constitutional right to bear arms (and do it anonymously) is far more important than the 10,808 people deprived of their constitutional right to LIFE. (2002 figure, Bureau of
Justice Statistics;
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm)
4. You have to believe that Federal funding for art is a waste, but federal funding to promote marriage for the poor is a mandate.
5. You have to ignore universal scientific data and opinions regarding global warming because your constituents (and family) make their money
in oil.
6. You have to believe that what someone else does in their bedroom is your business.
7. You have to be against terminating an unwanted pregnancy, in some cases even if the mother’s life is in danger, so that the world will be
filled with unwanted children who will grow up to possibly commit crimes and can eventually be put to death by the justice system.
8. You have to believe that the rich know what’s right, and the poor choose to be poor.
9. You have to believe that hunting is a challenge, but art is a waste of time.
10. You have to believe that money can solve all problems, but education is a waste of money.
11. You have to believe that the U.S. should take a laissez faire attitude towards international goings-on, unless it threatens to disrupt
our supply of oil.
12. You have to believe the ACLU is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution,
while the NRA is good because it supports ONE part of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are evil, but still complain about the quality of the justice system, military, police, firemen, education,
etc.
14. You have to believe that American history only needs to recount military victories and Republican presidents, not slavery, lost wars
(Vietnam, anyone?), Indians, or the struggle of the non-wealthy.
15. You have to believe that although you can’t personally spend far more money than you could possibly earn in your lifetime with the
promise of someone else paying it off, it’s OK that the government does it.
16. You have to believe that George W Bush truly cares about the average American. And their job loss.
17. You have to believe that patriotism is a blind allegiance to the current administration. (Weren’t Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al
considered patriots? I believe they FOUGHT their government.)
18. You have to believe that lying about a bløw jøb is far worse than lying to start a war.
19. You have to believe that the separation of church and state should really only become an issue if it’s not your church.
20. You have to believe that the Republican party can do no wrong (Watergate, Iran-Contra, the unilateral invasion of Iraq, the Florida
election debacle, record deficits and debt, leaking the identity of CIA
agents…)
21. You have to preach smaller government while creating more government jobs (Homeland security?)
22. You have to be against abortion, but against sex education as well. And welfare for the single moms. And health care for poor families. And
taxes for good schools and after-school programs. But hey, jails are a good investment!
23. You have to preach Christian values while promoting capital punishment (thou shalt not kill, anyone?)
24. You have to believe that religious zealotry is the reason people fly planes into buildings, but there should be prayer time in school.
Given that at least as many jokes could easily be transcribed about Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, et al, was there actually some kind of point to all that? Or was it just late, and you felt the need to amuse yourself, with a lot of time on your hands…?
Oh c’mon….some of them were laugh out loud funny. A good joke is funny no matter who the target is.
Wow!
A bar full of Democrats who are all blond!
What are the odds of that?
Busted! 🙂
Bill:
>>Given that at least as many jokes could easily be transcribed about Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, et al, was there actually some kind of point to all that? Or was it just late, and you felt the need to amuse yourself, with a lot of time on your hands…?
>Oh c’mon….some of them were laugh out loud funny. A good joke is funny no matter who the target is.
Some of them may have been, but were missed by me anyways due to the incredible volume posted. I was immediately reminded of why I have told anyone who has my e-mail address not to bother sending me forwarded jokes. They tend to multiply like bunnies and the laugh factor drops exponentially when it becomes work to wade through them. This bombardment of cut and pasted jokes proves once again that moderation is a good thing. 🙂
Thanks for the laugh, Bill. I enjoyed the bar joke.
Patrick said: Given that at least as many jokes could easily be transcribed about Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, et al, was there actually some kind of point to all that? Or was it just late, and you felt the need to amuse yourself, with a lot of time on your hands…?
I went to a site & i just copy & pasted some stuff that late night tv said. it was all on the same page so it only took a few clicks. i saw a few people made joke so i pasted a few.
PAD said : Another thing about Democrats: We post our sources. The following is from portland.indymedia.org.
Posted by: Joe V. at June 14, 2005 03:09 AM
LAST ONE for tonight, i promise,
http://www.fortliberty.org/patriotic-humor/liberals-and-conservatives.shtml
The division of the human….
they all came from basicaly the same place. i did a google search for jokes about democrats. that site came up.
sorry if you don’t wan’t a joke fest. I suppose you prefer that this remain a political pìššìņg match. i thought this would encourage others to post funny jokes, don’t give a šhìŧ if they’re about republicans or democrats, funny is funny. but it’s your site, and if a pìššìņg match about politics is what you want, then a pìššìņg match i guess is what you get. me, i get tired of all the gøddámņ same šhìŧ everyone has been arguing about for the last few years and like i said, i thought jokes would lighten the mood, but alas, i digress.
joe v.
“i thought jokes would lighten the mood, but alas, i digress.”
Oh, please. You weren’t interested in lightening anything. If you were, you’d have posted jokes making fun of both sides. No, you were interested in finding a new angle with which to annoy liberal Democrats, including this board’s host. The mood was fine and this thread was tapering off, as they always do. And I’m simply not interested in having it perpetuate through something as stupidly artificial as a jokefest.
PAD
PAD said”You weren’t interested in lightening anything. If you were, you’d have posted jokes making fun of both sides. No, you were interested in finding a new angle with which to annoy liberal Democrats, including this board’s host.”
No peter, i wasn’t trying to do that. if i annoyed you then i apologize. i really do mean that. it was not my intent to annoy you. the reason i posted jokes about democrats is because i’m republican, i figured democrats would post jokes about republicans. there are plenty of people here that would do jokes about republicans. what i was trying to do was open it up. i figured other people would bring out the republicsn jokes, to which i would have no problem with.
again, peter, i apologize if i made you angry.
joe v.
“again, peter, i apologize if i made you angry.”
Good. Because you wouldn’t like me if I’m angry.
PAD
Pad said “Good. Because you wouldn’t like me if I’m angry.”
LOL! now that’s funny!
Joe V.
PAD: To give you the credit you deserve, you have a remarkable ability to make me question some of my strongly-held opinions: I have been extremely upset with nearly every aspect of the current Administration since shortly after the 2000 election, and yet, the more smug, self-congratulatory comments you make, the more I am inclined to give GWB another look.
Many things X-Ray has said seem bizarrely foolish to me, and I believe you are capable of refuting them. Unfortunately, it seems you found it beneath you to actually state a position and support it, which would have cut X-Ray off at the knees, until the “debate” had gone on for rather a long time.
As to whether Joe V. or anyone else “wouldn’t like (you) when (you’re) angry,” perhaps not. I’m not very enthusiastic, anyway. By the way, the “You wouldn’t like me…” line goes back at least to 1978, about 9 years before youbegan writing the Hulk. Is an attribution still possible? Len Wein was writing the comic at about that time, but it seems more like a product of a writer for the tv show.
A final question (one to which I truly do not have the answer): PAD: Why is it that when X-Ray “questioned your veracity” you very pointedly did not refute him? It seems likely that you believe yourself to be honest and clear-thinking; when I am called a liar, it seems important to me to show the name-caller up as a fool or liar. The first theory that comes to mind is that you are simply so sure that nearly all readers will naturally take your side in any dispute that it seems wasted effort to make an argument. Perhaps there is some other reason which has not entered my imagination.
From the Joe V. jokefest:
**The quintessential liberal is the handicapper, the person who decides how much extra weight to saddle the faster horses with in order to make the race “fair”. **
Uhm, isn’t handicapping actually done to make sure that all horses in a race are all caring the same amount of weight rather than weighing down ‘just’ the fastest horses to give the slower horses a better chance at winning? That is, if the heaviest jockey in a given race weighs 165 lbs. then weights are given to the other jockeys to make them all weigh 165 lbs. so all the horses are running with the same load on board to give them the same chance at winning? Or to at least eliminate rider weight as a major factor in winning a race?
Chris
Elf with a gun asked:
**Uhm, isn’t handicapping actually done to make sure that all horses in a race are all caring the same amount of weight rather than weighing down ‘just’ the fastest horses to give the slower horses a better chance at winning?**
In some races, that’s true I think — jockeys have to fall within a certain weight range in order to ride and if they’re too light, weights are added to balance things out and if they’re too heavy, they’re disqualified to ride; however, there is a type of race called a Handicap wherein the weights are assigned according to a horse’s past performance in order to level the playing field.
(source: http://www.horse-smart.com/definitions.htm but I also read a LOT of Walter Farley books when I was younger…)
Bird is the word,
Jennifer
“Why is it that when X-Ray “questioned your veracity” you very pointedly did not refute him?”
Because PAD did, at first, make such an attempt. X-Ray very quickly showed that he was simply a troll, trying to stir up a tempest to thrill his particular teapot. At this point, I believe PAD was simply being mindful of an old adage: “Never argue with a fool. People might not know the difference.”
As this string is rather long, I admit I haven’t read large parts of it. If Jonathan (the other one) is accurate – as he probably is – PAD’s judgment was probably very sound.