Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Paul

the perpetual excuse

Recommended Posts

Guest BushBacker
I have yet to see any unreasonable government surveillances, so this is all

  Kool-aid hysteria.

80210[/snapback]

These are the same Kool-aiders who think the CIA is listening to their

Aunt Millie discuss cake mixes with the neighbor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I have said it to at least five Marines who have returned from Iraq. Two agree that the war is pointless. All of them think Bush is an AH. The most popular reason for going back is to cover the backs of their fellow Marines even if they don't agree with the war.

80180[/snapback]

This post reeks of BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest True Patriot
I have yet to see any unreasonable government surveillances, so this is all

  Kool-aid hysteria.

80210[/snapback]

On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused a Patriot Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18689

Of course you didn't see it. You turn a blind eye to reality. That's how scum like you work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I have yet to see any unreasonable government surveillances, so this is all

  Kool-aid hysteria.

80210[/snapback]

You'd see a lot better if you pulled your head out of your butt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I have yet to see any unreasonable government surveillances, so this is all

  Kool-aid hysteria.

80210[/snapback]

J. Edgar Hoover had Martin Luther King and many other Americans under intense surveillance for years, for no better reason than he disagreed with their politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
These are the same Kool-aiders who think the CIA is listening to their

  Aunt Millie discuss cake mixes with the neighbor.

80253[/snapback]

And YOU are the same sheep-like individual who would lay down and accept whatever treatment you receive whether warranted or not. Try to grow a backbone someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Radagast
This post reeks of BS.

80254[/snapback]

Like it or not, it's true. I'm not saying that I've done an in depth study of military personnel in Iraq. I'm only relating my own experience. There are few if any 'independent' polls of on this. However, if I add in regular Army to the Marines I know that have been in Iraq, the percentage who think badly of the war, our policy and Bush increases.

The soldiers I know who do support the military effort and US policy in Iraq, believe in it very fervently and I respect them for it. Too bad you neither hear nor respect the ones who disagree with your position.

That is a thread that runs through wing nuts like Patriot, Bushbacker etc. on this board. When you try to impart some experienc that doesn't fit into their view of the world, they simply turn the sound up on their FOX News so they can't hear you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused a Patriot Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18689

Of course you didn't see it. You turn a blind eye to reality. That's how scum like you work.

80277[/snapback]

Ah yes. Imitation, the truest form of flattery. Sorry, Charlie, being in the

Boy Scouts doesn't qualify you as a "True Patriot". Make me laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
Like it or not, it's true. I'm not saying that I've done an in depth study of military personnel in Iraq. I'm only relating my own experience. There are few if any 'independent' polls of on this. However, if I add in regular Army to the Marines I know that have been in Iraq, the percentage who think badly of the war, our policy and Bush increases. 

The soldiers I know who do support the military effort and US policy in Iraq, believe in it very fervently and I respect them for it. Too bad you neither hear nor respect the ones who disagree with your position.

That is a thread that runs through wing nuts like Patriot, Bushbacker etc. on this board. When you try to impart some experienc that doesn't fit into their view of the world, they simply turn the sound up on their FOX News so they can't hear you.

80355[/snapback]

What a crock. No military guy would talk to a cupcake like you, they might

smack you, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
What a crock.  No military guy would talk to a cupcake like you, they might

  smack you, though.

80363[/snapback]

...you should have been fragged in 'Nam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
What a crock.  No military guy would talk to a cupcake like you, they might

  smack you, though.

80363[/snapback]

Stumble back to your barstool and have another cheap beer, WANKER!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Ah yes.  Imitation, the truest form of flattery. Sorry, Charlie, being in the

  Boy Scouts doesn't qualify you as a "True Patriot". Make me laugh.

80358[/snapback]

YOU talking about qualifying as a Patriot is like Hitler talking about his humanitarian accomplishments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest True Patriot
Ah yes.  Imitation, the truest form of flattery. Sorry, Charlie, being in the

  Boy Scouts doesn't qualify you as a "True Patriot". Make me laugh.

80358[/snapback]

What's the matter, don't have the guts to address what I wrote? Poor baby--must S**K to be as afwaid of the truth as you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
...you should have been fragged in 'Nam.

80381[/snapback]

He was very accompished at hiding under his desk.................

Typical REMF WANKER!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
What's the matter, don't have the guts to address what I wrote? Poor baby--must S**K to be as afwaid of the truth as you are.

80435[/snapback]

"afwaid" ??? You're Porky Pig !!! (or rather, a true patriotic pig).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
"afwaid" ??? You're Porky Pig  !!! (or rather, a true patriotic pig).

80787[/snapback]

Dwat that pesky wabbit !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
He was very accompished at hiding under his desk.................

Typical REMF WANKER!

80486[/snapback]

Not being familiar with gutter vernacular, I don't understand "REMF WANKER".

Would someone enlighten me ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
"afwaid" ???

Yes, child. Too spineless to stand up for their civil liberties, yellowbellies like you will hand it all over just to be patted on the head and told everything's going to be okay (by an administration that's proven itself dishonest).

I think baby needs his bottle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We've been treated to yet another topic designed solely to needle those of us who disagree with a certain right-winger's political views. (He sullies the name of "Patriot.") The latest premise is that "the surge is working" because there's less violence in Iraq than there was before the "surge."

Considering that was one of the primary goals of the surge, it seems fair to count that as a measure of success.

Of course, that doesn't mean there's no violence,

If that were the measure then the wars in Israel, Chechnya and India would be lost as well. The left has been squawking about a civil war in Iraq. Remember the rhetoric? Placing our kids in the crossfire of a civil war? It's not a civil war any longer if it ever was. It is nutcase insurgents trying to do anything they can to create unrest.

that Iraq is stable (if it was, we could leave)

:lol:

You want to leave anyway, don't you?

Islamic extremism is a factor throughout the greater part of the Islamic world, and you'll find similar acts of terrorism all over.

Iraq is taking appropriate steps toward stability. Paul and his party would like to pull the rug out from under the Iraqis' feet.

or that stability will ever be established.

We had no such guarantee for any of our past wars, from what I can remember.

It's like going ten million dollars into debt, and then devising a strategy to lop $100,000 off the debt. The venture was still a disastrous loss, and you're never going to come out ahead.

It's not like that at all. That analogy requires the unreasonable assumption that the United States doesn't recover anything like the value it expends. It simply points up LaClair's abyssmal ignorance of economics.

Secure a trade partner in the Middle East and you're set up for immense economic benefit, not even counting the critical step toward democratic reform in the cradle of Islam. The money spent isn't going down a hole. It goes to salaries for enlisted men, military equipment and the like. Think Halliburton, if that's the only way you get your mind around the concept.

For radical right wing authoritarians like the person who calls himself "Patriot," all war is justified.

That sounds like a lying smear. I strongly doubt that Patriot believes anything of the kind.

After all, if it wasn't justified we wouldn't have gone in --- unless, of course, a president he doesn't like is in office when it happens. Truth is not a function of fact, but a function of what they wish to believe. That is how the authoritarian, right-wing mind thinks.

Patriot probably liked (Democrat) Roosevelt (WW2) and (Democrat) Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam), then. Is it plausible that a radical right wing authoritarian would like that pair of left-tilted presidents? Or is it just that he loves all war so much?

For pseudo-Patriot, no war he likes is ever a loss. If we can't win it, it's because some Americans disagree with it, as though some Americans haven't disagreed with every war we've ever been in, including both world wars.

Again, that looks like a lying smear.

It would have been unwise to engage in full-out war with either the Soviet Union or with latter-day Red China. There would be a real chance of not winning that war. The United States is powerful enough to win any other war we're likely to find ourselves in, however. It really is simply a matter of will.

I think LaClair employs the above appeal to ridicule because he has trouble facing the responsibility of his party for handing victory to the communists in South Vietnam (at the expense of millions of lives and the freedom of more millions).

"It's the fault of the dissenters" is the perpetual excuse.

If the shoe fits ...

If we can't win the current war, blame it on those citizens who had the good sense to recognize that we should never have started it.

Where did we acquire anything like the assumption that we can't win the current war?

Leaving aside the fact that Iraq might well be a worse situation today without our military intervention, there simply isn't any good reason to suppose that the United States can't win the war. That refrain from the left is fundamentally a political posture. Joe Lieberman (remember Gore-Lieberman, anyone?) realizes it. A few more on the left could use a clue.

(It boggles the mind that the USA is now STARTING wars. Didn't anyone notice?)

Some of us noticed that way back with the American Revolution and the Mexican-American war. Iraq doesn't count, though, at least not technically. Saddam Hussein's Iraq invaded Kuwait (started a war). The United States came to the aid of our ally, Kuwait. That war was suspended by a ceasefire agreement. The current war started after Hussein's government had established a long pattern of failing to live up to its end of the ceasefire agreement.

In short, the current war is a continuation of a war started by the old Iraqi regime.

After all, there will always be people who dissent against a war. So it's the perfect excuse. Their favorite president can do any mindless thing he wants to do and when it fails (miserably in the present case), it's the dissenters' fault, even if it really isn't. As the church lady would say, "How conveeeeeeenient!"

74323[/snapback]

Not as convenient as calling it an excuse even if the observation is spot-on historically with respect to the Vietnam War and the current war in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cunning Linguist
Not being familiar with gutter vernacular, I don't understand "REMF WANKER".

  Would someone enlighten me ?

81058[/snapback]

Well, "wanker" is a fairly generic British insult; it's analogous to calling someone a "jackoff" in the US (to "wank" is to masturbate :lol:).

REMF is a slang acronym. It stands for "Rear Echelon Mother F.ucker." I probably don't need to explain the last two words, lol, but the "rear echelon" is basically the 'back line' in a combat formation--in other words, the group that invariably sees the least combat (if any).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cunning Linguist
Not being familiar with gutter vernacular, I don't understand "REMF WANKER".

  Would someone enlighten me ?

81058[/snapback]

Well, "wanker" is a fairly generic British insult; it's analogous to calling someone a "jackoff" in the US (to "wank" is to masturbate :lol:).

REMF is a slang acronym. It stands for "Rear Echelon Mother F.ucker." I probably don't need to explain the last two words, lol, but the "rear echelon" is basically the 'back line' in a combat formation--in other words, the group that invariably sees the least combat (if any).

But it's not "gutter vernacular"--it's popular and well-known among those in the armed forces. It's more 'military lingo'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where does Jackson attribute the quotation to a letter written by Ben Franklin?  Give us the page number.

78995[/snapback]

Mea culpa. He doesn't. The quote appears in an excerpt from a letter from the Assembly, but Jackson does not name the author of that letter. It was a faulty assumption and poor fact checking on my part.

As to the rest, we'll just have to agree to disagree, as I do not wish to reopen this now dead topic other than to set straight the above error. I actually had a much longer point-by-point reply partly written a couple of weeks ago, but decided not to post it as the topic was already pretty worn out at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On June 15, 2007, following an <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>internal audit finding that FBI agents abused a Patriot Act power more than 1000 times</span>, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18689

Of course you didn't see it. You turn a blind eye to reality. That's how scum like you work.

In contrast to you, who misreads/misrepresents the news?

Can you tell us what you mean by "abused a Patriot Act power"? The Patriot Act makes certain things legal. So you'd have to be talking about a legal action that also constitutes an abuse of some kind.

In this case, it appears that the corporations from which information was requested overcomplied (I suppose to the extent those corporations are connected to Bush/Cheney the BDR-types can keep their fevers simmering), and that individual agents overstepped the government's own guidelines for applying the Patriot Act. In other words, it looks like the supposed abuse of the Patriot Act consists of going beyond the Patriot Act. If that's a problem with the Patriot Act then there's scarcely a law without a similar problem (the problem of being overstepped in practice from time to time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...