I’d say that’s a perfect example of the kind of unseemly behavior that the OP was complaining about.
Gosh, I hope not. Seems to me that Republican fiscal policies these days consist of one item: tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.
Also massive increases in defense spending, because that’s the only area in which the government can create jobs. And you forgot tax cuts for the rich.
What are you, some kind of commie?
I understand how it must feel when you cannot reasonably defend your position. I, on the other hand, have no such problem because my position is clear, simple, consistent and coherent: It is wrong to invade countries, to kill people, to use violence (except in self defence, obviously). It is wrong no matter who does it. It is wrong whether the country’s name starts with a consonant (like Poland) or with a vowel (like Iraq). It is wrong, flat-out wromg. It is immoral to kill people for your own benefit. It is immoral to use violence to achieve your own ends. The only justifiable use of violence is self defense. Aggression can never be justified. That is extremely simple position which is extremely easy for me to defend.
Oh come on, Captain Carrot, Bill O is just sharing his unbiased opinion with the folks. He has a constitutional right, and someone needs to speak on behalf of corporate America.
I’d say you’re the kind of idiot conservodrone I was talking about.
I can’t tell if you’re serious. Poe’s Law applies to more than evangelical Christianity, it seems.
And you would be wrong. Your first post may have been accurate, but it was also abrasively phrased and antagonistically presented.
Well, that’s the thing. The first round of tax cuts in the Bush presidency took place before 9/11. OK fine. Good idea, bad idea, whatever, we’ll see. All of a sudden, we’re at war. Then, barely a year later, they started another war. Any political party that was truly fiscally responsible would have gone, “Oops, sorry guys. We gotta pay for these two wars somehow,” and immediately rescinded the tax cuts.
I don’t walk on water or turn it into wine either. After the last eight years my heart ain’t exactly bleeding crocodile tears…
As for the OP, he complains about lack of respect then goes on to add that anyone who thinks different than him lacks critical thinking skills. The irony…it burns.
Ok, I didn’t want to get into this discussion, but you give me no choice. You’re right, you have an extremely simple position which is extremely easy for you to defend. Unfortunately, as is common with extremely simple positions, it falls apart when confronted with reality, and forces your logic into absurd results.
First of all, I don’t believe that it’s always wrong to invade countries. It often is, of course, but while we’re bringing in the World War II example, while it was wrong for Germany to invade Poland, it wasn’t wrong for England and France to declare war on Germany when Poland was attacked. These declarations of war weren’t wrong, even though Germany wasn’t threatening either England or France, and both countries probably would have been safe in the short term had they stayed out of it. They were both fighting in defense of their ally Poland, and it’s certainly ok to fight a war in defense of an ally. Beyond that, I’d argue that it can be ok to invade for humanitarian reasons or to prevent genocide, like NATO did in Kosovo, and the UN did in Somalia. Further, I’d argue that there are times that it’s acceptable to launch a preventive or preemptive invasion, like the Six Day war of 1967. It was clear that Egypt was preparing to invade Israel, and so Israel’s preemptive attack on Egypt was justifiable.
Beyond that, regardless of whether the Iraq war was justified or not, and even if it wasn’t, it’s even more wrong to think all evil is equal. Even if invading Iraq was wrong, invading a country to overthrow a dictator who oppressed his own people and threatened his neighbor is much lower on the scale of evil than attempting to commit genocide and intentionally murder about 11 million defenseless people for no other reason than a racist ideology. I’m sorry that your extremely simple position makes you unable to see that.
There are many posters with a conservative or libertarian perspective who post in GD. There needs to be two opposing views for an argument and GD has rules that keep it focused and civil. I think different views and opinions are a plus in a forum for debates.
I have Hugo Chavez hanging on my wall but never think of people as trash; however, I have heard commentators on Fox News refer to people as trash and make other judgmental and belittling comments about people with opposing views and ideology. Maybe you are focusing on the wrong group.
But the main problem with the war in Iraq is that our priority SHOULD have been Afghanistan. Now the Taliban is back for the most part, Bin Laden’s still out there, and it’s all for nothing. (At least, that’s the way I always saw it. Sadam being gone is a good thing-but Bin Laden should have been #1 priority.)
I feel the OP’s pain.
(SDMB Rabid Rightwing Conservative Association, by popular acclaim, all rights reserved)
-XT
So how should we react to people who advocate armed revolution, the assassination of a sitting president and who proudly say things like “nothing better than a dead liberal” (the 2nd woman who speaks)? Here, have a cookie? It’s just another bit of high hypocrisy from conservatives/right-wingers. If Bush did it or the right does it, it’s ok. If the left reacts to it/whatever with scorn, derision or anger, we’re the bad guys.
So far, our current president hasn’t done a thing to warrant the hatred thrown at him other than be a Democrat and be black. Get back to me when he starts a war based on lies and gets people killed for no reason.
Actually, by global (not American nor English-speaking-world) standards, this Board leans right.
Because Fox has frequently been caught fabricating facts to suit their conservative agenda. I don’t mean just showing a bias, I mean bald-faced lies that are intended to mislead for the purpose of furthering their right wing ideology.
For example, their reporting on the turnout at the recent Tea Party protests: Fox was caught in the act inflating crowd estimates by a factor three times an already generous guess. Check out the video of Fox News host Neil Cavuto at a Tea Party in Sacramento. The live feed before the broadcast caught him talking to his producer:
Then, less than ten minutes later in his live, on-air segment, he tripled that estimate:
And that is just one recent example of why Fox News reports should be taken with with a Bonneville-sized grain of salt.
The NY times has also been caught publishing fabricated articles.
Its our planet, the rest of them just live here.
OK. Cite them.
There have been some faked articles, which have resulted in the firing of the reporters, but give me some articles that faked a position for political puposes. I know about Judith Martin writing BS about the Iraqis having WMD, so skip that, though I’d expect you’d omit that anyway.