Cite?
You?
Do you realize how hard it is to evacuate a Fist World city prior to a natural disaster? Fla just went through a few of those these past summer and they were somewhat chaotic despite having the full backing of every available resource – including gobs of money.
How do you think such a massive evacuation would - or could – turn out in a Third World city already devastated by prior bombings? Moreoever, where, exactly, are these wondering nomads supposed to go while everything they have ever owned is being blown to smithereens? How many of the ones that left or remain alive after this do you think will have warm, cozy feelings towards the US of A? Who, exactly, is it that you’re killing there and why? Far as I can tell, their only ‘crime’ is wanting the occupiers to leave their country. By that measure, it would make a huge percentage of the Iraqi population ‘insurgents’ – do they need killing too?
Lastly, if the aim was to get Zarqawi, it’s long been recognized that he’s fled the city – along with many of the more active insurgents.
In fact, did you happen to notice what was happening elsewhere in Iraq today?
And that’s just a small sampling. So, what’s the plan, kill them all? Is that what they now call “freedom” in Bushland?
No. In your case, all you need do is add DimSon to your list. 'cause, clearly, the Iraq invasion is at least as justified as the Civil War and WW-II.
After all, I am the blind one that hasn’t found WMDs and ties to AQ.
Fropis!
Fropis, fropis, FROPIS!!!
I’m curious about the sentiments of others whom have led powerful nations. What do you beleive Stalin would have said about this?
Bricker, I just thought of a side bet. (being your thread, I assume you won’t mind this)
Being that we both believe the GOP will pick up more seats in '06, how about an over/under wager between us? Let’s say $20 just to keep it interesting. (Hell I’ll wager a nickle as the money isn’t as important as actually winning the bet.)
This is the perfect bet! Whomever loses the bet isn’t out an appreciable amount, and both bettors are happy with the added seats! How 'bout it? 
Here is the problem: our side is held to this standard, sometimes held to it even when it is innocent of violating it (such as when Michael Moore, who isn’t even a Democrat and didn’t even support Kerry, is held to embody the “tone” of Kerry’s campaign). Your side gets to parade around people that want gay people in jail and thinks that liberalism is a form of mental disease. It sucks, and it alienates people. But basically, that doesn’t matter, because it’s also cheers on enough other people to help win elections.
What I make of it is that your advice, while true and important, is basically disingenous.
We only had 24-72 hours’ warning, not several months.
Wait a minute. I’ve heard plenty here on this board applaud and defend Moore. Not all of you, but man—I remember when that movie came out, there were a lot of people here praising it.
Wasn’t there a thread in the Pit that said (with an element of seriousness) that Bush voters were mentally ill? That was a fairly popular thread too.
Yeah, it sure does suck. It sucks no matter who does it. From what I’ve seen, plenty of people** on this board** are doing it, and newsflash: many of them weren’t Bush voters.
But you know, keep on doing it. If it makes you happy to alienate people (and this applies to both sides), then, oh my gosh—don’t let the fact that it’s alienating people stop you. Keep it up. Seriously. Really. Keep doing what you’re doing. It’s working really great for you. Step it up a few notches while you’re at it. :rolleyes:
yosemite is hereby nominated for new DNC Chairman. (As long as you make Bricker your chief advisor). Even with you guys running the DNC, I suspect they’d have a better chance of winning over the next 4 years. 
Which is neither here nor there. Moore is not a ranking member of the Democratic Party. He doesn’t participate in writing its platform, and he was never officially involved with Kerry’s campaign. He supported Wesley Clark, and then Kucinich. Kerry was basically everything in the Democratic Party that Moore was against: only Joementum would have been worse for him.
Re-read my thread. I wasn’t saying “oh, but there are no liberal-wackjobs.”
You aren’t listening. My point is that your claim that it’s bad is quite true, as is the idea that both sides do it. But the implication that it in general hurts parties doesn’t seem to be true. It doesn’t hurt your party, at least not as much. And in the case of your party, many of your wackjobs actually are in positions of real political power and leadership that get to do things like write the party platform, rather than being slovenly media figures with big mouths. Which makes your advice, while again perhaps quite true, still somewhat disingenuous.
You speak as if you were imparting a deep lesson about politics, but the lesson seems both transitory and false depending on which side of the political spectrum you happen to be on. The lesson basically boils down to that the left shouldn’t do what the right has free reign to do, because the left pays consequences for it that the right does not.
Thanks, but no way! For one thing, I have been known to vote for Democrats as well as Republicans, and for another thing, I’m definitely a political lightweight.
Maybe Moore himself wasn’t representative of Kerry’s side, but many of Kerry’s supporters loved this movie and highly recommened it. That film wasn’t some obscure, fringe project that only whack-jobs appreciated.
Okay, I get it. So “your side” (the side I occasionally vote with, by the way) takes a hit more. There are probably more dynamics going on there (which I am ill-equiped to clarify), but let’s say for the sake of argument that you’re 100% spot-on. So what you’re saying is that “your side” pays more consequences for this behavior, so, with that knowledge, it’s okay to keep behaving in a way that results in these negative consequences?
If that’s the case, fine. Do whatever it is you feel you must do, even if the consequences are negative for your cause. If that’s what you really want, who am I to disagree?
If that’s not the case, I apologize for misunderstanding, and I wish you the best in finding a way to improve the tone in order to minimize these bad consequences.
Oh, I forgot to comment on this:
No, I thought it was fairly obvious. Sort of like my friend wearing her ill-fitting pants. Looking in the mirror should have told her that she looked like absolute crap, but she wouldn’t believe it, and continued to not believe it. It felt strange to tell her something so blatantly obvious, but I felt bad that people were laughing at her. But she didn’t want to listen to me? Fine, fine, fine.
Like I said before, when the Bush voters on that aforementioned thread explained that the “tone” was a factor in their voting choice, it seems pretty obvious that* something* is amiss. But hey, never mind. You know what’s best. You know what you see in the mirror, you know what pleases you. Who am I to argue with that?
We gave several months warning of the attack on Falluja? Do you have a cite for that?
Where did you want them to go for several months?
How would they get there? Where would they live? How would they buy food? What schools would their kids go to?
If you are blaming the citizens of Falluja for getting themselves killed, you clearly aren’t thinking this one through. Can you only imagine the impact on the Middle East, let alone the rest of the world, of this attitude?
I suspect they are seeing far more pictures of dead Iraqis than we are. You might not want to be blaming them for being in the way.
Of course he’s thought it through. He’s read and decided to agree with the label on the Kool-Aid bottle. The label says “It ain’t my fault. It’s their fault. It ain’t the Preznit’s fault. It ain’t America’s fault. Except for the god-damned libruhls. And the French. Probably Syria, too, and Iran and North Korea. Just not me, or any of the people I self-identify with.”
As I recall, december was banned for misattributing a quote (among other things).
Regards,
Shodan
And you’re so…special because you keep forgetting that Clinton didn’t start a war over it.
I find this a bit confusing. You trusted Kerry? The same Kerry that you excoriated on these Boards as a liar and a traitor? Is that the Kerry you are talking about? One might be confused at such an extraordinary admission. Is it your usual practice to place your trust in men you have determined are liars and traitors? Did you get that from the Freepers, your source and font for all that is wise and true? “Kerry is telling the truth, we should all lend an ear to his wise counsel.”? How very odd.
I ran your post through Babelfish, on the Weaselspeak to English translation. I regret the meltdown that caused, I only hope the site has recovered. But before it shrunk into a singularity, I got these shards…
“My conscience has begun to trouble me, I suspect that my political opponents have a point, and that I have supported a policy that makes wormfood out of our best and brightest, for no good reason and no worthy goal. But rather than accept my own share of responsibility, I think I’ll try and blame someone else…”
No, you didn’t trust Kerry, nor did you trust Clinton. There’s thousands of people on this Board, and the number you actually fooled with that transparent bullshit could fit in your kitchen cupboard. Being you, Scylla. Just you.
Who the fuck gave you the secret plan? :eek:
How’s that Howard deal working out for you, by the way. You Aussie fascists.