And perhaps I took duffer seriously where I should not have, but my main point still stands.
Too bad. While we’re laughing at duffer’s joke, Bush is ordering US soldiers to kill innocent Iraqi babies and children in an illegal war started primarily to make money for Halliburton.
Because, Iraq, is a debacle, just as people said it would be. While the current topic has nothing to do with Iraq, it seems like it is a pretty clear way of reminding people that bush failed, at least that is until people chime in, claiming he didn’t. :rolleyes: Also, in my debates with theist, it seems like once you get tired of arguing with them, they feel they have won the argument. I suspect it is the same with repubs, who feel like they can go back to a mental place where bush never did anything wrong, if no one reminds them that he has, with the war again being the most obvious example.
Also, re: why shouldn’t gay people be republicans? Well, they might support similar economic theories, but they also legislate an awful lot of laws against you. Sure, so democrats do that too, but in my opinion, it is not because the majority of democrats feel that way, but because a few do, and the rest are spineless.
Sure, okay. But what’s being said here that’s not been said before? Nothing. All that happened was somebody but Bush’s name in the title of the thread and it ended up becoming yet another Iraq “debate”, even though the thread wasn’t originally about Iraq and, for that matter, wasn’t even about Bush.
We’ll, IMHO, that’s debatable. (Please god, no! 
)Looking over the links in the OP, they all actually seem to be on topic if you assume that criticizing a president is valid. That is not to say he has not veered off topic in the past, just that in Shodan’s "chilling last lines " thread, it was not a line from horror, but was a chilling line, and in the OP,
P.S. Looking over the posts, it seems like Weirddave is claiming all the reasons why people criticize bush are not in fact valid, but are instead imaginary. It seems important to combat that opinion, and it looks like that is how Iraq came in.
Who said anything about gay Republicans? I thought we were talking about gay conservatives.
I thought we were talking about the over-abundance of snarky Bush derails.
Good point. I keep forgetting that conservative <> Republican.
Is duffer from England? If so, I can almost see how conservatives, and republicans can be called different. If not, then I don’t see the difference. Apparently, neither does This Year’s Model, in post 180, so I am not the only one who finds it hard to tell them apart. Now, I can understand conservatism as a purely economic stance, almost, but the fact that Ann Coulter came up as one, in a google search, leads me to doubt this.
Wow, if that ain’t the falsest false dichotomy I’ve heard today. Either we agree that “criticizing a president isn’t valid” or else we decide that people can and should do so any time, any place. Nice.
This shit is what embarrasses me. It’s the same with crazies who decide they can interrupt my lunch at school to show me pictures of aborted fetuses. There’s a difference between respecting free speech and expecting every place and time to be a forum for it. Folks who picket funerals of gay people also think they’re right, and they do have every right to express their moronic viewpoints. That doesn’t mean that a funeral is an acceptable event to do so. This ain’t no different.
Because rjung is not the only Johnny One-Note on the SDMB.
Regards,
Shodan
As I noted, I was wrong. The more conservative end of libertarianism could be termed conservative; facists are conservative; the patriot armies in Idaho, Texas, Montana, et. al., are conservative. None of these could be called Republican.
Say What :eek: ? You are reading your own feeling into my post. I never said that it is a good idea, just that they are able to do so under the law. True, all your example are of people who shouldn’t be protesting, under common sense, but legally, they can. I see no way for them to be stopped, without also infringing on the right of pro-civil rights people to do the same. (Protest, that is.) Also, claiming rjung was off topic, in the posts in the OP, is not " the falsest false dichotomy you’ve heard today", but a statement of truth. Sure, you might find it distasful, but if you want to show he is putting bush into every topic, find some better examples.
<drops in on page five of the thread>
Lessee…you people swallow and regurgitate everything Bushco says, check. Get Saddam’s dick out of your mouth long enough to argue coherently, check.
These threads are like a ballet to recorded music–everything is precise and predictable. Sheesh.
I agree with Excalibre FWIW. I get tired of the same people dropping into the same sorts of threads and fighting over the same issues. Oh well. I wish there was a way that the thread titles could magically change as soon as these people show up, from “Puppies are so cute!” to “Iraq War Debate Rehash #642” or whatever.
<drops out of thread>
[RIGHT]May 17, 2005
The South Forty[/RIGHT]
Dear Mr Plant Guy,
When I looked out at my Tomato patch this morning
I was horrified to discover that it had become completely overgrown
with snarky Bush derails.
How can I get rid of these noxious vines?
I’ve heard that the roots go deep.
Can I get by with Atrazine, or do I need to
go with RoundUp and restart the whole plot from scratch?
-Greenly yours,
A concerned gardener
Dear concerned gardener,
Burn the field. Salt the earth. Let nothing grow there again. Move to a new country. Start over.
-Yours in sod,
Mr. Plant Guy.
Oh, it’s only Republicans doing that?
[sub]Must…resist…smoking…ban…issue[/sub]
More of my choices are being threatened by Dems than Repubs. Being Pro-choice (in a broad meaning) seems to be valid if the choices are approved. :rolleyes:
Anyway. End of that little trail to avoid a complete hijack.
Hold on there Skippy, don’t go putting words in my mouth, that’s not what I said at all. I said that the reasons Red Fury listed were bullshit, and they are. I find it amazing and sad that someone can quote the Constitution in an attempt to support their point, while using a quote that doesn’t have anything to do with what they are trying to support (For your education, Red, that section of the Constitution means that states can’t enter into separate agreements that conflict with treaties that the federal government has signed. It does not surrender the sovereignty of the U.S. to the U.N. Don’t get all your information from lunatic fringe lefty websites.).
Tomndebb, I am really really surprised to see you offering the line of reasoning that you posted. Since Sadaam hasn’t engaged in mass murder in a while, we should discount the fact that he has demonstrated a propensity to do so? That’s a ludicrous point. The man killed millions of Iraqis during the time he was in power. The current war isn’t anywhere close to that total. Usually your posts are well thought out, I’m kinda surprised to see you advancing a line of garbage reasoning.
Well, considering the guy is the President of the world’s sole superpower, it’s kinda hard not to talk about him when discussing current events, politics, and stuff of that nature. Though I’d gladly chip in for a fund to help Bush migrate to a career with fewer responsibilities, if there’s a hat going around…
(I’ve always said George would make a great greeter at Wal-Mart)
talk about cramming words in some one’s mouth. tomndeb’s point, ISTM, was that to state that the rate of Iraqi deaths post US invasion is less than the rate of deaths under SH was disingenuous at best. that no doubt SH committed horrific acts more than a decade ago, to hold out that by adding up all of the deaths over his whole reign, divvy it up by the number of years, to compare it to the rate of civilian deaths post invasion is flawed.
point was that in the past decade, the average Iraqi civilian was safer under SH, than post invasion. and that is a very relevant point. If our original goal had been “save the average Iraqi civilian from this mass murderous thug”, it would have made more sense to do so when he was actively being a mass murderous thug, than to wait a decade or so when the average citizen (while no doubt being less than thrilled w/SH) was not in as much danger as a decade earlier.
It is very, very dangerous to be an Iraqi civilian these days. Yes, some continued to ‘disappear’ under SH, however, there’s more body counts these days in suicide bombings etc than under the last decade of SH’s reign. I would suspect that the average Iraqi notes this as well.
and, since I know it will come, no, this should not be taken as “she wants SH back in power”. It merely acknowledges the fact that concern for the average Iraqi’s personal safety was not the marketed raison d’etre for the war until after the Weapons of Mass Delusion was revealed.