No he’s not.
Agreed. He’s not smarter than that. Let’s review:
This was your proposal for how troops should be brought back.
Clearly, there was such a proposal in Congress recently: it was the disingenuous Republican proposal put forward to try to poison the well. Their attempt backfired, because almost every Democrat in the House recognized that it was a foolish proposal, unlike Murtha’s well-considered, measured approach. So the answer to Rick’s question was, it got shot down like Clothahump at a Mensa singles party.
So World Eater recognizes that lonesome loser’s proposal is equivalent to the shittier version set forth by the Republicans. What’s the problem?
I suspect Bricker knew exactly what he was talking about. As I took his point, LL’s proposal of bringing everyone home tomorrow was one that not even the Democrats would support; it’s therefore a non-starter. Murtha’s proposal wasn’t, at that point, on the table; but when we set it on the table, it’s not addressed by Bricker’s argument.
At least, that’s how I read it.
Daniel
To clarify, when I say he’s not smarter than that, I mean that his point, being unrefuted by the sequence of posts, doesn’t reflect poorly on his intelligence; saying he’s smarter than that is not a relevant snipe, since his point remains valid.
Daniel
Eh. When you squawk like an idiot, follow blindly like an idiot.
You are an idiot.
Regardless of your intelligence.
Maybe if we keep this thread active for another week and a half, Humpy will actually come back and offer a tepid retraction wrapped in a protective coat of subject-changing accusation.
What, may I ask politely and respectfully, the fuck are you saying here?
Daniel
That Bricker is an idiot.
Cool thread. Insults, defensiviness, sidtracking, all the good stuff.
But, back to the OP. I haven’t seen the commercial on TV yet, only the “preview” on the web. It’s offensive. What it is saying is, “if you don’t stay the course you are a damn coward and a lousy traitor”.
What a great way to “unite and unify”, as the Republican party once promised to do. Just what we need. Keep pouring more gasoline on the fires, folks. Way to go. “Stay the course” and all that. “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”. I guess the next batch of ads will have a huge “kill the traitors” banner, and selected Coulter videos? Keep in mind, some of “us” were fully behind Bush and the invasion of Afghanistan, and wanted Osama’s severed head paraded down “Main Street”. We were glad when the Taliban were toppled. We understood who and where the enemy was. Well what happened then.
Sure I’m using hyperbole, but what the fuck, this “ad” is pure hyperbole anyway. It’s offensive and stupid. I’ve scraped shit off my boots that smelled better.
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, because I thought we were truly going to get Osama.
Boy was I fooled.
“Fool me once…shame on…shame on you…fool me can’t get fooled again.”
I fully support Afghanistan as well, funny how you never hear anyone complain about that move. Probably because there was a clear reason to go in. One of the main reasons I want the troops out of Iraq is because I’d like to send them someplace where they’ll be more effective.
Send more to a certain border area of Afghanistan for example.
I think a few days with little sleep is enough to excuse the requirement of proper grammar.
Bush and his Republican Party brain trust may have promised at one time to “unite and unify” (and, for the sake of argument, I’ll assume they were being sincere) but they soon quickly realized there was no political capital to be gained from it. Their right-wing base is more likely to open up their checkbooks and show up at the voting booths if they’re angry and riled up over some domestic foe. That’s why in terms of getting GOP candidates elected, the Iraqi War works a lot better then the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban because it is a divisive affair. For the Republicans, it perfectly crystallizes the difference between “us” (i.e., loyal, Christian, family-oriented, hardworking, salt-of-the-earth, conservative red-staters) and “them” (i.e., traitorous, secular, gay marriage advocating, decadent, arrogant, weak-willed, elitist liberal blue-state Democrats).
The trouble with the campaign against Osama Bin Laden is nearly everybody is behind it. We all want to get him and destroy Al Qaeda. There’s not too many ways Republicans can use this war to accuse Democrats of being disloyal without sounding stupid to even a hardcore right-winger.
True, but as ludicrous these ads may be, they seem to work: they get Republicans elected. They’ll only disappear when they cease to be effective.
Meh, statistics can be made to say anything. I, for one, remain unwavering in my support of whatever fuckwit thing our Leader tells us to believe.
This demonstrates either that you’re a partisan tool, or just a tool. I disagree with Bricker on many subjects, but I can respect him as an exceedingly intelligent, thoughtful, and eloquent poster. I agree with you on many subjects, but you haven’t yet demonstrated any of those qualities to me. I’d like to have Bricker on my side of the issues, but you? At this point, I’m not sure I do.
Daniel
I’ve been on the other side of Bricker. One thing about him, you’d better have the facts straight or you’ll get spanked.
I have a question for you all. Your opinion is that dissent in wartime is fine, and that it’s wrong to label people as unpatriotic who oppose the war.
But let me ask you - are there any limits at all? At what point would you criticise the way someone expresses opposition to the war?
I’d like to know what you think the limits should be on the way in which you protest the war. I imagine we can agree that giving up secrets to the enemy would be bad. How about appearing with the insurgency in a propaganda film? Going to Iraq to tell the Iraqi people that they are the victims of an unjust war? Going on national TV and characterizing American soldiers as being the kinds of people who kick in doors at midnight to terrorize women and children?
Are there any limits at all?
Oh, and I’m not asking about banning such behaviour - I’m asking how far someone should go before you simply disagree with that they are doing - a bar that I assume should be set lower than an actual law preventing the behaviour.
For example, it was legal for Jane Fonda to go to North Vietnam and have her photo taken manning an enemy anti-aircraft gun. But do you think it was wrong of her to do so?
Yes, and even she says it was a mistake now.
I’m not understanding your question. If I believe the war is a just war, then the moment someone shrugs their shoulders as if to suggest that they don’t think the war is just, I disagre with them.
However, if I believe the war is just, then I don’t think they’re behaving unethically unless they lie about the war.
War doesn’t really bring any special considerations into play: war is just mass killing, and my system of ethics covers killing without making qualitative distinctions for nationality or the scope of the killing.
As for Jane Fonda: she posed with an anti-aircraft gun. She was expressing, as such, a desire to see a US soldier be killed (I assume); in doing so, she was behaving almost as unethically as a person who poses next to a US Jet fighter, implicitly expressing a desire to see a Vietnamese soldier be killed. I do not believe she was behaving dishonestly, and so she was not unethical in her expression, although her expression may be a symptom of an unethical desire.
Daniel
Wrong, stupid, and incredibly naive on her part. However, that was over 30 years ago in a completely different war. In this conflict, the Democrats have done nothing even remotely comparable (despite what the right-wing spin machine says).
I know it’s bad form to answer a question with another question but when Clinton got the U.S. involved in Kosovo, was it wrong for the Republicans in Congress to criticize the decision? A lot of the some people now attacking opponents of the Iraqi War as wimps and traitors raked Clinton over the coals over it. Were they “unpatriotic milksops” too?