However, remember the actions of a few fucktards cannot be imputed to the whole. There is a word for that. As mentioned before, there were plenty of posters who were opposed to how quickly we were dragged into the war without the UN and under false pretenses but hoped we delivered a quick, safe and through invasion for the servicemembers who had to go over there (and could get their daddy’s friends to get them out of serving).
I am a bit confused as to why those morons where not dragged into the Pit to be held properly accountable?
I did read it. BTW, it’s only from one cite. Which has shown me that you probably haven’t read it.
Bullshit. Some make this argument, but not all. Dinsdale, the thread starter clearly wants US casualties because it will make Bush look bad. Others do also. I made my case for this in the thread. Go back and read it.
Anyways, even the others like Latro that have the fucking rediculous notion that US soldiers getting killed will prevent US soldiers getting killed, are inexcusable. Just because they have some crackpot theory that morally justifies killing the soldiers that doesn’t excuse their wishing for it.
So, mangling quotes, twisting words, and ignoring or misrepresenting responses are “polite” tactics in a debate, are they? You give it up, dude. There are far more polite and reasonable posters on the SDMB. They don’t paint all their opponents black with the widest brush possible.
I’ll repeat it here again… just because december manages to adhere to the letter of the rules at the SDMB does not make him “polite.” It does, however, make him slippery as a greased pig.
No, not “whoops”… Ann Coulter is widely regarded by many as one of the most partisan writers around, and she writes with a rightist slant. The comparison to december is a completely valid one.
As far as blind partisanship, I could just as happily compare december to Michael Moore. However, I suspect he would be offended by the comparison to Moore, while the comparison to Coulter might actually make him happy. Just trying to be nice to him where I can, don’t’cha know.
Although an interesting post in that thread from our very own minister of misinformation:
Oops, turns out “those 16 words” are pretty important after all if that was the reason we had to invade right away-- right december.
Right? That and the WMD’s ready to be used in 45 minutes notice. Oops, turns out that was a lie too. Well they did have tons of WMD just lying around then, right? Oops, another lie. Well, they were actively working with Al Queda. Oops, wrong again? What was the big rush for then?
Debaser, that is some cold-assed shit. Not what some of those posters had to say, but the way you affirmatively misrepresented what they had to say.
For instance, you quote Dinsdale as saying:
But not only do you ignore that he said he almost felt that way, you quote so selectively that you OMIT the perfectly clear words Dinsdale wrote in that same post:
(Misleadingly selective quotations . . . Does that remind anybody of a certain other person who starts lots of bullshit OP’s in GD?)
None of the American posters you quote can fairly be characterized–as you did above–as “wishing out loud for the deaths of American soldiers.” They all made it clear that they did not wish death upon soldiers, frequently making the point their hope was the nation would learn the folly of its war-mongering policies and thereby prevent even greater loss of lives in the future.
E.g., TVAA: “If the war goes well, and this strategy becomes the avowed doctrine of the US, then many more people will eventually die.”
MMI: “The flip side is I don’t want any of our servicepeople to die. I do not know that I could face the math, of having people die, even if it could alter potential enemies perceptions.”
TVAA: “I wouldn’t prefer the suffering and death of those involved in the war.”
Latro: “What other way do you people see to prevent this nightmare [i.e., “a century of war”] from unfolding?”
(Oh, and the heck with Estilicon. Dude’s from Argentina. He’s entitled to pick any side he wants when two other countries start duking it out.)
They may be misguided, but you, sir, are a grade-A clod.
Insinuations? Oh, Lordy. If you’d read the first page, you would likely have avoided helping to prove a point I made.
At any rate, I too consider Poly to be one of the most level-headed and fair-minded posters on this board. As such, he will be the first to tell you that he has indeed blown up before and reacted inappropriately — yessiree, right here on this board. But Poly knows that I love him, and that’s not something I have to prove to you.
elf6c asks an interesting question: Suppose Saddam had a nuclear program but wasn’t close to actually deploying or using nukes. What was the big rush for then?
My answer is that doing the right thing is more important than getting the timing just so. If we toppled Saddam’s regime 5 years before his nukes would have come on line, rather than 1 year before, so what? The important thing is that we stopped him from getting nukes. And, a side benefit is that thousands of Iraqis won’t be killed, tortured and imprisoned by the Ba’ath regime.
Also, we had to make a decision under uncertainty. We still don’t know just how close Saddam was to acquiring nuclear weapons. We certainly weren’t sure before the war. I, for one, wouldn’t have wanted to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. His past actions prove that he didn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. And, waiting too long could have led to disaster.
**Debaser[/b, it has been shown (and pitifully easily) that the people you’re quoting did not say what you claim they said. You’ve even gone some way to admitting that now, and you’re down to still misrepresenting only 1 of your cites. Was that last omission deliberate, to somehow avoid admitting in public that you’re not only a shithead but an obnoxious one too?
You, sir, are deliberately misrepresenting Debaser.
How dare you espouse the unfounded and entirely illegitimate opinion that Debaser is anything more than a Turing test with mangled coding? Have you no shame? Knowingly going into a battle of wits with one who is unarmed is a cruel and despicable practice indeed. It is utterly disgraceful that you continue to do this in the face of the objective proof that Debaser was not made to handle those tasks you have given him.
No. I said no such thing. DO NOT put words in my mouth. It’s against the rules here and you know it.
What I said was that I felt that way about one poster here. I DO NOT feel that way about the majorirty of the posters here. And I made that perfectly clear.
But again, I’m sorry your experiences are different. Perhaps that reflects more on your individual style than a general trend. :eek:
No. I said no such thing. DO NOT put words in my mouth. It’s against the rules here and you know it.
What I said was that I felt that way about one poster here. I DO NOT feel that way about the majorirty of the posters here. And I made that perfectly clear.
But again, I’m sorry your experiences are different. Perhaps that reflects more on your individual style than a general trend. :eek:
As surly as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, as surely as the guy with the shovel and wheelbarrow follows the elephants in the circus parade, out friend december will post his weekly, or semi-weekly, or daily, or in some cases hourly little packet of balderdash on one of two subjects–either that all Democrats of every kind, character and description are evil or stupid or misinformed or that all Muslims of every kind character and description are murderous and untrustworthy. Now that’s pretty much it. Once in a while he will throw in a curve ball on some other topic but that is a rare event. Mostly it’s Democrats and Muslims–BOOO!
An we, the general membership, by and large well read, rational, moderate and only mildly skeptical of government, like a bunch of hatchery raised trout, rise to the bait again and again. Our boy has once again passed through the looking glass and released another honey coated hate grenade into our living rooms–this time equating Democrats with Islamic terrorists. Now, on its face the proposition is silly (which is worse than preposterous and dishonest, although it is both preposterous and dishonest) What does the general membership do in the face of all this? It either screams in outrage at the unfairness of the proposition or earnestly take up the cudgel and tries to debate and rebut our friend’s proposition point by point. Neither approach makes the least impression on our friend. Neither will make the slightest impression on our friend. This is because our mutual antagonist is either unshakeably convinced of his own righteousness or, more likely, he doesn’t care that his assertions are putrid and reprehensible garbage.
When my kids were little they would tease each other mercilessly. It was only when they figured out that the motivation for the teasing was to elicit a reaction and they quit reacting that the teasing stopped. I suspect that if our friend"s balderdash were treated with the disdain it deserves our friend might become discouraged. There is no point to setting a fire if the fire trucks don’t come screaming down the street with all the lights flashing and firemen clinging to the tail gate, their rubberized coats flapping in the wind. There is no pleasure in pulling your sister’s hair if she doesn’t yell.
We are dealing with an elderly retired actuary from, for God’s sake, New Jersey. From a lifetime of calculating statics his soul has withered and hardened until it is no bigger and no more use than a clinker from an old time coal furnace. To hell with him. Let him howl his abuse and irrational diatribes into the wind and hear no response but the echo of his own voice.
Hard to develop a nuclear weapon when you have no active program or fissionable materials. Remember “those 16 words” are an acknowledged falsehood (except by Tony Blair, whose administration’s fate now seems to depend on the African nuclear materials fiasco).
This do the right thing claim is poorly thought out revisionist history. If true, why go now and not when Bush took office? Why not wait for the UN like his father did? Why Iraq and not Iran or North Korea. The people of Liberia only got a few token troops in support roles. Guess they needed more oil. North Korea is a much worse situation for a suffering of the people, WMD development, and WMD proliferation stand point. Wonder why George is waiting there?
In fact, the Iraqi people’s suffering only came to the forefront after the WMD’s and Terrorism support claims trued out to be false and the heat was on.
The only disaster which Curious George seemed to be interested in preventing is an electoral one.
Also I have presented many polls (with links even) showing the growing disbelief of the American populace with regards to the Bush Adminisration’s claims on Iraq. Given his failures on Al Queda and dubious military background I doubt ole George feels to good on that point right now.
Thanks for playing- you may want to get some new talking points from rushlimbaugh.com though, the old stuff is getting pretty far out of date.
Insinuations? Oh, Lordy. If you’d read the first page, you would likely have avoided helping to prove a point I made.