Perhaps you might wish to take advantage of the “report this post” button. A mod can’t react to what she doesn’t know about and this is a busy time of year for Americans.
As disgusting as that poster’s comments are, there still is a difference between saying “I support…” and saying “I wish to join…”
Keep playing the victim, though. Someday it might pay off. Someday.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Well, I feel a great many people who voted for bush were mindless gucks, voting from fear, stupidity and ingnorance. YMMV but I am confident I’m right. I’m not worrying about hurting their feelings because they don’t debate poltical issues online – involves too much reading, dochaknow. I feel I can safely say whatever I like about the gucks online without fear of offending them or of their knowing about it.
<SNIP>
[QUOTE]
I take your point, and to some extent even agree with it. I don’t think the problem is confined to a single party though. That aside, and no slam intended to yourself, a lot of the Dems do come on just like that. An assumption of superiority, either deliberate or unconscious, rubs people the wrong way.
Regards
Testy
Yeah, Avenger and rfgdxm, you need to shut up now. In principle, someone has the right to fight invaders, even civillians that are working with the invaders. Unless the invaders are Americans.
Because we’re Americans. And no one has the right to kill us for any reason, ever. Yes, it may be a bitter pill to swallow, but if you side with those, even in merely a vague ideological sense, that would kill Americans you have no place in American political discourse. I’m not sure the Democrats have to directly and actively disavow such opinions (why call more attention to them?), but they have to make it clear that they side with Americans.
Now, this basic fact makes dissenting against an ongoing military action difficult. Fortunately, this administration’s handling of the war in Iraq has been so inept that the Democrats hardly need to mention that the war was unjustified to begin with in order to score points off of it. Still, I doubt there’s anything tougher than the balance between protesting a war and appearing disloyal in wartime, even if your anti-war stance is fully justified and correct.
I think the reason (besides simple political incompetence and fear of alienating the more sane left) that the Democrats haven’t yet disavowed the anti-American fringe is that many are shocked by the implication that they have to. Avenger and rfgdxm are shocking to me. Of course I don’t support the killing of American troops! Of course I agree that the insurgents are terrorists (now, they weren’t before, but that’s another debate) and are very bad people! Isn’t that obvious? Apparently not. I resent it, but liberals and Democrats in general are now in a position where their loyalty appears in question, and they have to defend it. It sucks, and it isn’t right, but it doesn’t make it not true.
there are many attacks against US soldiers. But there are many (or more) attacks against Iraqi civilians. Bombs exploding inside mosques are not aimed at Americans.Destroying oil pipelines and electricity plants does not repel invading soldiers. Beheading truck drivers who are helping rebuild the country does not repell invaders.
The insurgents just want to create chaos and death, so that they can prevent stability and democracy.They are not freedom fighters , like the French Resistance in WWII. They are terrorists and thugs.
Their goal is dictatorship, not freedom.
What impression are you implying? What if the US was invaded by a foreign military? Would there not be insurgents? Would there not be civilian casualties as a result of the insurgency? Can you not even imagine such a scenario for yourself and your loved ones? On what basis do you judge?
This inability to do so, this inability to relate to tragic human scenarios gives a certain impression too.
I’m not in favour of anyone killing anyone else. Why should I be made to favour one innocent life over another? What sort of society would ask this of me?
I’d think this should go without saying in a civilised society, but perhaps not.
Perhaps it’s easy for me to say otherwise - as a nurse, accompanied by my husband (a physician), I’d probably be too busy attending to the victims of this political partisan bullshit (note: I’m not saying I’m innocent of partisan bullshit, but where does it end? And what life does it save? What is the value gained?)
Tu quoque doesn’t save anyone’s life. Scoring political points doesn’t let an arm or leg get re-attached. And what does any of this mean in the face of that??? Do you really think you’d be trading barbs with political opponents after losing an arm, a leg, a child???
Keep laughing. That is what you voted for.
Tell me again about the culture of life.
Tell me about the rabbits, George, tell about how it’s gonna be…
Personally I’m bored of making statements because you feel I’m obligated to make them. Either you believe Democrats support terrorism or they don’t. The constant demand for lip service is irritating. I’m not playing ball anymore on this topic. By any sensible interpretation, I’ve never said anything that could be taken as pro-terrorism. So anybody who claims they don’t know how I feel about terrorism can take a hike.
That’s a pretty cynical post. It’s the truth by any reasonable interpretation (bombers who attack civilians are another matter), but you sound like you’re coming down on the side of the empty rhetoric I talked about. I guess it’s not my problem, but oh well. This does seem to be what the GOP are doing these days: “Say what we say or we’ll tell everybody you’re weak on terrorism!” Doesn’t matter if the statements are wasted air. Obviously the Democrats’ weakness on terrorism was not a big deal for about 57 million voters. Wasn’t enough, and they need to improve it, but I don’t think the data supports the idea that most people think they’re spineless pro-terrorists. I realize there are a number of Republicans who may think that, but that’s another matter.
You don’t think? What kind of backhanded crap is that? They’ve never even been accused of anything of the sort. Find a shred of evidence someplace before you say you’re not sure if they support America’s enemies or not. What a grotesque and baseless thing to imply. That’s one of the few comments I’ve ever seen that actually does qualify as McCarthyesque.
Nope. You are missing the point entirely. In order to support the Iraqi insurgents, one must support their goals. If the posters saying they support them can articulate the goals of the insurgents (beyond “get the Americans out”) and why those goals are good for Iraq in the long term, then their posts rightfully provoke distain.
As to the insurgent/terrorist dichotomy, it’s very simple. There is no evidence that the groups exploding car bombs in public squares are NOT the same groups taht are lobbing bombs at US troops. You don’t stop being a terrrorist just because you happen, on one day, to be fighting against uniformed soldiers if you turn around the next day and purposely target civilians.
I do agree that calling specific acts against US troops “terror attacks” is incorrect. But the guys leading those attacks are indeed terrorists inasmuch as they support and participate in real, indisputable terror attacks against innocent civilians.
A far stronger influence on the Right in America was William F. Buckley and the writers of National Review. And this organization was opposed to the Birchers.
So all Democrats have to do is jettison nutty conspiracy theorists, just like the Republicans had to once.
Original post corrected above, with the bolded word restoring my original meaning. Sorry for the confusion…
They did? When? When did the GOP leadership ever denounce or repudiate him? I remember his prime-time convention speech and his GOP primary wins; was that when it happened? When did the GOP decide they no longer could let him represent them? You have to do better than that. The GOP was happy to have all the voters he could attract, and to keep them after his fit of pique.
You were asked what extremists the GOP has actually repudiated since the Southern Strategy, since the act of denunciation seems to be important for you when you mention Democrats. How are you coming on that list?
I’m sure you would. Yes, they were wrong to be against the Afghanistan operation, although not the way it’s turned out (where’s Osama?) But their views (OK, let’s say Soros’ views) are American mainstream positions.
Bricker, as long as your position is nothing more than “Nyah, nyah, we won” you’ll never convince anyone else that you actually stand for anything more important.
That would still be polling one person, me, about what I think other people think. Just as your vague, sweeping denunciation was based on one person’s opinion, yours. :rolleyes: Surely you can do better than your well-worn habit of simply making things up that sound good to you. Now, if there are that many polls, you ought to be able to cite a few instead of resorting, once again, to the world of your own fantasies. Can you? Any more than you can provide factual support for your gloating assessment that “the results have been great”? No, I don’t really expect you to; that was rhetorical.
Sam, when did you drop your flat assertions that the Iraqi resistance was made of dead-enders who’d give up as soon as Saddam was captured? We’re still waiting, over a year later. :rolleyes: Meanwhile, you might consider that most of the victims are Iraqi collaborators because (1) there are a lot more of them than the Americans whose lives you’re still willing to spend, and (2) they’re much less well armored than even the underarmored US troops, and (3) they don’t get to withdraw inside fortified compounds between missions; they’re out in public.
Captain Amazing, very well said. It’s sad that so many want simple answers to simply-stated problems, unconnected with the world of fact, that it is necessary to lie to them to get their votes, but that’s our world today. It’s even sadder that some persons even here are happy about it.
This one.
Keep saying you’d just as soon see Americans die as Iraqis die, and see what happens to your party’s position at the polls.
If it’s raining and I have a flat tire, my options are not good: stay stuck, or get wet changing the tire. I don’t laugh happily because I’m wet: I laugh happily because I got the damn tire changed.
I don’t rejoice in ANYONE’S death or injury. I rejoice in the prospects of bringing a democracy to the Middle East other than Israel. I rejoice in the knowledge that the sacrifices made today will prevent many other deaths down the line, deaths that would have been marked only by mass graves dug by Saddam or one of his ilk.
And, quite frankly, I rejoice in the support of the American electorate for this course, and for the blindness for this support that infects the left and guarantees continued losses at the polls.
Focus on the deaths now, and argue that we must leave Iraq. Argue that Iraqi bombers lives are worth as much or more to you than American servicemen. Keep it up, I beg you. You are doing exactly what needs to be done to help this country continue to move in the correct direction, and you’re not smart enough to understand it, even as I explain it to you.
Wouldn’t a more appropriate comparison be the French Resistance vs. the Nazis?
Who do I need to convince? The population of The People’s Republic of SDMB? Never gonna happen. The population of the US? That job’s already done.
Which, I notice, you fail to answer. If you seriously dispute my assertion, say so. But it’s self-evident.
Implying that you (and the others expressing similar sentiments here) don’t? So if the USA gets invaded, I assume you’ll all be ratting out all your freedom-fighter neighbors and friends to the invading force because, after all, armed resistance is “terrorism”. And you wouldn’t dare do anything to any of the collaborators and traitors because they’re civilians.
Or, wait, let me guess, that’s somehow different then, isn’t it? Because that’s sure not how it went when this country decided it didn’t want to be ruled by a foreign power. We revere and worship our historical “terrorists”, even the criminals and thugs.
But, of course, if anyone else does it when we’re the foreign power, it’s suddenly a bad thing. Got it. The problem isn’t that we invaded in the first place, but that they have the temerity, the sheer gall, to actually fight back.
Actually, I’m in complete agreement with you. This is what the Dems should put on their websites and their position papers. When they appear on TV and the radio, though, their message should be much simpler: “We will fight terrorists to make America safe! We will help the Iraqi people be free!” Any more complex message is lost.
It is time we Dems learn: the radio/TV audience is very different from the online/print audience. We need two different and not completely parallel messages to win both audiences – just as the Republicans do. After all, the neo-cons who are running the show spelled out their intentions for Iraq long before the election. They just didn’t make it the substance of the election. They won, their plans went into effect.
Dems need to learn from this.
It does happen from time to time.
The Anti-Defamation League reports that David Duke has been repudiated by the National Republican Party. This year, the Tennessee Republican Party renounced a white supremacist who somehow got the nomination in the 8th district of Tennessee.
I’m sure there are more that I could find if I looked hard enough.
Please save your moral superiority until after a prominent Democrat similarly distances the party from either MoveOn or that notorious race-baiter Al Sharpton.
All well and good. But Republican candidates still make appearances at Bob Jones University. Each side has their loony baggage.
But what is so vile about moveon.org? Looking at their website, I really don’t see a lot that is far out of the mainstream. Their anti-Bush ads were factually accurate compared to the Swifties. You mentioned they opposed the Afghan war, if you have a cite for that I would appreciate it. Otherwise, they oppose the Iraq fiasco and they opposed Bush, as do about half of Americans. What makes moveon.org stand out?
Kerry actually tried this with his (paraphrased): “I will hunt down and kill the terrorists wherever they are” statement that he repeated several times during the debates. One problem, though, is that whoever the Dems run will be saddled to some extent with the position of the more radical wing-- the Michael Moores, and the MoveOn.orgs, etc.
It’s not entirely fair, but that’s the way it is. Same thing for the Pubs-- they get saddled with the burden of the Jerry Falwells, the Roy Moores, etc. As it stands, though, Americans as a whole seem less sympathetic to the extremes of the left and less bothered by the extremes of the right. I’m not sure why that is, but it does seem to to be the case.
I don’t have a party, but how dare you lie, by mischaracterising what I said, to imply I’d just as soon see anyone dead. My post stands in defence of your mendacity - did you forget that, or are you that desparate in your comments now?
It’s a bald-faced lie, inappropriate to this forum, and unconscionable considering the subject matter.
What would drive you to such dishonesty? I’m truly sorry for you.