Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nightwish said:Okay, there are a few quotes. Now let's examine both the quotes, and the quote from you that prompted my response in the first place.
You said that Libs, not Dems, believe that Iraq was better off with Saddam. That's a very broad statement. Even if people believe that one aspect of their lives was better (utilities, women's rights), that's a far cry from believing that they were in better shape overall. I don't know a single liberal who believes that. I believe that there were some aspects that were better, but that overall they are better off now.
Now, again, you said Libs, not Dems. That's an important difference, first because those terms are not synonymous. The quotes you provided are all from Democratic leaders, who are using them for political leverage, not to represent the actual views of the party. They are intended not so much to be apologetic for Saddam, but rather to be harshly critical of our shortcomings in the war. I'm not a Democrat, so I don't mind saying that I find that tactic kind of reprehensible, and I think Godwin's Law is getting worked overtime among the current Dem elite.
But to claim that "the Libs" or even "the Dems" (implying more than just a few talking heads trying to unbalance their opponents) believe that Iraqis were better off under Saddam's rule is crass, unfair and very farfetched. Incidentally, the Murtha and Kennedy quotes don't support your point at all, and the Gilligan quote is a weak connection at best.
Nightwish said:RWA, for the sake of your own credibility (which I'm told is pretty questionable, even among your fellow right-wingers), I wouldn't even use the word "debate" in one of your posts. You jab, you insult, and you asperge, and that's about all you do. That's not debate, that's not even discussion. Admittedly, I've been lured into trading insults with you and a couple others on occasion, but I at least make an attempt at civility, decorum and support, when it is needed.
There's nothing at all "general" about Democratic Underground. They're underground for a reason. They're far left fringe loons, hardly representative of Dems or Libs in general. They're a joke of epic proportions.Bonnie said:What I should have said was prominant Liberals, but in point of fact liberals in general meaning the meatheads over at Democratic Underground et al provides a vast wealth of quotes that I could have cited to you adnauseum to prove my point better, so suffice to say all you need do is look at left leaning blogs and message boards if your so inclined and I will have been proven correct on my point.
Whatever you say, Vern.rtwngAvngr said:My credibility is fine, unlike yours, which is in tatters. I'm just trying to have a discussion with you. All you do is make statements and then say later "I didn't say that". That's about all you do. Why is concise, meaningful language so difficult for you?
Nightwish said:Whatever you say, Vern.
Nightwish said:There's nothing at all "general" about Democratic Underground. They're underground for a reason. They're far left fringe loons, hardly representative of Dems or Libs in general. They're a joke of epic proportions.
I think there are a lot of people who confuse criticism of the war and criticism of the conditions the war has created (both common positions among the liberals), with approval of Saddam and the way he ran things (an extreme position). I won't suggest that literally nobody thinks the Iraqis were better off with Saddam that without, but I will say that those who believe that are an extreme minority of fringe liberals.Bonnie said:I said general liberals not general Democrats. I would disagree that DU and other websites including Mike Moores and others are not indicative of what many liberals think. And since Howard Dean has been made the Chairman of the DNC it's not a crazy leap to say that is the direction the Democratic party wishes to take in the coming elections and policy.
Nightwish said:There's nothing at all "general" about Democratic Underground. They're underground for a reason. They're far left fringe loons, hardly representative of Dems or Libs in general. They're a joke of epic proportions.
Nightwish said:I think there are a lot of people who confuse criticism of the war and criticism of the conditions the war has created (both common positions among the liberals), with approval of Saddam and the way he ran things (an extreme position). I won't suggest that literally nobody thinks the Iraqis were better off with Saddam that without, but I will say that those who believe that are an extreme minority of fringe liberals..
As for Howard Dean being chairman of the DNC, that's a point many raise in an attempt to show that his extremism represents where the party wishes to go. In fact, his being chairman of the DNC is the result of a snafu in DNC electoral policies, something they need to address in the future. Technically, he slid into the position via a loophole which did not provide for alternatives to advancement of a single candidate if that candidate ran unopposed. I've not been able to find any tallies of what the actual vote was when he ran, but he was the only one running for the position. So we don't know if he got 400 votes, or none. At any rate, the Democratic party membership only elects the members to the DNC, but they have no part in determining which of those members serve in what office within the DNC. So Howard Dean sitting in that office doesn't indicate anything except that nobody else wanted it.
Nah, I'm not a Democrat, and I'm really not all that liberal. I'm pretty left-leaning on the war, and a few other issues, but I'm pretty right-leaning on a number of other issues.rtwngAvngr said:So you should fit right in!
Bonnie said:shouldn't they address that now rather than later then?? And I don't believe for a moment there wasnt' another member who would have gladly taken that position.
Secondly if the Democratic party does not embrace it's extreme element then why do so many like Pelosi tow the liberal party line, and please don't say she's the only one, in fact it's easier for me to name those that don't and it's a very short list...or it's because she's liberal (that we already know).
Sure. I just meant that they were a day late and a dollar short when they realized it could be a problem.Bonnie said:shouldn't they address that now rather than later then??
I dunno. And I don't care to guess at motives. I just know that nobody else ran, according to all the sources I've been able to find about it.And I don't believe for a moment there wasnt' another member who would have gladly taken that position.
You're confusing "liberal" with "extreme element." Liberalism has its extreme element, just as conservativism does. But most liberals and most conservatives are a lot more toward the center. Right now, the Democratic elite are being loud with their criticisms of the war and the conditions in Iraq, because they see the opportunity to sway public opinion, especially with the way the GOP has been recently rocked by a sudden rash of scandals. It's a ploy to undermine faith in the GOP, based on dissatisfaction with the handling of the war. It's not sincerity, it's normal politics. If the war situation were the same, and it was a Democrat controlled Congress and White House, you'd see the same extreme and vocal criticisms coming from the Republicans, they'd be the ones crying to get out now, that we've only made things worse, etc. That's just another day in Washington for you. But when it comes to analyzing the party line, it is a bit foolhardy to do so based only on a handful of visible issues. People like Pelosi seem extreme because the war is a volatile issue for everyone, and because they're trying to exploit every perceived advantage they can find. Like I said, it's normal politics. During the Clinton Presidency, when he was being witch-hunted the same way Bush is, it was pretty much the same, just with the roles reversed.Secondly if the Democratic party does not embrace it's extreme element then why do so many like Pelosi tow the liberal party line,
Nightwish said:Your opinion is duly noted. And the moment you obtain a degree or advanced training in military strategy, it will be worth something. Until then, your opinion that those tactics absolutely would not have worked carries exactly as much weight and authority as the opens of those of us equallly unschooled in military strategy who believe they may have. And your comments about the assassination option are about as feeble an argument against it as I've seen yet.
Nightwish...If the war situation were the same, and it was a Democrat controlled Congress and White House, you'd see the same extreme and vocal criticisms coming from the Republicans, they'd be the ones crying to get out now, that we've only made things worse, etc. That's just another day in Washington for you.
Nightwish said:Nah, I'm not a Democrat, and I'm really not all that liberal. I'm pretty left-leaning on the war, and a few other issues, but I'm pretty right-leaning on a number of other issues.
Depends on where the lost revenue money will be made up.rtwngAvngr said:Should we keep the tax cuts bush enacted?
I heard plenty of it from them during Kosovo and Bosnia.Bonnie said:I can agree with a good bit of your previous post, however I really don't see Republicans collectively putting our troops and our country in harms way by criticising the war and stating we should pull out now!!
Nightwish said:Depends on where the lost revenue money will be made up.
The only way they would have worked is if we stopped the Oil For Food program, and cut them off cold turkey. But the human cost of that would be unforgivable.manu1959 said:so, since you disagreed with his posistion, does that me you:
belived the sanctions were working and would work?
Do I think it should have been used? I plead the 5th on that. Do I think it could've been used? Yes, most definitely. Do I think that if it could work, it would be a better option that full-scale war, yes. It might be more costly to Bush (not that I care), if he were found to be responsible for it, but in my eyes that's a lot less important than the cost it would save both in human lives and trillions of dollars in spending.assasination should have been used?
Would have worked? I don't know. Could have worked? Yes, with proper planning and execution, it is conceivable.a rebelion from with in would have worked?
