I fight fair...do you?

[jeffperkinstech]

You know, there have been a few opportunities for me to attack Bush for not having retalliated for the 2000 bombing of a Navy ship docked in Yemen, even though I had seen something that said that Bush called off a planned strike in 2001 because Bush said, "..it happened on Clinton's watch." But I saw it on some private political site and it was pretty much hearsay at that point. I am glad I did not jump at that opportunity.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040409/ap_on_go_pr_wh/sept_11_commission_clinton_7

I do not blindly support any particular person or party. Some of those that I think have done a terrible job for the whole of our nation, don't do EVERYTHING wrong and those that I feel that have done a good job for the country do not do everything right. In fact, I think it is very easy to disqualify the opinions of those that either support everything that is done and said by a particular person or entity, and, conversely, destruct every point of a particular individual or party. RARELY does anyone get it all right or wrong folks. So take a look at your posts people. Are you injecting truth into the world or are you just propergating more lies?

Do any of you care?

 

[_dmp_]

why do 'you people' accuse everyone who has 'made a choice' to line up w/ one political party or another as being 'blind'? I mean? Geesh...I'd MUCH rather somebody make a choice, than be a waffler. Some people are so afraid of being 'wrong', they sit on the fences.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jeffperkinstech
You know, there have been a few opportunities for me to attack Bush for not having retalliated for the 2000 bombing of a Navy ship docked in Yemen

Do you mean picking up where Clinton fucked up? What response did Clinton have for the 93 Trade Center bombing? What did HE do in response to the USS Cole?

So you could have attacked, you just would have looked even more stupid.

 

[jeffperkinstech]

Yeah, not lining up like the programed, automiton, sheep of the masses is 'riding fences'. While people go 'goostepping' like a Nazi, to what ever tune a 'Pied Piper' of a party would play, I choose to be brave enough to step to my own ideals of right, wrong and fair-play. If you want to build a nation based on rights, freedoms and justice you can't play the 'tough guy' card all the time or you will inevitably squash the freedoms of most and step on the rights of, at least some. Just like you can't play the 'sensitive caring' card all the time, otherwise you will let other people bring to an end of the peoples freedoms and encroach on the rights of many. Let alone be able to be tough enough to enforce justice, and conversly, in the former example, be wise and prudent enough to be able to judge right and wrong to aptly decide what is most just.

Very little of life is black and white, yes or no, right or left. There are other and, usually, better choices. Don't be afraid to THINK!

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by jeffperkinstech
You know, there have been a few opportunities for me to attack Bush for not having retalliated for the 2000 bombing of a Navy ship docked in Yemen, even though I had seen something that said that Bush called off a planned strike in 2001 because Bush said, "..it happened on Clinton's watch." But I saw it on some private political site and it was pretty much hearsay at that point. I am glad I did not jump at that opportunity.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040409/ap_on_go_pr_wh/sept_11_commission_clinton_7

Wow... congratulations for not blaming Bush for something that didn't happen during his presidency. How big of you.

I do not blindly support any particular person or party. Some of those that I think have done a terrible job for the whole of our nation, don't do EVERYTHING wrong and those that I feel that have done a good job for the country do not do everything right. In fact, I think it is very easy to disqualify the opinions of those that either support everything that is done and said by a particular person or entity, and, conversely, destruct every point of a particular individual or party. RARELY does anyone get it all right or wrong folks. So take a look at your posts people. Are you injecting truth into the world or are you just propergating more lies?

Do any of you care? [/B]

Thank you for the lecture, Mr. Government of One. It just so happens that most of us in the GOP have looked at our political positions and realized that we all agree on the fundmentals of smaller, less intrusive gov't. That's why I'm a part of the GOP. Judging by your posts, I think the World Worker's Party might suit you well.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by jeffperkinstech
Yeah, not lining up like the programed, automiton, sheep of the masses is 'riding fences'. While people go 'goostepping' like a Nazi, to what ever tune a 'Pied Piper' of a party would play, I choose to be brave enough to step to my own ideals of right, wrong and fair-play. If you want to build a nation based on rights, freedoms and justice you can't play the 'tough guy' card all the time or you will inevitably squash the freedoms of most and step on the rights of, at least some. Just like you can't play the 'sensitive caring' card all the time, otherwise you will let other people bring to an end of the peoples freedoms and encroach on the rights of many. Let alone be able to be tough enough to enforce justice, and conversly, in the former example, be wise and prudent enough to be able to judge right and wrong to aptly decide what is most just.

Very little of life is black and white, yes or no, right or left. There are other and, usually, better choices. Don't be afraid to THINK!

You are insecure and afraid of committement.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dmp
You are insecure and afraid of committement.

Not to mention being morally bankrupt if not able to commit to defining right and wrong.

 

[Avatar4321]

Dont delude yourself. You have already chosen your side. Against the American people in favor of Socialism.

Fact is we live in a very clear world. Our options are black and white here. We either fight terrorism, or die. We either fight Neocommunism or die. Our freedom is being threatened everywhere and If you havent made a choice to which side you are going to support you are going to walked all over. The fact is there is no middle ground.

You either support freedom or you dont.

You either support limited government or you dont.

You either support gay marriage or you dont.

You either support abortion or you dont.

You either support retaining our soviergnty or support handing it to the UN.

Thats just a few issues that come to mind. There is no middle ground here.

No one blindly supports any party or person. But anyone who doesnt have an opinion on issues is either ignorant or dishonest. There is nothing noble about being indecisive. There is nothing noble in going with whatever group seems popular at the time.

Ironicly, despite your statements a recent survey has come out showing that partisans have a greater knowledge of the issues, which is exactly why there are partisans to begin with! They know what issues they believe in and which party supports those issues.

 

[NewGuy]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4953

"jeffperkinstech
Junior Member

Registered: Apr 2004
Location: MN...for now
Posts: 27
Oh I know and I was just messin' with you back. (Don't worry, my mom wouldn't have done anything!)"



Folks, keep in mind the potential age group we are working with.

 

[Hobbit]

Once again, your attitude is condescending, assumptious, and very much "holier-than-thou." We might take you seriously if you developed some manners. I, personally, agree with the Republican party a lot more than with the Democratic party, so I tend to support them more. I never simply "line up like a programmed, automaton (I'm not impressed by your big word), sheep." I see what I think about the issue, then take that stand.

On a side note, you criticize us for being sheep because we tend to agree with conservative/liberal values most of the time while you have your own ideas, but if we agreed with you, wouldn't that make us sheep?

Now, once and for all, stop insulting all of us and try to have a more civil conversation.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by jeffperkinstech
You know, there have been a few opportunities for me to attack Bush for not having retalliated for the 2000 bombing of a Navy ship docked in Yemen, even though I had seen something that said that Bush called off a planned strike in 2001 because Bush said, "..it happened on Clinton's watch." But I saw it on some private political site and it was pretty much hearsay at that point. I am glad I did not jump at that opportunity.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040409/ap_on_go_pr_wh/sept_11_commission_clinton_7

I do not blindly support any particular person or party. Some of those that I think have done a terrible job for the whole of our nation, don't do EVERYTHING wrong and those that I feel that have done a good job for the country do not do everything right. In fact, I think it is very easy to disqualify the opinions of those that either support everything that is done and said by a particular person or entity, and, conversely, destruct every point of a particular individual or party. RARELY does anyone get it all right or wrong folks. So take a look at your posts people. Are you injecting truth into the world or are you just propergating more lies?

Do any of you care?

I look at each argument individually as a logical argument. I don't believe in attempting to disqualify the entirety of an individual based on his patterns of belief, like you seem so proud of doing. Frankly, I don't believe you could deconstruct the point at the top of your own head.

 

[jeffperkinstech]

Do you mean picking up where Clinton fucked up? What response did Clinton have for the 93 Trade Center bombing? What did HE do in response to the USS Cole?

I see SO many of your posts JimNYC and do you know why I RARELY respond to any of them? Because they are the stupid droolings of an intellectual midget. I'll use this post to illustrate my point. You wrote 3 sentences and said, at least, 5 stupid things. Now that's talent!

ONE: You say that it is Bill Clinton's fault that terrorists piloted a floating bomb into the USS Cole. Ok then, by that logic, it is then George Bush's fault that terrorists flew commercial airliners as missiles into the Trade Center and Pentagon. Wouldn't you agree? No? Oh. I'm enlightened to see that they hypocracy and duplicity of the GOP leadership is shared by thier GOPhers.

TWO: Are you insinuating that Bush shouldn't have done anything since it was on Clintons watch? I sure hope, a little puzzy boy like you gets, somehow forced or tricked into the Military and you gets killed near the time of the 'cusp' of a new Presidential Administration and no action is taken to make sure your death wasn't in vein. If you subscribe to such non-sense thinking you should fall victim to it.

THREE: Authorities have found, captured, prosecuted and incarcerated most of the masterminds behind the '93 Trade Center bombing. Did you sleep through the last decade?

FOUR: Clinton did not do anything about the USS Cole. The link I posted talked about that. IT WAS THE VERY CRUX OF THE POINT OF MY POST!!!!! Clinton talked about not retaliating for the bombing of the USS Cole (since you didn't read it, or understand it or something) because the intelligence did not conclusively point to Al-Queda while he was in office. I can't abide by that story. There must have, at least been a 'purponderance of evidence' at the time he was still in office, and he should have used what he had for en excusse for a strike. Even if, afterward, it turned out they didn't do it...could the final results be bad anyway you go about it? We still hit an enemy that had struck us before and will try to continue to do so.

FIVE: I admit assuming this, but it's not like you don't give me AMPLE reason to do so....You sound as if Clinton never did anything to terrorists, Al-Queda or Osama Bin Ladin. He only tried to kill Osama Bin Ladin 3 times, made 2 bombing strikes on Al-Queda strong holds and coreographed a multi-national task force from the various international police agencies to track and disable the Al-Queda network through a multi-tude of ways. A system that NEVER EXISTED until Clinton took power.

See why I don't respond to many of your posts? I don't have the time to constantly respond to all your illogical falisies and B.S.

 

[NewGuy]

I see SO many of your posts JimNYC and do you know why I RARELY respond to any of them? Because they are the stupid droolings of an intellectual midget. I'll use this post to illustrate my point. You wrote 3 sentences and said, at least, 5 stupid things. Now that's talent!

This is going to get good.

 

[Hobbit]

Originally posted by jeffperkinstech
I see SO many of your posts JimNYC and do you know why I RARELY respond to any of them? Because they are the stupid droolings of an intellectual midget. I'll use this post to illustrate my point. You wrote 3 sentences and said, at least, 5 stupid things. Now that's talent!

ONE: You say that it is Bill Clinton's fault that terrorists piloted a floating bomb into the USS Cole. Ok then, by that logic, it is then George Bush's fault that terrorists flew commercial airliners as missiles into the Trade Center and Pentagon. Wouldn't you agree? No? Oh. I'm enlightened to see that they hypocracy and duplicity of the GOP leadership is shared by thier GOPhers.

TWO: Are you insinuating that Bush shouldn't have done anything since it was on Clintons watch? I sure hope, a little puzzy boy like you gets, somehow forced or tricked into the Military and you gets killed near the time of the 'cusp' of a new Presidential Administration and no action is taken to make sure your death wasn't in vein. If you subscribe to such non-sense thinking you should fall victim to it.

THREE: Authorities have found, captured, prosecuted and incarcerated most of the masterminds behind the '93 Trade Center bombing. Did you sleep through the last decade?

FOUR: Clinton did not do anything about the USS Cole. The link I posted talked about that. IT WAS THE VERY CRUX OF THE POINT OF MY POST!!!!! Clinton talked about not retaliating for the bombing of the USS Cole (since you didn't read it, or understand it or something) because the intelligence did not conclusively point to Al-Queda while he was in office. I can't abide by that story. There must have, at least been a 'purponderance of evidence' at the time he was still in office, and he should have used what he had for en excusse for a strike. Even if, afterward, it turned out they didn't do it...could the final results be bad anyway you go about it? We still hit an enemy that had struck us before and will try to continue to do so.

FIVE: I admit assuming this, but it's not like you don't give me AMPLE reason to do so....You sound as if Clinton never did anything to terrorists, Al-Queda or Osama Bin Ladin. He only tried to kill Osama Bin Ladin 3 times, made 2 bombing strikes on Al-Queda strong holds and coreographed a multi-national task force from the various international police agencies to track and disable the Al-Queda network through a multi-tude of ways. A system that NEVER EXISTED until Clinton took power.

See why I don't respond to many of your posts? I don't have the time to constantly respond to all your illogical falisies and B.S.

First, another spelling lesson (not to be condescending, but my mom's an English teacher and bad spelling irritates me): fallacies.

Okay, time to refute the five points made to attack somebody else. Am I not altruistic?

One: I see nothing in his posts to indicate he though it was Clinton's fault the Cole got bombed. It seems to me that he's criticizing Clinton for not retaliating. Al-Qaida claimed responsibility for that one. We should've gone after them hard and fast. Bush may not have retaliated immediately, but that's because he had to pull his administration together and get a plan to go after Al-Qaida.

Two: Of course he isn't, but Bush had to pull together his administration first. Immediately launching a military action the day you take office is like trying to shoot somebody with a poorly assembled gun. The whole thing's gonna fall apart. There were already plans in place, they just got bumped up the priority list when 9-11 happened.

Three: One of them hid in Iraq, yet the only thing Clinton did to them was throw a couple of bombs at empty tents to draw attention away from Lewinsky. Yes, he went after them, but he didn't put much effort into it.

Four: But in your first post, you indicate that you would've attacked Bush for not retaliating. So, who's your target? Is it Bush or Clinton or are you an employee at John Kerry's Waffle House?

Five: Clinton had Osama in his sights but didn't fire. He bombed a few empty terrorist training camps and an aspirin factory. Sudan offered Osama to Clinton three times and he turned them down. How is that tough on Al-Qaida?

Once again, your condescending attitude and assumption of your own self-righteousness have discredited an otherwise fair debate. I see your points, and, though I disagree with you, I have tried to give them a fair shake-down, then refute them with logic and facts of my own. However, when then entire point of your post is to show how somebody else is a stupid, illogical, lying idiot, it discredits you. Now come down out of that ivory tower of yours so we can have a decent discussion instead of you calling everybody an idiot and us then rebutting your claims and pointing out your incredible arrogance.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by jeffperkinstech
I see SO many of your posts JimNYC and do you know why I RARELY respond to any of them? Because they are the stupid droolings of an intellectual midget. I'll use this post to illustrate my point. You wrote 3 sentences and said, at least, 5 stupid things. Now that's talent!

ONE: You say that it is Bill Clinton's fault that terrorists piloted a floating bomb into the USS Cole

Hey you stupid waste of sperm - read things AGAIN..

Nobody said Bubby was RESPONSIBLE - Clinton is NOT being blamed for 'letting it happen'; he's being pointed at for 'Failing to RESPOND IN KIND' to what happened.

You are worthless.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by Hobbit
Is it Bush or Clinton or are you an employee at John Kerry's Waffle House?

Hey don't associate The Undertaker with the best place for cheap greasy eatin!

 

[Hobbit]

To check out a cool t-shirt, click here.

 

[NewGuy]

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Oh man.......thats just wrong!!!

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by jeffperkinstech
I see SO many of your posts JimNYC and do you know why I RARELY respond to any of them? Because they are the stupid droolings of an intellectual midget. I'll use this post to illustrate my point. You wrote 3 sentences and said, at least, 5 stupid things. Now that's talent!

Not what I'd say to the board admin, but then again, you never admitted to being smart...