A stand-alone quote that means absolutely nothing.

Brilliant.

Well, there were also enough jingoistic morons to elect hitler. Many of them also appeared to take delight in the deaths of others too.

Yeah, but Hitler killed jews, when jews weren't killing innocent Germans.

We're (trying to) kill terrorists, when terrorists are killing innocent Americans... Or did you miss the Trade Center thing? ;)


I love this quote, but I can't remember who it was that said it... heck, it might as well be me...

"I like George W Bush. He gets out of bed, his feet hit the floor, he scratches his balls and says 'let's kill us some f&*^in terrorists!'".


I particularly liked the 'riflemen' shirt. I'm gonna have to get one of those. You know, so you know which right wing gun owning nuts NOT to mess with. ;)

The last time I checked bush's actions have killed tens of thousands of people who are not guilty of terrorism, but that doesn't seem to bother most of the bush-war lovers.

Muslim = terrorist as far as most of them are concerned, much like how the hitler lovers concidered every jew and german dissident to be an enemy of the state that needed to be disposed of.

"Tens of thousands"! Of innocent people?! I'd like a little support of that one. I know these political threads are about 90% BS that people get off of the top of their head, but come on.

Also, with the earlier insinuation that Bush is not the right man for the job of eliminating the terrorist thread, you're saying Kerry was?! No doubt if you ask him he "Had a plan" to catch OBL in one day, using a coalition of nations all holding hands as they walk across the desert singing We Are the World, but please, don't try to pass that off as reality. Kerry would have attempted to form a larger coalition of nations, the attempt would have failed because nearly every industrialized country that isn't already helping us came out BEFORE the election stating that they wouldn't help the US in Afganistan or Iraq, regardless of who was the president. After Kerry's coalition failed, he would have began his withdrawl from Iraq and Afganistan, throwing both countires into total anarchy. I'm not trying to claim that GW has managed to make Iraq into Orange County, but it would be tough to argue that those people are not better off now.

Guys- it's pointless.

I've yet to meet a liberal I could actually debate. I try to explore one issue, and all they do is jump from one liner to one liner, issue to issue, or even engage in personal attack. I think its because many lack a deep understanding of any of the issues, and are only regurgitating the one line of anti-american propoganda they heard last. I would think a deeper understanding of any of the issues would require more logical thought patterns, and would ultimately lead to a more centrist or right wing view. ;-)

Sure, if it's logical to you that I'm like Hitler because I'd like to see my tax dollars exterminating Islamic extremists- ok. Kind of a simplistic view of the world, eh?

Tens of thousands of innocent people? Sure man- our soldiers are the best in the world because they shoot anything that moves. You should be ashamed. Our countrymen are sacrificing everything far from home and you insinuate they are on a rampage over there.

Its ok to not agree with war. What civilized person does? Of course we'd all like the peace and security of 1 global nation, but this planet is the wrong place and the wrong time for that...

-Peace-

Hey now, I tested "liberal" a couple of months ago. I'm definitely on the road to somewhere...

[QUOTE]
"Tens of thousands"! Of innocent people?! I'd like a little support of that one. I know these political threads are about 90% BS that people get off of the top of their head, but come on.

Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
Min
21447

Max
24324

http://www.iraqbodycount.net

I've yet to meet a liberal I could actually debate.


Not that he necessarily engages in public debates that I know of, but Noam Chomsky would more than adequately address each of the liberal "faults" you mentioned. Quite possible the most informed and intelligent person alive today.

That number says little.

How many were killed by Iraqi's trying to shoot/bomb us? I think our point was that WE weren't killing that many. How do we know they were all "innocent" anyways? Just because they didn't have a gun in their hand at the moment?

Besides- how many would have Saddam killed in the same time period? Even at that burn rate- we're still helping to preserve life!

How's it goin, eh?

Yes- but I've never met Noam Chomsky. It seems liberals should have more people among the masses that can debate, and not just the most informed and intelligent person alive today.

I'm not even all that smart- sure I have a Masters degree, but its from a Florida school!

:-)

Your points about the numbers are entirely valid - I doubt anyone could say what # of those were innocent, how innocent, etc. The point is they were civilians, and my point was simply addressing your request for some numbers to backup the "tens of thousands" figure. Even if a large percentage of Iraqi civilians killed by American military were less-than-innocent, the "innocent Iraqis" death toll would still far outweight those killed on Sept. 11. FWIW, those numbers came from the first site that came up on a google search for "Iraq death toll", or something like that.

Listen or read some of Chomsky's talks - transcripts and mp3s are pretty easy to find on the internet - lots of mp3s on Kazaa. Imagine Michael Moore without the propaganda, tear-jerking, bleeding heart, whatever you want to call it - just the facts, presented very logically, and always backed up with solid proof.

My experience is anybody who is deeply entrenched in their viewpoints, make crappy debaters, as they just spout rhetoric, stats, and meaningless quotes. This applies equally to liberals and conservatives. GWB is a master of empty rhetoric, as are most politicians. I do find most of Bush's speeches to be only rhetoric, and have very little content, perhaps worse than most other politicians, but we're splitting hairs here :-)

Christien-

Thanks for a clean, thoughtful, and logical reply.

I agree with you.

See guys- was that so hard?

Does this mean you might have found a liberal you can debate with? :D

Sorry, can't help stirring up s**t. I'm actually not a very good debater or arguer. Not that I get emotional, but I've got a terrible memory for backing up facts, saying "I don't remember how I know that, just trust me". Doesn't do much to add credibility to a point :-)

Of course that website seems to consider every Iraqi an innocent civilian and every death GWB's fault; but at least they take the time to look for real numbers instead of the "100s of thousands" quotes(?) so often thrown about.

Actually, I think it means that even a liberal, if he/she takes their time to really think it through, can express their point in an intelligent manner, without having to resort to the typical snotty-nosed, child-like rantings that we usually hear. Good on ya! ;)

Randy

I find debating with most left leaning people nearly impossible, because most of them think they are right (correct). You can't debate someone who thinks they are right.

Myself, I'm more centrist, but I do lean to the right. I own firearms, and I support the 2nd Amendment, and individual rights. I believe many people have differing views, and that's OK. I don't like it when anyone tries to force their views on anyone else, and that INCLUDES liberals try to change America with their 'progressiveness' AND the Religious Right trying to impose strict Christian beliefs.

I think that Iraq and Afghanistan are far better off than they would have been if we had not stepped it. I believe that, if left alone, Hussein would have continued to slaughter innocent Iraqis, simply because he felt like it. Or because he was paranoid. I also think that once the coast was clear, he would have pursued WMD. Once he had a few tactical size nukes, he wouldn't have to worry much about being invaded.

I think that the Taliban was a brutal, archaic institution of extreme interpretation of religious law, and violated the rights of the people living under it. People can practice Islam in freedom, and I support their right to, be it here or there.

All in all, I think the world is a better place now. I agree with Puppy, though. I think Kerry would have bungled it, pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and they BOTH would have then circled the drain into chaos, civil war and genocide.

And remember... aside from ending communism, facism, slavery and genocide... WAR NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING. ;)

I think you could just as accurately say this about people on the right, too, and not just the "moral majority". And really, wouldn't it be pointless to debate someone who thought they were wrong? :) I agree with your point, though.

I consider myself to be both right and left, and definitely not sitting on the fence. What I find most irritating is when someone clings dogmatically to beliefs because they consider themself left or right. Why does one have to be one or the other? Is it so hard to admit that both sides have good points, albeit not often on the same issue. Why can we not have a strong nation, a strong economy AND good social programs, human rights, religious/sexual/whatever freedoms? Why can we not look out for ourselves and our fellow men/nations/religions/etc? In fact, I don't see any way of having a strong country without social justice, and I don't see any way of having social justice without a strong country and economy.

A agree with you on pretty much all of that Christien.

It's just... 'the devil in the details' that ends up causing divisivness.

'social programs' to some might mean taxing the crap out of the rich to GIVE it to the poor... and to some it might mean job training and programs that help the less fortunate help themselves...

'justice' to some would mean the death penalty for violent killers, burning child molesters at the stake... and to others, it would be 'rehabilitation'

The devil truly is in the details. It would be tough to get such unity, because even though most of us are truly very centrist, the common ground is still too broad in some respects.

Amen to that - very well put, Matt.