True; but the blue areas are quarentined, and soon it will be disposed of in Canada. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 15%
Printable View
True; but the blue areas are quarentined, and soon it will be disposed of in Canada. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 15%
or maybe that liberals congregate in blue safe spots and vote liberal 10 to 1, well most of the country is well balanced.Quote:
Originally Posted by scroff
EDIT: Counties are supposed to be balanced be population as equal as possible within states...your empty spot theory doesn't hold.
ROFL!!!!!!!! Funny you should say that!Quote:
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
http://www.anywhichway.net/images1/jl.jpg
lol...Quote:
Originally Posted by scroff
jesusland....has a ring to it :D
I smell a christophobe...
well you got four years to make em pure red
but please remember one thing -they where never 100%
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v47/zedaxax/EL.jpg
Looks like there still alot of convincing to do
No, in all due respect; I really would never want a pure Republican country; only one party in power is dangerous, and the total collapse of the democratic party that once had firm ideals and innovative ideas makes me a little nervous...but not too much so...
Liberals vote liberal 10 to 1??Quote:
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
Are you out of your mind? The population of New York city alone is over 8,000,000 in 320 square miles....Quote:
EDIT: Counties are supposed to be balanced be population as equal as possible within states...your empty spot theory doesn't hold.
The population of Arizona is a little over 5,000,000 in about 2000 square miles.
People can live in whatever county they want, there's no "balancing"... you're confused with districts.
BTW, when you signing up? http://www.anywhichway.net/images/sm...hickensean.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
Respect - thank you i thought you where...
you may now continue without any agression on my behalf
have a nice day ;)
You have a republican administration that's hardly republican, they spend like drunken sailors and have increased the size of the federal governmant by over 40%, they've involved themselves in nation building and are trying to involve the federal government in your daily life... doesn't sound like the republican party I grew up with.Quote:
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
Quote:
Originally Posted by scroff
thats why I said within STATES.
though I think you might be right about the mixup between counties and districts....
and BTW: Would you ever sign up? don't bother asking if you can't back up anything.
When the "followers of christ" are trying to make laws based on their bible, I'm a proud christophobe.Quote:
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
Keep your bible off my laws.
Four years in the US Marine Corps manny... you?Quote:
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
http://www.anywhichway.net/images/sm...hickensean.jpg
Were I of age, I would join up because I support the troops. I wouldn't sit home all safe and warm.
I believe Scrogg is an ex-Marine....Quote:
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
Next?
Crap :blushing:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Apologies.
I have explained my position to Vid; if he is willing to share what I wrote; your free to ask him, I give him permission.
Don't apologize to me, or to Rat... apologize to the guys your age that are in Fallujah today. Apologize to these guys... I'm sure they'll let you off the hook.Quote:
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
I believe I saw it, you found it warming that other guys your age were leaving their families and jobs and carreers and educations... I remember, I even replied in a general way...Quote:
I have explained my position to Vid; if he is willing to share what I wrote; your free to ask him, I give him permission.
Did it ever occur to you, to any young man or woman sitting in their living room, not just you manny, that some of those guys might want to get home and have a beer with their friends, or maybe see their children, or maybe just get on with life, like you are? Has it crossed your mind that if all the young chickenhawks were to enlist you might be able to show some appreciation for their sacrifice by taking their place for a time, thereby letting some of them enjoy the fruits of their labors? Or do you just think selfishly about your "occupation" and your family and your "security"? Unless you're physically unable to serve, you belong in the military right now if you are of age and "support the war effort". Otherwise you're a hypocrite and a coward... in other words, a chickenhawk
Hypothetical question, manny... what would you do if they start up the draft... all it would take is an executive order. There's no need for any new bills to pass, the draft was suspended, not ended. So what would you do? Where would you go to protect your "occupation", to improve your situation in life?
http://www.anywhichway.net/pd/images/bushtwin.jpg
You did not read what I wrote, because I wrote it in PM.Quote:
Originally Posted by scroff
I think that you mistake the motives of the majority in the military. Do they "just think selfishly about their "occupation" and their family and their security" by joining the armed forces? Because surely that is exactly their motives for doing such. Their only requirement (and I plagerize this from family members and other servicemen in Iraq) is that if they die they die with the honor and respect of successfully serving their country.
I completely grasp that those willing in Iraq right now take my place and fight for me. A draft will not come; but if such a thing arose you can be sure that I would not hesitate to join.
The proposition offered leaves a thick distaste in my mouth because it is inferred that I do not take the sacrifices of our soldiers lightly. I have had close friends serve, and in fact die in Iraq (a precious few in America have not) and their service does not carry lightly with me in conjunction with my viewpoints. If I did not believe that the sacrifices of our military is the only thing that keeps us from much further bloodshed of not only us, but of others, I would not hold the positions I do now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
Sound familiar? You may have sent a PM, but this is what I'm referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by manny
I wasn't referring to the troops. I was referring to young chickenhawks' motives for not having the opportunity to "die with the honor and respect of successfully serving their country", not the troops reasons for joining. I was referring to young chickenhawks cheerleading from the sidelines while young men get dismantled in Iraq, but not being willing to put their own ass on the line.Quote:
I think that you mistake the motives of the majority in the military. Do they "just think selfishly about their "occupation" and their family and their security" by joining the armed forces? Because surely that is exactly their motives for doing such. Their only requirement (and I plagerize this from family members and other servicemen in Iraq) is that if they die they die with the honor and respect of successfully serving their country.
They wouldn't understand, because they're chickenhawks.
I thought you said they join out of selfish reasons, make up your mind... either they're there to improve their quality of life or they're there to fight for you...Quote:
I completely grasp that those willing in Iraq right now take my place and fight for me.
Why wait for a draft? If you would not hesitate to join when you think you'll be forced to, why wait?Quote:
A draft will not come; but if such a thing arose you can be sure that I would not hesitate to join.
Actions speak louder, in this case, much louder, than words.Quote:
The proposition offered leaves a thick distaste in my mouth because it is inferred that I do not take the sacrifices of our soldiers lightly.
I see. So you'll even sit on your ass while your friends die in Iraq. How big of you. They still have a buddy system don't they?Quote:
I have had close friends serve, and in fact die in Iraq (a precious few in America have not) and their service does not carry lightly with me in conjunction with my viewpoints.
What does that have to do with you signing up? You can hold those positions just as firmly in Fallujah, where you'll actually be doing something besides talking. It's so nice that you have that belief, but it doesn't help get a Guardsman home for the holidays.Quote:
If I did not believe that the sacrifices of our military is the only thing that keeps us from much further bloodshed of not only us, but of others, I would not hold the positions I do now.
Young men and women are doing two and three tours in the Middle East and receiving stop-loss orders because young chickenhawks would rather sit home and talk about how much they respect and support the troops than be one.
I know you're just a kid, and I don't want to get into an argument where you become the focus. These are my beliefs... if you're of age and believe this "war" is a just war, if you think we're doing the right thing in Iraq and that it's good that we're there, if you say you "support the troops", then you had better be ready to suit up. You obviously believe it's ok that others fight in your place. I could never live with myself.
I would like to state here that in my original "debate" with Manny i was trying to make him see something that i had to endure during campaign visits from young republicans spouting the greatness of this particular war and a kind of double standard i raised to them being of age yet being totally unwilling to stand for their beliefs.
HOWEVER I don't want the USA to send one more person to their death..on either side. I am not ignoring the fact that Iraq happened, we made the mess we must clean it up... i am purely stating what i would like...and i would like it to stop.
I would like our government to stop using our children, our brothers and sisters, our mothers and fathers, our families and our friends as weaopns or tools to clean up after they failed to do their job properly in the first place.
I don't actually want Manny to join up and risk being killed, i was making a point...people tend to think harder and more balanced when they have something at stake personaly.
I don't accept this blanket support from the sidelines, but i do also understand why it is this way. I don't blame the "cheerleaders" for being this way, i blame society for raising them thus. But what is the alternative? do we want to end up like Japan used to be? where the men followed the Emporer blindly and it was their duty to die for him. where it was considered shame to be captured and death was the only honourable escape from that shame.
So i say that dispite my "irritation" at these "cheerleaders". i am glad they have the sense to be this way because i dred to think what America would be doing to the world if they weren't this way.
The reality is that there are 138,000 or more young men and women in Iraq today. This isn't about society, or the present government, or right or wrong. It's not about serving the country. It's about the kids that are in Iraq. It's about caring enough about them to be willing to give them a break by joining up. It's about not seeing them as "troops" or "Guardsmen" or "Marines" but as kids who want to come home. This is about someone saying they support the war, but not enough to go fight it, to let someone else do it. It's about being willing to perpetuate the war effort, but not participate. It's about sharing a burden with other young kids. If there are 200,000 young chickenhawks in this country that signed up, that would be that many kids who get to come home to see their babies, their wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, who don't get a second tour, who don't get stop-loss orders, who don't get extended.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I agree with your philosophy. This is reality.
that's why i put thisQuote:
Originally Posted by scroff
i shouldn't have to repeat all my last posts on "the reality" if i am making a point of what i "would like".Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
i don't want more volunteers to give the troops a break...i want the troops out of there......philosophy
we can't do that yet....reality
Although I understand why Ruthie and Scroff are disappointed it is perhaps too easy to be become overly depressed. Looking from the outside, with admittedly the knowledge that the result has an extremely limited impact on this side of the Atlantic, I offer the following observations.
Kerry did not so much lose this election as GW won through convincing people to go out and vote. I am sure that if Kerry had been told he would get 55m votes prior to the election he would have been overjoyed (when was the last time a Democrat got that many votes?) The Democrats read the runes correctly, their vote was solid and growing. It is just that GW mobilised a greater support. The reasons for this can be analysed in slower time. The Democrats should in my opinion not beat themselves up too much. Despite the dire warnings, rumours of war and fears of homeland security, close on 50% of the country remained resolutely Liberal. There is lot to build on. It is also sometimes almost as easy to get the society you want whilst in opposition as it is in power. :)
The next four years should be interesting (albeit perhaps in a Chinese sort of way).
But i dont want, and i dont want my kids, to live in Interesting Times...
I disagree on the impact of Bush's election on this side of the Atlantic.. Everything that happens in Washington and New York, has quite a large effect in Europe.
If it didnt, i really wouldnt give 2 monkeys...
I dont know the names of the Heads of State in most of Europe.. and truthfully, i'd be hard put to name more than 10 MP's (Including the Cabinet) without looking them up..
They dont affect me as much imho...
You don't, vidcc. I got your point. I agreed with your point. I was stressing mine. My apologies if that goes against some kind of board etiquette.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I agree. 55,000,000 people not only voted for a liberal democrat, but the number one most liberal senator in congress (if you believe the Bush camp). Not only that, but he was a Massachusetts liberal democrat to boot. (next to satan, there's nothing worse)Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
What will be interesting is to see how far Bush will push his agenda. This decade could make the sixties look like the fifties. :cool:
perhaps it's because it is in "type", but it seemed to me because of the "reality" post after quoting me, you think i have no grip on the reality of the situation..... i am VERY aware of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by scroff
no harm done to either side i hope :)
No harm at all. There's not much I feel stronger about than the whole chickenhawk thing, so I did go over the top a bit. It wasn't directed at you. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
It's a simple life
I don't talk politics, but I figured I could ask a couple friends who they voted for.
They said "Bush" emphatically.
Why?
Money, I keep more of the money I earn.
What about Iraq and other issues?
Listen, politicians do 2 things: lie and waste money. I vote for the guy who takes less money from me.
That was it, story end.
That is why Bush won, I think many people think as they do. Bush taxes less, done deal.
A simple life.
I have heard this as well from a couple of my doctor friends and some that own businesses. Ironically those that voted for him were all white except one and he was Republican anyway. Actually shit, they are all Republican. :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
I guess their vote wasn't surprising. Evil votes I tell you...evil. None of them btw used their tax breaks to create more jobs. Even they knew that was bullshit. :lol: :lol:
Sorry for the delay, situations deemed impossible to reply, and I honestly forgot until I noticed scroffs signature...Quote:
Originally Posted by scroff
Aa vid has made clear, the lesson that "rich white boys" do not effecively consider the lives of our military...and that very well be true. Scroff's antagonizing, though, spurrs me to point a few things out.
Since you are vehemently against the U.S. being in Iraq, will you go to ease casualty loss, rebuild Iraqi infactructure, or possibly fight the U.S. forces in Iraq? (I don't think that you have stated such sentiments, but others here had revealed that if they were in Iraq, they would fight the military). The same relinquishments that you ask of me are made to you. If no such actions are taken, I see your objectives not in stemming military casualties, but to politicize them for your agenda's benefit.
You obviously feel strongly about military losses, as do I. But in my viewpoint (just as you see me taking military losses for granted), can you sympathize with over 4000,000 men woman, and children executed and thrown in mass graves? Are their lives not worth something? These people are innocently sloughtered, yet there is no subsequent action from a liberal vantage point. Maybe as you see my carelessness for our Military dead, I see yours of Iraqi civilians dead.
You see explicit American corruption, and are against it; yet, do you seee the distrucive policies of a dictator as I do? as you think I turn a blind eye towards invading Iraq, I see you turning a blind eye toward a regime that otherwise would be entrenched in the middle east for ages as it passed down to his murderous sons.
My thoughts...yelp all you want.
Yet so many of those killed were not executed during Liberal Governments. The bulk of Saddam's extremes occurred under Reagan, Thatcher and Bush senior - not Clinton, Major and Blair. Little was said by the Reagan administration when Saddam gassed the Kurds.
Saddam's regime was an unpleasant one, but his worst days were well over ten years ago.
With regards the fighting - it is inevitable. No one likes to see foreign troops telling people what to do - even if your own Government are shits. Can you imagine US citizens taking kindly to Arab troops manning road blocks in the US even if they had come to help out topple a dictatorship (Peewee Herman having seized control). Even with the best will, the honeymoon period after liberation wears thin very quickly. In Iraq there was very little good will to start with.
I can appreciate those thoughts...
Until i remember who supported Hussain in the 1st place, and also that the UK/USA have caused more deaths of innocent civilians since the end of Desert Storm, than Saddam did in his whole tenere as Dictator.
It then comes to mind that the only reason Saddam actually invaded Kuwait at that time in the 1st place; was that he had received assurances, from the USA, that the USA didnt care about any "Purely Arabian War", when he consulted them about his plans beforehand...
There were very few casualties on either side during that Invasion... until the unexpected response from the USA and the rest of the world, which sort of set of a chain reaction inside that country.
Kuwait's Human Rights Record prior to the Invasion were no better than Iraq's, with frequent instances of Disappearances, Political Prisoners and foreigners being Jailed in Deportation Centres and Tortured for upto 5 years prior to deportation for the crime of not having the money to pay for their own Deportation...
Strange then, that one was favoured over the other...
Sorry but you just echo company lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
You claim great rationale for being in Iraq is for the Iraqi people. Were you claiming this many years ago?
If Bush hadn't made a stink about WMD would you still want this ground war in Iraq?
Just the fact that you mentioned mass graves makes me think of the spineless followers of Republican rhetoric. Mass graves have been there like for awhile now. You mention it because your party leadership mentions it right now to save face.
There is a picture in a DC subway car of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam from years ago. Had you been alive then I'm sure this was okay but omg now it's not because we er...HAVE TO FREE THE IRAQI PEOPLE.
:dry: Puh....leeze.
Oh but then you see..we had too...er...FREE THE KUWAITI PEOPLE!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
what did i make clear ????????Quote:
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
As to your arguement that as scoff is anti war he should go fight for the other side.... why?, he is American, he doesn't want to fight against his own countrymen that have been ordered without choice into conflict, the idea is simply beyond contempt.
The only reason i don't want more cheerleeders to volunteer is because this incumbant would take it as a mandate to continue to invade any other country he doesn't like. At least with the sideline supporters not joining up he is limited by manpower.
Didn't work then, huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Still seems to be an Absolute Monarchy with a bad Human Rights Record :rolleyes:
There have been other replies that I agree with in response to yours, and I really don't want to rehash the chickenhawk posts... Thanks to the folks who answered in my absence :cool:
I already did, it's your turn.Quote:
Originally Posted by manny
As far as what do I, or liberals, care about the Iraqis... we, or should I say I, believe there was a peaceful process that could have been carried out to achieve the same results, I would say better results, had not Bush been in such an all fired rush to war.
I am a proud member of Veterans for Peace, a liberal veterans' group. While I will grant you that I have never been to Iraq, VfP has been in Iraq since 1999 working to rebuild water treatment plants. What has any conservative group done prior to Bush's illegal invasion of a soveriegn nation? (you know, those people who care so much for the Iraqis that they'll kill untold thousands of them)
This website says it all for me
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/
Damn that site has 166 pages of people apologizing because Bush won the election. Thats neat. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallace_Askew
I voted against Bush,but I'll be damned if I'll apologise because he won.
We had a election,someone won...period