| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Knock it off! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 21 2004, 10:02 AM (884 Views) | |
| ImpulseEngine | May 21 2004, 10:02 AM Post #1 |
|
Admiral
|
I was reading this article. (Sorry, you have to register unless you go there from Google as I did.) The article is about Bush's trip to Capitol Hill to restoreRepublican confidence about the Iraq situation. Here's an excerpt that prompted my post:
I am sick and tired of the cheap BS rhetoric coming from the right! :angry: If you opposed the war, you're "unpatriotric". If you speak out against the way Bush handles things in Iraq, you must shut up because "you're helping the terrorists". What utter BS! Let's be objective for a moment. Let's not talk about what IS, but instead just hypothetically. Let's say HYPOTHETICALLY, that Bush's handling of Iraq really is incompetent. That would mean that we had better fix it or THAT INCOMPETENCE itself might aid the terrorists. But, if that was the situation, dissenters are being asked to shut up and NOT fix it... So now who would be aiding terrorists? The bottom line: There is disagreement over decisions like whether to go to war and what is best for rebuilding Iraq. EVERYONE (with possibly a few exceptions on both sides of the political spectrum) wants to do what is in the best interest of the U.S. and Iraq. So why don't we, as a country, talk about what is best and knock off these cheap, useless, and counterproductive accusations of anti-patriotism and aiding terrorists. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | May 21 2004, 10:09 AM Post #2 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Here ! Here ! Not to mention if you are not an American - then you are Anti-American (or worse !). Like you said .... what a load of bull dust !!! Mind you - not being an American - I couldn't care less what's in the interests of the USA. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 8247 | May 21 2004, 10:13 AM Post #3 |
|
Apparently we look like this now
|
Well then shut the hell up about it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 21 2004, 10:16 AM Post #4 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Personally, I'm tired of the same UNPROVEN rhetoric coming from the left. Liberals are ONLY concerned with regaining power, and if they drag the United States through the mud to do so, then so be it. How soon do we forget the inflammatory remarks of Ted "The Traitor" Kennedy, who recently made the OUT-FU**ING-RAGEOUS comment that Saddam's torture chambers are now under American management? THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISAGREEMENT AND WORKING TO OVERTHROW A DULY ELECTED GOVERNMENT, and this is what I think the left is doing. Yes, I do question the patriotism of Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry. Their comments have passed dissent and gone into sedition. (I know this thread is going to be a flamefest already) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 21 2004, 10:17 AM Post #5 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Then just shut up and go away, troll. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | May 21 2004, 10:31 AM Post #6 |
|
Admiral
|
B---S---!
Sorry Admiral, but you are now doing the same thing with "the left" that you have been accusing Somerled of doing with the U.S. And I don't find it anymore acceptable. :angry: These are just useless, inflammatory, counterproductive accusations because you are anti-left. Not to mention false... Edit: Upon rereading this that last sentence may be misunderstood. "False" refers to the accusations, not to AB. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 8247 | May 21 2004, 10:37 AM Post #7 |
|
Apparently we look like this now
|
Impulse, I respect what you said in the wedding party thread. It is just so damn frustrating to see all this anti Bush/America propaganda in the "non partisan" media day after day. You see more anti left here because, we really dont get the whole story like were supposed to. Heres the rule as it seems...If it will hurt Bush, RUN THE STORY. If it will help him, BURY IT. Nick Berg is history now. Who's Nick Berg? But the prisoner "abuse" photos are still big news. The sarin gas was barely even mentioned, and then, they dis credited it by calling it "a minimal amount" I dont even recall hearing the foiled Jordan WMD attack even mentioned in the main stream news. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 21 2004, 10:40 AM Post #8 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Note that I said "this is what I think the left is doing." That is my opinion. But, explain away Teddy Kennedy's comments over the past three months. They have been out and out lies (we discussed my calling him a traitor in another thread). John Kerry can't pick something and stick to it. Nancy Pelosi has access to the same data the president does and makes outlandish FALSE statements. I'm not anti-left, I am pro-America. I supported Clinton when he initially went into Yugoslavia. I supported NAFTA and welfare reform (both signed by Clinton). The pre-9/11 world is gone, but the other side of the aisle refuses to believe it, so people like Ted the Red are willing to LIE about it. The left whines about our liberties being taken away under the USA PATRIOT Act, yet then whines that not enough was done to "prevent" 9/11 from happening. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. As I said, there IS a difference between disagreeing about an issue and using all the power you have to make it fail. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | May 21 2004, 10:40 AM Post #9 |
|
Admiral
|
That's too bad. I'm not Australian, but I DO care about what's in Australia's interests because I care about the world as a whole. Sorry Somerled, but you're guilty of the same BS rhetoric, just different words and a different side of the coin. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | May 21 2004, 10:51 AM Post #10 |
|
Admiral
|
I agree about the emphasis of the media, but not necessarily about its motives. We are a nation that frowned upon terrorism and said we were going to do better for the people in Iraq. People were outraged to find out that we were abusing prisoners - exactly the opposite of our perceived activities there. They were also outraged about Nick Berg. The difference is that the first was not expected, but the second was. Therefore, the media's perception of what the people want to hear more about is the prisoner abuse. Are they correct? I don't know. But they're in business to make money so they play what they think people want to watch. It's not about politics, it's about business. But the media wasn't what I was talking about with this post. I'm talking about politicians and influential people accusing "the left" (not a couple of specific members of the left) of aiding terrorists. It's the same low type of accusation as the one about opposers of the war being "unpatriotic". |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 21 2004, 10:59 AM Post #11 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
The acts of a select few do not indict the entire force, in the case of prisoner "abuse" (Sorry, I still call this hazing.). If there was so much outrage over Nick Berg, then where is the wall-to-wall coverage? I actually heard comments (fortunately not here) of "Mercenary got what he deserved." I do disagree that it being about money than politics. My reasoning is that network news has been suffering from viewership declines for years. Major newspapers have experienced losses in circulation. Why? Because they are turning off viewers/readers. Explain the rapid rise of Internet news or even Fox? As for accusations of being unpatriotic, when you have pictures of the president surrounded by swastikas (it doesn't matter which one), or burn a US flag at your protest, THAT is being unpatriotic. Let's see what else... teachers making their elementary school students write the Bush White House to tell him "No blood for oil"... that is unpatriotic. Booing Boy Scouts carrying the flag into your convention is unpatriotic... ...and so it goes |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | May 21 2004, 11:01 AM Post #12 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Impulse: Do you really ? - that's nice. Bill: You might call this hazing - a practice which I also believe to be outlawed in your military (well in the ADF it is), but this was not soldierly rough and tumble to establish the pecking order - this was sadistic torture - and more people were involved than have currently been hauled in front of general and special courtsmarsial as scape-goats for higher ranked people. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | May 21 2004, 11:05 AM Post #13 |
|
Admiral
|
Ted Kennedy is not "the left". "Lies", in your opinion. And yes, we discussed it already and I still think the accusation of "traitor" is silly. I'm not sure what you mean, but the point doesn't seem all that important to this discussion anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong. Name one and prove to me that it's false. I'm not convinced. But the left are not Anti-America, they are pro-America. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | May 21 2004, 12:00 PM Post #14 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response:
Unless you believe that a President exists who could have accomplished the mission without a single death to our troops or any cost to the taxpapers, I think this one qualifies. At best it's vacant political rhetoric. End of Personal Opinion |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | May 21 2004, 12:03 PM Post #15 |
|
Admiral
|
Sorry Wichita, but a statement that starts out with "I believe..." can't be false. Vacant political rhetoric? Maybe. That depends on exactly what she has formed her opinion on. Edit: People often speak carelessly and what they say doesn't necessarily equate with what they mean. I doubt very seriously that she meant without a single death or any cost to the taxpapers. I interpreted her statement to mean that many deaths have been needless and could have been avoided. And the cost could have been much less. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



8:54 AM Jul 11