|
|
Post by UncleVinny on Sept 5, 2004 12:35:03 GMT -5
I have a confession to make.
I surely don't believe bush is a nazi,
and I KNOW Republicans can be good, honest, intelligent people,
and I KNOW it's real easy for me to bait my opposition.
It's a cheap, quick, dishonest way to see who's a small-minded, emotional idiot, and who's stable and secure enough to mount a logical arguement.
I will confess I am very anti-Bush, not because I hate him, but because there IS evidence he is purposefully deceiving people. He edits the 9/11 commission report to exclude the references to the Saudi government - what for?  To protect his own oil interests.
Meanwhile, another, admittedly peripheral, issue is to do some his pro-war crimes and then try to cover it as Christian. If that got you riled, you don't want to read some of my other posts. To wit, with regard to 'irritation':
Let's see . . .
"Love your neighbor as yourself" whoops not there!
"Even as ye treat the least of these, my brothers . . ."
Whoops, not there either.
"He who dwells in Love, dwells in God, and God in him"
Whoo-eee! Not there either!
Maybe you should scour through the old testament and see if you can find something with "Smite" in it or "tribulation".
No you can forget that, I see there is the temple fit that you can use to justify the anger.  The real worry for me is that when you get so committed to one candidate that you REFUSE to see information that tends to contradict your image of him, then you go down that slippery slope of self-deception. Look at all the Neo-cons who refuse to watch any news except Fox. I watch Fox AND CNN, just to be sure I see both sides. OK so let's get back to some fact-based discussions. |
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Sept 5, 2004 13:14:07 GMT -5
Sure.
Bring some facts.
No sweat to jump on and accuse others of hatred and anger, while quoting the bible; but it seems that that is all you're about. I've observed several folks (myself included) ask for sources,(and I don't mean what you've read somewhere), I'm talking about links, etc. . .
and you still haven't done that. Why?
I want you to think about some of the accusations that you've made about this administration and what it is trying to acheive. Again, Oil and land aquisition are the most moronic, and lame arguments you could possibly bring to a conservative board. These are the arguments of the extremists, who's whole agenda is centered in hating Bush, Cheney, et al. , and nothing else. Extremists have no proof, and start to appear repetitious after awhile. Who's angry and hate-filled here? By looking at some of your posts, I wouldn't go around calling ANYONE small-minded, emotional idiots.
If you want to look like a kook, keep throwing out the conspiricy theories, because unless you can prove any of it, its all crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by UncleVinny on Sept 5, 2004 13:28:05 GMT -5
"I want you to think about some of the accusations that you've made about this administration and what it is trying to acheive. Again, Oil and land aquisition are the most moronic"
OK, Scummy, I'll come clean with you. I am guilty of baiting and emotional outbursts like everyone else here. Once the initial venting is done we can really 'talk.'
Truth is, like I said elsewhere, is I have two gripes
= That Bush invades Iraq under false pretenses, and
= That Bush hints that such a war is blessed by God.
I honestly believe Bush and his cabinet believe the invasion of Iraq would establish some degree of stability, and hopefully a growth towards eventual democracy in the Middle East. That's not bad.
What gets me is that he bases it on the Wolfowitz arguement from the 1980s that says if we have the power, we should use our military superiority to remake the world in our image. That's an arguement I have trouble with. Not because I'm opposed to democracy, but it gives some deceptive justification to the idea of going into another country and imposing our will on them. The question then becomes - Who's next? Who decides? How much force to use. Should N. Korea be next, or Jordan, or Syria??! Do we bomb them into submission or just use economic santions? That kind of reasoning I see as exquisitely immoral and self-deceptive.
SO - logical arguement.
I will apologize for all my sniping rants if you will answer me logically also, without the demonizing.
UV
|
|
|
|
Post by BOLO on Sept 5, 2004 14:09:23 GMT -5
Of which you are guilty.
I am not buying any of it.
Any one else wants to. Throw in a quarter.
|
|
|
|
Post by BOLO on Sept 5, 2004 14:15:57 GMT -5
Prove this first. This is a prime example of making unsubtantiated allegations that are spurious, and demeaning. (The old Bush can not think for himself, and is led around by others BS.) Nowhere will you find proof that he based it on Wolfowitz's thesis. Which is being misquoted, and twisted. Smarmy as usual.  Waste Management still on contract? Some things, and people, change just to remain the same. 
|
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Sept 5, 2004 14:18:39 GMT -5
OK,
but I'm confused. Which is it that you believe; because it can't be both.
|
|
|
|
Post by jailkerry on Sept 5, 2004 14:56:30 GMT -5
Uncle Vinny I've got two problems with your logic. First, as has been said numerous times before, you cannot or will not produce source material. Second, and admitedly more personal, you have stated elsewhere that you are a Christian, but then post garbage like calling the "Cleansing of the Temple" passage the "temple fit". Jesus did not throw fits, his anger served a purpose. For you to post a snide little remark like that just goes to show the lack of regard you have for the one man in all history who is truly deserving of unadulterated respect. Again, as has been said before, you true colors show through in just about every post.
Why do you have to weed out those of us with any emotion before haveing a "real" discussion? I think you'll find many people on here, if not most, are intellegent and passionate, the two are not mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
|
Post by UncleVinny on Sept 10, 2004 10:40:14 GMT -5
Well let's take a look at today's paper for example (Sept. 10). There's an article on how the Republicans are about to release a new set of attack ads against Kerry for relating atrocities during the Viet Nam war.
Next page is a story about how the US Congress is investigating the same kind of allegations against American soldiers in Iraq, notably at the prisons, like Abu Graib. Then it turns out the CIA is refusing to release information about Rumsfeld's secret interrogation squads. So we have those war attrocities all over again, and Rumsfeld trying to cover it up. Who do these accusations come from? None other than Republican Senator John McCain.
If you can read, the facts are all over the place.
More war atrocities by this administration, and out of the other side of their mouth they lambast Kerry for saying what was true 35 years ago. America was and is guilty of war crimes. Smoke on that for a while.
Sometimes I am ASHAMED of what America does in the name of 'spreading democracy!' What a joke!
|
|
|
|
Post by UncleVinny on Sept 10, 2004 10:42:49 GMT -5
I should clarify - the CIA is holding prisoners that they call 'ghost detainees' because they keep them off the records and they don't allow the Red Cross access to them. This in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions. Ashamed of what America is doing! These colors don't run  the world. The war dogs are running up some mighty bad karma for America. |
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Sept 10, 2004 12:58:19 GMT -5
Goodbye Vinny.
Already had an arduous, fun-filled debate about the geneva convention with someone who was kicked out of here not too long ago. Next, you'll be defending Saddam Hussein's "rights".
Sorry, no fish here.
|
|
|
|
Post by UncleVinny on Sept 10, 2004 14:35:31 GMT -5
OK, bye again.
If they censor me it will say more about them than me.
Been fun. Hope you-all can get out of the county some time and see the rest of the world.
Oh, reminds me: New poll shows 76% of Europeans think Bush is doing a poor job.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Sept 10, 2004 15:09:26 GMT -5
lol I don't want to censor you! You do a better job of making the other side look foolish than I ever could. Why don't you take a survey of the French and ask them if they give a flying fig who the Americans think they should vote for in their elections.  |
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Sept 10, 2004 17:58:43 GMT -5
I'm back.
Been out of town on business this week.
76% of Europeans disagree with Bush, huh? GOOD! I'd take that as a compliment. That means he's doing something right. Anyways, why should Bush care what Europe thinks? Last time I checked, Bush was president of the USA, not Europe. If we ever have a president with a 76% approval rate from Europe, I hope I'm not here to see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by BOLO on Sept 10, 2004 18:45:16 GMT -5
Recent surveys among members of certain groups show that ten out of ten prefer Kerry to Bush. Groups interviewed were: Taliban. Al Queada Hamas PLO Iranian Mullahs Liberals ;D ;D ;D These Colors Don't run. These Colors Do run the world. |
|
|
|
Post by BOLO on Sept 10, 2004 18:50:42 GMT -5
Would three years in Viet Nam, Three years in South Korea, One year in Japan, Six Months in Australia, Two, and three, week visits to Italy, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland (Two Months) count. Also jackass, why do you assume you are the only traveler around, and that no one else has? You give arrogance a new meaning. You are one small minded person. I called you way back. You ain't changed. These Colors Don't run. These Colors Do run the world. |
|
To protect his own oil interests. 
the world.
