yah, it's really uncomplicated to see every thing in black and white. Easy too...

 

Sure, there are shades of gray in most matters. You have to weigh things out and make a decision though. Eternal bickering on the finer points really is stupidity. What's really easy is sitting back and critcising everything that doesn't fit with your own personal political position, for no other reason than to be hateful. Where were all the outcries from the left when Slick ***** was raining destruction down upon ibuprofen factories and empty terrorist encampments to take the focus off the Lewinski testimony? Hmmmm?

 

Actually it is much harder to see things in black and white. It’s very easy to see most things or everything in gray or “gray area”. That’s how liberals look at many things, “gray area”…

That’s the easy way out because seeing things in black and white means to pass judgment. That’s an evil word for liberals “judgment”. They preach everyday how no one should judge another, how everyone should be accepted and how they are inclusive etc.

However they have no problems what so ever passing judgment on people like me nor do they have any problem excluding someone like me from their “inclusive” preaching they do.

Kind of odd when you think of it huh? Then again they are an odd bunch that really has no idea what they really believe in, guess to much gray…

 

I bet these arguments went over well when you were on the debate team in college

-Don

 

For me to quote what they say is part of debate. For you _not_ to quote _anyone_ is just arguing.

As for left-wing extremists, once again please provide facts. What leads you to this conclusion? Please cite facts so that we can better judge their credibility.

-Don

 

It is perfectly fine to debate and not provide some kind of link to a URL to prove ones position. In general, for us NON-liberal types are positions are based on true values and true beliefs. For liberals is about neither, it’s about arguing in general and usually they don’t know what the hell they are arguing about since they were not fully briefed with the “reasons” they should feel the way they do.

That quote or URL you provided is for a left wing liberal socialist organization, a political organization. They are not unbiased nor are they “neutral”. It is fine they are who they are, it is their right to be wrong and spew propaganda to move their issues forward. Hey if they want to look completely stupid and tell their flock of followers what they should think and what they should believe in then good for them. Their followers are obviously too stupid to think for themselves and ask one simple question:

“Why does my leader tell me this when the ENTIRE free world, those associated with the United Nations, have told me the complete opposite and how can they come to a different conclusion then the ENTIRE free world, those associated with the United Nations and the mighty intelligence sources all those free countries have?”

I guess it is really tough for some people to use their brain to come to their OWN conclusions…

 

In these debates I have been repeatedly categorized as a liberal and you categorize yourself as a conservative. By your argument, you love this country more than I do. I can not think of anything, however, that could be further from the truth.

Do I believe that the president should make the right choice rather than the easy choice? Of course I do. Where we disagree is on what the "right" choice is. I would contend that the "easy" choice was going to war. That is what the public wanted after all. I would further submit that the "right" choice was to beat the snot out of the Taliban but then work towards peace. We showed we were capable of all out warfare. We have not shown that we are also capable of compassion. Not much of a supreme ruler if you ask me.

I do disagree. He took very little risk because this war is what the American people wanted. Furthermore I disagree that it was the right thing to do. Destroying Saddam Hussein has done nothing to stop a terrorist from driving a truck into Manhattan full of diesel fuel and fertilizer.

The missiles to which you refer were launched simply because they were at the end of their service life and launching them was cheaper than dismantling them.

We did that. It was the war in Afghanistan. Now explain to me the purpose of the war in Iraq? Did the world need more proof?

You are a master of specious reasoning.

The bully is the big guy who picks on the little guy. In this case we are the big guy and we were kicked by the little guy (do not mistake this as comparing the attack on the WTC to a kick. It is an analogy and only an analogy).

The Taliban destroyed two buildings and they lost a country as a result.

Now we have invaded Iraq. What are we going to lose?

I would like facts, and not your assumptions.
Premise: We have not found any WMD.
Conclusion: There are none.

Did he have them in the past? Absolutely. Did he have them now? That does not appear to be the case.

Do you remember when Bush told us that Iraq was buying plutonium? Remeber how that turned out to be a lie that was skillfully blamed on the NSA?

You keep talking about facts but refuse to present them

Ahh but you do have access to these "facts" and therefore can feel completely secure in your judgement. I understand completely now.

Rome had a very powerful military and that didn't give them peace.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you thinks it means

I commend your post though. I would have to rate it doubleplusgood!

-Don

 

Values and beliefs are not facts.

For me it is about facts, and the complete lack of them here.

I am happy that you are being briefed on these topics. I hope you will be kind enough to share your briefings with the rest of us so that we may drag ourselves out of our ignorance.

Have you bothered to read the report? It is full of facts and references and footnotes and those other silly things that academics like to put into research. You write them off as liberal instead of attacking the veracity of their claims.

We are having this argument because I have used my brain, albeit to come to a different conclusion than you

-Don

 

The easy choice is the way Clinton handled the situation before with Iraq for 8 years. All talk a little bit of action when politically necessary for him, to take focus off him.

Your conclusion is specious because you have no “facts” to back it up…

I am going to take that statement as you just mistyped it or exercised poor judgment. The reason being is the NSA nor any other “creditable” organization has proven it to be a lie. On the contrary it was shown that Saddam did indeed try to buy plutonium years ago. Also you should note that the British intelligence still maintain it to be true. The only thing the NSA stated about it is they did not feel there was “enough” credible evidence to back it up. Again you must note that President Bush DID state this information came from the British intelligence as they still maintain the accusation.

 

myself, I'm not left or right. I try to make my own judgements based on extensive reading and researching both sides of the issue. My sources are based around the world thanks to the internet. They range from US to Canadian to British, Austalian, Middle Eastern, Asian, wherever. I also don't dismiss things I read based on whether the publication is right, left or center. As far as I can see, the only media consistently supporting the invasion of Iraq are controlled by Clearchannel, Rupert Murdoch or Conrad Black. All these owners are extreme neo-con rightwingers and don't allow dissenting views in the media they own. The evidence supporting the other view has far outweighed the rhetoric produced by the White House and the afore-mentioned media.
As far as the Clinton/Lewinski thing is concerned, I spent most of the little time I wasted on the entire affair wondering how getting a hummer in the oval office warranted impeachment. Not to mention all the money that was spent on the whole sordid affair. Or the time wasted that could have been spent on much more productive things. As I recall, your government was pretty much paralyzed because the GOP pitbulls had the bit in their teeth and wouldn't let it go. Can you imagine the howling and screaming fron the GOP if it had been a Democrat president who had mis-led your nation on the reasons he had invaded another country? Personally, I think Clinton is a scumbag. A pretty intelligent scumbag, but, a scumbag none the less. But then, that's pretty much what I think of anyone who f*cks around on their spouse.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/949198/posts

Enjoy !

 

Do you believe in global warming?

There are scientist from both sides of the argument that have reports full of facts and references and footnotes and other silly things that academics like to put into research. Guess what, both those sides with neat reports with all that neat silly stuff come to complete opposite conclusions…

 

Clearchannel right wing? HUH?! I think you need to check that.

 

The one that astounded me was Strom Thurmond. He had a child by his 16 year old African-American housekeeper, then spent his life fighting against equal rights for his own daughter.

-Don

 

Rush Limbaugh, Dr Laura, et al. Boycott the Dixie Chicks or anyone else who opposes the invasion. Sponsor pro-war rallies. Hmmm, sounds pretty right wing to me.