Jump to content

As If You Needed Another Reminder...


FutureGM

Recommended Posts

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration?s Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease ?a new type of fascism.?

 

In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration?s critics as suffering from ?moral or intellectual confusion? about what threatens the nation?s security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.

 

In remarks to several thousand veterans at the American Legion?s national convention, Rumsfeld recited what he called the lessons of history, including the failed efforts to appease the Adolf Hitler regime in the 1930s.

 

?I recount this history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism,? he said.

 

Rumsfeld spoke to the American Legion as part of a coordinated White House strategy, in advance of the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, to take the offensive against administration critics at a time of doubt about the future of Iraq and growing calls to withdraw U.S. troops.

 

Rumsfeld recalled a string of recent terrorist attacks, from 9/11 to bombings in Bali, London and Madrid, and said it should be obvious to anyone that terrorists must be confronted, not appeased.

 

?But some seem not to have learned history?s lessons,? he said, adding that part of the problem is that the American news media have tended to emphasize the negative rather than the positive.

 

He said, for example, that more media attention was given to U.S. soldiers? abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib than to the fact that Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith received the Medal of Honor.

 

?Can we truly afford to believe somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?? he asked.

 

?Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths and lies and distortions being told about our troops and about our country,? he added.

 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was addressing the American Legion convention later Tuesday, and President Bush is scheduled to speak here later in the week. On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld made separate addresses to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Reno, Nev.

 

Rumsfeld made similar arguments in Reno about doubters of the administration?s approach to fighting terrorism, saying too many in this country want to ?blame America first? and ignore the enemy.

 

Who ever said that they wanted to 'appease' terrorists? I wish he would stop making things up, especially this new term of "Islamic fascism", which doesn't make any sense. Someone needs to tell old Rummy that he's losing his mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Appeasement is the hope the crocodile eats you last" - Winston Churchill

 

The fact that somebody doesn't view their policy as appeasement does not prevent the policy from being appeasement. Neither does the thought that a group is not fascist or not an enemy prevent that group from being such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Appeasement is the hope the crocodile eats you last" - Winston Churchill

 

The fact that somebody doesn't view their policy as appeasement does not prevent the policy from being appeasement. Neither does the thought that a group is not fascist or not an enemy prevent that group from being such.

 

But he doesn't even say who these 'fascists' are! They purposely leave it very vague, for whatever reason.

 

Keith Olbermann on his show tonight made a good point, saying that it is Rumsfeld that is closer to the Neville Chamberlain person, as both continued to believe that they always had the right information, whether it was Chamberlain's belief that Hitler wasn't a threat to the rest of Europe, or Rumsfeld's/the administration's assurances that Iraq had plenty of WMDs, and that Katrina wasn't going to do much damage. Exactly like Chamberlain, they were confident of their information, but never once got it right. In the end, a disaster(s) always came of this (Chamberlain: WWII; Rumsfeld: Iraq War, Katrina debacle).

 

Again, who is appeasing who here? This government continues to make the country fear terrorists who are not as big of a threat as they truely are. If they were, we would have been attacked here far more than once. I would be more worried about terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear device than smuggling some low-level explosives onto a plane disguised as suntan lotion.

 

I hate it when any government uses fear as a weapon, no matter what party they might represent. But I absolutely can't stand it when the government of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA says that people opposed to one of their wars (especially this one) aren't thinking clearly, or are unpatriotic, or are un-American. It's the number one reason why I can't give the slightest ounce of respect to these 'leaders' in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration?s Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease ?a new type of fascism.?

 

In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration?s critics as suffering from ?moral or intellectual confusion? about what threatens the nation?s security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.

 

In remarks to several thousand veterans at the American Legion?s national convention, Rumsfeld recited what he called the lessons of history, including the failed efforts to appease the Adolf Hitler regime in the 1930s.

 

?I recount this history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism,? he said.

 

Rumsfeld spoke to the American Legion as part of a coordinated White House strategy, in advance of the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, to take the offensive against administration critics at a time of doubt about the future of Iraq and growing calls to withdraw U.S. troops.

 

Rumsfeld recalled a string of recent terrorist attacks, from 9/11 to bombings in Bali, London and Madrid, and said it should be obvious to anyone that terrorists must be confronted, not appeased.

 

?But some seem not to have learned history?s lessons,? he said, adding that part of the problem is that the American news media have tended to emphasize the negative rather than the positive.

 

He said, for example, that more media attention was given to U.S. soldiers? abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib than to the fact that Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith received the Medal of Honor.

 

?Can we truly afford to believe somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?? he asked.

 

?Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths and lies and distortions being told about our troops and about our country,? he added.

 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was addressing the American Legion convention later Tuesday, and President Bush is scheduled to speak here later in the week. On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld made separate addresses to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Reno, Nev.

 

Rumsfeld made similar arguments in Reno about doubters of the administration?s approach to fighting terrorism, saying too many in this country want to ?blame America first? and ignore the enemy.

 

Who ever said that they wanted to 'appease' terrorists? I wish he would stop making things up, especially this new term of "Islamic fascism", which doesn't make any sense. Someone needs to tell old Rummy that he's losing his mind.

He's giving a speech to thousands of veterans of past wars, and everything he said was 100% truth, all he's doing is calling a spade a spade.

 

And yes, many libtards do want to appease terrorists, whether you acknowledge this or not is irrelevant.

 

 

"Appeasement is the hope the crocodile eats you last" - Winston Churchill

 

The fact that somebody doesn't view their policy as appeasement does not prevent the policy from being appeasement. Neither does the thought that a group is not fascist or not an enemy prevent that group from being such.

 

But he doesn't even say who these 'fascists' are! They purposely leave it very vague, for whatever reason.

 

Keith Olbermann on his show tonight made a good point, saying that it is Rumsfeld that is closer to the Neville Chamberlain person, as both continued to believe that they always had the right information, whether it was Chamberlain's belief that Hitler wasn't a threat to the rest of Europe, or Rumsfeld's/the administration's assurances that Iraq had plenty of WMDs, and that Katrina wasn't going to do much damage. Exactly like Chamberlain, they were confident of their information, but never once got it right. In the end, a disaster(s) always came of this (Chamberlain: WWII; Rumsfeld: Iraq War, Katrina debacle).

 

Again, who is appeasing who here? This government continues to make the country fear terrorists who are not as big of a threat as they truely are. If they were, we would have been attacked here far more than once. I would be more worried about terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear device than smuggling some low-level explosives onto a plane disguised as suntan lotion.

 

I hate it when any government uses fear as a weapon, no matter what party they might represent. But I absolutely can't stand it when the government of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA says that people opposed to one of their wars (especially this one) aren't thinking clearly, or are unpatriotic, or are un-American. It's the number one reason why I can't give the slightest ounce of respect to these 'leaders' in power.

Keith Olbermann is the liberal version of Michael Savage. You should know better than to invoke his name if you want people to take your argument seriously.

 

And how incredibly STUPID are you to think that terrorism is not that big of a threat? You think that because we have not been attacked since 9/11, terrorism is no big deal? What the hell is wrong with you? That is beyond absurd and is an incredibly illogical statement, not even Jimmy would post something that irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration?s Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease ?a new type of fascism.?

 

In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration?s critics as suffering from ?moral or intellectual confusion? about what threatens the nation?s security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.

 

In remarks to several thousand veterans at the American Legion?s national convention, Rumsfeld recited what he called the lessons of history, including the failed efforts to appease the Adolf Hitler regime in the 1930s.

 

?I recount this history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism,? he said.

 

Rumsfeld spoke to the American Legion as part of a coordinated White House strategy, in advance of the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, to take the offensive against administration critics at a time of doubt about the future of Iraq and growing calls to withdraw U.S. troops.

 

Rumsfeld recalled a string of recent terrorist attacks, from 9/11 to bombings in Bali, London and Madrid, and said it should be obvious to anyone that terrorists must be confronted, not appeased.

 

?But some seem not to have learned history?s lessons,? he said, adding that part of the problem is that the American news media have tended to emphasize the negative rather than the positive.

 

He said, for example, that more media attention was given to U.S. soldiers? abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib than to the fact that Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith received the Medal of Honor.

 

?Can we truly afford to believe somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?? he asked.

 

?Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths and lies and distortions being told about our troops and about our country,? he added.

 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was addressing the American Legion convention later Tuesday, and President Bush is scheduled to speak here later in the week. On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld made separate addresses to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Reno, Nev.

 

Rumsfeld made similar arguments in Reno about doubters of the administration?s approach to fighting terrorism, saying too many in this country want to ?blame America first? and ignore the enemy.

 

Who ever said that they wanted to 'appease' terrorists? I wish he would stop making things up, especially this new term of "Islamic fascism", which doesn't make any sense. Someone needs to tell old Rummy that he's losing his mind.

He's giving a speech to thousands of veterans of past wars, and everything he said was 100% truth, all he's doing is calling a spade a spade.

 

And yes, many libtards do want to appease terrorists, whether you acknowledge this or not is irrelevant.

What truth? All I see is unwarranted slander against protestors of a war with no clear objective. Why do you think that almost no one protested WWII? Because everyone knew it was the right thing to do. The same goes for the first Gulf War, where there was a clear objective: Kick Saddam out of Kuwait. That was it.

 

However, the stated objectives of Vietnam (stop Communist influence) and Iraq II (WMDs) soon either became vague or just plain false. That's what will stop public support for a war, when the public can't contemplate what the benefit of the war is.

 

In the 1970s, many military types thought that pulling out of Vietnam would give Communism a huge victory. Did it? I don't think so, as it seemed to wane in popularity worldwide over the next decade and a half, with its' end coming at the fall of the Berlin Wall.

 

One thing that will continue to kill this administration until it's demise in 2009 is it's obsession with seeing everything as black and white. The world doesn't work like the Wild West of old Western films, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration?s Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease ?a new type of fascism.?

 

In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration?s critics as suffering from ?moral or intellectual confusion? about what threatens the nation?s security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.

 

In remarks to several thousand veterans at the American Legion?s national convention, Rumsfeld recited what he called the lessons of history, including the failed efforts to appease the Adolf Hitler regime in the 1930s.

 

?I recount this history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism,? he said.

 

Rumsfeld spoke to the American Legion as part of a coordinated White House strategy, in advance of the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, to take the offensive against administration critics at a time of doubt about the future of Iraq and growing calls to withdraw U.S. troops.

 

Rumsfeld recalled a string of recent terrorist attacks, from 9/11 to bombings in Bali, London and Madrid, and said it should be obvious to anyone that terrorists must be confronted, not appeased.

 

?But some seem not to have learned history?s lessons,? he said, adding that part of the problem is that the American news media have tended to emphasize the negative rather than the positive.

 

He said, for example, that more media attention was given to U.S. soldiers? abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib than to the fact that Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith received the Medal of Honor.

 

?Can we truly afford to believe somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?? he asked.

 

?Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths and lies and distortions being told about our troops and about our country,? he added.

 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was addressing the American Legion convention later Tuesday, and President Bush is scheduled to speak here later in the week. On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld made separate addresses to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Reno, Nev.

 

Rumsfeld made similar arguments in Reno about doubters of the administration?s approach to fighting terrorism, saying too many in this country want to ?blame America first? and ignore the enemy.

 

Who ever said that they wanted to 'appease' terrorists? I wish he would stop making things up, especially this new term of "Islamic fascism", which doesn't make any sense. Someone needs to tell old Rummy that he's losing his mind.

He's giving a speech to thousands of veterans of past wars, and everything he said was 100% truth, all he's doing is calling a spade a spade.

 

And yes, many libtards do want to appease terrorists, whether you acknowledge this or not is irrelevant.

What truth? All I see is unwarranted slander against protestors of a war with no clear objective. Why do you think that almost no one protested WWII? Because everyone knew it was the right thing to do. The same goes for the first Gulf War, where there was a clear objective: Kick Saddam out of Kuwait. That was it.

 

However, the stated objectives of Vietnam (stop Communist influence) and Iraq II (WMDs) soon either became vague or just plain false. That's what will stop public support for a war, when the public can't contemplate what the benefit of the war is.

 

In the 1970s, many military types thought that pulling out of Vietnam would give Communism a huge victory. Did it? I don't think so, as it seemed to wane in popularity worldwide over the next decade and a half, with its' end coming at the fall of the Berlin Wall.

 

One thing that will continue to kill this administration until it's demise in 2009 is it's obsession with seeing everything as black and white. The world doesn't work like the Wild West of old Western films, sorry.

i agree...from the second the planes hit the twin towers, i knew that bush would finagle a reason to go back to iraq...and you heard it right away from everyone that any protestors against anything that bush was doing was unpatriotic, a moron, a hippie, a wuss bag, etc. and no, im sorry...i think to actually think about things before i react from the hip while in an irrational state...and to me...this whole thing just reminds me of a kid throwing rocks at a bee hive...what do you think is going to happen...that the bees/terrorists and potential terrorists and civillians are just goin to lie down and take it...no...they are fight back anyway they can til the death...that is what he have agrivated...we tried to take too muchh of the honey/oil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does protesting the war have to do with fascism? There's no literal or figurative connection there. Calling all war protestors fascist is akin to saying all Southerners are in the Ku Klux Klan.

 

*stupid*

 

I just want to know how it's true when we're talking about protesters and fascism? Man, those Revolutionary forefathers, if they can hear this, must be turning over in their graves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Appeasement is the hope the crocodile eats you last" - Winston Churchill

 

The fact that somebody doesn't view their policy as appeasement does not prevent the policy from being appeasement. Neither does the thought that a group is not fascist or not an enemy prevent that group from being such.

 

So now stubborn foolishness is the only alternative to appeasment? It never ceases to amaze me how many people can buy into the WW2/Iraq comparisons as somehow being true on themselves. These kind of tactics are used by intelligent people to take advantage of ignorant people who can't recognize distinctions over the black and white.

 

"You better not quit on my failing and terrible policy because the goals I give are the same as the goals we've seen in history." It would be the equivilant of arguing that those who oppose welfare are actively trying to send this nation back to the great depression.

 

The differences between 2006 Iraq and pre-WW2 Germany are numerous and immense. But the administration simplifies it for people like accord who think out of emotion and rage .

 

 

Keith Olbermann is the liberal version of Michael Savage. You should know better than to invoke his name if you want people to take your argument seriously.

 

 

You're so far on the extreme right that anyone who doesn't agree is a liberal now. Don't disparage Mike Savage. He argues and acts just like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people are praising Bush's stance on this actually. I'm kinda doubtful.

 

I saw one poll on a site that says 75% of the voters aren't buying it. Obviously, it's not an official poll. I just hope that rational people don't take this garbage seriously. It's just a really lame attempt to boost his struggling poll numbers in time for the midterms. That's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith Olbermann is the liberal version of Michael Savage. You should know better than to invoke his name if you want people to take your argument seriously.

 

 

You're so far on the extreme right that anyone who doesn't agree is a liberal now. Don't disparage Mike Savage. He argues and acts just like you.

 

I think you can do this with any journalist now. Based on past records and stories you could classify and thus ignore any of them.

 

That's just bad logic anyways.

 

You have to attack their article, or their argument and not the person reporting it. You can't just ignore bad reporting, you have to present counter facts that show their facts are mistaken, etc., etc.

 

I think it might be beyond the scope of about 99% of this board (Flying_Mollusk and a few others excluded) to do so. I know it takes a lot of work and I'm not capable. But just saying someone is too left or too right isn't a fair assessment of the issue itself and is merely an account of the person reporting.

 

I think it was Carl Sagan who wrote "The Demon Haunted World" who goes through a whole chapter of how to and not to attack someone's argument. Good reading for anyone willing to dedicate themself to doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Appeasement is the hope the crocodile eats you last" - Winston Churchill

 

The fact that somebody doesn't view their policy as appeasement does not prevent the policy from being appeasement. Neither does the thought that a group is not fascist or not an enemy prevent that group from being such.

 

So now stubborn foolishness is the only alternative to appeasment? It never ceases to amaze me how many people can buy into the WW2/Iraq comparisons as somehow being true on themselves. These kind of tactics are used by intelligent people to take advantage of ignorant people who can't recognize distinctions over the black and white.

 

"You better not quit on my failing and terrible policy because the goals I give are the same as the goals we've seen in history." It would be the equivilant of arguing that those who oppose welfare are actively trying to send this nation back to the great depression.

 

The differences between 2006 Iraq and pre-WW2 Germany are numerous and immense. But the administration simplifies it for people like accord who think out of emotion and rage .

 

 

Keith Olbermann is the liberal version of Michael Savage. You should know better than to invoke his name if you want people to take your argument seriously.

 

 

You're so far on the extreme right that anyone who doesn't agree is a liberal now. Don't disparage Mike Savage. He argues and acts just like you.

The only thing i'm on the extreme right about is the defense of this country, guns, and taxes. Every other issue i'm in the middle and in many cases to the left a little bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Appeasement is the hope the crocodile eats you last" - Winston Churchill

 

The fact that somebody doesn't view their policy as appeasement does not prevent the policy from being appeasement. Neither does the thought that a group is not fascist or not an enemy prevent that group from being such.

 

So now stubborn foolishness is the only alternative to appeasment? It never ceases to amaze me how many people can buy into the WW2/Iraq comparisons as somehow being true on themselves. These kind of tactics are used by intelligent people to take advantage of ignorant people who can't recognize distinctions over the black and white.

 

"You better not quit on my failing and terrible policy because the goals I give are the same as the goals we've seen in history." It would be the equivilant of arguing that those who oppose welfare are actively trying to send this nation back to the great depression.

 

The differences between 2006 Iraq and pre-WW2 Germany are numerous and immense. But the administration simplifies it for people like accord who think out of emotion and rage .

 

 

Keith Olbermann is the liberal version of Michael Savage. You should know better than to invoke his name if you want people to take your argument seriously.

 

 

You're so far on the extreme right that anyone who doesn't agree is a liberal now. Don't disparage Mike Savage. He argues and acts just like you.

The only thing i'm on the extreme right about is the defense of this country, guns, and taxes. Every other issue i'm in the middle and in many cases to the left a little bit.

those are three pretty big issues to be on the EXTREME right on...i mean if you were any more right on the country's security issue, you would support a "1948" lifestyle, filled with tv's that read minds and promote happy thoughts...and im just curious (and im not doubting you in any way) but what issues without going into details on are you on the left side? thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Appeasement is the hope the crocodile eats you last" - Winston Churchill

 

The fact that somebody doesn't view their policy as appeasement does not prevent the policy from being appeasement. Neither does the thought that a group is not fascist or not an enemy prevent that group from being such.

 

So now stubborn foolishness is the only alternative to appeasment? It never ceases to amaze me how many people can buy into the WW2/Iraq comparisons as somehow being true on themselves. These kind of tactics are used by intelligent people to take advantage of ignorant people who can't recognize distinctions over the black and white.

 

"You better not quit on my failing and terrible policy because the goals I give are the same as the goals we've seen in history." It would be the equivilant of arguing that those who oppose welfare are actively trying to send this nation back to the great depression.

 

The differences between 2006 Iraq and pre-WW2 Germany are numerous and immense. But the administration simplifies it for people like accord who think out of emotion and rage .

 

 

Keith Olbermann is the liberal version of Michael Savage. You should know better than to invoke his name if you want people to take your argument seriously.

 

 

You're so far on the extreme right that anyone who doesn't agree is a liberal now. Don't disparage Mike Savage. He argues and acts just like you.

The only thing i'm on the extreme right about is the defense of this country, guns, and taxes. Every other issue i'm in the middle and in many cases to the left a little bit.

those are three pretty big issues to be on the EXTREME right on...i mean if you were any more right on the country's security issue, you would support a "1948" lifestyle, filled with tv's that read minds and promote happy thoughts...and im just curious (and im not doubting you in any way) but what issues without going into details on are you on the left side? thanks

Abortion, gay marriage, religion, separation of church and state, the list goes on.

 

But the defense of my country is more important than all of those things, therefore I vote republican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Appeasement is the hope the crocodile eats you last" - Winston Churchill

 

The fact that somebody doesn't view their policy as appeasement does not prevent the policy from being appeasement. Neither does the thought that a group is not fascist or not an enemy prevent that group from being such.

 

So now stubborn foolishness is the only alternative to appeasment? It never ceases to amaze me how many people can buy into the WW2/Iraq comparisons as somehow being true on themselves. These kind of tactics are used by intelligent people to take advantage of ignorant people who can't recognize distinctions over the black and white.

 

"You better not quit on my failing and terrible policy because the goals I give are the same as the goals we've seen in history." It would be the equivilant of arguing that those who oppose welfare are actively trying to send this nation back to the great depression.

 

The differences between 2006 Iraq and pre-WW2 Germany are numerous and immense. But the administration simplifies it for people like accord who think out of emotion and rage .

 

 

Keith Olbermann is the liberal version of Michael Savage. You should know better than to invoke his name if you want people to take your argument seriously.

 

 

You're so far on the extreme right that anyone who doesn't agree is a liberal now. Don't disparage Mike Savage. He argues and acts just like you.

The only thing i'm on the extreme right about is the defense of this country, guns, and taxes. Every other issue i'm in the middle and in many cases to the left a little bit.

those are three pretty big issues to be on the EXTREME right on...i mean if you were any more right on the country's security issue, you would support a "1948" lifestyle, filled with tv's that read minds and promote happy thoughts...and im just curious (and im not doubting you in any way) but what issues without going into details on are you on the left side? thanks

Abortion, gay marriage, religion, separation of church and state, the list goes on.

 

But the defense of my country is more important than all of those things, therefore I vote republican.

ok...yeah...i agree with you on this issues...and voting republican doesnt imply more safety...but thats another issue...but im just curious about something...and maybe someone can help me...but when/why abortion become an issue with left and right sides...i mean is it because we have a religious white house who feels it is a sin? and then anything in opposition would be left of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Appeasement is the hope the crocodile eats you last" - Winston Churchill

 

The fact that somebody doesn't view their policy as appeasement does not prevent the policy from being appeasement. Neither does the thought that a group is not fascist or not an enemy prevent that group from being such.

 

So now stubborn foolishness is the only alternative to appeasment? It never ceases to amaze me how many people can buy into the WW2/Iraq comparisons as somehow being true on themselves. These kind of tactics are used by intelligent people to take advantage of ignorant people who can't recognize distinctions over the black and white.

 

"You better not quit on my failing and terrible policy because the goals I give are the same as the goals we've seen in history." It would be the equivilant of arguing that those who oppose welfare are actively trying to send this nation back to the great depression.

 

The differences between 2006 Iraq and pre-WW2 Germany are numerous and immense. But the administration simplifies it for people like accord who think out of emotion and rage .

 

 

Keith Olbermann is the liberal version of Michael Savage. You should know better than to invoke his name if you want people to take your argument seriously.

 

 

You're so far on the extreme right that anyone who doesn't agree is a liberal now. Don't disparage Mike Savage. He argues and acts just like you.

The only thing i'm on the extreme right about is the defense of this country, guns, and taxes. Every other issue i'm in the middle and in many cases to the left a little bit.

those are three pretty big issues to be on the EXTREME right on...i mean if you were any more right on the country's security issue, you would support a "1948" lifestyle, filled with tv's that read minds and promote happy thoughts...and im just curious (and im not doubting you in any way) but what issues without going into details on are you on the left side? thanks

Abortion, gay marriage, religion, separation of church and state, the list goes on.

 

But the defense of my country is more important than all of those things, therefore I vote republican.

ok...yeah...i agree with you on this issues...and voting republican doesnt imply more safety...but thats another issue...but im just curious about something...and maybe someone can help me...but when/why abortion become an issue with left and right sides...i mean is it because we have a religious white house who feels it is a sin? and then anything in opposition would be left of that?

I have no idea why abortion and gay marriage are even issues at all, I don't think I really support the left on those issues, but I also don't support the right on them... it's more like I really don't give a sh*t about the two issues. If you want to marry your life partner, then go right ahead, I don't know why it's any of the governments business. If you want an abortion, go right ahead, I don't know why it's any of the governments business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Appeasement is the hope the crocodile eats you last" - Winston Churchill

 

The fact that somebody doesn't view their policy as appeasement does not prevent the policy from being appeasement. Neither does the thought that a group is not fascist or not an enemy prevent that group from being such.

 

So now stubborn foolishness is the only alternative to appeasment? It never ceases to amaze me how many people can buy into the WW2/Iraq comparisons as somehow being true on themselves. These kind of tactics are used by intelligent people to take advantage of ignorant people who can't recognize distinctions over the black and white.

 

"You better not quit on my failing and terrible policy because the goals I give are the same as the goals we've seen in history." It would be the equivilant of arguing that those who oppose welfare are actively trying to send this nation back to the great depression.

 

The differences between 2006 Iraq and pre-WW2 Germany are numerous and immense. But the administration simplifies it for people like accord who think out of emotion and rage .

 

 

Keith Olbermann is the liberal version of Michael Savage. You should know better than to invoke his name if you want people to take your argument seriously.

 

 

You're so far on the extreme right that anyone who doesn't agree is a liberal now. Don't disparage Mike Savage. He argues and acts just like you.

The only thing i'm on the extreme right about is the defense of this country, guns, and taxes. Every other issue i'm in the middle and in many cases to the left a little bit.

those are three pretty big issues to be on the EXTREME right on...i mean if you were any more right on the country's security issue, you would support a "1948" lifestyle, filled with tv's that read minds and promote happy thoughts...and im just curious (and im not doubting you in any way) but what issues without going into details on are you on the left side? thanks

Abortion, gay marriage, religion, separation of church and state, the list goes on.

 

But the defense of my country is more important than all of those things, therefore I vote republican.

ok...yeah...i agree with you on this issues...and voting republican doesnt imply more safety...but thats another issue...but im just curious about something...and maybe someone can help me...but when/why abortion become an issue with left and right sides...i mean is it because we have a religious white house who feels it is a sin? and then anything in opposition would be left of that?

I have no idea why abortion and gay marriage are even issues at all, I don't think I really support the left on those issues, but I also don't support the right on them... it's more like I really don't give a sh*t about the two issues. If you want to marry your life partner, then go right ahead, I don't know why it's any of the governments business. If you want an abortion, go right ahead, I don't know why it's any of the governments business.

:cheers ...i agree with you so much there that i cant believe im saying that...beer is on me tonight...!!!cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith Olbermann is the liberal version of Michael Savage. You should know better than to invoke his name if you want people to take your argument seriously.

 

 

You're so far on the extreme right that anyone who doesn't agree is a liberal now. Don't disparage Mike Savage. He argues and acts just like you.

 

I think you can do this with any journalist now. Based on past records and stories you could classify and thus ignore any of them.

 

That's just bad logic anyways.

 

You have to attack their article, or their argument and not the person reporting it. You can't just ignore bad reporting, you have to present counter facts that show their facts are mistaken, etc., etc.

 

I think it might be beyond the scope of about 99% of this board (Flying_Mollusk and a few others excluded) to do so. I know it takes a lot of work and I'm not capable. But just saying someone is too left or too right isn't a fair assessment of the issue itself and is merely an account of the person reporting.

 

I think it was Carl Sagan who wrote "The Demon Haunted World" who goes through a whole chapter of how to and not to attack someone's argument. Good reading for anyone willing to dedicate themself to doing so.

It's sad but it seems like the word objective doesnt exist in arguments anymore, especially politics. I can definitely say Ive been guilty of it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes my arch enemy Keith O O O O Olbermann. He is the biggest source of man humping around.

 

Published on Thursday, August 31, 2006 by MSNBC

Feeling Morally, Intellectually Confused?

by Keith Olbermann

 

 

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

 

Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.

 

Mr. Rumsfeld?s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis?and the sober contemplation?of every American.

 

For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration?s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.

 

Dissent and disagreement with government is the life?s blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as ?his? troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.

 

It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.

 

In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld?s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril?with a growing evil?powerful and remorseless.

 

That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld?s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the ?secret information.? It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld?s -- questioning their intellect and their morality.

 

That government was England?s, in the 1930?s.

 

It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.

 

It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.

 

It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions ? its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed.

 

The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.

 

Most relevant of all ? it ?knew? that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.

 

That critic?s name was Winston Churchill.

 

Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.

 

History ? and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England ? have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty ? and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.

 

Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.

 

Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards.

 

His government, absolute -- and exclusive -- in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.

 

It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.

 

But back to today?s Omniscient ones.

 

That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.

 

And, as such, all voices count -- not just his.

 

Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience ? about Osama Bin Laden?s plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein?s weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina?s impact one year ago ? we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their ?omniscience? as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.

 

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.

 

Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire ?Fog of Fear? which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have ? inadvertently or intentionally ? profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.

 

And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer?s New Clothes?

 

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?

 

The confusion we -- as its citizens? must now address, is stark and forbidding.

 

But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note -- with hope in your heart ? that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.

 

The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.

 

And about Mr. Rumsfeld?s other main assertion, that this country faces a ?new type of fascism.?

 

As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.

 

This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.

 

Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.

 

But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: ?confused? or ?immoral.?

 

Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:

 

?We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,? he said, in 1954. ?We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.

 

?We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.?

 

And so good night, and good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith Olbermann is the liberal version of Michael Savage. You should know better than to invoke his name if you want people to take your argument seriously.

 

 

You're so far on the extreme right that anyone who doesn't agree is a liberal now. Don't disparage Mike Savage. He argues and acts just like you.

 

I think you can do this with any journalist now. Based on past records and stories you could classify and thus ignore any of them.

 

That's just bad logic anyways.

 

You have to attack their article, or their argument and not the person reporting it. You can't just ignore bad reporting, you have to present counter facts that show their facts are mistaken, etc., etc.

 

I think it might be beyond the scope of about 99% of this board (Flying_Mollusk and a few others excluded) to do so. I know it takes a lot of work and I'm not capable. But just saying someone is too left or too right isn't a fair assessment of the issue itself and is merely an account of the person reporting.

 

I think it was Carl Sagan who wrote "The Demon Haunted World" who goes through a whole chapter of how to and not to attack someone's argument. Good reading for anyone willing to dedicate themself to doing so.

It's sad but it seems like the word objective doesnt exist in arguments anymore, especially politics. I can definitely say Ive been guilty of it too.

 

Exactly. The main form of argument today is to attack their person and not their argument. "Well, you don't live your life this way, YOU HYPOCRITE!" as if that affects the validity of their argument one iota. And we come up with clever, but loaded, terms to denounce them immediately, like liberal and conservative, that basically assumes that all liberals share the same idealogical stance, just as all conservatives do.

 

It's also really hard and takes a lot of work to argue the correct way. Because you have to learn two positions; your opponents and your own. And most people, politicians and posters included, just don't have that kind of time. So, it just goes back to the namecalling and accusations of character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith Olbermann is the liberal version of Michael Savage. You should know better than to invoke his name if you want people to take your argument seriously.

 

 

You're so far on the extreme right that anyone who doesn't agree is a liberal now.To be fair, Keith Olbermann is raging.

 

I wouldn't be shocked if he carried a spare bra and a zippo in his pocket at all times--just in case that special occasion arises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith Olbermann is the liberal version of Michael Savage. You should know better than to invoke his name if you want people to take your argument seriously.

 

 

You're so far on the extreme right that anyone who doesn't agree is a liberal now.To be fair, Keith Olbermann is raging.

 

I wouldn't be shocked if he carried a spare bra and a zippo in his pocket at all times in case a special occasion arises.

 

I don't think he likes this administration at all. But neither does Pat Buchanan.

 

I'm sure he is left leaning. But come on..Michael Savage? I mean the guy advocated nuclear attacks on a major arab city. Next thing I'll hear that hotcorner is the mirror image of Rush Limbaugh.

 

 

 

 

 

Keith Olbermann is the liberal version of Michael Savage. You should know better than to invoke his name if you want people to take your argument seriously.

 

 

You're so far on the extreme right that anyone who doesn't agree is a liberal now. Don't disparage Mike Savage. He argues and acts just like you.

 

I think you can do this with any journalist now. Based on past records and stories you could classify and thus ignore any of them.

 

That's just bad logic anyways.

 

You have to attack their article, or their argument and not the person reporting it. You can't just ignore bad reporting, you have to present counter facts that show their facts are mistaken, etc., etc.

 

I think it might be beyond the scope of about 99% of this board (Flying_Mollusk and a few others excluded) to do so. I know it takes a lot of work and I'm not capable. But just saying someone is too left or too right isn't a fair assessment of the issue itself and is merely an account of the person reporting.

 

I think it was Carl Sagan who wrote "The Demon Haunted World" who goes through a whole chapter of how to and not to attack someone's argument. Good reading for anyone willing to dedicate themself to doing so.

It's sad but it seems like the word objective doesnt exist in arguments anymore, especially politics. I can definitely say Ive been guilty of it too.

 

Exactly. The main form of argument today is to attack their person and not their argument. "Well, you don't live your life this way, YOU HYPOCRITE!" as if that affects the validity of their argument one iota. And we come up with clever, but loaded, terms to denounce them immediately, like liberal and conservative, that basically assumes that all liberals share the same idealogical stance, just as all conservatives do.

 

It's also really hard and takes a lot of work to argue the correct way. Because you have to learn two positions; your opponents and your own. And most people, politicians and posters included, just don't have that kind of time. So, it just goes back to the namecalling and accusations of character.

It definitely undermines a person's argument big time. Some of the best arguments Ive had, including here, actually broke my viewpoint down rather than resorting to the liberal stuff.

 

I think if someone is totally capable of practicing what they preach, then failing to do so hurts their argument. A person who says gays can and should control themselves to be straight, and then turns out to be gay...well kind of undermines their view. But a person who says don't do drugs and then is addicted to them, well Im sure he wouldnt change his position. People always attacked Limbaugh because he refused to show sympathy to drug addicts and then asked for it himself, then went right back to showing no sympathy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...