National Guardsman Aric Catron from Onalaska wrote "Dispatch from Iraq: A tiny bit of comfort"
No quote or comment will do this piece justice. Just read the whole thing.
Hat tip: Erik F
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 22, 2006 02:03 PM | Email ThisWhat a wonderful letter!
Posted by: Deborah on April 23, 2006 12:08 AMThis letter and the thousands unwritten like it should be trumpeted from all mass american media every day.
De Oppresso Liber.
(We have our share of idiots, too... )
Posted by: Aaron on April 23, 2006 09:22 AMKudos to them for printing this letter, but one glass of water does not stop a drought.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 23, 2006 09:25 AMGo read a history book, nancy. Most of our decisions in WWII were not very popular. As a a matter of fact, the first dead service memeber ever shown in the US media was a dead Marine on Tarawa. I know that was the "good" war, but there were dissidents even then. Their protest was quite muffled as nearly 10% of the American public was in uniform.
I don't like Bush very much, nor do I paricularly care for the ridiculous amount of gov't spending going on during his watch. That being said, I will not under any circumstances undercut the DoD. They have a war to win, why can't you focus on that?
Posted by: Aaron on April 23, 2006 12:34 PMI oppose this war. And the America I love has room for as many viewpoints as can fill the horizon. To the folks here that hold the false notion that because Amrica has heated debates on man issues, that debases our nation - take a second look.
Called free Democracy. By the way the first half of the piece spells the reason that I feel war is the scourage of mankind. And I oppose war as solution. Also, I am a Navy vet, serving with honor.
I will honor this man in any way I can. For me, he and his fallen comrades are not simple cannon fodder, dying and suffering wounding and pain in this ill conceived, unwarrented war for more oil supplies.
Posted by: George Bakan on April 23, 2006 01:30 PMI'm glad you have a hanled on your feeeeelings, but want you to know that they are a poor substitute for using your mind. You can say "war is the scourage of mankind" and most people will jump in line with you, but when you say "I oppose war as solution" you reveal that, either you're not using your head, or you're using it for a hat rack.
Certainly at some point in your service you studied a bit of history? Or were you asleep that day? The history of mankind is a study of war.
It is good that you choose to honor their memory...I suggest you honor them by picking up a book.
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 23, 2006 02:38 PMWar is obsolete. In the era of the shrinking planet and the need for economic cooperation, why war?
The Euro Union exists so tht those older nations do not repeat a 600 year tradition of endless wars.......with all the horror of this letter. Plus total economic devastation at paying the cash cost.
America should settle for no less.
Don't be stupid, it is all about oil. Sadam was in the process of contracting away for decades
big chuncks of oil production - none to the USA.... When he toppled, all those contacts and contracts went away.
We could bomb him at will - and did - with out this war. Could have screwed him in many ways without war, including assination by other Arabs.....ie. the Saudi kings.
If Iraqis had only a large crop of olive oil, we would ignore them.
Posted by: George Bakan on April 23, 2006 07:26 PMIf anything, we need more war. If we fought war the way it is meant to be fought, it would be over a lot more quickly. The point is to thoroughly destroy an opponent and leave them begging for mercy. It's the overwhelming force by one side that convinces the other to give up. If we used a lot more force, in a lot more dramatic way and specifically targeted theocrats and mullahs who preach hatred and encourage terrorism, it would not take long before they were ordering their flocks to back down, ending the fatwas, etc.
It's the cowardice of pacifists like yourselves that we must appease which has lead to the tentative approach to waging war against tyranny, terror and the destruction of our most valuable real estate.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 23, 2006 09:45 PMI didn't think so.
Posted by: Misty on April 23, 2006 10:29 PMLiberalism is certainly a disease, and hopefully a terminal one. If America and its allies are to survive this ideological and cultural battle with the evil called Islam, liberalism, and its partner, appeasement, must die. What it will take to accomplish this I do not know....possibly a series of terrorist attacks against humanity that cause such horror even the most craven leftist realizes resistance is our only hope.
Posted by: Saltherring on April 24, 2006 08:40 AMNo, that isn't any more the point than it would be to say that repeatedly bashing your head against the wall is the reason you're incapable of anything more relevant than non sequiturs....
(like that better?)
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 24, 2006 01:45 PMYea, I see the connection just fine.
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 24, 2006 02:28 PMThe fact is that carter and clinton did allow (and in clinton's case aided) their programs.
My, that's a lovely case of BDS you have there.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 24, 2006 02:51 PMOf course, this has nothing to do with the merits of killing thousands of Americans, maiming tens of thousands of Americans, killing and maiming thousands of innocent Iraqis, and spending hundreds of billions of our childrens' dollars in order to greatly increase the number of terrorists who are dedicted to destroying our country.
This entire post should be labelled Ignoratio elenchi. It's making a point that virtually everyone already agrees with.
Posted by: Bruce on April 24, 2006 07:58 PMHowever it turns out, the Iraqi's are immeasurably better off than they were under saddam, and the American liberal left had no part of it (to your everlasting shame). Although there are some few leftie servicemen involved, they do so in spite of their party, not as a part of it. Democraps stand not just as dissenters, but obstructionists and cowards and history will not be kind.
It would not surprise me if this doesn't register as the seminal moment when America recognized the complete irrelevancy of the democrap party.
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 24, 2006 09:46 PMWork with what you got, or FO........
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 25, 2006 09:31 AMInteresting how liberals change the subject when it suits them, but accuse others of changing it whenever the hypocrisy of their contention is rejoined.
They give breaks to enemies and make petty justifications for their own leader’s cynical behavior; because they are innately dishonest. It is inherent in the nature of a person whose ideology consists of distancing themselves from facts in favor of self serving emotionalism to prevaricate, lie, and substitute cheap rhetorical tactics for lines of supported reasoning. This “jailhouse mentality,” attributed in the past to prisoners, who were always innocent no matter what the facts showed, has now been raised to a level of popular liberal cognitive dishonesty where the simple repetition of coveted lies becomes the equivalent of truth-telling. To liberals, emotional fervor justifies the abandonment of reason.
Our military under the leadership of GW Bush is kicking the crap out of Al Qaeda, we’re not spending all of our military and political resources in Iraq, and Iran is looking for its problems on its own. It is doing so because its leadership is in danger of faltering, it fears democracy on its borders, and it sees an opportunity that will soon pass if not exploited in the current situation. No matter what, Iran's current regime is going down and if it takes war, so be it--war is inevitable.
If not for the 22nd amendment William J. Clinton would most likely have been elected President for a third term, 911 would have occurred, Clinton would have done much as Bush did by going into Afghanistan and Iraq with or without WMD's, and there would have been little or no clamor from the left about any of it until liberals got bored and tried of hearing about it. Then they'd drive him to do something else.
Given that, the biggest differences between Bush and Clinton would have been three-fold:
First, most Republicans would have supported Clinton because they care about national security and they understand that war is something that must be won, or a great deal will be lost. They also understand that regardless of WMD’s, there were many other equally compelling reasons to unseat the Saddam regime. For conservatives, partisan politics takes a distant back seat to national security. It did in Vietnam despite the liberal inception, mis-conduct and ultimate abdication of the war and its resulting disastrous effects nationally and globally.
Second, Bush has assumed the constitutional mandate of presidential leadership and done what must be done regardless of public opinion. Unlike Bush, Clinton would manipulate public opinion through the MSM, and follow the polls. He would fu@k up both engagements with the enemy by committing our troops and then pulling the rug out from under them before they completed their mission, just as he did in the many military engagements he presided over prior to 911. His gratuitous acts of “kindness” would be perceived as weakness by our enemies, but it would mollify them to know that they had a willing American partner in their evil game. In short, Clinton’s mission would have been for Clinton and Clinton’s popularity, not America. Nevertheless, he would have unseated Saddam.
Third, unlike Bush, Clinton would manipulate public opinion through the MSM, follow the polls, and international opinion as represented by organizations like the U.N. He would fu@k up the situation in Iran just as he did in North Korea, and earlier in Iran, by sending Carter types to “negotiate” away American sovereignty and security in the utter ignorance of penultimate evil and cynical appearance of good-natured harmony. How about those nuclear weapons triggering devices and Iran? We would still be in Iraq today, some crackpots like Sheehan would be forgotten or gagged, and Osama Bin Laden would be out there somewhere creating more havoc than he is now able because of Clinton’s light touch and short span of attention.
Our economy would have failed as it did during the last of Clinton’s administration, and solved in the same way as Bush (and JFK) solved it through tax cuts or sunk into recession. Gas prices would be high because it is a matter of markets and national oil dependency-not oil company corruption, but never a matter of Clinton’s "Big oil buddies" (as though he didn't have them). Katrina would have been a badly managed national disaster, instead of a phony presidential catastrophe, and liberals would pretend that Hollywood is the Mecca of modern progressive culture, despite the fact that hundreds of millions of radical Muslim people intend to eradicate the liberal culture.
Remember, 911 never happened, Bush lied -- WMD’S, and global warming . And . . . . it was all faked by Bush so he could starve poor negroes and give money to rich white people.
Yup . . . and now we can all go to the zoo.
Liberals like Nancy are blissfully insane.
You sure seem to be proving that old saw out pretty well there "conservative" nancy....
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 26, 2006 01:49 PMIt is clear why Soup was so short with you; something about a waste of time. However, I have a moment.
What theocratic socialism are you talking about? Instead of a change of subject or moronic string of nonsense, provide a rational example please.
Yes, we are kicking the crap out of Al Qaeda. Nearly all of their leadership is dead, they have no good base of operations except Iran, and those left are struggling so hard to stay alive and scrambling to stay credible, they lack the wherewithal to be effective. What substantive evidence supports a conclusion to the contrary? What is your point?
BDS in spades. Rather than ranting on with lazy liberal Bush hating characterizations, why not try to compose your nonsense in such a way as to make some sense. Give some evidence of what you assert.
Things are INDEED going very well in Iraq as evidenced by EVERY report that comes to us even from the mainstream media, and I can easily argue that Bush is more conservative than Clinton because Clinton didn’t inherit the necessity of a major war to fight, he didn’t inherit a bad economy, and he didn’t have the partisan insanity that you exhibit working against him at every turn. No matter what is going well, you refuse to acknowledge it because of blind partisanship.
If you are seriously arguing that Bill Clinton would not have done very much as Bush did in the Middle East, fine. You are wrong. Clinton has said scores of times in speeches too numerous to mention ever since 911 that he approved of Bush’s efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The MSM says little about it because it makes the current liberal leadership’s Bush bashing look even sillier. ”Trillion dollar deficit??” Clinton would have had a greater one than we currently have because he would have catered to liberals with numerous liberal initiatives (more than Bush did), and he would have been faced with the same war expenses. Either way, If Clinton were President and gone to Iraq, I would have whole heartedly supported him, because he would be my President.
Since you ask, the prescription I use involves something obviously quite foreign to you; taking reality into consideration and viewing facts on their own merits. It is understandable that repeating empty partisan liberal slogans is useful for you because it requires no sober thought. I also recognize that it might be satisfying (even fun) to pretend that you are intellectually superior without any of the responsibility of intellectual rigor. If you are trying to be tedious, it is working, but that doesn’t mean you are winning anything. You are scrambling to stay credible as well, and you have the same amount of substance on your side as Al Qaeda.
BDS is common among people of your obvious limitations like Bruce, Dinesh, and Bartleboob. You are busted but you'll never admit it. Thanks for another humorous example of the liberal jailhouse mentality.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 26, 2006 02:47 PMI bet you're great fun at coffee klatches....
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 27, 2006 08:27 AMTheocratic: pushing public money into private religious institutions and claiming divine inspiration for policy decisions;
This is not a definition of Theocracy -- nor is it close.
Name one instance or program where the Bush administration pushed public money into a private religious institution. It is possible, but you won’t try because it is nonsense. At any rate it is meaningless because Bush has done no more than any administration going all of the way back to G Washington in this regard. Anyway, pushing public money into private religious institutions is not indicia of a theocracy.
Claiming divine inspiration for policy decisions is not indicia of a theocracy either, but a statement of religious faith by an officer of the government. Every president in American history (most especially liberal ones) has expressed similar divine inspiration for policy decisions.
The infamous liberal President Jimmy Carter was far and away more effusive in claiming divine inspiration and exploiting it for policy decisions than GW Bush, going so far during his foolhardy and disastrous stagflation economy as to command the American public to tighten their belts and look to their Bibles for comfort, guidance, and inspiration. He is considered by most historians and was widely hailed as America’s first 20th Century Evangelical president. Carter publicly preached Christian religious doctrine to foreign leaders including Manachem Begin (a Jew) and Anwar Sadat (a Muslim) among many others. See Religion in America, Since 1945, A History, By Patrick Allitt, The Religious Affiliation of President Jimmy Carter, , and Jimmy Carter As President - by Erwin C Hargrove.
Socialist: federalizing everything he can get his hands on, including medical care and education, opposing free trade, and throwing federal tax dollars at every issue he can find, usually with no-bid contracts;
This is not the definition of socialism or socialist doctrine nor is it close.
Nevertheless, medical care and education were federalized before Bush ever arrived in Washington. Many conservatives like me were disappointed that he chose for political reasons not to de-federalize medical care and education. However – not undoing the socialist work of three decades of liberal communist socialist a$$holes like you, is certainly not the same thing as creating them.
Name one instance or program where the Bush administration opposed free trade. You cannot do it, but you throw it out there anyway in the cynical assumption that it will become true by saying it. For liberals like you --- that’s all it takes.
THE FOLLOWING IS EXCELLENT (thanks)
Nancy instructs Amused ”Clinton in Iraq: do you understand the difference between political propaganda and reality? HW and Clinton had opportunities to go into Iraq, in the former case with greater legitimacy than W, and they chose not to. What they say about it is propaganda, what they do is reality.”
Your parallel could not be more accurate and instructive of the fundamental difference
between liberals and conservatives, Clinton and Bush.
While you admit that ”Clinton had opportunities to go into Iraq, you insist that it was in Clinton's case ”with greater legitimacy than W.” The Bush administration went to Iraq based on greater legitimacy than the Clinton Administration because they took the actions neccesary to do so. These included the cause to believe that Iraq supported and assisted Al Quaida, sixteen U.N. resolutions passed during the previous Bush and mostly Clinton administrations, and Resolution 1441, the final unanimous world declaration that Iraq submit or be invaded. Yes, Clinton could have easily obtained this resolution, but he didn't, and now he openly expresses regrets about it.
Faced with the specter of terrorism in the Middle East, the Clinton administration engaged in continued political propaganda by (among other things) threatening invasion of Iraq. In doing so, he showed Iraq that no matter what Clinton said, he would do nothing. In contrast, GW Bush cleared away the mis-information, unanimously united the international diplomatic community, obtained bi-partisan political approval for war, and dealt directly and decisively with the reality. As a result, Saddam Hussein is unseated from power, Al Quaida is defeated, and Iraq is forming a semi-democratic government. Even if the Iraq government fails, America is far better off than the alternative.
It is no secret that Bill Clinton has said repeatedly in speeches and interviews that he agreed with GW Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. Since you disagree with this – you are simply hiding from (ignoring) the facts. If Bill Clinton had invaded Iraq, there would have been no idiotic bull$hit about WMD’S, no demonstrations, and no talk about impeachment. True believer liberal Democrats would have supported Clinton just as they did during his impeachment, and despite the fact that he screwed the liberal wing of the foolish party and made absolute fools of all of them. If Bill Clinton had invaded Iraq, I would have supported it, because he was my president (like it or not) and it was the right thing to do regardless of his party affiliation. In short, talk is cheap for Bill Clinton, and coping with reality much more unpopular and difficult, and Bush chose to do the right thing.
I get my facts from books, library research, the internet, and the news media. Two of the many (happily for me) differences between you and I, is that I don’t just make things up to suit a prejudice, and I honestly want to know the truth.
Nancy, your comments are a gratuitous cluster of silly foolish nonsense in service to your deranged hatred of GW Bush.
As your derangement grows . . . I am ever more amused by you. Let's hear more.
Thanks
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 27, 2006 12:07 PMMaybe if you wrote it in the form of a "Desperate Housewives" script ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 27, 2006 01:24 PMYou are too easy.
* At April 26, 2006 01:30, on this thread you cited the "theocratic socialism of the Bush Administration."
* At April 26, 2006 02:47 PM, I asked you, "What theocratic socialism are you talking about?
On that occasion I also asked:
Instead of a change of subject or moronic string of nonsense, provide a rational example please."
* In response to this clear question you wrote at April 26, 2006 04:23 PM:
"to humor you on a few points:
Theocratic: pushing public money into private religious institutions and claiming divine inspiration for policy decisions . . . " and "Socialist: federalizing everything he can get his hands on, including medical care and education ; opposing free trade . . .
* At April 27, 2006 12:07 PM, I showed that your examples are not rational definitions of Theocracy, socialism, or socialist doctrine nor are they even close, but part of a baseless string of nonsense. You make no effort to offer support or to counter my factual assertion because you have nothing but shallow baseless nonsense.
Now you attempt to change the subject by marginally re-stating baseless presumptions, "Do you really not know that Bush has opposed free trade or supported giving public money to private religious organizations?"
I recognize that you may believe this nonsense, but belief is not enough unless you are a liberal.
If you had a real argument or any facts to support it, you would have presented it by now. Instead, your simple repetition of empty partisan liberal slogans is useful for you because it requires no sober thought. Liberals like you are blissfully insane.
Nevertheless, as your derangement grows . . . I am ever more amused by you.
Thanks for the exhibition.
Let's hear more.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1237
"Name one instance or program where the Bush administration pushed public money into a private religious institution."
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/703
These are just initial google searches. I appreciate your thoroughness, but I'm still genuinely curious about precisely where you get your information. To be fair, I try to check WSJ, RCP, Fox, Wash. Post, BBC, and a few other sources on a regular basis. Also still curious about any objective factors I can watch for in Iraq to tell how things are going.
Posted by: nancy on April 27, 2006 03:59 PMThe Christians are coming! The Christians are coming!
Although in the most limited sense possible, you successfully found an example that someone could torture into an interpretation as an instance of either one of Amused's requests, you failed miserably to prove your point (unless, of course, your point is that you have no point, and like many girls, talk just for the sake of talking, and argue out of habit ;'}
Your "citations are crap and make you look even more the moron for posting them.
You're trying really hard, but you're not impressing anyone nance.......
Once again . . . these citations are completely entirely and absolutely irrelevant.
SOCIALIST
The first is an opinion piece written by Ariel Dillon that is utterly meaningless for two reasons.
1. It claims that if the Bush administration doesn't do as the author says, and repeal the steel tarriffs, Bush is a trade protectionist anti free-trader. Nancy, all opinions are not equal and simply voicing an opinion doesn't make it so." Further, naming an organization the "Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), does not -- in itself -- mean that it promotes free trade. The Bush administration is not trade protectionist, and trade protectionism is not -- in itself -- anti free trade.
2. You don’t know anything about free trade. How do you know that what Ariel Dillon says is useful . . . let alone true?
You might consider looking a little deeper into your sources of information. While relying on "just initial google searches" as you have here, may lead you to emotionally satisfying assumptions, they are entirely feckless. Just for the fun of a little reality check, look at Kucinich: Administration Wrong To Repeal Steel Tariffs. Which way are you going to go now? Anyone can find someone who agrees with their opinion. I consider it far better to ****think**** for yourself.
Therefore, I repeat, name one instance or program where the Bush administration opposed free trade.
THEOCRACY
Nice lazy job but no cigar. In the article by Don Monkerud, “Bush Reaffirms Commitment to Government Support of Religion it says, “President Bush reaffirmed his commitment to erode barriers against religion in government-supported programs and to grant more money to religious groups.
Great, but granting money to religious groups is not indicia of a Theocracy.
A theocracy is defined in The American Heritage Dictionary as: 1. Government by a god regarded as the ruling power or by priests or officials claiming divine sanction. 2. A state governed by a theocracy. See The American Heritage Dictionary,2nd College Ed., 1976, p. 1260
As I said at April 27, 2006 03:16 PM, “Now you attempt to change the subject by marginally re-stating baseless presumptions.” Nancy, an argument cannot be resolved by ignoring its elements in favor of introducing new ones. I understand one instance of the difference between former and latter as when a loser tries to obscure the fact that their former claims were soundly defeated by hastily reframing them as new and different claims. Nice try.
You lose.
Try again with some more new silly baseless bull$hit.
You didn't think at all.
You simply moved to the easiest most expedient justification of your change of subject. As you based your argument on a citation where you ”didn't bother reading the search results,” you (once again) prove my point. You are not capable of reasoned argumentation based on facts; only stating superficial baseless nonsense.
* At April 26, 2006 01:30, on this thread you burbled haplessly about the "theocratic socialism of the Bush Administration."
* At April 26, 2006 02:47 PM, in response I asked you, "What theocratic socialism are you talking about?” AND
Instead of a change of subject or moronic string of nonsense, provide a rational example please."
In response, you changed the form of the debate by ignoring the fact that your claim was disputed, defeated, and dismissed by your own acclimation. Then you engaged in a moronic string of nonsense. You lost the argument before it started because you made a statement that is indefensible (at least by you), and then you proved it by utterly failing to defend it.
In exhibition of your skills, it is entirely understandable that you would defend your statements and attributions with moronic strings of nonsense like ”the Ignoramus in Chief and his psychotic posse, "pull your head out of Rove's ass," "the difference between political propaganda and reality," and "the difference between former and latter?
And this gem, ”You don't really expect me to spend my time discussing political definitions when you can't even acknowledge basic facts, do you?
Nancy, emphatically NO, I don't expect you to spend time discussing political definitions, and this proves my case. In critical thinking, rhetoric, and argumentation, real definitions are indispensable. Your mode of making definitions up as you go along is puerile, stupid, and typically liberal. Further, present a fact and I will acknowledge it. Irrelevant citations to others opinions, baseless statements, scurrilous attributions, cheeky little asides, and moronic strings of nonsense are not facts. This type of nonsense is however, all that you have.
I repeat, it is clear why Soup was so short with you; something about a waste of time. I couldn't care less about what people like you feeeeel or believe. You are an object of amusement to me, because you are so sure you are correct, so easily proven wrong, and so arrogant in your hapless indolent self assurance that it is endlessly comical to watch you grasp and squirm. If you had a real argument or any facts to support it, you would have presented it by now.
IF YOU HAD A REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL ARGUMENT AND SUPPORTED IT WITH FACTS, I WOULD AGREE WITH IT. Instead you expect me to ignore real definitions and rational consistent lines of reasoning in favor of your shiftless, mindless, and hapless emotion-based opinions.
Nevertheless, as Saltherring said at April 24, 2006 08:40 AM, this thread contained a ”Beautiful and touching story....until the moonbats started commenting”
Feeeeel free to prove your shallowness some more.
Thanks.
(Or in this case to think ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 28, 2006 12:27 PMI notice you're not biting on any objective criteria for Iraq. Wise choice.
Posted by: Nancy on April 28, 2006 01:05 PMNow Bush has made the Constitution and Congress irrelevant? This is Bush derangement syndrome in spades. . . . . did he also turn you into a newt?
The old meanie "Ignoramus in Chief," is also brilliant enough to get his evangelical supporters to view his presidency as divine enough to make the Constitution and the Congress irrelevant. Where were all of those reeealy smart liberal congress-people during this? Wow!
Again you comment with shallow emotional characterizations, empty baseless irrational nonsense, irrelevancies and non-sequiturs, and another change of subject.
We agree on one thing though. My refusal to "bite on your transparent misdirection about "objective criteria for Iraq, was a wise choice on my part only because it had nothing to do with the debate. It was however, another refusal on your part to argue the points of the debate consistently. Your attempts to "move the goal post" are another installment in a large matrix of the ways you have lost the argument.
Since you believe that Webster's definition of a Theocracy, "is precisely how W and his evangelical supporters view W's presidency (and yes, that's all that matters now that they've made the Constitution and Congress irrelevant)," why not do yourself and all of the rest of us a favor and commit suicide?
I can suggest a number of painless ways to do it and honestly . . . it really is the best thing for you.
Besides, you can claim that its Bush's fault.
Let me know.(snerk)
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 28, 2006 03:07 PMThere's no point....you're too dim to recognize it when you see it. The object of this thread is conclusive evidence of "objective criteria" you twit!
So, since you don't get it, and are likely too dotardly to ever get it, I think I will alter my approach and revel in your stupidity.
So *conservative* nancy, don't it just p!ss you off that chimpy mcbushitler has gone and done imposed that durn mean ol theocracy on us?! Don't that just fry yor bacon?!
Who knows what he'll pull next.....invoking personal responsibility maybe?
That ol bush...he's a real fooler he is!
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 28, 2006 03:37 PM*conservative* nancy - you take the cake! I do hope that you're one of those "I me mine" females that believe their lives are too important to breed....
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 29, 2006 08:02 AMTo aptly quote you back to yourself, "Do you even understand the difference between former and latter?"
The point of contention was about your attribution of Bush’s imaginary socialist theocracy. See Posted by Amused by liberals at April 26, 2006 02:47 PM. ” What theocratic socialism are you talking about? You failed to show anything more than that ”I didn't bother reading [my own cited] search results, “You don't really expect me to spend my time discussing political definitions" . . . "if you could pull your head out of Rove's ass.” and "Bush has made the Constitution and Congress irrelevant.”
The second point of contention in the original exchange involved Iraq and I didn’t avoid it, I defeated you by your own acclimation of failure to counter argue.
At April 26, 2006 01:30 PM you wrote, ”Kicking the crap out of Al Quaeda???
presumably in response to my remarks at April 26, 2006 10:44 AM to Soup.
At April 26, 2006 02:47 PM I responded asking, ”What theocratic socialism are you talking about? Instead of a change of subject or moronic string of nonsense, provide a rational example please.’ and ”Yes, we are kicking the crap out of Al Qaeda. Nearly all of their leadership is dead, they have no good base of operations except Iran, and those left are struggling so hard to stay alive and scrambling to stay credible, they lack the wherewithal to be effective. What substantive evidence supports a conclusion to the contrary? What is your point?
at April 26, 2006 04:23 PM you sort of countered with, ”Iraq: do you have any metrics on how things are going so well in Iraq (apart from the number of cell phones and automobiles purchased by Iraqis with embezzled US tax dollars)? In particular I'd like to know how I'll know if things start to go badly.
Rather than dispute my points about “kicking the crap out of Al Qaeda,” by responding with ”substantive evidence that ”supports a conclusion to the contrary, or telling me ”what is your point, you simply changed to subject.
Still, you admitted that, ” I'd like to know how I'll know if things start to go badly.” Unless you are on Al quaida's side, this is your admission that we are kicking the crap out of Al Qaeda.
Quod erat demonstrandum
My mindset is typical of Bush supporters. I use sources of information that have high degrees of inductive strength, I reason through things in a quest for the truth by observing the differences between facts and mere opinions, and I argue sincerely using real definitions and consistent points of contention rather than the cheap silly pil pul you employ.
Every so often I venture what must look to others like a complete waste the time arguing fairly and clearly with a liberal because I honestly find it curious how anyone can be so obviously clueless and intellectually ill equipped and yet so arrogant about it. It is fun to watch the cheap tactics unfold, garbage reasoning, fallacies of content, fake authority, changes of subject, and obdurate rational disconnect. My venture is successful. You will believe anything in substitution for simple facts.
You lost the argument about theocratic socialism the moment you posted it because it is patently stupid and I proved it. You lost the argument about Iraq when you refused to make a counter- argument and instead chose to change the subject.
You will never admit that I soundly defeated you on points, and that pleases me to no end because it shows that you are so immersed in your own hapless ignorance and obdurate arrogant insufficiency that you would willingly stand on your head to prove that there is no gravity. Your dim-witted liberalism will continue to lose favor.
The more that you hate Bush and misconstrue events based on demented partisan foolishness . . . the more amusingly demented you will become.
Thanks for the exhibition.
May we hear more nonsense?
On theocracy: "Since you believe that Webster's definition of a Theocracy, "is precisely how W and his evangelical supporters view W's presidency (and yes, that's all that matters now that they've made the Constitution and Congress irrelevant)," why not do yourself and all of the rest of us a favor and commit suicide?"
Convincing.
On Iraq: "Things are INDEED going very well in Iraq as evidenced by EVERY report that comes to us even from the mainstream media."
These sum up both the strength of your arguments and your factual credibility. I appreciate your ardor, though. I find it endlessly fascinating how self-professed conservatives can support Bush (oops, am I changing the subject again? Sorry for breaking the rules!) And good work on the latin. Did you actually make your HS debate team?
Posted by: Nancy on April 29, 2006 11:08 AMThanks for the additional nonsense.
You claim not to hate Bush and ”consider him to be very politically savvy . . . ignoramus in chief,” yet you engage in singularly hateful attributions against him that utterly lack any substance whatsoever. Upon challenge of your attributions, you fail.
On theocracy: Anyone dim-witted enough to claim that GW Bush's staff consider him to be a god regarded as the ruling power or a priest or official claiming divine sanction, is simply an idiot. You did -- you are an idiot. You lost the argument about theocratic socialism the moment you posted it because it is patently stupid and obviously so.
I repeat my original question:
On Iraq: YES "Things are INDEED going very well in Iraq as evidenced by EVERY report that comes to us even from the mainstream media." What substantive evidence supports a conclusion to the contrary? What is your point?
As you argue nothing in defense of your claim, it can only be concluded that you have no argument or counterclaim; only a change of subject.
Your typical lazy liberal method is resorting to cheap tactics because you have no arguments; just a virulent form of Bush derangement syndrome. Your mock co opting of Bush, pretense of intellectual superiority and hapless arrogance are transparent.
No Nancy, Bush is not the “Ignoramus in Chief.” He has not established a theocracy, nor is he regarded as a god by his evangelical or any other supporters, aides, cabinet members or colleagues, nor is he a trade protectionist, or anti free trade. And no, Bush has not made the Constitution and Congress irrelevant.
Finally, you have not made one single citation, argument, or counterclaim that would reasonably establish any of this idiotic nonsense of yours.
Thanks for the silliness.
Tell us about your meetings with GW Bush and all of the “substance” you and he hashed out.
Were you required to prostrate yourself, kiss his ring, or say GW hosannas?
Lets hear more lying nonsense.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/01/AR2006040100004.html
http://www.grassrootsforamerica.us/fertilizer/steinberg.shtml
Posted by: Nancy on April 29, 2006 01:50 PMhttp://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200602241451.asp
Posted by: Nancy on April 29, 2006 01:53 PMSo far you're failed utterly to prove your case for a Bush-driven theocratic putsch. You really must try harder 'cause we all know it's happening! (It must be happening 'cause they said it was!). Keep trying - the truth is out there!
And it isn't difficult to find others that share your pee~your~panties pessimism about the WOT. Cowards and fools are a dime a dozen. That's why guys like Aric and the things they do are infinitely more significant than anything you'll ever amount to (sense the disgust?....good!) I will say one thing - in terms of being a miserable failure you do strive for excellence!
It was always obvious that this theocracy nonsense was not your idea because it would require too creativity on your part. It is not surprising that you found others who agree with you. As I stated earlier, anyone can find someone who agrees with their opinion, no matter how idiotic it may be. It is also clear that you are overtaken with BDS.
The three unsupported OPINION pieces you cite are a small part of a great number of writings by people who agree with your idiotic point.
Since that’s all you have, and you are satisfied that it is enough, I’m happy as well.
Thanks for more of your empty silliness.
Please do tell us about your meetings with GW Bush and all of the “substance” you and he hashed out, and how much smarter than him you are sure you are because of "something".
Were you required to prostrate yourself, kiss his ring, or say GW hosannas?
Did you also have meetings with Slick?
Did he Lewinsky ya?
Lets hear more lying nonsense.
It's been instructive.
Posted by: Nancy on April 30, 2006 07:04 PMOnce again you make no sense whatsoever.
Figure what out moron?
I know that in reasonable discourse, making up definitions out of whole cloth as you do rather than using real definitions is worse than ignorance, it is both deliberate ignorance, and dishonesty.
I know that your citations of the mere opinions of other dim-witted morons like yourself as authority for your own dim-witted moronic opinion is plain stupid.
I also know that constantly changing the subject and reframing the argument (as you have done consistently on this thread) is the tactic of a lazy loser who cannot support their own petty ill-considered and baseless opinions.
Much worse than deliberate ignorance and stupidity is your bald dishonesty. Claiming to have met GW Bush, finding him very personable, and considering him to be very politically savvy, after your interminable scurrilous, insulting, and idiotically petty characterizations of him is low down lying hypocrisy on your part. Nice slimy attempt at misdirection though.
You make a literate production of illiterate nonsense until challenged, at which point you collapse like a house of cards, scurrying to tactics in direct substitution for reasoned argument. Tactically speaking, I’ll give you 2 points in 10 for the ham-fisted attempts at misdirection and subject changes. Intellectually, literally, rationally, and academically, you are bankrupt . . . . and you know it.
Morally you are a scum bag.
What is truly pathetic is that you choose to be that way.
Thanks.
Please do tell us about your meetings with GW Bush and Slick.
Have you also met Elvis?