Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
So the population was much better off when they were getting gassed? How come people focus so much on death in war, and not on deaths caused by despotic governments. More people were killed by their own government in the last century than died in warfare. It seems to me if people in the last century had spent more time trying to avoid despotic governments (especially communists one) than trying to avoid war that the last century would have been much less bloody.

This from the man who applauds Pinochet?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
This from the man who applauds Pinochet?

Hobgoblin. Small minds. Etc.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I do think it's less than 50,000, but that's still irrelevant. The point was where things are today, not over the last 2.5 years. How many people are dying in Iraq a month these days? 100? 200? 300? Let's say 300. That's 3,600 a year. I would guess that the murder rates in America's top 10 cities exceed that, but even if they don't, it's in the ball park. And we live in a country that is not fighting an insurgency (at least not violently) and has a stable democracy. We can even forget about the US as a whole. What's the annual murder rate in CA? Between LA and Oakland alone, it's probably between 700-800. Whole state, say 1200-1500.

Just trying to put things in perspective.

ETA: CA murders in 2002: 1842 http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/04/2...rnia.crime.ap/

3600 a year? You mean nearly a quarter of the deaths have been US soldiers?*


Somehow, I doubt that. (And, again, you ignore the difference in population sizes to make your "point").



*Over 1700 US soldiers dead in Iraq since March 2003 -- compared to Club's estimate of about 8000 total dead since that time.


eta: AP wire shows at least 1274 killed by insurgents since April 28 -- more than double Club's high-end rate. But that's just the beginning of the story.

First, that's just confirmed deaths, and doesn't count all the missing and unknowns.

Second, that's just Iraqi civilians killed by insurgents. It doesn't include US soldiers, nor the civilians killed by US soldiers.

Third, for every death there are several severely wounded -- i.e., loss of limbs. One sees nothing like this in US crime statistics -- there are not 3 or 4 people getting maimed for each murder.


I'm sorry, but the suggestion that more people are murdered in the US than in Iraq is just plain wrong -- and that is without taking into account the huge difference in population.

To borrow from Shape Shifter -- would you feel safer in Baghdad, or in New Orleans?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
So, to sum up, we're killing them for their own protection, and it's okay because we're killing less of them than Hussein did. Have I got that right? I'd hate to be accused of manipulating the truth.

Why is this a problem? At worst, the U.S. is a barbaric despot. If so, we've traded one barbaric despot for another, but with a reduced rate of killing. Of course, the U.S. may not be as bad as Hussein because its motives are less bad. So, Iraq is better off for that reason as well.

If you have a solution that involves the removal of hussein and a complete cessation of all killing, I'm sure the democrats would like to hear from you.

[Fair and Equitable]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Jesus Christ!

First, you guys really need to learn to distinguish between Democrats and liberals, and between liberals and progressives.

Your comparisons are about as meaningful as saying that David Duke, Grover Norquist, Pat Robertson, or Newt Gingrich speak for Lincoln Chafee (or for Bilmore) -- because they are all on the "right" side of the aisle.

As to your quotes -- Gere is a freakin' Buddhist, and his quote (which did seem to be snipped from a larger discussion) is an entirely natural response in the context of his religious tradition.

If you don't like it, I'll match your Gere with Pat Robertson, and note that, unlike Robertson, Gere has never been a "serious" contender for his parties' Presidential nomination and has never participated in a nationally televised debate of primary candidates.

Shirely McClaine believes in ghosts and past lives. She is a bona fide nut case, and not representative of any type of mainstream liberal thought. (Don't you keep telling us that the Hollywood liberal elite is not "mainstream"?)

Alice Walker writes for the m*therf*cking Village Voice, for God's sakes. That means she's almost certainly well past liberal, and back in the day was likely some kind of socialist or communist.
Do Regnery Press or Richard Scaife's journals speak for the Republican Party?

In sum -- those quotes aren't properly representative of either "liberal" or, even less, so "Democratic" thought. Anyone on this Board who truly believes otherwise -- as opposed to those just being tools -- are truly profoundly ignorant.

S_A_M

P.S. My condolences, Hank.

What a non sequitur of a response. This argument is taking place in the context of Karl Rove's remarks and whether they are accurate. He stated

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Now this board has been presented with four quotes from widlely known liberals expressing exactly the sentiments Karl Rove attributed. Note that he didn't attribute them to "Democrats." So what about what Rove said is inaccurate? The fact that not every single liberal (at least for some limited time) didn't agree with these sentiments?

But I'm willing to take you up on your offer. Please match my Gere with a Pat Robertson quote expresing the need for love for terrorists. (This isn't an invitation to find stupid quotes from Robertson, of which there are many, because the conservatives on this board aren't denying the truth that Pat Robertson is a tremondous ass.) But if you can't find the quote you promised, why don't you just go back to the Infirm boards where you can just delete the posts that demonstrate how full of shit you are.

P.S. Just because the Hollywood elite aren't mainstream doesn't mean that they do not represent mainstream liberal thought. You do recall that the Democrats last the past Presidential election, are minorities in Congress, hold less governorships, etc.?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I do think it's less than 50,000, but that's still irrelevant. The point was where things are today, not over the last 2.5 years. How many people are dying in Iraq a month these days? 100? 200? 300? Let's say 300.

You have no idea? Why are you even posting then?

Club in court: "Let's say my client is innocent. Let's say he wasn't even in town that day. So he should be acquitted, right? You, the members of the jury, should acquit him."

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Fair and Equitable
What a non sequitur of a response. This argument is taking place in the context of Karl Rove's remarks and whether they are accurate. He stated

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Now this board has been presented with four quotes from widlely known liberals expressing exactly the sentiments Karl Rove attributed. Note that he didn't attribute them to "Democrats." So what about what Rove said is inaccurate? The fact that not every single liberal (at least for some limited time) didn't agree with these sentiments?

The Rs have for some time used "Democrats" and "liberals" interchangeably. Perhaps if they weren't so liberal (ha!) in their use of the term, the Ds wouldn't be so offended. But this is all beside the point. I'll easily condemn what MM and those other dipshits said. Why are you defending Rove?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why is this a problem? At worst, the U.S. is a barbaric despot. If so, we've traded one barbaric despot for another, but with a reduced rate of killing. Of course, the U.S. may not be as bad as Hussein because its motives are less bad. So, Iraq is better off for that reason as well.

If you have a solution that involves the removal of hussein and a complete cessation of all killing, I'm sure the democrats would like to hear from you.

Well, let's start with the fact that it's not our territory.

If you can get past the imperialism argument (and I can, by the way) then the real issues are only (i) are we committed to spend the money and lose the lives necessary to stay; and (ii) are we prepared for the tax increases necessary to pay for it?

[Fair and Equitable]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The Rs have for some time used "Democrats" and "liberals" interchangeably. Perhaps if they weren't so liberal (ha!) in their use of the term, the Ds wouldn't be so offended. But this is all beside the point. I'll easily condemn what MM and those other dipshits said. Why are you defending Rove?

Why should he be required to apologize or resign, as many Democrats are suggesting, when what he said is true? But here's an offer, if you'll state that what Rove said does not warrant an apology, I won't post more quotes from liberals stating the need for terrorists to just be loved. Deal?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Fair and Equitable
Now this board has been presented with four quotes from widlely known liberals expressing exactly the sentiments Karl Rove attributed. Note that he didn't attribute them to "Democrats." So what about what Rove said is inaccurate? The fact that not every single liberal (at least for some limited time) didn't agree with these sentiments?

You speak as if Karl Rove was talking about "conservatives" and "liberals" as accounting for only a small part of the nation. He clearly was not -- he was describing the nation as consisting of "conservatives" on the one hand and "liberals" on the other, and nothing in-between. He set up a dichotomy, in other words.

What possible point could Rove have been making if he really considered only the far left to be "liberals"?

One comment of Rove's I found particularly interesting (in a foaming-at-the-mouth Wahhabi Republican sort of way) was his attack on Moveon.org for calling for "moderation and restraint" in the response to 9/11. I find it interesting because, in fact, Bush did exercise moderation and restraint. People were calling for carpet-bombing Kabul, for a mass invasion of the Middle East, and even for near-Armageddon (Ann Coulter -- "we should invade their countries...." and convert them to Christianity by the sword). Bush, instead, carried out a very tailored attack (using the precision weapons built by the Clinton military) that drove the Taliban from power without mass civilian casualties. It was truly his finest hour, and it was so because he balanced the desire, and need, for revenge with the understanding that an overwhelming attack would be worse for the US in the long run.

And then, of course, he fucked it all up by invading Iraq instead of devoting US military and diplomatic resources to making the aftermath of the Afghan war a success. But that's a different issue -- even though Rove wants you to believe that it's part of the response to 9/11.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Fair and Equitable
Why should he be required to apologize or resign, as many Democrats are suggesting, when what he said is true? But here's an offer, if you'll state that what Rove said does not warrant an apology, I won't post more quotes from liberals stating the need for terrorists to just be loved. Deal?

Post away. I'm sure the Scaife sites with as many of these quotes that the bandwith available after all the Hillary photoshops allows. If you want to be the Thottam of the right, that's your business.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Well, let's start with the fact that it's not our territory.

If you can get past the imperialism argument (and I can, by the way) then the real issues are only (i) are we committed to spend the money and lose the lives necessary to stay; and (ii) are we prepared for the tax increases necessary to pay for it?

Can't we finance it with the oil revenue?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Fair and Equitable
No sock just a long-time lurker and first-time poster, just check the created on date. But, as is your habit, you refuse to respond to the substance and instead shift the topic. Does that work for you in your legal career?

If you're a long-time lurker, then you'll know that I don't like Moore, so it's particularly irritating to have him held up as some kind of political leader. Since you're so keen on staying on topic, the topic was Karl Rove's bon mots, not Michael Moore.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
What was his entertainer role at the convention? Was he juggling balls for Teresa backstage to keep the mood elevated? Demo-fluffer?

As I recall, the DNC initially denied him press credentials because they didn't want him there. They then backed down on that. But he had no official role -- he was someone's guest in a box, I believe.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Can't we finance it with the oil revenue?

Isn't that how we are financing it now? After all, the war only cost $20 billion, and the oil capacity was restored instantly. Right?