Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It's a not a person I am directed it to, dimfuck, its an ideological group espousing dangerous, hateful, and treasonously evil ideology antithetical to both the American way of life and freedom.

Is that why you can treat us as you do, Penske, because you don't think of us as people?

S_A_M

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What did ABC fabricate about Bush?

Election results.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What did ABC fabricate about Bush?

the only clinton fabrication was to put detail on the "pass on killing Osama." the actual details are murky, the movie pinned the decision on someone, and that was the fabrication. But the decision to pass did occur.

I didn't see this part. did they change it? to what?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
In the speech I saw Hitchens give, he blasted Chamberlin and reiterated that the Nazis were incredibly evil and needed to be taken out by force, and that we had to demand unconditional surrender. He also said that the bombing of factorys and rail lines was strategically important and vital to the war effort.

The point he was making is that the British, after the Battle of Britain, decided to target civilians partially as pay back and partially for destryoing their moral. His point was that neither rational really justified deliberately targeting civilians. If they are collateral damange, such are the fortunes of war, but specifically targeting them was wrong.

He pointed out that the daylight bombing raids by the Americans in Europe were more strategic and therefor less of a problem. But in Japan LeMay specifically targeted the civilian population.

Hitchens is no surrender Monkey and he made a compelling case.

Both sides responded to other's attacks on civilian populations by upping the ante. If memory serves, the UK bombed Berlin in 1940 just to strike back during the Battle of Britain, without even really trying to hit military targets. And they did their bombing at night, which made targeting next to impossible. Germany retaliated by bombing civilian areas in London, shifting the focus of the Battle of Britain.

Although the USAF believed it could achieve better targeting than the Brits -- not hard, considering -- the bombsites really weren't that accurate, and even the efforts to hit specific targets -- say a bridge or a factory -- were predicated on "walking" a whole lot of bombs across a wide area on either side of the target.

Both the RAF and the USAF oversold their own accuracy to the leadership, which is hardly an isolated phenomenom.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Election results.

2. calling Fla. early in 2000 cost Bush an estimated 15000 vote margin in the panhandle.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
The only person with a God complex is the person that made this statement because they are claiming they are omniscient.

Watch out, Spanky!

At the rate you're going the Slothorp administration will recycle all the arguments from the Bush DOJ's briefs in Hamdi, Padilla, etc. when they yank your ass from a chair at your local Starbucks -- and it will take three years for you to see your lawyers, or get a hearing.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account

And they blame for the divide in the country. It would laughable if it wasn't so sad.

The "division" in the country is caused by the fact that Bush doesn't need the Democrats to implement polcy. At first he tried to work with them (working with Kennedy on the education bill etc) but when they got to demanding for their way, he could just ignore them because of the Republican control of congress. Everytime they took a hard line negotiating position, he drew an end run around them and worked without their cooperation. When they realized their powerlessness (and like any insecure person who doesn't feel they are getting respect) they got really nasty. The nastier they got they less he worked with them, and he could get away with it because he didn't need them.

For them to blame Bush for the divide is really ripe. It was like the Democrats critisizing Bush I for raising taxes, when they are the ones that forced him into doing it.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the only clinton fabrication was to put detail on the "pass on killing Osama." the actual details are murky, the movie pinned the decision on someone, and that was the fabrication. But the decision to pass did occur.

It was not a fabrication as a matter of fact. It was a dramatisation.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Both sides responded to other's attacks on civilian populations by upping the ante. If memory serves, the UK bombed Berlin in 1940 just to strike back during the Battle of Britain, without even really trying to hit military targets. .............Germany retaliated by bombing civilian areas in London, shifting the focus of the Battle of Britain.

And Germany refocusing on civilian targets may have cost them the war. If they had kept bombing RAF bases, instead of turning to the civilian population in revenge, they may have wiped out the RAF, allowing operation SEA Lion to go forward, taking Britain out......

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Is that why you can treat us as you do, Penske, because you don't think of us as people?

S_A_M

Dissent. With rare exception, none of my posts are personally directed to people here, unless there are prominent elected officials and/or the DNC leadership here. I take the high road and have respect and love for all here, despite their hate, and additionally, unlike many, I do not seek to squelch speech here. I welcome the marketplace of ideas.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Watch out, Spanky!

At the rate you're going the Slothorp administration will recycle all the arguments from the Bush DOJ's briefs in Hamdi, Padilla, etc. when they yank your ass from a chair at your local Starbucks -- and it will take three years for you to see your lawyers, or get a hearing.

S_A_M

I don't drink coffee and wouldn't be caught dead in Starbucks.

:cheers: :hug: :violin: :band:

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
The "division" in the country is caused by the fact that Bush doesn't need the Democrats to implement polcy. At first he tried to work with them (working with Kennedy on the education bill etc) but when they got to demanding for their way, he could just ignore them because of the Republican control of congress. Everytime they took a hard line negotiating position, he drew an end run around them and worked without their cooperation. When they realized their powerlessness (and like any insecure person who doesn't feel they are getting respect) they got really nasty. The nastier they got they less he worked with them, and he could get away with it because he didn't need them.

For them to blame Bush for the divide is really ripe. It was like the Democrats critisizing Bush I for raising taxes, when they are the ones that forced him into doing it.

Notwithstanding whether or not Bush needs them (and from the state of his SS reform package and the perpetuation of his tax cuts/IRC overhaul I would say maybe he could have) and/or what he did at the genesis of his admin, I am saying from the start, the Dems were a chorus of "Dumya", "illegitimate election" etc etc et al. They disparage Bush voters as idiots and/or religious kooks. They disparage faith. they want a divide because they think that they are smarter and more capable than the Rs. Yet they couldn't beat Bush in two tries. But we are all stupid religious freaks and they are the smart ones. So they get a divide. Then they blame Bush for it.

The Dem party leadership is a joke.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The "division" in the country is caused by the fact that Bush doesn't need the Democrats to implement polcy. At first he tried to work with them (working with Kennedy on the education bill etc) but when they got to demanding for their way, he could just ignore them because of the Republican control of congress. Everytime they took a hard line negotiating position, he drew an end run around them and worked without their cooperation. When they realized their powerlessness (and like any insecure person who doesn't feel they are getting respect) they got really nasty. The nastier they got they less he worked with them, and he could get away with it because he didn't need them.

For them to blame Bush for the divide is really ripe. It was like the Democrats critisizing Bush I for raising taxes, when they are the ones that forced him into doing it.

I'm posting the following not because I think I'm likely to persuade you or anyone else of what the author (Kevin Drum) says, but because I think there's some small chance that you will read it and hear a little better where Democrats are coming from on this one:

• My biggest disappointment of the past five years — the biggest by a very long way — has been the way that George Bush transformed 9/11 from an opportunity to bring the country together into a cynical and partisan cudgel useful primarily for winning a few more votes in national elections.
  
  Compare and contrast: FDR was surely one of the most partisan presidents of the 20th century, but after Pearl Harbor he announced that "Dr. New Deal has been replaced by Dr. Win the War." And he made good on that. World War II was largely a bipartisan war and FDR largely governed as a bipartisan commander-in-chief.
  
  And Bush? Within a few months of 9/11 Karl Rove was telling party members what a great issue terrorism would be for Republicans. Andy Card was busily working on the marketing campaign for Iraq, timed for maximum impact on the midterm elections in 2002. Joe Lieberman's DHS bill was hijacked and deliberately loaded with anti-union features in order to draw Democratic complaints and hand Bush a campaign issue. The UN resolution on WMD inspections in Iraq was kept on fire until literally the day after the midterms, at which point the version acceptable to the rest of the world was suddenly agreeable to Bush as well. Democrats who supported Bush on the war were treated to the same scorched-earth campaigning as everyone else. Bipartisanship bought them nothing.
  
  What else? Bush never engaged with Democrats in any way. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were both hawkish Dems who could have been co-opted early if Bush had had any intention of treating the war seriously. He didn't even try. He continued pushing divisive domestic issues like tax cuts and culture war amendments. ("Dr. Tax Cuts has been replaced by Dr. Win the War" would have been more appropriate.) He showed little interest in funding anti-proliferation efforts or working with serious Democratic proposals to improve domestic security at ports and chemical plants. The national security rhetoric from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the administration was relentlessly inflammatory and divisive.
  
  I think this is a complaint that most conservatives don't accept — even conservatives who have soured on Bush over the past couple of years. But believe me: on the Democratic side of the aisle, Bush's intensely and gratuitously partisan approach to 9/11 and the war on terror is keenly felt. Sunday's Republican Party photo-op at Ground Zero was just more of the same.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
And Germany refocusing on civilian targets may have cost them the war. If they had kept bombing RAF bases, instead of turning to the civilian population in revenge, they may have wiped out the RAF, allowing operation SEA Lion to go forward, taking Britain out......

That's an interesting debate. There are some people who say that, but there are others who say that if you look at the attrition in the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe was going to be gone long before the RAF.

[SlaveNoMore]

Penske_Account
Thing is, if Clinton hadn't been lying so much and derelict in carrying out the duties of his office, Bush never would have been in a situation where he could have been criticised for the things he has. And 911 would just a be an ordinary calendar date. and an emergency services phone number.

Actually, if Clinton hadn't lied so much, we probably would have had an intermittent term of a President Gore, and subsequent attacks on 9/11, 10/12, 11/13 and 12/14.

In other words, thank you Monica