Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005. - Page 72

Shape Shifter · 06-23-2005, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Steve
the Killen thing

It would suck to be charged with murder and have that last name.

Tyrone Slothrop · 06-23-2005, 06:07 PM

Another pro-free-trade Dem explains why CAFTA is bad news.

Iron Steve · 06-23-2005, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
The whole fucking schtick. You've been playing this game so long, and so hard, I can't tell where the guy I've met leaves off and the evil troll he plays begins.

It saddens me.

I'm anti-Klansman and pro-life in the Schiavo case. That is not that much of a schtick. And I am anti-death penalty.

Don't be sad, be glad.

Iron Steve · 06-23-2005, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I'm a liberal. I'm for being able to take out the Saudis and Syria, if there's sufficient evidence of a need to put American lives in harm's way. But thanks to BushCo, even if that evidence existed, now we can't.

But hey - we got rid of Saddam...and they had an election...so life is better for the Iraqis and we're safer, right?

I would say so. And I am sure Slave and Rove would too. Club?

sgtclub · 06-23-2005, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I consider myself a liberal, and I am fairly confident that you do as well. I completely disagree with what Rove said. I don't know a single liberal who wasn't in favor of direct military action against those responsible for 9/11.

Of course, Bin Laden is still at large. The Saud faamily is still practicing a Wahabbist oligarchy in Saudi Arabia. Basheer Assad succeeded his father in Syria, where more likely than not Bin laden is in semi-permanent residence.

But at least we've spent billions on toppling Iraq while at the same time cutting taxes and programs benefiting the poor, the sick, and the children here at home.

Now, having reviewed where the liberals I know stood on 9/11 and the events taking place since then, please explain to me what part, if any, of Rove's statement was true.

I don't know whether you are or not. You only really post about tax policy. I think Sidd is moderate for this board, but his tax policy is probably liberal. But I digress.

If liberal includes everybody to the left of center, than what Rove said is basically wrong. I say basically because it is a fact that a lot of left of center folks did want to place the war on terrorism as something more suitable for law enforcement than war. That's a policy question that I don't agree with and that a lot of people on this board to offense to, but it is what it is.

sgtclub · 06-23-2005, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Steve
I would say so. And I am sure Slave and Rove would too. Club?

No question.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that less people are being murdered in Iraq in a time of war than in the US in a time of peace. Just putting it in perspective.

Shape Shifter · 06-23-2005, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
We're taking care of slave.

For the record, the photoshopping was done by a Republican (or at least the wife of one). I guess you're right, penske. We can't photoshop. We need to work on these skillz for 08!

Shape Shifter · 06-23-2005, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
No question.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that less people are being murdered in Iraq in a time of war than in the US in a time of peace. Just putting it in perspective.

You got a cite for that? I've seen some studies that estimate over 100,000 dead.

Iron Steve · 06-23-2005, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
No question.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that less people are being murdered in Iraq in a time of war than in the US in a time of peace. Just putting it in perspective.

In 5-7 years Iraq will be a relatively stable productive nation in the heart of the Middle East. I have no delusions that it will be a western style democracy, but it will be a fairly democratic place for the region. How anyone ever thought this would be anything less than a 10 year arc I have no idea.

Syria otoh, would probably turn a lot more quickly. Saudi Arabia, forgetaboutit. The best scenario would be if nationalized the oil fields and sold the concession rights for Mecca and Medina.

Iran will turn on its own, probably before Jeb is done with his second term.

Sexual Harassment Panda · 06-23-2005, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
No question.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that less people are being murdered in Iraq in a time of war than in the US in a time of peace. Just putting it in perspective.

Thanks for that insight. Out here in the land o' liberals, the people of the city of Richmond are concerned about their high murder rate. But they'd do well to remember that fewer people are murdered in Richmond than are murdered in the entire eastern seaboard of the US.

Sidd Finch · 06-23-2005, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
In my mind, liberal has taken on a whole new meaning. Maybe I'm confusining it with "far left" or "radical left" but I view them as basically the same.

I do not put ACLU folks in this category. Believe it or not, I tend to agree with the ACLU in most cases, though I think they have gotten certain issues wrong in certain circumstances, like the free exercise setting.

When Karl Rove refers to "liberal", he is not limiting it to the "far left." And he definitely means to include the ACLU.

Tyrone Slothrop · 06-23-2005, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
it is a fact that a lot of left of center folks did want to place the war on terrorism as something more suitable for law enforcement than war.

Which explains why they all voted against invading Afghanistan. Oops, wait a minute . . . . .

What a crock. Most people reasonably agree that the so-called war on terrorism involves a military component and a law enforcement.

Sidd Finch · 06-23-2005, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
You got a cite for that? I've seen some studies that estimate over 100,000 dead.

Aw, c'mon. Just because it's false doesn't mean it can't be a solid justification for the war. Remember WMDs?

sgtclub · 06-23-2005, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I've seen some studies that estimate over 100,000 dead.

Irrevelevant. Even if true, and I highly doubt it, my post was directed at the current point in time. The most dangerous cities in the US have 500+ murders per year. That's 40+ murders per month per city.

sgtclub · 06-23-2005, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Which explains why they all voted against invading Afghanistan. Oops, wait a minute . . . . .

What a crock. Most people reasonably agree that the so-called war on terrorism involves a military component and a law enforcement.

Ty, Ty, Ty . . . you should really use "The King of the Bait and Switch" in your tag line.