Al Qaeda seems to be doing well

[albed]

I think it's telling that theknife's antagonism now extends to Britain, showing that his opinion isn't based on any concern for his country but on uniform opposition to any enemy of islamic terrorists.


Though he's really no different than all the weak minded, easily swayed liberals.






"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is taken to heart by terrorists and liberals alike.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by albed

I think it's telling that theknife's antagonism now extends to Britain, showing that his opinion isn't based on any concern for his country but on uniform opposition to any enemy of islamic terrorists.


Though he's really no different than all the weak minded, easily swayed liberals.






"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is taken to heart by terrorists and liberals alike.

i think it's telling you can't read - what part of "kudos to the Brits" did you not get?

[albed]

Originally Posted by theknife

i think it's telling you can't read - what part of "kudos to the Brits" did you not get?

I get all of it - it's just like the comments posted on radical islamic web sites. Hell a lot of your comments are indistinguishable from the terrorists', but where you used to claim concern for U.S. lives and money, it's now evident that your concern is for criticizing any country fighting the terrorists. Or hypocritical praise in this case.

[multi]

fucking bullshit

stop whining

[albed]

Can't we all just get abong?








you know where the ignore button is you bong sucking monkey molester

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Originally Posted by Mazer

It's probably only coincidence that the rhetoric coming from Democrats and Iraqi insurgents sounds so much alike.

I submit that it only 'sounds alike' if you're listening through some sort of voltage controlled filter installed in your own head. In such a state I suppose everything must sound the basically the same, like the adults in Charlie Brown, but admitting you hear warbly trumpets when people speak doesn't lend you much credibility in political discussions.

Originally Posted by Mazer

They both want us out of Iraq and for the same reasons.

Even though this statement is based on sweeping presumptions so loosely connected to any semblance of reality that one can only hazard guesses about what it's actually intended to mean, it's still fundamentally and ludicrously false.

First of all neither Democrats nor Iraqi insurgents are single minded entities.

By even referring to democrats in this way, one assumes you are actually talking about a small group of hopeful candidates who are trying desperately to appeal to their base in typical political style: by talking a lot but not saying much. Even they understand that being a democrat isn't an absolute indicator that you're against the war in Iraq, any more than being republican means you're absolutely gung ho.

As far as the insurgency, it should be patently obvious their motivations are even more disparate.

Originally Posted by Mazer

They both think the president is a liar and a coward. Is it really any wonder that Dems are called unpatriotic?

Yes, because as has been argued approximately a billion times, and must sound like warbly trumpets to some people, if the president is a liar, it's pure patriotism to point out those lies and guard one's self and others against them. No one person has more potential to damage the country one loves, and only the most 'weak minded and easily swayed' would confuse an elected office with infallibility.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

I submit that it only 'sounds alike' if you're listening through some sort of voltage controlled filter installed in your own head. In such a state I suppose everything must sound the basically the same, like the adults in Charlie Brown, but admitting you hear warbly trumpets when people speak doesn't lend you much credibility in political discussions.

Sorry for baiting you, Ramona, but I'm glad you responded.

Even though I don't listen to country music, I'm not the sort of person who would have boycotted the Dixie Chicks when their lead singer's offhand remarks at a concert in London stirred up so much trouble for them. They have their opinions, they had an audience, and they have a right to make their minds known. I didn't agree with Bush when he suggested that the band had no right to complain about hurt feelings. To me the whole thing was childish, but I could empathize with the band and with their crtics. I can understand why certain Americans would take shame in knowing Bush is a Texan, and I can understand why others would be offended when that sentiment is expressed publicly.

I know for a fact that you are capable of empathy so I can only assume that your one-sided response is not caused by any lack of understanding but is instead a reaction to the one-sidedness of my post. But now that we've boiled this complex debate down to two very simple, diametrically opposed arguments, let's have a look at both. You'll notice that I did not visit the intentions of either Democrats or insurgents. I omitted such speculation from my post for a reason: I am not a mind reader. I can only infer motive from what I hear and see, and were it not for this limitation I would not pick words that indict citizens of my own country for their rhetoric. I don't accuse people of 'un-patriotism' lightly and was not making that accusation here. But the self-serving reasoning you have so keenly deconstructed is what goes through the minds of half of all Americans when they make such accusations. And your Charlie Brown analogy is apt because the left does sound like parrots or a broken record or muted trumpets to a large portion of the right. Everyone's talking, nobody's saying too much.

To point out that politicians lie, besides being a statement of the obvious, may be pure patriotism when an American citizen makes the point. But Iraqi insurgents making the same statement are not in the same class; obviously their motives are different. Ditto when insurgents call for America to leave Iraq; they have different intentions for post-occupation Iraq than Democrats have. I understand this, and I think you know that. So why would I state "sweeping presumptions" that are "fundamentally and ludicrously false?" Because they are the landscape of this debate for a large portion of Americans, those fed on a daily diet of sound bites and headlines and this-many-soldiers-died-in-Iraq-today news reports. The true geography of these issues are unmapped for most people which is why a group of country singers were so blindly criticized when they expressed themselves a few years ago. But give me a little more credit than the rest of them. My desire is for you to consider both sides of the debate, not just my side and not just your side. Neither of us will convince each other, we both knew that going into this discussion. All I can do is make my side of the argument known and hope to articulate it well, even if that means I have to advocate for the small minds and prejudices of others. (If I ever sound like I'm defending albed, it's only coincidence.)

Can it be helped if Democrats and insurgents are making similar arguments? Sure it can: Democrats can point out that they don't want the insurgents to win. But they don't say so, and those who believe the insurgents have already won don't lament it. Instead they lament that we started the war in the first place, as if the Iraqis share no blame for their current troubles. In fact they share the blame with us; it is not all ours. Democrats could at least attempt to sound like they wanted us to win this war, but their politics have overcome them. The result is that they sound as if they wanted our troops to die and retreat in utter defeat in order for them to win their political games in Washington, D.C. They have allowed themselves to be perceived as agreeing with our enemies, they have invited accusations of un-patriotism. We can only assume from their glaring defeatism that Democratic politicians care more about wining votes than wining wars. Whether or not this perception is justified or supported by reality is irrelevant, it is what people have come to believe.

[multi]

Originally Posted by albed

Can't we all just get abong?








you know where the ignore button is you bong sucking monkey molester

LOL

why would I want to do that?
you are a fine source of entertainment

PS. I don't have a monkey