Not Even One Yet.
 

0 = number of funerals for fallen American Solders Bush has attended.

Re: Just one more.
 

[ QUOTE ]


We get it already...
Liberals = Stupid, delusional, and wrong about everything.



[/ QUOTE ]

AC,

At the risk of appearing to be a suck up to a Mod (yeah, like I suck up to anyone I'm not married to [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) not everyone who disagrees with Liberals believe Liberals are the Devil Incarnate. OK, maybe a few of you are. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

According to the Libertarian Party's "test," I am a Centrist. (and damned proud I am about that, too) To me, that means I can listen to both sides of the issue and make up my own damned mind. I get a tad biased on occasion, but I really do try and listen to my Liberal friends.

And I do have friends who consider themselves to be very Liberal. Occasionally they sway me. (Momma, please forgive me!) On rare occasions I sway them.

This is getting close to highjacking. Bye.

Re: Just one more.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not everyone who disagrees with Liberals believe Liberals are the Devil Incarnate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that. It just gets very old hearing the same old song from certain posters.

-AC
(Still not a Liberal)

Re: Just one more.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyday we mess with the middle east is another insurgent made (off topic why are washington and Jefferson called revolutionaries, but the iraqi freedom fighters are called insurgents?)

[/ QUOTE ]

You should try to get your terms straight.

The Iraqi insurgents are NOT "freedom" fighters. Rather, they are fighting for a return to tyranny--not freedom.

The Saddamites are fighting for a return to Baathist tyranny.

The foreign Jihadists, such as Zarqawi's "Al-Qaeda In Iraq", are fighting for the imposition of Islamo-fascist tyranny, that is, for pure religious rule.

Neither of the above are fighting for "freedom."

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with the weatherman...(One mans freedom fighter etc.) however you cannot say that the insurgents are fighting for tyranny. They have an objective that is counter to what most people would feel is an open democratic society but you are defining their motives according to your own personal view of the situation. I suppose this is just a semantic arguement but I can't imagine that they would describe their actions as backing tyranny.

Re: Just one more.
 

[ QUOTE ]


I don't agree with the weatherman...(One mans freedom fighter etc.) however you cannot say that the insurgents are fighting for tyranny. They have an objective that is counter to what most people would feel is an open democratic society but you are defining their motives according to your own personal view of the situation. I suppose this is just a semantic arguement but I can't imagine that they would describe their actions as backing tyranny.



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see your argument that this is about semantics.

Tyranny is a government with one ruler. It can be named Theocracy (as many seem to), Islamic Nation, whatever, but to me it's a clear case of tyranny when you've got a country run by one Imam, or, for that matter, one general or one mafia boss.

To say their (insurgents) "objective is counter to what most people would feel is an open democratic society" just put you at the top of my WTF List. I'm seriously considering naming that statement as Understatement of the Century.

Lord love a duck!

[img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Re: Not Even One Yet.
 

[ QUOTE ]
0 = number of funerals for fallen American Solders Bush has attended.

[/ QUOTE ]

G-Dub attending a military funeral would only serve to embolden the terriss'; not unlike an exit strategy or war protest would.

Duh.

Re: Not Even One Yet.
 

Maybe he could go to the funeral and tell the widow, "Mission Accomplished". Then he could smirk at the rest of the family and say, "Bring 'Em On!" That should teach those evil doers.

Re: Not Even One Yet.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe he could go to the funeral and tell the widow, "Mission Accomplished". Then he could smirk at the rest of the family and say, "Bring 'Em On!" That should teach those evil doers.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Ma'am, your husband died for a just cause ... just 'cause I wanted him to."

Re: Not Even One Yet.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe he could go to the funeral and tell the widow, "Mission Accomplished". Then he could smirk at the rest of the family and say, "Bring 'Em On!" That should teach those evil doers.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Ma'am, your husband died for a just cause ... just 'cause I wanted him to."

[/ QUOTE ]

Wohoo yea Bush sucks, great thread. So glad we got to 2k because I hate Bush.

Re: Just one more.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I don't agree with the weatherman...(One mans freedom fighter etc.) however you cannot say that the insurgents are fighting for tyranny. They have an objective that is counter to what most people would feel is an open democratic society but you are defining their motives according to your own personal view of the situation. I suppose this is just a semantic arguement but I can't imagine that they would describe their actions as backing tyranny.



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see your argument that this is about semantics.

Tyranny is a government with one ruler. It can be named Theocracy (as many seem to), Islamic Nation, whatever, but to me it's a clear case of tyranny when you've got a country run by one Imam, or, for that matter, one general or one mafia boss.

To say their (insurgents) "objective is counter to what most people would feel is an open democratic society" just put you at the top of my WTF List. I'm seriously considering naming that statement as Understatement of the Century.

Lord love a duck!

[img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed it was an understatement. However my point was this: Rarely does a group form with the express interest of promoting tyranny. I used tyranny in this sense-
"1 : oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man -- Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>"
and as such I was trying to express that no group thinks of itself as an oppressor and as a consequence does not see itself as acting contrary to the best interests of its perceived constituency.


Is there some sort of plaque that goes along with the Award for understatement of the century?? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]