One Eyed Jack
New member
I dunno. I think aikido7 has some of the stupidest posts I've ever read around here, but at least he can spell. I generally skip over e4e's posts because I don't feel like deciphering them.
Letter of Apology
- Thread starter BillyBob
- Start date
elected4ever
New member
I hardly read yours at all . You usually have nothing useful to say.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Originally posted by elected4ever
I hardly read yours at all . You usually have nothing useful to say.
You read that last one.
elected4ever
New member
I said hardly. I never said never
One Eyed Jack
New member
Originally posted by elected4ever
I said hardly. I never said never
It's not like it really matters to me anyway. If you want to prejudge my posts as having no value, then knock yourself out.
dotcom
New member
Originally posted by PureX
PureX,
I read your post again and thouhjt the lieberal Dems are so out-of-touch with reality they will never get it.
Here is what Anthony Stahelski of Central Washington University says about obsession of Dems with intellectuals:
" Unfortunately for Democrats, the Democratic Party is currently dominated by activists and financial contributors who think that intellectuals make good presidents. Consequently potential Democratic candidates who have the common touch and are perceived as non-intellectuals are eliminated in the Democratic primaries. Bill Clinton was the perfect Democratic candidate because he had the intellectual credentials to appeal to the activists that dominate the primaries and he had the common touch to be successful in the general election. However, candidates who have both sets of attributes are rare. If the Democratic Party wants to elect more presidents, Democrats may have to give up their love affair with intellectuals."
PureX,
I read your post again and thouhjt the lieberal Dems are so out-of-touch with reality they will never get it.
Here is what Anthony Stahelski of Central Washington University says about obsession of Dems with intellectuals:
" Unfortunately for Democrats, the Democratic Party is currently dominated by activists and financial contributors who think that intellectuals make good presidents. Consequently potential Democratic candidates who have the common touch and are perceived as non-intellectuals are eliminated in the Democratic primaries. Bill Clinton was the perfect Democratic candidate because he had the intellectual credentials to appeal to the activists that dominate the primaries and he had the common touch to be successful in the general election. However, candidates who have both sets of attributes are rare. If the Democratic Party wants to elect more presidents, Democrats may have to give up their love affair with intellectuals."
One Eyed Jack
New member
If you ask me, they make the best democrats.
elected4ever
New member
You prejudged me as not knowing anything because of my spelling.. I never could spell well. That doesn't make me stupid. Some of the best spellers in the world are stupid people.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Where did I do that? I simply said that I generally skip over your posts because I didn't feel like deciphering them. That's not making any judgements concerning the quality of your ideas. I simply find them hard to read.
elected4ever
New member
I will try to do better and its my misunderstanding of your intent.
One Eyed Jack
New member
No sweat.
Skeptic
New member
:darwinsm: Saddam was not a threat. There was no pre-invasion and is no post-invasion hard evidence that suggests otherwise. Even if you make the stretch that Saddam was a "terrorist," not all "terrorist" dictators need to be overthrown by an invasion that unnecessarily and immorally kills tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children!
Terrorism has been with us for a very long time. It will continue to be with us for a very long time. No "war on terrorism" will EVER be won! This does not mean that terrorism should not be fought. We should ALSO fight terrorism when it is perpetrated by the United States! Trying to fight terrorism by overthrowing dictators or low-level "terrorists" that are not a threat by invading sovereign nations, killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process, not only does NOT help the fight against terrorism, it actually HURTS the fight. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is a prime example!!
Invading Iraq was not a "defensive move." Bush and his neocon Pentagon/CIA buddies KNEW that Iraq was not a threat for the following reasons:
1. They knew that they destroyed most of Iraq's military infrastructure back during the first Gulf War. They knew that Saddam's military was no match for the U.S.
2. They knew that Iraq's WMDs and WMD programs had been destroyed back in the early 1990s.
3. They knew that Iraq did not have the resources or capability to reconstitute it's demolished WMD programs, as long as the sanctions and monitoring was in place.
4. They knew that they had their military thumb on Saddam's back. Remember the "No-Fly" zones? Iraq was surrounded by U.S. and international military forces.
5. They knew that Iraq was monitored 24/7 by U.S. forces and the international community, and that Saddam was not able to make viable threats to the U.S. or other nations.
6. They knew that the UN weapons inspectors were doing their job in Iraq, prior to the invasion, and had found ZERO WMDs or active WMD programs.
7. They knew that the so-called "intelligence" they had received from Iraqi exiles had ZERO basis in empirical evidence. They knew that all they were being fed was hearsay, suspicions, lies, distortions and exaggerations.
8. They knew they had ZERO hard evidence of any real or significant ties between Saddam and 9/11, despite the Bush Administration's rhetoric to the contrary.
9. They knew they had ZERO hard evidence of any real or significant ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda, despite the Bush Administration's rhetoric to the contrary.
10. They knew that invading Iraq would result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children.
11. They knew that they could pull off such an invasion, after having hoodwinked a majority of the Republican-controlled Congress and a majority of the American public.
12. They knew that the Right-wing media moguls would support their invasion, and that the fear of being labeled "unpatriotic," which might have depressed their "bottom line," would be sufficient to suppress most anti-war dissent in the general news media.
13. Most of all, they knew that they would not have bothered to put such military power into overthrowing a dictator, who was not a threat, unless Iraq had among the greatest oil resources on the planet.
Spreading it at the point of a gun defeats the purpose of democracy.
No county, including the self-righteous U.S., has a right to wage war, and kill thousands of innocent men, women and children, in order to overthrow dictatorships that are not a threat, or to impose what we think of as "democracy" on other nations.
Skeptic
New member
In your Right-wing militaristic world view.
In your Right-wing militaristic world view.
The effectiveness of rules is one thing. The morality of rules is another.
By your standards, if you can't prevent me from killing you, then the laws prohibiting murder are ineffective. Then, should such laws be abolished? If the weaker cannot effectively prevent the stronger from dominating them, should the strong inherit the earth? Does the fact that the U.S. is now the world's strongest superpower give them the right to dictate what kind of governments other nations can have?
Saddam was complying with UN inspectors. Iraq was being truthful when it told the UN that they no longer had any WMD or WMD programs. When the U.S. claimed that Iraq did have WMD or WMD programs, the burden of proof was on those who made the claim, i.e. the U.S. The Bush Administration failed to substantiate any such claims. Bush failed at diplomacy with Iraq, not the other way around. Bush was not even interested in diplomacy! If Bush and company had pursued diplomacy, they would have not been able to achieve their goal of invading Iraq, which unnecessarily and immorally killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, for their political, economic and strategic interests.
Saddam was a terrorist, of course he was a threat! :doh:
Over 80% of eligible voters in Iraq have registered to vote in next week's election, do you think they were all held at gunpoint and forced to register? What about the Million or so Iraqi's in this country who are also participating in the election, were they also forced to register? Are they going to be forced at gunpoint to vote?
The obvious answer is "NO", once again proving that you don't have a clue about what is really going on.
