Bush's speech... by Khyron

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Under which (or any) of those three (name-calling, misinterpretations, and outright lies) do you think the quoted response would fall? I don't see it falling under any of those categories. Unless, of course you consider "atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American" to be name-calling? Particularly, as there are many in this group who readily identify themselves as such.

First of all, it wasn't "the group" who asked a question, it was ME. And since I asked a topical question in a polite manner, I believe that I am owed a direct reply- which BTW I still haven't gotten- not splattering at a whole group.

Secondly, you're making an awful lot of assumptions not only about me but about a whole group of people. There are MANY people who don't want the government in their business who are neither liberals nor atheists, and there is NOBODY in the group who would characterize themselves as "pro-abortion" or "anti-American". So, yes, it IS name-calling, just as it would be if I were to call you an inhumane fundamentalist weasel who doesn't have the courage of his convictions to even take responsibility for his tone.

Quote:
Regarding "omniscient" -- how is that derogatory? (I never said I was above sarcasm or hyperbole -- see last paragraph, below.)

Well if it's derogatory and untrue, it's name -calling.

Quote:
BTW, while you and I disagree on virtually everything... (i.e. Car: "The sky is blue." Sig: "No, it's red." Car: "You're right, it's red." Sig: "No, it's blue.")

Misrepresentation

Quote:
you are one of (many) who is civil with your disagreements.

Wish I could say the same for you.
Quote:
However, I do think it's fruitless debating with people who will never believe any source produced which contradicts their opinion.
You tossed up one source for each of your points. There were valid reasons to question both sources' methods and conclusions. I asked you to cite further. That hardly classifies as rejecting "every" source.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 11:46 AM

KANEMAN

"there is NOBODY in the group who would characterize themselves as "pro-abortion" or "anti-American"

Yeah..okay!.......Citz comes to mind. As far as the US having a two party system(another jack-assed assertion by Citz), we do have more than two options. Sorry we don't have 25 different parties like Great ole England. Why have that many options and still vote 3 parties to 97% of the seats? I say cheers to the strawman... these asses need to eat.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 11:56 AM

Put the Kool-aid down for a minute, lunatic.

Quote:
so ALL OF A SUDDEN the election process WORKS GREAT?????

Works great, my ass - were it not for the tremendous amount of slimy doings by the party you favor, proven fact this, it would have been a landslide for the dems and you'd be lookin down the barrel of a real mandate.

Problem at that point, the dems themselves are as hypocritical and untrustworthy as the Rethugs - don't let partisan bickering blind you into thinking the folks yer defendin ain't evil just cause ya hate the other side more.

The current crop of Rethugs is incompetent and the current crop of Dimocrats have no balls, I fail to see exactly where we've significantly benefitted in the process here.

And I highly doubt the screwed up and easily-exploited flaws in the elections process will be fixed cause no doubt the Dimocrats wanna exploit it to THEIR advantage in the future.

Me, i'm still pushing for Ron Paul, not that he'll be able to sort this mess out, that being generations worth of work now, but at least he'd get started on it.

-Frem

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/16536269.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-22.htm
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2007/1481
http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?s=5646333
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_rob_kall_061117_clear_evidence
_2006_.htm

P.S. - And if you wanna get real snippy about it, start by explaining to me why in a dimocrat 'stronghold' we get hi-profile Rethugs winning key positions by 18,111 votes exactly - every single year for the past six.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:01 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Yeah..okay!.......Citz comes to mind.

Anti-Citizen, huh? Well, he's British, so you must be anti-British too. And The UK is an ally on the holy fight against terror, so you must logically be against US, TOO!!!
Kaneman, YOU ANTI-AMERICAN!!!! Burn the flag and go to HELL, bitch!!!!! Piss on our Constitution, will ya? *loud smack sound* Take THAT, you pro-terrorist pinko!!!!!

Here's to the colours that never run Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:16 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Yeah..okay!.......Citz comes to mind.
Anti-Citizen, huh? Well, he's British, so you must be anti-British too. And The UK is an ally on the holy fight against terror, so you must logically be against US, TOO!!!
Kaneman, YOU ANTI-AMERICAN!!!! Burn the flag and go to HELL, bitch!!!!! Piss on our Constitution, will ya? *loud smack sound* Take THAT, you pro-terrorist pinko!!!!!

Here's to the colours that never run Chrisisall

*BIG YAWN*
Whatever shitlips.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:32 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

*BIG YAWN*

And why do you copy so much when what I posted is right above?
Only COMMIES post that way, you REDman. Hammer and sickle all the way for you, you waster of space. Why don't you post a big picture of Stallin and stretch out the thread? It would be your way. Say, what was your favourite line in Our Man Flint? Oh yeah, "An anti-American eagle. It's diabolical."

Who's yawning now? Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
The anti-American part, yes. I do consider that insulting. I'm fed up with people saying it's anti-American to disagree with this administration, or to want the war to end.

Yeah, I can see that. But there’s a distinction to be made here. I don’t consider equating Bush to Hussein or similar kinds of comments to be merely disagreement or war-weariness. These kinds of statement, which occur far too frequently on this board, could rightly be called anti-American. In fact, even though I generally don’t say it, that’s exactly what I think they are in many cases.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:04 PM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:
Under which (or any) of those three (name-calling, misinterpretations, and outright lies) do you think the quoted response would fall? I don't see it falling under any of those categories. Unless, of course you consider "atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American" to be name-calling? Particularly, as there are many in this group who readily identify themselves as such.
First of all, it wasn't "the group" who asked a question, it was ME.

Then, if the shoe doesn't fit, why do you insist on trying to cram it onto your foot?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And since I asked a topical question in a polite manner, I believe that I am owed a direct reply- which BTW I still haven't gotten- not splattering at a whole group.

Fair enough. But, I'm willing to bet 10 to 1 that you will say any source I quote is "biased".

It seems that whenever anyone quotes a "Christian" source, it's automatically biased because it's "Christian". As if non-Christian sources are totally objective.

A pro-life source would also be "biased", as if a "pro-abortion" source would not.

A source with a conservative bent is biased. Liberal sources are not. Etc. etc. etc.

Does anyone detect a pattern here?

My experience here shows me that very few (if any) seem to accept anything coming from a source which isn't lock, stock and barrel, walking the idiology of their own personal belief.

Just as an illustration to emphasize my point (not to reopen that can of worms) -- even when I used Smoot as a source in another thread (who isn't a Christian apologetist), he was summarily dismissed. But, as it's difficult to dismiss someone who just won a Nobel Prize in Physics as "ignorant", people tried a complete untruth -- namely, that he was speaking outside of the realm of his expertise -- as if a cosmologist saying that the cosmos are too fine-tuned to have come into existence by chance (apart from an intelligent designer) is someone speaking outside of his expertise.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Secondly, you're making an awful lot of assumptions not only about me but about a whole group of people. There are MANY people who don't want the government in their business who are neither liberals nor atheists, and there is NOBODY in the group who would characterize themselves as "pro-abortion" or "anti-American".

I'm making no such assumptions. I'm not calling anyone anything which they haven't called themselves. I never said anyone was "anti-American" if they believe "such an such". You're putting words in my mouth.

Meanwhile, there have definitely been people in this forum who repeatedly spew venom about how "evil, backward, uncivilized and retarded" (insert the derogatory adjective of your choice) America is. I would certainly classify such people as "anti-American", and I think that they would tend to agree.

If you haven't identified yourself by any of these categories, then obviously this doesn't apply to you, and you are taking offense which wasn't directed at you.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, yes, it IS name-calling, just as it would be if I were to call you an inhumane fundamentalist weasel who doesn't have the courage of his convictions to even take responsibility for his tone.

Firstly, "fundamentalist" applies. So, no offense taken, and I do not consider that "name-calling" (see above bit -- re: self-classification).

As I've never categorized myself as a "Weasel", I imagine that would fall under the category of "name-calling", as would "inhumane".

I have never used such terms or types of terms either in a specific (directed at a single person) or non-specific (directed at a group) manner in this forum -- or anywhere in the 8 years I've been on the internet. There is no comparison, and you know it.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:
Regarding "omniscient" -- how is that derogatory? (I never said I was above sarcasm or hyperbole -- see last paragraph, below.)
Well if it's derogatory and untrue, it's name -calling.

Yeah, as you said: "if it's derogatory". It isn't.

And again, if it doesn't apply to you (and it wasn't specifically directed at you or anyone for that matter), why are you taking offense, unless, perhaps you feel that you've portrayed yourself in such a manner? And, I don't believe you have (although, you're coming close now -- assuming that you know what I meant by these statements, when you are totally incorrect in that regard).

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:
BTW, while you and I disagree on virtually everything... (i.e. Car: "The sky is blue." Sig: "No, it's red." Car: "You're right, it's red." Sig: "No, it's blue.")
Misrepresentation.

Hyperbole -- showing how we rarely agree. Methinks you protest too much, and find offense where none is intended.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:
you are one of (many) who is civil with your disagreements.
Wish I could say the same for you.

Now, who is being uncivil?

You are being so disagreeable that you can't even take a compliment.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:
However, I do think it's fruitless debating with people who will never believe any source produced which contradicts their opinion.
You tossed up one source for each of your points. There were valid reasons to question both sources' methods and conclusions. I asked you to cite further. That hardly classifies as rejecting "every" source.

You seem to be under the impression that everything I say is personally directed at you. Believe me. You are not the center of my life, and there are actually other people in this forum who irritate me to an equal (or even greater) degree.

Believe it or not, but sometimes my comments are actually directed at people other than yourself.

Something happened at work today which has a bearing on all this. As some of you may know, I drive a school bus. One of the other school bus drivers came up to me after our morning run telling me about a new student on his bus who is a minority. The school district allows us to assign seats on the bus -- and most of us do.

He assigned the new "minority" student to a seat at the back of the bus.

Well, the student's parent took a fit -- immediately crying "racism". I know for a fact that the driver is not racist, and the student's "minority status" had nothing to do with why he assigned her a seat at the back of the bus. Firstly, most of the other seats were already assigned. Secondly, he has "troublesome" students at the front (we tend to keep the "trouble-makers" close to us, so we can keep an eye on them), and wanted to keep the new student away from them, so they wouldn't bring her any grief. As it's only a quarter bus (only holds 20 students) and seating is therefore limited, he hasn't much a choice, if he wants to keep one student away from a few of the others -- (There are only four rows of seats. If you place a couple of trouble-makers in the foremost row, that leaves only the third or fourth rows to keep someone away from them. I'm assuming the third row seats were already assigned.)

It was a perfect example of someone seeing "offense" where none was intended.

I'm lead to believe that there are many people in this world who like to play the victim, and think others are out to get them. You are seeing insult where none was intended or directed.

You seem to want to pick a fight, and I, for one, am not going to oblige you. Sorry.

Quote:
Originally posted by Soupcatcher:
That's funny because we remember things quite differently.

Well, Soup, I have to ask you if you watched the election returns in 1994? Maybe you did. I don't know. I'm just asking.

I did. I was flipping back and forth between all of the major networks that night (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, and CNN)(I didn't have FOX NEWS at the time).

Without exception, each and every single newscaster had looks on their faces like someone had just told them they had inoperable cancer. They were aghast, dismayed, and (to put it mildly) frustrated. Some of them were so besides themselves, they were actually speachless for embarrassingly long segments of air time. (As a conservative, it was actually quite humorous to watch.)

Compare that with their reactions in reporting the results from this past election. Not all, but many of the newscasters I saw reporting on the election (from those exact same networks) were literally bursting with glee (hardly dispassionate and objective).

I would find it difficult to believe that you could've missed that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:05 PM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"there is NOBODY in the group who would characterize themselves as "pro-abortion" or "anti-American"

Yeah..okay!.......Citz comes to mind. As far as the US having a two party system(another jack-assed assertion by Citz), we do have more than two options. Sorry we don't have 25 different parties like Great ole England. Why have that many options and still vote 3 parties to 97% of the seats? I say cheers to the strawman... these asses need to eat.

Dunno, I like choices, choices are good -- like bananas.

Actually thought I slag the Lib-Dems off they do actually serve a couple of usefull purposes in the UK system.

First, in a 2 party system one party is in power and the other thinks it should be. Ergo there is a lot of positioning on issues and not really a whole lot of incentive for either side to tell painfull truths. The guys that run things now want everything to appear nice and shiny and the other lot prefer to point out the mistakes the ruling party are making rather than talk about what they would do. Having a 3rd party means that there is someone else in politics that can get media attention who isn't afraid to put forth policies because they know they will never be elected. This means things are actually debated rather than just a cold war.

Second in a two party system you have your party of choice and "the other lot." People tend to be stupidly loyal to parties even when the party doent return the love. In part this is because the voter can't face crossing the divide between their profered party and the other lot, this is especially true in close houses. If you are a Republican who likes the Bush tax cut but hates the war what can you do? Vote Democrat to stop the war and if they get in you kiss goodbye to the tax break. Vote Rep and they will claim the Pres has a "mandate" for the war you disagree with. That leaves you with abstention or a vote for a fringe party nobody pays attention to. A viable 3rd party gives you an alternative. You can vote for them safe in the knowledge that they have little chance of effecting massive change. Their increase in popularity will still register nationally however so it will get people talking and be seen as a shot across the bows for your first choice party. You are issuing a threat "I didn't vote for the other lot this time but you're on notice."

Lib-Dems do great stuff in local government.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:32 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Meanwhile, there have definitely been people in this forum who repeatedly spew venom about how "evil, backward, uncivilized and retarded" (insert the derogatory adjective of your choice) America is. I would certainly classify such people as "anti-American", and I think that they would tend to agree.

I tend also to spew venom about how I should exersize more than I do, eat better, write this graphic novel I've been putting off, and remember to take my vitamins on a regular basis, not just when the mood strikes. Is this being 'anti-me'?
(I actually never saw any say the words "evil, backward, uncivilized and retarded" in refrence to America...)
Loving your country means also seeing it's warts, and scheduling an appointment with the dermatologist as necessary.

Anti-complacentcy Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:35 PM

KANEMAN

"Who's yawning now? Chrisisall"

Can't speak for the rest, but I still am.........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:47 PM

I'm just curious about what all the interesting people with the anti-Iraq/ anti-Afganistan belief would do just after a 9/11 scenario happened in your country. What would you do if you were a president of America and 9/11 happened?

If 9/11, happened, I President Mavourneen, President Hero, President Storymark, President Shinyed, President Finn Mac Cumhal would .... Any missed presidents are also welcome to also contribute their ideas about what to do about 9/11. I doubt that there are going to be any comments because people that oppose the Afganistan/ Iraq war don't have ideas about what a country should do about a 9/11 scenario.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 3:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Actually, yes, it was a strawman.

Actually err, no it wasn't.

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Then you are doing this thread and perhaps even this forum a disservice. Are you telling me that instead of reading the thread and contributing, you skim for the posters you disagree with to flamebait them?

That's almost good, call me a big stupid head and it'll be perfect ;)

I believe the term you're looking for is skim the thread, then if you see anything you disagree with reply. Don't worry, I'll remember this conversation for next time you only reply to what you disagree with, or you know 'flambait' Rue because you disagree with her and tend to think getting her riled up is best when you haven't got a rhetorical reply to her real 'scientifical' responce. It's how Cartoon operates as well, no wonder you two get on so well.

Quote:
I read the statement as whine all you like but at least know what you are whining about first.

Of course you did.

Because it's not a statement that leads directly to the implication that anyone saying anything Cartoon doesn't agree with is actually just uninformed whining.

Quote:
Cartoon's statement was pretty non partisan if you ask me, it was open to multiple interpretations.

Of course it was, Cartoon's just one of those unpartisan kind of guys.

Quote:
Sort of like how you took Cartoon's post and are now making up his argument and motivation for him?

Nope, because I gave clear reasons for my interpretations, where as all you've given is unbacked attempts at character assassination. Well done you

Quote:
Actually Cartoon was initially talking about an informed electorate. Perhaps if you had read the entire thread you would not take things out of context.

Read what he wrote, rather than what you wanted to see, you'll get it.

The fact is I did read his words in context, you don't have to read the entire thread to read it in context. I read every post leading up to Cartoons, but I missed some that preceeded it, get it?

Hey go on, you really capitalised on it there, "You didn't read the whole thread you big stupid head", well done you, really push the issue, it's an easy way to win, come on, I didn't read every single post on this thread, and you're not a hypocrite for not reading every post on this site...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 6:13 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by mazaen:
I'm just curious about what all the interesting people with the anti-Iraq/ anti-Afganistan belief would do just after a 9/11 scenario happened in your country. What would you do if you were a president of America and 9/11 happened?

If 9/11, happened, I President Mavourneen, President Hero, President Storymark, President Shinyed, President Finn Mac Cumhal would .... Any missed presidents are also welcome to also contribute their ideas about what to do about 9/11. I doubt that there are going to be any comments because people that oppose the Afganistan/ Iraq war don't have ideas about what a country should do about a 9/11 scenario.

Well, not everyone is foolish enough to still believe that Iraw had anything to do with 9/11. I'm in awe that you'd actually admit to that.

I was all for the war in Afghanistan. I wished we'd finished it. Instead, we invaded Iraq for fabricated reasons, and the Taliban is regaining control, and the guyactually respinsible for 9/11 is still at large.

Instead of finishing a job that was justified, we're now loosing two wars. Great call.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:27 PM

WHEN you fools can evidence a thorough, working knowledge of the writings and speeches of our founding fathers, the constitution and american history, to any reasonable degree...

THEN you can try calling me unamerican.

You speak of things you know naught of.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:39 PM

SOUPCATCHER

I agree with Storymark's response, mazaen. You make a serious mistake by coupling Iraq with Afghanistan.

The Taliban provided a safe harbor for al Qaeda. Our invasion of Afghanistan was justified, at least in my mind, as a response to 9/11. But then we took our eye off the ball, let bin Laden get away and shifted our focus to Iraq.

Iraq is not related to 9/11. We are in Iraq by choice, not in defense of our country. It was the invasion of a nation that did not pose a threat to our own homeland. The three part rationale that was used to sell this war was that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and a relationship with al Qaeday and he would provide al Qaeda with those weapons of mass destruction to attack in the United States. Now that was all a load of bullshit. The real reason for invading Iraq (and Iran and Syria, which were next on the list) can be found in the PNAC wonk documents. Although, at this point, I think it's safe to move them from the wonk category to the wank category.

The appropriate question to ask is, "Why do all those people who are against the Iraq War hate the idea of an American Empire in the Middle East?" Or, maybe a slightly different question, "Just because one man has a hard-on to kill the man who tried to kill his daddy, should he be allowed to mire an entire country in a crappy policy-wonk-inspired war."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 9:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Cartoon- I hate to beat a dead horse, but...

Quote:
Under which (or any) of those three (name-calling, misinterpretations, and outright lies) do you think the quoted response would fall? I don't see it falling under any of those categories. Unless, of course you consider "atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American" to be name-calling? Particularly, as there are many in this group who readily identify themselves as such.- Cartoon

First of all, it wasn't "the group" who asked a question, it was ME. -SignyM

Then, if the shoe doesn't fit, why do you insist on trying to cram it onto your foot?-Cartoon

Because your post directly followed mine and was a response to it?

Quote:
And since I asked a topical question in a polite manner, I believe that I am owed a direct reply- which BTW I still haven't gotten- not splattering at a whole group. -SignyM

Fair enough. But, I'm willing to bet 10 to 1 that you will say any source I quote is "biased". It seems that whenever anyone quotes a "Christian" source, it's automatically biased because it's "Christian". As if non-Christian sources are totally objective. A pro-life source would also be "biased", as if a "pro-abortion" source would not. A source with a conservative bent is biased. Liberal sources are not. Does anyone detect a pattern here?

I didn't reject your sources because they were "biased and/or Xtian. I rejected the New Zealand study because the group of abortion-obtaining females was selectively different that the comparison groups (a longitidinal study would have been better) and I rejected the argument of fetal pain because some neurologists claim that in order to feel "pain" thalamo-cortical connections need to be developed, and those connections are not in place at 20 weeks. I can think of several lines to refute my arguments and I tried to steer you into them. If you're detecting a apttern, it is the pattern of asking for evidence and reason.

Quote:
Secondly, you're making an awful lot of assumptions not only about me but about a whole group of people. There are MANY people who don't want the government in their business who are neither liberals nor atheists, and there is NOBODY in the group who would characterize themselves as "pro-abortion" or "anti-American".-SignyM

I'm making no such assumptions. I'm not calling anyone anything which they haven't called themselves.

Really????? Please quote Rue, Chrisisall, Siri, Frem, or anyone else calling themselves "anti-american" or "pro-abortion."

Quote:
Meanwhile, there have definitely been people in this forum who repeatedly spew venom about how "evil, backward, uncivilized and retarded" (insert the derogatory adjective of your choice) America is. I would certainly classify such people as "anti-American", and I think that they would tend to agree.

Ah, then you ARE making assumptions, not only about what you think people would argue ("...I'm willing to bet...") but also how they see themselves ("...I think that they...")

Quote:
If you haven't identified yourself by any of these categories, then obviously this doesn't apply to you, and you are taking offense which wasn't directed at you.

So for example- I shouldn't defend a Jew because I'm not a Jew?

Quote:
So, yes, it IS name-calling, just as it would be if I were to call you an inhumane fundamentalist weasel who doesn't have the courage of his convictions to even take responsibility for his tone.-SignyM

Firstly, "fundamentalist" applies. So, no offense taken, and I do not consider that "name-calling" (see above bit -- re: self-classification). As I've never categorized myself as a "Weasel", I imagine that would fall under the category of "name-calling", as would "inhumane"... Regarding "omniscient" -- how is that derogatory? (I never said I was above sarcasm or hyperbole -- see last paragraph, below.)

As would "anti-American".

Quote:
Hyperbole -- showing how we rarely agree. Methinks you protest too much, and find offense where none is intended.

No. You demonstrate SignyM arbitrarily changing opinion and you agreeably going along.

Quote:
Now, who is being uncivil? You are being so disagreeable that you can't even take a compliment.

Well, I COULD claim it was all in fun. Yep- that's what I'll do: It was a joke.

Quote:
However, I do think it's fruitless debating with people who will never believe any source produced which contradicts their opinion.-Cartoon

You tossed up one source for each of your points. There were valid reasons to question both sources' methods and conclusions. I asked you to cite further. That hardly classifies as rejecting "every" source.-SignyM

You seem to be under the impression that everything I say is personally directed at you. Believe me. You are not the center of my life, and there are actually other people in this forum who irritate me to an equal (or even greater) degree. Believe it or not, but sometimes my comments are actually directed at people other than yourself.

I went over this already: Your post followed mine and was in response. I note, however, that you've not yet attempted to actually discuss the points at hand.

Quote:
....It was a perfect example of someone seeing "offense" where none was intended. I'm lead to believe that there are many people in this world who like to play the victim, and think others are out to get them. You are seeing insult where none was intended or directed. You seem to want to pick a fight, and I, for one, am not going to oblige you. Sorry.

Yes, I know, we reject your claims not because your arguments are flawed but because you're Xtian and we're biased. Still, you have not attempted to substantively refute the arguments in the other thread, and I will keep pointing out for the forseeable future.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 2:58 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And now, to FINALLY respond the the actual thread topic:

A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy — and that is what we have. We are now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth

ie.: Since the economy crashed in 2001. I think people winced when they heard this.
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/famin.htm
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/bp162

First, we must balance the federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes. What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009 — and met that goal three years ahead of schedule.

I think we all know this is an attempt to strangle the government

Next, there is the matter of earmarks… cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.

This is something I can get behind. But why not just eliminate them entirely?

Finally, to keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience — and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound. Yet we are failing in that duty — and this failure will one day leave our children with three bad options: huge tax increases, huge deficits, or huge and immediate cuts in benefits. Everyone in this Chamber knows this to be true — yet somehow we have not found it in ourselves to act.

“Wolf! Wolf!” cried the boy.

We must increase funds for students who struggle — and make sure these children get the special help they need. And we can make sure our children are prepared for the jobs of the future, and our country is more competitive, by strengthening math and science skills. The No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America's children — and I ask Congress to reauthorize this good law.

But not to fund it.

Tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income.

Is that on the first several thousands or last thousands?

At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job.

Unfocused, tosses lots of $$$ at people who’re already covered at the expense of ppl who are not. DOA

Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country. To secure our border, we are doubling the size of the Border Patrol — and funding new infrastructure and technology.

Great. Good start.

Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border — and that requires a temporary worker program.

No

We will enforce our immigration laws at the worksite, and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers — so there is no excuse left for violating the law.

Does he mean he isn’t doing that NOW?

It is in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply

and blah blah blah…

and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

which isn’t happening and over which we have no control.

…one question has surely been settled — that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy… Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented — but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al-Qaida plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We broke up a Southeast Asian terrorist cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an al-Qaida cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean.

And amazingly, none of this was accomplished by military action in Iraq or elsewhere!

…Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies — and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance.

Sadly, this is not the case.

On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

I will be very happy if we don’t wind up with a nation of anti-American religious fanatics who’ll be all too happy covertly take our money so that GWB can look like he… ahem… “succeeded”.

So we are deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units.

So far, only 3 Sunni neighborhoods have been targeted. Not a good start if you want an even-handed approach.

I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success. Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq — because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far-reaching.

Actually, I agree with him here. Too bad it was a nightmare situation the Bush himself created.

Baby Einstein… Baby Einstein… Baby Einstein…

Which doesn't make your kid smarter.

In such courage and compassion, ladies and gentlemen, we see the spirit and character of America — and these qualities are not in short supply.

Except in Washington, and especially in the WH.

And finally blah blah blah…. blah blah and more blah blazh blah….

And more blah blah blah.....
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 3:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Still, you have not attempted to substantively refute the arguments in the other thread, and I will keep pointing out for the forseeable future.

And he never will. He's a Troll.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 5:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think he's confused more than anything.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:38 AM

I appreciate your comment storymark.

italics ("Well, not everyone is foolish enough to still believe that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I'm in awe that you'd actually admit to that.")

I agree with you that 9/11 didn't have anything to do with Iraq. I guess your saying that is OK to defend one's country but not to attack other countries. When a country attacks a country that hasn't provoked it is not defence. If Iraq did not attack America then was morally wrong for America to attack Iraq.

What was was the reason that America invaded Iraq?
One reason America invaded Iraq might have been to change Iraq into a functioning stable democracy. A functioning democracy had a good chance of discouraging terrorism. A few reasons why Iraq had a good chance of becoming a functioning democracy was Iraq's had demonstrated a previous leadership role in the region, support of women in professional roles, a support for moderate muslims and support for research and educational opportunities.

In group theory, a group works most successfully if there is one clear leader. When you have one clear leader, rather than many leaders fighting for the top role, a group will united and work together. If a group doesn't have a clear leader it often becomes fragmented and falls apart and is unproductive and prone to conflict. So perhaps the American leadership wants Iraq to became a good leader country, then other countries in the region would follow Iraq's example of democracy.
Not that I agree just putting this idea to you to respond to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:42 AM

Funny because there's always the big thing about how the Middle East needs Democracy, but no one seems to mention it's already got it. Probably because the pre existing democracies are Anti-USA, but since the majority of people in them are Anti-USA surely that means they're doing pretty well, democratically speaking.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:56 AM

Funny because there's always the big thing about how the Middle East needs Democracy, but no one seems to mention it's already got it.

______________________________________________________

Oh you mean like how Sadaam Hussein won 99% of the democratic election.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mazaen:
Oh you mean like how Sadaam Hussein won 99% of the democratic election.

No I mean like how Iran's government is elected in unrigged elections, which actually puts it slightly ahead of the US at the moment.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:16 AM

No I mean like how Iran's government is elected in unrigged elections, which actually puts it slightly ahead of the US at the moment.
_____________________________________________________
Oh you mean how Iran's religious leaders choose the candidates that run for the elections.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mazaen:
Oh you mean how Iran's religious leaders choose the candidates that run for the elections.

And that's different from how US corporations choose the candidates that run for elections, how exactly?

Iran isn't a perfect example of democracy, but it is a democracy and it is improving. On the other hand the US government has a long history of supporting non-democractic regimes when the democratic alternative is not to their liking, for instance General Pinochet and Chile.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:29 AM

US corporations effects easter because then we don't get as many chocolate easter bunnies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mazaen:
US corporations effects easter because then we don't get as many chocolate easter bunnies.

Well, at least you've stopped dressing up the nonsense now.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:42 AM

I thought you were going to say I was immature. Thanks anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mazaen:
I thought you were going to say I was immature. Thanks anyway.

Oh dear. You talk crap, I'm going to tell you what I smell.

Please feel free to return when you have something a little more substantial than George Bush's latest talking points and a grasp of the Middle East situation worthy of a Martian, until then, best you stick to your easter bunnies mate.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 3:10 AM

There seems to be a lot of insulting going on here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 3:23 AM

What do you expect, you make a stream of endless flippant remarks, when you run out of them you spout some immature nonsense as if it's some profound statement, then act like it's an amazing piece of observation that you expected to be called on it. If you talk shit it doesn't make you a genius when you say "I thought you'd say there's a funny smell around here".

If you've got something to actually say on the topic go ahead, or go back insulting everyone's intelligence with talk of Easter bunnies.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:05 AM

Only if they're solid chocolate easter bunnies, no foisting off those phony hollow ones on us.. well, unless they're filled with jellybeans.

MMMmmm, easter... candy... *drooool*...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mazaen:
There seems to be a lot of insulting going on here.

That’s often about as much as you’ll get from Citizen, but not everyone here is that way.

As for your question about what I would have done in response to 9/ll, I can’t say for sure that I would have done anything different then what was done. Actually, if the decisions had been mine, we might have entered Afghanistan in 1994 and Iraq in 1999. So the only real changes I might have made would have been to push up the timetable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s often about as much as you’ll get from Citizen, but not everyone here is that way.

Yes finn, deamonise anyone you don't agree with, afterall that is all you've got.

And for the record, no not everyone here is like me, many are much worse, like Finn who likes to paint anyone who disagrees with him as a Nazi. He's worse than I could ever want to be. And also, I might add, no insult I made (not that I made any) is as bad as yours.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 28, 2007 3:55 PM

This is for the intelligent chocolate easter bunny lovers out there. I'm one and fully support chocolate eating in moderation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:30 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm still waiting for a response from Cartoon. I don't think Cartoon is a troll- I think his position is heartfelt- but he runs away from substantive discussion.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 4:00 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"What was was the reason that America invaded Iraq?
One reason America invaded Iraq might have been to change Iraq into a functioning stable democracy."

I think that was reason number, uhmmm ... 1) wmd 2) al-Qaeda 3) toppling Hussein 4) capturing Hussein 5) spreading democracy 6) fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here 7) "failure" would be a disaster ... that would be number 5, which has since been superceded.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:29 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t consider equating Bush to Hussein or similar kinds of comments to be merely disagreement or war-weariness. These kinds of statement, which occur far too frequently on this board, could rightly be called anti-American. In fact, even though I generally don’t say it, that’s exactly what I think they are in many cases.

Sorry. Have to disagree with you here. I am an equal partisan hater and I think the Dems will just take us further down the road to Communism than we already are. That being said, not only do I believe that George W. Bush will go down in history as the worst American president, but I believe he will take Christianity down with him. I believe that George W. Bush is far worse a human being than Saddam Hussain. The crimes we've committed against others when we don't have any Goddamned business there in the first place all because his administration lied to us and said they had nukes there. He's just one man in a long succession of men, from both parties, who have sold this country under our noses.

Wake up buddy. The "America" you knew and loved is gone. I have absolutely no love for our Government and I don't trust a single word that escapes their lips. These fascists will not rest until they are able to micromanage every single little thing we do, and have each other being their eyes and ears.

I love the idea of America. I love the great American ideals and the Constitution and it's ammendments. Some of those ammendments and rights specifically address rising up against a Government which has overstepped its boundaries. I do believe that time is dangerously close and what better a reason for them to try to destroy the true ideals of America and replace them with your misplaced loyalty to a Government who considers you cattle.

I share no for with our Government and I do not see patriotism and love of Government being even remotely related, given our current circumstances.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:29 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t consider equating Bush to Hussein or similar kinds of comments to be merely disagreement or war-weariness. These kinds of statement, which occur far too frequently on this board, could rightly be called anti-American. In fact, even though I generally don’t say it, that’s exactly what I think they are in many cases.

Sorry. Have to disagree with you here. I am an equal partisan hater and I think the Dems will just take us further down the road to Communism than we already are. That being said, not only do I believe that George W. Bush will go down in history as the worst American president, but I believe he will take Christianity down with him. I believe that George W. Bush is far worse a human being than Saddam Hussain. The crimes we've committed against others when we don't have any Goddamned business there in the first place all because his administration lied to us and said they had nukes there. He's just one man in a long succession of men, from both parties, who have sold this country under our noses.

Wake up buddy. The "America" you knew and loved is gone. I have absolutely no love for our Government and I don't trust a single word that escapes their lips. These fascists will not rest until they are able to micromanage every single little thing we do, and have each other being their eyes and ears.

I love the idea of America. I love the great American ideals and the Constitution and it's ammendments. Some of those ammendments and rights specifically address rising up against a Government which has overstepped its boundaries. I do believe that time is dangerously close and what better a reason for them to try to destroy the true ideals of America and replace them with your misplaced loyalty to a Government who considers you cattle.

I share no love for with our Government and I do not see patriotism and love of Government being even remotely related, given our current circumstances.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 12:39 AM

I think "dangerously close" has alredy come and gone, and if you have to ask yourself if you should act - it's already mostly too late to do so.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 4:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I don’t consider equating Bush to Hussein or similar kinds of comments to be merely disagreement or war-weariness. These kinds of statement, which occur far too frequently on this board, could rightly be called anti-American. In fact, even though I generally don’t say it, that’s exactly what I think they are in many cases.

Finn: The reason why you think this is because YOU equate "America" with it's President or with George Bush personally. My definition of "America" is quite a bit broader. I think of America is its ideals and its people, as well as its armed forces and politicians. My definition allows for the fact that a part of America- whether it may be a right-wing hate group or a corrupt politican- can splinter away from the concepts that make this nation special, and that EVERYONE should be held accountable for betraying the Constitution and the trust of the people.

I see a pattern in your arguments, Finn. It's like your argument about "human life": your definitions are naive and you allow them to trump reality.

----------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 5:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn: The reason why you think this is because YOU equate "America" with it's President or with George Bush personally. My definition of "America" is quite a bit broader. I think of America is its ideals and its people, as well as its armed forces and politicians. My definition allows for the fact that a part of America- whether it may be a right-wing hate group or a corrupt politican- can splinter away from the concepts that make this nation special, and that EVERYONE should be held accountable for betraying the Constitution and the trust of the people.

No. Equating Bush to Hussein to is a product of hatred and/or ignorance. But few of the people who make those kinds of comparisons know George Bush personally enough to make such a comparison. So while “Bush” has become a symbol of their hatred, the reality is that what they are probably referring to is “America.” Criticizing Bush is one thing, but equating him with a tyrant and a murdering thug with genocidal tendencies, that’s something completely different. I think in most cases it is a symptom of anti-American sentiment.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I see a pattern in your arguments, Finn. It's like your argument about "human life": your definitions are naive and you allow them to trump reality.

That means little to me. I’m sure you see that pattern in anyone you disagree with you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 6:47 AM

Quote:
Criticizing Bush is one thing, but equating him with a tyrant and a murdering thug with genocidal tendencies, that’s something completely different.

Oh ?

The problem with that thought is that he *IS* a murdering thug with genocidal tendancies, or does the taunting of a soon-to-be-executed person not factor in here ?

How bout HALF A MILLION dead in Iraq ?

How does he not qualify ?

How does announced intent to defy the will of the people, signing statements and "I am the decider" not make him a Tyrant ?

Hell, that ain't even criticism, that's just folk callin it like they sees it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 7:00 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And while others have made some deep and pointed comments, I'm adding just a little bit.

"Equating Bush to Hussein to is a product of hatred and/or ignorance. But few of the people who make those kinds of comparisons know George Bush personally enough to make such a comparison."

This is sloppy writing and thinking. If not 'knowing' Bush is your objection, most people know Hussein even less. I'm sure that's true for you. By your logic, even you know too little to make a comparison defense. For all you know it could be accurate.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 1:28 PM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The problem with that thought is that he *IS* a murdering thug with genocidal tendancies, or does the taunting of a soon-to-be-executed person not factor in here ?

How bout HALF A MILLION dead in Iraq ?

How does he not qualify ?

Forgive me for quoting myself from an earlier thread (which, with dial-up, took me a considerable time to find), but I believe that given the above post it's necessary to repeat myself...

Originally posted byAURaptor:
"Bush and Blair freed more from Saddams tyranny than were accidentally killed. You want to equate the intentional murders by Saddam w/ the colateral dammage from the Iraq war? You're not worth wasting my time."

To which, I responded:

"Exactly.

If every head of state were responsible for deaths caused by the wars they oversaw, then by the definition of some in this forum, I suppose that Abraham Lincoln should've been killed for liberating an enslaved population.

Oh wait. Lincoln was killed for liberating an enslaved population. Apparently, some of the people in this forum have the same mindset as John Wilkes Booth -- "Blame and kill the liberators!" "

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
How does announced intent to defy the will of the people, signing statements and "I am the decider" not make him a Tyrant ?

Uh, this thing called The Constitution of the United States makes the U.S. President the Commander-in-Chief. That gives him the right to be the "decider" in all matters pertaining to usage of the military.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2007 1:54 PM