Iraq explained

[cartman]

Got this via email the other day. Let's see how folks take this one.



Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.

Q: But the UN inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.

A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?

A: Yes. Invasions always work better than inspections.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass
destruction, did we?

A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, the
occupying forces will find something, probably right before the 2004
election.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?

A: To use them in a war against their enemies, silly.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use
in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when the US and
Britain went to war against them?

A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those
weapons, so in order to confuse us they chose to die by the thousands
rather than defend themselves by using any of the weapons of mass
destruction.

Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all
those big weapons with which they could have fought back?

A: Iraq is in the Middle East. It's a totally different culture. It's
not supposed to make any sense to us in the West.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those
weapons President Bush said they did.

A: Well, you know, it doesn't really matter whether or not they had
weapons of mass destruction. President Bush had another good reason to
launch a preemptive strike against Iraq anyway.

Q: And what was that?

A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein
was a cruel and vicious dictator, which is another good reason to invade
his country.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it okay to invade his
country?

A: Well, for one thing, he tortured and killed his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?

A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic partner,
where millions of people work for low wages in sweatshops to help US
corporations achieve a high-profit margin. That helps all Americans.

Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate
gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures and kills its
own people?

A: Right.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured and killed?

A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People
who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured
or killed.

Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?

A: I told you, China is different.

Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?

A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China
is a Communist country.

Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?

A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?

A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are
sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Like in Iraq?

A: Exactly.

Q: And like in China, too?

A: I told you, China's a good economic partner. Cuba, on the other
hand, is not.

Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic partner?

A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed laws
that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba
until they stopped being Communists and started being good capitalists
like us.

Q: But if we repealed those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started
doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become
capitalists?

A: Don't be a smart-ass.

Q: I didn't think I was being one.

A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.

Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?

A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam
Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a
legitimate leader anyway.

Q: What's a military coup?

A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country
by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United
States.

Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?

A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Yes, he did, but Pakistan is our
friend.

Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?

A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly
overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate
leader?

A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend because he
helped us invade Afghanistan and supported our invasion of Iraq. In
fact, just this week the US gave him several million dollars in foreign
aid as a 'thank you' for being part of the Coalition of the Willing.

Q: Why did the US invade Afghanistan?

A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?

A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men -- fifteen of them Saudi
Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing over 3,000 Americans.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?

A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive
rule of the Taliban.

Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chop off people's
heads and hands?

A: Yes, that's exactly who they are. Not only do they chop off people's
heads and hands, but they oppress women, too.

Q: But didn't President Bush give the Taliban $43 million in foreign aid
in May 2001?

A: Yes, but that money was a reward because the Taliban did such a good
job fighting drug smuggling.

Q: Fighting drugs? The Taliban helped with the US war on drugs?

A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing
opium poppies.

Q: How did they do such a good job?

A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban
would have their hands and heads cut off.

Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing
flowers, that was okay, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off
for other reasons?

A: Exactly. It's okay with President Bush if radical Islamic
fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing the wrong kind of
flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing
bread.

Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?

A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy
that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were
in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not
comply.

Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?

A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.

Q: What's the difference?

A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet
fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her
eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of
patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her
eyes and fingers.

Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.

A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are
our friends.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were
from Saudi Arabia.

A: Yes, but they were trained in Afghanistan.

Q: Who trained them?

A: An evil man named Osama bin Laden.

Q: Was he from Afghanistan?

A: No, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad
man.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.

A: Yes, when the US helped Osama and the Mujahadeen repel the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald
Reagan talked about?

A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or
thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We
call them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?

A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years
after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support
our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the
French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
None of the three would join the Coalition of Willing.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?

A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough, for example, that we had to
rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we
want them to do?

A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?

A: Well, yes. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein the ruler of Iraq back then?

A: Yes, but at the time Saddam was fighting against Iran, which made him
our friend.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?

A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when Saddam gassed the Kurds and killed them by the
thousands?

A: Yes, but since Saddam was fighting against Iran, we looked the other
way, to show him we were his friend.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes
our friend?

A: Most of the time, yes.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically our
enemy?

A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American munitions companies
can profit by selling weapons to both sides while the US manages not get
involved in the conflict, then that is even better.

Q: Why?

A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for
America. Also, since God is always on America's side, anyone who opposes
war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we
attacked Iraq?

Q: I think so. We attacked Iraq because God wanted us to. Is that
correct?

A: Yes.

Q: But how do we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?

A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to President George W. Bush and
advises him what to do.

Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because the
president hears voices?

A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your
eyes, and go to sleep. Good night.

Q: Good night, Daddy.

[Bonegavel]

This letter explained.

Q: Are you a liberal?

A: Yes. Very.

Q: Why do you twist the facts for your own gain?

A: Because the facts on their own don't work.

Q: Wait a minute. So you are lying and twisting the truth to make your own truth?

A: Yes. It is called "I hate Bush so much I don't care about anything but trying to make him look wrong."

Q: Oh. But Clinton and other lead democrats made statements to the fact that they know Sadaam has WMD.

A: Son, stop confusing the situation with logic and facts. Our argument is dead with the introduction of facts.

Q: We know China has nukes and is in a completely different category than Iraq.

A: Son! STOP IT! I'm not listening... la la la la.

Q: Why couldn't we just hurl missles at the desert again like we did in 98? Clinton did that because he said he wanted to further hamper Sadaam's nuke and bio programs.

A: [whistling loudly]

Q: Dad I'm going to hide 10 thousand liters of cola in california. Now, go find em!

A: Go to bed you little...

Q: Ah ah. Only Al gore is allowed to make extra chromosome comments.

A: Where's your mother?

[Blackadar]

Bone Gavel's retort, explained:

Q: Are you a liberal?

A: No. I'm neither a liberal or conservative.

Q: You must be if you are against war!

A: No, I just don't like people dying.

Q: If you're against the war then you're a liberal and un-American!

A: No, I just don't see the point in killing more people, including our own.

Q: Liberal! Liberal! Family Values! Ummm...look over there! It's a tax cut! (runs like hell, exit stage left)

[CAsterling]

Classic, brilliant and hilarious - and the facts included ( but not necessarily the opinions) are true.

Also loved the followup, you can think for yourself and see contradictions in current affairs, therefore you must be a liberal - got to love diverse opinion, its what makes America so funny.

I will be sending this one out to the office via email tomorrow.

[bigdawg2003]

That's hilarious. Perfect fodder for a flame war, but hilarious all the same.

[MIJB#19]

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we
want them to do?

A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

Good thing only bad things are named after the Dutch...

[Bonegavel]

Blackadar minus rowan atkinson

Q: you don't like people dying?

A: Well, unless it the unborn, i mean, non viable tissue mass. Or, unless they die doing drugs, which should be legalized, by the way.

Q: Oh, the hemp thing.

A: Yeah, we can make hemp underwear. This would put a lot of cotton growers out of business. [drooling from a business in trouble]

Q: I heard you can make underwear from crack, but I don't think that would be a good idea.

A: Go back to killing the old people, you nazi. That and starving kids.

Q: If you can kill people before they are even born, why can't we kill them post-birth?

A: Shame on you. Where's my weed, i mean, hemp?

[Maple Leafs]

Boy, that imaginary protagonist sure won that intellectual debate with the fictional, ridiculously cliched straw man! I'm convinced!

(The handy thing is, I can cut and paste that reply for both sides of this debate. Have I mentioned lately how the quality of political debate in the US really depresses me?)

[EagleFan]

Here's a much better version, minus the straw man.


Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

A: Because they did not comply with UN regulations.

Q: But the UN inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.

A: Inspectors weren't there to play hide and seek, they were there to verify the proof that the weapons were destroyed. They were never given that proof and were used as puppets by the country's murderous leader.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?

A: Yes, they were given several chances and we finally had to draw the line in the sand.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?

A: In a country the size of California it's not wise to jump to a conclusion after a short time. When someone has 12 years to hide things it will take a little longer than a few weeks to find them.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?

A: Because the leader is a madman. He already used chemical weapons on his own people to kill hundreds of thousands of them, just for not agreeing with him.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when the US and Britain went to war against them?

A: To use those weapons, you need the means. The coallition did such a fine job at the start of the operation of taking those means away.

Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?

A: I explained this already. They didn;t have the means to use the weapons. Also, the common soldiers did not want to be fighting for Saddam. They were only fighting out of fear for their lives and the lives of their families. Once it became clear that Saddam and his goons could not hurt them or their family they began to give up.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those
weapons President Bush said they did.

A: They had those weapons. It is a common fact that those weapons existed. The question to he answered is if they still existed, one that is being worked on. There is still a common good that can come out of this, regardless. That is that millions of oppressed people might have a chance to make a new country for themselves without the fear of being killed for their beliefs. If that is possible in that area of the world.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured and killed?

A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured or killed.

Q: But if we repealed those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started
doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become
capitalists?

Q: Why did the US invade Afghanistan?

A: Because the harbored the mastermind of the September 11th attacks.

Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?

A: It is not what the country did to us as a country. It's that they harbored the group that committed the attacks.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?

A: They trained the men and harbroed them inside their country with the support of the Taliban leadership.

Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chop off people's heads and hands?

A: Yes, they are very ruthless.

Q: But didn't President Bush give the Taliban $43 million in foreign aid in May 2001?

A: The US gave the money to a humanitarian cause that was supposed to go to the people of Afghanistan.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.

A: Yes and I feel that is esomething that needs to be addressed but they are being trained and harbored in Afghanistan. I'm from the US, but if I move to Canada and start a terrorist organization that is supported by Canada than the IUS has no responsibility for what I have done. It is the same idea as long as the country of birth isn't supporting as well.

Q: Who trained them?

A: An evil man named Osama bin Laden.

Q: Was he from Afghanistan?

A: Like I said, country of birth means little when dealing with an issue like this. If the current governemtn of Afghanistan didn't harbor him thatn all that would have happened is he would have been turned over to us by them.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.

A: He was part of a group attempting to defend Afghanistan from the Soviet Union..

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?

A: The Soviet Union has since fallen. They were the second world power for several years and had intent of taking us over, oif they could.

Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?

A: The Russians, and the other ex-Soviet countries are, to an extent.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?

A: The French are cowards and want to see the US fall. It's all about the jealousy of knowing that they are not a world power. The Germans, they make good beer.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?

A: Friend, no. They were in a war with an enemy of our that had captured and held hostage several of our people. At that point they were the lesser of two evils. The world is not black and white all the time where there is always a good and bad choice. That is something you will learn as you grown up, unless you become a liberal than you may never figure it out.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein the ruler of Iraq back then?

A: Yes, and that is when his ruthlessness was demonstrated fot the world to see.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?

A: As I said, he wasn't a friend, just the lessser of two current evils.

Q: Isn't that when Saddam gassed the Kurds and killed them by the thousands?

A: Yes, showing his lack of regard for human life.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?

A: No, they just become useful to us for that moment. Thik of it like when someone playhs the Cowboys, they'e not our favorite team but on that day they are.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically our enemy?

A: If we are a true friend than we should stand up for that friend.

Q: Why?

A: Because that is how life is. If someone were beating up your friend, I would hope that you would want to help your friend.

[Blackadar]

I could have so much fun with your post, EagleFan, since it's so inaccurate. However, it's too boring to do so.

I just hope that anger keeps you warm at night when US kids are being brought home in body bags. Because beyond anything else, this is the one unassailable fact: Saddam had no power now, or in the near future, to hurt US citizens beyond terrorism. Until you actually find the WMDs, then you can't really debate this point because his miliary sure in hell couldn't have done it.

And if we're attacking him because of terrorism, then Bush is a bigger idiot than even I thought, because of all the major Middle-Eastern countries out there, Iraq contributed the least amount to terrorism.

So the only other reason for attacking him now is because he was a bully. Which was already taken care of back in 1991.

[Blackadar]

Blackadar minus rowan atkinson

Don't assume you know where the name came from. If I was going to name it after the show, I'd have named it "BlackAdder".

[MJ4H]

Wow. This again?

[panerd]

Originally posted by MattJones4Heisman
Wow. This again?

I will lay even odds by the end of this "discussion" we will either see the apperance of the terrible tax analogy or a "respected" member of the FOFC community will have to take a break from the board for a while because it just isn't what it used to be.

[MIJB#19]

EagleFan's post doesn't make sense at all:

The Germans, they make good beer.

Everybody knows only the Dutch make good beer.
Heineken!

[Calis]

Originally posted by MIJB#19
Everybody knows only the Dutch make good beer.
Heineken!

The first true statement in this thread! Grats!

[Blackadar]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

[Calis]

What political faction do I fall under if I'm completely apathetic?

-"We believe in nothing, Lebowski. Nothing."

That just popped into my head.

[EagleFan]

Originally posted by Blackadar
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Take your trolling elsewhere.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by CAsterling


Also loved the followup, you can think for yourself and see contradictions in current affairs, therefore you must be a liberal - got to love diverse opinion, its what makes America so funny.

Just saw your post. To think that anyone but a liberal wrote that is to be dumb.

[Bonegavel]

dola.

Why does every liberal have to throw in the "Can think for yourself" bunk?

That letter is directly from the Tom Daschle handbook of spin.

Please. If you are a thinking person, you have chosen a side. You are either for or against any given idea. To be otherwise is to be indecisive and not a thinking person but a wishy washy crumb.

I would much rather debate a liberal than a person who is an "independent thinker" because independent just means that you don't know what you stand for. No person will ever agree 100% with a party, but politically, one of them will be closer to your core beliefs than the others.

The person that wrote that didn't think for themselves. That sort of dross has been spewing from the Left for some time now.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Boy, that imaginary protagonist sure won that intellectual debate with the fictional, ridiculously cliched straw man! I'm convinced!

(The handy thing is, I can cut and paste that reply for both sides of this debate. Have I mentioned lately how the quality of political debate in the US really depresses me?)

Woo! Go ML! *raises a glass* To pissing off both sides

SI

[thesloppy]

Originally posted by BoneGavel

I would much rather debate a liberal than a person who is an "independent thinker" because independent just means that you don't know what you stand for. No person will ever agree 100% with a party, but politically, one of them will be closer to your core beliefs than the others.

This whole thread is not so much a 'debate' as it is the special olympics...nobody wins, and everybody looks stoopid.

If my cat ate my keyboard tonight, it would wake up tomorrow and shit out a better argument than the canned right/left crap that passes for political discussion 'round these parts.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
dola.

Why does every liberal have to throw in the "Can think for yourself" bunk?

Probably because every time a conservative hears anyone express an idea that they disagree with they throw in "what do you expect from a Bush hating liberal" I'd imagine.

That letter is directly from the Tom Daschle handbook of spin.

Please. If you are a thinking person, you have chosen a side. You are either for or against any given idea. To be otherwise is to be indecisive and not a thinking person but a wishy washy crumb.

That's honestly the most scary thing I've ever heard on this board ever. A thinking person constantly accesses the situation and facts at hand and from that draws conclusions and forms opinions on the ideas contemplated. They have to. I don't care where you fall on the spectrum.

It's not being indecisive or wishy washy or would you call president Reagan and Strom Thurmond wishy washy because they reevaluated their thoughts and switched parties?? I certainly don't; delusional maybe but not wishy washy or indecisive. Alright, alright, I kid the ex president and the dead icon.

The only reason anyone would be against thinking is if they are either incapable of it themselves ( or in the very least non practicing ) or a politician themselves. I refer you back to our forefathers for their opinion. You would REALLY be surprised how highly they valued free thinking.

I would much rather debate a liberal than a person who is an "independent thinker" because independent just means that you don't know what you stand for. No person will ever agree 100% with a party, but politically, one of them will be closer to your core beliefs than the others.

Ok, you're confusing "independant thinker" with being politically independant. Two entirely different things.

I believe you about the "independanty thinker" part because when you debate that person you can't just pull out the old party handbook and read the relevant passages and it does sound like you don't enjoy thinking very much. This is not meant as an insult at all so don't take it as one. There is no crime in not liking to think too much but it is a shame if you don't do it often enough, kinda like bathing if you know what I mean.

On the second issue of being politically independant I think you're also confused. It's about choice and being free to pick the person who will best represent you in the office they're running for, not about how you see the world in general.

Not every political belief has importance in every political job held. The local mayor's views on abortion aren't going to affect his job as much as his views on the local zoning for example and the independant may well care far more about the local zoning than what the candidate thinks about abortion therefore he votes for the person, not the party which is irrelevant to his needs. This is a bad thing???

The person that wrote that didn't think for themselves. That sort of dross has been spewing from the Left for some time now. [/b]

Actually to come up with that required one to be clever and also to do a great deal of thinking to phrase it properly and make it amusing and telling at the same time. I agree it's dross, but give me that form of dross over the plain "conservatives cant think for themselves" or "liberals all hate Bush" anyday.

I mean really, once you've heard that once do you REALLY need to hear it again??

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by EagleFan
Take your trolling elsewhere.

Dude, if you think that's trolling...shame on you!

Anyone over 25 should get that comment.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Blackadar
Dude, if you think that's trolling...shame on you!

Anyone over 25 should get that comment.

I got it but then again I'm way over 25. Hell, I'm approaching Buccaneer age.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by Blackadar
Dude, if you think that's trolling...shame on you!

Anyone over 25 should get that comment.

I'm only 23 and I got it. It's movie comedy gold.

FYI: They used to play that in the Bottom of the 9th when the Royals were trailing but I haven't seen it in a while

SI

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Blackadar
Because beyond anything else, this is the one unassailable fact: Saddam had no power now, or in the near future, to hurt US citizens beyond terrorism.

That's more than enough.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say there are probably only three nations on the planet that could do anything to hurt US citizens beyond terrorism - and all of them only could because of the fact that they have ICBM's.

Shall we rest on our laurels until despots like Hussein have them as well? Ask Neville Chamberlain how well that worked out...

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Blackadar
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

No, and it aint over now...

[CAsterling]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
That's more than enough.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say there are probably only three nations on the planet that could do anything to hurt US citizens beyond terrorism - and all of them only could because of the fact that they have ICBM's.

Shall we rest on our laurels until despots like Hussein have them as well? Ask Neville Chamberlain how well that worked out...

Ok I understand your point, but Neville Chamberlain is your example - sorry but I don't think Chamberlain's appeasement policy is similar to today's world unless I'm overlooking something.

[CAsterling]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Why does every liberal have to throw in the "Can think for yourself" bunk?

Sorry to take this out of context, but I didn't want to answer the whole Tom whateverhisname is bit.

I do however believe I was accused of being a liberal, that's the first time I have ever had that happen to me considering my views tend to be slightly to the right of Attilla The Hun and Genghis Khan, I'm actually amazed.

Thanks you made my day

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Axxon
Probably because every time a conservative hears anyone express an idea that they disagree with they throw in "what do you expect from a Bush hating liberal" I'd imagine.

If the facts are correct, why should anyone fear a retort like that? That letter is complete opinion and my first reply was my opinion. Then CASterling replied with:

Also loved the followup, you can think for yourself and see contradictions in current affairs, therefore you must be a liberal - got to love diverse opinion, its what makes America so funny.

implying that only people who write factually incorrect documents with a liberal slant can think for themselves. There hasn't been a new liberal thought in decades. They do the same things over and over: belittle your opponent, class warfare, raise taxes, accuse the other side of doing the things that you do.

That's honestly the most scary thing I've ever heard on this board ever. A thinking person constantly accesses the situation and facts at hand and from that draws conclusions and forms opinions on the ideas contemplated. They have to. I don't care where you fall on the spectrum.

Scariest thing on this board? You either don't read most of the threads, or are scared that people make choices. To be relevant in a discussion regarding this subject matter (the topic of my assertion) you must have opinions and, as a result of this, you have USED YOUR MIND and decided that one of the political parties best suits your needs. If you have decided that no party fits your bill, I feel sorry for you. You must be a very infexible thinker or narrow minded. We all know 1 party can't satisfy all needs, but there is a core that you can relate to.

Do you seriously want to debate things with a person that doesn't have an opinion or hasn't chosen a side? That would be like talking to your coffee mug, though they even sometimes have catchy phrases on them.

My comment about being for or against any given idea is bang on. And, if the person in question is a thinking person, they would have thought about the idea and formed an opinion. They can't claim ignorance, because a thinking person would have researched any important item to better understand it.

The person in that letter wasn't clever as this sort of letter format has been around.

I find my responses to be the same whenever this stuff is dumped on the board. So, to get a more complete idea just do a search for my name.

final thoughts:

I still love the fact that my opinionated reply to an opinionated letter was looked upon with such scorn. "Oh, those conservatives. How they wish they could be so clever."

[Fritz]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
There hasn't been a new liberal thought in decades.

Not to get into the main discussion, but this is an interesting statement.

by definition, shouldn't liberals be a fountain of new thought?

[CAsterling]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Then CASterling replied with:

Also loved the followup, you can think for yourself and see contradictions in current affairs, therefore you must be a liberal - got to love diverse opinion, its what makes America so funny.

implying that only people who write factually incorrect documents with a liberal slant can think for themselves.

No that wasn't the implication intended - the implication was, a funny, well constructed humerous post, which is factually correct and the first reply was
---
This letter explained.
Q: Are you a liberal?
A: Yes. Very.
---
Hence the person who constructed it must be a liberal, why ? Because the can see inconsistancies in foreign policies, and right wing rethoric or because they don't agree with the masses and hence form their own unique opinion which they put forth very well - this is what I find funny.
The fact that you immediately called them a liberal is what prompted my response, as they had a well thought out arguement, yours was just a reaction.

Oh well - I'll follow 'panerd's' advice - its time take a break from the FOFC community as its not what it used to be, but unfortunately I can't think of a really bad tax analogy to add here as well

[Blackadar]

If you have decided that no party fits your bill, I feel sorry for you. You must be a very infexible thinker or narrow minded. We all know 1 party can't satisfy all needs, but there is a core that you can relate to.

Why? They're really the same damn party on most everything.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Blackadar
If you have decided that no party fits your bill, I feel sorry for you. You must be a very infexible thinker or narrow minded. We all know 1 party can't satisfy all needs, but there is a core that you can relate to.

Why? They're really the same damn party on most everything.

Not everything... just when it comes to selling out to special interests.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Not everything... just when it comes to selling out to special interests.

Very true, my man, very true.

I like the cut of your jib!

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by EagleFan
Here's a much better version, minus the straw man.

Actually, the other version was much better than yours, and more accurate as well. Just a FYI.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by Killebrew
Actually, the other version was much better than yours, and more accurate as well. Just a FYI.

Yea, well, EagleFan never let facts or rational thinking stand in his way.

[EagleFan]

Show me the facts than Blackadar. All you want to do is make personal attacks on me instead. Step up punk!

[Axxon]

Originally posted by EagleFan
Show me the facts than Blackadar. All you want to do is make personal attacks on me instead. Step up punk!

Go ahead, make his day.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Blackadar

Why? They're really the same damn party on most everything. [/b]

Sadly, this is too true as of late. It seems like they are in a "who can spend the most" race.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by CAsterling

Hence the person who constructed it must be a liberal, why ? Because the can see inconsistancies in foreign policies, and right wing rethoric or because they don't agree with the masses and hence form their own unique opinion which they put forth very well - this is what I find funny.

The fact that you immediately called them a liberal is what prompted my response, as they had a well thought out arguement, yours was just a reaction.

Oh well - I'll follow 'panerd's' advice - its time take a break from the FOFC community as its not what it used to be, but unfortunately I can't think of a really bad tax analogy to add here as well [/b]

I still don't see how that is a unique opinion, or well thought out. If you watch the X-Files, you will see just about every conspiracy theory and boogey man story ever concocted. Doesn't make it true. I do find the X-Files entertaining, however.

Also, I don't see why people see the need to flee the board. Where else can you find this many opinions flying around at once?

Here is your really bad tax crap talk stuff:

The government could pay off all debt if it would just tax everyone at 100%.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
I still don't see how that is a unique opinion, or well thought out. If you watch the X-Files, you will see just about every conspiracy theory and boogey man story ever concocted. Doesn't make it true. I do find the X-Files entertaining, however.

Also, I don't see why people see the need to flee the board. Where else can you find this many opinions flying around at once?

Here is your really bad tax crap talk stuff:

The government could pay off all debt if it would just tax everyone at 100%.

That's a good reminder, it's time for the X-Files on Sci-Fi in about 5 mins. Patient X tonight- that's a good ep. Ahem, I mean... for something on topic:

The reason why people see the need to flee the board is because this isn't political debate- this is you and the other side getting in a pissing contest to see who can do the most name calling to try and destroy the other's credibility. Everyone seems to think that a compelling argument can't be made without calling the other an ass.

SI

[Axxon]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
If the facts are correct, why should anyone fear a retort like that? That letter is complete opinion and my first reply was my opinion. Then CASterling replied with:

Also loved the followup, you can think for yourself and see contradictions in current affairs, therefore you must be a liberal - got to love diverse opinion, its what makes America so funny.

implying that only people who write factually incorrect documents with a liberal slant can think for themselves. There hasn't been a new liberal thought in decades. They do the same things over and over: belittle your opponent, class warfare, raise taxes, accuse the other side of doing the things that you do.

If the conservative facts are correct then why fear the original retort? Like all games of cut the man down, it goes both ways.

Love your last sentence. You say there hasn't been a new liberal thought in decades then proceed to chide them for doing the same thing over, namely

1. belitting their opponent. pot, kettle, black here big time.
2. Class warfare. - remember Willie Horton? Sure yah do.
3. raise taxes - remember "read my lips"? sure yah do.
4. Accuse the other side of doing things that you do. Remember points 1-3? Sure yah do.

Pretty funny actually, no matter what side you're on.

Scariest thing on this board? You either don't read most of the threads, or are scared that people make choices. To be relevant in a discussion regarding this subject matter (the topic of my assertion) you must have opinions and, as a result of this, you have USED YOUR MIND and decided that one of the political parties best suits your needs.

Not quite. You must have USED YOUR MIND true but it's entirely possible that neither party suits your needs and feel no reason to pledge blind allegiance when you can have a sampler platter of options that WILL suit your needs for the man in office. I've voted for Dems, Repubs and Indies and fully intend to keep doing so. I vote for the best CANDIDATE and no agenda formed in the back halls is going to make me change that.

If you have decided that no party fits your bill, I feel sorry for you. You must be a very infexible thinker or narrow minded. We all know 1 party can't satisfy all needs, but there is a core that you can relate to.

This is why your ideas frighten me BoneGavel. Because I can and do think about more than a broad agenda and am unwilling to sacrifice my will to free thinking and pick the best guy I must be very inflexible or narrow minded.

Wait a second, isn't blindly picking one party and refusing to consider your options more narrow minded than studying the races and the candidates and picking the best ones? Sure it is. There's no Captain Crunch Decoder Ring given for being loyal to a party unless you're actually involved in the party politics which I have no desire to do. Been there, done that, got the decoder ring even and it's not worth it to me to sacrifice the "flexibility" of my thinking.

I'm not one bit criticizing your choice nor could I. Many who can indeed think better and more clearly than me do indeed make that choice but I'll bet dollars to donuts they don't do it because not to would be inflexible or narrow minded.

I'm very, very scared when someone refuses to THINK and the way you're describing it, it almost seems you have a deep rooted insecurity about thinking but need ( as we all do ) to feel that you do and somehow because you do, your choice is superior. That scares me.

Do you seriously want to debate things with a person that doesn't have an opinion or hasn't chosen a side? That would be like talking to your coffee mug, though they even sometimes have catchy phrases on them.

Never talked to my mug as I don't drink coffee and therefore don't have a coffee mug. Hmm, I guess I still wouldn't talk to it if I did though.

I don't think that someone who hasn't bought into any particular party doesn't have an opinion. Do you honestly feel that I don't have an opinion? Really.

My comment about being for or against any given idea is bang on. And, if the person in question is a thinking person, they would have thought about the idea and formed an opinion. They can't claim ignorance, because a thinking person would have researched any important item to better understand it.

Yes, but the opinion needn't fall neatly under any party line. Even you have admitted that. Independance simply allows one to match ones opinion to the candidate who holds a similar opinion in a job in which that opinion matters. Again, not selling out to a party allows this option.

The person in that letter wasn't clever as this sort of letter format has been around.

I guess that West Side Story wasn't a good musical because Romeo and Juliet was written 400 years earlier?? There are really no original ideas any more just original interpretations and well written adaptations and the original one was. I'm sure that an opposing view well written would be equally as clever to me. Sadly, yours wasn't.

I'm going to use a particularly racist example of my point as I once read a flame war that was started by a racist with a particularly unpleasant and not clever "joke." Remember, I'm a spick so none of this offends me but I'm not a racist so I don't hold either of these views.

The original post went something like this.

What's white and laying on the side of the road? A nigger who had the shit kicked out of him.

It's shocking, in bad taste and not really even remotely funny. It doesn't even play to a known stereotype or anything. It merely insults and offends though it clearly states it's authors views. Ok, pages of back and forth crap spewed till one clever soul offered the following retort without comment or follow up.

What happens when a white man with an erection walks into a wall? He breaks his nose.

Surprisingly this broke a lot of the tension. It hints at, but doesn't hit you over the head with a well known stereotype yet it's not vulgar, offensive or in your face. After all, wouldn't that happen to anyone???

Now, if you can't see how the last joke was clever but the first "joke" was simply racist crap spewed with no thought about humor but merely meant to shock and offend, then I can't really explain to you why I found your response lacking and the original post clever, but in any case, that's certainly not what I replied to you about.

I'll throw in a gratuitous spanish joke and one that I particularly like.

Why dont the Mexicans do well at the olympics? Anyone who can swim, jump or run is already over here. Again, we all know what it is saying but it doesn't hit you over the head with it's point. It makes you think to get the point and it makes it in a sly way.

I find my responses to be the same whenever this stuff is dumped on the board. So, to get a more complete idea just do a search for my name.

I don't find fault with your response except as I've already stated. Your reply surely didn't rub me the wrong way or anything. When you said that only those who join parties can think however...that was bs.

final thoughts:

I still love the fact that my opinionated reply to an opinionated letter was looked upon with such scorn. "Oh, those conservatives. How they wish they could be so clever." [/b]

Unrelated to our discussion but I left it in for completeness. Should you reply with cleverness I'll be sure to give you your well deserved props. Trust me on this.

[NoMyths]

White House Admits Iraq Uranium Purchase Claim False

From the article:
"The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time yesterday that President Bush should not have alleged in his State of the Union address in January that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Africa to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program."

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by EagleFan
Show me the facts than Blackadar. All you want to do is make personal attacks on me instead. Step up punk!

I did and would again, but you're too blind to see them. Maybe when you get a bit older, Junior.

[Fritz]

I just read that poets admit that you can't what they say (write) at face value. SO how do we interpret this?

Originally posted by NoMyths
"The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time yesterday that President Bush should not have alleged in his State of the Union address in January that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Africa to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program."

[EagleFan]

Originally posted by Blackadar
I did and would again, but you're too blind to see them. Maybe when you get a bit older, Junior.

You've posted nothing in this thread that even ressembles a fact. Take your juvenile personal attacks elsewhere. Be a man and step up to the plate with something or you can just hide like the little boy that you obviously are.

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by Fritz
I just read that poets admit that you can't what they say (write) at face value. SO how do we interpret this?

I was always under the impression that the State of the Union address should be more fact than fiction. Absolutely non-fiction, as it were.

Some poets want to be taken at face value none of the time; others some of the time; and others none of the time. The President of the United States should be trustworthy all of the time. The State of the Union address isn't supposed to be a bedtime story, and the fact that people are comfortable with the idea that the government has used false information to partially justify the invasion of another country is horrifying, if not surprising. After all, it tends to cast suspicion on their stated motives, and lends a little more credence to the suspected motives they're accused of having.

But you know all of this anyway.

[NoMyths]

dola...

I enjoyed the original email just as much as when I posted it here the first time.