Interesting Eisenhower quote

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Abner, Jun 2, 2005.

Loading...
  1. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Re: Good points!

    Abner:

    I happen to personally know a fellow--good friends--who was interviewed recently by Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes. He lost his leg in Iraq right up to the hip. In fact, I was just horsing around with him and threw a water balloon at him on Wednesday (he told me to be careful for that artificial bionic leg).

    His name is Sergeant Chris Schnieder. Perhaps you've seen him. He's appeared on other national television programs as well. I don't know about your friend and his loss of limbs. I don't know whether he thinks it was worth it. But as for Sergeant Chris, when he assesses the situation after having seen it personally over there (unlike you and me or Ted Kennedy), when he sees what the U.S. in doing in freeing millions from a diabolical tyranny, when he sees that the present difficulties with insurgents (who closely resemble SA brown shirts with their terrorist tactics and stated aims of destroying all opposition) are but a trifling matter compared with massive killing fields that will no longer occur, when he compares the current situation with the devastation that was wrought on a country by a dictator who murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands during his reign, he rests well at night.

    He considers that his sacrifice was worth it.

    He believes--knows--that we're doing the right thing by setting those people free from the monsters who even still try to terrorize them daily. You could check it out; you could likely look him up, drop him a line, and ask him yourself, if you dare. I have.
     
  2. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Privatization of SS in Britain

    The best you've got is that there would be some kind of "extreme cost" involved with switching over to a new system???

    With all due respect, I don't believe it, Abner. I can't believe it. I think you're being lied to.

    But as a larger point about just how far down the dark tunnel Democrats have gone in order to find something with which they can oppose Bush, I cannot fathom a Democrat who would actually scrape the bottom of the barrell so as to cite the STARTUP COSTS OF A NEW GOVERNMENT PROGRAM AS A RATIONALE FOR OPPOSING IT!!!

    My breath is taken away that you would actually use that as a rationale!

    Well then, I suppose that if you want to take this matter in that direction, I'll play along for the sake of argument and morbid curiosity tio see just how long you'll maintain this crazy dance with irrationality. When President Hillary Clinton takes office in 2008 or 2012 or whenever, will you, on principle, stand up in opposition to her attempts to ressurect her Socialized Health Care dream or whatever massive program she seeks to puch through Congress, on the grounds that it will simply cost too much to implenment...too steep start up costs...dollar's dropping...debt to China...the deficit ever climbing...can't possibly afford...what about our priorities, etc., etc.?

    Will you, really, Abner?

    And again, have a great weekend. You seem like a nice guy. But please, come on, man!
     
  3. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    But it was SUPPOSED to be about WMD. Or, really, WMD was decided upon as the public justification well in advance of 9/11. The British memo is proof of that, if more proof were needed.

    Sorry, little fauss. The guy lied to get what he wanted. And he has a nice long history of doing exactly that.
    __________________________________________________

    Nosborne:

    As much as I like you and respect you. I'm having agreat deal of difficulty respecting your opposition to GWB on the grounds you cite. I'm not letting you slip out of this one.

    It was not supposed to be just about WMD. WMD was ONE of MANY reasons that GWB gave for the invasion. One of them was the atrocities, one of them was the destabilization of the region, one of them was Saddam's refusal to comply with U.N. Resolution 1441. There were many others, I think about a dozen in all that he listed in his many speeches to justify the war. that's a simple, irrefutable fact. Say what you want, but if you say other than that you're incorrect. If you continue to hold to that which is incorrect after it's been demonstrated to you as such, then you're lying. As I consider you an intellectually honest person, I hope you'll not persist.

    "Nice long history..."

    Again, I put it to you to give me this "nice long history", I've given you ample opportunity, and all you can come up with is as yet unproven innuendo that GWB had something to do with agreeing secretly with the Brits to lie about the events leading up to the war, and your assertion that in any event, WMD talk was "lies". The actual weight of evidence still favors the proposition that GWB, like all those Democrats quoted earlier, some of whom were privy to the same sorts of intelligence as GWB, was misled by faulty intelligence re: WMD. But on the whole, our intelligence understated other problems that Bush had used as a justification for going to war. For example, the killing fields are apparently turning up in a number that even outstrips our intelligence estimates. It's looking more-and-more like this guy had a lot in common with Pol Pot.

    But the larger issue is this: you keep citing "lied, lied, lied" and "long history of lies", and yet when I put it to you to cite this long history, to give me something I can dig my teeth into, you just keep loopong back to WMD. Is that all you got? Because if you have more, I dare say I haven't heard word of it. I rattled off several examples of serious ethical failings on the part of our last President, I could've gone on and on, you know blasted well I could've. Yet that fellow's a demigod to Democrats, and this guy is called a liar, liar, the father of lies. It's perfect balderdash!

    Tell you what, I'll take you at your word, I'll assume the worst, even though the evidence doesn't support it. I'll assume that GWB flat out lied about WMD. But if that's the best you have, then by those standards I'd say that GWB is not only a relatively honest president, but perhaps one of the most forthright and reliable in the history of the office.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2005
  4. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Very well, little fauss. Let me return to my original point:

    I am suggesting that people are rejecting the President's positions on Social Security because half (at least) of the population doesn't trust HIM or his ADMINISTRATION.

    You and I will never agree on the merits of the man but you cannot dispute this.

    Raising the retirement age is ALSO an option that needs considering but again, if we're going to do it, it will be MUCH less painful if we DO IT NOW.
     
  5. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Good points!

    He considers that his sacrifice was worth it.

    He believes--knows--that we're doing the right thing by setting those people free from the monsters who even still try to terrorize them daily. You could check it out; you could likely look him up, drop him a line, and ask him yourself, if you dare. I have. [/B][/QUOTE]

    Little Fauss:

    I am glad your friend feels that way. Certainly not all vets feel that way, if you think that, you are deluding yourself. I am glad you think it has been worth it.

    Have a good day little Fauss,

    Abner
     
  6. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    nosborne and Little Fauss

    Hi Gentleman: Nosborne and Little Fauss

    In the interest of time, I am going to respond as briefly as possible. First I agree with the quote from Nosborne, an adjustment needs to be done in regards to Social Security. I firmly am against privatizing, period. Nosborne has offered a viable solution. As far as Nosbornes contention that GWB does not have the trust of at least half the people, and therefore people will not buy his privatization scheme, I must also agree. To paraphrase nosborne "You and I will never agree on the merits of the man". I will echo these sentiments.


    Have a good day gentleman,

    I have to go write a 7 page essay,

    Yipeeeeeee! Abner :)
     
  7. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    You two oughta' make a road movie:
    • "Nosborne & Little Fauss on the Road to..."
    Hey... that's actually got something of a ring to it, doesn't it.

    Hmm. ;) Look out Hope and Crosby.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2005
  8. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Please remember that the age has already been raised. I'm about to turn 60 and for me the age is 66 and change.
     
  9. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Privatization of SS in Britain

     
  10. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privatization of SS in Britain

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 5, 2005
  11. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Good points!

    Certainly I don't think that. But if you think anything more than a small minority of those vets think the sacrifices they've made were not worth it, you're deluding yourself.

    And you didn't even say whether your friend considered his sacrifice worth it. You just threw him out there as an example.

    Have you even asked him personally about it?
     
  12. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Oh yes I can dispute it. I think the democrats know full well he's a trustworthy man. That is, when he says he's going to do something, he full well does it, he doesn't just throw it out there as a talking point to gain a few points in the opinion polls. What a refreshing change from what we had occupying that office before. This guy's being opposed not so much by the U.S. population, as even you'll have to admit that his poll numbers for trustworthiness vis-a-vis standing up to terrorism and the like are holding quite strong.

    The democrats in Congress oppose him not for his supposed disingenuousness, but because they know if they give an inch, he'll take it and run, revamp social security, and get the credit for it. The prospect sends them into apoplexy. Hence, the cynical obstructionism.

    And there, my good friend, we agree. There's hope yet for you! :D
     
  13. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privatization of SS in Britain

    Oh little Fauss:

    You know full well what I mean by my credit card debt analogy. What is irresponsible is putting ungodly amounts of money in order to set up these private accounts, or do you think that will be free? Of course not, a financial planner has to make his/her money some how.

    I guess we will never agree. That's ok my friend little faus. A wise man once told me "I have never heard a wrong opinion". The beauty of this country is you can think I am wrong, and I can think you are wrong. I have been to several countries, some of which may have a person shot for not thinking like everyone else. God Bless America. I respect your opinion, however I do not need to agree with it.

    Best wishes to you and your family,

    Abner :)
     
  14. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Good points!

    My friend (Student) feels he was deceived. He is currently suffering from major depression, post traumatic stress disorder, and has been suicidal. He asked for a gun so he could end it all, and in his words, "not be a burden to society". Of course I counseled him, and reported it to the proper professionals.


    Abner :)
     
  15. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privatization of SS in Britain

    Financial planner? "Ungodly amounts of money to set up"? Says who? Why should it cost so much to set up?

    The problem is, I don't believe you, and I think you're being as disingenuous as all thunder when you claim that the cost of setting up this government program, whatever it may be, is your reason for opposition.

    And the truth is, you don't even believe you, either. Because you know full well that the next massive government program that's proposed by a Democrat, which would probably cost far mor ethan a tweaking of the current SS system, will have your enthusiastic and heartfelt support, startup costs won't be a factor.

    But in any event, let me say you're an exceedingly nice liberal, I have no complaints with your demeanor. You're a gentleman.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2005
  16. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privatization of SS in Britain

    Litttle fauss, do you really believe yourself? I don't think you do. And to use your words "What in Hades are you talking about?". How can I predict or even comment on some future proposed Democratic program? Your arguments are becoming more and more incoherent.

    I guess you must be a mind reader in addition to an attorney, now you are telling me what I believe and what I do not believe?


    Take care Little Fauss.

    Abner
     
  17. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privatization of SS in Britain

    But in any event, let me say you're an exceedingly nice liberal, I have no complaints with your demeanor. You're a gentleman. [/B][/QUOTE]

    The feeling is mutual little fauss, you are a scholar and a gentleman.


    May peace follow your path,


    Abner
     
  18. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    little fauss and I can never agree because we have different starting places. He begins with what to me is a conclusion, not an starting place; his doubtless sincere faith. I, however, begin with a very skeptical attitude which no religious faith can ever overcome.

    This colors our thinking beyond religion and even public policy. little fauss believes that President Bush is doing a good job and is a trustworthy man. Therefore, he will tend to discount things like poll numbers showing a large majotiry of Americans rejecting the President's Social Security ideas. I, on the other hand, since I have concluded that the evidnce shows that the President is dishonest and untrustworthy, will tend to ignore or discount any evidence to the contrary. I think it likely that little fauss' belief in the President is not unconnected to Mr. Bush's frequent, doubtless sincere assertions that he is a born again Christian, something in a public official that causes me to see red when he injects it into his policy decisions.

    Neither of us really KNOWS, of course.
     
  19. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Ah!

     
  20. Carl explains things....

    I'm not nearly as "nice" a liberal in the love fest I see going on here, so I'll jump in and explain things....

    The reason "Mission Accomplished" is funny is because, in typical Bush fashion, he declared success in a major historical event before the dust had even begun to settle. Those of us who are students of history know that if one thing is certain about war it is that it changes everything. Winners find that their world is no longer the same as it was before a war, just as losers find that their world is different too. Sometimes "losers" wind up becoming "winners" (e.g., the post-WWII economic revival of Japan and German) while "winners" wind up losing (e.g., the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1980s...)

    These things take time to resolve themselves, hence the ridiculousness of Bush's declaring "Mission Accomplished" (DUH!) about 15 minutes after the fall of Baghdad to our invasion forces....

    But it isn't over at all, is it?

    It is a foolish man indeed who assumes that the latest phase of a continuing 1,500+ years of Islamic/Christian conflict can be resolved by a trite catch phrase issued on the deck of an aircraft carrier / photo op.

    Perhaps this helps explain our liberal (and laughing) reaction to the phrase "Mission Accomplished", and why nosborne chose to put it in quotes....
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2005

Share This Page