Interesting Eisenhower quote

Carl,

You bring up the "War That Dare Not Speak Its Name", viz, the millenuim old on again off again war between Islam and the West.

For the Christian West, like it or not, is the sworn enemy of Islam. No amount of political correctness by the West can alter this fact one whit.

Islam has reopened hostilities against the West because the powerful in that world rightly view Western values, meaning secularism and emancipation, as THE threat to their continued power.

The reasoning of the moment shifts but the fundamental fight continues.

 

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

Abner, you're just repeating back to me my own words here. Think up your own line of attack, don't just volley mine back. My arguments are not incoherent. My point is that for you, a self-professed liberal Democrat, to claim that your honest-to-goodness opposition to a Republican proposed social security tweak is because it would cost too much to initially implement is absurd. Do you really, honestly believe in such fiscal responsibility? Is that really your rationale? Have you ever--be honest now--used such a rationale to question a single Democratic proposal in the history of our republic?

My arguments aren't incoherent just becausue you throw the word out there. I really honestly believe that you're just grasping at straws, trying to find some reason to criticize Bush's program, even if it causes cognitive dissonance in your mind.

And, a good day to you, Abner

 

I'l agree, my brother, that neither of us really knows a thing. But one thing that disturbs me is that you never seem to answer my call for proof of this long and winding road of deception, deceit and disingenuousness on the part of George W. Bush.

Can you tell me, without googling, anything other than your allegations regarding WMD that lead you to believe this man is such a snake? Are there any other examples? Anything? Because I keep asking you and you keep coming up blank.

As for public opinion polls, are you serious? Yes, of course, I restate my argument, because a majority of people polled think that GWB's whatever you say he is (I'd like to see the polls that say he's untrustworthy vis-a-vis other presidents, by the way, but you haven't even provided those either), then I must, of course, agree, because irregardless of the fact that many polls are gimmicked up for public consumption or are really agendized push polls masquerading as scientific, I must nonetheless accept them as the final word on what's true and just and correct. And even if they really represent the feelings of the majority of the people, does that make them right?

Counselor Osborne, I just want to know why you won't give me more meat upon which to chew when you make your claims about this man. Again, if I assume the worst and the world precisely as you have stated it here, that GWB lied about WMD so as to support one of his many justifications for invading Iraq and deposing one of the most horrendous dictators of our time, then I shall say it again: he's among the most honorable presidents in U.S. history.

 

Re: Ah!

 

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

I critize Baby bush's plans because he in not one to speak of "fiscal responsibility". Also, because he and Dick Chenney are not to be trusted. I believe this, along with more than half the population now. I do admire your blind trust, though. I wish I could see the world through your rosy colored glasses. Anyway, perhaps you need to start worrying about the present largest deficit in history, outsourcing, on and and on.

I find it quite funny that you think I am merely volleying back your arguments. A mere perusle of our posting will show you are doing this.

I think your parties use of labels is quite pathetic also. Oh no! Abner is a Liberal! Why do you assume that?, just because I am Democrat? I guess I should call you a Neo Con? Please do not stoop to the level of trying to use pathetic Right Wing radio show labels. I hope you do not listen to the Clownishly grotesque Rush Limbaugh! (Uncle janko, I could not resist using one of your Jankoisms, hope you don't mind).

Just a few thoughts little fauss,

Abner

 

Re: Carl explains things....

Now I get it.

But a larger point is that it's still wasn't responsive AT ALL to my point, which was that a host of Democrats, from top to bottom, including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy--really, pretty much everybody--had loudly professed the dangers of Saddam's WMD. In fact, a good many were as scared as you-know-what as the invasion was underway that he'd use them. Was one of the liberal reasons for opposing the war.

Of course now, they all smugly proclaim: "We knew it all along...dumb Texas monkey...liar".

As for "Mission accomplished", I suppose it was accurate. I don't think he said "It's over, no more clean up necessary." In fact, I believe that he said on several occasions that the occupation would be quite a long haul and that forces would be committed for some time. The U.S. forces had accomplished the initial mission, to unseat the Baathist regime, but a lot of work to be done. I really don't think he denied that.

But then again, I suppose it depends on what your meaning of "is" is.

 

Re: Re: Ah!

Oh litlle fauss,

You seem to conveniently glide over my points in order to illustrate your warped interpretations. The point I was making, is merely that your baby Bush never uses the term "Born Again". Please show me any instance in he has done so.

We seem to be merely engaged in circular arguments, my friend little fauss. You completely disregard the polls, your false Prophet, Baby Bush is lagging behind. More so everyday.

Good day to you sir!

Abner

 

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

My trust is not blind. I just base it upon listening to those who despise him. When I hear the paltry arguments they have for asserting that he's such a crook, and see how badly they fare when I ask them to give me a reason why he's a liar, I recognize that he's quite honest, quite extraordinary.

I'm still waiting for some reason other than the fav WMD as to why he's not to be trusted. You can say it til you're blue in the face, but if you don't back it up with something else of substance, then I'd say you're spitting in the wind.

Can someone please tell me some good reason why--other than he's a Republican and religious--he's not to be trusted versus other presidents throughout history? Versus the last one?
Admit it, you're a blank Abner, you got nothing. Otherwise, why would you just keep asserting "He's not to be trusted" and leaving at that? When I ask you why, you say "Well, it's obvious now, it's because he's not to be trusted."

Are you a liberal, Abner? If you are, then just admit it and be done with it and declare me correct. If you're not, then I'd like to know what you call yourself.

And what in the world does Rush Limbaugh have to do with anything?

 

Re: Re: Carl explains things....

I guess you do not remember the assurances that we would end this war quickly and be hailed in the streets by rose petals falling from the heavens? For heavens sakes Little Fauss!

Abner

 

Re: Re: Re: Carl explains things....

I guess I can't remember it because he didn't say it.

Again, have you any reason? Anything other than the disputed WMD lie to support your accusation that he's a liar? Anything? Otherwise, I'm just about done with this, huge waste of time.

 

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

Are you a Neo con little Fauss! What difference does it make what I call myself?

I find all this quite entertaining, but all you do is say a lot with out saying anything.

Take care Little, fauss,


Abner

 

Oh, gosh, do we have to go through it again?

Okay.

Harkin Energy, where the SEC would have prosecuted him for insider trading except that the SEC attorney had a connection with the Bush family. That was before he entered politics.

His promise to ratify Kyoto when he was a candidate.

His refusal to permit even a little more time to the U.N. weapons inspectorate in Iraq for them to find that there were no WMD. This bolstered by the British memo laying out his exact intention to invade REGARDLESS of WMD.

His insistance that he wants to unite the country followed by renominating right wing Judges that have already been opposed and fillibustered in the previous Congress.

These are just off the top of my head. The man consistently says whatever will get him what he wants. He is utterly without integrity. This I define as a liar, and, in the President's case, a dangerous one.

 

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

Abner:

I'll leave it for all here to determine who's running about in circles chasing their tail and who's trying--in vain--to extract just a little something out of the other to support their point-of-view. You, unlike Mr. Osborne, are not a worthy foe.

I'm done debating you.

 

Thanks. Finally!

Go through this again

Osborne, when did we go through it the FIRST time? You've never brought any of this up to me before. I've begged you for something other than WMD.

And if they're off the top of your admittedly fertile head, you sure did take a long time to get to them! I expect better from you, and usually have gotten it. You're about the only one around here who's gotten me to change my mind on some things, you're one of the few who thinks things through and doesn't just spout talking points or debate like a child.

I'll get to work on these. Some of them, as you'll well suspect, I'm able to dispatch quickly, like the charges of right wing judges. And whom is he supposed to nominate? Left wing judges? Centrists? He has the constitutional duty to nominate judges to the federal bench, it's right there in Article 2, whomever he pleases, subject to the advise and consent-only role of the Senate that we've already discussed ad naseum. If the Democrats filibustered previous nominees, that's their problem, as it was an unprecedented and wholly unsupportable move in the first place--and you'll remember you conceded this point to me already. Given that we're apparently of like mind, you should agree that from a precedential standpoint, he almost had a duty to put the same judges back up for nomination, so as to take away from the legitimacy of the Democrats' actions. Again, I'm not saying the Democrats are the only bad players here, I have the same contempt for Republican attempts to stall Clinton nominations in committee--equally invalid.

Harkin Energy - No clue, I'll look into and get back to you later (probably later in the week, I'm out of town Wednesday and out of state Thursday. I'll be up to my ears in work Friday).

Kyoto - I'll look into it, but I do not believe that a broken campaign promise is equivalent to a lie (though it's not a good thing by any means, if the charge is true). There can be changes of circumstances, but I don't know in this case. What I know--truly know--about Kyoto, you could fit in a thimble. I'll look it up.

UN Weapons - Bush telegraphed his punch to Iraq for months, he probably allowed too much time, not too little. If there were WMD (remember, Saddam had used the blooming things before to kill over 100,000, I believe), he had plenty of time to hustle them out into the willing hands of terrorist networks. Nobody ever seems to consider this possibility (and remember, that's all I said it was). Saddam refused to comply with U.N. 1441. Are you saying he'd had a change of heart and was open and willing to allow the inspectors full access? That's not my memory of the situation AT ALL. I remember his ousting the inspectors--back in '98, wasn't it?--I remember nothing about this dictator offering open and free inspections at any point therafter. In my personal opinion, Bush took far too long to make his move.

As for the further point about WMD, I don't think it's of any measure that he'd decided to go to war sans WMD. As I've stated before, WMD were ONE of MANY reasons given. Did the Brit documents PROVE than Bush himself had full knowledge that there never were WMD, but continue thereafter to tout them? if so, that would be a lie. But again, I'm glad he went in and I believe there were ample reasons, in the wake of 9/11, to go in. I also believe there are ample reasons to do the same in the Sudan and North Korea, but one battle at a time.

Thank you for finally giving me something. It's not exactly a Harding, Clinton, Grant, Nixon-type list, though, is it?

 

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

Little fauss:

I am not concerned with who determines what about me. I have done pretty well in life without worrying about what someone thinks about me.

Take care Little Fauss,


Abner

 

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

You want to know something Abner?

I got to thinking about my demeanor last night, and came to the conclusion that I acted like a perfect ass towards you. Surely not befitting that ancient Rabbi that I profess to follow (I'm Messianic).

Now that said, I'm still not a fan of your debating techniques--even though you're obviously not a hostile fellow and seem quite decent--and I don't think we got anywhere in our frustrating debate, but I have to admit that I contributed to the poor tenor of it by repeatedly questioning your intelligence and sanity. What was I thinking? Says volumes about my debating techniques!

I should be able to disagree with you without such ad hominem. My bad. I'm sorry. I acted like a blamed fool. No irony here, I mean every word.

Good day, Abner.

 

Hey, little fauss,

Did you see that the Supreme Court upheld the federal government's prohibition of possession and use of medical marijuana?

The decision is probably legally correct, hat's not the point, but did you see who DISSENTED??

O'Conner, sure, you'd expect that, Darth Vader HIMSELF in the shape of the Chief Justice (well, maybe his cancer taught him something) but most intriguing of all, Justice Thomas!

 

Don't we mean Madeline None-too-bright?

 

With all due respects, Little Fauss, before making accusations of presidential corruption, know your history! The major "Grant administration scandal" was the Credit Mobilier scandal, a financial scandal in which the Union Pacific Railroad placed its stock in the hands of several key members of Congress. Funny thing is, the Credit Mobilier scandal actually happened during Andy Johnson's administration. And the good General himself was personally untouched by that or any of the other "Grant scandals." That is because Grant was a rare example of a Republican with integrity.

 

No kidding? I really didn't know that. As for the CJ, well, I've always felt that he had a tinge of activist in him, even if it was typically disguised. Probably "taint" left over from the Warren court, you know.

But Clarence Thomas! Et tu, Brute? Et tu?