Basso started a thread about dissent but didn't feel it was the right thread to provide proof that at least two posters on this board defend Saddam and terrorists, and want the U.S. to lose. Basso may or may not really believe that. But if there is no proof that anyone is doing that, I would like the charges to stop. I would much rather debate real substance than cast charges with no proof back and forth. So let us use this thread to discuss whether or not people on this board want to defend Sadda, and terrorists and hope for their triumph over the U.S. Let me start by saying that being against a military invasion of Iraq doesn't mean defending Saddam. It can easily mean that you believe there was a better time or method to deal with him. Being against allowing the U.S. to torture doesn't mean that you are defending terrorists, it means you hold different principles than the terrorists, and expect the U.S. to practice different principles. Posting bad news that is accurate and factual doesn't mean you are happy that bad news happened, but that you want it exposed so we can put a stop to it. Attacking the messenger isn't helpful. You don't want people to post things about troops torturing or abusing prisoners then let's work to keep them from torturing or abusing prisoners rather get upset when people mention things that happened. We have heard the line from this administration that the terrorists hate our freedom. Then I will put forth that by allowing the kind of free speech and criticism of our commander in cheif is the exact kind of thing these terrorists hate. It weakens their cause rather than strengthens it to show how the mightiest nation in the world, can still remain on top while allowing everyone to have their say. Those are my preemptive defenses of some of the hints of the rationale behind the charges that get slung around. But now in the interest of civil and substantive debate, I would like the accusers of "bad" dissent to please back up their charges with proof, or drop the subject and move on to debating the substance.
If you voted for John Kerry, and oppose the President's policies, you are a Saddam supporter and terrorist sympathizer who roots for the US Army to lose in Iraq and celebrates when soldiers are wounded or killed in Iraq. It's a solid conclusion....if you have the brain of a monkey instead of a human being.
Consistently posting only negative news and ignoring, qualifying and questioning any bit of good news tells me all I need to know. This goes beyond the war news. The economy in this country has been booming for a while and I'd say that the liberals have no idea of this or refuse to believe it. That tells me all I need to know. [paul harvey]Good day.[/paul harvey]
It is logical for someone against the war or the way it is being run would post negative articles to back up their position. It doesn't mean they are happy when troops die, or that they love Saddam. If you are going to make that accusation please post proof of those sentiments.
The economy in this country has been booming for a while Define *booming*. BTW creating enough jobs to match population growth is not booming.
This proves my point. You're a perfect example of what I was saying. You like to trumpet fake bad news in order to anger the masses and increase hatred for Bush (is this every liberal's main purpose in life, btw?). I truly believe this to be true with you and your ilk. Here's some facts for you: Unemployment has decreased from a peak of 6.3% in June of 2003 (still a very respectable and healthy rate) down to 5.0% last month in the US. Sorry to own you in public, brah. GDP growth: the graph speaks for itself. Real GDP growth is the best way to measure an economy's health. Just look at this chart. We're doing fabulous.
I believe you, and I think most of us feel the same. There are some however that make accusations, and provide no proof. This is meant to give them a time and a place to provide their viewpoints and supporting evidence. I would much rather talk about the issues of the economy and whether it is really booming or not, than watch people make accusations about me supporting terrorists with zero proof to back it up.
Unemployment is one seriously cooked number. Are students looking or their first job counted? Are people who have a hard time finding a job and run out of benefits counted? From the GDP chart, it looks like 2000-2003 were mearly an economic slowdown. The job market certainly did not reflect this. BTW, I think the current economy is ok/average, i.e. not bad, which the GDP chart also indicates. Can't you understand the charts you post?
How do you account for the millions who are no longer counted among the unemployed because their benefits have run out and they've basically stopped looking for work? Also, how do you account for those who have lost their jobs and have "gained employment" outside of their field of expertise and for a fraction of what they were making before (for example, someone who was in middle management making 50-60K a year, got laid off, and is now working at McDonalds for minimum wage)? Sorry to call you out in public, brah, but inquiring minds want to know.
Seems to me you have the opposite problem - believing any good news without any critical analysis, while ignoring all bad news. Now, the question is, which is worse? Planning for the best and hoping for the best, and being screwed if things don't work to plan? This is both your and Bush's philosophy, it seems, and we've seen how well that worked in Iraq. Or, criticially evaluating the good, and if it really is good, great, but if it's actually not-as-advertised, you have a plan to deal with it?
Word on the streets is that the unemployment rate is based on survey of a stratified population... Please prove me wrong...
As predicted, here come all the excuses, qualifiers and exceptions that the liberals throw out there to deceive. Buddy, unemployment has been measured the same way since 1948. Why do you think that one of the mildest recessions of all time a few years ago would change anything? Please. I've presented facts here and you've countered with old wivestales propagated by the likes of andymoon. Now that's humorous. re: the job market in 2003: here's a historic chart on umemployment. Your job market stat is right here. As to your GDP comment, all I can say is that you cannot understand the concept of GDP and how it measures an economy's health. Please educate yourself. Thx in advance
GDP growth does not speak for itself. For the first time in a decade, real wages have started dropping. Great, more people are employed - at lower rates. The last time that happened, we were in a recession - now we're in this "healthy expansion". That's progress? The classes primarily benefitting from this expansion is the upper class. Why should a lower or middle class person be happy with this? This is a perfect example of your limited analysis - look at one number, decide that it supports your argument, and assume that is the end-all of the argument. Then 3 years from now if things are worse, just ignore it and point to a new number that sort-of shows that things are getting better.
Well, I'm obviously one of the posters basso was talking about. I've said I was anti-Saddam, anti-terror, pro-troops and a patriotic American that is disappointed and ashamed of my country's recent actions probably a hundred times by now. basso continually accuses me (and others, but mostly me) of being the opposite. He's a dishonest, McCarthist dick to do it, but he's not gonna stop. Asking him to after all this time, and moreover expecting him to actually listen, is like asking Jorge to engage in a rational argument. It's not gonna happen.
