CNN???? Are you freaking kidding me? Tell you what. Why don't I post some op ed pieces from FOX News, call them unbiased and we'll be even.
Why don't you read the article and see if there is ANYTHING in there you can meaningfully refute beyond bashing the messenger. Treeman said there were no examples of Republicans accusing Dems of bad behavior in this way and that he was sick of hearing it without backup. Leave out all the words chosen by Shields and read ONLY the quotes and you'll see why I posted it in response to treeman.
Batman, You also now guaranteed that treeman will not even respond. He is running scared at this point.
Just off the top of my head: Your suggestion that the US will plant weapons of mass destruction if they don't find any and that conservatives get preferential treatment on the BBS. You are clearly intelligent, MacBeth, so regardless of whether you are anti-U.S. or not (and by no means am I saying that you are), do you honestly not see where someone could think you <i>were</i> based on the consistency against the United States in your past political arguments? You even go as far back as WWII to downplay the country's role and rid it of any virtue. That's an honest (not sarcastic) question, though I realize the far left will attempt to crucify me for even asking it. I'm curious: Are you going to provide anything of substance in this thread, or just continue with the 'insignificant crotch-sniffer taking potshots at treeman' charade?
1) Clutch...go back..I clearly stated that it was far more likely that the US would find them because they were there...I was merely illustrating the fact that, in light of past behaviour, there is a world of difference between what we are told and the certainty of fact. It was in no way a conspiracy theory, especially as it could hardly be given that were discussing a hypothetical, it was an example to contrast with the trend i see in jumpiing from supposition to conclusion...as in the 'headshots = excecutions' theory...and I clearly stated at the time you are refring to that my personal opinion would favor the supposition that the WMD find would be genuine, but that my opinion, like anyone else's, doesn't make it fact. 2) The later wasn't about a conspiracy ( involving more than one person), it was aboutwhat I felt was your selective use of executve power to criticize the behaviour of only those people with whom you politically disagreed, while igmoring the behaviour of those who happen to agree with you. I know you felt constrained by this, as in not allowed to have an opinion because of your position, but I tried to point out that your opinion re: behaviour can and has carried much more than 'just another guy' weight in this cite, and as such feel that it is unfair to take sides...but only about behavior. Baout the issues, fire away...and about behaviour, criticize away...but the former can be based on political position/agreement without posters feeling censured, the latter cannot. Do you understand what I am trying to say? 3) re: anti-US/consipracy...Clutch..I feel very strongly about the US...I see it as the Great Experiment, the place which was, for a very special time, about right over might, ideals over practicality...dying on your feet rather than living on your knees...or padded office chairs, either way...I am dismayed by some recent developments, especially this war, and will state my fears and objections precisely because of my strong feelings for the country. Among the things which I am most dissapointed in is the recent revival of 1950's style groupthink condemnation of those who disagree...Made manifest with the " With Us or agsint us" dictate of the president. Does that mean I am giving up on the US? hardly...but it also doesn't mean I am going to quietly submit to accusations of bias, lack of patriotism, and love of Hussein just for standing up for what I feel this country is about, not toeing the company line...I feel that those who just assume that whatever the government does is what defines the US, rather than the principles we were founded on, are the real traitors to the united States of America...
OK...this I can understand. I hold dear what we were founded on too. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. LIFE comes first for a good reason. Without life, you can have no liberty. Without liberty, there can be no pursuit of happiness. It is my ardent belief that our government feels (as do I) that Saddam is a threat to life both in his own country and abroad. When you defend life, you BY DEFINITION defend liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We may disagree on this very much. It makes you wrong in my opinion, but not unpatriotic. What does bother me is when people who do not believe the war is just refuses to respect the troops for the sacrifices they are making for their country. I am not saying that you have done this MacBeth...but there are those that have. It is deeply troubling.
It is politically unwise for the Democrats to question the war now, since there is no question left on victory. Harp on the reconstruction plan NOW and fight the administration on KEY issues. There seems to be no coherent think tank on foreign policy the Dems could utilize. But it comes to no surprise as the field of nominees are currently populated by intellectual midgets, w/ the exception of perhaps Dean(unelectable) or Edwards (the only one who could unseat Bush in a fight).
Sorry MacBeth, but I find that to be a mighty big spin and a poor argument. I have no idea how it being a hypothetical disqualifies it from being a conspiracy theory - we're talking about an inevitability: finding or not finding WOMD. You said very clearly that if no WOMD were found, "Do you honestly think that, even under those circumstances, we wouldn't 'find' something!?!?!?" Hell, I mean treeman <b>himself</b> even called it a "conspiracy theory" in a response shortly after, and you did not object to this terminology. You used the fact that we "fabricated evidence to support the invasion in the first place" to support this theory, when in fact that itself was false - the U.S. didn't fabricate the evidence. Later, when MadMax directly asked which was honestly more likely, you responded: <i>The fact that I would find (WOMD found honestly) more likely under normal circumstances in no way precludes the possibility of (WOMD planted) given the circumstances robbie30 outlined, and the number of careers riding on the outcome of this situation.</i> But this is hardly the ringing endorsement you made it out to be: "clearly stating that it was <b>far</b> more likely" a WOMD find would be legit. Maybe you should lay down a different definition for "conspiracy theory" as it applies here, but I'm sorry - you boldly asked for a case that fit the criteria, and you clearly got one. No, I don't understand at all actually. The fact that it was about "behavior" has nothing to do with "behavior acceptable on this BBS" and it's emphatically clear my previous posts were not admin action. Yet you're unfairly holding my posts to a higher standard. I felt you were playing a double standard in calling someone insulting and narrow-minded, and called you on it. You said this "smacked of preferential treatment by an administrator". Way, way off. And since the administrator factor is a dead end, you'd have to expect it from me as a poster, which is not something you'd be willing to do yourself. You have pointed out on several occasions when people have insulted you or your arguments, but yet in this very thread you quoted "No Worries" throwing a petty, degrading insult at treeman and had not a thing to say about it. I think that's totally fair MacBeth, but I think you did everything but answer the question. You took the opposite approach: defended yourself against the accusation. I didn't accuse you. I asked do you honestly not see where someone could read a large sample of your comments and be led to believe that was the case? I mean, what does tearing down the U.S.' role in WWII have anything to do with your political leanings, yet it contributes to a very consistent view that could be perceived as against this country.
Well, that was all nice and dandy, MacBeth, and totally pointless to respond to since it is the usual hook-line-and misdirection gambit, but you failed to give me what I asked for: a friggen quote or thread link. *Show me*. Please, I'm stupid here. Show me.
The U.S. didn't fabricate the supposed "evidence" (the Brits did), but they did USE it to get support for the invasion. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1
Clutch... 1) Apparently I am not communicating well...The 1st example couldn't qualify as espousing a conspiracy theory since A) Conspiracies have to have happened, and that hadn't...it was speculation to make a point. and B) In oreder to espouse a conspiracy yheory you have to believe in it, or at least not state that you thought it unlikely...To state, as i did, that anything is possible until known to be a fact, you are not espusing a theory, you are merely keeping the options open...As I have consistently said w/reagrads to anything ( including, if you look back, info presented on 'other side', ex. Cheney/Haliburton report) I do not conclude based on supposition, nor based on what we are told. 2) We will have to agree to disagree...I don't think you are looking at it from the point of view of a person who A) Didin't know in what context you were criticizing behaviour until later, when you clarified..B) Still doesn't know why other posters have been banned..Not saying I disagree, just literally don't know...and C) Have seen you ONLY criticize the behaviour of those with whom you are in political disagreement. I will respect your understandable desire to have a right to express your opinion, now that I know you are posting under that position, but then I have this to say:If in fact we are to treat that as just your opinion, I would have to say, as I would to any other poster, that to 'call me out' when I have consistently tried to be polite, although you contend I have failed by inference ( sarcasm, condescension, and one insult in response to a death wish directed at me), while watching you ingnore behaviour from the other side, including said death wish, comparisons to dictators, accusations of treasonous and unpatriotic behaviour, bald insults, and the behaviour of johnheath who is, IMO, consistently the most insulting poster in this forum, is incredibly one-sided. At the very least this doesn't qulaify under the 1st criteria of a conspiracy theory; namely, it doesn't involve more than one person. 3) No, I honestly don't see that. That was what i was trying to express, although I take your point that I went off track. The point I was trying to make is that in order to assume that my posts are consistently anti-American, you have to assume that only one defintion of America exists, and that someone who fights for the America they hope for, even if that means criticizing the administration ( Not the same as the country) is against that country. By that definintion, some of our greatest 'patriots', such as Thomas Jefferson, who were and demanded criticism of the administration wuld also have to be seen as 'anti-American'. Peace JAG
You know what tree? I am even sorry I tried...Others told me that you would not be able to admit you were wrong...and i tried anyways. You claimed I had never been called asnti-American, SH lover, etc. and I gave you a few specific examples, cited by poster, and other threads where you could find more, having told you that I don't know how to re-post them here other than posting the whole thread, nor do I know how to find threads without 'search ' function. You said I was biased, and you questioned my patriotism, and I fully addressed both issues... ....and this is your response. You ignore the specific examples, which in themselves refute your entire point. You don't bother to look back, which is a lot easier than re-posting, even when I cite you threads...and you throw in sarcasm. People told me you couldn't admit you were wrong. I thought otherwise....( See how it worls, tree) Clearly I was wrong.
Your confidence is admirable, but I wouldn't speak too soon if I were you. If every unemployed American were to vote against Dubya in 2004, he would be shoveling sh*t in Crawford faster than you can say "nucular". It's the economy, stupid. It worked against Bush Senior in 1992, and if he isn't careful, it will work against Bush Junior in 2004.
Same old story repeating itself... Person A makes controversial statement. Person B on opposite side of controversial issue criticizes Person B for controversial statement. Person A, incredulously, becomes surprised that he would be criticized for making controversial statement on a hotly-debated topic. Person A begins citing the 1st Ammendment. Person B is left perplexed and scratching his head trying to figure out how the criticism of a controversial statement made by Person A turned into an attempt to revoke Person A's right to free speech. Moral of the story: If you're going to make controversial statements then be prepared to take criticism. Lesson learned from the story: Just because someone <b>thinks</b> you should shut up, doesn't mean they want the government to punish you for speaking out, hence eleminating your right to free speech. That's a common misconception. And as far as the Saddam sympathizer thing goes. It seems like more of the Anti-War people say it mockingly than actual war-supporter's use it. Take this thread for example.
Excerpt from Kerry Bio from The Center for Public Integrity Kerry served as an officer on a “swift boat” in the Mekong Delta. On February 28, 1969, his swift boat came under a rocket attack. A subsequent military report about the engagement, quoted by a 1996 article in the New Yorker, stated: “Kerry's craft received a B-40 rocket close aboard. Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry ordered his units to charge the enemy positions . . . (his craft) then beached in the center of the enemy positions and an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from (Kerry’s craft) and fled. Without hesitation Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hootch and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber." About the incident Kerry recalled, “It was either going to be him or me. It was that simple.” For his actions that day, Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. Some controversy would arise with concern to the incident years later though when during a close election with William Weld in 1996, the Boston Globe’s David Warsh questioned the circumstances of Kerry’s heroism that day. Evidence emerged that the Viet Cong who had fired the rocket was alone and had already been wounded by the gunner on the ship. My take is that Kerry has the killer instinct. Like I have said before, Kerry will take it to Bush and if Bush is ever on the ropes Kerry will show no mercy
Actually it's smart. It has worked very well. Did anyone see Clinton on 60 Minutes agreeing w/Dole that everyone should basically shut up during a war?
Freak, you couldn't be more right. It has worked tremendously well -- so well that Congress authorized a controversial war, without even having a debate, out of political fear. It's worked great. I don't question the strategy. I say the proposition that everyone should keep their mouths shut is stupid and that the the elected officials and other Americans who keep their mouths shut based on this insidious strategy are cowards.
True BobFinn (though I read the article and I didn't catch where it had the evidence that the Brits did it, rather strong suspicions), but I said as much in the original thread: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&postid=799514#post799514 The problem with your argument MacBeth is the US didn't create the fake evidence (atleast not that we know of yet) and it wasn't the only piece of evidence to support the case for war against Iraq. It's kind of like finding 20 bases storing WOMD and finding out one of them was planted (but not by us - we just assumed it was legitimate and looked foolish when it was discovered it wasn't). I agree they used the evidence, but they didn't "fabricate it" as MacBeth said they had. I was merely correcting this. This is getting quite humorous actually. Next you'll be saying that when you supported this theory that only one person would plant the WOMD, therefore it can't fit under the definition of "conspiracy". I think your bias is not allowing you to see your own comments for what they were. You said <B>if</B> there are no finds, they would still "find" something, i.e. weapons would be planted. It's your theory, and it would be a conspiracy. It doesn't matter if it's happened yet or not - it's something you advocated. Your theory may even prove to be correct - who knows. But you wanted to understand why treeman would associate you with conspiracy theories. You asked for an example. You got it. You don't accept it. Oh well. I'm not going to cry over it - It's not worth any more of my time beyond that. I guess we'll have to. I'm actually left wondering if you even read my last response because it can't be made any more clear than that. It's painfully obvious that 1) It wasn't admin action. 2) It wasn't about "behaviour acceptable/unacceptable on the BBS" and 3) You show the same one-sidedness that you accuse me of in your posts - in fact in this very thread. There's really nowhere left for you to go after that. On a technicality, you are correct - it doesn't fit the definition of "conspiracy" as a <b>group</b> conspiring against you, but the point is still there. It still shows the mindset of someone who feels people (or in this case "one person") above them are using power against them. You're wrong of course in this case, but it continues to be your theory. Another Thomas Jefferson reference - has this become the top "name drop" by the BBS liberals these days? Anyhow, I thought I made it clear criticizing the administration was not what you were limited to (WWII) in criticizing the United States, but if you can't see how someone would see you that way, then you can't see it, and that's all I asked. Fair enough.
I know the thread is dead now, but I've been waiting two weeks to have my challenge met... something substantive (not just a single line) from MacBeth that was pro-American. None of us is above the fray.
