Yes. I avoid garbage like what you posted. It was completed devoid of substance. My initial post was full of actual facts. Why should I give credence to your empty response to my strong post? Please tell.
Furthermore, 1 in 30 liberals even tries to respond to my intial post. This represents 3.33% of liberals. Now you expect the 1 in 5 conservatives in here to respond to you? That would be a 20% response rate -- 6 times the liberals' response rate. Ridiculous. The liberals on this board are silly in this manner. They expect the few conservatives around here to respond to every one of their multitude of posts. They moan and cry when it doesn't happen. They vastly outnumber the conservatives. Therefore, they expect each conservative to expend multiple times the effort that each liberal puts forth. Sillyness. Batman is probably the worst at perpetuating this inequality.
(chirp) (chirp) I guess it's true that followers do really take on the characteristics of their 'leader." You've all distinguished yourselves as "W's" of the finest order. In other words, cowards. Kerry, Clark and other real men will be waiting for you on Nov. 2.
Major got it right. There's less than no point wasting time addressing the points of the first post here. Over a week ago Jorge posted ten reasons Dean shouldn't be president, I took the time to explain how and why most of those 'reasons' were distortions and lies, Jorge posted back basically saying 'nuh-unh! YOU'RE lying!" I posted again comprehensively squashing virtually everything he said and he bolted like he always does. And then he starts the same thing with Kerry and we're supposed to bite? Nice try. Fool me once and all that... Go back and answer the Dean thread in which you started the fight and I finished it and then maybe you can expect someone to waste time tearing apart your feeble post (just assuming it's feeble by the by - historic precedence and all that - I didn't waste time reading it).
You seem to be reiterating this garbage in virtual every thread you post in recently. For the record, I did not respond to your response for a variety of reasons, none of which were related to the reasons you claim. 1) Your post was bigoted 2) Your post was racist 3) Your post was 99% opinion and 1% fact 4) Your points were only tangentially related If you really want to keep bringing up that thread, please do so. You come across as an angry racist and bigoted jerk in it.
Actually, I come off right and you come off wrong. That's why you ran away. I put it back up though if you've had enough time to consult Rush as to what to say next. After all, it's been ten days. You must have been able to dig up some kind of nonsense to respond with. For everyone else, it's the Dean getting hammered early thread. I'd suggest you not give the Kerry one the time of day until Jorge answers for his various soundly debunked lies there.
from last night's debate, the clearest reason yet why i could never vote for John-Kennedy-by-proxy-Kerry. He has a fundamental misunderstanding about the war or terror: "That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less--it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today. But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world--the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations." amazing. does he really think that what's necessary to combat the men who destroyed the WTC and part of the pentagon is better police work???
and Edward's response: "It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th."
Yes. How are you going to stop them before hand -- if you don't know who or where they are? Look at the Israelis, they have a hell of a time, and their terrorists are condensed into a small geograpical area. Ours literally span the globe, and live amongst us. Or do you propose military interventions in Florida? Is this the best criticism you can come up with? Your blindness is tiresome.
Look, not all are gun-wielding psychos. You have people who forge documents, handle money, give them money, take care of logisitics, etc. You just cannot go into a country and shoot down a bunch of folks, nor can you go into a country and arrest anyone that might have a tie... you need cooperation and legal mechanisms to deprive the psychos of their means to operate. I've got no problem with the kill order on OBL, but you've got to take care of the sympathsizers as well, and that means international cooperation and criminal prosecutions. Terrorism is not wedded to nationality and a military-only approach will not pay long-term dividends.
I agree with Kerry's work as does the Hart/Rudman study which is the most comprehensive study on the matter. To say that the military should be the main force in the war on terror is to only want to after terrorists once the acts have been committed. For those of us who want to prevent the acts before they happen Kerry is absolutely correct about the best way to handle it. http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01013102.htm The website offers a summary of the issues and mentions both military and non military efforts to stop terrorism.
Well if you look at the early days of the communist party in the U.S. which was initially anti-Stalin, and later lost much of it's support when they started agreeing with Stalin's tactic then it's obvious that some communists are not in favor of Authoritarianism. Nicaragua was far less authoritarian under the communists than it was under the Samosa regime. The proof of that is that there were elections in which the communist party lost. Also during the reign of the communists in Nicaragua, an opposition paper funded by violent rebels was still allowed to be published, and there was actually a set time each day when people could gather and voice their opinion on whatever issues they felt. To come out and say that Communism is necessarily authoritarian isn't accurate.
Real men? Clark was basically fired from his post in disgrace, while Kerry threw "his" medals at the Capital in protest, which now reside in his office. Real men indeed. It's funny how the left totally denigrates the military (for example, when Gore tried to have the absentee ballots of servicemen thrown out in the 2000 election because he knew no sane military man would vote for him) but when they happen to have a few leftists have some military experience, they trump it from every mountaintop.
It's funny how the right is always selling us on war and tries to denigrate the left as draft dodgers and unpatriotic America haters (despite their service records, etc), but when it came time to risk life and limb, like Senator Max Cleland, they came up with trick kness (Sen. Chambliss, who defeated Cleland by quesitioning his patriotism), ran for the Nat'l guard (and then skipped out on that too), got "anal cysts" like Rush Limbaugh, or had "other priorities" like Dick Cheney. I guess if they had a leader with military experience, they'd trump(et) it from every mountaintop too. Unfortunately, Neither Trent Lott (cheerleading) nor Tom DeLay (pest control) nor Pres. Flight Suit has much military experience to trumpet, so I guess that won't work.
