I don't think that the King you quoted really counts as a "philosopher," but I guess you have to take wise words wherever you can find them.
I was under the assumption that this quote came from Rodney King when he had his press conference during the LA riots.
What a joke. Do you honestly think you are in my league? Seriously, you are not. I toy with you every day. I own you more than any other poster on this board. I tie your brain in knots daily. I frankly consider a debate with you to be an utter waste of time. It's akin to the Detroit Pistons (me) playing the Bellaire junior varsity. After the incredible string of insults that you have hurled at me over the past few months, to ask me to engage you in debate is just ridiculous. I rarely, if ever, insult you. I criticize your posts, but I don't insult you. You on the other hand, have no other arrows in your quiver other than juvenile insults. I laugh at you.
What bothers me is that liberals fail to see ANY good coming from the Iraq war. They say that since Bush lied (which he didn't because acting on information given to you isnt lying) the whole war is a tradgedy. Schools are being set up and many people are now free from a dictatorial regime. Many bad things have happened as a result, but you have to look at BOTH sides. WWII was mentioned earlier. America losts thousands more lives than in this conflict, but a more rational America saw that the overall consequences of the actions were good. The same applies here. Whether or not you agree with our reason for invading, the fact is that Iraq is already better off than it was.
Then prove it. You haven't "toyed" with me in quite some time as I have had you on ignore and haven't even responded except when you have decided to flame my drug war threads, even when I have seen your invective in quotes, I have refrained from stooping to your level. If you really think you can win, I suggest you take me up on it, otherwise, you will be forever... OWNED I began insulting you when it became clear that you had nothing to offer but empty slogans, cliches, and insulting remarks. Once we were called out by the admins last time, I put you on ignore so that I could take the high road and refrain from insults. Then, you decided to flame one of my drug war threads, after which I politely informed you that the next communication from me if you chose to continue flaming my thread would be a well crafted, intelligent, and accurate insult that truly spoke to what I believe you to be. Since then, you are right, I have insulted you every time you have decided to troll around in one of my threads. I am very serious about this debate and I will even call on MadMax as my judge to give you even more opportunity to win, considering that he is conservative, as is BrianKagy, who I suggested as the admin judge. You could pick texx as your judge and I would be facing three decidedly conservative judges in said debate. If you choose to bow out, I don't blame you, but it will speak volumes. Put up or shut up.
Bush, too scared to take questions from undecided American voters, will "bow out" of an approved debate in Missouri. Evidently, the campaign feels that the town meeting format would leave Bush vulnerable to, well, American citizens. Interesting. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3586-2004Sep7?language=printer washingtonpost.com Bush Likely to Bow Out of 1 Debate By Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, September 8, 2004; Page A08 President Bush may skip one of the three debates that have been proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates and accepted by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Republican officials said yesterday. The officials said Bush's negotiating team plans to resist the middle debate, which was to be Oct. 8 in a town meeting format in the crucial state of Missouri. The Bush-Cheney campaign announced that its debate negotiation team will be led by James A. Baker III, who was secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush. Baker headed the Bush campaign's Florida recount response in 2000 and is the current president's personal envoy on Iraqi debt resolution. Baker negotiated debates in 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1992. As chief of staff to Bush's father in 1992, he took a cautious stance with the view that a sitting president has little to gain and much to lose in debates, according to accounts at the time. Bush aides refused to discuss their opening position. Officials familiar with the issue said he plans to accept the commission's first debate, which is to focus on domestic policy, and the third one, which is to focus on foreign policy. The audience for the second debate, to be at Washington University in St. Louis, was to be picked by the Gallup Organization. The commission said participants should be undecided voters from the St. Louis area. A presidential adviser said campaign officials were concerned that people could pose as undecided when they actually are partisans. "It's not a fear of the format," said the adviser, who refused to be identified to avoid annoying Bush. "They want two debates that are focused on clear differences on foreign and domestic policy. We benefit from the differences." The Democratic team is led by Vernon E. Jordan Jr. The Republican team includes U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, and campaign advisers Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin. Washington University has set up a Web site saying the community "welcomes the nation and the world," has recruited 471 student volunteers and is holding weekly lectures on campaign issues. The university was host for debates in 1992 and 2000. The commission picked the university in 1996 for a debate that was canceled after President Bill Clinton, an incumbent with a commanding lead in polls, accepted just two. "That's kind of what we're hearing about the Bush thing right now," said Steve Givens, chairman of the university's debate committee. Bush plans to accept debates at the University of Miami in Coral Gables on Sept. 30 and at Arizona State University in Tempe on Oct. 13. The campaign also plans to participate in a vice presidential debate Oct. 5 at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. © 2004 The Washington Post Company
what a coward. all talk, but nothing to back it up. Someone challenges you and your response is that, "there's no point in challenging me because i'm better." You're weaker than Kerry, and you're more deluded than Kim Il Jong. I'll give you that 5% of the time you actually have a decent argument, but those are old times. Show that you aren't a weak coward and debate him instead of grandstanding again. Get some backbone and stop being a Clinton draft dodger.
Ignoring for a moment all the political stuff and should we have or not and what not: Revolution: 4,435+ War of 1812: 2,260+ Mexican War: 13,233 Civil War: 558,052 Spanish-American War: 2,446 World War I: 116,708 World War II: 407,316 Korean War: 33,651+ Vietnam War: 58,168 These are deaths in major US wars according to this site. And, the US has had an envious amount of luck/wisdom in avoiding major bloodbaths (for our side). There are WWI battles that killed a million people by themselves. When we lost a half-million people in WWII, the USSR lost 20 million. So, though every death may be one too many, if you judge this war soberly (and ignore whether we should have done it), 1,000 deaths is a mere drop, a fleck. We averaged this many deaths in a month of the Korean War; six times as much in a month of WWII. The US Armed Forces has done a surpisingly good job at keeping soldiers alive. (Please aim all rebuttals at TJ. This is not a defense of the president, simply praise for our Marines and others for being the indomitable army they are. And a reminder that this is a pin-prick compared to the sufferings Amercian soldiers have previously endured and prevailed over.)
Thanks for the statistics. Those are scary numbers, and it's humbling to consider how many millions of Americans felt that sacrifice. It's also humbling that so many Americans think 1,000 dead soldiers is perfectly acceptable, but 3,000 dead New Yorkers is cause for a perpetual war that has already claimed tens of thousands.
The thing is that Bush did lie. The problem is when people say Bush didn't lie they are talking about the WMD claim as a whole. I will agree that wasn't a lie. But Bush claimed that Iraq was 6 months from a nuke based on an IAEA report. Then the IAEA came out and said no such report existed. The Bush administration then claimed that Bush just mispoke and was referring to a different IAEA report. It turns out that report didn't exist either. Finally on the third try to explain this Bush claimed it was a seperate report. The only problem is the final report that Bush claimed he was referring to didn't exist until after he made his initial statement. Bush either lied or was mistaken in his original statement, then he definitely lied in his cover-up for that statement. So Bush did lie. After Saddam was gone and it turned out that there were no WMD, Bush lied again. He claimed he had only very minimal contact with Chalabi. Then there were pictures of him at a whitehouse function in where Chalabi was the guest of honor, and a quote from earlier where he talks about meeting with Chalabi. Bush lied. Saying there was WMD wasn't the lie though. It's more specific than that. I don't think anyone is claiming that it's bad that Saddam is gone. But It's questionable that Iraq is better off yet. Education wasn't really a problem under Saddam, and women had rights, good jobs, etc. The problem was lack of freedom, which certainly has increased. But crime(especially kidnappings) is way up. Terrorism is up, overall violence in the country is up. There are foreign occupying troops there. It may be better for Iraq in the long run, but it is certainly arguable whether it is better for them now.
It is indeed a shame that a few misguided souls in this forum cannot even for a moment have an intelligent discussion on such an important issue.
With all this talk about the strength of the neo-cons, it's odd to see both T_J and Bush run away from a debate in the same day, isn't it?
Well then lets not have 1000 dead american soldiers, countless families ruined. Kids without a parent over........ a war for -WMDs "this war was and is only about WMD's" -The white house no wait thats not going to fly anymore there arent any. -Humanitarianism "The Iraqi people will shower us with Rose pedals" - The white house. No Abu Ghriab makes that a joke lets find something else. -Terrorism "We will Hunt down Osama and bring him to justice" - The white house. Who knew Osama's name had been officially changed to Saddam.
