RE: State of the Union (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

GentlehandSTL -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 1:29:07 PM)

I feel the love for Bush here!

I watched...while getting head. Best speech I can ever remember watching.

The oil thing...well at current rates we have a 400 day supply...more or less. also, it's for doubleing it over ten years, not tomorrow afternoon.

If we closed down Iran Iran hurts before we do.

And to our more discerning members here…

Did you notice his walk out of the chamber? Fox carried it, and didn’t much talk over it. Bush ‘working the room’ is the real Bush…not standing in front of a 1,000 people and reading a speech. Having seen him in person, that is where he really shines



LotusSong -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 1:39:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyrdRich

       Nope.  That was one of the smarter things he said.  And he didn't look like a beaten man this time.

     What was up with Pelosi's eyes though?  Was Cheney wearing some toxic cologne?


Being George is so full of shit, the fumes were probably getting to her.



Vendaval -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 1:46:59 PM)

Hello there NorthernGent,
 
My friends, family and I were opposed to the war from the
beginning because of many reasons, and yes, I live in a
"Blue State" and have never voted for Bush.
 
#1 invading a country that had not attacked us
 
#2 the intelligence data was doubtful
 
#3 oil was the obvious motivation
 
#4 many of us remember the Vietnam War and the outcome
 
#5 the Middle East is the Cradle of Civilization and people
have been at each others throats there since before written history
 
#6 many countries with divisive interests repeat a grim,
bloody cycle of anarchy followed by dictatorship
 
#7 the body count of civilians and military would be high due to the guerilla nature of the war
 
#8 the invasion of Iraq would seriously drain the Federal budget and resources
 
#9 our military is volunteer only, and a long conflict would
 possbily bring back the draft i.e. forced military service,
 see also the Vietnam War #4
 
#10 killing one dictator and taking out his regime will not bring
peace and stability to the Middle East  nor end terrorism
 
#11 many people would be forced to flee Iraq as refugees,
 causing yet more instability in the region
 
#12 invading Iraq would increase the extremist groups and
be a breeding ground for new terrorists   
 
Peace,
 
Vendaval



quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

On this board? I don't think it's the only reason for some - for others, it's blatantly the key reason.

Out of interest, when and why did the opinion polls change course?





NorthernGent -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 2:02:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef


I can see how it might appear that the casualty count is the key reason because it's the main thing being pushed in our faces by the media and is the latest "salt in the wound," but most of the people against the war felt that way long before the casualties started piling up. 

quote:



I don't doubt that there are a lot of Americans who never supported the war.

Genuinely, I'm not here to talk bollocks. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes I wouldn't say it but in truth I've read countless posts consumed with US casualties and with no regard for Iraqi civilians. Maybe this board isn't representative of the US?, I'll hold my hands up if this is the case. 

I suppose I'm making a step in the dark by connecting this thought process with opinion polls which once suggested majority support for the invasion (but no longer). The telling point is why these polls changed course - was it due to heavy casualties or something entirely different? You don't follow them, fair enough.




Vendaval -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 2:07:44 PM)

The last presidential elections and the last mid-term elections
for Congress show a nation deeply divided; "Red States"
being more conservative and "Blue States" being more
liberal.  The interesting correlation is that the division appears
very much like the same division during the Civil War.

If you like, take a look on the Web with your browser
for more information on these matters.

Peace,

Vendaval  



NorthernGent -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 2:10:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

Hello there NorthernGent,
 
My friends, family and I were opposed to the war from the
beginning because of many reasons, and yes, I live in a
"Blue State" and have never voted for Bush.
 


Hi Vendaval,

I don't doubt there are a lot of Americans who were in opposition to the invasion from the off. I mean, there's 300 million of you over there - it stands to reason there will be diverse opinions crossing the political spectrum.

My point is concerned with those who supported it as opposed to those who didn't. My understanding is these people were in the majority. I'm taking a step in the dark here (correct me if I'm wrong) - I'm guessing of this majority, some still support it and those who don't have been turned by high US casualties (and possibly there is a small minority who genuinely believed in WMDs and when they realised it was a farce they withdrew any support).



BOUNTYHUNTER -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 2:18:55 PM)

Bush the little beady eye banty rooster has lead us down the path of ruin and loss of respect for our great nation...Republicans the rich get richer and the rest of us goes to hell in a hand basket...WILLIAM



Vendaval -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 3:48:12 PM)

In regards specifically to the members of the American Public
who have changed their mind about the war, you do have
2 of the main reasons, high numbers of casualities and
the intelligence data being falsified for political ends. 
Another major factor is the skyrocketing cost of the war
when so many domestic problems are much more important
to everyday the lives of the public; the national health care crisis, rebuilding
New Orleans and other areas devestated by hurricanes,
the obvious need to move to other forms of fuel and energy, and
the climatic changes caused by global warming.
 
Thank you for your efforts to understand U.S. politics,
we do not understand it all ourselves much of the time...[;)]
 
 
 
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
My point is concerned with those who supported it as opposed to those who didn't. My understanding is these people were in the majority. I'm taking a step in the dark here (correct me if I'm wrong) - I'm guessing of this majority, some still support it and those who don't have been turned by high US casualties (and possibly there is a small minority who genuinely believed in WMDs and when they realised it was a farce they withdrew any support).



thompsonx -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 4:07:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
I was asked by Moderator 11 to cease and desist my personal attacks.


I'm afraid to go check my inbox now. My apologies if I offended anyone. 


caitlyn:
I am never offended by anything you have said...we may not always agree but I have never found you to be offensive in you posts.
thompson



stef -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 4:10:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Genuinely, I'm not here to talk bollocks. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes I wouldn't say it but in truth I've read countless posts consumed with US casualties and with no regard for Iraqi civilians. Maybe this board isn't representative of the US?, I'll hold my hands up if this is the case. 

As far as I know, this board is representitive only of the people who regularly post to this board, so I wouldn't base your overall views of the US on what you read here.  Still, even if you were to do so, I'm just not seeing people here saying that the only/main reason they are against the war is the casualty count.  If you're using other sources to come up with this conclusion, I'd love to hear what they are. 

quote:

I suppose I'm making a step in the dark by connecting this thought process with opinion polls which once suggested majority support for the invasion (but no longer). The telling point is why these polls changed course - was it due to heavy casualties or something entirely different? You don't follow them, fair enough.

I don't follow them because they're generally meaningless.  Without knowing a significant amount of data regarding how/where the polls were taken, the "results" they produce are highly suspect at best.  It's too easy to put your thumb on the scale to make a poll produce results that "support" a particular position.

~stef



swtnsparkling -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 4:15:44 PM)

quote:

caitlyn
I responded in post twenty-seven with a few points that I thought were important (meaning, not mindless). Please note again, that because I don't agree with something, that doesn't make it mindless, to my thinking.

Twice right there caitlyn says - points that she felt were important (meaning  Not mindless) and then  she points out some thing that she doesn't agree with does NOT make it mindless to her...

The first sentence in your reply to that post was::
quote:

One of the examples you gave was the No Child Left Behind act.   What is mindless about this assertion on his part

There you go again with Your opinion it was mindless

You seem hell bent trying to make her agree with you
caitlyn who is 20  is more than capable of taking care of herself on these boards, she is quite intellegent and mature. You (44)on the other hand  are acting like a bully and anyone who does not agree with you- is wrong or an idiot

some people  may not of liked or agreed with any of what the pres said but they dont need to claify or explain why they didnt think it was mindless



seeksfemslave -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 4:21:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BOUNTYHUNTER

Bush the little beady eye banty rooster has lead us down the path of ruin and loss of respect for our great nation...Republicans the rich get richer and the rest of us goes to hell in a hand basket...WILLIAM


Assuming you mean Iraq and not pure domestic  economic matters then , taking my life in my hands, I would say that if you were talking about Viet Nam then you would have a point !



Sinergy -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 4:38:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: swtnsparkling

quote:

caitlyn
I responded in post twenty-seven with a few points that I thought were important (meaning, not mindless). Please note again, that because I don't agree with something, that doesn't make it mindless, to my thinking.

Twice right there caitlyn says - points that she felt were important (meaning  Not mindless) and then  she points out some thing that she doesn't agree with does NOT make it mindless to her...

The first sentence in your reply to that post was::
quote:

One of the examples you gave was the No Child Left Behind act.   What is mindless about this assertion on his part

There you go again with Your opinion it was mindless

You seem hell bent trying to make her agree with you
caitlyn who is 20  is more than capable of taking care of herself on these boards, she is quite intellegent and mature. You (44)on the other hand  are acting like a bully and anyone who does not agree with you- is wrong or an idiot

some people  may not of liked or agreed with any of what the pres said but they dont need to claify or explain why they didnt think it was mindless


Thank you for stating your lovely opinion. 

Now, if you want to replace the word "mindless" in my post with "not important," the meaning remains relatively similar. 

For example, the No Child Left Behind Act is apparently not important to the Simian In Chief because it was never funded to the point where it could work.

Monkeyboy said balancing the budget is important.  So important that he has more than doubled the debt accumulated by every preceeding president combined.

It is important to deal with sectarian violence in Iraq.  So important that Monkeyboy militarily overthrew a leader able to do so, and failed to send enough troops to actually do the job ourselves.

Funding alternative energy is so important that the NitWitcon brigade failed to do so when they were in charge of running the show.

And most importantly, she originally came after me and my opinion that his speech betrayed his mindless idiocy and incompetence at his job, not vice versa.  I simply asked her to clarify her position, and the examples she gave failed to prove her point.

So thank you for interjecting your opinion.

Sinergy



caitlyn -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 4:48:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
And most importantly, she originally came after me and my opinion that his speech betrayed his mindless idiocy and incompetence at his job, not vice versa.  I simply asked her to clarify her position, and the examples she gave failed to prove her point.


This crosses the line into complete fantasy. I never came after you about anything. My original post wasn't even directed at you ... I was a response to stef (who didn't seem to have a problem with my opinion) that you interjected yourself in to.
 
My advice ... just pull the rip cord on this one ... you are just wrong, even if you are too smart to admit it. [;)][;)] 



juliaoceania -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 5:14:33 PM)

You know I have noticed that many on these boards tend to get bent out of shape and feel picked on when they fail to support their opinions with any sort of facts. These sorts tend to take debate as being "bullying", or that old standby "Your picking on me!" Because they fail to support what they say. Ya know, it is not bullying to ask someone to explain their position unless you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can't because of some mental deficit... that has not been the case on this thread.

And BTW, taking cheap shots and then saying "Just kidding" is not the most mature way of comporting oneself in my opinion.



Sinergy -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 5:22:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
And most importantly, she originally came after me and my opinion that his speech betrayed his mindless idiocy and incompetence at his job, not vice versa.  I simply asked her to clarify her position, and the examples she gave failed to prove her point.


This crosses the line into complete fantasy. I never came after you about anything. My original post wasn't even directed at you ... I was a response to stef (who didn't seem to have a problem with my opinion) that you interjected yourself in to.
 
My advice ... just pull the rip cord on this one ... you are just wrong, even if you are too smart to admit it. [;)][;)] 


I simply asked you to prove what you stated.

Your "proof" involves telling me I am just wrong.

I will have to try that methodology when I return to graduate school.

Sinergy



caitlyn -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 5:24:02 PM)

I only tend to get bent out of shape, when misquoted, or when something is applied to me that is completely untrue.
 
Bent out of shape, may even be a bit too strong ... more like, "Feel the need to point out the inaccuracy of the situation."



thompsonx -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 6:36:46 PM)

Last time I heard THAT conspiracy theory, all the Leftists were screaming that falling gas prices didn't mean a thing because those wascawwy wepubwicans was gonna raise 'em right back up again, right after the mid-term elections.

Remember that?  


BigDogs:
Yes I remember that and guess what the price of gas went up about .40 cents a gallon since the mid term elections.
thompson




fairerthanshe -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 7:20:10 PM)

Greetings Master Bull,

once again, Master Bull has cut through the minutia and retoric and gone straight to the crux of the issue...this girl is, for one, grateful for this post.

fairer than she



thompsonx -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 7:37:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

I think bush's speeches are well-prepared and intended to satsify customers i.e. the American public. These people are not going to sacrifice what they have - least of all through a lazy, ill-prepared speech. I mean, they have the moeny to buy and pay for a thousand speech writers.

If I were American, I'd be much more concerned that people seem to be objecting to Iraq only because US soldiers are dying. For my money, this thought process is fucked up - the idea that it's ok to send the army to another country (knowing full well civilians will die) providing US casualties are kept to a minimum. I would say the neo-cons taking and holding power can be linked to the aforementioned thought process.


NorthernGent:
I am afraid you have it exactly right.  Just like in Viet Nam it was not until middle class white boys started comming home in rubber bags that anyone said anything about how immoral the war was.  As long as it is some other nations blood no one gave a shit.  Too often we in America look upon these things with a football mentality.  My team vs. their team.
It is such a laugh to hear someone tell me how many Iraquies died at the hands of the horrible dictator Sodammed Insane...we have killed sooooo many more than he ever did...but then god is on our side and those poor ignorant wogs need to be brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century.  Then there is the oil and the class A butt fucking the american taxpayer is getting from Haliburton.
thompson



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625