Don't you love war threads?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

However, while Saddam bears responsibility for his people's suffering, only the Bush administration seems to feel that he's bringing this on himself.  That's nothing more than propaganda

OH BULLSHIT.  A hell of a lot more then just the Bush administration seems to think this.  I spent last night at an Arab-American demonstration, lead by former Iraqi (I'm sure this didn't make your news either Tasty =D).  There were a few thousand Arab-Americans showing support for the war.  The former Iraqi were especially grateful that Saddam himself was the target, and excited about the distinction.  They all seemed to feel that Saddam had called this down upon himself, and that it will be the best thing to ever happen to Iraq.  

On top of that, there are other countries involved as well.  So you have to at least lump in their administrations too.  

Look up propaganda sometime.  It's what you are doing with these bold faced exaggerations of yours.  

If the US chooses to kill Iraqis in its quest to remove Hussein, they hold full responsibility for their deaths.

Like I told Bondo, both sides share in the responsibility here.  Both sides.  Saddam could have avoided this for months, so his hands are not clean at all.

that is when I would flee the country (jail would only be the case if I were caught - which is still the scope of the law, however undesirable).  In a sense, flight is within the law, because that would in effect be a renunciation of my citizenship - in which case I would no longer be subject to fight for this country.  I believe Pres. Ford pardoned the Vietnam draft-dodgers - that's not an unreasonable amount of time to have to live in another country - assuming one would want to return.

So, fleeing the country after say, killing someone is within the law, since you would renounce your citizenship and therefore not be subject to the law?  Bullshit.  If you believe in the application of the law, as you said before, then you would join the military as drafted, and fight the law from within.  If you run, then you obviously don't believe in the application of the law, or lawful disobedience (since you chose to break the law).  You can't have it both ways.  Either you believe in the application of the laws, and fight them within the system, or you believe it's ok to break a law you don't believe in.  If it's the second, what makes you better then any other criminal that doesn't think he's done wrong?  (and if you say you don't hurt anyone else, think carefully about that).  

Oh, and Ford was not a draft dodger.  Clinton is the draft dogging asshole that gave pardon to the other draft dodgers.  Ford is the guy that brought the American troops home from Vietnam in the end.

Iraq has had reprisals.  For the past 12 years, Iraq has had a no-fly zone, frequent bombings, and economic sanctions.  That's a big reason also why Iraq doesn't compare to Nazi Germany.  

Oh?  1935 Germany didn't have those economic and military sanctions place on them?  What great history book did you get that from?  Pre-WW2 Germany was in WORSE economic shape then Iraq is.  Germany was under economic sanctions after WW1, and were hit hardest by the Great Depression.  There were fucking inspectors in Germany in the 30's (doing a piss poor job, I may add).

BTW, your frequent bombing is in answer to Iraq violating the rules and turning on Anti-Aircraft radar directed towards US air assets.  Call it what it is.

Germany lied to inspectors, just like Iraq.  The biggest difference is that Germany got away with it.  

If Saddam is told unilaterally that he must leave - without any real provocation - it's hard to blame him for not giving up everything in his world.  No matter what Saddam does, the US has never been FORCED to cause Iraqi deaths.  The fact that they are doing so freely cannot absolve them of responsibility.  

Nor can it absolve him either, can it?  And you say "without any real provocation" as if it were a fact, or that we all agreed with you.  We all don't, btw.  I think there was huge provocation.

[tasty]

People being sheep doesn't make it the media's responsibility to fix.  

not to fix, just to take into account.

Ok, news may suck in the corn fields Tasty, but in the papers here, and in cable news (tv) there were shitloads of stories about problems with Texas while he was Governor there.  His corporate ties and his damage to the ecology were all over the news.  That was all pre-election.  

Bush's conflicts of interest were not probed very deeply in the 2000 election. I think most people would be apalled if they knew the degree to which people had their hands in Bush's pockets. Also, his grandfather's support for the Nazis (his company played a critical role in their economy) is relevant in my opinion because racism is the type of thing that gets passed down through generations.


Also, I'm not going to start a news source because I don't have the time, motivation, or resources. Obviously such a thing would require me to drop out of school and probably would not make very much money. I don't think it's a very feasible idea. I think the suggestion is a bit naive and idealistic, and that's coming from a liberal

[P-roy at U of MD (still)]

You can be against the war, against Bush's policies, but to not support the armed forces (as happened in the Vietnam era) is complete bullshit.

You'll be hard-pressed to find people who didn't support the troops themselves, even in Vietnam.  The media, while they supported the way (which was for quite a while, surprisingly) skewed their reporting so that it looked like this.  The fact is, the protests concerning Vietnam had 3 purposes

1. To bring the troops home
2. To stop more troops being sent over.
3. To stop the killing of Vietnamese (North and South)

Now, when 2 of those 3 concern troops, can you honestly say that the protesters didn't support the troops?  How better support troops than remove them from danger.

I'm not sure if this is common practice or not since I haven't really lived through a war before, but the paper has stopped printing any anti-war editorials and for the past three days has filled its editorial pages with what I consider basically pro-war propaganda. Why do they do this? I was very dismayed to see it.

True, public opinion has swayed, but the strength of dissent hasn't.  I'm sure that thousands of anti-war letters are sent to newspapers across the country.  What is more likely is that the editors have chosen to omit most dissenting opions in order to more accuratly reflect the 70-30 public opinion.  Though I don't support the war, I respect, and tend to agree, with the editors choice, so long as some dissenting opinions are still printed.

The other night, when war started, the Daily Show on comedy central taped before the countdown ran out, and aired after.  As such, they stated the following opinion on the war: (paraphrased) "If the war has not begun, we, with every fiber of our being, urge the president and coalition parties to stop war before it starts, preserving peace in Iraq.  However, if the war has begun, we, with every fiber of our being, support the president's desicion, the troops in the field, and the war itself."

I thought it was an appropriate representation of how stupid people are.  It's very easy to support the troops and not the war, but people don't seem to understand that.  They fear that by attacking the war, they are attacking our "boys in Iraq," and that's one of the stupider assumptions people can make.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

How did I take tasty and your argument out of context, I wasn't talking about your argument specifically.  

Really?

In talking about American and the American media I said this:

I say that because if the democratic process is followed, you should support it, even when it's not the outcome you wanted.  That's the price of democracy.  You can be against the war, against Bush's policies, but to not support the armed forces (as happened in the Vietnam era) is complete bullshit.  So, some of this may be rubbing off on the media as well.

Bondo, you responded with this:

As for the war support issue, I would argue that this war is in no way democratically approved.  As such I see no reason for people to accept that their side was simply not the majority.  I think by pulling the resolution from the table and ignoring the UN, they avoid democratic validation.  

"As for the war support issue"  hmm.  Sure sounds like you were responding directly to me.  Like you said, you expanded it to an international level, which wasn't the context.  You disagreed with me (which was within my context), but all your reasons were out of it.  

Also, the US's rights as a soverign nation don't give it the right to pre-emptively attack another.

Really?  I think you are wrong.  I think that it does have that specific right.  I hate to quote a book/movie, but the phrase "clear and present danger" is real.  There are reasons that give a nation the right to go to war.  I don't care if you agree with the application of it on Iraq or not, the fact is, nations still have that sovereign right.  Otherwise, there would be no wars, and no need for rules of war.  That may be the goal of the UN, but it's still fiction today.

Bucc, European intelligence isn't as inferior to the US as you seem to think.  I think the French and Germans know what is going on just as much, they choose the other way.  

Really?  They have all the resources we do, even when we spend more then the rest of the world combined on Defense?  (that budget does include a bunch on intelligence, after all.)  No Bondo, I don't think that German or France has the spy satellites, or the way to get into communications that the US has, just because the US spends the money on it.  What intelligence have they brought to the table, btw?

Plus, there is tons of evidence of the US lying to try and convince the UN to support it, but those lies have been exposed.  As the US has been proven to lie now while others have not, I trust them more.  I don't doubt that Iraq has some illegal weaponry...nor does Hans Blix as far as I've seen, but Hans Blix has built my trust by being truthful in what he's found while not rushing to either side.

Iraq has been proven to lie, Hans boy has said as much himself.  Now, where it this proof that the US is lying that you are speaking of?  You said it, I want to see it.  What lies have been proven?

By disarming completely now the US would not find anything and the war would look much worse.  Mind you he's shot some illegal Squds off so I guess that isn't happening.  I merely said it was Saddam-like, not that it would happen.

WOW, what a difference a word makes.  By disarming NOW.  You didn't say that before.  You just said by disarming, which is what he's been supposed to do the entire time.  NOW was a key word Bondo.

Wow, even bigger.  Illegal SCUDS that weapons inspectors like Hans never found.  They have been there for over a decade and weapons inspectors didn't find them.  Now that should say something to you.  (to be fair, I haven't brought them up yet because the reports from different news agencies are confused, so I don't find that as reliable proof yet).

[|MP|Buccaneer]

You on the other hand take no real positions but merely attack other people's views.  You can say that is bullshit or that I'm a hypocrite, but you won't be correct.

BULLSHIT.  And I'll prove I'm correct.  First, you insult me, often.  That's not just defending.  Second, if you think I take no real positions you are either blind, a complete moron or a fucking liar.  How many positions have I taken.  Hmm, my position on American media?  My position on abortion?  My position on the Draft and dodging it?  My position on Iraq?  Which position haven't I made a stance on?  I've clearly said I was against abortion in all but health cases, do I need to go quote myself?  I made it very clear that I felt American media was impartial, since you can find all the views if you look.  So bullshit Bondo.  You are talking out of your ass once again.  Which is it, btw?  Blind?  Moron?  of Fucking Liar?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that this is supposed to be a friendly forum, so being an asshole isn't acceptable.

I correct you.  If that were so, you and Loud and Rapid would be just as guilty.  You have insulted just as often as I have.  Not always in the same ways, but you have.  And Rapid is the king of it.  So, if this is unacceptable behavior, then moderation has a way to go before it gets to me.  I'm acting well within the limits I see of others here, including you Bondo.

For the record, the police did have to go in front of the city council to defend their actions, and while they weren't punished, some council members did say that it was excessive.  Plus, I didn't hear from just protesters, I heard from people who were in the area for other reasons and just witnessed it.  Try not to assume that I don't have a good point because you know what happens to people that assume too much...

FUCK OFF, I didn't assume anything, I based my opinion on what YOU PRESENTED.  You bitch about me presenting too much, well you don't present enough.  

And notice that you don't say the city council found them at fault, just some members thought it was excessive.  You represent it as fact that they acted excessively, and that the paper mis-reported it.  Yet, every fact about it you give doesn't point to that fact.  They weren't punished.  Tell me, what was the actual City Council's final ruling?  Not the opinion of some, what was the actual ruling, in the books?  If the city council ruled that the police acted justly, regardless of any discention on the council, that's it, and the paper reported not propaganda as you claimed, but what the city council found to be the truth, no?

I asked for proof of propaganda that you claimed, but what you have supplied isn't proof.  I don't care what you think of me, I think you are an asshole, so what.  You still use the word propoganda, and supplied as fact something that even contradicts your claim.  

BTW, talk about assuming too much, you think I didn't look it up on the web?  There are plenty of leftist articles about it, calling for action with no real details at all, want a link?  (those are my favorite, I print them to wipe my ass with).  There are also the AP and other clippings out there from more reliable news sources.  One thing I also found, that you glossed over.  Even in some of the ones that called it excessive, they agreed that the demonstrators were, indeed, blocking an intersection.  They were blocking traffic, and also disrupting others civil rights, who were trying to enjoy the use of the park that day (according to two reports I saw).  

But, since they don't agree with you, that's all propaganda, isn't it?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bucc, you go and look at news stories to go see what happened after I tell you that the news stories lied?  If they are lying as I claim than your news stories saying otherwise don't mean a thing.  Like I said, I have eyewitness accounts not only from people involved but those not involved that the crowd had obeyed the police and left the street.  Thus the use of tear gas was excessive.  I never said the protesters did nothing at all wrong.

Also, just because the city council doesn't punish the police doesn't mean they didn't do anything wrong, just not blatantly wrong to the point where punishment is needed.  They did feel it was an overraction although not outside what was legal to use.

And I wasn't talking about the coverage by the paper later on, just the day after the event when the first coverage came, the coverage that twisted the truth to look unfavorably upon the protestors.

And Bucc, there is a difference between having a position because you oppose an opposite position and actually having a position.  I haven't seen you post a comment that wasn't directly in reply to someone else's comments.

Bucc, you can correct me, but I'm not wrong that this forum is supposed to be friendly, it isn't in practice but it is supposed to be.  And Loud and I aren't being assholes like you are Bucc, we are trying to make the community better by allowing for freer debate and less hostility, but you are too thickheaded to see that.  You are the one insisting on choking the free debate and making the place more hostile.

By saying "As for the war support issue", I in no way commit myself to directly replying to your context of the argument.  I merely mention that it is the general issue I'm talking about.  So I did no wrong to post what I did about it.

As for the now thing, I always meant that he would disarm at this point, rather than earlier.  It isn't my fault you assumed I was saying he had disarmed already and still brought on the war.  I also never said Saddam never lied, and that the inspections had found everything.  You assume way too much...which seems why you constantly misinterpret my arguments.

And yes, the US lied.  It forged a document saying that Iraq would get nuclear material from Niger.  That much has been confirmed by the UK even.  The US has actually forged lies to try and condemn Saddam.  And you wonder why I think Bush is suspicious for his reasons for the war.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

You'll be hard-pressed to find people who didn't support the troops themselves, even in Vietnam.  

Not so hard pressed as you may think.  I have five Vietnam vets in the family (Covering Navy, Marines and Air Force).  All of them have stories of being shit on by Americans after they came home.  People did spit on them, and call them baby killers.  They wouldn't wear their uniforms while home because too many people, American people, would give them shit about it. American protesters did not support American troops, especially those that weren't drafted into service.  American media didn't help either.

Back in the 60's, many anti-war demonstrations didn't stop at policy, but included the participants.

So, it's not so hard pressed as you seem to think P-roy.  I'd be interested to know why you think it though?  Where the information comes from?

Though I don't support the war, I respect, and tend to agree, with the editors choice, so long as some dissenting opinions are still printed.

I agree with most of this, and will add that for every media that completely excludes the "anti-war" editorials, I'm sure you can find an equal amount that exclude the "pro-war" editorials.  Moreover, I'll bet you can find a pretty equal amount that print great editorials on the side they agree with, and shitty ones that represent the opposite point of view.  

I thought it was an appropriate representation of how stupid people are.? It's very easy to support the troops and not the war, but people don't seem to understand that.? They fear that by attacking the war, they are attacking our "boys in Iraq," and that's one of the stupider assumptions people can make.

I couldn't agree more with you.  But that's double edged as well.  There are just as many stupid people out there (not many in the forums here though) that think it's ok to attack our troops as being part of the war.  Sad that this level of stupidity exists, but it does, and it cuts both ways.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, you go and look at news stories to go see what happened after I tell you that the news stories lied?  If they are lying as I claim than your news stories saying otherwise don't mean a thing.  

Even the ones that called it excessive lied Bondo?  Can't have it both ways Bondo.

And hell yes I went and looked for myself.  What, you think I'm going to rely on your opinion alone?  That's a laugh, you don't have a good track record for using data to support the right conclusion (I often wonder if you've ever even heard of the scientific method, let alone know what it means).

Thus the use of tear gas was excessive.  I never said the protesters did nothing at all wrong.

Ah, the heart of the issue.  In your opinion, the use of force was excessive.  Not in the general opinion, but in yours.  It wasn't found to be excessive by the law or by the local government, but by you and some others, in your opinion.  So, since you disagree with that judgment, the paper is, of course, printing propaganda if they don't see it your way (even though they see it the same way the law and local government do, plus others).  Yes, of course.  It must be propaganda if it doesn't agree with your opinion.  

Bondo, in what you have said, and what the papers wrote I can so no lie that you accused them of.  All I see is that you have an opinion that isn't held by most, or supported by law, and isn't what the news reported, but you call it propaganda.

And I wasn't talking about the coverage by the paper later on, just the day after the event when the first coverage came, the coverage that twisted the truth to look unfavorably upon the protestors.

I read the archives.  I saw what was news.  Tell me the lie?  Point out the truth that was twisted?

And Bucc, there is a difference between having a position because you oppose an opposite position and actually having a position.  I haven't seen you post a comment that wasn't directly in reply to someone else's comments.

Ah, chosen "fucking liar" I see.  Good.  First you say I never take a position.  Now you say it doesn't count because it's done is a response.  Next I'll just point out the threads I do start, and you'll dismiss those because they aren't frequent enough for your liking.  That all makes you a fucking liar.  Every time you accuse me of something like that, I give you examples that show you are wrong, so all you do is change the criteria.  ENOUGH OF YOUR BULLSHIT.  I make a stance on issues, where it happens makes no difference.  Is it a bad boxer that is a counter-puncher, or is that just his technique?  Just give it a rest already.  You don't like my style, TOO FUCKING BAD.  YOU DON'T HAVE TO BRING IT UP IN EVERY THREAD YOU MORON.

Bucc, you can correct me, but I'm not wrong that this forum is supposed to be friendly, it isn't in practice but it is supposed to be.  And Loud and I aren't being assholes like you are Bucc, we are trying to make the community better by allowing for freer debate and less hostility, but you are too thickheaded to see that.  

Pardon my ass for disagreeing, but first, you and Loud are being assholes to me (in my opinion) and are being plenty hostile towards me (again, in my opinion).  So if you are trying to make it less hostile, you are doing a piss-poor job.  And, even more to the point, if this forum is supposed to be friendly, please define "quarrels" for me.  While you can have a "friendly quarrel", it doesn't say that.  It says, simply, "quarrels".  Quarrels, by nature, aren't friendly.  If they were, you wouldn't need to separate them with a term like "friendly quarrels", would you?  Third, like I've asked Loudnotes, where are the rules or guidelines?  I see the practice, but nothing, other then your opinion, that it's supposed to be different.  I see the word "quarrels", but no rules or guidelines saying it is supposed to be nice and friendly.  So all I hear is YOUR opinion Bondo.  And an opinion I don't see you follow half the time.  So, if you have something else, let me know.  Until then, I'll stand by the evidence.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

By saying "As for the war support issue", I in no way commit myself to directly replying to your context of the argument.  I merely mention that it is the general issue I'm talking about.  So I did no wrong to post what I did about it.

You are so full of shit, it comes from talking out of your ass.  Your post was directed at both me and Tasty.  Moreover, we were talking about it being democratic.  So I find your "plausible deniability" to be contemptuous, to say the least.  You know you were replying to it, and so do I.  I showed how you pulled it out of context of where it started, and now you deny it having been related.  You double talk more then Bush ever imagined he could.  At least be honest enough to admit a fucking mistake.

As for the now thing, I always meant that he would disarm at this point, rather than earlier.  It isn't my fault you assumed I was saying he had disarmed already and still brought on the war.  I also never said Saddam never lied, and that the inspections had found everything.  You assume way too much...which seems why you constantly misinterpret my arguments.

Bondo, I don't care what you meant, it's not what you said.  It's not an assumption to talk about what you say, when you leave some details out that change it's meaning.  Yes, leaving out the word NOW completely changes the meaning of what you were saying.  Maybe if you spent a little more time being clear, your arguments wouldn't be misinterpreted.  You think?

And yes, the US lied.  It forged a document saying that Iraq would get nuclear material from Niger.  That much has been confirmed by the UK even.  The US has actually forged lies to try and condemn Saddam.

Where does it say that the US forged the document?  Who said it?  I read the Newsweek article, and I don't see that being confirmed by the UK.  I see the USA saying it was British intelligence in the first place, and I see the Brits saying the USA implicated Niger, while they just said "Africa".  So, what's the truth?  I hear you accusing, but I don't see the proof Bondo.  Link me.

And you wonder why I think Bush is suspicious for his reasons for the war.

Now, I don't know why it does, but it still surprises me that you have never actually seen my stance on Bush, no matter how many times I post it.  I'm sure this will make no difference to you again, but maybe someone else wont just take your word for it if I don't refute it.  I know Bush's motives are skewed.  I've always said as much.  And I don't care!  I've always said he can be doing the right things for the wrong reasons.  Way to continue to put words in my mouth that never existed Bondo.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

not to fix, just to take into account.

And that's taken into account by different sources.

Bush's conflicts of interest were not probed very deeply in the 2000 election. I think most people would be appalled if they knew the degree to which people had their hands in Bush's pockets.

I disagree.  I saw plenty of it in the news.  People were appalled.  Just like some people were appalled in who was backing Gore.  Just because you didn't see the reaction you expected, doesn't mean that people didn't know.  Smart people are on both sides of the issue, and some people don't put as much weight on the same things you do.  But I sure as hell saw plenty of dirt on Bush, both before and after the election.  Hell, I saw so much dirt on him before, I was surprised he won the primary.  There was a very strong campaign in the media back then against him.  So I really don't know where you are coming from saying that they don't question him.  I get that you don't like him, but face it, they printed dirt on him, and a lot of it.  You can't blame the fact that people voted him into office on a lack of coverage, because I saw more dirt on him then any other candidate, and they all have dirt.  Now please, get over the fact that he was elected.

Also, his grandfather's support for the Nazis (his company played a critical role in their economy) is relevant in my opinion because racism is the type of thing that gets passed down through generations.

Tasty, that's just mud-slinging, it really is.  If racism was always handed down through the generations, we'd all still be racists.  Because it's in the past for all of us if you look back far enough.  You have to judge a man for what he is, and what he has done, not for what his grandfather is, or what he did.  The sins of the father can't be cast upon the son.  Or, in this case, grandson.  

Now I look at Bush, and I see a black man as Secretary of State, and a black woman as the NSA.  If he were really racist, or a nazi, I highly doubt he'd put the "token blacks" in such positions of power.  I have a very high level of respect for Colin Powell (remember you democrats, you really wanted him in your party too), and I don't think he'd play the token part.  Bush has probably brought America closer then anyone to it's first Black President, as I'd vote for Powell over most any other candidate I've seen in the running.  Is that the act of a nazi or racist?  

Bringing up his grandfather to use against Bush is just petty and wrong, in my opinion.  I'm glad the press and media chose not to.  There is plenty to blast GWB for of his own doing, blasting him for something he was never involved with is actually more then wrong, it would likely backfire, as people would likely see it as being petty, spiteful, and irrelevant, and then discount some of the good, real points against the man.

Obviously such a thing would require me to drop out of school and probably would not make very much money. I don't think it's a very feasible idea. I think the suggestion is a bit naive and idealistic, and that's coming from a liberal

You can think that, but it's not "obvious" to me.  Or naive.  I don't think you'd have to drop out of school.  On the contrary, I think school would be the place to start.  Did I imply otherwise?  Because I didn't mean to.  I think, if it's that much of a passion with you, and it seems to be, you should do it.  Many men don't ever get to do the things in life they find as a passion, not as a job.  

And yes, you could start now, with limited resources, publishing online.  Hell, I'd front you the web space even if you really can't afford it.  Start small.  Get a blog of your own going.  Then grow it.

What's naive about that idea?  What about it means you have to drop out of school or cost you too much.  Everyone has to get their start somewhere, and everyone needs a goal (if they want to be successful, unless they are counting on the lotto).  If you want to have a Paper or TV News station of your own, you have to start somewhere, right?  You could write for the school news, you could start your own, you could try to get a job with the local paper.  Hell, you could just send in articles to the editor all the time in an effort to get published that way.  All if it works, and none of it causes you hardship (unless you chose to make take it to an extreme).

So, what's really wrong with it?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Scientific method Bucc?  Fuck, this is a forum, not a labratory.

As for putting words in your mouth, I said nothing about your opinion about Bush, I said you wondered about why I was suspicious of Bush, you have accused me of being anti-war for no strong reason, I'm showing that I have a very good reason to not support Bush's word compared to that of those that oppose him.

As for the bit about the US forging the documents, I've seen that in a handful of places, all confirming that they have been deemed forged documents.  I don't need to have a link to know that it has been said and thus say it here.

As for me trying to be careful so my statements can't be misunderstood.  That is the problem with language but it can always be misunderstood, and you particularly look for places that you can misunderstand what I'm saying, and misunderstand it, and then you yell at me for not being clear enough.  Well how about this, you stop being an idiot who can't understand anything I post.

Also, you say you will continue to pressure me to change the way I post (in your opinion weak opinionated arguments), yet you say you won't change the way you post and think we are wrong to say otherwise.  Ok, I'll be you and call you on being a fucking hypocrite.  You are trying to change other people's way of posting (and what is worse is that you are creating the problems from posts that don't have any specific problems) but sticking adamantly to your post style (which has obvious problems as has been documented by Loud).

Once again I state: THIS IS A FUCKING FORUM AND ONLY A FORUM.  STOP BEING A PRICK AND MAKE A POST THAT DOESN'T RELY ON QUOTES AND BASHING OTHER PEOPLE'S ARGUMENTS.

[jn.loudnotes]

Buccaneer, look at what you just wrote.  After all we've been through, do you really expect anyone to read all of that?  

Yes, this is off topic.  However, not a shred of your last 6 posts has to do with whether Saddam might launch WMD now that he is cornered, which was the initial topic.  So, yes once more I'll question your quoting.  You don't have to respond or give a damn.  But you're out of your fucking mind if you think anyone can read and respond to all of that.  If that's your debate tactic - you win.  Hands down.  There's no point in reprisal.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Scientific method Bucc?  Fuck, this is a forum, not a labratory.

Ah, why would I expect anything more from you?  Scientific Method isn't about a labratory, bonehead.  

I said you wondered about why I was suspicious of Bush, you have accused me of being anti-war for no strong reason, I'm showing that I have a very good reason to not support Bush's word compared to that of those that oppose him.

Accusing you of being anti-war for weak reasons isn't the same as wondering why you are suspicious of Bush's motives.  So that means you are putting words in my mouth, since I not only didn't ask the question you said I did, but I've stated my own opinion on the matter quite often.

As for the bit about the US forging the documents, I've seen that in a handful of places, all confirming that they have been deemed forged documents.  I don't need to have a link to know that it has been said and thus say it here.

But that's not what you said before.  You said (and do you need me to quote?) that it was proven that the US lied.  I read a bunch of articles on it, that determined that the documents were forged by the UN, however, they didn't say the US lied, or that the US was the one that forged them.  I actually saw more to suggest that it was the Brits (and those only suggestions).  So, you claimed it was a fact.  I want to see it for myself, please.

and you particularly look for places that you can misunderstand what I'm saying, and misunderstand it, and then you yell at me for not being clear enough.  

Bullshit.  I don't look for places, they are just there.  I'm a good reader.  I read what you wrote.  Way to try and avoid the issue there Bondo.  You and I both know that the placement of the word NOW was key in that message.  But instead of just saying, "ok, ignore that, my bad, i meant now", you have to go on and on about poor Bondo, and how big bad Buccaneer should know what you mean, and not pick up on mistakes, or misunderstand because it wasn't written the way it was meant.  

Also, you say you will continue to pressure me to change the way I post

Where?  Where do I say I will pressure you to change the way that you post?  Please, show me?

Once again I state: THIS IS A FUCKING FORUM AND ONLY A FORUM.  STOP BEING A PRICK AND MAKE A POST THAT DOESN'T RELY ON QUOTES AND BASHING OTHER PEOPLE'S ARGUMENTS.

And once again I'll have to respond with: GET OVER YOURSELF AND STOP BEING SUCH A COCK!  YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY IN TELLING ME TO CHANGE MY TECHNIQUE, AND HAVE GIVEN ME NO REASON I FIND WORTHY.  BRINGING IT UP IN EVERY THREAD ISN'T GOING TO CHAGE IT, IT'S JUST YOU BEING A COCKSUCKER!

Buccaneer, look at what you just wrote.  After all we've been through, do you really expect anyone to read all of that?  

I just went back.  Took me all of under two minutes to read all that.  Is two minutes all that much?  I don't think so.

However, not a shred of your last 6 posts has to do with whether Saddam might launch WMD now that he is cornered, which was the initial topic.  

No, not WMD's but there were talks about a Nations Rights to go to war, and about the treatment of Vietnam Vets.  Both of which were very on topic.

Now, if both you and Bondo would stop dragging things off topics, with attacks on my style, I wouldn't have to respond to the bullshit as much, making the overall posts shorter.  Ever think of that.  No, because you are another fucking idiot.

[jn.loudnotes]

To use a famous phrase, "I call bullshit"

1)  2 minutes my ass.  Plus, you wrote it, so you already know what it says - that makes it a lot easier to read

2)  You don't have to reply to anything anyone says.  The problem is that you respond to EVERYTHING.

I'm not fond of dragging things off topic either - but whether you like me or Bondo or the way we're saying things, recognize that no one is going to respond to your entire postings.  If someone does respond to all 6 pages you just wrote, I'll be damned and I'll shut up on this issue for good.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

To use a famous phrase, "I call bullshit"

1)  2 minutes my ass.  Plus, you wrote it, so you already know what it says - that makes it a lot easier to read

Bullshit yourself.  Time it and tell me how long it takes you.  It's not my fault if you are a slow reader anyway.  It took me all of under 10 seconds to read this worthless post.

2)  You don't have to reply to anything anyone says.  The problem is that you respond to EVERYTHING.

Same old fucking same old.  I don't have to.  I CHOSE TO.  MY CHOICE.  I've heard your opinion.  Enough of it already, eh?  Trying to shout me down in every thread isn't going to change it.

I'm not fond of dragging things off topic either - but whether you like me or Bondo or the way we're saying things, recognize that no one is going to respond to your entire postings.  If someone does respond to all 6 pages you just wrote, I'll be damned and I'll shut up on this issue for good.

Funny, Tasty has been doing a very, very good job of it, in the threads we've been discussing.  Now, I don't expect Tasty to respond to the parts like this, because they aren't meant for him in the first place, and he's said his piece in the second, and he knows how to let it go in the third (it seems).  So while he and I are not, by any means agreeing with each other on the topics, he's responding to the points just fine.  And, like I said, if you want less to respond to, don't post this kind of shit for me to respond to.  Look at the quotes.  That's me responding to something someone else wrote, right?  So someone must have taken the time to make all those points.  And I bothered to read them all in the first place.  So, it can be done.  You don't want to do it, don't.  You don't have to debate with me.  Or, you can just debate the topic with me, and ignore my responses to Bondo.  You've chosen to ignore the topic, and only concentrate on my style.  More's the pity.

[tasty]

Fine, we can judge Bush by his racist actions. Such as the racist application of the death penalty which he supported across the board but especially in Texas, where as governor he pushed for rules making executions easier to push through. Or his vendetta against affirmative action when he went on national television to lie about the University of Michigan admissions system, calling it a quota system when it blatantly is not. His support of Bob Jones University, an institution that still has a ban on interracial dating? His support of the confederate flag in South Carolina? Bush is supported by white supremacist groups all around America, and for good reason.

For the press argument, it seems our chief disagreement is that you think the existence of alternate points of view is enough, while I maintain that they must be exposed and respected in the mainstream. There is no way to force my desires from happening, and that's not what I'm proposing. Once again I'm just lamenting the system that's in place. To prove my point, Clear Channel Communication (the largest media conglomerate in the world) is sponsoring pro-war rallies around the nation where attendees are receive literature and hear speeches condemning France and the Dixie Chicks. While this is perfectly within Clear Channel's rights (The CEO is one of Bush's biggest donors), since Clear Channel already has a virtual monopoly on our airwaves I think it's easy to see how biased the media can be. Please tell your congressman/woman that you oppose the pending FCC decision to deregulate the media even more than it already is. Not only does it increase bias, it decreases quality, the individual autonomy of stations, and most of all variety while providing a boost in advertising time.


As for starting a blog, that market is already so saturated? the list of prominent liberal blogs is already over a thousand big. To get recognized in that sphere you need to blog all day every day and have a doctoral degree from a prestigious institution in either political science or history. So while I could make one, I have serious doubts that anyone would read it.

For the conflicts of interest thing I've seen studies about it, but to back that up now would require research that I'm just too tired/lazy to do, so I'm just gonna let it go.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Fine, we can judge Bush by his racist actions. Such as the racist application of the death penalty which he supported across the board but especially in Texas, where as governor he pushed for rules making executions easier to push through.

While not agreeing with the death penalty myself, I also don't see how him pushing for it makes him racist.  What am I missing?  That the courts apply it unfairly?  I blame that on the courts in those states.  But, like with gun control, the fact that the laws aren't being applied fairly doesn't make me think that we need more or a huge change.  It makes me think we need to fix how they are applied.

Or his vendetta against affirmative action when he went on national television to lie about the University of Michigan admissions system, calling it a quota system when it blatantly is not.

Tasty, you hit me close to home now.  First, while not a racist myself, I'm very much against affirmative action.  To me, affirmative action is just another form of racism.  I think the admissions policy should be color blind, period.  Nothing should be based upon race.  So, while not being a racist, and actually being a legal minority, I don't think you have to be racist to not agree with affirmative action.  And, what makes you say it's blatantly not a quota system?  UofM has admitted to actually having some quotas, according to the Detroit News.  They clearly admit that they have much lower standards of admissions for minorities.  UofM just sees nothing wrong with it.  I don't agree.  Doesn't make me a racist.

His support of Bob Jones University, an institution that still has a ban on interracial dating?

I support UofM, an institution I clearly have just said I think has a racist policy that I don't agree with.  One issue doesn't make for support or non support.  He may (may, because who really knows) hate that policy, and support the university on other grounds.  I don't know.  But supporting a university that has a racist rule doesn't automatically make someone a racist, does it?

His support of the confederate flag in South Carolina?

Bad choice, but again, doesn't have to be a racist choice.  I disagree with that flag on completely different issues, not the issue of race at all.  But, the only thing I ever heard Bush say about it is that it wasn't the Federal Governments place to approve or disapprove of a State Flag.  It crosses the line of a states rights.  So, if there's more, I haven't seen it yet.

Bush is supported by white supremacist groups all around America, and for good reason.

Ah, but does he support them?  That's the question.  He has little control over if they support him or not.  Just like he had no control over his grandfathers actions.  Those groups typically support conservatives, and Bush is more conservative then Gore, that's for sure.  But, how do those white supremacist groups feel about his choices for his cabinet?  Do you think that Powell and Rice are tokens?  

You've given a good number of examples, but nothing that really says racism for sure.  And like I said, I hate Bush.  Very much.  I think he's a terrible example in many ways to lead our nation.  But, I can't call someone a racist just because they support a states rights to chose it's own flag (yes, some people find it offensive, but some people, somewhere find everything offensive, and it's not the Federal Governments place to step in on all of them).  Or because he doesn't believe in affirmative action.  Or because he supports a university that has an old racist rule on the books that he may not agree with, or even know about.  

And none of that would be a good excuse to bring up his grandfather either.  You don't judge a man because of his family, you judge him because of his actions.  Even if he was a complete racist, I still don't think the grandfather comments are important.  My grandfather was a war hero with six medals, does it mean a damn thing about me?  NO, not at all.  My other grandfather was an alcoholic.  That also means nothing about me.

Once again I'm just lamenting the system that's in place.

But, there is no better system, is there?  There is no solution to your problem that I can see at all.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

the list of prominent liberal blogs is already over a thousand big.

Ok, you seem to really be missing the spirit of what I meant.  You seem disappointed and passionate about the fact that your opinion isn't in the media enough.  When I mention the internet, you tell me it's saturated (so your opinion must be out there quite a bit I imagine).  So it's only the mainstream media (and specifically, in your area) that bothers you so (if I have this right).  So, there are the other suggestions.  Get your opinions out there if it's that important to you.  I'm not mocking you, I'm not being naive.  If it's important to you that your side is hear, you should make efforts.  Thinking that a thing will change for the better without effort, that's naive.  So I'm honestly encouraging you to do something.  Letters to the editor, all the time.  It can't cut into your time that much.  If you do it well enough, who knows, you may get a career out of it.  

There are plenty of ways to make a difference.  More then I've mentioned.  You shouldn't just dismiss the idea out of hand.  Give it some thought.

[tasty]

The death penalty is racistly applied almost universally. Poor and minorities that are convicted of murder are executed at staggeringly high rates when compared to white and rich people convicted of the same crimes. When Bush was governor of Texas, he favored a "kill em now, ask questions later" policy regarding the penalty and at least one innocent man was executed under his term. Read the book Dead Man Walking by Helen Perjean and you'll know what I mean. Short of a national amendment making the death penalty illegal (which I favor), the system needs a lot of reform, reform which Bush opposes.

I'm not going to argue affirmative action here, if you want to argue its legitimacy than it needs a seperate thread. The U of Michigan undergraduate system uses no quotas. In fact, their system has more rewards built in that specifically benefit white people than they do to benefit minorities.

Supporting Bob Jones University in any way does in fact make someone a racist. They are well known nationally for their racism. They have several known white supremacists on their faculty and has been a bastion of attempted academic defense of racism for years. This school has had all federal funding cut for their racist policy. It has been the tradition of the Republican presidential candidate to speak here for years to demonstrate to southern racists that they can be counted on to enact covertly racist policies. Frankly, if you're running for president you should be telling white supremacists that you don't want their votes. I don't care if its smart campagining or not, it's just the right thing to do to not cater to these people.

Black people see the confederate flag as one of the primary symbols of the pain and suffering their race received in the past as a result of slavery. Southern pride can kiss my ass, that flag is a racist symbol. In actuality, this is a state issue and there was no real need for Bush to weigh in on it. But he decided to come out in support of it. Campaigning in the south supporting "states rights" is tantamount to saying that you support the white of majority whites to enact racist laws and policies. It's more of the veiled racism that the Republican party has become so well known for. White supremacist groups that supported fringe candidates in the past like David Duke and Pat Buchanan because the Republican nominees were too minority-friendly for them have lined up behind Bush. And yes, Bush does actively try to seek the votes of these groups. Its the double-edged sword that the Republican party always tries to play, the line they try to walk between pacifying these groups and looking racially neutral to the rest of the nation.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Short of a national amendment making the death penalty illegal (which I favor), the system needs a lot of reform, reform which Bush opposes.

Tasty, I read the book, and I agree with everything you say.  Like I said, I do not support the death penalty either.  However, nothing you said automatically makes the other side a racist.  The courts show racism in the application, yes.  But that doesn't mean everyone for the death penalty is a racist.  They are separate issues.  In places where the death penalty is allowed, they should fix the racist application.

You can believe in the death penalty, and support it, without being a racist.

The U of Michigan undergraduate system uses no quotas. In fact, their system has more rewards built in that specifically benefit white people than they do to benefit minorities.

First, I'm going to kill two birds with one stone.  Here's a link to my old local news.  Notice how it demonstrates both sides of the story pretty well.  And yes, we can argue affirmative action in a different thread.

http://www.wotv.com/index.php?goto=story&RecordID=690

Second, I'll post this for your reading:
Michigan Law maintains a two-track admissions system; one for ?regular admits? and one for ?diversity admits.? The testimony of Michigan officials emphasized the effort to enroll a ?critical mass? of underrepresented minority students (who are defined as African-American, Hispanic-American, and Native American). According to officials, ?critical mass? means some number of minority students sufficient to eliminate feelings of isolation and discomfort expressing their views in class (you know, like being a conservative). During the 1990s, ?critical mass,? in practice, turned out to be 11-17% of the entering law school class.

  So ?critical mass? is clearly the functional equivalent of a quota. But Michigan officials maintain that it is not, because they refuse to name a precise number; it varies from year to year. The trial court recognized this for the fallacy it is; but the appeals court agreed with Michigan.  from another local paper.

This is the UofM case I am talking about.  I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but this is what I'm talking about.  

And, much more to the point.  I don't agree with the two track admissions policy.  I think that's racist!  So, again, I point out that disagreeing with it doesn't automatically make him a racist.

Frankly, if you're running for president you should be telling white supremacists that you don't want their votes. I don't care if its smart campagining or not, it's just the right thing to do to not cater to these people.
 

That's your opinion, and that's fine.  But not agreeing with you doesn't make me, or anyone else a racist.  And you can still support a place if you don't agree 100% with it, or I wouldn't be supporting UofM, now would I?  I don't support their racist admissions policy, but I still donate to them, since I went there, and do agree with much of what they do.

Black people see the confederate flag as one of the primary symbols of the pain and suffering their race received in the past as a result of slavery. Southern pride can kiss my ass, that flag is a racist symbol.  

So much for liberty.

Fine Tasty, you have the Liberal mantra down cold.  But there's just not much meat here.  He supports State Rights, so that means he must be racist!!  OMG, that's the only conclusion you can come to.  All I'm hearing from you is the typical Democratic Party campaign leaflet crap.  What has the man actually done?  Has he had unfair hiring or firing practices in his business life or government career?  Has he worn the white sheet and pillow case himself?  Has he taken away the rights of any minorities specifically?

All the things you've brought up are circumspect at best.  He's got two minorities in positions of great power, and that's a fact.  I haven't seen any hard and cold facts to address him being a racist either.  

Hell, I could point out that Gore went to the Vanderbilt University School of Religion.  Does that automatically make him a religious nut case?  No, it doesn't.  

So yes Tasty, we all see how much you hate Bush, but it should really take more then the normal campaign hoopla to call someone a racist, shouldn't it?