Have the fans of George Bush run out of "arguments"? Are they too busy praying? Or do they simply recognise there is nothing to disprove about one of the biggest atrocities of the 20th century? (Unlikely but I'm just hoping...)
-Goodnight, mother of six!
-Goodnight, father of two!
Typical liberal airheaded troll.
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.
[deleted]
I wouldn't know, I'm not a republican. I'm more of a non-stoner libertarian. But I know for certain liberal democrats who hear the truth either wouldn't know what to do with it, or wouldn't recognize it at all.
BTW, what would liberals possibly believe in? Other than empty, self-serving feelgood bullshi7 mottos like "support the troops, but not the war"?
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.
BTW, what would liberals possibly believe in? Other than empty, self-serving feelgood bullshi7 mottos like "support the troops, but not the war"?
I call 'em as I see 'em.
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.
What's truth to you sounds like *beep* to me
shareOK, nice one liner. Can you think beyond that? "historyrepeated", that's appropriate for a liberal.
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.
GraGoste do you think that America was right to invade Iraq ?
shareYes.
Because it was something the U.S. should have done in 1991, if for no other reason because it would have headed this off sooner.
But no.
The UN in it's infinite wisdom wouldn't allow it, for whatever reason. And all it did was give the defacto go-ahead to the muslime extremists that they could thumb their nose at the written laws, ignore warnings given them, and basically continue in their backwards little world.
Then you have the Clinton regime: "We'll be there, unless it gets too rough. We'd rather send a platoon of federal cops after a 9-year old Cuban kid than offend ANYONE who can actually fight back."
Go ahead, bomb our ships(USS Cole), our buildings (WTC), and ignore our resolutions(kicking out and diddling around with the UN weapons inspectors), because we're not going to do a damn thing about it."
Yes, unfortunately the invasion was necessary. Hussein's brazen disregard and the UN's incompetence only accomplished 1 thing: While putting up some big front, squirrel away the evidence somewhere else.
Now, could it have been handled differently?
Yes. I can think of several things.
1. Declare war until the fighting was done, COMPLETELY. Stop piddling around and trying to fight a nice-nice war.
2. Stop letting the press have so much access to the battlefield, or at least have our own press that emphasizes the victories, instead of constantly bemoaning the defeats.
We're losing the war in the press. Not on the ground.
But what does this have to do with a movie about early Vietnam made in the mid 1980's?
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.
ooh! ooh! *raises hand* i hate liberals!
shareI agree with you 100% GraGroste. Iraq should have been dealt with a decade ago. It didn't help that during the Clinton administration we were secretly bombing Iraq too. And on top of that, look at the other events that helped put us in our current situation. The lack of UN resolve in the Balkan conflicts, The lack of US resolve in Somalia. But truth be told we should have concentrated our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and also took action to Re-unite North and South Korea disposing of Kim Jong's murderous regime then go to Iraq and fight a war that was too late to little.
shareFinally a voice of reason. I thought I was the only one left on IMDB, lol!
(Just kidding, Mods!)
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.
[deleted]
Man you guys, your country seems so polarised in its opinions.
What does Hussein have to do with Al Quaida??? *beep* man it don't mean ur on an arabic region of the world its Al Quaida, You guys got to do some Geography.
What Evidence? You talking about the bomb??? where the fu*k do you think they could put *beep* like that. And how the hell were they supposed to build anything like that you bombed the *beep* out of the country in 91, placed an embargo on the country causing famine, ilness, death the country was in deep *beep* man. Then you decide to exchange food for oil????????!!!!! says alot about you attitude to these people.
"Because it was something the U.S. should have done in 1991, if for no other reason because it would have headed this off sooner. " i'm afriad the only similarty between the two wars was your objective keep important oil reserves....its obvious wake up.
"We're losing the war in the press. Not on the ground."
This is exacly why Vietnam has something to do With this war. Your statement their is exacly the same as Nixon and the rest of the scum you had in the white house at that time.
And i'm afraid that in vietnam the press had alot more liberties, the press is extremly limited on the ground in this war, the army controls most of what the press does nowadays. They have learned from vietnam. and i have to say your vision of how things should be done is very totalitarian. Don't you beleive in transparency and no censorship?? you sound very "un-american", ooo big defenser of peace and freedom. You'll never change, the witch hunt, the communist hunt, the arabs hunt. stupid stupid stupid......
GraGoste, your tagline identifies you.
There are "Belief" based people, politicians, leaders, etc.
There are "Fact" based people, politicians, leaders, etc.
The "Belief" based people are by far the more dangerous. You can believe anything and the very fact that you believe it makes it true to you. You are very scary people. Very scary and yes, you are legion. Nothing can change your mind, because, like Bush, you base everything on "Belief", facts notwithstanding. Because you "Believe" it, it is right and because you are passionate, you'll never stop.
I suppose in a perverse way, that it's absolutely correct for you to support a war against other "Belief" based people. Although I doubt you'll ever see how much of a twin you are to them. You are fighting like minded people. You have much more in common with any 'fanatic' on this planet than you will possibly ever know.
Perhaps that's one reason among many that you can't see what your statements have to do with a movie about early Vietnam made in the mid 1980's.
Good luck. Don't bash in too many brains or sign away too many civil rights in your progress. You just might bash a head of someone you love and sign away a civil right that you'd have liked to have kept.
GraGoste, one last thing before I never read your posts again.
Why don't you enlist? Why aren't you there fighting for your beliefs instead of grousing on some movie message board? Any age, IQ, mental deficit, criminal record, education level, literacy level is welcome. So go. You can go with a civilian group such as Blackwater. Kill Iraquis. While you're at it, have a go at the Saudis, who, despite your beliefs, comprised the majority of the hi-jackers on 9/11, and who harbored far more al quaida than Iraq ever did...prior to our invasion.
Got to go. I'm scared.
See what I mean?
VERY tolerant unless they disagree with you.
Since you won't read anymore of my posts, I guess ignorance is a condition you're either used to, or are comfortable with.
And I AM enlisted. The possibility of deployment is very real, and a duty that I will not shirk from. And "killing Iraqis" is not a reason to go.
I will go for the reasons they DON'T mention on CNN or the New York Times.
Schools, drinkable water, people who don't have to fear to exercise freedoms that they've never known.
Don't knock "beliefs", Godess1. 'Tis better to stand for something than fall for anything.
And if you are so worried about Iraqi welfare, you need to take your smug self over there and do YOUR part.
But I guess it's easier to bash America on the internet than to actually DO something (sound familiar?).
And it's not very accurate to lump folks like me to the coward insurgents who hide behind their women and children to make their war. Who blow themselves up(which wouldn't be so bad, but they have a habit of taking innocents with them).
The blood of the innocents is on the hands of the Muslime extremists, not us.
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.
[deleted]
damn right, GraGoste! give it to 'em! finally a normal person here!!
all this liberal whining and babbling..... I'm sick of it.
what ever you do, where ever you go, dont step on anyones toes, you might make an unpopular decision, and liberal airheads cant live with that! no, they want everyone to be happy, and hold our hands and sing, and elect any stupid smiling saviour so that ONE man can take on the world, all the problems with oil and food prices, the mean washington fat cats and so on...
I get sick just thinking about it! in my book, they can all go to hell, thats where they are gonna wind up anyway. it doesnt really matter where you find such people, if in the states or anywhere else, but, its just sad people feel the have to think that way. so, in a good -old fashioned true american way: yippie kayee, mofo!!
oh, BTW: some of you cute little liberals might respond, or not, I dont care. but, in case you do, you wasted quite an amount of time. so, you lose either way.
:-)
"support the troops, but not the war"
No, it's "support the troops, bring them home."
by - GraGoste on Thu Oct 12 2006 09:42:51 wouldn't know, I'm not a republican. I'm more of a non-stoner libertarian. But I know for certain liberal democrats who hear the truth either wouldn't know what to do with it, or wouldn't recognize it at all.
BTW, what would liberals possibly believe in? Other than empty, self-serving feelgood bullshi7 mottos like "support the troops, but not the war"?
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth
"what would liberals possibly believe in"? Are you claiming it is your opinions that liberal not only do not beliebe in any 1 thing but they are not capapble of believing in any 1 thing? Seriously, that's what your words say, do you stand behind these words?
Yes, I do.
Liberals are very open-minded (unless you disagree with them, then watch the fireworks), are very tolerant (unless you're different from them), and extremely sympathetic (unless you happen not be ones they pity).
I'm saying liberals do not live in the real world, and anything they profess to believe in are as unrealistic as the goals they expect the rest of the country to live by.
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.
>>"Yes, I do.
Liberals are very open-minded (unless you disagree with them, then watch the fireworks), are very tolerant (unless you're different from them), and extremely sympathetic (unless you happen not be ones they pity).
I'm saying liberals do not live in the real world, and anything they profess to believe in are as unrealistic as the goals they expect the rest of the country to live by."<<
Nice to know your not a liberal as you seem to have no tolerance, no sympathy & pretty much closed-minded.
Go back and re-read my post, slowly if necessary: I've tried to see life from the liberal perspective. It just don't work.
They want to save Tookie Williams, baby whales and rainforests.
But it's ok to kill an unborn child.
They're all for a right to choose, unless you choose to go armed for self-defense.
Liberals in government are all for equal opportunities: but the current conservative government has put more "minorities" in high level positions...
The list goes on and on.
Hypocrisy at it's finest: the liberal mindset.
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth...
Fascinating discussion board about ideology in the oddest place ever to find it. I Would like to point out a couple of things to you GraGoste with your thoughts of liberals being hypocratic.
Liberal by definition is one that seeks liberty, but they realize that they cannot give people liberty without giving them opportunity in the first place. They are humanists, feeling that the vast majority of people are just & good intentioned.
Being an ideology, it is an opinion. It is not wrong nor are you wrong in your perspective on the world. They are just different.
Not being American I have no clue who Tookie Williams is, so I'll move onto your comment about whales & rainforests. Liberals often have a tendency to want to do something about the environment, and that is not bad. The environment is fragile and affects all humanity. There have been more tropical cyclones and hurricanes, that have come with more violience in the past 10 years than there were in the 20 before that, & it is only set to increase. Catostrophes like Katrina are destined to only increase, trying to seek a viable LONG TERM solution to this does not sound like a bad thing.
Abortion is a big can of worms and I know many as many liberals for as against & thus it is not a 'liberal' belief. But is is a personal choice thing. To value the rights of a woman, living breathing and benefiting society over & above the POTENTIAL for new life that could be destined to ruin not only the to be mothers life of the potential baby... because for whatever reason she has no physical ability to bring up, again does not seem such a bad thing to prioritize. The world is overpopulated as it is, why add to the misery and suffering of those who already live? (And there are literally millions starving out there.... even in places like the USA)I say an embryo is only potential for life because it is not one until well late in the pregnancy when that baby could live and breath as a human outside the uterus. To think otherwise is like thinking every time you have scrambled eggs, you are killing 3 or more living breathing chickens. But they are eggs not chickens.
Armed self defence? I cannot imagine a situation where this could possibly be necessary. Though I come from a country that has little crime and danger... a country where the police don't carry guns, nor do the citizens, there is no need or desire. Indeed there was a huge debacle about the police recently being issued with tasers. However, If a guy is robbing your place does that truly justify the owner of the house to commit armed assault or murder? I doubt it, in my mind robbery is a lessor evil than what the owner is doing & legally this is correct too. (At least is this country murder is a higher crime & harsher penalties than robbery.)
I don't know where your stastistics come from about minorities in the US govt, you could be right, I am unaware. But as you stated these are 'high level' positions I would be suprised even amazed if this was the case as a general rule in all of society. It is only logical that a more socialist regime that is aiming to give people equality of opportunity for all people including minorities, would be the one that benefits minorities rather than one that only truly cares about economics and warmongering.
I would comment on Iraq & why it is totally unjustified, legally, morally, physically, humanly etc... but this post is too long as it is. As as said initially, it is a bizzare place to find such a discussion.
Cheers
Quote by Nomadic Kiwi: "Fascinating discussion board about ideology in the oddest place ever to find it. I Would like to point out a couple of things to you GraGoste with your thoughts of liberals being hypocratic. "
You'd be surprised how IMDB brings out the philosophers, politicians, soldiers and armchair intellectuals. So much for the "it's only a movie", eh?
I welcome healthy, mature debate with healthy, mature individuals, so I shall take issue with some of your posts:
Quote: "Liberal by definition is one that seeks liberty...feeling that the vast majority of people are just & good intentioned..."
I will specify about American Liberals, so as not to offend those who actually believe in liberty: Liberals in America are so concerned with controlling words (thereby controlling thoughts) that they realize THEIR idea of liberty may conflict with actual liberty, and justice.
Quote:"Not being American I have no clue who Tookie Williams is,"
Tookie Williams is a gang leader who murdered four people in a robbery, and was executed for it. Now, there was a big fuss about saving his life because he wrote a children's book. Great. Now, these are the same people who argue it's ok to kill an unborn child. Now, it doesn't matter if it's just two cells, or a 36 week old fetus. It deserves a fighting chance. People like ol' Tookie had their chance and blew it. He killed four people in the process of stealing from them. Now, What's more humane: locking him up for the rest of his life, or putting him out of our misery? No, killing him wont bring them back, but it may cause others to think before they pull a trigger.
Quote: "I'll move onto your comment about whales & rainforests. Liberals often have a tendency to want to do something about the environment, and that is not bad"
True, but at what price? In 2001, four firefighters were killed fighting a wildfire because the closest water source contained endangered species fish. Species of wildlife were going extinct LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG before humans were around to muck things up. Environmentalist groups basically had NO sympathy.
I think that's pretty sorry that they gnash their teeth and cry rivers for the terrorist at Guantanamo Bay, Saddam Hussein, and Tookie Williams, and just write off Firefighters and unborn children.
It's THAT type of hypocritical thinking that keeps me from taking the liberal mindset seriously.
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.
Cheers for your comments Gragoste Always good to have healthy debate and sad if it becomes personalised, abusive, irrational, & with no factual backing.
Thanks for info on Tookie Williams, he obviously did some bad things. Nevertheless, the major issue I have with the death penalty is that no matter how one tries to spin it...it is still state sanctioned murder done in the name of justice. A State should know better, not be lowered to the same level as the criminals, a state or law enforcement body should not do anything that could implicate it into committing the very crimes it is sanctioned to stop. We are sophisticated enough as people and as a human society to move beyond the old testament's 'eye for an eye.'
Its ideology too, if you believe that people are inherently good then when one goes 'bad' it is societies failings and not the man. The question that need to be asked is why did this guy join a gang, and do the robbery in the first place? If however you believe that people are inherently greedy, selfish, & bad then such murders are actually an acceptable part of society and the death penalty just a way of culling the very 'worst'.
I do wonder who is the worse person is though. A guy like Tookie who murders 4 people, Osama who indirectly causes 3000+ innocent deaths, or George W Bush who ordered a couple of wars in which conservatively more than 200,000 innocent people have been killed. (Including an additional 3000+ of his own Americans.)
"Liberal by definition is one that seeks liberty"
There are multiple definitions for "Liberal". The ones which seem to be most true most often, in my experience, have been "excessive" and "morally unrestrained". Of course that's on a national point of view. More locally, the individuals I know and have known personally who would define themselves as "liberal" don't allow their personal desires and opinions to override their ethical and moral beliefs. As with any ideological group, American Liberals can easily be divided into those who take the time to process a thought and those who speak and act without ever firing a single neuron. :) But then, really... I suppose it could be said that's true for the American people as a whole....
To the individual who began this thread: like Bush or dislike him, you'd have to be ignorant to disagree with the fact that he's a man of strong principle. There's nothing ambiguous about the guy. He makes it clear where he stands and then doesn't back down. Personally, I admire him for his integrity and tenacity, whether or not I believe in his causes. He must be, however, the absolute worst public speaker who has ever held the office. But you know, every President has weak points and strong. GW's are just a touch more apparent than others' have been. :D He also seems to me to be a man of strong & genuine heart. This trait doesn't typically allow one much capacity for wise and logical decision-making. But in a nation which sorely lacks compassion all too often, I'd say he's been a perfect counter balance as a leader.
George W. Bush is a glove puppet!!
shareLOL Wow. It's incredible the depths to which some people are willing to exert their minds. :P lol
share
:: "To the individual who began this thread: like Bush or dislike him, you'd have to be ignorant to disagree with the fact that he's a man of strong principle. There's nothing ambiguous about the guy. He makes it clear where he stands and then doesn't back down." ::
Just because he doesn't back down doesn't make what he believes in justified. He still believes the War in Iraq is completely justified and necessary, even though hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed.
:: "Personally, I admire him for his integrity and tenacity, whether or not I believe in his causes." ::
Not so much tenacity as it is stubbornness to admit he is wrong.
Just because you believe him to be wrong doesn't make him wrong. Just because he believes he's right doesn't make him right. But anyone who believes in something and doesn't stand behind it with conviction, doesn't have my respect.
sharewow. the OP gives us liberals a bad name.
Those who believe in telekinesis, raise my hand.
I am tired of American Liberals who can't keep their mouths shut. Really.
I agree with GraGoste entirely, but that isn't even the point. Why is that so many liberals start these childish, barely educated internet debates just to stir up an argument? I do NOT believe the OP was looking for an intelligent, mature debate, but a silly, internet fight. Now mind you, republicans will do this too, but it's like no one blames the liberals because the republicans are "just *beep*
For all you people out there, as GraGoste stated, that are liberal truly for LIBERTY, i apologize. It's not my intention to generalize any of the political parties. I'm so just sick of hearing this everywhere i go via internet. And please, on the Good Morning Vietnam message boards? Seriously? Nothing was said in regards to quote-on-quote "liberal-hating", so why bring it up? To cause an argumenent, that's why.
I'm just picking a random comment to reply to the entire discussion:
"Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
Truth, my ass. Just a bunch of willfully ignorant bigots fighting their straw dogs. If the shoe fits, wear it.