lack of conservative intellectuals

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, This thread is a joke right? Right? Ounumbered on forums? Only forum likes this one where Bush hate and "progressive" Ideals are regualarly given the spot light and more conservative threads get butterfaced because of biased moderation. I can point you to 2 active forums I know of that are more conservative then liberal. I can lead you to, my favorite leftwing site, a web site populated by tolerant, diversity loving , progressivly thinking individuals that welcome anyone who agrees with them, and demonize and ban those that do not. Seriously this has to be one of the funniest thread I have ever seen.

ROFLOL! I was thinking the same thing. I can provide links to several conservative dominated forums, but know of only one that bans any who are not in lockstep with a single ideology, and that is a leftist site.

[Yankeefan21]

I think there are MANY conservative intellectuals out there. I mean REAL conservatives people who believe in balanced budgets and smart planning before going to war ect.

Neo-Con intellectuals though? haven't seen or heard from one yet.

[bishop]

is this a discussion about conservative forums or volconvo's moderation or a discussion about the intellectual base of conservatism itself?

ROFLOLFL

never seen anyone butterfaced because they offered a political opinion here.

[Knightpass]

[quote=Yankeefan21,]

Your argument is so bogus. Now you're changing the definition of WMD and weapons, etc ("Moving the goalposts"). In order to try to deny the obvious. A Mortar shell with sarin was fired on our troops. The sarin agent didnt cause massive casualties only becauise the sarin nglected to mix properly upon detonation. And another shell was found rigged as a bomb

Could that same shell have been fired at a range long enough to reach US shores? THAT'S the definition of a WMD as defined by the bush admin.

Yes, and no. That's not the ONLY definition.

At the time of the Gulf War, we acquired irrefutable proof that Iraq's designs were not limited to the chemical weapons it had used against Iran and its own people, but also extended to the acquisition of nuclear weapons and biological agents. In the past decade North Korea has become the world's principal purveyor of ballistic missiles, and has tested increasingly capable missiles while developing its own WMD arsenal. Other rogue regimes seek nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as well. These states' pursuit of, and global trade in, such weapons has become a looming threat to all nations.

We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. Our response must take full advantage of strengthened alliances, the establishment of new partnerships with former adversaries, innovation in the use of military forces, modern technologies, including the development of an effective missile defense system, and increased emphasis on intelligence collection and analysis.

Our comprehensive strategy to combat WMD includes:


Proactive counterproliferation efforts. We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed. We must ensure that key capabilities -- detection, active and passive defenses, and counterforce capabilities -- are integrated into our defense transformation and our homeland security systems. Counterproliferation must also be integrated into the doctrine, training, and equipping of our forces and those of our allies to ensure that we can prevail in any conflict with WMD-armed adversaries.


Strengthened nonproliferation efforts to prevent rogue states and terrorists from acquiring the materials, technologies and expertise necessary for weapons of mass destruction. We will enhance diplomacy, arms control, multilateral export controls, and threat reduction assistance that impede states and terrorists seeking WMD, and when necessary, interdict enabling technologies and materials. We will continue to build coalitions to support these efforts, encouraging their increased political and financial support for nonproliferation and threat reduction programs. The recent G-8 agreement to commit up to $20 billion to a global partnership against proliferation marks a major step forward.


Effective consequence management to respond to the effects of WMD use, whether by terrorists or hostile states. Minimizing the effects of WMD use against our people will help deter those who possess such weapons and dissuade those who seek to acquire them by persuading enemies that they cannot attain their desired ends. The United States must also be prepared to respond to the effects of WMD use against our forces abroad, and to help friends and allies if they are attacked.

It has taken almost a decade for us to comprehend the true nature of this new threat. Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0920-05.htm

Secondly that mortar shell could have been smuggled from any individual from any of the terror sponsoring countries and hardly constitutes as a smoking gun.

"Could have" That's your conjecture. Try proving it. If they were able to smuggle one or two, then why not dozens? If they are getting it from outside, then where? Pakistan? Syria? And if that is the case, then why arent theyu raining down on Israel as well?

Why not try your own ideas and conclusions instead of getting your friends over at DU to provide your talking points for you? They're just misleading you.

Oh yea like you never grabbed some help for the purposes of link finding from your neo-con pals from other forumns or The National Review.

That's right. I didn't. Google is my friend. I proviided the links to where I got those articles, didnt I?

So I went over to DU to ask around for a link that exposed the "big find" because most people over there have such links bookmarked and I don't. So what?

Sew buttons (Odd Couple). You go over to DU tell them you need help, and repeat what they told you. Dont you just do your own research? I mean, parroting what they told you isnt research.

[quote]Everything I've written were my own ideas and conclusions it's just before I write stuff I like to provide a little substance for it whether you agree or disagree with the substance.[quote]

Oh, I agree that those are your ideas. Like me, you already have your mind made up on where you stand on the issues, but it;s not such a god idea to ask your fellow DUers for talking points, and then not looking into THEIR talking points to see how factual it is. The below part about the shells is just an example. Now, had you done your homework, you wouldn't have made a mistake like that. Instead, you just repeat the information they gave you.

There WAS sarin gas found, not with the 122mm Rockets, but with 155mm shells. That article talks about 122mm rockets being tested negative for sarin (though the article also says that traces are found too, so it's a bit confusing). The sarin was found with the 155 mortar shells:

Okay so I stand corrected on that. So this is proof positive right here that justifies 900 soldier deaths and thousands of innocents being killed?

See, I can't talk straight with you. I give you a factoid, and you try to pigenhole it into "So this is proof positive right here that justifies 900 soldier deaths and thousands of innocents being killed". So who is saying that? Who is justifying the deaths of any soldiers? Not I.

How exactly do these mortar shells constitute proof of "imminent threat?"

Yet another example of a lefty talking point that you didn't look into. You just parrot it.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_1...870544034101565
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgo...g20031017.shtml

I bet Syria has these types of weapons too let's go invade them next you lead the charge okay?

Non sequitor. And if I'm leading the charge, where will you be?

[Yankeefan21]

Sew buttons (Odd Couple). You go over to DU tell them you need help, and repeat what they told you. Dont you just do your own research? I mean, parroting what they told you isnt research. Oh, I agree that those are your ideas. Like me, you already have your mind made up on where you stand on the issues, but it;s not such a god idea to ask your fellow DUers for talking points, and then not looking into THEIR talking points to see how factual it is. The below part about the shells is just an example. Now, had you done your homework, you wouldn't have made a mistake like that. Instead, you just repeat the information they gave you.

First things first, this is bullshit I NEVER asked them for help in the sense that I couldn't form my own talking point or opinion I was asking for some links because I lost mine and since you're a troll of the site you should know that the majority of these people have links ready to share at anytime it's quicker than doing a search. More efficient get it?

See here's what I said:

"this one dope keeps insisting that I am full of shit that no WMD's were found cause according to Fox News (provided a link and everything) Sarin gas was found. I seaarch for it and I see one story saying the British found it then the Polish found it.

First off it sounds to me like this discovery was made cause some insurgent fired a sarin rocket(s) which to me is not proof of "mass wmd's"

Some terrorist coming from Pakistan or any other Arab country could easily have just smuggled in to take shots at our troops using such weapons could they not? That's one thing right there that I feel the need to point out.

As far as anything else have any of the talking heads in Washington announced that this is not proof of mass WMD's?"

Oh wow how desperate how I look asking for some links you can totally tell that I am asking for someone to tell me what to say.

So point out right here where I asked for talking points? where did I ask for opinions or what to say? sure I used a link that was given to me a little too fast, yea I was a little too fast on the draw, I used a link I got from them, I was off, but did I not admit it when you pointed it out?

So after unspinning your bullshit attempt to make me look like someone who does no private research and uses other people's talking points care to point out where else I used DU or any other forumn to "parrot" their talking points?

"Could have" That's your conjecture. Try proving it. If they were able to smuggle one or two, then why not dozens? If they are getting it from outside, then where? Pakistan? Syria? And if that is the case, then why arent theyu raining down on Israel as well?

Well prove that this finding equals justification for the "imminent threat" that the man you support claimed existed. Would you say that no terror sponsoring countries would have a few of these lying around? what made Iraq first on the list to focus all attention on?

See, I can't talk straight with you. I give you a factoid, and you try to pigenhole it into "So this is proof positive right here that justifies 900 soldier deaths and thousands of innocents being killed". So who is saying that? Who is justifying the deaths of any soldiers? Not I.

Well according to you this Sarin gas situation justifies as WMD therefore you should have no problem saying that it was worth the 900 soldiers deaths and countless civilians because this war was based on combating WMD's that were an imminient threat so I'd say I'm not pigeonholing you, you're just having a hard time trying to convince yourself much less others that this war was truly worth it.

Non sequitor. And if I'm leading the charge, where will you be?

I will be here in the US telling Bush to reinstate your hazard pay and benefits and to make sure if anything happens to you that your family isn't forced from their government subsidized home.

[Kyran]

Originally posted by bishop,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bishop,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>how do you know that i haven't been in the same situation (laid off from a MW job after a MW increase) myself?[/b]

Because if you knew what it's like, you would agree with me. Heck, if you believed me, you'd agree with me. None of these things are true.

Originally posted by bishop,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bishop,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>regardless, thanks, you helped prove the point i made earlier. especially since you dedicated the vast majority of your posts here to kerry bashing.[/b]

You're kidding right? I would just as likely vote for Howard Stern as I would for Dubya. Too bad Howard isn't electable. Sorry, but you aren't gonna paint me as some kind of right-wing fanatic. I can't stand John Kerry. I'm a capitalist and he's an anti-capitalist. That's all there is to it.

<!--QuoteBegin-bishop,@
i also noticed that you chose not to explain why our pre-emptive invasion was necessary - specifically when bush chose to invade. when you dodge direct questions like that and resort to partisan rhetoric, and claim that you're always right, you lose credibility my friend.[/quote]

Bishop, I said I'd defend the facts. I'm not going to fall for your trap. Why do I need to explain the preempitive invasion's necessity when that is subjective? Besides, you need to swallow the facts before demanding me to answer any more questions. That's out of turn.

It's not my argument you're asking me to defend. Don't put words in my mouth. My opinion is that we needed to do something about Saddam, and about the middle east governments in general because of the violence and injustice. But that's a whole other issue. My ideas are different from Dubya's...so don't confuse us.

Furthermore, if you wish to challenge my credibility, try proving that I did something sneaky like lying or cheating. Better yet, try arguing with me on the issues instead of baiting me with straw men.

<!--QuoteBegin-Bishop,
hardly useless.. by law, we cannot attack another country unless they either attack us first, if we face the threat of imminent attack or if the u.n. security council approves military action[/quote]

Commie, where do we go to vote for UN officials? Ah to heck with it, I'm voting YOU into office. Now that Commie is a UN official, Bishop, you will have to respect his decisions regarding whether we go to war or not. Sorry but I'm not gonna wait for you to have a say-so in the election. In fact, from this point on, Commie will reign supreme with a panel of NRA members and no Americans shall be allowed to vote leaders into it.

Do you understand now why your "by law" argument is flawed? Unelected officials cannot make decisions for the United States. That violates our right to vote, it violates our soverignty, and it passes powers enumerated only to Congress onto a foreign body.

Cmon Bishop, argue with me. Tell me why I can't elect UN officials but it can pass laws regulating my country. So much for We The People. And you talk about MY credibility?

I have you cornered. You can either concede or say "Too bad if you don't like the UN's laws. You don't have a say-so in the matter." I'd hammer you some more, but I'll give you this one chance to change your mind and start supporting that burned up scrap of paper we call the Constitution. Take your pick.

Who wants to argue?

[Knightpass]

"First things first, this is bullshit I NEVER asked them for help in the sense that I couldn't form my own talking point or opinion I was asking for some links because I lost mine and since you're a troll of the site"

I'm a lurker of the site. A troll is someone who posts disruptive messages. I dont even post there.


"you should know that the majority of these people have links ready to share at anytime it's quicker than doing a search. More efficient get it?"

Google is more efficient. Doing it that way just might lead you astray as they did.

"See here's what I said: "this one dope keeps insisting that I am full of shit that no WMD's were found cause according to Fox News (provided a link and everything) Sarin gas was found. I seaarch for it and I see one story saying the British found it then the Polish found it. First off it sounds to me like this discovery was made cause some insurgent fired a sarin rocket(s) which to me is not proof of "mass wmd's"

If there's one, there's bound to be more. As General Kimmitt said "There may be more out there."

See, this is moving the goalposts. The left has always made it a point to scream "where are the wmd", and when we find it, they either fall silent (wise choice) or they move the goalpost by changing what they asked for. Now the problem is that this isnt MASS wmd.

When I do a google search on the phrase "where are the wmd", I get the following results: Newsgroups, this phrase was used 7,280 times. For websites, 4,130 times.

But when I change that to "where are the mass wmd", I get the following:

Your search - "where are the mass wmd" - did not match any documents.

If and when we do find MASS wmd's they'll just change the goalposts again. It's easier than admitting they were wrong.

"Some terrorist coming from Pakistan or any other Arab country could easily have just smuggled in to take shots at our troops using such weapons could they not? That's one thing right there that I feel the need to point out."

It's a valid point, but you earlier complained about those sarin shells are not proof of MASS wmds. And you turn around and pull this conjecture out of thin air: Maybe it was smuggled in. We got the WMD, and still thats not proof of something as far as you're concerned, then you turn around and invent this scenario out of thin air as if that was proof of something.

"So point out right here where I asked for talking points? where did I ask for opinions or what to say? sure I used a link that was given to me a little too fast, yea I was a little too fast on the draw, I used a link I got from them, I was off, but did I not admit it when you pointed it out?"

Yeah you did. And you did use it. If those threads are not for the purpose of looking for help, then what were they for? Bragging? Oh. look at me! I'm debating Freepers! Arent I clever!

"So after unspinning your bullshit attempt to make me look like someone who does no private research and uses other people's talking points care to point out where else I used DU or any other forumn to "parrot" their talking points?"

I already did in my previous post. That part about the 122 shells was the example.


"Well prove that this finding equals justification for the "imminent threat" that the man you support claimed existed."

Again, this is a mis representation of what Bush said.
_______________________________
What the administration said
Those defending Bush most often point to an excerpt from the President's 2003 State of the Union speech in which he explicitly said Iraq was not an imminent threat:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

Furthermore, these Bush administration defenders accurately point out that neither President Bush nor any of his aides ever outright described Iraq as an "imminent threat."

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030128-19.html
__________________________________


"Would you say that no terror sponsoring countries would have a few of these lying around?"

No. I know that Syria in particular has Sarin. I'm saying you're grasping at straws in dismissing the signifigance of the sarin shells that were found. So spiteful you are towards Bush, that you try to dismiss this finding by coming up with some scenario off the top of your head. Admittedly, it is a valid point, but you are grasping at straws. Anything to try to tear down Bush rather than admit he was right.

"what made Iraq first on the list to focus all attention on?"

A thousand things. His thumbing his nose at his surrender agreement (constantly shooting at our planes in the no fly zone, refusing to prove that he adequately disarmed, etc.), posing a threat to the regbion, the geographical location of the country, just perfect for the war on terrorism. Removing Saddam from power has been US policy since 1998 (The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).......too many to list.


"Well according to you this Sarin gas situation justifies as WMD"

No. Not the "situation". The shells that contained sarin gas are wmd.

"therefore you should have no problem saying that it was worth the 900 soldiers deaths and countless civilians"

Wrong. I should and do have a problem with saying that. This is you trying to put words in my mouth. That is YOUR definition, YOUR spin, YOUR prefered description, not mine.

Pointing out the fact that the sarin shells are in fact wmd by definition, has nothing to do with what YOU think I "should" say.

Here's an idea: If this sarin gas situation does NOT justify as "mass wmd", then you should have no problem in saying that Bush is right, Kerry is wrong, etc, etc.

"because this war was based on combating WMD's that were an imminient threat"

False.

Bush laid out a very elegant argument for war to the America people that outlined the reasons for war, and not one of them was "combating WMD's that were an imminient threat." This war was based on several things, some of which were:

1. Saddam was a madman who brutalized his people.
2. Saddam has failed to live up to the peace agreement.
3. Saddam had to be stopped BEFORE he did become an imminent threat with WMD.
4. Saddam supported terrorism.


"you're just having a hard time trying to convince yourself"

Projection. You're having a hard time convincing yourself of otherwise. I have no such problem.

"much less others that this war was truly worth it."

When I read the blogs of the Iraqi citizens, how greateful they are towards us for freeing them and helping them build a better life for themselves, then yes I think it was worth it.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1114879/posts
http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/

"I will be here in the US telling Bush to reinstate your hazard pay and benefits and to make sure if anything happens to you that your family isn't forced from their government subsidized home."

What if I wanted you on the front lines with me?

PS: I dont live in a government subsidized home. Never did.

[Kyran]

Okay Yankee, you want the lemon? You're GETTING the lemon served Southern-style.

Originally posted by Yankeefan21,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Yankeefan21,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Ahh yes the Sarin gas argument. Amazing how you neo-cons are holding onto this one. These weren't weapons they were relics they were NOT wmd's.[/b]

I'm a fusionist, not a neo-conservative. Your method of deducting political philosophies is flawed.

Sarin gas bombs are not toasters. I was refuting the notion that "Saddam had no WMDs" specifically. It's amazing how you liberals (which I figured out before you told me) refuse to argue against Colin Powell's video surveillance of that Iraqi Depot prior to the US invasion. Logically, we can infer that these trucks moved WMDs because of A) the location being a weapons storage site and B) the proximity of the shipment to the timing of the UN weapon inspectors' arrival.

What can you say now? If you argue Saddam moved a bunch of relics, then I'll say "Why? The inspectors weren't looking for relics. They were looking for WMDs."

Now have your goddamn lemon and be quiet.

Note: I typed all that above before reading Knightpass's active WMD proof argument. I'm going to leave it in my post just to remind you who you're dealing with.

Originally posted by Yankeefan21,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Yankeefan21,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And yes I will fully admit right here I'm a Kerry liberal Democrat so you know exactly what to expect out of me.[/b]

Mmmmmmm...pro abortion, pro minimum wage, pro workman's comp, pro overtime law, pro child labor law, pro affirmative action, pro social security, pro medicaid, pro medicare, pro public schooling & anti-unfunded mandates, anti-capitalism, anti-privatization (of anything the government does from schools to welfare), pro national health care, and pro free trade agreements.

Let's not forget to mention what you believe:
-Evil capitalist pigs in corporations run America with their money.
-The USA controls the world.
-WMDs are why we went to war with Iraq, but it was really for oil.
-The UN should decide whether the US goes to war.

I could go on, but I think this will suffice to verify that I am aware of your views to a degree of accuracy that is either near or at perfect.

I'm not sure if you still retain the view that Bush lied about WMDs though.

Originally posted by Yankeefan21, See the way it works is you raise the minimum wage and people like your friends still get to keep your jobs because by typical law of the market the first to be cut are high schoolers who really don't need the jobs as bad as older people, say like your friends, who have families and many bills as opposed to high schoolers just lookin to make some extra cash so they don't have to beg mommy and daddy for everything.

No, let ME tell YOU the way it works while you finish your lemon. Once the phone girls get laid off, everyone else gets to do their jobs in addition to the ones they already had. That's more money, but it's more work too. If people could do it all, ya think the employer would have those jobs around? Plus, with no teenage girls around to flirt with, employee morale is going to go down the toilet.

Jump in the MW thread and argue with me if you think you can win.

By the way, NICE MOVE buddy. That was really slick to advocate a "living wage" and then turn around and shift your position to "keeping up with inflation." It didn't go unnoticed, so don't try that crap with me again. To err is human, but inconsistency is against the forum rules.

Originally posted by Yankeefan21, Wow well we just got someone from the O'Reilly school of debating here don't we? buddy I already got you behind in this post alone.

Don't insult me. O'Reilly doesn't stand a chance. Oh and I'd check again to see who is stuffing who's face with lemon.

Originally posted by Yankeefan21, You're using bully tactics to push your point of view NOT the facts, and maybe the overblown ego act works with your wife or people smaller than you do but it ain't working here.

I'll take my confident approach over your "change my position before I get bombed like the Palestinians." No wonder you support Kerry. Seriously though, if you would point out how my tactics are against the forum rules I'll stop and apologize like a gentleman.

The only thing I started arguing about was the facts. Now see, your accusation that I am egotistical would stick if I didn't change my mind when shown better logic or facts. However, you have not presented any ideas that counter my views or the facts above in an objective fashion.

Originally posted by Yankeefan21, you see if they get an education early in life the likelyhood of them going to prison is far lower isn't it? and this is a far better investment for our nation and far cheaper too!

Hmm, I think I'm out of lemons.

My mistake! Here you are.

**Kyran plays the agreement card**

You are absolutely right! If we ship these kids to private schools, there will be less crime. This is a far better investment for our nation, and it costs nothing!

ROFLMAO!

Originally posted by Yankeefan21, So because I advocate investing in schools and trying to strengthen public education that means I do everything the government tells me.

Okay, I withdraw that statement. See? If you play by the rules you'll do well.

Originally posted by Yankeefan21, I take it you are strongly against the government constantly telling you to be on alert with all these terror warnings correct? since you hate the government always trying to tell you what to do?

Uh, no. I'm not against the government warning me that terrorists are on the move attacking my country. Your comparison is invalid.

<!--QuoteBegin-Yankeefan21,@
What facts? they're facts because you say so? it is a fact that Kerry wants the UN to rule America because you say so?[/quote]

LOL. GOD I love arguing with you! You ask for it and then you immediately change your mind when the facts become evident. OH MAN this thread rules.

Rule:
1.
a. Governing power or its possession or use; authority.
b. The duration of such power.

Ruling:
1. To exercise control, dominion, or direction over; govern.

I believe it is your argument that the UN decides when the USA goes to war. What if I didn't want to go to Iraq and the UN made me? Isn't that tyranny? Well the premise of your position relies on the idea that the UN has the authority (over war) which our Constitution only grants to Congress. The American public does not vote for UN officials.

What if the republicans got control of the UN and started sending our boys off to war without even hearing Congress vote? Would you admit it was ruling us then? YEAH, you would, but as long as people on your side are trying to rule America through the UN it's all fine and dandy.

I'm nowhere near out of lemons.

Now, let's talk about my translation of Kerry's speech. You disagree with my inferences. Here let me make this easier on you. I'll throw away numbers one and three.

"Unless foreign troops step foot on our soil, terrorists may do as they please."
John Kerry said that he would use force when it is required, however he means when HE believes it is required. So I applied the usual liberal idea of when it's okay to fight back -- which is never. Your only option is to say that Kerry would use military force (against some nation) in response to a terrorist attack. But hey, maybe you're thinking about a better answer.

"I will order the seizure of guns so that Arab-Americans are not killed."
Kerry wouldn't? Really? He wouldn't seize guns from Americans if terrorists attacked and consequentially racial tensions stirred against Arabs?

"I will ask the UN to find the terrorists and bring them to justice."
So Kerry would not do this? Would you argue that Kerry would go unilaterally after terrorists? I thought that was the problem with Bush. Explain yourself.

"I will give the UN full authority to decide when we go to war."
He would go to war without going through the UN first? Try again.

"I will cut military spending."
Kerry would NOT cut military spending? He's done it before.

Source:
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Kerry.htm

Sorry, but his voting record speaks for itself. No evidence huh? Okay, let's see you prove my source is wrong.

<!--QuoteBegin-Yankeefan21,
So minimum wage is evil but giving corporations corporate welfare and huge tax cuts even when they outsource core competencies is okay with you?[/quote]

Oh STFU with your straw man argument.

Let's clarify so you know what a fusionist thinks. MW is bad. Corporate welfare is bad. Tax cuts are good, tax cuts on the rich are great because the government ends up with more revenues from the increased market activity. I am in favor of a citizenship tax and opposed to all other forms of taxation. There should be one set amount that all Americans pay regardless of financial status. Equal rights & equal taxation.

Make sense now? And no, I'm not a hypocrite. Bush giving the airliners $20 billion was wrong. As far as I know, the only people on real corporate welfare are the banks, and Bush is not pushing any programs to give businesses taxpayer money by the month. Handouts are not welfare, but both are wrong in my book.

Yankee, lemme express my satisfaction with your performance in this debate. You seem like the Colmes (Hannity & Colmes) type of liberal. You argue, but apparently the fear of public opinion persuades you to react more appropriately concerning facts. You are an example to your ilk.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nephilim, Mr V, and friends...this forum is not dominated by leftists. It is dominated by facts, logic, and me. And Sean.

I'm reading Knightpass's posts here and I must say I'm impressed, astonished, and partially intimidated. I wouldn't debate with him unless I did some major studying and created an argument response tree. He's as ruthless as I am.

Finally...some good thinking individuals! Keep up the good work.

[giuliano]

Originally posted by Nephilim, ROFLOL! I was thinking the same thing. I can provide links to several conservative dominated forums, but know of only one that bans any who are not in lockstep with a single ideology, and that is a leftist site.

go ahead, make my day.

it's not a challenge, i'd be interested to see them. i already visit conservativex.com

[giuliano]

Originally posted by Nephilim, ROFLMAO! The very premise of this thread shows signs of ignorance and self avowed intellectual superiority based on political ideologies. Didn't the Nazi's do that too?

you're mistaking my claim of liberal intellectualism with an implication of liberal superiority. it's not, and that wasn't my intention.

intellectualism is not superiority, or evidence of being correct.

some of the most unintellectual people can be successful. dubya bush rose to the presidency, for crying out loud! one guy i like to point out is dennis rodmam (i'm a hoops fan) - anti-intellectual, but someone who cleverly cultivated his own success. that was no coincidence, he is a smart guy.

one of my strongest professional points by far is my intellectual ability. but i've learnt well that it alone will not get you far. it's not a mark of superiority.

[bishop]

kryan...


first off, i have been on the recieving end of minimum wage.. i've also put myself through college, and i'm currently putting myself through grad school. i know what it is to earn my keep and be on a budget. so don't assume that i'm some sort of priviledged jerk who doesn't know what it is to struggle.

You're kidding right? I would just as likely vote for Howard Stern as I would for Dubya. Too bad Howard isn't electable. Sorry, but you aren't gonna paint me as some kind of right-wing fanatic. I can't stand John Kerry. I'm a capitalist and he's an anti-capitalist. That's all there is to it.

i made that previous statement because rather than talk about conservative intellectualism, you did choose to focus your ire on kerry. it was definitely a tangent, and i'm used to seeing bush supporters defend their man by demonizing their enemy. that's a timeless tactic. my apologies in assuming that you were a bush supporter - your comments simply read exactly like those of a bush supporter.

Bishop, I said I'd defend the facts. I'm not going to fall for your trap. Why do I need to explain the preempitive invasion's necessity when that is subjective? Besides, you need to swallow the facts before demanding me to answer any more questions. That's out of turn.

well, the facts are the the pre-war tales were bogus. it's also clear that they didn't have a post-war plan. and, it's clear that we were never under the threat of imminent attack. so, against all those facts, i have had to question the necessity of this war. especially when all our reasons for going in there, rather than supporting the inspection process, haven't been vindicated.

Do you understand now why your "by law" argument is flawed? Unelected officials cannot make decisions for the United States. That violates our right to vote, it violates our soverignty, and it passes powers enumerated only to Congress onto a foreign body.

wrong. congress voted for the u.n. charter, so it is the law of the land.. you obviously would rather that not be the case, but it IS the law, like it or not. if you know your constitution, you'll know that all ambassadors are voted on by the senate. like here:

http://www.unausa.org/newindex.asp?place=h...fo/dc062804.asp

now, if you want your elected representatives to push to withdraw ourselves from the u.n., then you could do that. or, if you want to have a direct election for our ambassador to the u.n. (or any other country) then you could also do that. but to violate the u.n. charter is to break the law. very simple.

if our ambassador to the u.n., who takes his orders from the president and secretary of state, chooses to vote on an item a particular way, that vote is the country's vote. if we're opposed to something, we can veto that measure. so, whenever the u.n. passes a regulation regulating the globe (which includes our country), it means that we voted for it. feel free to prove me wrong.

I have you cornered. You can either concede or say "Too bad if you don't like the UN's laws. You don't have a say-so in the matter." I'd hammer you some more, but I'll give you this one chance to change your mind and start supporting that burned up scrap of paper we call the Constitution. Take your pick.

you claim victory way too soon and i'm not interested in a contest - i hope to debate with a peer. everything regarding the u.n. is purely constitutional. it was a treaty ratified by congress and signed by the president. again, feel free to prove me wrong.

[rcne]

'lack of conservative intellectuals' - huh? - we are not as vocal as some, we don't need to be.

Not to sound arrogant, but the un-conservative intellectuals are doing a fine job of displaying the 'sky is falling' characteristics which is in effect strengthening the message of the conservatives to middle America.

The people of the heartland of this nation are totally underestimated, and with the liberals doing such a fine job of shooting themselves in the foot, the conservative branch can just sit back and watch.

We all fail to understand the basic desire of people to 'remain the same' - in other words, if it does not effect me directly and immediately - why change?

I do agree with giuliano though, IQ and a five dollar bill will get you a cup of java at starbucks.

[bishop]

aren't things like balanced budgets, small government, etc., conservative ideals????

i think some people have forgotten what they really believe in.

is it sad that some people will look at gay marriage as being a more important issue than the $500+ billion deficit, or ever increasing government? i think it is, and it's definitely something that must be given a specific label - social conservativism. because they are clearly not fiscal conservatives.

the breakage of fiscal conservatives from the group represents the biggest blow to the big tent of conservative intellectuals. i haven't seen many people who truly are fiscal conservatives proud at what bush has done to our country's finances. and, most of the social conservatives from the heartland that i've debated seem to believe that gay marriage is more important than bankrupting the nation.

[Yankeefan21]

I'm a fusionist, not a neo-conservative. Your method of deducting political philosophies is flawed.

Well your argument reflected that of what a neo-con would say. Sorry I didn't see your "fusionist" tattoo.

[quote[
What can you say now? If you argue Saddam moved a bunch of relics, then I'll say "Why? The inspectors weren't looking for relics. They were looking for WMDs."
[/quote]

Maybe because they were trying to dispose of them? and the 122 mm shells WERE relics and tested negative for Sarin IF this is what you're talking about.

If this is not the stockpile you're talking about show me the stockpile of dangerous shells that were ready to be fired that we found hidden by Saddam.

Mmmmmmm...pro abortion,

No pro-choice, I would never advocate that any woman get an abortion. Outlawing abortion though would only lead to back alley jobs or rich women flying off to Europe to have the procedure done.

[quote[
pro minimum wage,
[/quote]

Yea to match inflation as I said.

pro workman's comp

yes but I think this needs to be reformed. I realize many people take advantage of this.

pro overtime law, pro child labor law, pro affirmative action, pro social security, pro medicaid, pro medicare, pro public schooling & anti-unfunded mandates,

anti-capitalism, anti-privatization (of anything the government does from schools to welfare), pro national health care, and pro free trade agreements.

Actually I favor a form of Capitalism that doesn't go unrestricted or unwatched. Pure lasse-faire would be dangerous with no regulations.

Your method of deducting economic philosophies is flawed.

Let's not forget to mention what you believe: -Evil capitalist pigs in corporations run America with their money. -The USA controls the world. -WMDs are why we went to war with Iraq, but it was really for oil. -The UN should decide whether the US goes to war.

Wow just like Knight telling ME what I believe.

No I don't believe evil capitalist pigs in corporations run America, I think certain government officials are just as guilty for the demise America is seeing today. Corporations are entities, not humans with minds, they cannot be held morally accountable.

We don't control the world, but our voice is easily the loudest.....so?

I've never said "No Blood for Oil" nor have I ever been part of that crowd. Truth is I don't know why we went to war with Iraq when clearly there are more imminent dangers out there than a Socialist dictator who never showed any probable cause to attack America.

Oh he had weapons that's probable cause? North Korea sets off a test nuke almost every month but we ignore that and then demands welfare?

Funny you go after me for supporting "liberal welfare" but a madman with nukes demanding aid from us is something to ignore?

Absolutely not. I would never advocate the UN decides when we go to war. In this case though we were NOT attacked NOR threatened. If so much as Saddam said "death to American infidels" I would be right there on the pro-war boat with you, but as it stands no proof that he was an imminent threat to our nation has been shown, and sorry but a couple of 155 mm shells that could've been smuggled in from some terrorist who could now safely cross the border since Saddam was out of power to attack our troops and a handful of leftover 122 mm shells from the Iran-Iraq war aren't sufficient to prove this.

You method of deducting stances on the issues is flawed.

By the way, you should be pointing the finger at some of the trailer queens down south there as they represent among the highest percentage of welfare acceptees and the evil Northerners up in the New England area are the ones that fund the majority of it.

No, let ME tell YOU the way it works while you finish your lemon. Once the phone girls get laid off, everyone else gets to do their jobs in addition to the ones they already had. That's more money, but it's more work too. If people could do it all, ya think the employer would have those jobs around? Plus, with no teenage girls around to flirt with, employee morale is going to go down the toilet.

You know I can't argue there. Your logic is that having some skirt to look at being more important than a person with a family to raise is a pretty shocking stance but this is about what I'd expect from a neo-con leaning individual.

By the way, how it works is, companies hire a surplus of workers as it is when the minium wage is low, if it is raised they typically will only hire what they need and not hire some teenagers "just for a little extra help"

By the way, NICE MOVE buddy. That was really slick to advocate a "living wage" and then turn around and shift your position to "keeping up with inflation." It didn't go unnoticed, so don't try that crap with me again. To err is human, but inconsistency is against the forum rules.

Well if you were educated as to how inflation works you would know that when I call for a living wage and then say it should match inflation it is one and the same.

When the minium wage matches or is higher than the current inflation rate, it can be considered "livable"

Don't insult me. O'Reilly doesn't stand a chance. Oh and I'd check again to see who is stuffing who's face with lemon

I believe it. That Levittown sissy would have nothing on you.

You are absolutely right! If we ship these kids to private schools, there will be less crime. This is a far better investment for our nation, and it costs nothing!

What about kid's parents who can't afford private schools? yes I understand that right now private schools are ridiculously priced due to the fact that it's either that way or the public school system way, and the market law would demand that the schools are priced competitively, however for millions it would still be unaffordable especially in larger cities (ever been to New York City?) and the rate of attendance would invariably be lower because of this.

I believe it is your argument that the UN decides when the USA goes to war.

Well you're wrong that's not what I believe. see above.

The only thing I started arguing about was the facts. Now see, your accusation that I am egotistical would stick if I didn't change my mind when shown better logic or facts. However, you have not presented any ideas that counter my views or the facts above in an objective fashion.

I have presented ideas that counter your views but you're not factually pointing out where I stand on issues. You're assuming where I stand and doing it in a very in your face manner. That's being egotistical and ignorant and the label sticks.


Want some lemon to help get it off?

John Kerry said that he would use force when it is required, however he means when HE believes it is required. So I applied the usual liberal idea of when it's okay to fight back -- which is never. Your only option is to say that Kerry would use military force (against some nation) in response to a terrorist attack. But hey, maybe you're thinking about a better answer.

Yea he'd use force when he believes it would be required. As in when we are under a serious threat or attack.

What's wrong with that? is it because he's to the left of you that you wouldn't trust him to use proper judegement? okay well that's your opinion if that's what it is.

"I will give the UN full authority to decide when we go to war." He would go to war without going through the UN first? Try again.

Where did you get this? I certainly didn't post that. This is what I posted from his DNC speech

I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President.  Let there be no mistake:  I will never hesitate to use force when it is required.  Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security.  And I will build a stronger American military.

Now, let's talk about my translation of Kerry's speech. You disagree with my inferences. Here let me make this easier on you. I'll throw away numbers one and three.

Well of course I disagree, but the problem is you translated those and called it "factual" when it's nothing more than your opinion.

Voted Against Weapons?  Not Quite.

"Kerry did not, in fact, vote specifically against "13 weapons systems" as the ad claims. The bills shown on screen are actually Pentagon appropriations bills Kerry voted against in 1990 (H.R. 5803, S. 3189) and 1995 (H.R. 2126 ). Of course, voting against overall military spending bills does amount to voting against everything in them, but even so it isn't quite the same as voting to eliminate specific weapons. We've addressed similar attacks by the Bush campaign in earlier articles, Feb. 26, March 16 and April 26 .

PFA's ad also fails to mention that Kerry voted for Pentagon money bills in 16 of his 19 years in the Senate. By that measure, Kerry was much more a supporter of "weapons systems our troops depend on" than he was an opponent.

Furthermore, Bush's own father, who was then President, and Richard Cheney, who was then Secretary of Defense, proposed to cut or eliminate several of the very same weapons that Republicans now fault Kerry for opposing. In his first appearance before Congress as Defense Secretary in April 1989, for example, Cheney outlined $10 billion in defense cuts including proposed cancellation of the AH-64 Apache helicopter, and elimination of the F-15E ground-attack jet. Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and targeted a total of 81 Pentagon programs for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. And the elder President Bush said in his 1992 State of the Union address: "After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B - 2 bombers. . . . And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles." So if Kerry opposed weapons "our troops depend on," so did Cheney and the elder President Bush.

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209

I'll await your angry charges at Bush and Cheney for cutting weapons spending.

Sorry, but his voting record speaks for itself. No evidence huh? Okay, let's see you prove my source is wrong.

Just did.

Yankee, lemme express my satisf