Funnily the UNELECTED GOVERMENT OF IRAN is the one developing nukes and not iraq. if this war is about spreading democracy, why isnt the us goverment help the trapped irannian people who are the biggest victims of terror? the mullahs in iran are the terror masters. funding from hezbollah to alqaeda. yet the allies of the united states like england, france and germany deal with the mullahs for cheap oil. what happen to spreading democracy?
Do I qualify as a right-winger? Seriously though, don't let it stop you BJ, for a simple reason: when someone accuses you or any other poster of being 'terrorist sympathizers' or 'Bin Laden lover', that's precisely intended to avoid debating the issues, which I found true time and time again. Simply put, they fail to make a counterpoint or a counter-argument to legitimately argue the issue at hand, and therefore immediately pull out the 'McCarthyist' card once you dare to challenge their views. ANYONE, I don't care if they are right-leaning or lefties, who uses such tactics should be called for what he is: a coward. So really, it's an admission of defeat, you should consider it a trophy of honor.
Ahh, yes. The BJ 2am drunk post. Did you really need to spend 23 lines gracing us with your expert opinion about a couple of posters, then arrogantly declaring that there is nobody worthy of debating with you?
Ahh yes if a post has an empassioned viewpoint it must be a from a drunk, right? There is no other reason for it. I am waiting for a 2am substance post from you... and waiting... and waiting...
as always, i'm amazed at the personal nature of your attacks, and the charge of mccarthyism is simply laughable! as if, countering your ridiculous charges on "a basketball bbs" could silence anyone. the problem is, you, and democrats in general, are simply not used to being challenged on substance, and so resort to criticising language and personality, rather than developing policies of your own that resonate with the electorate. in 2004 the democratic party tried to make the election about a 30 year old war. now, in the run up to the mid-term elections, you're trying to turn the debate into a referendum on the Bush presidency and war in iraq. just an fyi, Bush is not running again. the "rule21 stunt" amounts to nothing more than a democratic hissy fit that fitzgerald didn't produce the indictments of Rove and Cheney they'd hoped for. And now one wonders whether the American people will have faith in and trust a party that claims that it was gullibly duped into war? Is the most compelling issue facing our country re-fighting the reasons to go to war, thereby making the Democrats the official anti-war party? Or should we be striving to acheive reasonable success in Iraq? If you believe in the latter, then one would hope the democrats would be searching for better ways of winning this war, rather than driving their party over a cliff of despair and indignation. Democrats should be careful that they are positioning themselves as a party that is gullible, feckless and indecisive on national security. It may prove immensly satisfying to you, mc josh, and moveon, but beware of the long-term impact on a party which already suffers from a perception of being weak on national security. it's not a winning electoral strategy, and if the party doesn't pull itself out of this mindset, and yes, moveon, 2006 and 2008 will produce defeats of historic significance for the democrats.
texxx, when do you debate with anyone? Clearly, you could, if you ever chose to dump this charade you keep foisting on us here... that of Trader_J's stepchild. How many times have you accused Batman of being "drunk?" Answer? Whenever you get the "chance," which has been several times. It's offensive to me. Batman probably laughs at you when you do it now, but maybe he doesn't. The important point is that he, or anyone else, shouldn't have to read crap like that, which is a personal insult based on nothing. He posts at 2am? What on earth does that have to do with anything? As I recall, he is deeply involved in theatre. Do you have any notion of the lifestyle surrounding that profession? It's almost the definition of "staying up late." I stay up late, and I only wish I did the creative work that he does. I'm terribly jealous of those who have an outlet for their creativity, and are good at it. I'm the opposite. Most of my life I've felt frustrated because I haven't found the will, the discipline, to put in the hard work being creative entails, and it's not because I haven't made sporadic attempts at it. I just don't get it... what is your point in posting like this? Keep D&D Civil.
The difference is that batman was addressing some substance of other posts. People were talking about the lack of regular conservative posters on the bbs. It was said that you might be the lone one with any substance to add or something to that effect. Batman commented about the substance that was going on. bigtexxx instead tried to demean batman personally and didn't deal with any of the substance of his post or any of the previous posts.
You know I don't like to toot my own horn but Batman Jones may I suggest you take a look at the "D & D Moratorium" thread and the 6 voluntary suggestions I make there.
Just needed to note that the Government of Iran was elected. It wasn't a great election but it was a contested election and not a showpiece.
That isn't much different than you calling people on this bbs terrorist sympathizers, supporters of Osama, or Saddam, and the like. It was partially related to what was being talked about. Batman was right that you employ McCarthyesque techniques. Those are demeaning and reprehensible. They are also un-American and do stand against everything the United States is supposed to stand for. Batman may have added some to his post, but it still addressed issues that were being discussed. So even if you didn't like the add on's there was still content in his post that addressed the issues people were talking about. bigtexxx's addressed none of that merely made a quip about someone being drunk and posting at 2 AM as if either of those things was bad.
Very well put the truth needs to come out .Although if he was not lying the other side is still going to scream .
As for the original topic that basso started the thread with: The article posted is not relevant to the closed session issue, and democrats wanting answers re WMD evidence and administration statements pre-war. The argument is: democrats believed that there were WMD too, and they voted support for the war. Therefore, they may not investigate claims that the administration either exaggerated or fabricated evidence to gather support for the war. This argument is illogical. Can anyone explain to me how or why it makes sense?
1st off quite listening to the spin doctors. 2nd The Senate authorized the president to Invade Iraq if Saddam didn't give up his weapons of mass destruction. Since Saddam didn't have any WMD’s the president had no right to invade Iraq. And if he knew this of falsified info to give him that right that is a criminal action. 3rd Surely you aren't stating that the Senate gets all the data that the president does? The Administration gives the Senate it thinks it is appropriate. It can draw any picture it wants. The Senate doesn't get raw data. 4th. "they may not investigate..." what does that mean. If they were lied to by the president and voted to support aggression against Iraq, then the congress finds out that the Intel they were given was wrong or falsified they now have no right to investigate? Just stop.
You're misunderestimating me, my friend. I proposed the argument as illogical. I would like one of the conservative proponents of said argument to defend it, as it makes no sense.
