Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
Did you leftists get the memo?
Topic Started: Jan 21 2009, 12:22 AM (1,063 Views)
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
"You're with us, or you're against us" didn't win many countries over to us.


When Bush said that, he was referring to the free world, not America. "Us" included all the free world that was to unite against terrorism. But because of Bush Derangement Syndrome, which played into the "hate America" attitude that (contrary to what the whining, crybaby antiwar Left would have you believe) existed long before Bush ever thought about running for president, it was redefined to mean just the US, and used as another way to beat the man over the head.

Liberalism *is* a mental disorder.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brenda
Member Avatar
..............
RosemaryTwo
Jan 21 2009, 08:24 AM
Posted in another thread, but this is an interesting quote from Peggy Noonan:

Obama named in stark terms America's essential foe: "For those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror . . . we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." This had the authentic sound of a man who's been getting daily raw intelligence briefings and is not amused.

Sounds familiar

Hat tip to JBryan
“Weeds are flowers, too, once you get to know them.”
~A.A. Milne
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Phlebas
Jan 21 2009, 03:53 AM
So, if he hadn't said a word about terrorism, and how we are - or should - try to fight it, you would have complained that Obama wasn't going to do anything on that front. Too bad. The poor guy can't win.

Maybe he might not be a bad president. I guess he'll never satisfy the idealogues, though.
What does that meaningless conjecture have to do with Obama's language alluding to the war on terrorism?

My criticism is not of Obama at all, it is of the screechy leftist rhetoric that attacked Bush for using the term.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Quote:
 
we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken


Which sounds rather ironic coming from a candidate who was largely elected by those whose spirit was already broken, if they had one to begin with.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Mikhailoh
Jan 21 2009, 08:37 AM
Quote:
 
we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken


Which sounds rather ironic coming from a candidate who was largely elected by those whose spirit was already broken, if they had one to begin with.
It sounds to me like you're the one who didn't get the memo. You can find it here.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jan 21 2009, 08:40 AM
Mikhailoh
Jan 21 2009, 08:37 AM
Quote:
 
we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken


Which sounds rather ironic coming from a candidate who was largely elected by those whose spirit was already broken, if they had one to begin with.
It sounds to me like you're the one who didn't get the memo. You can find it here.
Conservatives don't take marching order from anyone. We don't have to since the classical liberal education teaches the citizen to think through issues for oneself, where as the modern liberal education (ala Dewey and the NEA) teaches the drone how to do in service of the technocracy.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
You might want to clarify which Dewey you're referring to. After all, there are products of this type of education reading this, ya know...... :D
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Good point. Should I use crayolas too?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Jan 21 2009, 08:48 AM
You might want to clarify which Dewey you're referring to. After all, there are products of this type of education reading this, ya know...... :D
He was talking about the inventor of the Dewey decimal system, of course. Wasn't it obvious?

:hat:
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
ivorythumper
Jan 21 2009, 08:37 AM
Phlebas
Jan 21 2009, 03:53 AM
So, if he hadn't said a word about terrorism, and how we are - or should - try to fight it, you would have complained that Obama wasn't going to do anything on that front. Too bad. The poor guy can't win.

Maybe he might not be a bad president. I guess he'll never satisfy the idealogues, though.
What does that meaningless conjecture have to do with Obama's language alluding to the war on terrorism?

My criticism is not of Obama at all, it is of the screechy leftist rhetoric that attacked Bush for using the term.
So answer the question. What would you have said if he didn't include anything about terrorism in his speech?
I know what you meant in the OP: "Aha! Obama referred to the 'war' on terrorism. Those 'leftists' objected to that term when Bush used it. Ergo, what a bunch of hypocrites." What a non-issue.
It's tough for idealogues like you to accept that people of all types voted for Obama, and people of all types hate terrorism. I guess you're the one doing the screeching now.
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RosemaryTwo
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!

Jon Stewart on the issue.
"Perhaps the thing to do is just to let stupid run its course." Aqua
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Phlebas
Jan 21 2009, 09:03 AM
So answer the question. What would you have said if he didn't include anything about terrorism in his speech?
I know what you meant in the OP: "Aha! Obama referred to the 'war' on terrorism. Those 'leftists' objected to that term when Bush used it. Ergo, what a bunch of hypocrites." What a non-issue.
It's tough for idealogues like you to accept that people of all types voted for Obama, and people of all types hate terrorism. I guess you're the one doing the screeching now.
I would have been genuinely surprised if he had not mentioned the threat of terrorism. Just as I would have been genuinely surprised if he had not mentioned the economic problems we face. So would you -- in fact it is unthinkable that he would not have mentioned it, so your point is really silly.

You of course want to make it a nonissue since you realize that all that leftist rhetoric was opportunistic, but evidently can't bring yourself to admit it, so instead you start up with the ad hominems.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
RosemaryTwo
Jan 21 2009, 09:05 AM
:lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

"When Obama says this stuff, I don't think he really means it -- AND THAT GIVES ME HOPE!!!!" :lol2:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
He was talking about the inventor of the Dewey decimal system, of course. Wasn't it obvious?


It was to me, but I wanted to be sure the Leftists understood it..
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
ivorythumper
Jan 21 2009, 09:32 AM
Phlebas
Jan 21 2009, 09:03 AM
So answer the question. What would you have said if he didn't include anything about terrorism in his speech?
I know what you meant in the OP: "Aha! Obama referred to the 'war' on terrorism. Those 'leftists' objected to that term when Bush used it. Ergo, what a bunch of hypocrites." What a non-issue.
It's tough for idealogues like you to accept that people of all types voted for Obama, and people of all types hate terrorism. I guess you're the one doing the screeching now.
I would have been genuinely surprised if he had not mentioned the threat of terrorism. Just as I would have been genuinely surprised if he had not mentioned the economic problems we face. So would you -- in fact it is unthinkable that he would not have mentioned it, so your point is really silly.

You of course want to make it a nonissue since you realize that all that leftist rhetoric was opportunistic, but evidently can't bring yourself to admit it, so instead you start up with the ad hominems.
It is a non-issue. Why would you think I "can't bring myself to admit" that some people say things for opportunistic motives? I call it like I see it from both sides.

If you want to pompost everytime Obama says or does something that people objected to Bush doing, go ahead. You'll be pretty busy.

Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Phlebas
Jan 21 2009, 09:56 AM
It is a non-issue. Why would you think I "can't bring myself to admit" that some people say things for opportunistic motives? I call it like I see it from both sides.

If you want to pompost everytime Obama says or does something that people objected to Bush doing, go ahead. You'll be pretty busy.

For all your claim to objectivity here, it is not evinced by your actual words.

I simply pointed out the obvious hollowness of the leftist rhetoric. You could have simply agreed.

But rather you launched into a meaningless conjecture about what I would have done if Obama hadn't said anything, how nothing will satisfy the "ideologues", yada yada.

Then when I remind you of the obvious point I was making, you again resort to a your silly question about how would I have responded. You can state it's a non issue, but it really is an issue since it elucidates the hollowness of the Left's rhetoric against Bush -- which was my point.

You then continue to make silly statement, now explicitly attacking me an ideologue, making another stupid conjecture about whether or not I can accept who voted for Obama, whether I can accept that all sorts of people hate terrorism, and tried to turn the table to call me screechy.

Again, you have so lost the point of the original topic and lapsed into ad hominem polemics that I have to assume you are in some sort of visceral reaction, since your rhetoric here is not rationally explicable. Maybe you're just pissed that he used the Left to get into a position of power.

And I see that for all your dissembling, you still have not admitted that the Left's rhetoric about the War on Terror was opportunistic.

But once again, I have to remind you, this is not about Obama, it's about the Leftist rhetoric. If I had know he would continue Bush's policies I would have been more likely to vote for him.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
What exactly was "the Left's rhetoric about the War on Terror"?



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
OperaTenor
Jan 21 2009, 12:31 PM
What exactly was "the Left's rhetoric about the War on Terror"?

:banghead:
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
OperaTenor
Jan 21 2009, 12:31 PM
What exactly was "the Left's rhetoric about the War on Terror"?

I can understand you forgetting about how bad things were under Carter, but it seems you are suffering from obamanesia.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Right at the top of your link to Wiki:
Quote:
 
The neutrality of this article is disputed


How about, in your own words? IT, I didn't ask what the Right's groupthink was, I asked for your meaning.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
You're a little confused about which side it is that engages in "group think"...
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
OperaTenor
Jan 21 2009, 12:34 PM
Right at the top of your link to Wiki:
Quote:
 
The neutrality of this article is disputed


How about, in your own words? IT, I didn't ask what the Right's groupthink was, I asked for your meaning.

Of course the neutrality would be disputed. Huge parts of it are a leftist screed that summarize the arguments of the Left. Did you bother to read it?

You honestly had no idea that the Left has criticized the Bush Administration for using the phrase "War on Terror"? Wow. Just Wow! :blink:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
You mean criticism such as the likes of "The Bush Crusade" by the apparent leftist, James P. Carroll?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
ivorythumper
Jan 21 2009, 12:48 PM
OperaTenor
Jan 21 2009, 12:34 PM
Right at the top of your link to Wiki:
Quote:
 
The neutrality of this article is disputed


How about, in your own words? IT, I didn't ask what the Right's groupthink was, I asked for your meaning.

Of course the neutrality would be disputed. Huge parts of it are a leftist screed that summarize the arguments of the Left. Did you bother to read it?

You honestly had no idea that the Left has criticized the Bush Administration for using the phrase "War on Terror"? Wow. Just Wow! :blink:
Yes, I read it.

No, it's not that at all. I want to hear what *you* mean by that phrase.

I can pretty much give odds that however I choose to interpret what you mean by it, that you will say it was something else.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
ivorythumper
Jan 21 2009, 12:27 PM
Phlebas
Jan 21 2009, 09:56 AM
It is a non-issue. Why would you think I "can't bring myself to admit" that some people say things for opportunistic motives? I call it like I see it from both sides.

If you want to pompost everytime Obama says or does something that people objected to Bush doing, go ahead. You'll be pretty busy.

For all your claim to objectivity here, it is not evinced by your actual words.

I simply pointed out the obvious hollowness of the leftist rhetoric. You could have simply agreed.

But rather you launched into a meaningless conjecture about what I would have done if Obama hadn't said anything, how nothing will satisfy the "ideologues", yada yada.

Then when I remind you of the obvious point I was making, you again resort to a your silly question about how would I have responded. You can state it's a non issue, but it really is an issue since it elucidates the hollowness of the Left's rhetoric against Bush -- which was my point.

You then continue to make silly statement, now explicitly attacking me an ideologue, making another stupid conjecture about whether or not I can accept who voted for Obama, whether I can accept that all sorts of people hate terrorism, and tried to turn the table to call me screechy.

Again, you have so lost the point of the original topic and lapsed into ad hominem polemics that I have to assume you are in some sort of visceral reaction, since your rhetoric here is not rationally explicable. Maybe you're just pissed that he used the Left to get into a position of power.

And I see that for all your dissembling, you still have not admitted that the Left's rhetoric about the War on Terror was opportunistic.

But once again, I have to remind you, this is not about Obama, it's about the Leftist rhetoric. If I had know he would continue Bush's policies I would have been more likely to vote for him.
I had visceral reaction. What a scream.
Sorry, we can go back and forth, but you come off as an idealogue. Now you've added condescending, but that's fairly predictable because it's usually what you are towards people with differing opinions.

As I said, I know what your OP point was. I don't hear many people objecting to the term "war on terrorism" outside of some extreme types. Hopefully, Obama will keep fighting terrorism a priority. That's what matters to me. Not what some people said in the past.
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4