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
  • 3
Did you leftists get the memo?
Topic Started: Jan 21 2009, 12:22 AM (1,062 Views)
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Phlebas
Jan 21 2009, 03:49 PM
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.
:uparrow: :uparrow: :uparrow:

What Phlebas said.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
OperaTenor
Jan 21 2009, 04:18 PM
Phlebas
Jan 21 2009, 03:49 PM
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.
:uparrow: :uparrow: :uparrow:

What Phlebas said.

+2
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!
Renauda
Jan 21 2009, 01:55 PM
You mean criticism such as the likes of "The Bush Crusade" by the apparent leftist, James P. Carroll?

:blink: I am sure you have a point in that.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
OperaTenor
Jan 21 2009, 02:03 PM
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.

It is tangential to the conversation what I think the term means, since the point is that the leftists used the phrase to bash Bush with a wide variety of arguments, and now we see Obama using the same sort of language. Just last weem Milliband opined in the Guardian, "The incoming Obama administration is expected to avoid using the term "war on terror" and adopt a more multilateral and less military-focused approach to global threats." He was essentially wrong within 1/2 hour of Obama's taking office.

Do you want a friendly wager that even most of the extreme left will drop their screechy rhetoric about the term now that Obama has given the notion his seal of approval?

But for the sake of discussion, war can basically be understood as a protracted military action against hostiles. Do you have a problem with that idea, or that it can coherently be used to describe our actions against forces of international terrorism?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Semantics aside, I can't think of a single person who has said we should not be engaged in fighting terrorism, so, as Phlebas alluded, there is nothing to wager.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Phlebas
Jan 21 2009, 03:49 PM
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.
Look Phleeb -- I really don't care how you think I come off. You cannot seem to keep to the topic at hand and start attacking me personally with ad hominems and start in with all sorts of fallacies -- assiduously avoiding the point of my comment.

I have no idea even why you did, unless you associate yourself with, or have some need to defend the leftists. (and the leftists, as opposed to "democrats" or "liberals" are indeed extreme types and ideologues).

I never mentioned anyone in particular here, but it seems that your rising to attack me for pointing out the inconsistency self-identifies you as a leftist. Just be who you are, it's ok.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Phlebas
Jan 21 2009, 03:49 PM
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.

I am glad that Obama used the term. I support Bush's use of it. And I support both men actually waging war on terrorism. Don't you?
Look Phleeb -- I really don't care how you think I come off. You cannot seem to keep to the topic at hand and start attacking me personally with ad hominems and start in with all sorts of fallacies -- assiduously avoiding the point of my comment.

I have no idea even why you did, unless you associate yourself with, or have some need to defend the leftists. (and the leftists, as opposed to "democrats" or "liberals" are indeed extreme types and ideologues).

I never mentioned anyone in particular here, but it seems that your rising to attack me for pointing out the inconsistency self-identifies you as a leftist. Just be who you are, it's ok.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Semantics aside, I can't think of a single person who has said we should not be engaged in fighting terrorism


Strange... I distinctly recall spending the last 8 years listening to the Left saying things like "war is not the answer" "if we'd just come home and mind our own business they'd leave us along", "there is no war on terror", and "it's all about oil" just to name a few things.. the overall message has been "there is no war on terror, and even if there is, it's all our fault anyway, and we should negotiate".

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
OperaTenor
Jan 22 2009, 09:25 AM
Semantics aside, I can't think of a single person who has said we should not be engaged in fighting terrorism, so, as Phlebas alluded, there is nothing to wager.

Of course there is something to wager. The notion that "semantics aside" makes no sense when it can be argued that leftists waged a war of semantics against Bush.

It's really simple, OT. Bush used the language of "war" against terrorism and properly fought against terrorism. Obama is using the language of "war" against terrorism and will properly fight against terrorism. Bush was widely attacked for using the term.

The wager is: Do you think that Obama will be widely attacked for using the term? I bet "no". Would you bet "yes"? If not, why not?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Jan 22 2009, 09:09 AM
Renauda
Jan 21 2009, 01:55 PM
You mean criticism such as the likes of "The Bush Crusade" by the apparent leftist, James P. Carroll?

:blink: I am sure you have a point in that.
Possibly that Bush saw himself as an ersatz Innocent III.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
OperaTenor
Jan 22 2009, 09:25 AM
Semantics aside, I can't think of a single person who has said we should not be engaged in fighting terrorism, so, as Phlebas alluded, there is nothing to wager.

BTW, Since I am answering your question, please answer mine:
But for the sake of discussion, war can basically be understood as a protracted military action against hostiles. Do you have a problem with that idea, or that it can coherently be used to describe our actions against forces of international terrorism?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Renauda
Jan 22 2009, 09:37 AM
ivorythumper
Jan 22 2009, 09:09 AM
Renauda
Jan 21 2009, 01:55 PM
You mean criticism such as the likes of "The Bush Crusade" by the apparent leftist, James P. Carroll?

:blink: I am sure you have a point in that.
Possibly that Bush saw himself as an ersatz Innocent III.
I think that Carroll is trying to make hay out of the use of the word "crusade". That article says much more about Carroll than about Bush.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
To put a new face on it, in the spirit of change and hope, I hope that this is the new acronym that gains popularity:

The
War
Against
Terror

:devilgrin:

:leaving:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
:lol2:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
I cannot remember how many times it has been screeched here that it's not a war on terror, it's a war for oil.
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
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Ivorythumper
 
I think that Carroll is trying to make hay out of the use of the word "crusade". That article says much more about Carroll than about Bush.


I would agree about Carroll, IMO his misunderstanding of history makes him more a buffoon rather than a buff. Nevertheless Bush did use the word *crusade* not only innappropriately but at a very inopportune moment in the wake of 9/11. The war against the use of terror is a war against revolutionary nihlism regardless of its ideological underpinings, not a war against a people or a creed as the term *crusade* historically implies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
if we'd just come home and mind our own business they'd leave us along


There is a lot of truth in that. But there is also fallacy in that just coming home will not provide instant results. We need to show over several decades that we are done telling people how to live their lives.

But no, we had to go over there 60 some years ago and start telling people how to live. That has proved over and over again to be a very bad foreign policy. One that has consequences. That some of us think our government can do no wrong does not make what we are doing or what we have done, right.

I've been watching "The Presidents" on the History Channel.

I Used to be a big fan of Teddy Roosevelt but never really knew why. I suppose it was simple ignorance of the facts. I admired TR mostly because of his love of the outdoors but he violated his oath many times over as did Wilson and FDR. Yes, even his accomplishments that I truly admire were unconstitutional. Just because I like the fact that he started the conservation movement in this country does not make it right in that how he went about it, was blatantly unconstitutional.

Look, I am not saying that the American people cannot decide to do these things. They only need to amend the constitution to give these police/conservation/education powers to the federal government. Until that is done, the federal government simply does not have the power to meddle in these affairs and only congress can declare war.

Yes we were attacked. I wrote a letter to the president telling him I would be OK if he obtain a declaration of war and just nuked the crap out the middle east. But what country attacked us exactly? Ah yes! The people aboard those planes were Saudi Arabian for the most part. Orchestrated by a Saudi Arabian operating from within Afghanistan. Yes, the response to 9-1-1 in Afghanistan was correct yet failed to meet the stated goal of capturing the masterminds. Then we took a very wrong turn and invaded a sovereign country (who's leader we actually supported) who did not even attack us. We did this without a declaration of war and the congress broke the law by giving such power to the executive which the constitution clearly prohibits. We say we are making the world safe for democracy but we are doing exactly the opposite. For what end exactly?

Amending the Constitution is difficult and it took too long for these idiots so they found ways to just flat out ignore it. And we continue ignoring it, to our own peril.

And our supreme court has violated their oath on many occasions as well.

Quote:
 
Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


TR, in my book, can now go to hell along with Wilson and FDR.

Bastards.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Jan 22 2009, 09:31 AM
Quote:
 
Semantics aside, I can't think of a single person who has said we should not be engaged in fighting terrorism


Strange... I distinctly recall spending the last 8 years listening to the Left saying things like "war is not the answer" "if we'd just come home and mind our own business they'd leave us along", "there is no war on terror", and "it's all about oil" just to name a few things.. the overall message has been "there is no war on terror, and even if there is, it's all our fault anyway, and we should negotiate".

I don't recall EVER seeing anyone suggest we should negotiate with Osama bin Laden.

As to whether the war in Iraq was an appropriate part of the war on terror ... yes, plenty of us have said that we, as a country, took our eye off the mark. But I don't recall anyone saying we shouldn't be going after the people who knocked down the WTC.
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
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
ivorythumper
Jan 22 2009, 09:37 AM
OperaTenor
Jan 22 2009, 09:25 AM
Semantics aside, I can't think of a single person who has said we should not be engaged in fighting terrorism, so, as Phlebas alluded, there is nothing to wager.

Of course there is something to wager. The notion that "semantics aside" makes no sense when it can be argued that leftists waged a war of semantics against Bush.

It's really simple, OT. Bush used the language of "war" against terrorism and properly fought against terrorism. Obama is using the language of "war" against terrorism and will properly fight against terrorism. Bush was widely attacked for using the term.

The wager is: Do you think that Obama will be widely attacked for using the term? I bet "no". Would you bet "yes"? If not, why not?
In your opinion.

At this juncture, I could start speculating on the relevance of context of the usage of term with regards to GWB vs. Obama(BTW, I appreciate you not referring to him as "Obie" anymore - thank you), but to me that seems conjectural to the point of mental masturbation. Just as I did with GWB, I'll wait and see how he goes about waging the "war" before I pass judgment.

I would have to say yes, seeing's how he's already being attacked by you. :D



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
ivorythumper
Jan 22 2009, 09:40 AM
OperaTenor
Jan 22 2009, 09:25 AM
Semantics aside, I can't think of a single person who has said we should not be engaged in fighting terrorism, so, as Phlebas alluded, there is nothing to wager.

BTW, Since I am answering your question, please answer mine:
But for the sake of discussion, war can basically be understood as a protracted military action against hostiles. Do you have a problem with that idea, or that it can coherently be used to describe our actions against forces of international terrorism?
Once again, this is purely conjectural, IMO. I believe we have to approach these threats with a broad palette of tools to counter them with at our disposal. They are unconventional enemies, and they need to be countered with unconventional means, which requires thinking outside the box. So, military action might be the way to address it in some circumstances, and in others it might not. I'm not a professional or expert in these areas, so I couldn't begin to discern where to apply what. However, IMO, it's been pretty clear where conventional application of military strength has and has not been effective in recent history.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Mikhailoh
Jan 22 2009, 10:05 AM
I cannot remember how many times it has been screeched here that it's not a war on terror, it's a war for oil.
There's a difference in the minds of some us between the invasion of Iraq and the war on terror.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Larry
Jan 22 2009, 09:31 AM
Quote:
 
Semantics aside, I can't think of a single person who has said we should not be engaged in fighting terrorism


Strange... I distinctly recall spending the last 8 years listening to the Left saying things like "war is not the answer" "if we'd just come home and mind our own business they'd leave us along", "there is no war on terror", and "it's all about oil" just to name a few things.. the overall message has been "there is no war on terror, and even if there is, it's all our fault anyway, and we should negotiate".

Unless you have some citations, I'll be left to conclude those were the voices in your head.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Unless you have some citations, I'll be left to conclude those were the voices in your head.


You're kidding, right? 8 years of listening to it stated so often that we can almost recite it word for word, and you think you can dismiss it with a "unless you have some citations" sh!t?

That's funny. That's *really* funny.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
If it was said so often, it ought to be easy for you to grab some quotes.

As I replied earlier to Mik, some of us see the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq as unconnected.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
And they are.

Facts is facts
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3