| Author |
Message |
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:10 pm |
|
I know. Who can be mad at that? Anyone who is is just crazy.
You can disagree with the means (although I think the ends DO justify the means in this case), but you have to see that and be awed by it. You have to see that and believe it is a good thing. You have to see that and be glad about it. You have to see that and KNOW that we cannot abandon the Iraqis now. We cannot leave them to the mercy of the terrorists. We cannot let what they have worked so hard on and how far they've come go to waste. I mean, look at that. Look at that happy smile. Look at how happy the Iraqis are right now.
They want us there right now, to continue to defend them. Yes, they want us out ASAP--but that's the point. They want us out As Soon As Possible. They know that it's not possible for them to have no more American presence there, and that's why they want us there for as long as we're needed--but not forever. No American, even, wants us there forever, but thanks to Bush's speeches of late, more and more Americans are feeling good/better about the war.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
| Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:17 pm |
|
I'm just glad she wasn't killed in the crossfire along with an average of 1,100 of her fellow Iraqis each month.
|
|
|
Brightstar82
Rear Admiral
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 4394
Location: A Borg Cube....Where Else?
|
| Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:19 pm |
|
Im glad woman are allowed to vote there..Its nice to see them be able to stand up and try and make a difference 
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:22 pm |
|
...Or killed as one the hundreds of thousands people killed by gassings performed by Saddam Hussein before we took him out. Oh, that's right, the left doesn't care about the lives, just so long as WE don't get any blood on our hands.
Yeah, keep up the veneer of peace, it's easy to turn a blind eye to the suffering...
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:28 pm |
|
| oberon wrote: | | I'm just glad she wasn't killed in the crossfire along with an average of 1,100 of her fellow Iraqis each month. |
You're talking about the Sunni Triangle, more than anything. If you're talking about the whole Iraq, then you're talking about the Iraq of another Dimension, because that's not the same Iraq I know--a chaotic Iraq all across the country in which democracy will fail and shouldn't be there because they "don't want it" and terrorist attacks occur everywhere and no one's safe and Iraq's a failure. That's not the same Iraq I know. I know an Iraq in which most of its people WANT democracy and instead of killing people are sending messages with their FINGERS--purple fingers. It's an Iraq in which most Iraqis are GRATEFUL that we came in and want us to stay as long as necessary, and want us to continue to help them and everything. It's an Iraq that's our friend. It's an Iraq that's better off without that tyrant in power.
And you know what, oberon? Most Americans with kids in the military who are alive or dead KNOW that it's a noble cause and understand the sacrifice and all that. They know that we can't leave early, as do their kids. Otherwise the re-enlistment rate wouldn't be so high!
I'm glad that we were given the opportunity to bring a form of government hardly seen in the Arab world.
And LB, let's treat ignorant people with the respect they should treat us and our President, now, shall we?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
| Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:40 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | oberon wrote: | | I'm just glad she wasn't killed in the crossfire along with an average of 1,100 of her fellow Iraqis each month. |
You're talking about the Sunni Triangle, more than anything. If you're talking about the whole Iraq, then you're talking about the Iraq of another Dimension, because that's not the same Iraq I know--a chaotic Iraq all across the country in which democracy will fail and shouldn't be there because they "don't want it" and terrorist attacks occur everywhere and no one's safe and Iraq's a failure. That's not the same Iraq I know. I know an Iraq in which most of its people WANT democracy and instead of killing people are sending messages with their FINGERS--purple fingers. It's an Iraq in which most Iraqis are GRATEFUL that we came in and want us to stay as long as necessary, and want us to continue to help them and everything. It's an Iraq that's our friend. It's an Iraq that's better off without that tyrant in power.
And you know what, oberon? Most Americans with kids in the military who are alive or dead KNOW that it's a noble cause and understand the sacrifice and all that. They know that we can't leave early, as do their kids. Otherwise the re-enlistment rate wouldn't be so high!
I'm glad that we were given the opportunity to bring a form of government hardly seen in the Arab world.
And LB, let's treat ignorant people with the respect they should treat us and our President, now, shall we? |
You know what the preoccupation with Iraq is? They have oil. Why not help Africa free themselves from their ruthless tyrants or absolve their debts? Why not in other poor, oppressed countries? That flag represents the lasting friendship between Iraq, the oil rich, and the US. I wonder, how will the "debt" ever be repaid?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:53 pm |
|
Uh-huh. Yeah, it's all about oil alright. Yeah  Tell me, oberon. Why have gas prices been so high lately, and why are we not rolling in the oil from Iraq if this is all for oil, hmmm?
You REALLY don't understand the situation, huh? Um...Iraq is at the mercy of terrorists. We went into Iraq for a number of reasons--among them being NATIONAL SECURITY. We went in and now have an obligation to stay until the new Iraq can defend itself. It has NOTHING to do with oil. Do you live in the same America that I do, because I sure don't.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:55 pm |
|
Fact is, not one drop of oil has flowed from Iraq to the U.S. in decades.
If it were about oil, don't you think Bush would've just made some under the table dealings, like the UN, France, and Russia did? Would've saved him a lot of grief.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:57 pm |
|
Exactly. Excellent point. Oil for Food. Why didn't he just comply with that?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:49 am |
|
that photo sums up all we are working for in Iraq
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:46 am |
|
I like the man who, when asked if he was Sunni or Shiite, replied, "I'm an Iraqi!"
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:56 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | ...Or killed as one the hundreds of thousands people killed by gassings performed by Saddam Hussein before we took him out. Oh, that's right, the left doesn't care about the lives, just so long as WE don't get any blood on our hands.
Yeah, keep up the veneer of peace, it's easy to turn a blind eye to the suffering... |
Is that why the Republicans lend their helping hands to the wealthy white Christians.....
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:55 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | LightningBoy wrote: | ...Or killed as one the hundreds of thousands people killed by gassings performed by Saddam Hussein before we took him out. Oh, that's right, the left doesn't care about the lives, just so long as WE don't get any blood on our hands.
Yeah, keep up the veneer of peace, it's easy to turn a blind eye to the suffering... |
Is that why the Republicans lend their helping hands to the wealthy white Christians..... |
"Lend their helping hands to the wealthy white Christians?" Might I ask, respectfully, what you mean by that, if you realize that that is a highly unwelcomed, innapropriate attack, and ask if you understand that it may very well be, depending on your reasoning, a gross generalization.
Thank you.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:23 pm |
|
you may ask, thank you for asking
1. You're beloved Bush has spent more time with the Christian Coelition than the NAACP, which is horrible because it tells people that he cares more for the people of his own race and religion than he does for the minorities. Personally I don't think its necessarily true, he seems like a nice guy, but that is the first impression you get.
2. I recognize that it was highly unwelcomed, it was saying something negative about Bush, but it was far from an attack. An attack would be speaking my mind about his presidency. 
3. It isn't really a generalization when you look at where Republicans put their money.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:26 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | you may ask, thank you for asking
1. You're beloved Bush has spent more time with the Christian Coelition than the NAACP, which is horrible because it tells people that he cares more for the people of his own race and religion than he does for the minorities. Personally I don't think its necessarily true, he seems like a nice guy, but that is the first impression you get.
|
I suppose...if you are saying that Christians are all white....which in that case, I suppose we can just say Africa doesn't count for anything, as well as any Africans that may live anywhere else in the world who are practicing Christians....
Sure thing.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:39 pm |
|
First, good point Kevin. Thank you.
| Starbuck wrote: | you may ask, thank you for asking
1. You're beloved Bush has spent more time with the Christian Coelition than the NAACP, which is horrible because it tells people that he cares more for the people of his own race and religion than he does for the minorities. Personally I don't think its necessarily true, he seems like a nice guy, but that is the first impression you get.
Never seen anyone take that as a first impression
And there are GOOD REASONS for not spending time with the NAACP. I wouldn't. Its leader called him horrible names and it's a radical left-wing outfit--nothing more. Would you associate with people that continually attack you and are beyond critical of you? I wouldn't. It doesn't say anything.
2. I recognize that it was highly unwelcomed, it was saying something negative about Bush, but it was far from an attack. An attack would be speaking my mind about his presidency.
Just because you didn't say anything negative about Bush's presidency doesn't mean that it wasn't an attack against him or the Republicans
3. It isn't really a generalization when you look at where Republicans put their money. |
Show me the records, Mrs. Dean (in reference to Howard Dean's statements about the GOP), and explain to me how exactly that says ANYTHING at all.
Republicans are NOT simply rich, white, and Christian. More than half the country's registered Republicans and they're not all rich (most aren't) and they're not all white and they're not all Christian. That's a gross generalization, and you're no better than Howard Dean for saying that.
Tell me, what religion is Ken Mellman(sp?), the Chairman of the Republican Party of? Judaism. The [i]Chairman of the Republican Party is Jewish. What race is the Secretary of State? Black. What ethnicity is the Secretary of State? African-American. What gender is the Secretary of State? Female. What ethnicity is the Attorney General? Hispanic.
I fail to see how, simply because there's a strong tie between the Republican Party and the GOP, the Republican party can have anything like you say. It's simply not true. Just because Christians happen to lean more towards the Republican party means NOTHING. Ever thought that maybe they support the GOP more, and because of that support that's why these organizations MAY or MAY NOT get more support from the Republican Party? What are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that the Republican Party--who has a Jewish Chairman, the first black woman Secretary of State, the first and second black Secretaries of State, and the first Hispanic Attorney General--is discriminatory or something? I fail to see how this is so. Back it up, because I, being a Republican myself who sees the positions of minorities, etc. in Republican government and the party, fail to see your point. I think it's moot.
Please defend it with a solid argument, and maybe your point (which is still vague) might make a little sense.
I respectfully disagree, judging from everything that happens to be so in todays GOP and GOP government.
Oh, and one more little ipso-facto question. What does it say about the DEMOCRATS that their former leader in the Senate--Robert [KKK] Bird--was a former member of the Klu Klux Klan? Obviously there's something to them...Oh, and what about during the civil rights era? Al Gore's father, and other Democrats, stood in the way, and going as far back as Lincoln, Republicans led the fight to end slavery. So again, I fail to see your point.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
| Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:49 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | First, good point Kevin. Thank you.
| Starbuck wrote: | you may ask, thank you for asking
1. You're beloved Bush has spent more time with the Christian Coelition than the NAACP, which is horrible because it tells people that he cares more for the people of his own race and religion than he does for the minorities. Personally I don't think its necessarily true, he seems like a nice guy, but that is the first impression you get.
Never seen anyone take that as a first impression
And there are GOOD REASONS for not spending time with the NAACP. I wouldn't. Its leader called him horrible names and it's a radical left-wing outfit--nothing more. Would you associate with people that continually attack you and are beyond critical of you? I wouldn't. It doesn't say anything.
I've taken it as my first impression, as clearly did Starbuck. Good reasons for not spending time with the NAACP?? Do you know how racist that sounds? Have you ever thought that the neglect brought about the name calling? Of course not. If I was the president, I would associate with all people. If he has alienated a certain group, he should (if he was a good president) try to reach out.
2. I recognize that it was highly unwelcomed, it was saying something negative about Bush, but it was far from an attack. An attack would be speaking my mind about his presidency.
Just because you didn't say anything negative about Bush's presidency doesn't mean that it wasn't an attack against him or the Republicans
3. It isn't really a generalization when you look at where Republicans put their money. |
Show me the records, Mrs. Dean (in reference to Howard Dean's statements about the GOP), and explain to me how exactly that says ANYTHING at all.
So because they don't leave a paper trail, they must not be biased. Well that's a nice assumption. Let me give you examples.
| washington post wrote: | They report "a House-passed budget-cutting measure that would save $50 billion over five years by trimming food stamp rolls, imposing new fees on Medicaid recipients, squeezing student lenders, cutting child-support enforcement funds and paring agriculture programs. House negotiators are trying to reach accord with senators who passed a more modest $35 billion bill that largely spares programs for the poor." Typically, they make no attempt to compare this "budget-cutting" measure to the enormous size of the entire federal budget over that five years. For the Republican take on these measures, see the Republican Study Committee docs here. Wallis and his fellow protesters are never asked if the "War on Poverty" was actually a help to the poor, or if it trapped people in a web of dependency.
But look at how the Republicans are trying to limit spending by trying to prevent Medicaid fraud by the rich (!) and other punitive provisions:
� Ensures that illegal immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid
� Lengthens the waiting period for non-citizen immigrants to gain eligibility for food stamps
� Closes a loophole in the law in order to prohibit someone from owning a $5 million house and still qualifying for Medicaid
� Requires greater scrutiny of past financial records before an individual can qualify for Medicaid
� Increases the penalty for those who play the system by transferring assets in order to appear poor and qualify for Medicaid
� Tightens the current welfare law to require recipients to work a 40-hours per week
� Requires individuals receiving welfare assistance to undergo drug testing if the state has reason to believe he or she has unlawfully used drugs, and suspends cash benefits if test results are positive. |
Republicans are NOT simply rich, white, and Christian. More than half the country's registered Republicans and they're not all rich (most aren't) and they're not all white and they're not all Christian. That's a gross generalization, and you're no better than Howard Dean for saying that.
Tell me, what religion is Ken Mellman(sp?), the Chairman of the Republican Party of? Judaism. The [i]Chairman of the Republican Party is Jewish. What race is the Secretary of State? Black. What ethnicity is the Secretary of State? African-American. What gender is the Secretary of State? Female. What ethnicity is the Attorney General? Hispanic.
I fail to see how, simply because there's a strong tie between the Republican Party and the GOP, the Republican party can have anything like you say. It's simply not true. Just because Christians happen to lean more towards the Republican party means NOTHING. Ever thought that maybe they support the GOP more, and because of that support that's why these organizations MAY or MAY NOT get more support from the Republican Party? What are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that the Republican Party--who has a Jewish Chairman, the first black woman Secretary of State, the first and second black Secretaries of State, and the first Hispanic Attorney General--is discriminatory or something? I fail to see how this is so. Back it up, because I, being a Republican myself who sees the positions of minorities, etc. in Republican government and the party, fail to see your point. I think it's moot.
Please defend it with a solid argument, and maybe your point (which is still vague) might make a little sense.
I respectfully disagree, judging from everything that happens to be so in todays GOP and GOP government.
Oh, and one more little ipso-facto question. What does it say about the DEMOCRATS that their former leader in the Senate--Robert [KKK] Bird--was a former member of the Klu Klux Klan? Obviously there's something to them...Oh, and what about during the civil rights era? Al Gore's father, and other Democrats, stood in the way, and going as far back as Lincoln, Republicans led the fight to end slavery. So again, I fail to see your point. |
Excuse me, but the "Republicans" who "fought off slavery" are the Democrats of today. Why don't you go look at a history book?
I have to go to work so I can't reply in full. I'll be back later maybe.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:25 pm |
|
Uh, let's see...Oh, no, I don't see it...I do see, however, that Al Gore's still a Democrat, that Robert Bird is still a Democrat and in the Senate, that Howard Dean SAID that the only time they need black support is during the elections.
I do also see that the Secretary of State is Condoleeza Rice, a black woman, and that the last Secretary of State was Mr. Powel, a black man and the first black Secretary of State. I also see the Attorney General as the first Hispanic one in US history. I see the Chairman of the Republican National Committee as a Jewish man. And do the Democrats have that? No. Clinton had no blacks or minorities in high positions like Bush, and yet he was called the "first Black president." That's not right.
Oh, and btw. Bush had a black National Security Advisor, before she became Secretary of State
I don't know. The Republican Party seems prett accepting to me
Now, I don't like playing the race game, or the race card. I'm not trying to say that one group supports whites or anything. I'm not one of those people. Don't take it that way. I'm only arguing against Starbuck's arguments with facts about the GOP and high-up levels of government and stuff. I really don't think that we can pin race or anything like that one one political party. That's just not right. The Democrats have their race problems and the Republicans have theirs. Everyone does. And both parties have different races and ethnicities as members and stuff.
Traditionally, though, it's the Republicans that were on the side of civil rights, regardless of race, and it's the Republicans that freed the slaves. It's the Republicans that have the first minorities in certain positions and have a Jew as their national chairman. However, that doesn't mean much. It means that BOTH parties have a good share of different races, ethnicities, and religions, and so therefore it's wrong to argue that one side supports only a certain group of people or whatever--because statistically that's not true.
I hope that everyone can agree on that.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:44 pm |
|
I just thought i'd post this.
| Quote: | VINICK
No. Of course you didn't say it. You're not an unthinking liberal. Are you?
The audience laughs and applauds.
SANTOS
I know you like to use that word 'liberal' as if it were a crime.
VINICK
No. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used that word. I know Democrats think liberal is a bad word. So bad you had to change it. What do you call yourselves now, progressives? Is that it?
SANTOS
It's true. Republicans have tried to turn liberal into a bad word. Well, liberals ended slavery in this country.
VINICK
A Republican President ended slavery.
SANTOS
Yes, a liberal Republican, Senator. What happened to them? They got run out of your party. What did liberals do that was so offensive to the liberal party? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor. |
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:29 pm |
|
I don't know...Al Gore and his father are pretty liberal
Plus, that means nothing, just because it's something that one guy said. What was your point? I was making a point arguing Starbuck that Republicans are racist or whatever, and then said that both parties have their faults and stuff with those things, and that the Democratic party holds no part of it on their side. For once I'm the one taking the completely centrist stance here. Interesting...
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
