Quote :

""what am i afraid the dems would do?? - stop listening to terrorist conversations - confer constitutional rights on terrorists - pull out of iraq - "handle" the situations in iran and NK with those amazingly succesfull talks that they always want...and by giving out basketballs - raise taxes - install activist judges - try to make me like gay marriage - not try to solve the social security problem that we have - bend over to the wishes of everyone who has a problem with the united states - let terrorists decide what our foreign policy should be i mean...i could continue...those are just a few things that come to mind. And i realize that you probably disagree with a lot of those...but those are things I am afraid of "

"

You're right, I disagree, but he Dems aren't doing a good job of answering those charges. Misconceptions like these are why I think the Dems are headed to another big disappointment come November. Still, I'll defend 'em because I truly believe a shift in power is 100% necessary. The Republican Party is giving the US and even conservatives a bad name, it's time we kicked their asses out to remind them you can't win on rhetoric, bullshit issues, and 9/11 forever...


1) The Dems have made no statements or policy suggestions advocating that we "stop listening to terrorist conversations." The fact that would prefer not to spy illegally on our fellow Americans, like many Republicans also believe, does not mean they won't continue to fight the war on terror.

2) Confer constitutional rights on terrorists? You mean uphold the laws of our nation? If we start treating the terrorists as less than human beings with "certain inalienable rights," then we've already lost. Turning our back on the Constitution for the sake of convenience undermines our stated purpose for fighting this war in the first palce: to spread democracy and peace.

3) The Dems are so divided on Iraq that it's impossible to categorize them as wanting to "Pull out of Iraq." This is one reason I think they'll lose more races than expected: they're positions are so hard to ascertain.

4) Personally, I think Ike and Tina could do a better job at "handl[ing] the situations in iran and NK" than the Bush Administration. Our current foreign policy philosophy of "our way or the highway" has turned most of the world against us. Anyone believing otherwise is at best gloriously deluded and at worst a complete moron.

5) Raising taxes... yeah, stupid "tax and spend" liberals. Course I'll take that over the "spend and spend more" conservatives. Seriously, 8.5 TRILLION dollars in debt. I can't fathom that amount of money, and even that was with a multi-trillion dollar surplus. For the record, you can't blame the war in Iraq for the deficit WHEN YOU CHOSE TO GO THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

6) Republicans already are installing activist judges. Seriously, who tried to load the Supreme Court with anti-abortionists? I don't care how you put it, the nation is clearly divided on abortion, and trying to ban them is about as activist as it gets. I love how all liberal decisions seem to be considered "activist"....

7) Conservatives love to talk about liberals "try[ing] to make [us] like gay marriage." Why don't they focus more on running the country properly and let the religious community make their own decisions. There are two distinct issues going on here: gay marriage in A) a civil/tax sense and in B) a religious sense. The sooner we separate them out the sooner this issue will be resolved.

8) Dems may "not try to solve the social security problem that we have," but I don't see the Republicans doing any better... and they were in charge....

9) Here's a hint: Listening to others viewpoints =/= "bend[ing] over to the wishes of everyone who has a problem with the united states." The Bush Administration has pretty much done what it wanted to do since 9/11 on the international scene. I believe it's safe to say they've squandered every last bit of the "We are all Americans" sentiment, and that is the biggest tragedy of them all.

10) First off, maybe if we "let terrorists decide what our foreign policy should be" they might come up with something better than this administration has. Secondly, this "you're with us or against us" mentality has got to go. Terrorists =/= people that disagree with you. A lot of people, politicians, analysts, friendly foreign nations, and the pope have disagreed with the war in Iraq. It's possible there's something to that argument.



Until we talk about "WHY" the terrorists hate our guts, we're never going to figure out HOW to stop them. Regardless of what politicians say, they do NOT "hate us for our freedom." If they did, they'd go fuck the Dutch up something awful. They hate us because of our interests, which are in middle eastern oil and supporting Israel. The US is powerful and can afford to back its interests, and that pisses some of the locals off.

We're drowning in rhetoric, it would be nice if we could, just possibly, get the to the point...

10/24/2006 12:24:48 PM

Quote :

"First off, maybe if we "let terrorists decide what our foreign policy should be" they might come up with something better than this administration has."

i really truly hope thats a joke

10/24/2006 12:43:18 PM

You mean our foreign policy, right? Because I agree, it is a joke.

10/24/2006 12:47:23 PM

i mean "letting the terrorists" decide anything for our country

i hope you wouldnt even entertain that idea

10/24/2006 12:55:42 PM

^ New rule: You must be able to spot sarcasm to post in this thread.

Seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself for asking that question... TWICE

My point is that you cannot claim Democrats will screw up our foreign policy. It's already in shambles. Debate me on THAT. This is why people don't like you TreeTwista10. You ignore the relevant discussion, find the most inane comment and take it way out of context.

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 1:03 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2006 1:00:32 PM

Quote :

"find the most inane comment and take it way out of context"

yeah im clearly the only one who does that

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=439811

you however implied that, because you dont agree with the US foreign policy, that maybe the terrorists could come up with a more effective US foreign policy

you shouldnt have said that utter bullshit if you didnt want someone to comment on it

Quote :

"My point is that you cannot claim Democrats will screw up our foreign policy. It's already in shambles"

my point is that you cannot claim that terrorists might come up with a better foreign policy for our country...that viewpoint is pathetic

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 1:08 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2006 1:02:03 PM

Quote :

"You ignore the relevant discussion, find the most inane comment and take it way out of context. "

Do you do this on purpose or are you stupid?

Quote :

"you however implied"

He was being sarcastic much like you are being stupid, however, he is doing it on purpose and the jury is still out on you.

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 1:11 PM. Reason : a]

10/24/2006 1:08:20 PM

IF YOU POST SOMETHING IN A THREAD YOU MAKE

AND GET PISSED THAT PEOPLE COMMENT ON SOMETHING THAT YOU POSTED

THEN YOU SHOULDNT HAVE POSTED IT

and state409c dont act like you are some kind of saint...you do just like everybody else...find the one comment that you have a problem with and dwell on that

like when you'd get pwnt in a thread and then start only talking about "hey i bet treetwista and trikk are the same person"

Quote :

"10) First off, maybe if we "let terrorists decide what our foreign policy should be" they might come up with something better than this administration has. Secondly, this "you're with us or against us" mentality has got to go. Terrorists =/= people that disagree with you. A lot of people, politicians, analysts, friendly foreign nations, and the pope have disagreed with the war in Iraq. It's possible there's something to that argument. "

sarcasm huh? no real indications...no caps lock...nothing that separates it from the rest of the post...so i guess either the entire post is sarcasm, or he actually believes that nonsense

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 1:13 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2006 1:11:23 PM

Quote :

"IF YOU POST SOMETHING IN A THREAD YOU MAKE AND GET PISSED THAT PEOPLE COMMENT ON SOMETHING THAT YOU POSTED THEN YOU SHOULDNT HAVE POSTED IT"

You of all people shouldn't be the one to discuss how TSB should be governed.

10/24/2006 1:12:33 PM

neither should you you dumbass hypocrite

10/24/2006 1:13:32 PM

another twista-ruined thread

[lock]

10/24/2006 1:14:24 PM

Quote :

"sarcasm huh? no real indications...no caps lock...nothing that separates it from the rest of the post...so i guess either the entire post is sarcasm, or he actually believes that nonsense"

There are plenty of indications. You just aren't bright enough to figure it out.

10/24/2006 1:15:19 PM

^^boo hoo i call erios out on a dumbass comment and everybody jumps down my throat

you guys are just as bad as me and you dont realize it

morons

^do you work at a bar?

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 1:15 PM. Reason : f]

10/24/2006 1:15:29 PM

Quote :

"and state409c dont act like you are some kind of saint...you do just like everybody else...find the one comment that you have a problem with and dwell on that"

I don't start semantics debates and I don't call people out on obvious sarcasm.

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 1:16 PM. Reason : I work at 6 bars on any given week.]

10/24/2006 1:16:03 PM

asshole409c

why do you routinely call people names and say that their opinion doesn't matter in the soap box

this place is supposed to be for everyone to have their opinion, as soon as someone disagrees with you, you start with the name calling and then make some comment to dismiss their opinion


do you really think you are better than anyone else on here?

not only am I better than you in every way possible, I have a head full of hair

I for one, am tired of your elitist, holier than thou bullshit you spew in every thread

you want fucking debate and when people bring up something let it be debated and quit being a fucking douchenozzle, if you are capable of it

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 1:17 PM. Reason : respond however, but I'm not checking this thread again so you're wasting your time]

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 1:18 PM. Reason : I think you should be suspended until you can act like an adult too]

10/24/2006 1:16:13 PM

Quote :

"I don't start semantics debates and I don't call people out on obvious sarcasm."

YES YOU DO DO BOTH OF THOSE THINGS

look at yourself every once in a while, good lord

Quote :

"I work at 6 bars on any given week"

so is that sarcasm? or do you not have the work experience to get a good job?

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 1:17 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2006 1:16:52 PM

Fine, if I have to spell things out in crayon, so be it.

No I was being literal about terrorists running our foreign policy better than the Bush Administration. I was implying that things are going so badly that it can feel that way.

The "our way or the highway" mentality must go. Discuss.

10/24/2006 1:16:58 PM

^if you put it like that, i dont have a problem with it at all

but yes you do have to spell it out with crayons...click through a few threads and see how my every word gets scrutinized regardless of how i phrase something

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 1:18 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2006 1:17:53 PM

Quote :

"The "our way or the highway" mentality must go. Discuss."

Lol. The irony.

10/24/2006 1:19:29 PM

Quote :

"YES YOU DO DO BOTH OF THOSE THINGS"

No I don't. In fact, I am the first one to point out when a debate as about to turn into a semantics one. If you were any other person (GrumpyGOP, LoneSnark, etc) I would go find multiple examples just in the past week where I have pointed this out, but you don't command the same respect they do.

Quote :

"or do you not have the work experience to get a good job? "

I don't have the work experience, why do you think I post all day? Durr

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 1:21 PM. Reason : but it is hard to argue when I make 500k a year as a bartender]

10/24/2006 1:19:59 PM

you've called me out numerous times on what i consider obvious sarcasm

and heres where you called me out IN THIS THREAD over semantics

Quote :

"You mean our foreign policy, right? Because I agree, it is a joke"

but the rules dont apply to you, just those who you disagree with

hey look heres another semantics comment

Quote :

"You're right. No one is literally forced by gunpoint to do a job. But when the difference is starving or working, you tend to want to work in the safest place possible. Believe it or not, some people have to get jobs on a whim due to financial situations that aren't so nice."

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 1:24 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2006 1:23:12 PM

Stop, just stop all of you. If you want to have a real discussion, all of ya need to just ignore all the posts up until this point and start over.

TreeTwista10, you got my PM, all I want is a real discussion. Just let it go. That goes for the rest of you as well.

jesus I sound like a kindergarten teacher. here look at this:

Quote :

"Lol. The irony."

Ok, ya got me there Still, my point remains.

10/24/2006 1:26:51 PM

Quote :

"and heres where you called me out IN THIS THREAD over semantics"

No no no. I was trolling you there.

Quote :

"hey look heres another semantics comment"

Huh, I don't think you understand the term "semantics".

10/24/2006 1:28:25 PM

Quote :

"IF YOU POST SOMETHING IN A THREAD YOU MAKE AND GET PISSED THAT PEOPLE COMMENT ON SOMETHING THAT YOU POSTED THEN YOU SHOULDNT HAVE POSTED IT"

ps Erios

the first post i made in this thread was relating to your initial post, ie discussing the topic...then your boy State409c came in and rode my nuts

I dont think he even mentioned anything relating to the topic

but blame me

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 1:30 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2006 1:28:46 PM

ok allow me to continue to address and discuss briefly a few things I disagree with in hopefully an intelligent way

Quote :

"2) Confer constitutional rights on terrorists? You mean uphold the laws of our nation? If we start treating the terrorists as less than human beings with "certain inalienable rights," then we've already lost. Turning our back on the Constitution for the sake of convenience undermines our stated purpose for fighting this war in the first palce: to spread democracy and peace. "

theres a difference in treating the terrorists as humans, and granting non-US citizens the rights provided to US citizens by the constitution...we're not turning our backs on the constitution for the sake of convenience in the situations where we are not dealing with American citizens, who are the people who get constitutional rights...granting constitutional rights to non-US citizens is not upholding the constitution...its making a mockery of it

Quote :

"4) Personally, I think Ike and Tina could do a better job at "handl[ing] the situations in iran and NK" than the Bush Administration. Our current foreign policy philosophy of "our way or the highway" has turned most of the world against us. Anyone believing otherwise is at best gloriously deluded and at worst a complete moron. "

Quote :

"The Bush Administration has pretty much done what it wanted to do since 9/11 on the international scene."

What other administrations have based US policies on the opinions of other nations? I think you are treating the Bush Administration differently from all the other administrations that did what they wanted regardless of the international community...we didnt pass Kyoto when Clinton was in office for example although most of the rest of the world did...its not something unique to the current administration

10/24/2006 1:36:35 PM

Quote :

"theres a difference in treating the terrorists as humans, and granting non-US citizens the rights provided to US citizens by the constitution...we're not turning our backs on the constitution for the sake of convenience in the situations where we are not dealing with American citizens, who are the people who get constitutional rights...granting constitutional rights to non-US citizens is not upholding the constitution...its making a mockery of it"

I'll grant you that. The problem with treating others "differently" than US citizens is that it creates an elitist impression to foreign nations. All people have certain unalienable rights, shit that's what we're all about. When we start crossing the line by holding prisoners without due process and arresting people on bugus, trumped up charges from secret courts, we're getting away fromt he American values we're trying to pass on to others in the first place.

And yeah, the Ike and Tina thing was a bit extreme. Nevertheless you have to admit there's something wrong with the fact that Bush and Co. invaded a country with no Al Quaida connections and no WMDs, but has done nothing with Iran and NK, whom pose real threats. Bush has mishandled the NK badly, slapping economic sanctions on them after long disarmament talks fina,lly made real progress.

Quote :

"What other administrations have based US policies on the opinions of other nations? I think you are treating the Bush Administration differently from all the other administrations that did what they wanted regardless of the international community...we didnt pass Kyoto when Clinton was in office for example although most of the rest of the world did...its not something unique to the current administration"

Bush and Co. were given unanimous support and an open checkbook after 9/11. Now we're in serious debt, our foreign relations are in the tubes, and we're stuck in Iraq. You can't squander that much without some very incompetent decision making.

10/24/2006 1:59:03 PM

I agree that Iran and NK are threats that need to be dealt with in some way...HOPEFULLY the Iraq war can at least give us some strategic position and leverage in dealing with Iran...and I'm glad China is as appalled by NK's nukes as we all should be...certainly nobody wants to see a nuclear war and hopefully we can avoid that with NK...with Iraq though, we didnt find WMDs and they werent directly associated with 9/11 but I think there were still necessary reasons to take Saddam out of power...we can disagree on Iraq all day though

Yes Bush and friends had a lot more lenience on their national security spending after 9/11 and rightfully so...they may not have used those funds wisely and the Iraq war did alienate some other countries, but we had a huge debt before 9/11 and we haven't exactly been enamored by the rest of the world in a while

I still think overall, one of the Democrats' main problems is not being clear on their stances...you mention that there was no discussion that would suggest they would stop listening to terrorists...but what they need to do is come up with something concrete that they would do...like I mentioned before, even if you dislike everything Bush has done/said, you at least know what his views and stances are

10/24/2006 2:14:38 PM

Quote :

" but we had a huge debt before 9/11 and we haven't exactly been enamored by the rest of the world in a while"

True the debt has been a recurring problem, but it was Bush and Co. who decided take the country to war unprepared and without a semblance of a plan. He also did it having to front ~90% of the troops and most of the bill, AND without the support of any of our typical allies save GB, Spain, and Bulgaria....

Oh wait... I forgot Poland again! My bad

Quote :

"I still think overall, one of the Democrats' main problems is not being clear on their stances...you mention that there was no discussion that would suggest they would stop listening to terrorists...but what they need to do is come up with something concrete that they would do...like I mentioned before, even if you dislike everything Bush has done/said, you at least know what his views and stances are"

best comment of the thread

10/24/2006 5:36:08 PM

the American people, for better or for worse, like strong language on the issues as a reassurance.

10/27/2006 1:16:30 AM

if you think Bush has stuck to the same stance on his issues over the last 6 years than you're border line retarded. I honestly have no idea what hes going to do next and it scares me.

democrats are a different story all together

10/27/2006 9:05:49 AM

Quote :

"but we had a huge debt before 9/11 and we haven't exactly been enamored by the rest of the world in a while"

haha, that makes sense, we're already going broke and the world doesn't like us

so fuck em

we'll spend all our money and do shit our way

the correct way!!!!!

10/27/2006 9:11:45 AM

Quote :

"haha, that makes sense, we're already going broke and the world doesn't like us"

the point was, our deficit and image in the international world isnt new

so i disagreed that you could just put it all on the current administration

now if you wanted to put it on the last 5 or 10 administrations cumulatively I think that would be a lot more accurate

10/27/2006 9:43:41 AM

You spoke nothing about the debt.

Bush's predecessor was doing a decent job of trying to turn that around with a yearly surplus.

Quote :

"the point was, our deficit and image in the international world isnt new"

Are you talking about the debt or the deficit? Again, you show a vastly inferior grasp about even the most basic of things. How do you feel confident enough to even be here when you get clowned in every post because you don't know what the hell you are talking about?

[Edited on October 27, 2006 at 9:55 AM. Reason : x]

10/27/2006 9:54:13 AM

the stock market is experiencing record highs under the Bush administration

Quote :

"How do you feel confident enough to even be here when you get clowned in every post because you don't know what the hell you are talking about?"

you cant go one fucking post without transforming your argument into a namecalling session...grow the fuck up

[Edited on October 27, 2006 at 9:56 AM. Reason : .]

10/27/2006 9:55:10 AM

It also experienced some nasty lows under his admin. I fail to see how your comment relates other than to try a redirection upon losing another intra-thread battle.

[Edited on October 27, 2006 at 9:56 AM. Reason : a]

[Edited on October 27, 2006 at 9:56 AM. Reason : do you ghost edit so that people can't see how stupid you are?]

10/27/2006 9:56:17 AM

you cant go one fucking post without transforming your argument into a namecalling session...grow the fuck up

10/27/2006 9:57:31 AM

Quote :

"It also experienced some nasty lows under his admin. I fail to see how your comment relates "

You're right. Name calling is what is called for when you shit on every thread my friend. You act like I am doing this section the disservice, when just about everyone else that cares to actually comment on the matter, rather than ignoring you (which a large majority seem to do), seems to dislike you being here.

Another day, another twista trying to act like he isn't the problem.

10/27/2006 10:02:22 AM

you cant go one fucking post without transforming your argument into a namecalling session...grow the fuck up

10/27/2006 10:30:18 AM

Quote :

"you cant go one fucking idiotic treetwista post without transforming your argument into a namecalling session...grow the fuck up"

Fixed it for ya.

10/27/2006 10:34:22 AM

damn you're immature as hell

10/27/2006 10:35:36 AM

Quote :

"Are you talking about the debt or the deficit?"

10/27/2006 10:39:48 AM

can you go whole day without calling people names??

10/27/2006 10:47:53 AM

debt/deficit/iraq war

it all implies fiscal irresponsibility by this administration

i mentioned that its nothing unique to this adminstration

you proceeded to troll me like an 8 year old

i dont know why i even respond to your childish posts

10/27/2006 10:48:44 AM

Quote :

"i mentioned that its nothing unique to this adminstration"

Clinton didn't have trouble achieving a surplus.

10/27/2006 10:56:56 AM

^^ the current deficit is less than 1.8% of GDP, entirely unremarkable and decidedly NOT irresponsible. Fuck, it is almost half GDP growth. If we could only keep the deficit at 1.8% of GDP forever our debt would quickly become meaningless.

^ Clinton also managed to raise taxes to the highest level in post-war history. By his last year, 2000, 21% of GDP was being collected as federal revenue, a level not seen since the 40's. Bush has cut taxes and is now only collecting 16.6% of GDP. If Bush raised taxes back to the same level as Clinton, to 21.0% of GDP, the current $247.7 billion deficit would instead be a surplus of $317.8 billion.

So while I too jumped on the hate bush bandwagon last year, railing against deficits, I have been pleasantly surprised by congress' restraint in the face of surging GDP growth and surging tax revenues.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?topic2id=20
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/11/business/NA_FIN_US_Budget_Deficit.php
http://www.neatideas.com/data/data/GDP.htm

[Edited on October 27, 2006 at 1:33 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/27/2006 1:33:13 PM

^ Right, I'm just tossing out the same sort of meaningless stuff that this guy is throwing out because it seems to be his preferred method of debate.

10/27/2006 1:47:37 PM

Quote :

"^ Right, I'm just tossing out the same sort of meaningless stuff that this guy is throwing out because it seems to be his preferred method of debate."

10/27/2006 1:54:22 PM

I was really impressed with John Bolton's draft of UN resolution 1718. The sanctions imposed were probably some of the most creative "smart sanctions" the UN has ever passed.

I realize that China really put the pressure on KJI, but I can't help but think that cutting off his supply of Russsian caviar and beaujolais wine had something to do with his expressing regret for the nuclear test and agreeing to the six party talks.

Maybe nothing will come of them, but at least the immediacy of the situation has dissolved a little.

[Edited on October 27, 2006 at 5:21 PM. Reason : n]

10/27/2006 5:20:35 PM

fuck six-party talks. The time has passed.

It's time to cut off NK entirely until the people revolt. They won't survive without humanitarian aid.

10/27/2006 11:45:52 PM

You can't pull out of the middle east. Going in there was a stepping stone we carved out for our allies. This basically assures a republican victory next term.

Go W clone 2008.

10/28/2006 12:50:13 AM