A political ranting I need to get off my chest
 

9/11 was an act of war, why are we allowing our president to let Khalid Sheikh Mohammed have a criminal trial? We do this but kill our own citizens at Ruby Ridge, Waco and elsewhere without their day in court?..... Why do people not stand up and say enough and hold our leaders responsible? Why are we allowing this? Something is wrong when we try those in criminal court not military courts who plotted to kill thousands and want to destroy us, by acts of war and we kill our own without giving them those same trials.

Double digit unemployment, homelessness at an all time high, companies able to fire people with no reason except their bottom line and to make those rich richer, companies closing plants and moving overseas, sending jobs overseas, while people lose their homes, our great cities and states bankrupt, our people divided and just trying to make it to ... Read Morethe next day.... and where's our leadership? Where are the people standing up saying enough? Where is the press that is supposed to be the 4th estate and true protectors of freedom? They worry about passing health care bills that if you don't buy into you'll be thrown into jail and fined. They worry about getting the Olympics in Chicago. Our leaders no longer care about the country or the people's freedoms they are put into office to protect.

We are the United States of America, the greatest country ever seen on this planet because of the freedoms, the wealth and the opportunities and we are allowing our very leaders who are supposed to protect this country for future generations to drop us to our knees.... and they laugh at us, they tell us it is our fault, they give rights that our own citizens no longer enjoy to foreign terrorists that want us destroyed. They refuse to help our troops fighting overseas, the President is more worried about giving "Shout outs" then the man and women in our armed services shot wounded or killed on a base in our own country.

When does it stop? When do people see that this is not radical, conspiratorial talk but reality. Those put into office to protect us are the ones destroying us and it starts with our own president.

John Lennon stated, "Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it." ... Read More

And it has never been more true. Those of us who speak out because we love our country and choose to do so because of that love are talked about as zealots, conspiracy nuts and we have no idea the truth. I would argue the opposite, those who do not speak out, are either scared of what will happen to them, what label they may receive, what others may think of them, losing what little they have or what the government may do.

Why are we scared of the government in this country???? Why are we scared to exercise our freedoms?

This is what I wore a uniform to protect, these freedoms, these words, this government set forth by our forefathers who sacrificed all they knew to make a better country for their children and grandchildren.... and we are now allowing our own leaders to put their agendas ahead of these words.. they would rather us be on our knees begging than protect and defend this document.

The Declaration of Independence... Read More

U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States

Stand up if not for yourselves but for your children and grandchildren and say, "I'm as mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. This government is answerable to the people it governs and if you will not govern us under the freedoms and the greatness that our forefathers did... then you need to leave office and give the leadership to those that will."

It's not about parties it's all about keeping this country great and making it a better place for the future. 9/11 woke me up and I have slowly watched this great country be destroyed from within. What is going on now is a conglomeration of many wrongs and instead of trying to make things right they continue to go down the wrong road.... and do so happily knowing that it is in fact destructive to this nation.

Simple...for the same reason that those behind the first World Trade Center bombing and other terrorists who acted on US soil, were tried in federal court. Enemy combatants who acted in the field and were captured in the field should be tried by military tribunals.

That is how the Constitution works and what keeps us free and what makes this country great.

When we ever reach the point of turning to singers/song writers, actors, or any high profile personality, to determine public policy....that would be insane!

When we let horrific events like 9/11 cloud our judgement and act on emotion...or let our elected leaders play on that emotiion....we lose our freedoms.

The Constitution is not a document of convenience to enable us to look for the easy way or emotionally satisfying way or more politically expedient way out.

I'm glad you got that off your chest. I'm going to respond to the specifics, not the generalities.

Re the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial: We're a nation of laws. That's what the Constitution sets up, and that's what you served to preserve.

Do you really think there's any other outcome likely than the guy getting the death penalty? And when that happens, won't it be so much more satisfying to know it was done legally, in a court of law, by a civilized nation, decided upon by a jury of his peers? Won't that be better than just kneeling him down and shooting him?

It's the difference between vengeance and justice. Vengeance leaves everybody smaller.

I find it very strange that the less-than-100 people killed at Ruby Ridge and Waco combined carry more weight with the "government overreaching" crowd than the hundreds killed, injured, or getting their civil rights trampled every single day by an out of control law enforcement system. I don't get that at all.

Unfortunately our legal concepts have two spheres of activity for state-sanctioned violence -- war and law enforcement -- and the legal system requires that violence has to be classified as one or the other. Terrorism by non-state actors is somewhere in the middle, and how you think it should be treated under the current system will reveal probably more about your view of the world than about the nature of the act. Because terrorism doesn't fit neatly into either category, the flat assertion that wer'e a nation of laws and this vindicates the rule of law sort of assumes its conclusion.

We need to rethink this whole area, taking account of the realities of how to deal with, suppress, prevent and punish terrorists. To take one example: it's silly to impose on the military, operating abroad, the broad panoply of, say 4th and 5th amendment rights; it just can't be done. On the other hand, treating terror willy-nilly as equivalent to war means imposing a lot of destruction in pursuit of relatively small targets.

I don't have an answer. I just think some of what gets posted here is way too glib and ultimtely circular.

your entitled to your rant, and i can see your slant, but somewhere in the islamic world, there's a pan6467 equivelant pouting the same message, with his soldiers being the righteous and yours the evil enemy.

this is how it would probably go..


i could go on and do that to the rest of your post, but its not really fun thinking about how the other side percieves your world. i am privvy to both worlds, and its not pretty from whichever way you look at it.

I would just like to point out that this probably wouldn't be an issue now if not for the time and effort spent branding and marketing "The Global War on Terror."

What Timothy McVeigh did could have been considered an act of war...

that is something I never thought I would see: someone using John Lennon to argue for military trials, nationalism, protectionism, and more military spending...

I agree it is not that simple and I plead guilty to glibness of the first degree.

The definition of terrorism under US law is muddled.

I worry when some consider the US to be the "battlefield" providing cover to exclude basic Constitutional rights and providing justification for a military legal response rather than responding through the federal judiciary....or, even more disconcerting, to use the "US is the battleground" to take away from the Constitutional balance between individual rights and national security...and not just of the accused, but the rest of us as well.

And, more recently, I worry when some consider a lone gunman with emotional or psychological issues to be a terrorist when there is no compelling evidence to-date that he acted as an "agent" of any group or with a strategy to use the shooting to further any political goals, either personally or those of an organization.

Pan, I personally agree with you. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the majority of Americans have lost sight of a few things that were supposed to be guaranteed by the constitution.

First and foremost is that the constitution is supposed to be a binding legal contract between we the people and the newly created federal government. Unchanging, unless we the people change it. Most people can't go along with that because 'progressive' change is too difficult to achieve with the prescribed methods of amending that contract. That's why we hear about the 'living document' theory. It gives these people incentive to push for constitutional change through a simple majority position instead of convincing the 'super majority' that is necessary.

Secondly, not enough people want to stand up and hold our elected leaders accountable and it's for several different reasons, the most likely reason being that the offensive action(s) by those leaders have little or no direct affect to those people. It's much easier for these people to ignore the hardships placed on the few because of those actions instead of standing up and doing something about it.

Thirdly, very few people will protest the murder of American Citizens because of incidents like Ruby Ridge or Waco for the sheer simple fact that their government and it's propaganda units paint these people as monsters who have shunned the rule of law and become anti-government. It is these people that the term 'sheeple' was coined for, as much as they dislike the name and do all they can to ridicule those that use it. It's not all their fault really. They were raised by parents and grandparents who were indoctrinated during times to believe that their federal government was a benevolent protector, therefore, those beliefs were passed on to them. Others are more fearful of their fellow Americans than they are of a monopoly of violent force by law enforcement. They have no issue at all with law enforcement using any means necessary to preserve what they see as law and order, believing it to be the means to an end of their safety and freedom. They've persevered in installing people in power with the same belief structures, which is why we have certain judicial doctrines in existence today. Things like 'qualified immunity' were created in order to provide those tasked with controlling their preferred way of life with protection from the same legal system used to prosecute ordinary citizens who commit the very same actions, in essence destroying another founding principle that they don't agree with and that is 'equal protection under the law'. The end result being that the government agents they employ are allowed to use lethal force at their discretion, yet are provided immunity for any crimes they may commit in doing so, and are also immune to any liability for failure to provide that very protection they were tasked with. It's a real cushy job, actually. They commit a crime with an act of violence, get suspended AND paid, a minor routine investigation is performed while gauging how strong public outrage will really be, then decide if they need to sacrifice the life and career of the 'offending' individual or exonerate him/her because not enough people will really care about it enough to do anything substantial.

Appeals for taking back our country are going to go almost completely unheeded and will get you labeled as a radical extremist, anti-government, and possibly even a (gasp) Libertarian or Constitutionalist. These labels are necessary because people on both sides of the aisle are only interested in pursuing their idealistic version of America. Take, for example, my resistance to the current healthcare reform bill. I'm sure there are alot of people here that think i'm either an insane nutjob looking to kill people, or an idiot revolutionary that should be living in a single room shack in the mountains of Colorado while writing a manifesto about the founding fathers. It is necessary for them to frame me in those lights because I don't agree with their philosophies of what America should be. It's also why you see alot of remarks and comments that pretty much defame and denigrate the framers of the constitution as old white men who lived in a different time, slave keepers themselves, or even uglier terms. The political divide in this country, and it's continued growth, is all the reason I need to see that we eventually will have civil war redux.

You are not alone in your views, but you will be ridiculed for them by those that wish to ignore the original intent of the declaration, constitution, and the framers ideas of freedom. THAT is a simple fact of life in this country now.

Ummm... much as I'm in disagreement with Pan's OP... have you even LOOKED at what's gone on since 9/11?? They won. It's as simple as that. They exported their paranoid, over-policed, suspicion-filled lifestyle to the West, just as they planned. Americans (and much of the rest of the western world) have freely given up rights and constitutional guarantees in the mistaken assumption they are now safer.

Not a single 9/11 terrorist came across the US-Canada border. Ever. Now, with the North American Travel Initiative, citizens of what was once one of the most open borders in the world have to display passports, are delayed for checks for contraband/weapons, and yet accept this, despite the multi-billion dollar cost in lost productivity (btw, I would actually be for this if the Canadian customs agents were as diligent... Canada is in much greater danger from stuff coming in from the US than vice versa).

You have to take off your shoes to get on a plane. You may be refused passage without explanation. Habeas Corpus is suspended without review. Hell, you can be charged, and the judge may not be allowed to see what evidence they have against you, or you may be charged, but never told what the charge is!!

How can you not think they've already won, precisely because we have allowed our emotions to not just cloud, but blind our judgement?

I'm not sure what I take more issue with, the hyperbole or the errors.

Good rant though.

Did you know the Dow is up 30% since Obama took office?

Boy, the responses in this thread are SO fascinating. It's like pan has posted a perfect political rorschach blot, and everybody who has posted since then has mainly revealed their own view of the world in their response. Including me.

Maybe we need to have a free-form ranting thread?

9/11 was an act of terrorism by a criminal organization, not an act of war. I like Justice Gaston's definition of war the best:
Generally speaking, nations may war with one another or against itself in civil war, but terrorism committed by an independent organization that clearly was not acting on behalf of a nation by proxy would be something other than war. In this case, it's murder by terrorism. 9/11 was an act of terrorism which resulted in nearly 3,000 premeditated murders. Since it seems Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was directly involved in this, he should be arrested, put on trial by the facts, and found guilty or innocent based on those facts.

Any other course of action would be unjust as we wouldn't be applying our own rule of law.

I'd like to point out that criminal trials have had a much better rate convicting and putting to death terrorists than military tribunals.

Also calling 9/11 an act of war seems odd to me because it seems one has to have a nation to declare war with first.

I don't have qualms with how others perceive us. I just believe that they should be allowed to be them and we should be allowed to be us. Unlike some posters who would have you believe that because I speak out against their God Obama, I am some angry white guy who is into military trials, nationalism, protectionism, and more military spending... Because I'm not.

I look at nations like people. Our nation has a right to do whatever it wants within it's borders, as do China, Israel, Iran, North Korea and every other sovereign nation.I believe the best and truly only answer to resolve conflict between countries and cultures is to teach each other those cultures and treat each other with respect. You don't have to like their domestic policies, their trade laws etc. but we have to share the planet with each other and thus we need to understand and respect the others. End of discussion.

However, should one country try to push it's beliefs on another, invade another, train terrorists or support terrorists and so on, then something should be done. I believe this about our own country, as well. I am no fan of things we have done in the past or continue to do with regards to other sovereign nations. It is up to those people in that country to do something to exact change in their country... either through voting, seeking outside help, being able to petition the UN and have something truly done, etc.

If I'm North Korea, Israel, Iran, etc and I threaten to destroy another country or train/support/hide terrorists, I should expect that other country to take arms and defend themselves against me at any cost. Hopefully, that defense can be done diplomatically first.

In short, I believe every country should take pride in their culture and history and if they can't they should change it. That's the great thing about this country, that some on the extreme left (and they are losing massive support from moderates) fail to understand, we have changed, we have gotten better. Are we perfect? No, but change comes slowly and with fights to make sure that in the end the changes made better the country as a whole. Those extremists would rather they have their way NOW and fuck anyone who disagrees with them.

pan.....this is why for me personally, its hard to see anything beyond an emotional rant.

well...that and the Lennon worship.

There was no disrespect shown to you personally in any post here. Yet you dont give others with differing opinions the same respect.

I stopped reading at that point dc, the only ones who seem to be calling Obama a god are the ones who disagree with him, I haven't seen one supporter here use the words 'god', 'messiah' or any of the other worship words that get thrown around, so it pretty much makes me stop reading, and as you said consider it a rant.

The God or messiah references are becoming less frequent. Most reasonable observers know that just wont fly anymore (not that it ever did), particularly with the criticism from many supporters of one policy or another that Obama that has put forward.

Now Obama is just a socialist or communist or fascist :eek:

I agree there has been no disrespect and I meant none. I'm sorry if you believe I meant you. However, there are those on the far Left who are salivating over what many, including myself, see as blind following of a president who hates this country and wishes to destroy the very foundation of it. To me they worship the man as though he is a "God" because they believe only his policies and no one else's will lead us into some Leftist Nirvana.

Yes, I am very much a Lennonite. I believe in what he taught. I have read/seen/heard every interview of him and those who were around him, biography and what he himself had written and I like what he had to say. He was liberal but today, he would be a moderate and disregarded as some angry has been if he spoke out against Obama and with all I have learned on the man, I would venture to say he would be speaking out against Obama.

A Lennonite is better than a Palinista :)

....and perhaps a source of personal inspiration, but to me, not an authority on public policy.

As to extremists, I point you to this:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...-Billboard.JPG

picture of President Obama wearing a turban, asking, “President or Jihad?” and exhorting, “Wake up America! Remember Fort Hood”

or this:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...bamamerch2.gif
Psalm 109.8

Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places...

Or this:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...holocaust1.gif

The sign displaying a pile of dead bodies and reads “National Socialist Health Care: Dachau, Germany – 1945”:

But it was ok to refer to Bush and Republicans the same way or worse? I know I did it, look in the archives, so did many others protesting how people negatively talk about Obama now.

Perhaps, that's a major part of the problem.... we start the negative labelling and hate speak instead of trying to find some true rational solution that could be greeted with positive reaction from both sides.

I am no fan of either W or Obama... I liked Reagan and Clinton because both in their own way tried their damnedest to bring some pride back to this nation. Don't agree with all the policies either had or how some of what they did was driven by polls but those 2 are probably the greatest presidents in my lifetime thus far. I would rate Carter, Obama (so far) and W as the very worst none of those 3 even tried to better the nation and gave nothing but negative policies.

or this
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...billboard2.jpg
or
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3421/...0f5bb54045.jpg

One can disagree with Obama's policies or be of the opinion that they are not in the country's best interest, w/o this kind of inflammatory description:

"....what many, including myself, see as blind following of a president who hates this country and wishes to destroy the very foundation of it."

IMO, suggesting that Obama "hates this country and wishes to destroy the very foundation.."....does not contribute to a productive discussion or rational solutions and reflects as much or more on you as those you criticize.

Or perhaps you really believe that Obama hates this country.

We can only speak for ourselves.

I was as critical of Bush/Cheney policies as anyone here...but never suggested that they hated this country or thought that Bush was a Nazi or wished his death.

But my point is...one cannot talk about coming together when one's own rhetoric is so divisive as to suggest the President of the United States hates this country.

Far better than an Obamite also.


And I can show the attacks on W that are very similar. So it was ok for the extremists to attack W that way (and again, I was one)... but not for the extremists on the other side to attack Obama?

I argue, we need to stop with the attacks, myself included and find middle ground.

But with a president that does this, I, having worn a Navy uniform, cannot support him in anyway, especially after pushing his agenda and "shout out" before addressing the attack on Fort Hood.



The inability to decide if he will send help for the troops in Afghan.

Having observed him, my personal opinion is, he truly has no respect for the military or the people who wear the uniform.

Now we've come to the segment of the rant where we split hairs.

Is it really that obvious to you that Obama hates America and wants to eat the children of dead soldiers?

Where is this middle ground you seek? I'd like to help you find your way.

To me it is. He wants America to be his vision of what it should be. Every poll shows he is losing support from voters. A healthcare bill that gives 1 (ONE) state, La. how much? Sends people to jail, truly gives them no choice?

Shout outs and talks about political agenda meetings before showing any disdain for military members killed on OUR OWN SOIL?????

Who's being extreme and condescending now?

A true debate on the healthcare bill, a bill that is open for the public in ways the public can understand not legalese. Reps and Senators going to their constituency and holding meetings describing what they are voting for or against and why.

To have discussions where it is civil and a common ground found to better ALL not just one side.

You can't say this:
then follow it closely with this
Followed closely with yes he does hate America, I mean seriously, it makes no sense to even attempt to find common ground with you, you obviously aren't looking for common ground, just a place to rant and rave, and huff and puff. One makes it much harder to find the other, but you're so I don't know, blinded by emotion I guess it is, that you can't see that.
You think it's easy to decide if he should commit more troops to Afghanistan, he isn't sending more vehicles, or guns pan, he's sending more bloody humans to a war that may or may not even be winnable, where they may or may not die. I don't think it's an inability at all, the man is taking his time to make the right decision, not some reactionary, more troops are going to win this war thing. Remember Vietnam? Yeah sending 'help' as you put it really worked wonders there now didn't it?

Emotional, yes. What he did at Fort Hood was a slap in the face to every person who ever wore the uniform, IMHO. I cannot EVER respect a president that did that.

I don't have to work with him. IF I had that chance, I could IF we both were working for the betterment of the country and not just trying to push one agenda and name calling the other.
It's very simple, the commander over there says, "we need more troops if we want to win." At that point you do 1 of 3 things... Dismiss him and put someone else in because you have no trust in him.... send troops immediately because you trust the commander's recommendation that it is winnable... or you withdraw and end the war.

I could live with either one of those 3. I cannot respect Obama's decision to politicize and wait months to make a decision.... either send in reinforcements and help those there or withdraw.... he shows no decisiveness as a president and in turn getting people killed, maimed and lowering moral.

You say one thing like finding common ground then do noting to actually find said ground.

You are doing exactly that, name calling one, yet saying you want to find 'common ground', which I take common ground to mean 'what you want to happen', and you're not willing to listen to anything else.


You seriously think it's that simple? Down to 1-2-3? For someone who was 'in uniform' you truly have no understanding that things aren't that simple when peoples lives are on the line. To commanders more troops is always the answer, look at history, the fact is, it isn't as simple as you see it, if it were everything would end rather quickly and be done with.

And if he makes a reactionary decision he gets more people killed, maimed and lowers moral.

I can't believe you think it's just that easy, as simple as 1-2-3, I sure am glad you don't hold a position of power, who knows how many people would die on your watch. You are still doing nothing to find this 'common ground' you speak of so easily, which doesn't encourage anyone here to even attempt to find it, surely you can see that it isn't helping your cause to say one thing out of one side of your mouth, then contribute to the problem out of the other side.

The video you posted was NOT from his comments at Fort Hood but from the day of the shooting when he was already at the Dept of Interior to speak at a conference of Native American tribal leaders. Should he have walked out on the tribal leaders?

I have not seen any commentary from anyone, even the most ardent haters, suggesting that his speech at the Fort Hood memorial service was disrespectful. He honored each individual life lost by name and with personal comments. You are the first I've encountered with such a view.


Commanders on the ground nearly always want more troops or believe they can win.

It is the job of the Commander in Chief to be more deliberative....to consult with other military leaders and advisors...to hear a range of options, including exit strategies.

All in the interest of not putting more US troops in harms way unless absolutely necessary.

What could be more in the interest of those troops?

Apparently sending more troops without the knowledge if it is the right thing to do or not. I still can't believe someone thinks it comes down to a 1-2-3 soloution. I mean really Obama taking the time to gather the relevant information not just following a commanders recommendation blindly and he's the one who disrespects the troops, yet you have pan here, who would throw them out of the plane himself, without knowing anything about the situation, and he thinks he's the champion of respect for the troops, it's mind boggling. I don't know maybe it's just me.

I watched the vid ans have already herd it several times on the radio, how is this a dis to the military ? sounded respectful to me.

what do you want him to say..."were gonna EVAC and nuke the place from space, it's the only way to be sure" ?

well it's 1-2-3 what are we fighting for ? don't ask me I don't give a damn ! next stop is 'ghanistan ! ain't no time to wonder why whoopee we all gonna die !

Now you see how hard it is to engage with something like that.

You're splitting hairs.
You're resorting to hyperbole.
You're stating outright falsehoods.

Unfortunately, I have difficulty engaging with that. I appreciate those who are trying, but I personally don't have the patience when it's so overwhelming.

I'd be happy to do it when you reach that middle ground.

In the meantime, I'd just like to say to you that America isn't a failed state yet. It isn't a theocracy yet. It isn't a dictatorship yet. It isn't a Russian/Chinese-style capitalist state yet. Isn't a Third World country yet. It isn't.... It isn't.... It isn't....

From my perspective, you seem to have it better than you think.

Things aren't as messed up as you might think.

Much of the problem isn't even in the locus of control of your nation's leaders.

Freedom isn't always birds and daisies.

Regarding your first comment...Pan created this thread titled "Political Ranting" so I don't understand why members here are putting him down for ranting about politics. He has every right to rant as anyone else here. The title doesn't say he's looking for "common ground".

Regarding your next comment...you can't compare Vietnam with Afghanistan. We were attacked on our own soil by terrorists who trained in Afghanistan in 2001. Vietnam did not pose a direct national-security threat; even believers in the "domino theory" did not expect to see the Viet Cong fighting in San Francisco. Afghanistan has always been seen as the right and necessary war to fight.

It looks to me like pan is the one who hates America. He is the one who can't stand the fact that this country is a melting pot of people and ideas. It is a country that was built on diversity. He thinks Obama hates America because Obama's views are different than his. Pan it is you who hates America not Obama.

Read the whole thread, pan has said this many times that common ground is needed, I'll even do the leg work and find it for you.
Now do you see? Also, so we're jus tsupposed to let pan rant and rave and huff and puff and not respond because he called his thread 'political rantings' when he's as Baraka put it "stating outright falsehoods."? Doesn't work that way, sorry.
Read what I post, I never compared the two, not a single time did I make a direct comparisson between the two wars, all I asked was how did blindly sending troops to Vietnam end, see the difference?

Vietnam was not a "winable" war in the end. Afghanistan is possible to win in the end. The Taliban is not as powerful or unified a foe as the Viet Cong. Therefore, the two cannot be compared in that respect either.

Look, troops were blindly sent into Vietnam because the commanders said they needed more troops. Commanders in Afghanistan are saying they need more troops, and pan said it's a 1-2-3 decision a simple decision as he put it, also at the time commanders in Vietnam were asking for more troops no one knew the war wasn't winnable, just as no one can say for sure Afghanistan is winnable. Therefore, the two can be compared in that respect. It isn't like I'm comparing both wars directly, I'm not, I'm merely showing pan troops get killed when stupid and reactionary decision are made.

Winning in Afghanistan is not really an option.

No foreign power has "won" going back to Alexander the Great more than 2,000 years ago.

The best we can hope for is to restore order and minimize, not eliminate, the power of the Taliban and the Taliban capability to harbor al Queda operatives..

And, IMO, the best way to do that is to win the hearts and minds of the tribal leaders...ie.e bribe the bastards, let them run the poppy trade......More troops is not the answer

And to support Pakistan in eliminating the al Queda presence in the northwest provinces.

But then, Obama didnt ask me.

first off, i think the whole "hating america" business has already been dispensed with above, so there's not alot of point in going into or through it again.

but underneath it, there's something that i find kinda alarming, this notion that seems to still be abroad in the land of the President. its a kind of bizarre-o television-based royalism which collapses everything that happens back onto projections based on the person of the Leader. The best analysis of this is still j.g. ballard's little story "the secret history of world war 3"---i looked for a copy of the whole thing to post, but only found a snippet. but you get the idea:

the basic story goes: after this kind of television-driven obsession with the minutae of the physical functioning of the Leader is fully in place, people dutifully go along with it such that, in the story, world war 3 occurs and no-one notices through the thick veil of infotainment about bodily functions....television-driven identification with the Leader could not possibly be less democratic. it traffics in a collective inability to distinguish between television image and reality. and there's an entire reactionary politics that keys on imaginary versions of the Leader, which wants to see certain types of actions following immediately and directly from the Person of the Leader and which comes up with a riot of counter-narratives to "explain" why such actions do not happen.
it's delerium, really.
& if this sort of stuff had no traction, i can imagine finding it to be funny, in the way i find it funny that folk who watch sitcoms think they have more friends on average then those who do not watch sitcoms do.

as for afghanistan, i find it entirely insane that attempting to gather information adequate for making an informed choice or choices about which way to proceed is interpreted as a Problem.
whether afghanistan ever represented a rational response to 9/11/2001 is debatable...but this is not the kind of thread that is amenable to having that discussion.
what's sure is that the campaign in afghanistan has had no clear objective since it was started by the bush people.
one of the many things obama has done that i do not support is the continuation of the action in afghanistan as if it was a legitimate centerpiece of a legitimate thing called "the war on terror" or whatever it's called these days.
what's also clear is that alot of people have died and continue to die in a context the primary characteristic of which is incoherence.
but it's been like this from the start.
clearly it's obama's fault. because after all, it was obama who got the united states involved in afghanistan in 2002.


as for the rest of the rant...i don't see how it holds together logically, pan.
but i rarely see how these things do hold together logically.

To begin, I'd like to thank you all for this reasonable, respectful discussion of a divisive topic that has been divisively presented. Major national issues often bring out heated emotions, but it's quite refreshing to see people NOT taking the hyperbolic bait and responding in kind. :)


My thoughts on the matter match most of yours - as soon as the Messiah talk appeared, I disengaged. But before that...

Pan, you clearly recognize that gratuitous insults/slights to the President and those who support him result in negative responses from the very people you're trying to convince:

We're left wondering what you hope to accomplish by using this tactic. It's certainly not a reasonable effort to find common ground.

The problem may lie with your interpretation of how to properly "speak out" against things you oppose. Your definition seems to require hyperbole and direct insults against those who do not agree with your position on this topic or your debate methods.

Isn't this exactly what our terrorist detractors do?

Aren't ya'll being a little harsh with Pan? As I see it, he's ranting...not with intentions of being devisive as you say, but rather he's "getting it off his chest". And this is a good place to do it. No? I thought it was a great opener for stirring up a good discussion.

...and, silent-jay, I understand what you're saying.

Peace :rose:

...

I do find it funny that so many people immediately discard the 'more troops' theory without ever having any military experience. I find that laughable indeed.

You don't need military experience to figure out if it's a good thing or bad, military experience has nothing to do with it, by that thinking the only people who should be your president should be people who have military experience. Also don't really see 'so many people' as you put it discarding the 'more troops' theory, all I'm saying is it isn't as simple as pans 1-2-3 simple decision, if putting troops lives in danger is that simple, then he really doesn't care about soldiers lives and all they are to him is cannon fodder.
Cool, I'm not always the best at putting what I mean into words, I can see where what I was trying to get at was foggy.

Does this require officer and/or administration military experience?

it would require some sort of military tactical training, yes.

I don't know, "more troops" by itself seems like the opposite of strategy.

This is what we would call 'a load of horseshit'. That is because presidents have advisors, both military and civilian. The fact that he can listen and then discard that info is irrelevant. At least he has someone to tell him what they think.

Would we have to go to Afghanistan as well?

Word of advice, if you know you're ranting, and being emotional instead of logical and playing with facts. I suggest using your blog instead. People can't complain that we disagree with this rant when it's clear as day factually incorrect and the written observations come from a perspective clouded by ulterior motives and personal agendas.

Yes he has advisors, yes he doesn't have to listen to them, you seem to discount peoples opinions on the subject simply because they don't have military experience, which to me is the 'load of horseshit' that you speak of. It is quite laughable indeed.

---------- Post added at 12:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 PM ----------

We have a winner, a blog post would have been the perfect place for this topic, not the politics section where pan must have known it was going to get picked apart like a dead deer.

Where are there falsehoods, please show me.... by all means.

And yes it is as easy as 1-2-3 in the example I gave. It may take a few days or a week to make a decision but not MONTHS. You have men and women over there needing help and our president puts them on hold.

do wait..8 years into the adventure in afghanistan well past the point where the united states became an element within a civil war, all that based on some strange conflation of the taliban and al-qeada, 8 years in to a conflict without a strategy and NOW you are complaining about it taking a bit of time to figure out what the next move should be?

that's a little peculiar dont you think?

You're asking me to apply reason to a rant. I don't want to ruin your thread.

Maybe he's using the Canadian men and women over there as a crutch.

And, you know, public opinion on the matter matters not. So that's not an issue.

What else could it be besides his hating America and military personnel? Right?

If he didn't, he would have done a Surge or something by now. Is that it?

Or maybe....what roachboy said.

Wow, you really have no understanding of how it works. A few days or a week? Seriously? As roachboy said "8 years into the adventure in afghanistan" and you start to complain now? Seems you have a hard on for Obama if you just start to complain now, at least that's how it looks to me. As I said before, you're blinded by emotion, it's quite apparent from this thread, and by your attitude that it should only 'take a few days or a week'.

Actually, it makes perfect sen.... OH, you're being glib. Well played, comrade.

Considering that the difficulty in Afghanistan is not winning battles, but setting up institutions that will generate stability in a religiously, linguistically and ethnically diverse country that has been at war, either internally or against foreign invaders for most of the past 300 years, I don't think first hand military experience is that important. Or at least it is certainly not more important than knowing the history of the country, its internal politics, and knowledge about political processes in general.


And I am surprised that you of all people think that the adequate solution to an unstable country is an ever growing number of foreign troops protecting that which has just been ranked as the 2nd most corrupt government in the world.

Depends. Are any of OJ's lawyers still alive? Besides, within 5 minutes, the trial will be about Bush and the CIA. Oh, I just saw the cost of security for the trial: $75 million. Paying that for some nebulous and insincere props from other countries sounds like a great deal! But then again, Obama supporters live to spend the money of other people.




Let me spell it out for you. Clinton and Janet Reno incinerated 80 men, women, and children, by illegally using military weapons, and illegally using CS. Yet you complain about pouring water up the noses of THREE people.


McVeigh did it because of Waco. Kill him, but give Clinton and Reno fat retirements. Makes perfect sense.

Great. I guess the economy is fine, then, and the country's deficit is gone. Oh, wait...

Said by the person who followed up with a post ridiculing the religions of others. Nice.


The reason nobody calls him the messiah anymore is that he hasn't fulfilled any of his promises. His sycophants still have to pay the portion of their rent and gas money that they can't get from other people's taxes.

What I wonder about is why no liberals seem to be upset that Obama is trading a war we could win (Iraq) for a war we can't win (Afghanistan). If only he were as intelligent as Bush, we wouldn't have this problem.

Cool.....another emotional rant :thumbsup:

I am curious....what religion did I ridicule?

This thread doesn't need any more hyperbole. Even if it's sarcastic.

I mentioned the Dow merely to make a point: many tend to only look at what's going wrong and then get all pissed off because no one is doing any thing right and the whole country is going to shit.

Oh, wait.... but the Dow is up 30 fucking percent under Obama's watch.

No one's talking about that, despite the fact it's a leading indicator of the economy.

But let's not let facts ruin this perfectly good rant thread.

The DOW being up 30 percent has done nothing to help the average American. This boom will do little to help Americans in general. It is only up on the prospect of companies making money in China and a few other up and coming third world countries. It has done nothing to lower unemployment. It has done nothing to bring lost jobs back. It has done nothing to help the middle class. What it has done is serve to again make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

*edit* and if the only positive thing we can talk about since Obama took office is the DOW being up 30% on the prospect of companies making money in China we are in deep shit aren't we?

I have been against the war from day 1. However, once there, we owe it to our troops to do all we can to make them as safe as possible and to provide them with whatever is necessary to do so. The ONLY 2 alternatives short of the war ending by victory or mutual armistice, (which isn't in the foreseeable future) are to withdraw and end the war (of which I am not opposed) or to continue and suffer unnecessary losses. That is it. It is up to the president to act swiftly and with conviction of his choice (right or wrong)... It should never be a political football for a president to sit on and wait for poll results or some personal political game. Obama IS doing just that. You can make excuses all you want for him but in the end he is costing us more lives and wounded by his waiting.

---------- Post added at 08:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 AM ----------

No, I am asking you to show me where the falsehoods are... it doesn't destroy the thread if anything it shows me where I may need to open my stance some or to prove your "truths" wrong. That is debate. That is conversational... to just say "you have falsehoods, but I won't tell you what they are." is basically adding nothing except trying to insult someone's views.

---------- Post added at 09:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 AM ----------

That's why since Obama has taken control and given stimulus packages, Ohio now face double digit unemployment, the only thing available are lower wage jobs AND now 1 in 6 households are behind in mortgages.... ohhh and all those nice stimulus packages are taxable incomes now.

What exactly HAS HE DONE? Tell me. What has he done to better the United States today and for the future?

A healthcare package that is going to tax all of us more, that you will have to have (or an alternative thereof government approved) or face fines and jail time... plus telling women "yeah we know that even the Cancer Society and doctors recommend mammograms by age 40, but so few women really get breast cancer the government (and thus private insurance companies) will only pay for a simple preventative exam after age 50.

Yeah, Christina Applegate, her mom, Stefanie Spielman and so on (and those are just the "famous ones" that got exams and were diagnosed earlier than that "50". Those people now... aw well casualties. Fuck them. Would cost too much.

"But this package allows us to give everyone fair and balanced medical coverage."

Meanwhile, the people passing this garbage will have the best care our tax dollars will pay for the rest of their lives.

Oh and we can't forget, government funding for abortions.... hmmm I have no problem with legalized abortion, I feel and always have it's a woman's decision (provided the father doesn't want the child). But it is just that.... THE WOMAN'S CHOICE. I see no reason for funding it with tax payer dollars, unless it is a life and death situation or the result of a documented rape. But we the people have no say in that matter, it is going to be federally funded now whether we like it or not.

I was and am an advocate of universal healthcare. I believe EVERYONE has the right to the best medical treatment available, regardless of ability to pay. But this bill is the wrong solution. It does nothing but make government more intrusive into our lives.

So again, I ask, as an independent, who once was a Democrat until the party became run by totally insane extremists, why should I support this man? What has he done to better this nation and to deserve my support and not my ridicule?

I have a feeling those here will not answer me with what he has done but more "you are so wrong" answers with NOTHING ELSE to show me why. The extremists don't care to tell us what he has done to better us and the future, they just don't want him ridiculed because they feel silence, ridiculing and destroying those that do speak out, will keep enough people from truly looking at this mess, thus allowing him, and them, to stay in power longer so that they may continue down this road.

In their minds, there is no other way to better this country than theirs any other way is not even up for discussion. Unfortunately, their extreme tunnel vision will destroy us.

They look for outside countries approval and believe the world will be greater, what they fail to see is those they seek approval from, laugh at them and see weakness. Not to mention these outside sources (some of which would rather see our complete annihilation) are telling us how to do things and what "the US needs to do to save the world", then sitting back and laughing at the stupidity and how we are destroying ourselves. Can anyone say, "Cap and Spend."?

---------- Post added at 09:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 AM ----------

BTW.... congrats on buying the vote with 100 million taxpayers dollars. Yeah.... without doing giving that BRIBE... would it have passed? NOT A CHANCE. Nice to see that Obama lived up to his promise of change and a open and accountable government.

Part of me when I voted for him, truly believed he meant it. LOL.... he's worse than W.

---------- Post added at 09:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 AM ----------

Historic health care bill clears Senate hurdle - Yahoo! News

And I find it funny that some people constantly bitch about the country and the Constitution without being a Constitutional Law scholar. I find that laughable indeed.

pan....IMO, the issue with your rant is more the tone than the substance....or that your anti-Obama bias (even if you voted for him) is no different than those you mock as blind and obedient followers. Neither bring people together.

Constructive criticism is more productive in bringing people together and/or discussing the issues of the day than characterizing the president as UnAmerican or constantly bitching and yelling w/o offering solutions.

so what all this says really is that you've decided what obama's motivations are.
based on what exactly?
if you actually read the papers, it seems pretty clear that there is a debate going on about what exactly should do. in yesterday's guardian for example a piece floated which argued that karzai's government would collapse almost immediately were the western forces to pull out.
now i don't know at what point the united states and others found themselves propping up the central government in kabul, such as it is. and i am not sure how it came to pass that the united states and others have spent the past years acting like just another militia on the order of the taliban.
the whole thing seems insane to me.

so if there is in fact a serious debate happening within the administration and amongst the allies about how to get out of afghanistan, i would say it's about fucking time.
the idea that such a debate can be framed as a problem...i really don't know where this is coming from. it sounds like conservative nonsense, the kind of thing that is as usual from the right these days entirely about dominating particular news cycles and not at all about matters of any substance.

so there is the world. and there is the world as television frames it. they're different. and then there's the all-about-television modes of thinking and acting from the right. that's different.

you might claim to be an independent, pan, and i dont doubt that in some ways you are, but on this entire thread, everything about it, you've drunk conservative kool-aid. hope its fun out there. what color's the sky?

There are numerous other economic indicators that have been rising in recent months.....wholesale sales and inventory, retails sales, new housing construction, etc. all of which are a positive sign that the economy is improving, and certainly better than in January of this year.

This thread is a great example of why reason will never ultimately prevail.

Wizzard's 3rd rule: Passion rules reason

Dude. READ WHAT YOU RESPOND TO. You even quoted me. Without reading what I wrote. This is why Tilted Politics is a cesspool.

If I were to ask you to tell me something true, you would give me this....Yet, you continue to ignore or otherwise dismiss facts that don't feed your frustrations....

Why do you honestly expect me to engage in your rant?

Perhaps I should engage in my own ranting manner, stating how America's biggest problem is its fear of regulation and socialist programs.

Your banks need regulation. You have millions of children without access to health care.

The problem isn't with the American leadership. The problem is with the American people.

But that is the danger of freedom: you can vote anyone into power, but nothing will happen if Americans continue to be led by the nose through such things as rampant consumerism and false hopes of prosperity...get-rich-quick schemes and keeping up with the Joneses.

Dude, the Joneses are broke, and it isn't the president's fault.

First paragraph, that is why I am open to being shown where I am factually mistaken. I am very open to hearing and true debate over issues IF in TFP land a plausible solution or even respectable understanding of each other's views can be obtained.

The reality is that neither side breeds constructive criticism. Neither side allows for those of us in the center (and the US is a Centrist nation) to have opinions and try to see compromise.

The extremists on BOTH sides fight to silence the middle or to use us when they need our votes. Neither seeks true dialogue, where they can disagree with opposition's views but respect them or reaching a give and take compromise. BOTH sides are fighting to have ONLY their views, ideas and policies in force with NO middle ground.

IT'S FUCKING INSANE.... instead of debate, BOTH sides works to destroy the other, without letting those in the middle judge for themselves what they believe.

An example.... I'm being told I am drinking conservative Kool Aid... my past response would have been "fuck you" and I would have either dug in deeper in my views or gone with the mob and pushed my true beliefs aside because I didn't want to people to think that because "I am a Democrat".

Well, the "fuck you" doesn't work because it divides further and truly allows no middle ground.

The "I'll play good Dem/GOP and ignore my feelings" doesn't work because then you allow by default of speaking out the extremists to take over.

Either way, the centrist voices who could work with opposing centrist voices and find compromises to benefit the many and that would work are buried and told by both sides (unless being used) that they are "radical" and "emotional" and so on. Yet, no one shows the mistakes, no one admits their own emotional ties. It's all about winning and being on the power to dictate policy (even if you know deep down it is wrong, divisive and destructive) for the extremists.

The reality to the extremist is that anything close to center seems extreme and wrong, there is no compromise. To the extremist, they do not believe their emotions play into their views because they have the extremist superior belief that only their way is right... hence the extremism. Without emotion and a superior attitude, there would be no extremisms.

Then when a Centrist like myself comes along and says, "You 2 sides are both fucked up, neither of you are willing to compromise. Neither of you are wanting to truly better the nation and the future, it's all about power and winning." That centrist voice must be silenced... because being a centrist nation that is primarily socially liberal/fiscally conservative that voice may arouse people to see what the under lying truth is. That truth being... the extremists do not want compromise, do not want what is truly best, they want to win and have the power.

If true universal healthcare was the goal.... time would have been taken, research and debates would have been done and a bill that would be something everyone who worked on it could be proud of would be what is getting signed. But it isn't that. It's backroom deals, one party's extremists dictating what policy will be and if you don't like it tough, "you're extreme and wrong, shut up sit down and vote the way we tell you or you won't get reelected". There was no compromise. Just power. No positive change in how government has been doing business the last 30+ years and we see where that attitude and extremism gets us.... a nation divided and falling apart.

There is negative change during this and the last administration though. The extremism has gotten exponentially worse. The power struggles and power plays are now getting more extreme and costly to the whole. Now there is no taking prisoners or giving anyone a chance to show a centrist view, that ended on the Dem side with the GOP going after Clinton and the extremists on the left saying Clinton was to centrist. It ended on the GOP side when Bush I worked with Congress and did what was necessary to better the nation and not just his party's extreme.

Look at the best selling political philosophy authors.... name a centrist MOORE???? BECK??? LIMBAUGH???? COULTER???? FRANKEN???? There isn't one because the extremists on BOTH sides silence the centrists.

Both sides are determined and have made people take sides... and the goal again is not to better the nation as a whole, not to help the people as a whole, not to move us forward in the right direction but to keep us divided and at odds so that they can continue gaining more power and not have to give it up in compromise that would better the whole and not just their niche.

In the end... the extremists on both want the same exact thing, it's just the sugar coating that they use to get the votes they need. They want absolute power. The nation and people be damned.

So wait, you're talking unnecesary losses, yet you want him to make a decision in "a few day or a week" on sending in more troops. You can't see that making a reactionary decision as you would like will cause the other to happen? More lives and wounded, holy fuck pan, W basically forgot about Afghanistan for what 5 years once he started his adventure in Iraq, where was this emotion from you then? On holidays? In the bathroom? I didn't hear it then, yet now it's all ranting and raving. You can say you were against the war from day one all you like, the fact is you only started pissing and moaning about troop losses, and dumping troops there recently, why's that pan?
You were sayignt his before the election, remember your Rev. Wright thread, so it's nothing new, although I do find it interesting that you piss and moan in that thread so much about the man, yet in the end you vote for him, now that is laughable.
You're not looking for debate, just as your not looking for common ground, but again you're too blinded by emotion to see that, on one page you say
Yet what have you done to find this middle ground pan? Not a fuckin thing, nada, zip, zilch, sweet fuck all. All you want to do is piss and moan and you expect us to just eat up everything you say as being true and a fact, when in reality, you have no clue what you're on about. Oh and Baraka isn't insulting your 'views' by not showing you these falsehoods pan, he just doesn't want to waste his time, when we all know you're just going to rant again, as for opening your stance, that is laughable, it'll never happen, you.

---------- Post added at 09:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:51 AM ----------

Again here's the middle ground, I'll do this in a way you'll understand with capitals as you always do
YOU'RE DOING NOTHING TO FIND COMMON GROUND ON ANYTHING, YOU SAY ONE THING THEN DO ANOTHER, IT'S POINTLESS TO EVEN ATTEMPT ANYTHING WITH YOU.

Pan....I think this pretty much sums it up for many here.

It is hard to take you seriously as a centrist. IMO, you are an extremist or at the very least, your rhetoric is. This is not meant to be insulting, but simply a personal observation.

Just as I am sure that others here would say the same about me.

So, we'll all keep ranting, some at a more emotional level, and less factually based, than others.

Change results from real-life experiences and commitments, not rants on a message board.

Shall I pull a Host and bring out more?

If you cannot honestly engage, or engage with respect why comment other than to try to look superior?

If you are superior and this "RANT" thread is beneath you why reply at all?
Go ahead. You may find I may bring a more respectful discourse to yours than you have to mine.

I would argue for bank regulation because it is needed.

Using the old excuse doesn't work for me anymore. Here in the state of OHIO, they are cracking down on the parents to provide insurance to the kids. If you pay child support you better also provide insurance, even if it bankrupts you. (I know from personal experience.)

The extreme are using that excuse to push through a healthcare bill that will NOT work, except to see people fined and imprisoned.

Partially correct, it is BOTH the leadership and the people's fault. But the extremist Dems are in power and they like the extremist GOP will never admit fault. Blame the people and opposing side, it's easier and keeps up the division.

That explains the people's fault but let's look at a totally out of control spending government that allows out product to be taxed overseas into non competition but refuses to tax imports to this country enough to level the playing field.

Let's look at a country that has regulated and made so many laws it is nearly impossible to manufacture anything here without taking losses because the countries we allow to import to us don't have to play by the same rules and thus can produce the same product more cheaply. Hell, we even allow in toys loaded with lead, poisoned pet food and clothing made in sweatshops. But that's not government's fault... no they can demand our companies be responsible while manufacturing here, but go overseas and import it back and we don't care how you made it or what's in it.

Let's look at a government that taxes it's people 3-4-5-6 times but still overspends.

Let's look at how the parties are run by extremists who refuse to allow centrists any say.

Don't sit there living in another country and tell me what is wrong in my yard. I live it, I see it and unfortunately, until people say enough... the extremists will have their way.

America is always easy to bash for people who don't live here and understand what our freedoms allow us. Sometimes they blow up in our face and we learn from them... well we did in the past now, we just cave to extremists on the side that we don't blame the current explosion on.

As I pointed out, there are several government economic indicators that have been rising in recent months

The private Conference Board leading economic indicators have also shown six consecutive months of positive change.
The Conference Board uses 10 economic indicators and six`or more have been showing improvement every month for six months.

Most economists have suggested that there have been significant economic improvements since January.

We can debate how much of that is attributable to the stimulus package and/or other policies....you cant ignore the indicators completely or just cherry pick jobs/unemployment data.

Every economists will tell you that jobs are the lagging indicator and the last to recover from a recession.

You live in one state, you see what happens in one state, you get your information on the others the exact same way those of who live in other countries do pan, so that 'you don't live here, don't tell me how it is' doesn't fly at all. You keep talking about extremeists, yet to me, and probably a few other here, you're one of them
Oh yeah, then if people in other countries can't tell you how it is, then why do so many Americans feel compelled to bash our healthcare here in Canada? By your reasoning they should just shut up. It would make for an awfully boring board if only people from the countries of the person with the OP could post in it.
No one has disrespected you here, you have to understand, saying one thing out of one side of your mouth, then something else out of the other, gets old rather quickly, that's most likely what's annoying people about your 'rant'. You star ta thread in politics, and try to call it a rant, you can expect people here are going to call you on the crap.

I did complain about W's handling of the war...look in the archives... but that doesn't fill your purpose does it?

As I have stated, there are only 2 true options that may save lives over there right now... (can't do anything about the past now can we, except ignore that the person we are bitching at was against the war and talking about how poorly run it was... but again, that doesn't serve your purpose)

1) END IT

2) Send more troops over.


Yes I was. He has had a past where his character showed that he chose to hang around and listen to radicals and extremists. I was against the man for that from day one. Character does matter. If I ran for office and I went to a church where the pastor preached white supremacy and hatred of America then continued to go there for 20+ years (Rev. Wright).... I would expect people to be slightly disgusted speak out and not attack them for their views.

If I ran for office and chose as close friends people who bombed buildings and preached hatred (Bill Ayers)..... I would expect people to be slightly disgusted and speak out and not attack them for their views.

If I chose a corrupt financier with ties to terror financing (Tony Rezko)... I would expect people to be slightly disgusted and speak out and not attack them for their views.

If I had a past that was truly hazy and lined with having affiliations with groups and people that were considered radical and had voiced hatred for this nation and spoke how great these groups and people were ( the New Black Panthers, Hamas, Socialist Party USA, Illinois Communist Party, Raul Castro, Louis Farrakhan, RailaOrdinga, Daniel Ortega and so on)... I would expect people to be slightly disgusted and speak out and not attack them for their views.

You combine all of the above... and I would expect people to be slightly disgusted and speak out and not attack them for their views. I would also expect to lose and the only way I could see winning would be if the other side was so self destructive and scared to truly use any of this that I could win.

But my pointing allthis out last year made me racist, a GOP lap dog, radical and so on.

Then when I would say anything in defense... YOU being one of the prime offenders would tell me I was trying to come off as a victim and make it all about myself.


Well not even a year into his presidency and we (except the extremists who would support him no matter what he did) see in his actions and speech, maybe there was something to all that.


You're not looking for debate, just as your not looking for common ground, but again you're too blinded by emotion to see that, on one page you say

I have asked to be shown where I have falsehoods, where is all this hyperbole, where is all this BS your side says my rant is filled with. I have stated I would be more than willing to hold legitimate debates if respect could be shown.... instead I get your response and responses that are little more than veiled personal attacks.

Again, this is pretty much why I have you on ignore. You offer nothing of substance or value, just attacks.

You can ask those whom I have debated here where we showed each other, that we learnt from each other. There is no learning from each other here, you only want to rehash past and make everything an attack... you bring no substance to debate, you wish to destroy the opposing views without having to do so. That just shows that the beliefs you have have no true substance except YOUR EMOTIONAL VALUE TO THEM... yet, you make me out to be the one controlled by my emotional thinking.

---------- Post added at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 PM ----------

This is part of the problem. I can pull a Host and bring out just as much data from just as reliable sources showing that the economy is not going to get any better within the next year.

Then all we'll do is argue over who's information is less biased and so on. Meanwhile, things don't change.

That's the problem with government and the extremist parties we have right now.

They fight and argue and the country just gets worse and the division just gets greater.

No solutions to the problems, no compromises for the long term betterment of this nation and it's people.

It's all about winning and having power.

And in the end.... all that will be left is destruction. Power over the rubble I guess means more to the extremists than having led the nation back to greatness.

Such a shame.

Because in the end the quote I use from Lennon remains true:

Because if either side wasn't insane and worried solely about power instead of the people and the future.... there'd be debate, compromise and a unified vision to a better future.

---------- Post added at 01:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:24 PM ----------

I rest my case on the veiled personal attacks... well not so veiled... back to ignore you go Jay....

There's the victim act again, 'poor me, you offer nothing, just attack me boohoo'. If I offer nothing, you sure have responded to me quite a bit for someone who offers nothing.
You're not looking for debate, it's obvious to everyone but you, just like you're not looking for common ground, saying and doing are two different thing, and you're saying one thing, and doing another. You must understand pan, just because people disagree with you, doesn't mean it a 'veiled personal attack', but to you we're just supposed to eat up whatever you type.
Agan with the attack, show me these attacks you like to cry about, oh wait you can't because I haven't said anything against you personally, I've just attacked your misguided rant, there is a difference you know. Maybe you should put me totally on ignore, rather than just 'basically', then you can have your nice little rant and not be confronted by someone who calls you on what you type.
Again, show me these attacks you speak so freely of. My beliefs have no true substance? What do you know about my beliefs pan? I mean I'm 'basically on ignore'. You are controlled by emotional thinking, you've said one thing out of one side of your mouth, then the opposite out of the other so many times in this thread it's pathetic, you're just too, I don't know to see it. You like to play the victim a lot when someone calls you on anything you type, it's quite funny to read, all your threads in in 'poor me, they attacked me boohoo'. Have fun in your 'rant', maybe other here have the patience to deal with you, but mine are wearing thin, and this is pointless, you're not open to changing your mind at all, saying and doing are two different things.

I'll quote myself one last time, as you don't seem to understand:


---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 AM ----------

What personal attack? If there is one, report it that's what this button is for.http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/images/...ons/report.gif
but you'd rather be the victim, oh poor me. pathetic. I'll even do it myself and report myself, as you won't, put me on ignore, I could care less, it would be the first time you've actually done something you said you'd do, unlike this common ground you preach of.

---------- Post added at 11:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 AM ----------

There you go pan, all reported for you......you're welcome.

I answer to show you that it is attacks all on your side.

Not in one sentence do you discuss or debate anything else but me.

I would rather watch you prove me correct but, I tire of this it drove me away once, not again.

I come for debate from people that will argue points of discussion not about me but about the views I have.

So, for this reason I will take your advice and report your reply.

I have debated the views you have, look at my posts in this thread, yet you tell me my posts 'have no substance', I 'being nothing to the discussion', and 'that's why you have me basically on ignore' so what is the point of me debating anything with you if you're so easy to dismiss my views? Seems rather pointless to me now doesn't it?
I reported it myself, so it doesn't matter to me, I know there was no attack there, it is quite obvious.
You pick one post in this thread, out of how many I made, and say it's 'all attacks on my side', how is that 'all'? How is that even ONE attack? There is no attack. You pick and choose to what suits you, I've debated you in this thread, it was going fine, until you played the victim card again, as usual. Pick and choose, pick and choose. I'm done with this thread anyways, it's pointless, I hope others have the patience, because I don't.

But….? :confused:

Aren't these all veiled personal attacks against those who disagree with you and/or strongly support our President?

Translation: If you don't say ugly things about President Obama, you're a wimpy-ass chickenshit.

Translation: President Obama's supporters ignorantly and eagerly worship a false and dangerous god.

Translation: Those who strongly support President Obama are overjoyed that they have created a false religion with President Obama as the supreme god of all gods, whose only goal is to destroy America and everything it stands for.

Translation: Those who strongly support President Obama are too stupid to realize they are being led around by the nose.

Translation: Those who strongly support President Obama are actively engaged in a nationwide campaign to (a) say only good things about him, (b) say only bad things about his detractors, and (c) use smoke and mirrors to prevent the rest of the nation from seeing the terrible things he is doing all in the name of EXTREME POWER.

Translation: Those who strongly support President Obama will blindly follow him, forever and always, because they are thoroughly and hopelessly incapable of thinking/acting for themselves.



I don't know, man. I feel insulted and personally attacked and I don't even know you. :no:

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- Let's play nice. This thread has been closed.