Based on not a single fact, and blissfully ignorant of the fact that there's still no exit strategy in Afghanistan -- it's just a war for the sake of having a war, at this point.
The sky is orange! But hey, that's just your opinion... maybe if you had your facts straight you'd be worthy of debating, after you begin behaving like an adult, after you tell us your name instead of hiding behind your anonymity like a freaking coward. That's three strikes against you, so I doubt you'll ever be worthy of being taken seriously here. I'm certainly not holding my breath.
"Calm down, you'll give yourself a heart attack. You are so predictable and obvious that it is almost not fun even debating w/ you. And you used to be such a "fun" guy. You should study your Alinsky a bit more. LOL"
You're the predictable and obvious one. Whenever you can't debate anyone on the merits of their point, you start in with the name-calling and insult-hurling that you wouldn't dare to do if your name were attached. COWARD. Now you've crossed over the line and have libeled me. No wonder you wouldn't DARE tell us your name. You might learn a thing or two about the limits of free speech.
"You become frustrated when your obvious weak arguments are exposed for the nonsense they truly are. The ACLU wasn't founded by Communists? Pshaw!"
If you weren't becoming frustrated at your own obviously weak arguments, then you wouldn't lash out like a child and call everyone else (who disagrees with you) names. Period. I'm comfortable enough not only in my beliefs, but also the factual basis behind my beliefs, that I don't need to derail conversations into flame-fests the way you do, by resorting to name-calling and insult hurling the way you do.
Nobody who hasn't insulted me by calling me names, or lying about me on a public forum, or stated that there's a special place in hell for me, has ever been insulted or called a name by me in return.
Truly pathetic, for anyone to behave as you do. I have proven capable of being civil, within reasonable limits -- you have not, as anyone familiar with your posts well knows.
Either tell us your name, or stop being a _COWARD_ who has to use anonymity as a shield to hide behind, for the specific purpose of insulting people rather than participating in a civilized fashion. Behave like a grown-up instead of a 10-year-old... not that I believe you're capable of that.
As to the ACLU thing, why are you bringing up old stuff? Anyone can read that thread for themselves and see that you came across as a total idiot. Misstating that debate here, as if you had actually won a single point, just goes to show what a pathetic loser you are.
Believe it or not, the topic here has nothing to do with me. Post comments relevant to the issues, not the other people making comments. What's next, are you going to bring my mother into this? How mature.
There's a word for anonymous cowards like you online: TROLL.
Adding 17,000 troops when our commanders in the field have been requesting 60,000 - 70,000 troops won't lead to victory. It's foolhardy and won't change the downward spiral of the Afghan war.
"ej, babe, we've missed you guess you got out of jail or still looking for that elusive aclu communist party link? LOL"
Say something intelligent, or shut the hell up. You've already stated your hate for me in other threads, including the statement that there's a "special place in hell" for me. Your posts are ludicrous, meaningless, invective-laced blather -- all sound and fury, signifying nothing. You do not know me, yet you hide behind your anonymity to hurl insults and names in my direction. You are a waste of skin, and I will not respond further to your flame-trolling posts. If I were in charge of this forum, you would be banned for being such an ass. Do you have a name, or do you dare not say here, due to your juvenile behavior?
"He should have vetoed the bill with a speech demanding that Congress rework the bill with transparency while at the same time demanding that the hundreds of billions in non-stimulus pork be removed."
This is not serious analysis. I'm going to have to concur with Scott Ford's comment following your last anti-Obama column: stick to local issues. If I want to read bogus GOP talking points about the economy or national security, they're available throughout the rest of the paper, or I could listen to Rush or something.
Hundreds of billions of dollars in pork? Hundreds of billions? There's pork in the bill, sure -- this is the U.S. government we're talking about here. But if it was that bad, then surely there would be some examples beyond $30 million for saving some mouse, that soooo many GOP legislators have spoken out against? OK, that's $30 million, and accounts for 90% of the "pork" examples I've seen anyone actually detail.
That leaves $199,070,000,000 to go, to even begin to prove that your point is worthy of your status as a newspaper columnist. Bias is one thing. Bull**** is another.
"Our real problem is Americans who are lazy, dishonest and drug addled. Everybody has got to work at it, or we will never recover. The examples set for us since the 60s are poor ones, and it's time for a change all right; back to personal responsibility."
Oh, is that all? Seems to me that our real problems stem from the deregulation of the now-insolvent banking system, which wouldn't be a problem because "corporate responsibility" would prevent fraud. Put the blame where it belongs, not on the shoulders of the American worker, whose astonishing productivity gains over the past 30 years were responsible for our until-recent prosperity -- not the corporate execs who took credit for it and pocketed the profits.
"Ther terrorists will dry up and blow away without funding to do their mischief."
Huh. Seems to me, that the terrorists are being funded by skyrocketing heroin sales... and that their asymmetrical tactics don't require much funding in the first place. Breaking "the terrorist economy" like we did to the Soviets' isn't going to happen. The likely result of trying to fight terrorism by throwing infinte dollars at the Pentagon would be an implosion of the U.S. economy...
Now, what makes you think we're winning, or about to win, in Afghanistan? I provided an awful lot of facts to the contrary in a previous thread, surely you didn't miss the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's quote, "We are not winning in Afghanistan." Do you have any facts to back up your position?
You say that we are safer now than we have been in years. Does this mean you have some factual reference which shows that global terrorism has been decreasing? Do you really think having our economy go down the toilet isn't a threat to our security? Do you have any facts to back up your position?
"does anybody have anything intelligent to say???"
That is a problem on this forum, there are a few here who do nothing in thread after thread, but hurl insults, resort to name calling, and always always always accuse those who disagree with them of being high on something. When I was in the E.R. a while back, the guy in the bed next to me was Don Nord, listening to him chatting about medical marijuana issues with the doctors was very enlightening.
Thank you NchronicPain for joining this forum and contributing, despite the incredibly infantile behavior of certain folks here -- those who base their positions on anything but the facts, facts which they will stubbornly deny when confronted with, and who will never, ever allow facts and rational debate to change their preconceived notions one iota.
That's the funny thing about facts -- they render many of the posts in this thread worthless, due to what can best be described as willful ignorance on the part of their authors. Before I take a public stand (even when using an anonymous handle, which I don't do here, unlike the name-calling coward-crew) on an issue, I like to get my facts straight. People who don't bother with that will blather on and on about how our war on drugs is the only thing keeping all of our kids from "going around stoned out of their minds instead of learning, growing and being productive."
The facts showing that fewer kids in Holland get high on pot, or experiment with other drugs, than in other European countries (and waaaaay fewer than here in America), are simply not relevant to the closed-minded. Empirical evidence shows that decriminalizing (not legalizing) marijuana and alcohol for teenagers leads to less abuse of marijuana and alcohol by teenagers. Ideologues insist otherwise, based on hyperbole, not fact.
While I may disagree with NchronicPain, I'd like to think that we could have a rational and informed debate, in order to understand one anothers' positions. However, this is not possible on this forum, due to a small number of problem posters here who insist on name calling and rudeness, eventually frustrating those with something intelligent to say to rant back at them, before leaving in disgust.
Unless the Pilot does something about it, this tactic will continue, seeing as how it successfully derails rational debate in practically every thread -- just as the name-calling insult-hurlers intend. Which makes for a really boring and useless comments section. While I've come to expect this from the Internet-at-large, in a community like ours, with so many intelligent and well-educated people attempting to have a debate, it's just disgraceful.
"The Iranians have a nuclear weapons program, as proven by the IAEA's failure to detect any evidence of one. Islamofascism. It's all crap."
Here's the evidence that the Obama administration is far too influenced by Obama's mentor, Judge Richard Posner (no, really, it's true), and neoconservative thought in general. Joe Biden, yesterday, speaking to Iran:
"Continue down your current course and there will be pressure and isolation; abandon the illicit nuclear program and your support for terrorism, and there will be meaningful incentives."
Well, isn't that article a fine example of what's wrong with journalism these days? The article's response to that is to say how Iran says their program is peaceful, but many Western countries disagree. Really? Which ones? America?
Not so much, as it turns out! Neoconservative thought requires us to reject this evidence that no such illicit program exists, in favor of the neoconservative fantasy that we must behave as if it does exist, because our failure to prove its existence only means it's well-hidden. Like those cave complexes we never found at Tora Bora. Or the WMD we never found in Iraq. Or the Red October submarine that was never actually built.
The indisputable fact, backed up by the IAEA and 16 American intelligence agencies and Lord knows how many foreign, is that no evidence of any weapons program exists. But you'd never know that from following the news, where "many Western countries see it as a screen for a nuclear weapons program" is the constantly recurring spin, while ignoring the relevant facts which say otherwise. :-(
Rob Douglas: Obama's visit a failed opportunity
"But, hey, that's just my opinion."
Based on not a single fact, and blissfully ignorant of the fact that there's still no exit strategy in Afghanistan -- it's just a war for the sake of having a war, at this point.
The sky is orange! But hey, that's just your opinion... maybe if you had your facts straight you'd be worthy of debating, after you begin behaving like an adult, after you tell us your name instead of hiding behind your anonymity like a freaking coward. That's three strikes against you, so I doubt you'll ever be worthy of being taken seriously here. I'm certainly not holding my breath.
February 23, 2009 at 5:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: Obama's visit a failed opportunity
"Calm down, you'll give yourself a heart attack. You are so predictable and obvious that it is almost not fun even debating w/ you. And you used to be such a "fun" guy. You should study your Alinsky a bit more. LOL"
You're the predictable and obvious one. Whenever you can't debate anyone on the merits of their point, you start in with the name-calling and insult-hurling that you wouldn't dare to do if your name were attached. COWARD. Now you've crossed over the line and have libeled me. No wonder you wouldn't DARE tell us your name. You might learn a thing or two about the limits of free speech.
"You become frustrated when your obvious weak arguments are exposed for the nonsense they truly are. The ACLU wasn't founded by Communists? Pshaw!"
If you weren't becoming frustrated at your own obviously weak arguments, then you wouldn't lash out like a child and call everyone else (who disagrees with you) names. Period. I'm comfortable enough not only in my beliefs, but also the factual basis behind my beliefs, that I don't need to derail conversations into flame-fests the way you do, by resorting to name-calling and insult hurling the way you do.
Nobody who hasn't insulted me by calling me names, or lying about me on a public forum, or stated that there's a special place in hell for me, has ever been insulted or called a name by me in return.
Truly pathetic, for anyone to behave as you do. I have proven capable of being civil, within reasonable limits -- you have not, as anyone familiar with your posts well knows.
Either tell us your name, or stop being a _COWARD_ who has to use anonymity as a shield to hide behind, for the specific purpose of insulting people rather than participating in a civilized fashion. Behave like a grown-up instead of a 10-year-old... not that I believe you're capable of that.
As to the ACLU thing, why are you bringing up old stuff? Anyone can read that thread for themselves and see that you came across as a total idiot. Misstating that debate here, as if you had actually won a single point, just goes to show what a pathetic loser you are.
Believe it or not, the topic here has nothing to do with me. Post comments relevant to the issues, not the other people making comments. What's next, are you going to bring my mother into this? How mature.
There's a word for anonymous cowards like you online: TROLL.
February 23, 2009 at 5:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: Obama's visit a failed opportunity
How's this for transparency?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/...
Looks like Obama's not going to abandon his pledge, despite his "failure to veto" the stimulus bill.
February 22, 2009 at 11:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: Obama's visit a failed opportunity
Adding 17,000 troops when our commanders in the field have been requesting 60,000 - 70,000 troops won't lead to victory. It's foolhardy and won't change the downward spiral of the Afghan war.
February 22, 2009 at 11:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: Obama's visit a failed opportunity
"ej, babe, we've missed you guess you got out of jail or still looking for that elusive aclu communist party link? LOL"
Say something intelligent, or shut the hell up. You've already stated your hate for me in other threads, including the statement that there's a "special place in hell" for me. Your posts are ludicrous, meaningless, invective-laced blather -- all sound and fury, signifying nothing. You do not know me, yet you hide behind your anonymity to hurl insults and names in my direction. You are a waste of skin, and I will not respond further to your flame-trolling posts. If I were in charge of this forum, you would be banned for being such an ass. Do you have a name, or do you dare not say here, due to your juvenile behavior?
February 22, 2009 at 11:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: Obama's visit a failed opportunity
"He should have vetoed the bill with a speech demanding that Congress rework the bill with transparency while at the same time demanding that the hundreds of billions in non-stimulus pork be removed."
This is not serious analysis. I'm going to have to concur with Scott Ford's comment following your last anti-Obama column: stick to local issues. If I want to read bogus GOP talking points about the economy or national security, they're available throughout the rest of the paper, or I could listen to Rush or something.
Hundreds of billions of dollars in pork? Hundreds of billions? There's pork in the bill, sure -- this is the U.S. government we're talking about here. But if it was that bad, then surely there would be some examples beyond $30 million for saving some mouse, that soooo many GOP legislators have spoken out against? OK, that's $30 million, and accounts for 90% of the "pork" examples I've seen anyone actually detail.
That leaves $199,070,000,000 to go, to even begin to prove that your point is worthy of your status as a newspaper columnist. Bias is one thing. Bull**** is another.
February 22, 2009 at 2:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: Obama's visit a failed opportunity
"Our real problem is Americans who are lazy, dishonest and drug addled. Everybody has got to work at it, or we will never recover. The examples set for us since the 60s are poor ones, and it's time for a change all right; back to personal responsibility."
Oh, is that all? Seems to me that our real problems stem from the deregulation of the now-insolvent banking system, which wouldn't be a problem because "corporate responsibility" would prevent fraud. Put the blame where it belongs, not on the shoulders of the American worker, whose astonishing productivity gains over the past 30 years were responsible for our until-recent prosperity -- not the corporate execs who took credit for it and pocketed the profits.
February 22, 2009 at 2:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: Obama's visit a failed opportunity
"Ther terrorists will dry up and blow away without funding to do their mischief."
Huh. Seems to me, that the terrorists are being funded by skyrocketing heroin sales... and that their asymmetrical tactics don't require much funding in the first place. Breaking "the terrorist economy" like we did to the Soviets' isn't going to happen. The likely result of trying to fight terrorism by throwing infinte dollars at the Pentagon would be an implosion of the U.S. economy...
Now, what makes you think we're winning, or about to win, in Afghanistan? I provided an awful lot of facts to the contrary in a previous thread, surely you didn't miss the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's quote, "We are not winning in Afghanistan." Do you have any facts to back up your position?
You say that we are safer now than we have been in years. Does this mean you have some factual reference which shows that global terrorism has been decreasing? Do you really think having our economy go down the toilet isn't a threat to our security? Do you have any facts to back up your position?
February 22, 2009 at 2:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Police: Party revealed drug operation
"does anybody have anything intelligent to say???"
That is a problem on this forum, there are a few here who do nothing in thread after thread, but hurl insults, resort to name calling, and always always always accuse those who disagree with them of being high on something. When I was in the E.R. a while back, the guy in the bed next to me was Don Nord, listening to him chatting about medical marijuana issues with the doctors was very enlightening.
Thank you NchronicPain for joining this forum and contributing, despite the incredibly infantile behavior of certain folks here -- those who base their positions on anything but the facts, facts which they will stubbornly deny when confronted with, and who will never, ever allow facts and rational debate to change their preconceived notions one iota.
http://www.espad.org/espad-reports
That's the funny thing about facts -- they render many of the posts in this thread worthless, due to what can best be described as willful ignorance on the part of their authors. Before I take a public stand (even when using an anonymous handle, which I don't do here, unlike the name-calling coward-crew) on an issue, I like to get my facts straight. People who don't bother with that will blather on and on about how our war on drugs is the only thing keeping all of our kids from "going around stoned out of their minds instead of learning, growing and being productive."
The facts showing that fewer kids in Holland get high on pot, or experiment with other drugs, than in other European countries (and waaaaay fewer than here in America), are simply not relevant to the closed-minded. Empirical evidence shows that decriminalizing (not legalizing) marijuana and alcohol for teenagers leads to less abuse of marijuana and alcohol by teenagers. Ideologues insist otherwise, based on hyperbole, not fact.
While I may disagree with NchronicPain, I'd like to think that we could have a rational and informed debate, in order to understand one anothers' positions. However, this is not possible on this forum, due to a small number of problem posters here who insist on name calling and rudeness, eventually frustrating those with something intelligent to say to rant back at them, before leaving in disgust.
Unless the Pilot does something about it, this tactic will continue, seeing as how it successfully derails rational debate in practically every thread -- just as the name-calling insult-hurlers intend. Which makes for a really boring and useless comments section. While I've come to expect this from the Internet-at-large, in a community like ours, with so many intelligent and well-educated people attempting to have a debate, it's just disgraceful.
February 22, 2009 at 12:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Full transcript of President Obama's speech
"The Iranians have a nuclear weapons program, as proven by the IAEA's failure to detect any evidence of one. Islamofascism. It's all crap."
Here's the evidence that the Obama administration is far too influenced by Obama's mentor, Judge Richard Posner (no, really, it's true), and neoconservative thought in general. Joe Biden, yesterday, speaking to Iran:
"Continue down your current course and there will be pressure and isolation; abandon the illicit nuclear program and your support for terrorism, and there will be meaningful incentives."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/was...
Well, isn't that article a fine example of what's wrong with journalism these days? The article's response to that is to say how Iran says their program is peaceful, but many Western countries disagree. Really? Which ones? America?
http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2009/...
Not so much, as it turns out! Neoconservative thought requires us to reject this evidence that no such illicit program exists, in favor of the neoconservative fantasy that we must behave as if it does exist, because our failure to prove its existence only means it's well-hidden. Like those cave complexes we never found at Tora Bora. Or the WMD we never found in Iraq. Or the Red October submarine that was never actually built.
The indisputable fact, backed up by the IAEA and 16 American intelligence agencies and Lord knows how many foreign, is that no evidence of any weapons program exists. But you'd never know that from following the news, where "many Western countries see it as a screen for a nuclear weapons program" is the constantly recurring spin, while ignoring the relevant facts which say otherwise. :-(
February 8, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )