Many glumbert vids made it onto this, but none of the 500k words that canuck has typed on Glumbert? Wonder why. Seems like such an injustice given the insightful, credible, and reliable prose that he writes.
very topical and current... I was a tad disapointed with myself for the % of Internet People, that I was aware of.. I've only had a computer for a couple yrs..
I'm sure that this will get lots of attention... mayhaps to become another Internet person.
You're disappointed? You have only to look at me....I recognized the same amount and I've only had access to a computer for 6 months...you're laughing....I think I'm addicted. Is that bad?
Ooooh...my fingers are crossed. I am all a-tingle.
Did I win the Wish-I-Could-Not-Be-Found-Stupid Award? (I hope I hope)
Or, even the Dazzle-'em-With-DooDoo-When-Devoid-of-Smarts Award. (Tough one--probably going to Mako)
Or, maybe I am in the running for the Spelling Bee Chump...dangit...probably not now.
Perhaps the Sycophant of the Year (I know it's between me and Podman.)
Surely, there's something there for me...because like all the winners, I just want to be in the circle.
Now how's THAT for nerve??? Look at what these Iraqi INGRATES are saying about you and your GWB-loving buddies!!! HUH!!! What colossal, unmitigated GALL!!! They're saying THIS stuff?? After all that "humanitarian" work GWB did, what with invad----I mean----LIBERATING---them, and all.
Some people just don't know HOW to say "Thank You".....do they?
Gosh darn it...they make me sooooooo mad!! Spoiled sucks.
Don't wait until the Petreaus report is out. Go ahead and make up your mind now. What was that called again? Having your mind made up about something before all the facts are in?
Canuck- Do you have a point except to say..."Hey World! I cannot think so I go to the internet to be provided with thoughts."
Why would I argue with news items that may or may not be true...may or may not be in context...and are referenced by someone like you?
Hey Stream - in the interests of balanced internet trawling, given you say that every article posted herein is skewed against the occupation of iraq, derogatory about POTUS, defaming the war on terror etc
Now I understand that your view is that these articles are no doubt written by democrats with a huge axe to grind, all chomping at the bit to oust or impeach... how's about this as a plan:
Why don't you post a few which show how well the occupation is going, how much everyone agrees with POTUS and generally how well the internet viewing public (quite large I'll hasten to add) perceives the US administration at the moment.
M- That would seem reasonable, on the surface. However, I have not been arguing that there are an equal number of articles out there shilling for the war. I have not said that was the case. In fact, I have ripped Canuck et al for guzzling the kool aid with any critical thought, whatsoever, and not investigating opposing view points.
What I have said, specifically, about bias is that: (a) articles have an agenda and rarely report the other side of their own story, (b) Assumptions by people like Canuck are re-affirmed in the press (American, in particular) as they have had an anti-war agenda from the get-go, (c) wars take time, and reasonable people know this. They also know that, in that time, mistakes are made from the CiC to the troops on the ground; none of which, necessarily, impugn the overall war...only in the minds of the small., (d) Wars are not necessarily popular throughout their time in battle. So what? To argue that we should leave based on the whims of the people, as expressed in polls, is silly. That is a coward's refuge. (e) Ther is contradicting information out there and I have posted a few links. However, since minds are already made up, they have been fruitless. (f) The same diseases that plagued the evolution debate, plague this one as well: What is knowable. To whom will we defer. What isfact vs. what is believed.
Here is a little analogy: Your favorite hockey team embarks on a new season against opponents of known and unknown strngths and weaknesses. They lose the first game. After the game come the armchair types who "KNOW" what should have been done to win. They often have scapegoats as to what was wrong with the first game...maybe the coach should have pulled someone out or put someone in, maybe the best forward was playing sick and did not let the coach know...lots of variables that those on the sidelines don't know.
So, what does the sideliner do...remove all support for the team? Tell them to pack it up? Get the press to publically undermine what the team is doing? Force a losing season to possibly replace the coach? In the above illustration, the answer is YES with regard to the current Democratic party and their willing support in the press.
It has gained some support, but, thanks to a more savvy public (due to Vietnam) it won't be quite as simple as "Pull Out and Surrender."
The problem with your "hockey analogy", is that in any hockey game, there is a CLEAR goal for avrytime team and player: To face an IDENTIFIABLE opponent; to WIN against said opponent; to make sure EVERYONE is on the same page as to the teams' mission/goal (this would be a coaches responsiblity, and ultimately, the general manager). The worst thing the teams managers and owners can start to do, is to LIE or otherwise DECIEVE his players. And if the losing streak continues, some asshole is going to be handing in his resignation (i.e. get FIRED/REMOVED/OUSTED/IMPEACHED).
The plain fact of the matter, is that the number of agencies/people out there who are genuinely "shilling" for the war (like you) are in the MINORITY. Period. And you know it. And THAT is why you don't toe THAT line. Let me say it again: M-I-N-O-R-I-T-Y. You don't like that word...do you? M-I-N-O-R-I-T-Y.
"The worst thing the teams managers and owners can start to do, is to LIE or otherwise DECIEVE his players. And if the losing streak continues, some asshole is going to be handing in his resignation."
I want the Maple Leafs coaches heads on a platter. He keeps telling his players they are good, but we all know the truth of last season. My crystal ball tells me they will be losers this season and not make the playoffs 2 years in a row!!!
C-What is it with you and being in the majority? I would like to remind you and the other sheep that the American Revolution waswon on about 30% support.
The analogy is still pretty good...though not perfect...that is why it is called an analogy.
Point 1: The battleground goals are clear and have been. The soldiers have not had a real problem with their immediate goals. Long-term goals are a bit nebulous and are difficult to define in black and white terms, because defeat of this enemy will not come in the form of a formal surrender. Remember that whole "their not a standing and uniformed army under a flag" point made in the past?
Point2: You keep asserting lying. Now, that is NOT a majority opinion in the US. There aremany who want us out, but many of the grounds you assert are in minorities. You can continue to believe it and no doubt will. That is what happens when you have no concept of context, no memory of the build up, no appreciation for history and no ability to think beyond what the internet feeds you.
WOW! - "I think there's an overwhelming threat in it. Bin laden, again, offered us a chance to convert to Islam, which is required in their religion before they attack us."
Like converting to Islam would make any difference! I'm so sick of extremism! Wonder if anything is in the works? Maybe he should do his next video from Washington. I bet he could.
Strangely vain of him to have dyed his beard for the video.
.(in a big hurry) I'm sorry Pod what did you say?....I'm frazzled!!... Oh never mind its time for morning prayer. Have to get to the Mosque! anyone Know the direction of Mecca,
In point of fact, the crux of my whole beef with the POTUS is that he hasn't CAUGHT/KILLED/WASTED/WHACKED this sorry sonofabitch by now, mostly due to incompetence, stupidity and outright cluelessness.
But what can ya say?
Maybe it's like what GWB actually said a while back:
"Sorry, but I jus' don't spend all that much time thinkin' about him."
C - Two days to go before we find out. With the Germany thing, there may be something planned.
I have always had the suspicion that the Oil Men in S.A. and in the U.S. might have a agreement to keep the OBL threat going as long as possible. He is really making a lot of rich people very much richer!
I think he will be 'found' when there are longer any reasons for him not to be found.
Reply No. 1: VA does not equal GWB. (Not a fan of neither) Given time, I would like to think this sort of thing would be rooted out and better admin put in place or fixed. I would like to point out that the same bureaucratic machine that fails some of our soldiers is what you desire of a national health care system. Why do you think I would immediately defend a situation like this? However, pointing out your hypocricy and stupidity...that's another matter.
You are in a tough spot, C. In one breath, GWB cannot do anything without the handi-wipes in Congress. In another, you would like him to fix all problems associated with war and the military. Or, just bail.
Don't give me that crap about you being upset. Boy, you are thrilled. If it makes GWB look bad or if it poses a negative image of the war...you are in ecstacy.
For years now, most VA operations have been PRIVITIZED by your conservative, Republican friends. This includes all the horrors of Walter Reed, and why THAT facility has hit the skids. Had the Republican President and Republican-DOMINATED Congress of-the-day actually taken STEPS to fix this shit, it wouldn't be as bad as it is.
And further, IF this WAS in any way, shape or form ACTUALLY run competently BY the GOVERNMENT along the lines of a Universal Health Care system (as opposed to it being "contracted out", much like the hunt for Osama was), then the problems would in NO WAY be as systemic and habitual as they are NOW. The system wouldn't be "perfect", but it sure as hell would be BETTER than what this unfortunate Marine now has to experience.
YOU, never having lived in a society with "universal health care" can say "I would like to point out that the same bureaucratic machine that fails some of our soldiers is what you desire of a national health care system."
Now...how the hell do YOU know THAT???
So, when I bring to your attention the plight of this honourable man, then that is your main response? That I'm being "stupid"? Or "hypocritical"? Man-oh-man, you're starting to sound like an angry little kid in a school yard. Keep it up. I guess you're jus' too gosh-darn "smart" to be "fooled", huh?
Here we go agin...educated on the web.
Sigh
Do you have any idea how silly you are sounding? Bleating the same tune.
What is your point exactly with this story? Is it to show the horror of war? The sadness of injury and difficulties dealing with a bureaucracy?
(Sometimes you just say stupid things, C, and pointing it out is part of the argument. Like the privately contracted versus gubment hospitals argument for the (yep, you heard right folks, "...horrors of Waltr Reed..") failure of (I suppose) post-war injuries and rehad. Spken like a true party member.)
What makes you think said universal/national health care system won't contract out? Why wouldn't they...it is overall a much better way to take care of injuries and infirmities.
Why on earth would we want a universal health care plan? Most are failures for the basics. Yours included. What kind of Canuckleheaded logic decries the US Military and its bumbling leadership and then wants to turn over health care to the same machinery?
Yeah, I am sure you brought the article to my attention so that that soldier would get my sympathy. Sad is right, Canuck...your depravity is sad.
That's a very cute little link, to a right-wing, gun-loving conservative's PERSONAL website. Goddamn it, Stream, you truly ARE pathetic sometimes, y'know? Okay...YOU go with that; I'LL go with THIS (courtesy of the World Health Organization; that's the health-arm of the United Nations, just so ya know);
C- If I sent you to a right wing site, what do you think the WHO is and the UN? They have about as mcuh credibility as my site. Thank you for playing right into my hands, honey. I knew you would send me to the WHO. Buddy, you may not be too bright but you are like clockwork. (This marks an internet milestone for me...ROTFLMAO!)
Why must you always use the word Checkmate? I do not think it means what you think it means...as Inigo Montoya famously said.
Something I have learned from you, canuck...The UN tells the truth and individuals don't. I notice you did not comment on the content of the article I sent.
Last time I checked, there was another nation was a an actual MEMBER of that dreaded United Nations. It was .....ahhh lemme seeee...ummmm.....errrrr......OH YA!
Did you know that ALL U.N. members are requires to pay membership dues? Based on a percentage of whatever their gross national prodcut is? Did you know that??
And, thanks to successive governments' policies, guess who the biggest dead-beat is, in terms of membership dues owing is?
Not a bad set-up, considering The White House and Uncle Sam STILL have and reatin the power of Veto, within the Security Council.
Hey literary guy...if we leave it, we stop giving it money.
Making a point where there wasn't one.
Hey, every so often it is instructive to remember what happened on Sept. 18, 2001 as we approach another anniversary:
On September 18, 2001, Congress authorized the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
I guess the "government" has been out of the loop for a while now, huh? Stream, I really wish you'd stay up-to-date on current events within your own borders. Going through life in blissful ignorance very healthy, y'know.
Do you even read what you send? Of course you do...but the basics go over your head.
I
Let's see...we have a hearing amidst an investigation by a Congress that knows nothing else. We have subpoenas as a part of those hearings...kinda normal so far. What is intellectually juvenile is that you already have your mind made up about what is the problem, who caused it and why. (Holy Privatization, Canuckman...Halliburton got mentioned.)
Since we don't know the whole story, I am content to let you keep posting web articles as the sole source of your knowledge.
Oh, and we have a story about a guy who was (gasp) proselytized by military chaplains. First, it is his story and that's the only side really presented. (You wouldn't be interested in another side, as it might shed light on you dark, already made up mind.) Second, is that really so bad? Did he hve a civil right violated? You continue to sound idiotic, C. But, keep it up. I am sure another Micheal Moore video is right around the corner and you can feel smart again.
Uncritical. (I find it rather odd that you persecute me for my view about the Bible and its veracity, but never EVER, scrutinize the articles you send.)
If I send you verses in the Bible, does that count as proof for you?
Thank you, for again not getting it.
Big picture time: People sometimes do substandard jobs. This guy was fired.
I will not go into the whole pilig-on mentality that probably took place, but if I accept this sort of thing at face value...he got fired.
Isn't that what's supposed to happen?
Anyway...there's that checkmate word. You and I need to play chess so I can show you how it is applied. Right now you keep pumping the inanities and I am constantly scratching my head as to your very underdeveloped skills of rationality.
It is fun, though.
Had this story NOT been broken by the Washington Post, and had the NEW DEMOCRATICALLY-CONTROLLED CONGRESS NOT starting doing their jobs.....then all of these people would NOT have been fired. As it stands, they WERE fired, because they gave bad press to Georgie-Boy; the Republicans in general; and made the "humanitarian war" a harder sell----NOT because anyone at the Pentagon thought they were doing a bad or lousy job.
And as far as that article about that Navy Petty Officer being bludgeoned by your like-minded "flock"..........YES.....his rights WERE VIOLATED, based on his allegations. Read it again, fer chrissakes. And it DOES warrant SERIOUS investigation. What it DOESEN'T need, is for people like YOU, to sit there and say, "Well, now gee....was that really so bad?"
(although it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if your attitude was driven by an undercurrent of anti-semitism ("BAH! That heathen Christ-killing Jew-boy DESERVED it!")
Oooh, look Bigot Canuck is at it again.
So much for tolerance. Maybe we can get the government to eliminate all risk, all difficulties and all inconveniences. That is clearly the role you see of the government.
And they usually get trotted out by terrified, right-wingers such as yourself. Safe to say though, I never said the Canadian system was perfect...but merely better than a profit-driven one. Simple as that. I should know..I live up here.
And to prove it, I'll leave you with this last gem:
I know you are not adept at thinking, but walk yourself through some basic human motivations when providing a service. Capitalism works. Even in health care. People make mistakes, can be bad people and even do things for the wrong reasons...human nature.
Capitalism re: a majority of goods/services/commodities = good;
But should the HEALTH CARE of your fellow human beings (be they civilian or military) be on the table, and be treated like any other invoiced servce? Like buying a car? Ordering at a restaurant?
Go ahead and answer THAT one, Mr. "Christian".......Mr. "Amen"......you gonna give your fellow man a BILL for saving his life, by giving him a life-saving operation? Nice. And then compound the issue, by privatizing the very medical facility a soldier goes to, because someone wanted to save a CAPITALISTIC BUCK, and so that soldier gets to be treated like raw shit?
"Capitalism works. Even in health care"
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Personally, it's my OWN opinion that NO : health care shouldn't be part of that equation. And I think more and more Americans are starting to realize this. In my own countrys case, sure, there is a LOT of room for improvement (I'd actually like to see us emulate the health care model France has, if truth be told; they scored Numero Uno on that chart).
Do me a favour?
Don't talk about the "bible" anymore, ok? At least not until you learn a little more about its supposed message.
And enough with the creepy little weblinks, especially to sites that glorify GWB JOGGING. JOGGING, fer chrissakes. Seriously. Have you gone Section 8?
And "Think Progress"? Sorry. You lost me there. Another site with some type of weird axe to grind.
Yes yes yes...health care should be on that level, or pretty close to it.
Here is where you (sigh-again) don't get it. The FEDERAL government should not be involved in the management of health care outside of interstate commerce etc (Remember our Constitution?). The State governments would be able to better handle their individual needs and there would be 50 state experiments that could best take care of the citizenry. The Feds must paint all states with the same brush. (Which is why the Canadian system is looking for some market solutions now.)
So, now that you have made it a moral issue (remember, C, you have none) I will address it as such: To better take care of the infirmed in a statewide geography, it would be best to have the people in closest proximity make the decisions they think are best.
My health is my responsibility and when I get sick, I want to deal with people who answer to me and are locally accountable. Not a nameless and faceless bureaucracy whose jobs do not depend on the success in the health market place.
Perfect--no. People still have to make decisions bsed on their own motivations, etc.
So if you need an appendectomy, or a kidney transplant, it'll be YOU that performs the procedure....because it's YOUR call, and YOUR responsibility....right? Riiiiiight.
"I want to deal with people who answer to me and are locally accountable. Not a nameless and faceless bureaucracy whose jobs do not depend on the success in the health market place."
Ummm....that's EXACTLY what you have now: a faceless, insurance-industry, HMO-employed BUREAUCRAT, who will decide for YOU whether or not YOU will get the procedure, or whether they will cover it or not, AND who have an OBLIGATION (first and foremost) to the companys shareholders to make sure they turn a PROFIT AND whos very livelihood and SURVIVAL ARE based on the market place.
Hence....leaving YOU...and a lot of other ordinary folks and their needs....not exactly Priority One.
Yes, I know that about our current health care in the US. I have said over and over it is not perfect. So, why take a bloated and bumbling bureaucracy and make it bigger and more bloated? Probably should defer that answer to you.
However, your description is right out of Karl Marx, C. Decisions and systems locally accounted for or a system where there is no accountability and is nationally applied to all. Thank you, no.
Most of the waste seems to be in admin. You seem to think that someone else is responsible for my health and paying for it. Yeah...that kind of thinking works wherever it is tried.
For those of us on earth, we would prefer those who cannot pay for their emergencies and operations and the like, to rely on churches, charitable organizations and local governments who have a real vested interest in its citizens.
"we would prefer those who cannot pay for their emergencies and operations and the like, to rely on churches, charitable organizations and local governments who have a real vested interest in its citizens."
Well now..that's mighty "christian" of you, Brothuh. So much for taking care of your fellow man, huh? Seeing as how YOU have no "vested interest" in your fellow citizens.
Ya think J.C. handed out a bill to all the blind and crippled people he healed?
Kinda goes against the grain of a profit-driven system..don't it?
Chumpstream your naivety in assuming this was anything other than a cynical photcall is extreme and upsetting.
Please don't sink to this kind of tactic in trying to defend the indefensible
Breakthechain.org is a site devoted to reducing the amount of misinformation sent out online. The piece states that whilst essentially an accurate story, this poor vet came to the White House SPECIFICALLY to jog with the Bush who (no doubt) was rubbing his hands with glee at the photo opp rather than genuainely reflecting on doing good. If it had really mattered to GWB, they would have jogged in private.
I know how much you wish to defend Bush and all that he stands for but you're begining to make it very easy for me to treat you with complete and utter contempt posting shite like this.
Mako- still struggling with common sense. Please go read some Aristotle.
For the brain dead: NOT ALL WARS ARE PERFECT. Please put in context other wars and how they eventually arrived at victory.
The glee with which you enjoy anything that is not perceived as progress is quite telling.
Canuck, you're kinda smart. You tell me.
(The answer has a lot to do with a supportive press and changing definitions of wartime activity...oh, and objectives...oh, and unified support...oh, and a uniformed enemy fighting under a nation's flag-along with their own allies...oh, and a less liberal society...oh, and no national forum for cowards)
Golly, wars can be very different.
Streamy - stop arguing for the sake of it. I know you want to prove a point but it's becoming pathetic.
The views held in a lot of these threads, and which disgree with yours, seem to come from a lot of people in varying parts of the world.
Not just Canucks and Yanks.
There seems a genuine tendency for you to refute their claims of substandard government in the US simply because you don't like to hear it, rather than because you have something with which to persuade them otherwise.
The reasons people are disagreeing with you ain't because:
1. Any of us are 'terror symps' before chummy starts his pathetic little winges
2. Any of us hate the US as a nation or it's people (just it's current administration)
3. Any of us hate republicans (just the party's current leadership)
4. Any of us want to see dead Americans, Canadians, Brits etc
5. Any of us really want to see too many more dead Iraqis / Arabs. There's payback... then there's blowback
The reasons we disagree with you are simple.
Your views are not especially representative of the majority of
people in the US.
Not that this makes you any less of a person, but the way in which you present them simply smacks of outright arrogance and stupidity. A total failure to see the truth around you.
Think someone else on threads prior to this suggested that the roman senators were the last to see the senate crumbling around their heads. This really seems to be you Chumpy
You also seem to like arguing for the sake of it - that Devil's Advocacyitis isue you seem to suffer from.
To summarise:
a) You are rabidly pro-war in Iraq (you class it as being part of the war on Terror but seem only superficially disposed towards focusing on where the REAL war on Terror should be fought - Afghanistan and the Pakistan northern provinces)
b) You are rabidly of the opinion that the US administration did nothing wrong in the eyes of international law in launching the invasion and occupation of Iraq, despite facts to the contrary
c) You are a rabid Creationist proponent believing the earth and universe was formed in 7 days by God 6,000 years ago
d) You are rabidly against the concept of choice and incredibly judgmental where abortion is concerned
e) You are rabidly opposed to hearing any other information other than that lodged in the strangely selective memory space that is your brain
Now. you tell ME who I would deem the more even keeled and fair minded?
Face it Chumpstream - you simply like a good row. You SURELY cannot believe all this stuff to be true and sleep easily at night? C'mon man! Admit it!
For SURELY you CANNOT be as big a prick as you make yourself out to be in these threads.
Mako- You show your stunning illiteracy...over and over and over again.
Your points, 1 through 5, I have never ever made. You still hold that Chummin et al and myself are the same is a joke. You have just entered the intellectual league of RF. Please apply some, just a little, critical thinking.
You seem to hold that because Chummin and myself hold a few opinions that are similar, we must be the same. Please, please tell me you have more magical powers of discernment than that. So far, you are all proving a small-mindedness found only in middle school recess fights.
"The reasons we disagree with you are simple. Your views are not especially representative of the majority of people in the US."
Could you have said anything more asinine? (Yes- read on.)
Since you don't live here, what do the majority think? Oh, that's right--you and Canuck get your info about the US from polls, websites and the "news". I see.
Polls routinely contradict themselves...questions are (purposefully and accidentally) biased...internals are never found in the body of a story...for the most part, polls that make the news tend to support the current media storyline: the war is failing, it can't be won, it's just like Vietnam, etc.
Mako- you really are lacking in the thinking department. Your points:
a) I am very much in favor of what we are trying to do in Iraq. (This is where Chummin asserts terror-symps). To think Afghanistan and Pakistan are the only places we belong is just (typical) small-mindedness. (I am sure if a Dem were leading the effort in Iraq, some of you would be singing a different tune.) The entire middle east has an interest in a democratic Iraq. Or, don't you beleive that?
b) You certainly have showed no facts to the contrary. (Mako- remember, just because you believe it, doesn't make it a fact. Try as you might, your "facts" almost never support your argument.) You and Canucks laughable debate about the US Constitution as it relates to the UN Charter is one of this site's biggest CHECKMATES of all time. After studying Aristotle, read the US Constitution.
c) As a Christian, I must look at all of life through the prism of the Bible. If you are not a Christian, why would you hold the Bible in any place of authority? Right? (By the way, that's "6" days, not "7"...He rested on the 7th.) If you are a Christian, when did man's word supplant God's?
d)Critical thinking time here, Mako. If by choice you mean killing a human life, then yes, am opposed. So, conversely, you must be pro-choice, so that you can take human life whenever it is inconvenient to have. I think our previous threads established that pretty well.
(I am judgmental of your decision, Mako...not you. We ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. In that way, you and I are no different...no better, no worse.)
I do like a good row...it is fun. Argumentation is in my blood. But, I do believe what I am asserting.
The only reason I am a prick in your mind is because you need to replace the impotence of your arguments with something, anything (insert Freud anywhere here) to keep you feeling part of the crowd. So, when you say you disagree on grounds that I am not in the majority, by implication you feel you must be...and that is clearly what you desperately need...to be accepted.
I never said that YOU made points 1 through 5 - who's calling who illiterate?! These were simply the paraphrased concepts which you’d probably try to bring to the fore. I just beat you to it. Sorry about that.
I DID say, and continue to say that you made points (a) through to (e) quite categorically. Oh… along with point (f) about not believing the US is currently acting in an imperialist manner. You choose to dance around definitions rather than straight talk.(Guess Rawanda never happened for you did it... the genocide that occurred there wasn't genocide because it didn't match your definition right? Please child - grow up)
Don't try and shrug the facts off within these threads - you are now going back to your tried and tested economy of truth tactics. Now read carefully my little snit-haver.
I did NOT say that being in a minority made you a bad person. I said that the way YOU present your minority views simply makes you come across as much more arrogant and stupid than you should, especially in the face of many of the facts placed before you.
You chose to ignore said facts presented to you, attempting to dress all of them up as some kind of politically biased view if it disagrees with your strange outlook.
You continuously assert that ALL news is slanted, polls can be conducted with agendas in mind etc. Please don't think you are some kind of Goebbels propoganda superbrain for stating the obvious – IT’S A KNOWN FACT!
What you seem unable to do is have the ability to dissect the real from the unreal, to assess which agenda is being served etc is part of what makes someone well-read, and enables them to make a critical assessment of the world around them. Your continuous inane argument about bias in the media also shows you to be a little man cursing at the wind as it blows menacingly around you and detracts from your ability to build that big picture up. Others can cut through the murk quite accurately.
What would you recommend we source as an alternative to news, to polls, to information? A crystal ball or the bible perhaps? Please Chumpstream - your inability to think clearly here leads you into an easy trap.
Oh - so NOW your argument for being in Iraq has switched from WMDs, to a humanitarian mission, to setting up a democratic state? Holy sweet Jesus how much do you want to flip flop?! It's already been mooted by the senior forces on the ground in Iraq that a 'non democratic governmental alternative' may well be the only workable proposition... erm far be it from me to suggest that means a… guess what…. dictatorship... C'mon man keep up.
As for the US constitution and the illegal invasion and occupation - Checkmate you say? Erm - no. Not at all. You're really just being a little delusional here (see my comment via Chaz comment below). As I've stated before - you stick to your little internalised world view and I'll look at the bigger picture and we'll see how the current administration gets judged...
I do see the world critically Chumpy - very critically - which is why I jump on you somewhat for coming up with a lot of the babble you do. You place belief in front of truth and accuse others of doing the exact same when they place fact back at you.
Argumentation may well be in your blood Chumpy - however I would strongly suggest you pop up to Canada and request a total transfusion because in all honesty you can't really argue very well. Ask for some rationality thrown in as well.
Your desire to ejeculate checkmate tends always to be a little false as has been shown on pretty much all the threads I've seen you in action on.
Oh, and another couple of bits of advice:
1) Listen to Chaz - you are in an untenable position regards the whole US invasion thing, yet you seem desperate to cling onto a desire to legitamise and justify it - You can't - either morally or (given the manner in which the invasion took place) legally.
2) By all means have your Christian beliefs but, and AGAIN this is something that has been mentioned to you several times in various threads... REIGN THEM IN! You simply come across as fundamentalist as the next nut if you don’t.
You made a great analogy about looking through the world with the prism of the bible. Have you ever seen how distorted the world can actually look when you attempt to see it through a prism set at the wrong angle? Gets a bit blurred and fuzzy doesn’t it?
Need I say more?
As long as you continue to make inane assertions which then get backed up by nothing more than words without fact then you will remain a prick. I have absolutely NO need to be in a majority, nor do I feel the need for affirmation of my views. I sit on no ivory tower but shoot at those who do. You are mine to cherish Chumpy
Love hugs and affirmation in bucket loads x
PS Write me another poem – I thought it was romantic….
Mako- Time to start treating you like the child you are.
By implication, you did assert that I made point 1-5, illiterate one.
I know you have a short memory, so let me sum up...our incursion into Iraq had a number of reasons and my previous posts allude, if not mention directly, why we went. It was never an either/or proposition between WMD and humanitarian reasons. Illiterate one.
You will simply have to seethe in your own bile while accepting the fact that the war, on the grounds you stated, is not illegal. Good luck prosecuting.
Illiterate one.
The US is not Imperialist is very different from saying the world doesn't see us that way...which I have never asserted. Illiterate one. Words have meanings and they matter. Facts are not beliefs no matter how hard you strain to make them so.
Pick up the Bible and spend a long time reading what took a long time formulating. You will gain an understanding, at the very least, whether or not your heart is changed.
I read Chaz's well-thought out piece and I will have to disagree on some grounds. (Not sure how my positions are untenable, but he can clarify should he wish.) However, he is right that God does not sell to you especially with me selling. Duely noted.
I enjoy the back and forth
With the Boneless One
Whose tireless verrbosity
is second to none.
When he can't dazzle
his opposition with Facts
He obscures his idiocy
by covering his tracks.
So to you, Mako love,
I raise in a toast
"Posting stupidity
is nothing to Boast."
I can't believe I read everything in this site. I am soooooo impressed. After all the b.s. and posturings of the combatants, there has emerged substance.
I admire Canuck...not as much as he might like, but he is sincere and informed in his representations. I also admire Streamlined...maybe even a bit more...he is also sincere and informed, but also he is the put-upon object of intense criticism from more than one source...and he never has resorted to vulgarity (though he's come close to ad hominem arguments...for which he should be forgiven, given those aimed at his personal beliefs by his detractors).
Stream holds an untenable position, generally speaking. The US is universally viewed as the aggressor, an occupying force in a foreign land. Canuck poses all sorts of intellectual and logical arguments, which forces
Stream to be defensive in his response...our presence in Iraq now is justifiable only by the need to leave with the least disturbing after-effect. Stream should not be asked to justify this...nor should the self-appointed judges of American policy be gifted with anything more than after-the-fact insight (would that be "outsight"?).
Stream's God and beliefs are his....others' are theirs....not an issue. The US is in deep doo-doo. We don't need any more reminders...it's pretty much a known factor here in the lower 48, plus two.
Good luck Canada...including all those crossing the border to obtain healthcare unavailable to them in a reasonable timeframe under your prevailing system...may we always be here to support and protect you from a world much larger and unfriendly than you would otherwise have to endure.
"Good luck Canada...including all those crossing the border to obtain healthcare unavailable to them in a reasonable timeframe under your prevailing system...may we always be here to support and protect you from a world much larger and unfriendly than you would otherwise have to endure".
Little bit of generalized, old-fashioned "Canada-bashing" there, chaz?
See above: never said our health care system was PERECT....just better than the HMO model. Pure and simple, and YES, that IS only my own opinion (and the U.N.'s..lol...sorry..couldn't resist that one!); afterall, it IS your system. If you is happy with it...then okiee-dokiee. I've already made MY point.
And again with this "support" and "protect" speech of yours and saving us from the world. Uhhh....please go to the next thread (caveman dancing) where I address this rather quaint notion.
Does the U.S. government "support" and "protect" us, to a degree? Sure. BUT------there is a HUGE difference in doing it because of a "gosh-darn-it-we-love-ya-and-we're-all-one-big-family" mentality, as opposed to the reality of a "you-got-shit-we-need-and-its-in-our-own-strategic-interest-to-do-so" situation.
Do I still sound like I'm "America Bashing", chaz?
Or do I just appreciate the REALITY of the situation?
Comments (112)
To post a comment, you need to login or signup.