Like him or not, Bill Clinton will fight for your freedom.

[Devaclis]

And win.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/08/04/nkorea.clinton/index.html

[Mental]

OK, I will give him that. Hate the guy, but good show. Maybe he'll follow in Jimmy Carter's footsteps of "bad president, amazing diplomat"

[~Barn~]

Blowjob.

[/thread]

:lol: Seriously though.... can this dude get any more popular? Props to WJC for saving a couple of lives. :up:

[Devaclis]

Here, so you don't have to bitch about politics. The man was more than just a democrat.

Ammo for your guns:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/devaclis/Funny/goptears.jpg

[sugarrey]

cigars+cookie cat=bad president

[Zoom]

Good for him. Say what you want, America was a lot more well-liked on the world stage under his administration.

[Devaclis]

Really? Lot of previous presidents cheated in the open, smoked cigars, drank like fish, and even started a war or two. People still thought they were good presidents.

All I am saying is that he did a lot of good things before, during, and after being a president that a lot of people do not account for. I like the guy. You can hate him, just make sure it is for the right things.

[mtnairlover]

Woohoo...and I was so worried for those journalists, considering it's N. Korea he was trying to talk to.

[dirkterrell]

I wonder what the cost was? The North Koreans are some of the best negotiators on the planet.

Dirk

[Devaclis]

The cost seems to be Bill being the face for our government apologizing for some wrong doings in N. Korea. To "suck it up". I would like to know if there were any concessions made towards their nuclear program or perhaps their trade deals with known anti-US countries.

[dirkterrell]

The cost seems to be Bill being the face for our government apologizing for some wrong doings in N. Korea. To "suck it up". I would like to know if there were any concessions made towards their nuclear program or perhaps their trade deals with known anti-US countries.

That's what I meant by cost. You can bet your last dollar that they got more than an apology.

Dirk

[dapper]

"The meetings had candid and in-depth discussions on the pending issues between the DPRK and the U.S. in a sincere atmosphere and reached a consensus of views on seeking a negotiated settlement of them."I'm happy the two are freed.

The itch:
How much did it co$t the great-great-great-grand-children of this nation to bring back two gamblers?

Clinton paid Japan for the use of their land for our field testing of nukes (http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/Atomic%20bombings%20of%20Hiroshima%20and%20Nagasak i)...I mean weapons of mass destruction. (After Japan sunk our ships, murdered Americans in Hawaii! (http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/December%207,%201941%20-%20Japanese%20Bomb%20Pearl%20Harbor)):rolleyes:

We knew Clinton was getting some and Hilary didn't glue his penis. That doesn't mean Hilary is a better person.
N. Korea has been in the news for decades. Clinton is a politician/lawyer and brought up the two gamblers for a sake of negotiations.

[Devaclis]

Dan,

If you had a smelting pot, some copper, and a mint, you still would not make sense :)

[dapper]

I believe Clinton is getting WAY to much credit. Yes, Dana, the key flutter is choppie today. Thy ADD is off the chart!

[Pandora-11]

I'm glad the girls are free, but we just reinforced "bad" behavior AGAIN!

(Teacher speak)

[d3spair]

Id take 100 Bill Clintons over 1 Bush.

[Devaclis]

If this were a porn site I could probably post a picture of that for you.

[mtnairlover]

I'm glad the girls are free, but we just reinforced "bad" behavior AGAIN!

(Teacher speak)

Yeah, but we're not dealing with adolescents when it comes to negotiations like this. Sure would be nice if we were, cuz then the sanctions might actually work.

[jimwallace]

You are SOOOO WRONG! Do you think clinton would do that if it was me over there? Hell no! (hes doing it cause he has a long ass plane ride back with two women who have been stuck in prison.......go ahead, use your imagination).

[Shea]

Two journalists freed vs. 18 servicemen killed. Think President Clinton has a bit more work to do to even out the karmic scales.

But even at the end of the day he cheated on his wife. For some of you that is something you aspire to do, for me...he will forever be a douchebag of the highest order.

[Nick_Ninja]

Two journalists freed vs. 18 servicemen killed. Think President Clinton has a bit more work to do to even out the karmic scales.

But even at the end of the day he cheated on his wife. For some of you that is something you aspire to do, for me...he will forever be a douchebag of the highest order.

You certainly have little faith in your fellow biker brethren Shea. You're single, correct?

[Shea]

You certainly have little faith in your fellow biker brethren Shea. You're single, correct?

Are you implying that if I weren't single I would have a different outlook on cheating? Sorry Jeff, that dog won't hunt no matter what my current relationship status.

[zetaetatheta]

Two young Americans are coming home, to me that is all that matters, no matter who negotiated their release. I am sure some would rather they rot in prison over their hawkish beliefs, but I am not one of them. I do not believe it is reinforcing bad behavior, we are talking about human lives and not a kid throwing a tizzy fit over a toy. If it were my child I would want anything and everything done to free them--just saying.

[dapper]

Even though this site is not CNN. The information is still able to ring a bell on what Clinton's era includes. "Nuke and Pave" was the slogan. Here's the link (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/13637) for you to decide for yourselves on the DU love that keeps on giving.

(Just in case nobody here knew about the DU effect to the innocent. N. Korea has DU too.)

[Devaclis]

Ahhh, American Pride. Good news can't even cut the pride out of our hearts.

[Nick_Ninja]

Are you implying that if I weren't single I would have a different outlook on cheating? Sorry Jeff, that dog won't hunt no matter what my current relationship status.

Not the implication whatsoevah. Just an observation.

[COS Mille]

You are SOOOO WRONG! Do you think clinton would do that if it was me over there? Hell no! (hes doing it cause he has a long ass plane ride back with two women who have been stuck in prison.......go ahead, use your imagination).

No Doubt. Like this wasn't arranged before he even departed the US. The cost was significant, Now Kim can show how he made the US send a high level diplomat to take the "lost girls" home. Glad their free, but they shouldn't have been there to begin with.

[Pandora-11]

Two young Americans are coming home, to me that is all that matters, no matter who negotiated their release. I am sure some would rather they rot in prison over their hawkish beliefs, but I am not one of them. I do not believe it is reinforcing bad behavior, we are talking about human lives and not a kid throwing a tizzy fit over a toy. If it were my child I would want anything and everything done to free them--just saying.

.....and THAT is a typical Dem lib point of view! Let a little emotion force you into a gut reaction without taking the time to think through the consequences long term of what you do. How would you feel if in selling out you jeopardized a whole lot of other people's kids.

[Shea]

Not the implication whatsoevah. Just an observation.

Then what was the purpose of bringing it up?

[Nick_Ninja]

Then what was the purpose of bringing it up?

To piss you off.

[Shea]

To piss you off.

Fuck you and your left-wing, emotion driven pos existence in the People's Republic of Boulder! Beer on Friday? :p

[Nick_Ninja]

Fuck you and your left-wing, emotion driven pos existence in the People's Republic of Boulder! Beer on Friday? :p

Elelephant for me and Billy Beer for you :D

[Devaclis]

mmm Billy Beer

[Pandora-11]

What's the problem with Shea being single? His choice. I like how he thinks about being faithful to his future wife.....however, ( and I thought I'd never defend Clinton and I'm not really) we have NO idea what kind of relationship the Clintons had and what their agreements were. Marriage contracts change sometimes.

[Shea]

Elelephant for me and Billy Beer for you :D

lol, Billy Beer?! Isn't that made from fermented peanuts? :)

...I wonder if you could even ferment a peanut...????

[Devaclis]

WHITEWATER!!!!

[Nick_Ninja]

mmm Billy Beer

You betcha :up:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/billycarterbeer.jpg

[Devaclis]

the cock to hen ratio in that picture leads me to believe that that farm is in Ohio somewhere.

[Nick_Ninja]

What's the problem with Shea being single? His choice. I like how he thinks about being faithful to his future wife.....however, ( and I thought I'd never defend Clinton and I'm not really) we have NO idea what kind of relationship the Clintons had and what their agreements were. Marriage contracts change sometimes.

Give him a medal then :lol:

[Nick_Ninja]

the cock to hen ratio in that picture leads me to believe that that farm is in Ohio somewhere.

Or Highlands Ranch

[zetaetatheta]

.....and THAT is a typical Dem lib point of view! Let a little emotion force you into a gut reaction without taking the time to think through the consequences long term of what you do. How would you feel if in selling out you jeopardized a whole lot of other people's kids.
Why has negotiation become such a taboo with republicans. I will take diplomacy over war any day. If Palin would have got their release it would have been a different story. Please explain to me how we sold out and other kids are now in danger. I sure hope republicans are glad the girls are safe, because to wish them harm is egregious.

[Shea]

Or Highlands Ranch

Free love in Boulder?

[dapper]

^Before or after the free lunch?

Even if I do not like Michael Moore. It would be nice to have a SickO report on Clinton's visit to N. Korea. :)

[Nick_Ninja]

Free love in Boulder?

Not in that picture. That's a Dodge. If it were Boulder it would be a Ridgeline.

http://automobiles.honda.com/images/2009/ridgeline/exterior-gallery/gal_lg11.jpg

[Pandora-11]

Why has negotiation become such a taboo with republicans. I will take diplomacy over war any day. If Palin would have got their release it would have been a different story. Please explain to me how we sold out and other kids are now in danger. I sure hope republicans are glad the girls are safe, because to wish them harm is egregious.


OH for crying out loud!!!! Right! We want them to stay there....duh...
:drink:Are you drinking?
Stop towing your socialist party line....If Palin had gotten their release, thinking people woould have also asked what she had done to secure it.
I'd say the N. Koreans are a whole lot smarter than many of the people running our govt are. READ about their shenanigans and SEE the things they are doing to get what they want....and then, READ who is giving it to them. .....and not the Huffington Post. Don't be retarded! Feeling pissy today.

Mike.i need some knee pads.

[Shea]

Not in that picture. That's a Dodge. If it were Boulder it would be a Ridgeline.



huh, would've thought some sort of hybrid /shrug

[Devaclis]

Lezbaru

[Shea]

MIke.i need some knee pads.

uhhhhh.....whut?

[~Barn~]

Mike.i need some knee pads.


uhhhhh.....

For real! I'm fuckin' voting Republican after reading that one! :lol:

Order two pair and increase my taxes to pay for them; I don't care!

[Pandora-11]

uhhhhh.....

YIkes....sorry.....get your head out of the gutter! I tipped and injured my knee. It's all colors of the rainbow. I take back what I said before. Now I know why you're single!:)

[Devaclis]

People with dirty minds are not single. People who think the gutter is for creeps are :)

You'll like the gutter. I have spruced the place up a bit,

[~Barn~]

Apparently I need to get my head out of Shea's gutter, too. Please return my vote.

[Shea]

Yeah I like BJ's, sue me... :p

[Pandora-11]

All of ya'll are retarded!


Barn! I swear!

I set myself up for that one.

[Shea]

All of ya'll are retarded!

Pfft, I have no problem speaking my mind, wherever it currently resides...

[~Barn~]

Yeah I like BJ's, sue me... :p

Hmm.... New info. http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/39.gif

Okay-okay...

- Return vote.
- Maintain tax rate.
- Socialize health care for knee-injured patients.
- Divert shipment of second set of knee-pads to Shea.
- Declare "gutter" Federally Protected land.

[Pandora-11]

I am sooooo naive.


Does it matter to any of you goons that Mike was going to help point out some new gear for me? NO?

[Devaclis]

No, we are relentless. You can't blame the deer for hunter being an expert marksman.

[puckstr]

Hooray Bill Clinton. I do miss Bill.
I guess Obammy was too busy with his photo OP beer social to be bothered with trying to free some stupid voters.

Clinton FTW
Obammy Epic FAIL

[Shea]

Hmm.... New info. http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/39.gif


No thanks Brandon, I don't swing that way....not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Filo]

Wait, there was something political and then something about Pandora - or maybe the two journalists - distributing BJs. I got distracted. When/where are the BJs? And can I get a picture?

[~Barn~]

No thanks Brandon, I don't swing that way....not that there's anything wrong with that.

No-no... I meant for you to have them, to give to someone. Guys who like BJs should always have parting gifts!

[Pandora-11]

Wait, there was something political and then something about Pandora - or maybe the two journalists - distributing BJs. I got distracted. When/where are the BJs? And can I get a picture?


PLease remove my name from this collection of things.:shocked:

[Filo]

I just realized I am much more confused.

Isn't BJs a pizza place? Why does Pandora need knee pads to distribute Pizza? Is she going to ride a bicycle? Does she fall down a lot? Will she be doing drywall after the pizza delivery?

And why is Shea so enamored with BJs? What is wrong with Dominoes or Pizza Hut? How about one of the local places?

I guess I should stop skimming threads before responding.

Can I get a picture of Pandora anyway (just so I know when my pizza arrives)?

[~Barn~]

Oh trust me, Adam already has a an extensive collection of thongs he's removed. The guy is like Obi Wan to my Anakin.

[dapper]

^^http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i252/dapperr/sofia-vergara-pics.jpg

[Nick_Ninja]

BJ's and Billy Beer FTMFW!!!!!

[Shea]

And why is Shea so enamored with BJs? What is wrong with Dominoes or Pizza Hut? How about one of the local places?


Have you actually eaten at Pizza Hut/Dominoes?

..and I wouldn't say "enamored". More akin to appreciating a well orchestrated one.... :)

[Filo]

Have you actually eaten at Pizza Hut/Dominoes?

Not in a long time. I would rather eat road kill.

[Shea]

Not in a long time. I would rather eat road kill.

With broken glass in it.

[Filo]

^^http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i252/dapperr/sofia-vergara-pics.jpg

Wow, Pandora looks just like Sofia Vergara. That is really weird. She can deliver my pizza any time.

[Pandora-11]

OK now.....I'm going to go clean the refrigerator.:bigeyes:


Mike,
Did I hurt your feelings?:( (NO responses necessary from ANYONE else.):)


and yes....Filo....I look JUST like that.

[TheStig]

Wow this thread went off the rails quick!!!!

[TFOGGuys]

What's the problem with Shea being single? His choice. I like how he thinks about being faithful to his future wife.....however, ( and I thought I'd never defend Clinton and I'm not really) we have NO idea what kind of relationship the Clintons had and what their agreements were. Marriage contracts change sometimes.

I'm guessing Bill is allowed to (discreetly, this time) dally with other women....as is Hillary.

[#1Townie]

Two young Americans are coming home, to me that is all that matters, no matter who negotiated their release. I am sure some would rather they rot in prison over their hawkish beliefs, but I am not one of them. I do not believe it is reinforcing bad behavior, we are talking about human lives and not a kid throwing a tizzy fit over a toy. If it were my child I would want anything and everything done to free them--just saying.

yes two young americans are comming home and to me all i can think is how many more have we put in harms way.. now the world knows that if you take our people and say they commited some bullshit crime you get a few months of free labor out of them.. then super x-prez comes and gives you all you want and your nuke program goes on and nothing is done but you get your ass kissed.. good call two people are worth kissing that crazy fucks ass.. i said let them rot.. they knew what fucking country they went to.. they made the choice.. the paid the price..

you cant take politics to a person who doesnt play them.. that man doesnt give a shit about us.. we ran away after the first fight and he knows we dont have the balls for round 2.. its that simple.. he will get his hands on nukes and start flying them our way.. or worse give them to people to light them off in our citys.. that will be great.. but hey lets hold his hand and try to have a cup of tea with the guy who wants to kill us.. sounds good..



Why has negotiation become such a taboo with republicans. I will take diplomacy over war any day. If Palin would have got their release it would have been a different story. Please explain to me how we sold out and other kids are now in danger. I sure hope republicans are glad the girls are safe, because to wish them harm is egregious.
hahahaha you are kidding me right?? if palin had done it it would have been head lines that she offerd sex or somthing.. i wouldnt feel a damn bit diffrent what team got them out.. if they didnt use force then they paid the terrorist his ransom.. thats all.. the reason why they dont pay the guys that take over banks is cuz if they did then it would start to happen all the time.. look at mexico.. this is just the government doing it to us...


we never should have bailed the first time.. just like we shouldnt have bailed on iraq the first time.. we are leaving these fucks in power cuz our country doesnt have the balls to follow through with anything any more..

[chanke4252]

I'm glad the girls are free, but we just reinforced "bad" behavior AGAIN!

(Teacher speak)

I agree. We don't ever do anything to them when they launch their fun rockets. I'm waiting for the day when they get bitchslapped for testing the waters a little too freely.

It's too bad that they are in such close proximity to SK, China, etc. because I think we should start launching "test" rockets their direction.

Still, I think this is good publicity for a good diplomat.

[zetaetatheta]

OK now.....I'm going to go clean the refrigerator.:bigeyes:


Mike,
Did I hurt your feelings?:( (NO responses necessary from ANYONE else.):)


and yes....Filo....I look JUST like that.

I've been searching for some knee pads, I have a friend, well actually she is the head nurse at Memorial, she has a few extra knee pads:hump:

[Pandora-11]

TMI:roll:

[mtnairlover]

So, here's a little more of the story. Looks like this has been in the works for a while now...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32277010/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

[Pandora-11]

and....http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.9ec248b23fc108b42c2d92e80c8dc59 5.3c1&show_article=1

[mtnairlover]

Yep, it's always something people have to bitch about. I'm still glad they're free.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

.....what's that white fluid dribbling down Klinton's chin.......and why are his knees dirty?

[Pandora-11]

I can't decide here whether Obama sent a message or he didn't send a message because his people are saying both.

What I am sure of.....Clinton didn't get them released with just his charm.

[mtnairlover]

Yeah, apparently it was a deal that was months in the making and Al Gore had a hand in getting Bill Clinton to go. Anyhoo, I won't say anymore...the best way to convey the story is by posting the video, or articles...

Here's the video I saw tonight...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32291198#32290462

[whitebrad]

ol billy cee... silver tongued devil with that smooth southren charm... i think he talked the panties off ol' kim... he has that effect on bitches... kim is definately a bitch... crazy bitch, but still a bitch... (she acts like she got stood up on prom...)

props for mr. o... like any good manager, he knew when to send in the closer! (bill is def. a closer... the ol goat!) pimpin!

[DavidofColorado]

Where was Al Gore during all of this? Those 2 "Journalists" were his goons after all. Why didn't Al put him self in harms way to get those girls back? Why did he send his old boss? Cowardice I think.

Bill Clinton is still not OK in my book. Not until he apologizes for the assault weapons ban and the Brady law.

[sugarrey]

the home coming for the girls was gut-wrenching. Like him or not, he had an "in" with the country and used it for good use. That gives me a little comfort in his abilities. +1

[Nick_Ninja]

Don't think for one second that negotiations (bilateral or otherwise) would have happened under the previous Washington administration. Clinton didn't go over there without prior State Department consent. He had to ask the wife if it was OK first.

[whitebrad]

Where was Al Gore during all of this? Those 2 "Journalists" were his goons after all. Why didn't Al put him self in harms way to get those girls back? Why did he send his old boss? Cowardice I think.

Bill Clinton is still not OK in my book. Not until he apologizes for the assault weapons ban and the Brady law.

\BRADY bill was not really him...

[Pandora-11]

Don't think for one second that negotiations (bilateral or otherwise) would have happened under the previous Washington administration. Clinton didn't go over there without prior State Department consent. He had to ask the wife if it was OK first.

I doubt North Korea would have pulled this stunt under the previous Wash. admin.:) Thus...not needing Mr. Bill.

[Nick_Ninja]

I doubt North Korea would have pulled this stunt under the previous Wash. admin.:) Thus...not needing Mr. Bill.

I seriously doubt that.

[~Barn~]

I doubt North Korea would have pulled this stunt under the previous Wash. admin.:) Thus...not needing Mr. Bill.


I seriously doubt that.

No kidding Jeff! If there's anything global cowboys like to do, it's posture up against their fellow cowboys!

I'm not trying to pile-on 'Dora, but if you don't think this situation would have gone down under Deputy Dubya's watch (and probably played out with considerably more turmoil), then you've just have never been inside the psyche of powerful men with a chip on their shoulder. :dunno:

These people were pawns, and pawns get played with (and often sacrificed), when two people are concerned about not showing weakness. At least Clinton and the other players in this game, including Jong-il, understood that even the pawns can sometimes be saved, when positioning of their power pieces for the rest of the game.

It's silly to think that the last administration would have just somehow coaxed an "I conceed, you win." out of DPRK.

[Canuck]

:applause: Brandon.

[Pandora-11]

It was the tag team of Carter and Clinton who gave concessions to the North Koreans in the first place. This began an era of Jong-il's saber-rattling to gain other items.
I'm not touting the prowess of Dubya, but Cowboy Dubya at least had his lasso out and had his hands partially tied. There are no economic controls that can be administered against them except by China. Obama hasn't to date shown he can get on the horse. Time will tell.

[Shea]

It's silly to think that the last administration would have just somehow coaxed an "I conceed, you win." out of DPRK.

I seriously doubt that is what happened. We can all sit here and have orgasms about how cool, charismatic, egalitarian, sexy, a renaissance man Mr. Clinton is, but the reality of the situation remains.

Uncle Kim, took these poor ladies hostage as a bargaining chip and he wanted to extract something out of the west in order to free them. Clinton went over there and you sycophants think Kim gave them up for a handshake and bit lip? Something was exchanged because anything else makes Kim look like a stooge...and they don't play that way in Asia.

Promises were made, something was exchanged/delivered, etc.

[TFOGGuys]

http://rookery2.viary.com/storagev12/1016500/1016796_d2c0_625x1000.jpg

[Pandora-11]

TFOG...who is this man and even more importantly, whose lips?

[Horsman]

I seriously doubt that is what happened. We can all sit here and have orgasms about how cool, charismatic, egalitarian, sexy, a renaissance man Mr. Clinton is, but the reality of the situation remains.

Uncle Kim, took these poor ladies hostage as a bargaining chip and he wanted to extract something out of the west in order to free them. Clinton went over there and you sycophants think Kim gave them up for a handshake and bit lip? Something was exchanged because anything else makes Kim look like a stooge...and they don't play that way in Asia.

Promises were made, something was exchanged/delivered, etc.

I agree with Shea.... something definitely was exchanged/delivered, etc.

[TFOGGuys]

TFOG...who is this man and even more importantly, whose lips?

Dunno.... got a link in email from the wife....

Just thought it was appropos to the thread....

[Pandora-11]

TFOG,
Figuratively, I meant in the scheme here. Who do you suppose is getting his #@# kissed?

[TFOGGuys]

TFOG,
Figuratively, I meant in the scheme here. Who do you suppose is getting his #@# kissed?

Kim Jong Il, in a metaphorical sense. Seize a couple of journalists, trump up some charges, gain some concessions and feel like a big man on the world stage. Any guesses how, say, the Israelis would have dealt with the situation?

[Pandora-11]

Bingo!

[~Barn~]

I agree with Shea.... something definitely was exchanged/delivered, etc.

Well certainly. Like I said.... The game just continues with different motives and stategies; it always has, and always will, regardless of how we go on & on about it.

What has been presented to us, this "gentlemen's agreement", was not a let's-call-it-a-draw-and-go-have-OtterPops move. It was all done with a much greater playing field being considered; from both sides. Of course something was exchanged; that's understood.

What keeps getting overshadowed by the obvious here, is that lives were saved. American lives no less, for you ultra-patriotic types! And not only that, but now the US, as well as DPRK show that (on the surface) diplomacy is an option that works. We clearly have more "World Buddies" than they do anyway, so it serves us on multiple fronts by reinforcing the notion that we're over our World-Policing ways. And in turn, it is somewhat good for DPRK's rep, but also slighty disadvantageous for them, as a bully, because they've set a precident that can be used in the future. They've kinda cut their own slack in the line, in terms of what they are, and how they act, because now all global powers, not just the US, can leverage "expectance" from them, to some degree.

Head-to-head with a bully often leads to reinforced attitudes from both sides. Negotiation with a bully (that again.... Saved Lives!), softens a persona, more than anything else, even if you all think we've given them something. Bullys aren't typically The Captain of the Brains Team in highschool, if you know what I mean. It's the Student Athletes that have all their bases covered.

Anyway... Enough with the metaphors for now. Just remember, that war'ing is the easy part. The world can always fight each other, and we don't have to worry about what we (as the United States) is capable of. But stacking your corner with every advantage you can, can sometimes get you the win, without ever even needing to get into the fight in the first place. ;)

[zetaetatheta]

I doubt North Korea would have pulled this stunt under the previous Wash. admin.:) Thus...not needing Mr. Bill.

You must have forgot about the Saudi's that killed 3000 Americans on 911 on W's watch--they were scared shitless! Did he go after the Saudis? Not a chance since he has always been in bed with them. IMHO, the world is a much more dangerous place thanks to W's cowboy diplomacy.

To many extremists in politics today to give a rat's ass about the country and her people, so there can be no middle ground and policy will have to forced by the party in power. Something about united we stand.......

21 traits of an extremist:

Robert F. Kennedy wrote:

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."

In analyzing the rhetoric and propaganda of several hundred militant "fringe" political and social groups across the political spectrum, I have identified a number of specific traits or behaviors that tend to represent the extremist "style"...


1. CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.

Extremists often attack the character of an opponent rather than deal with the facts or issues raised. They will question motives, qualifications, past associations, alleged values, personality, looks, mental health, and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration. Some of these matters are not entirely irrelevant , but they should not serve to avoid the real issues.

Extremists object strenuously when this is done to them, of course!



2. NAME-CALLING AND LABELING.

Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hate monger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, un-American, anti-semite, red, commie, nazi, kook, fink, liar, bigot, and so on) to label and condemn opponents in order to divert attention from their arguments and to discourage others from hearing them out. These epithets don't have to be proved to be effective; the mere fact that they have been said is often enough.



3. IRRESPONSIBLE SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS.

Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things, events, or persons are alike in some respects, they must be alike in most respects. The sloppy use of analogy is a treacherous form of logic and has a high potential for false conclusions.



4. INADEQUATE PROOF FOR ASSERTIONS.

Extremists tend to be very fuzzy about what constitutes proof, and they also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their before and after relationship). They tend to project wished-for conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information that confirms their beliefs while derogating or ignoring information that contradicts them. They tend to be motivated by feelings more than facts, by what they want to exist rather than what actually does exist. Extremists do a lot of wishful and fearful thinking.



5. ADVOCACY OF DOUBLE STANDARDS.

Extremists generally tend to judge themselves or their interest group in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view very generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith, but they demand proof for yours. They tend to engage in special pleading on behalf of themselves or their interests, usually because of some alleged special status, past circumstances, or present disadvantage.



6. TENDENCY TO VIEW THEIR OPPONENTS AND CRITICS AS ESSENTIALLY EVIL.

To the extremist, opponents hold opposing positions because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, hateful, cruel, or whatever, not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests, or are perhaps even mistaken.



7. MANICHAEAN WORLDVIEW.

Extremists have a tendency to see the world in terms of absolutes of good and evil, for them or against them, with no middle ground or intermediate positions. All issues are ultimately moral issues of right and wrong, with the "right" position coinciding with their interests. Their slogan is often "those who are not with me are against me."



8. ADVOCACY OF SOME DEGREE OF CENSORSHIP OR REPRESSION OF THEIR OPPONENTS AND/OR CRITICS.

This may include a very active campaign to keep opponents from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning or "quarantining" dissident spokespersons. They may actually lobby for legislation against speaking, writing, teaching, or instructing "subversive" or forbidden information or opinions. They may even attempt to keep offending books out of stores or off of library shelves, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, and keep spokespersons for "offensive" views off the airwaves or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each case the goal is some kind of information control. Extremists would prefer that you listen only to them. They feel threatened when someone talks back or challenges their views.



9. TEND TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES IN TERMS OF WHO THEIR ENEMIES ARE: WHOM THEY HATE AND WHO HATES THEM.

Accordingly, extremists may become emotionally bound to their opponents, who are often competing extremists themselves. Because they tend to view their enemies as evil and powerful, they tend, perhaps subconsciously, to emulate them, adopting the same tactics to a certain degree. For example, anti-Communist and anti-Nazi groups often behave surprisingly like their opponents. Anti-Klan rallies often take on much of the character of the stereotype of Klan rallies themselves, including the orgy of emotion, bullying, screaming epithets, and even acts of violence. To behave the opposite of someone is to actually surrender your will to them, and "opposites" are often more like mirror images that, although they have "left" and "right" reversed, look and behave amazingly alike.



10. TENDENCY TOWARD ARGUMENT BY INTIMIDATION.

Extremists tend to frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them is to "ally oneself with the devil," or to give aid and comfort to the enemy. They use a lot of moralizing and pontificating, and tend to be very judgmental. This shrill, harsh rhetorical style allows them to keep their opponents and critics on the defensive, cuts off troublesome lines of argument, and allows them to define the perimeters of debate.



11. USE OF SLOGANS, BUZZWORDS, AND THOUGHT-STOPPING CLICHES.

For many extremists shortcuts in thinking and in reasoning matters out seem to be necessary in order to avoid or evade awareness of troublesome facts and compelling counter-arguments. Extremists generally behave in ways that reinforce their prejudices and alter their own consciousness in a manner that bolsters their false confidence and sense of self-righteousness.



12. ASSUMPTION OF MORAL OR OTHER SUPERIORITY OVER OTHERS.

Most obvious would be claims of general racial or ethnic superiority--a master race, for example. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alleged victimhood, a special relationship with God, membership in a special "elite" or "class," and a kind of aloof "highminded" snobbishness that accrues because of the weightiness of their preoccupations, their altruism, and their willingness to sacrifice themselves (and others) to their cause. After all, who can bear to deal with common people when one is trying to save the world! Extremists can show great indignation when one is "insensitive" enough to challenge these claims.



13. DOOMSDAY THINKING.

Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from failure to follow a specific course, and they tend to exhibit a kind of "crisis-mindedness." It can be a Communist takeover, a Nazi revival, nuclear war, earthquakes, floods, or the wrath of God. Whatever it is, it's just around the corner unless we follow their program and listen to the special insight and wisdom, to which only the truly enlightened have access. For extremists, any setback or defeat is the "beginning of the end!"



14. BELIEF THAT IT'S OKAY TO DO BAD THINGS IN THE SERVICE OF A "GOOD" CAUSE.

Extremists may deliberately lie, distort, misquote, slander, defame, or libel their opponents and/or critics, engage in censorship or repression , or undertake violence in "special cases." This is done with little or no remorse as long as it's in the service of defeating the Communists or Fascists or whomever. Defeating an "enemy" becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the end justifies the means.



15. EMPHASIS ON EMOTIONAL RESPONSES AND, CORRESPONDINGLY, LESS IMPORTANCE ATTACHED TO REASONING AND LOGICAL ANALYSIS.

Extremists have an unspoken reverence for propaganda, which they may call "education" or "consciousness-raising." Symbolism plays an exaggerated role in their thinking, and they tend to think imprecisely and metamorphically. Harold D. Lasswell, in his book, *Psychopathology and Politics*, says, "The essential mark of the agitator is the high value he places on the emotional response of the public." Effective extremists tend to be effective propagandists. Propaganda differs from education in that the former teaches one what to think, and the latter teaches one how to think.



16. HYPERSENSITIVITY AND VIGILANCE.

Extremists perceive hostile innuendo in even casual comments; imagine rejection and antagonism concealed in honest disagreement and dissent; see "latent" subversion, anti-semitism, perversion, racism, disloyalty, and so on in innocent gestures and ambiguous behaviors. Although few extremists are clinically paranoid, many of them adopt a paranoid style with its attendant hostility and distrust.



17. USE OF SUPERNATURAL RATIONALE FOR BELIEFS AND ACTIONS.

Some extremists, particularly those involved in "cults" or extreme religious movements, such as fundamentalist Christians, militant Zionist extremists, and members of mystical and metaphysical organizations, claim some kind of supernatural rationale for their beliefs and actions, and that their movement or cause is ordained by God. In this case, stark extremism may become reframed in a "religious" context, which can have a legitimizing effect for some people. It's surprising how many people are reluctant to challenge religiously motivated extremism because it represents "religious belief" or because of the sacred-cow status of some religions in our culture.



18. PROBLEMS TOLERATING AMBIGUITY AND UNCERTAINTY.

Indeed, the ideologies and belief systems to which extremists tend to attach themselves often represent grasping for certainty in an uncertain world, or an attempt to achieve absolute security in an environment that is naturally unpredictable or perhaps populated by people with interests opposed to their own. Extremists exhibit a kind of risk-aversiveness that compels them to engage in controlling and manipulative behavior, both on a personal level and in a political context, to protect themselves from the unforeseen and unknown. The more laws or "rules" there are that regulate the behavior of others--particular their "enemies"--the more secure extremists feel.



19. INCLINATION TOWARD "GROUPTHINK."

Extremists, their organizations , and their subcultures are prone to a kind of inward-looking group cohesiveness that leads to what Irving Janis discussed in his excellent book Victims of Groupthink. "Groupthink" involves a tendency to conform to group norms and to preserve solidarity and concurrence at the expense of distorting members' observations of facts, conflicting evidence, and disquieting observations that would call into question the shared assumptions and beliefs of the group.

Right-wingers (or left-wingers), for example, talk only with one another, read material that reflects their own views, and can be almost phobic about the "propaganda" of the "other side." The result is a deterioration of reality-testing, rationality, and moral judgment. With groupthink, shared illusions of righteousness, superior morality, persecution, and so on remain intact, and those who challenge them are viewed with skepticism and hostility.



20. TENDENCY TO PERSONALIZE HOSTILITY.

Extremists often wish for the personal bad fortune of their "enemies," and celebrate when it occurs. When a critic or an adversary dies or has a serious illness, a bad accident, or personal legal problems, extremists often rejoice and chortle about how they "deserved" it. I recall seeing right-wing extremists celebrate the assassination of Martin Luther King and leftists agonizing because George Wallace survived an assassination attempt. In each instance their hatred was not only directed against ideas, but also against individual human beings.



21. EXTREMISTS OFTEN FEEL THAT THE SYSTEM IS NO GOOD UNLESS THEY WIN.

For example, if they lose an election, then it was "rigged." If public opinion turns against them, it was because of "brainwashing." If their followers become disillusioned, it's because of "sabotage." The test of the rightness or wrongness of the system is how it impacts upon them...


(source: http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/hoaxerproject.html)

[Pandora-11]

Please try to think beyond your own front door. This is negotiating with terrorists pure and simple. Sure..it looks good for the immediate. What will be the long term ramifications? There's a bigger picture to see.

[Pandora-11]

You must have forgot about the Saudi's that killed 3000 Americans on 911 on W's watch--they were scared shitless! Did he go after the Saudis? Not a chance since he has always been in bed with them. IMHO, the world is a much more dangerous place thanks to W's cowboy diplomacy.

To many extremists in politics today to give a rat's ass about the country and her people, so there can be no middle ground and policy will have to forced by the party in power. Something about united we stand.......

21 traits of an extremist:

Robert F. Kennedy wrote:

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."

In analyzing the rhetoric and propaganda of several hundred militant "fringe" political and social groups across the political spectrum, I have identified a number of specific traits or behaviors that tend to represent the extremist "style"...


1. CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.

Extremists often attack the character of an opponent rather than deal with the facts or issues raised. They will question motives, qualifications, past associations, alleged values, personality, looks, mental health, and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration. Some of these matters are not entirely irrelevant , but they should not serve to avoid the real issues.

Extremists object strenuously when this is done to them, of course!



2. NAME-CALLING AND LABELING.

Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hate monger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, un-American, anti-semite, red, commie, nazi, kook, fink, liar, bigot, and so on) to label and condemn opponents in order to divert attention from their arguments and to discourage others from hearing them out. These epithets don't have to be proved to be effective; the mere fact that they have been said is often enough.



3. IRRESPONSIBLE SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS.

Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things, events, or persons are alike in some respects, they must be alike in most respects. The sloppy use of analogy is a treacherous form of logic and has a high potential for false conclusions.



4. INADEQUATE PROOF FOR ASSERTIONS.

Extremists tend to be very fuzzy about what constitutes proof, and they also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their before and after relationship). They tend to project wished-for conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information that confirms their beliefs while derogating or ignoring information that contradicts them. They tend to be motivated by feelings more than facts, by what they want to exist rather than what actually does exist. Extremists do a lot of wishful and fearful thinking.



5. ADVOCACY OF DOUBLE STANDARDS.

Extremists generally tend to judge themselves or their interest group in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view very generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith, but they demand proof for yours. They tend to engage in special pleading on behalf of themselves or their interests, usually because of some alleged special status, past circumstances, or present disadvantage.



6. TENDENCY TO VIEW THEIR OPPONENTS AND CRITICS AS ESSENTIALLY EVIL.

To the extremist, opponents hold opposing positions because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, hateful, cruel, or whatever, not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests, or are perhaps even mistaken.



7. MANICHAEAN WORLDVIEW.

Extremists have a tendency to see the world in terms of absolutes of good and evil, for them or against them, with no middle ground or intermediate positions. All issues are ultimately moral issues of right and wrong, with the "right" position coinciding with their interests. Their slogan is often "those who are not with me are against me."



8. ADVOCACY OF SOME DEGREE OF CENSORSHIP OR REPRESSION OF THEIR OPPONENTS AND/OR CRITICS.

This may include a very active campaign to keep opponents from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning or "quarantining" dissident spokespersons. They may actually lobby for legislation against speaking, writing, teaching, or instructing "subversive" or forbidden information or opinions. They may even attempt to keep offending books out of stores or off of library shelves, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, and keep spokespersons for "offensive" views off the airwaves or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each case the goal is some kind of information control. Extremists would prefer that you listen only to them. They feel threatened when someone talks back or challenges their views.



9. TEND TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES IN TERMS OF WHO THEIR ENEMIES ARE: WHOM THEY HATE AND WHO HATES THEM.

Accordingly, extremists may become emotionally bound to their opponents, who are often competing extremists themselves. Because they tend to view their enemies as evil and powerful, they tend, perhaps subconsciously, to emulate them, adopting the same tactics to a certain degree. For example, anti-Communist and anti-Nazi groups often behave surprisingly like their opponents. Anti-Klan rallies often take on much of the character of the stereotype of Klan rallies themselves, including the orgy of emotion, bullying, screaming epithets, and even acts of violence. To behave the opposite of someone is to actually surrender your will to them, and "opposites" are often more like mirror images that, although they have "left" and "right" reversed, look and behave amazingly alike.



10. TENDENCY TOWARD ARGUMENT BY INTIMIDATION.

Extremists tend to frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them is to "ally oneself with the devil," or to give aid and comfort to the enemy. They use a lot of moralizing and pontificating, and tend to be very judgmental. This shrill, harsh rhetorical style allows them to keep their opponents and critics on the defensive, cuts off troublesome lines of argument, and allows them to define the perimeters of debate.



11. USE OF SLOGANS, BUZZWORDS, AND THOUGHT-STOPPING CLICHES.

For many extremists shortcuts in thinking and in reasoning matters out seem to be necessary in order to avoid or evade awareness of troublesome facts and compelling counter-arguments. Extremists generally behave in ways that reinforce their prejudices and alter their own consciousness in a manner that bolsters their false confidence and sense of self-righteousness.



12. ASSUMPTION OF MORAL OR OTHER SUPERIORITY OVER OTHERS.

Most obvious would be claims of general racial or ethnic superiority--a master race, for example. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alleged victimhood, a special relationship with God, membership in a special "elite" or "class," and a kind of aloof "highminded" snobbishness that accrues because of the weightiness of their preoccupations, their altruism, and their willingness to sacrifice themselves (and others) to their cause. After all, who can bear to deal with common people when one is trying to save the world! Extremists can show great indignation when one is "insensitive" enough to challenge these claims.



13. DOOMSDAY THINKING.

Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from failure to follow a specific course, and they tend to exhibit a kind of "crisis-mindedness." It can be a Communist takeover, a Nazi revival, nuclear war, earthquakes, floods, or the wrath of God. Whatever it is, it's just around the corner unless we follow their program and listen to the special insight and wisdom, to which only the truly enlightened have access. For extremists, any setback or defeat is the "beginning of the end!"



14. BELIEF THAT IT'S OKAY TO DO BAD THINGS IN THE SERVICE OF A "GOOD" CAUSE.

Extremists may deliberately lie, distort, misquote, slander, defame, or libel their opponents and/or critics, engage in censorship or repression , or undertake violence in "special cases." This is done with little or no remorse as long as it's in the service of defeating the Communists or Fascists or whomever. Defeating an "enemy" becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the end justifies the means.



15. EMPHASIS ON EMOTIONAL RESPONSES AND, CORRESPONDINGLY, LESS IMPORTANCE ATTACHED TO REASONING AND LOGICAL ANALYSIS.

Extremists have an unspoken reverence for propaganda, which they may call "education" or "consciousness-raising." Symbolism plays an exaggerated role in their thinking, and they tend to think imprecisely and metamorphically. Harold D. Lasswell, in his book, *Psychopathology and Politics*, says, "The essential mark of the agitator is the high value he places on the emotional response of the public." Effective extremists tend to be effective propagandists. Propaganda differs from education in that the former teaches one what to think, and the latter teaches one how to think.



16. HYPERSENSITIVITY AND VIGILANCE.

Extremists perceive hostile innuendo in even casual comments; imagine rejection and antagonism concealed in honest disagreement and dissent; see "latent" subversion, anti-semitism, perversion, racism, disloyalty, and so on in innocent gestures and ambiguous behaviors. Although few extremists are clinically paranoid, many of them adopt a paranoid style with its attendant hostility and distrust.



17. USE OF SUPERNATURAL RATIONALE FOR BELIEFS AND ACTIONS.

Some extremists, particularly those involved in "cults" or extreme religious movements, such as fundamentalist Christians, militant Zionist extremists, and members of mystical and metaphysical organizations, claim some kind of supernatural rationale for their beliefs and actions, and that their movement or cause is ordained by God. In this case, stark extremism may become reframed in a "religious" context, which can have a legitimizing effect for some people. It's surprising how many people are reluctant to challenge religiously motivated extremism because it represents "religious belief" or because of the sacred-cow status of some religions in our culture.



18. PROBLEMS TOLERATING AMBIGUITY AND UNCERTAINTY.

Indeed, the ideologies and belief systems to which extremists tend to attach themselves often represent grasping for certainty in an uncertain world, or an attempt to achieve absolute security in an environment that is naturally unpredictable or perhaps populated by people with interests opposed to their own. Extremists exhibit a kind of risk-aversiveness that compels them to engage in controlling and manipulative behavior, both on a personal level and in a political context, to protect themselves from the unforeseen and unknown. The more laws or "rules" there are that regulate the behavior of others--particular their "enemies"--the more secure extremists feel.



19. INCLINATION TOWARD "GROUPTHINK."

Extremists, their organizations , and their subcultures are prone to a kind of inward-looking group cohesiveness that leads to what Irving Janis discussed in his excellent book Victims of Groupthink. "Groupthink" involves a tendency to conform to group norms and to preserve solidarity and concurrence at the expense of distorting members' observations of facts, conflicting evidence, and disquieting observations that would call into question the shared assumptions and beliefs of the group.

Right-wingers (or left-wingers), for example, talk only with one another, read material that reflects their own views, and can be almost phobic about the "propaganda" of the "other side." The result is a deterioration of reality-testing, rationality, and moral judgment. With groupthink, shared illusions of righteousness, superior morality, persecution, and so on remain intact, and those who challenge them are viewed with skepticism and hostility.



20. TENDENCY TO PERSONALIZE HOSTILITY.

Extremists often wish for the personal bad fortune of their "enemies," and celebrate when it occurs. When a critic or an adversary dies or has a serious illness, a bad accident, or personal legal problems, extremists often rejoice and chortle about how they "deserved" it. I recall seeing right-wing extremists celebrate the assassination of Martin Luther King and leftists agonizing because George Wallace survived an assassination attempt. In each instance their hatred was not only directed against ideas, but also against individual human beings.



21. EXTREMISTS OFTEN FEEL THAT THE SYSTEM IS NO GOOD UNLESS THEY WIN.

For example, if they lose an election, then it was "rigged." If public opinion turns against them, it was because of "brainwashing." If their followers become disillusioned, it's because of "sabotage." The test of the rightness or wrongness of the system is how it impacts upon them...


(source: http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/hoaxerproject.html)

wow! What a great setup! Wish I had the time today to respond to this one! Pot/kettle

[Shea]

Well that kind of goes against the whole "I concede you win" post earlier Barn. The point is Kim got what he wanted. Therefore will this behavior be encouraged or discouraged in the future?

Here is the problem I have with the left. They will give anything to keep from being seen as mean or going to war. If your opponent understands this, who is in a better negotiating position? Kim (and the rest of the world) now sees that the price for concessions is not missile launches but human beings. Will something similar happen in the future? I contend, most likely.

Diplomacy works, absolutely. However, it works best (for your side) when it is done from a position of strength. Going in with weakness and a willingness to do whatever it takes to avoid (whatever) means that all your opposite need do is throw down (whatever) and you will fold.

Bush's problem was that he was about as articulate as a rock. When those people are negotiating for you, they get frustrated and call in an airstrike to make a point. They lack the subtlety to not only understand themselves but their opponents as well (Sun Tzu).

Neither the last administration nor the current are doing very well on the international stage, in my opinion. Both are blinded by ideology.

[zetaetatheta]

Nothing personal, just saying extremism on both sides will never let true bipartisanship exist. It is sad to have such a divided country. I do not see how we can exist with such a separation. You mentioned statesman before, that is what we need, but sadly they are few and far between. Not calling you an extremist just look at the people today on both sides and there is a lot of extremism going on. How can one govern with a hatefully split country.

[TFOGGuys]

21 traits of an extremist:

...abbreviated...



(source: http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/hoaxerproject.html)

This reads like a handbook for how to conduct political discussions on the CSC boards... :lol:

[Shea]

Nothing personal, just saying extremism on both sides will never let true bipartisanship exist. It is sad to have such a divided country. I do not see how we can exist with such a separation. You mentioned statesman before, that is what we need, but sadly they are few and far between. Not calling you an extremist just look at the people today on both sides and there is a lot of extremism going on. How can one govern with a hatefully split country.

I have a few honest question for you Zeta. "Bipartisanship" gets a lot of play these days as the ideal that we all must strive for. But what happens when you have a value that is direct opposition to another? Do you compromise halfway? Then you don't really truly hold that value as sacred, yes? What happens when the other party refuses to budge? Do you acquiesce to all their demands in the name of "bipartisanship"?

[Pandora-11]

.

What has been presented to us, this "gentlemen's agreement", was not a let's-call-it-a-draw-and-go-have-OtterPops move. I





Maybe "gentleman" needs to be defined. (double entendre intended)

[~Barn~]

<snip...> Neither the last administration nor the current are doing very well on the international stage, in my opinion. Both are blinded by ideology.


Here is the problem I have with the left. They will give anything to keep from being seen as mean <snip...>


Going in with weakness and a willingness to do whatever it takes to avoid (whatever) means that all your opposite need do is throw down (whatever) and you will fold.

Yeah..... tell that to the Somali pirates who got taken out like the Dahm Triplets on prom night. :lol:

Uh huh... the left is weak.

We like to avoid being seen as mean.

Conflict Avoidance is our motto.

We fold when pressured by aggression.

You have us pegged, Shea. :lol:

[whitebrad]

repost

the funny thing about parties is that they are meant to service the elites. this may seem strange to you, but the political parties, and the political establishment, are actually heavily invested in the system as is, in the fact that division IS conquering, especially when the divided public feels it has a choice...

this division has been state sponsored and exploited very well, which was actually started by the federalists... (post Bacon and Shay rebellion...)but anywhoo... i would venture to say (and don't take this the wrong way, or anything) that most every one of us on here is NOT a political elite, and that we all have more in common with the crack smoking criminal and the poor outcast and the homeless than we have in common with the political elites... (if not from your perspectives, than from the perspective of the elites...)

to the elites, each of us are just a matrix-like investment... we are good for the government as necessity, as they derive their power through us, but we are expendable, as they abuse that power for themselves... sort of like the whole conscription thing in the civil war... an elite could pay their way out of service to the Yankee (federal) troops, and draft poor draftees with the money they pay to serve in their place... OF COURSE, the whole civil war was illegal as hell and the whole precedent that Lincoln set is the start of some of the most interesting rape/pillages of the constitution, but in the constitution, should states wish, they are supposed to be able to seceed at any time... so Lincoln had to suspend due process and all of that... but i digress (alot in this post.. phew!)

so essentially, the devision gives the government control, gives the lower classes some semblance of control, and ruins any chance of real change in this country... it is all wool pulled over the eyes and such

viva la revolucion... of course i might be by myself...

[~Barn~]

And speaking of that little incident!... Where in the world were all the marketing geniuses inside The Department of The Navy who dropped the ball on that opportunity!

I remember watching one of those high-rev, energy-drink advertisments for the Navy.... Godsmack playing in the background, and thinking...

Why not just say:
"The U.S. NAVY: Come shoot hostage-holding Pirates in the head with sniper rifles."

I would have called the 800 number, if I would have seen that ad! :lol:

[Shea]

Yeah..... tell that to the Somali pirates who got taken out like the Dahm Triplets on prom night. :lol:

Uh huh... the left is weak.

We like to avoid being seen as mean.

Conflict Avoidance is our motto.

We fold when pressured by aggression.

You have us pegged, Shea. :lol:

You take one isolated incident and use it to present the left as strong and courageous. Not that I am discounting the act. I was in favor of it.

Look at the run up to the election Barn. The left in this country had their panties in a bunch because the perception was that the world hated us. That they thought us mean, unilateral, unwilling to compromise, negotiate with (insert your favorite loon here). Obama, once elected, went on a world tour apologizing for America and telling all that would listen how we had done them wrong. Strength or weakness? You will say strength most likely because you firmly believe we did do them wrong...

Being a leader means that most of the time the world will hate us. That we stand on the wall against chaos that it is easier for them not to see, simply makes us a better target for their ire. Apologizing for it only makes us look weak in the eyes of those who only understand the language of violence and strength. The world is a cruel place with people that would much rather see you laying a pool of your own blood then even think about talking to you. A world where there are many cultures that simply don't understand the concept of democracy, "conflict avoidance" or egalitarian societies that we take for granted.

Under Bush we had a misguided belief that the world was full of "little Americans" and with just enough democracy crammed down their throat the world would erupt in a free market love fest. Under Obama we have a misguided belief that if we just appear nice, amiable, apologize for our past transgressions (real or imagined) the world will erupt in a giant socialist utopian love fest. Neither of those is reality nor good diplomacy.

[zetaetatheta]

I have a few honest question for you Zeta. "Bipartisanship" gets a lot of play these days as the ideal that we all must strive for. But what happens when you have a value that is direct opposition to another? Do you compromise halfway? Then you don't really truly hold that value as sacred, yes? What happens when the other party refuses to budge? Do you acquiesce to all their demands in the name of "bipartisanship"?
If folks have a real disagreement and compromise isn't possible then we will have what we have now, one party rule. There are many people that make a country and all have views and agenda they would like to have followed through on, simply impossible. So the only way this country can work is on compromise. I compromise on my job, but if there is something that is really in my caw I can quit and find another job. I understand it is hard to leave one's country, but realistically you can not please everyone. I hate paying taxes on something I do not believe on (read Iraqi war) but I do it because that is what the majority wanted at the time. I have socialized health care and I choose it over my plan offered at work. I am happy with my family's treatment at the USAF Academy and I will keep it. I feel for folks like Trevor, that will never be able to get health care, through no fault of his own, because an insurance company can not make money off of him. I have been to war and I despise it. War is waged by old men and fought by children. If that makes me weak, sobeit! Now please tell me how we move forward when both sides are so polarized. The last election said volumes about how the country was run and you'll get your chance in 2012. I do not have the answers, just as all here. We have opinions--nothing more.

[Shea]

If folks have a real disagreement and compromise isn't possible then we will have what we have now, one party rule. There are many people that make a country and all have views and agenda they would like to have followed through on, simply impossible. So the only way this country can work is on compromise. I compromise on my job, but if there is something that is really in my caw I can quit and find another job. I understand it is hard to leave one's country, but realistically you can not please everyone. I hate paying taxes on something I do not believe on (read Iraqi war) but I do it because that is what the majority wanted at the time. I have socialized health care and I choose it over my plan offered at work. I am happy with my family's treatment at the USAF Academy and I will keep it. I feel for folks like Trevor, that will never be able to get health care, through no fault of his own, because an insurance company can not make money off of him. I have been to war and I despise it. War is waged by old men and fought by children. If that makes me weak, sobeit! Now please tell me how we move forward when both sides are so polarized. The last election said volumes about how the country was run and you'll get your chance in 2012. I do not have the answers, just as all here. We have opinions--nothing more.

My questions were sincere and thank you for taking the time to answer them. Yes it is difficult when both sides are polarized and think debate is name-calling and media spin. I feel what we lack in this country is an honest debate on policy and values. Neither side is willing to stand up and honestly state their goals, beliefs and vision for the future of this country. Guess that would be the 'statesman' you referred to earlier. All too often we get deception (from all sides) and special interests running the show.

[~Barn~]

You take one isolated incident and use it to present the left as strong and courageous. Not that I am discounting the act. I was in favor of it.

Look at the run up to the election Barn. The left in this country had their panties in a bunch because the perception was that the world hated us. That they thought us mean, unilateral, unwilling to compromise, negotiate with (insert your favorite loon here). Obama, once elected, went on a world tour apologizing for America and telling all that would listen how we had done them wrong. Strength or weakness? You will say strength most likely because you firmly believe we did do them wrong...

Being a leader means that most of the time the world will hate us. That we stand on the wall against chaos that it is easier for them not to see, simply makes us a better target for their ire. Apologizing for it only makes us look weak in the eyes of those who only understand the language of violence and strength. The world is a cruel place with people that would much rather see you laying a pool of your own blood then even think about talking to you. A world where there are many cultures that simply don't understand the concept of democracy, "conflict avoidance" or egalitarian societies that we take for granted.

Under Bush we had a misguided belief that the world was full of "little Americans" and with just enough democracy crammed down their throat the world would erupt in a free market love fest. Under Obama we have a misguided belief that if we just appear nice, amiable, apologize for our past transgressions (real or imagined) the world will erupt in a giant socialist utopian love fest. Neither of those is reality nor good diplomacy.

Well to be honest Shea, I can't speak as an advocate or spokesperson for the masses on either side of the divide. Some of what you are saying may verywell be true for a certain segment, just like I could probably generalize "The Right" to some level of accuracy, if not include myself. But what I just read, is nothing I ever have wholly aligned with.

I prefer the fine-line towards the center of it all. The place where you're seldom picked on, you seldom bully, and you're reasonably liked and respected, by those around you. When you know you can hold your own, whether the battle is fought with wits, or with fists; and your friends know they are protected when they're in your company, as do you in theirs.

Is that a pipedream in the World Community? Who's to say, the population is ever changing. But I'll never discount it as a possibility, so long as I'm able to continue practicing it.

[Shea]

Well to be honest Shea, I can't speak as an advocate or spokesperson for the masses on either side of the divide. Some of what you are saying may verywell be true for a certain segment, just like I could probably generalize "The Right" to some level of accuracy, if not include myself. But what I just read, is nothing I ever have wholly aligned with.

I prefer the fine-line towards the center of it all. The place where you're seldom picked on, you seldom bully, and you're reasonably liked and respected, by those around you. When you know you can hold your own, whether the battle is fought with wits, or with fists; and your friends know they are protected when they're in your company, as do you in theirs.

Is that a pipedream in the World Community? Who's to say, the population is ever changing. But I'll never discount it as a possibility.

If it were not clear Barn I was talking about the "political left" not the great masses that associated themselves with a certain end of the political spectrum. Those that run for office and fill the ranks of the great bureaucracy. I sincerely doubt an assembly line worker in Detroit who votes Democrat would give a rat's behind if we nuked Kim and his posse.

Yes, diplomacy needs to be centrist. Having all options (and understanding the pros/cons of each) is the absolute best way to get what you want. Hawks/Doves limit themselves and end up coming away with less then ideal agreements.

[Devaclis]

Not knowing any of the facts or conversations that transpired during these meetings between KJI and Clinton, nothing here is more than an argument of your opinions. Opinions don't get shit done. They just get YOUR shit out in the open.

That is my opinion.

[#1Townie]

Well certainly. Like I said.... The game just continues with different motives and stategies; it always has, and always will, regardless of how we go on & on about it.

What has been presented to us, this "gentlemen's agreement", was not a let's-call-it-a-draw-and-go-have-OtterPops move. It was all done with a much greater playing field being considered; from both sides. Of course something was exchanged; that's understood.

What keeps getting overshadowed by the obvious here, is that lives were saved. American lives no less, for you ultra-patriotic types! And not only that, but now the US, as well as DPRK show that (on the surface) diplomacy is an option that works. We clearly have more "World Buddies" than they do anyway, so it serves us on multiple fronts by reinforcing the notion that we're over our World-Policing ways. And in turn, it is somewhat good for DPRK's rep, but also slighty disadvantageous for them, as a bully, because they've set a precident that can be used in the future. They've kinda cut their own slack in the line, in terms of what they are, and how they act, because now all global powers, not just the US, can leverage "expectance" from them, to some degree.

Head-to-head with a bully often leads to reinforced attitudes from both sides. Negotiation with a bully (that again.... Saved Lives!), softens a persona, more than anything else, even if you all think we've given them something. Bullys aren't typically The Captain of the Brains Team in highschool, if you know what I mean. It's the Student Athletes that have all their bases covered.

Anyway... Enough with the metaphors for now. Just remember, that war'ing is the easy part. The world can always fight each other, and we don't have to worry about what we (as the United States) is capable of. But stacking your corner with every advantage you can, can sometimes get you the win, without ever even needing to get into the fight in the first place. ;)

in a game of chees you use your pawns as just that.. he cought a pawn and gave him a new move.. now he knows we are weak.. if he gets a chance to do this again im sure he will.. he will cuz he knows that we will give in and give him what he wants.. we started a cycle that leads to more harm..

going head to head with a bully you dont give him what he wants to try and fix things.. think about it.. he takes your lunch money and you keep giving it, hes not going to stop.. thats all we have done.. he took our gi joe and we gave him our lunch money.. we just got punked like a little bitch..


and barn who do you think is stacking their corner in this move?? all we got were some dumb bitches.. im sure there are more reporters out there.. i didnt see news come to a hault cuz they got locked up..

you are right about not needing to fight in the first place... he has now found a way to get what he wants with out a war being started.. all he has to do is take some people and say they commited a crime and he will now get what he wants..

how fucking long are we going to let this bully get away with what ever he wants?? do you realy think that this little thing will help take down their nukes?? what are we now good friends with north korea?? you guys are looking at a very very very very small pic here... wow we got some girls back.. he now feels so much stronger whats going to be next?? re-enter south korea??




You must have forgot about the Saudi's that killed 3000 Americans on 911 on W's watch--[/
quote]

umm well if you want to put blaim and whos watch then maybe you should take a look at whos adminastration it was that created the walls for this to happen.. it was not bush it was clinton.. also clinton had a chance to take out osama but did not.. the reason why the launch was not given was cuz there was a saudi prince in the same village.

[quote=~Barn~;490422]Yeah..... tell that to the Somali pirates who got taken out like the Dahm Triplets on prom night. :lol:

Uh huh... the left is weak.

We like to avoid being seen as mean.

Conflict Avoidance is our motto.

We fold when pressured by aggression.

You have us pegged, Shea. :lol:

umm yes the left is weak.. so is the right.. so is our basic morals of this country now days.. we do fold under.. we have many times and if bush would have gave into the crying voices of our country we would have done it again..


If folks have a real disagreement and compromise isn't possible then we will have what we have now, one party rule. There are many people that make a country and all have views and agenda they would like to have followed through on, simply impossible. So the only way this country can work is on compromise. I compromise on my job, but if there is something that is really in my caw I can quit and find another job. I understand it is hard to leave one's country, but realistically you can not please everyone. I hate paying taxes on something I do not believe on (read Iraqi war) but I do it because that is what the majority wanted at the time. I have socialized health care and I choose it over my plan offered at work. I am happy with my family's treatment at the USAF Academy and I will keep it. I feel for folks like Trevor, that will never be able to get health care, through no fault of his own, because an insurance company can not make money off of him. I have been to war and I despise it. War is waged by old men and fought by children. If that makes me weak, sobeit! Now please tell me how we move forward when both sides are so polarized. The last election said volumes about how the country was run and you'll get your chance in 2012. I do not have the answers, just as all here. We have opinions--nothing more.

you cant compromise with a country like north korea.. its not going to happen.. if nothing is done they will have a full range of nukes.. you think a country like that isnt going to use them?? we do not give in to terroists.. its that simple.. if it was just some guy holding people in a building and wanting somthing we would not give it to him.. swat would go in and take him out..

i like how u use the fact you can get a new job.. what are we going to do, find a new world??

sure we talked this one out.. we gave somthing that in my eyes is worth a hell of a lot more then those damn girls.. any thing we gave him was worth more then they are worth.. yes i can put a price on a human.. if at the price of those two we have now set the stage to let this happen another 100 times then this was to big of a price to pay..

what are we going to do now if our prez happens to get taken by a another country?? lets iran.. what if iran takes obama and says he commited some crime and now has to do the time.. then what?? waht are we going to give him? we already made a big deal out of these two girls... what if it was some one of that nature?? how about sec of state clinton?? shes over in kenya or some shit.. what if she got taken by some terroist and held.. what are we going to do then?? how do you guys think we should handle that?? and what is worth her safe return??

NOTHING!!!! NOTHING IS WORTH HER SAFE RETURN AND NOTHING SHOULD BE GIVEN!!! WE SEND IN OUR BOYS IF SHE DIES SO BE IT, BUT IF SHE DIES THEN SO SHOULD THEY!!! ALL OF THEM!!

that is how we should have handled it.. it is how we have always handled it.. and no i dont think this would have happend under bushs watch.. at least not giving in like some pussys..

[#1Townie]

Not knowing any of the facts or conversations that transpired during these meetings between KJI and Clinton, nothing here is more than an argument of your opinions. Opinions don't get shit done. They just get YOUR shit out in the open.

That is my opinion.

well from the sounds of this clinton realy didnt have much to do with this.. more like he just went over and picked them up.. it sounds like the deal had been made long before clinton ever got on a plain to head over there..

and yes a deal was made.. doesnt matter what the deal was.. we gave the guy somthing he wanted.. we never should have done that..

[Devaclis]

What if it was just a puppy? Or the chance to do his own voice in the next Team America movie?

[Shea]

What if it was just a puppy? Or the chance to do his own voice in the next Team America movie?

lol, I'm so ronrey

[Devaclis]

Actually, Bill thought he heard Poon Tang and not Pyongyang.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

No kidding Jeff! If there's anything global cowboys like to do, it's posture up against their fellow cowboys!

I'm not trying to pile-on 'Dora, but if you don't think this situation would have gone down under Deputy Dubya's watch (and probably played out with considerably more turmoil), then you've just have never been inside the psyche of powerful men with a chip on their shoulder. :dunno:

These people were pawns, and pawns get played with (and often sacrificed), when two people are concerned about not showing weakness. At least Clinton and the other players in this game, including Jong-il, understood that even the pawns can sometimes be saved, when positioning of their power pieces for the rest of the game.

It's silly to think that the last administration would have just somehow coaxed an "I conceed, you win." out of DPRK.
I'm wondering what Klinton could possibly used as a bargaining chip? The promise that Hill-Billary would talk Oh-Bama into conceding on things? Hmmm.

Oh, and Theta, the 911 attacks were PLANNED under Klinton's watch because he had so gutted the intelligence agencies. remember, Klinton is the same guy that bombed carboard "tanks" in Bosnia, wasn't it? Great intel.......

[zetaetatheta]

I'm wondering what Klinton could possibly used as a bargaining chip? The promise that Hill-Billary would talk Oh-Bama into conceding on things? Hmmm.

Oh, and Theta, the 911 attacks were PLANNED under Klinton's watch because he had so gutted the intelligence agencies. remember, Klinton is the same guy that bombed carboard "tanks" in Bosnia, wasn't it? Great intel.......
BTW it was Condi Rice that ignored the intelligence of an impending attack on the trade centers. You may spin it anyway you want, but the fact is it happened on Bush's watch. The Saudi's knew Bush was in office and Bush's presence had zero effect on the Saudi's caring out their attack. So to say the world was afraid of Bush is hogwash and more propaganda. Kim Jong Il fired test missles on Bush's watch also, guess the little fucker didn't know who was pres, and must have planned it during Clinton admin. or is it North Korea planned the missle shoots during Bush's admin so therfore it is Bush's fault that NK fired missles during the Obama admin. Skewed logic to say the least.

[#1Townie]

BTW it was Condi Rice that ignored the intelligence of an impending attack on the trade centers. You may spin it anyway you want, but the fact is it happened on Bush's watch. The Saudi's knew Bush was in office and Bush's presence had zero effect on the Saudi's caring out their attack. So to say the world was afraid of Bush is hogwash and more propaganda. Kim Jong Il fired test missles on Bush's watch also, guess the little fucker didn't know who was pres, and must have planned it during Clinton admin. or is it North Korea planned the missle shoots during Bush's admin so therfore it is Bush's fault that NK fired missles during the Obama admin. Skewed logic to say the least.

realy man what are you trying to get at?? bush came out saying they were trying to fire missles.. he tryd to get the un to step and they didnt do a damn thing like normal.. 911 was planned under the clinton watch.. things that were done that allowed this to happen was from the clinton erra that didnt allow the cia and fbi to talk as easly.. how about even after our ship was damn near sank clinton still didnt do a damn thing..

the only things i remember from the clinton days was my father loosing his job due to the cut backs, and that damn little battle that left our troops naked and being held above the crowds heads..

so realy what did clinton do that was so fucking great?? he lost a war.. sure maybe you dont call it a war but i do.. the moment our troops head to another country to fight i find it a war..

bush was in office a womping eight months when 911 happend.. with all the games that were played with clinton leaving office im very sure somthings may have slipped into some cracks.. it seemed it was more important to remove all the W's form the key boards then to just hand the office over..

we had prez that was impeached for lying under oath.. i dont give a damn if it was just over a blow job.. the little bitch should have said hell yes she sucked me off do you see what im married to?? but no he had to lie under oath.. he was impeached.. he should have been thrown out of office.. if he was willing to lie about a simple thing as a blow job how much else has he lied about??

look bottom line is clinton is not this great figure in our time.. he is just another man.. i man that lies and has helped to fuck this country up and takes no responsibility for it.. just like all the other presidents for the last 80 years..

the left is fucked.. the right is fucked... our government is fucked.. the reason why they are all fucked is they are no longer giving a shit about you or me.. they havnt givn a shit in a long time.. this is just another example of that..

we gave this country somthing for nothing.. they didnt do this for us.. our government did this for them.. they did this for the reaction that they got.. now all you people love clinton even more.. and for what?? not a fucking thing.. those girls were comming home one way or another.. it was just a matter of giving them what they wanted... we will never find out what was given to them but i assure you it was not worth it..

[DavidofColorado]

No kidding Jeff! If there's anything global cowboys like to do, it's posture up against their fellow cowboys!

Liberal talking point- Shut up

Since the beginning of my now not-so-new political obsession, liberals have consistently failed to prove themselves to be informed, logical, or anything you’d expect from someone with strong political views. The logic is filled with fallacies, the information used is either false or used improperly, and they rarely take the time to work through your arguments. When a liberal does end up listening and thinking analytically about the information and logic presented, they resort to a step by step rebuttal, which is as follows:

A) They question your sources.
B) They say they will have to look at those sources to decide for themselves, but never actually do.
C) They go on to either straw-man your argument or jump immediately to step D
D) After explaining how they straw-manned your argument, they result to the age old liberal talking point: Shut up.

In one form or another, it is “Shut up.” Some are more polite than others, quickly changing the subject or writing you off as uninformed or simply “wrong”. Some are more blunt. They respond with curse words, insults, or accuse you of lying (you know who you are). Very rarely can you find a die-hard liberal who will admit defeat as you watch their soul become crushed under the weight of truth. Always remember, the best way to cure those with liberal delusions is to be calm, act civil, and be well prepared with quips and facts. For the sake of needing to fill more room, I will give a few of my favorite liberal logical fallacies:

Ad hominem: This is a fallacy where they do not address your argument, but instead attack you as a person. It can come in many forms, ranging from writing off your argument because you are young, old, go to a certain school, don’t have a particular degree, to directly insulting you as a means of trying to feel superior (sort of like the elementary school shouting matches). Either way, they don’t address your argument because they either they cannot comprehend it or they know they cannot prove it wrong. It is intellectual bankruptcy at its finest (or worst.)

Example: “Of course, we’re supposed to believe Derek here because he is A Pure And Pious Christian Boy Who Would Never Ever Ever Make S*** Up.”

Appeal to Authority: This occurs when their argument is that someone who is in a position of authority agrees with them (doctor, politician, professor, etc). While it is acceptable to use professional testimony as support for an argument, it cannot be used to replace it. Just because one person agrees with you does not make your particular view correct. Often times there is disagreement within a particular field, or the professional they cite either is not an expert on the issue at hand or is in disagreement with most of his/her colleagues.

Example: “Well I am sure Obama knows more about the economy than you.” (We all know this isn’t true.)

False Dichotomy: This is where there are only two options are presented when there are in fact more. Often times this is an attempt for them to accept your position over an equally bad option by trying to make you think you have to choose between the two evils.

Example: “Either we cut taxes for everyone or we cut taxes for no one.” (How about eliminate all taxes but a national sales tax?)

Slothful Induction: This is the fallacy where they call a claim false despite the bountiful amount of evidence that has been presented that says otherwise. Usually this is just the end of the discussion because their head is full of rocks and cannot be penetrated. This is the most common form of “Shut up.”

Example: “All it is evidence of is that these sources are all repeating the same claim that Derek is parroting.” (Hence, they are sources of the same information. Evidence.)

Argument from ignorance: This fallacy is used when something is not know or cannot be adequately supported but is heralded as true. It often times comes into play in theological discussions (the “we don’t know for sure” statements.)

Example: “If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event “just happened” at that moment.” (Just because we have no answer does not mean that there is no answer.)

Moving goalpost: This fallacy is extremely common. It is used as a means to discredit your argument while keeping theirs intact. This fallacy occurs when they move the qualification of adequate proof to beyond what is necessary or, sometimes, even possible. They present some evidence, call it proof, but when you provide evidence of greater or equal value as theirs, they disregard it as not good enough.

Example: “What “respected news source”? CNS? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!”

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. This fallacy is commonly called “confusing correlation with causation”. This is where time is used as a reference in the sequence: A occurred, then B happened. Therefore, A caused B. Obviously, just because something occurs prior to another event does not mean that it is the cause. It would be like if every time a dog barked, a few seconds later, there was a crack of thunder. Did the dog’s bark cause the thunder? Of course not, it was just coincidence.

Example: “Well Bush was in office during the market crash so clearly it is his fault” (There were a number of causes, none of which Bush took part in, from Carter’s to Community Reinvestment Act to the Fed’s involvement.)

Straw Man: This is where your opponent does not address your reasoning or argues against a different argument that you did not make. Often times liberals do this because they have talking points prepared for only a couple arguments (that no one in their right mind ever makes) so when presented with something they don’t have a programmed response for, they fill in blanks and argue against them to try and gain ground. The easiest response when someone straw-mans you is “You didn’t address anything I said straw man”.

Example: “The Big Bang (even if you were correct) does not argue for an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being who became human and died on a cross for us.” (Never claimed it did, straw man.)

In the end, liberals will continue to spew their illogical notions and tell those of us with uncommon sense to “Shut up.” Be prepared, and don’t shut up.

Here is a 4:44 minute video that explains it again but better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWHgUE9AD4s

[Filo]

Really? Honestly? I am sure you all will prove your points. Just keep plugging away at them. You are all right. Or, realize that you guys have spewed pages of drivel that gains you nothing but ill will towards your fellow club members.

[#1Townie]

Really? Honestly? I am sure you all will prove your points. Just keep plugging away at them. You are all right. Or, realize that you guys have spewed pages of drivel that gains you nothing but ill will towards your fellow club members.
I dont think any one has any hard feelings.. its like life.. people have their own feelings and own thoughts on somthing...

is barn right?? am i right?? is dod right?? well i didnt read dods post but that shit was too long..

fact is somthing is wrong with this country and its not the hard working americans that are getting screwd every day.. its not the people who have to see their tax dollars raise cuz now we have to pay cops to get dressed.. its the laws and the courts that have been re done over and over and over to the point that no one understands them and if you cant pay 100's of thousands of dollars your going to go to jail for tripping over some rich guys shoes..

things need to be done and yet we have yet to do them.. we keep doing this back and forth from right to left like we are in some parade.. the country now has voted twice for a change.. the first was when we had the change in the senate.. its now been three years and nothing.. now we have made this big step for change with obama..

its not that i dont like obama cuz of what party he is with.. i dont even know.. i dont know whos party bush belongs to.. i dont care.. i hate both.. both of the partys keep fucking us little guys around.. now we have obama in office and the only reason why is cuz he promised the world.. all this change.. yet still nothing has changed.. all i see with a polotician is lies.. fuck all of them.. lets put some poor steal worker in charge for a year.. how about the manager from a fast food place.. some one real.. i hate the black white of the movie but head of state is somthing we need.. a little guy..


and filo this is not all to you...

[DavidofColorado]

well i didnt read dods post but that shit was too long..
I gave a movie example too for the kinetic learners out there like myself.:guns: