Re: OT - Send in the Clowns
matrixxx09
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CAX3aJCoDg&fmt=18
You could have easily substituted pictures of Bush and other repubs
and it would apply just fine, from the time Bush took office until the
lead up to his war. Of course after THAT things changed, but that's
what happens when you send off young Americans to die for your own
selfish reasons. People will support the troops, which means
attacking the jackass who put them in harm's way when he didn't need
to.
matrixxx09
So you'd disagree that Bush had a honeymoon period with the media, as
every president does?
Or that it took the media a long time to start asking Bush tough
questions?
Or that a valid way to support the troops is to pressure those who
send them into harm's way to prove it's necessary and worth the
troops' lives?
matrixxx09
OK, let's take one at a time:
Do you think that pressuring those who send troops into harm's way to
prove it's necessary and worth the troops' lives a valid way to
support the troops?
matrixxx09
> In article
> <cccfd1f1-dfb7-4320-bfa5-52c566828...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> --
Why is that question 'nonsense'?
And please don't make the mistake of thinking that repeating yourself
using different words is explaining or supporting your claim, as most
here appear to believe. Or that coming up with some mediocre insult
is 'winning' the debate.
EXPLAIN.
Thanks.
matrixxx09
> video posted, not a "split-off" to take one's eyes off the media being
> enamored with the Chosen One:
>
> Do you think the media are biased in Barack's favor, and in their eyes
> can he does no wrong?
I don't run from questions like everyone else here, but I'm not going
to answer one while mine is sitting on the table unanswered.
matrixxx09
> video posted, not a "split-off" to take one's eyes off the media being
> enamored with the Chosen One:
>
> Do you think the media are biased in Barack's favor, and in their eyes
> can he does no wrong?
Just to confirm. I WILL (gladly) answer your question if you answer
mine about the troops.
matrixxx09
> On 2009-07-06 07:43:02 -0700, matrixxx09 <matrixx...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >>> OK, let's take one at a time:
>
> >>> Do you think that pressuring those who send troops into harm's way to
> >>> prove it's necessary and worth the troops' lives a valid way to
> >>> support the troops?
>
> >> OK, let's take one at a time. And we'll start with the premise of the
> >> video posted, not a "split-off" to take one's eyes off the media being
> >> enamored with the Chosen One:
>
> >> Do you think the media are biased in Barack's favor, and in their eyes
> >> can he does no wrong?
>
> > I don't run from questions like everyone else here, but I'm not going
> > to answer one while mine is sitting on the table unanswered.
>
Yes, I didn't answer your question while you're in the process of
avoiding mine.
I know that.
Anyway, I promised to answer yours, so why are you still delaying?
matrixxxx09
> carrying it into another subject matter entirely.
>
> Couple that with an apology for being accusatory when it was you who
> avoided the original subject matter.
>
> I'll be waiting. Of course, Hell will freeze over first.
Your requests are ridiculous, and obviously just represent yet another
attempt to avoid the question. Fine.
I'll answer yours anyway.
>> Do you think the media are biased in Barack's favor,
Yes.
> and in their eyes
>> can he does no wrong?
No.
Hell, even Keith Olberman criticizes him on a regular basis.
matrixxxx09
> On 2009-07-06 08:18:02 -0700, matrixxxx09 <matrixxx...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >>>>> Do you think that pressuring those who send troops into harm's way to
> >>>>> prove it's necessary and worth the troops' lives a valid way to
> >>>>> support the troops?
>
> time. Both sides of the aisle.
>
> >>>>> Your requests are ridiculous, and obviously just represent yet another
> > attempt to avoid the question. Fine.
>
> > I'll answer yours anyway.
>
> >>> Do you think the media are biased in Barack's favor,
>
> > Yes.
>
>
>
>
> >> and in their eyes
> >>> can he does no wrong?
>
> > No.
>
> > Hell, even Keith Olberman criticizes him on a regular basis.
>
> Well, at least as serious as can be seen on cable news.
Wow, I guess you don't like him, huh?
So where are we on the troops question?
matrixxxx09
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 07:43:02 -0700 (PDT), matrixxx09
>
> <matrixx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I don't run from questions like everyone else here, but I'm not going
> >to answer one while mine is sitting on the table unanswered.
>
>
> Seems you get your arse handed to you a lot.....
>
You missed a crucial post in this thread.
Anyway, 3 nasty posts in a discussion that you weren't even involved
in?
Lighten up, dude!
matrixxxx09
>
> > So where are we on the troops question?
>
> Asked and answered.
What, in another thread?
matrixxxx09
>
> I'll included it here in case of server "problems" :
> ================================================
OK, OK, sorry. Missed it. (But what's with the server "problems"
comment? It makes it look like I made some previous, dubious claim
about server problems. Did I?)
In regards to your answer, I wasn't talking about the politicians, but
American people who were accused of not supporting the troops if they
criticized Bush for the war.
Do you agree that such protesting is 'not supporting the troops'?
matrixxxx09
> On 2009-07-06 10:43:48 -0700, matrixxxx09 <matrixxx...@gmail.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 1:34 pm, Conscience <nobama@göv.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-07-06 10:28:37 -0700, matrixxxx09 <matrixxx...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >>> On Jul 6, 1:07 pm, Conscience <nobama@göv.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> So where are we on the troops question?
>
> >>>> Asked and answered.
>
> >>> What, in another thread?
>
> >> Nope. The answer appeared in the very same post you quoted prior to th
> > is one.
>
> >> I'll included it here in case of server "problems" :
> >> ========================
> > =======================
>
>
> > In regards to your answer, I wasn't talking about the politicians, but
> > American people who were accused of not supporting the troops if they
> > criticized Bush for the war.
>
> > Do you agree that such protesting is 'not supporting the troops'?
>
> anything you or I could muster up on this subject would be from several
> young men I've "spoken" to DURING their tours and AFTER their return
> home. These were friends of my own children and offspring of younger
> couples we know. My wife and I remotely "befriended" them in the way
> of correspondence, DVDs, food "surprises", and toiletries difficult to
> obtain. One creative mailing I know of involved blue-tinted vodka in
> Listerine bottles. That one was a big hit. :-)
>
> Now, I realize that this sampling is hardly a lot, but it still carries
> more weight than our opinions. They were there. They did the job.
> Enough said.
>
> Without exception, they felt betrayed, let-down, and sometimes even
> depressed over the attitude of the Americans who criticized Bush during
> their tours. Words like "ignorant", "ungrateful", "stupid", and
> "short-sighted" were legion.
>
> From those many comments and letters, I figure they didn't feel too
> "supported".
>
> What do you think?
Yes, it's a fine line. You want them to think that they are risking
their lives for a noble cause, but you don't want to just sit there
and lie either.
We attacked the wrong people. But nobody blames the troops for that.
They did, and are doing, their job. That has inherent nobility no
matter what.
The derogatory terms are aimed at the ones who sent them there.
I believe that in the long term, it helps out troops more to protest
when we feel they are being killed unnecessarily than to make them
feel good in the short term by being only positive about the whole
thing.
We can't have (future) Presidents who aren't worried about political
fallout and decreased support from the public when they make a
decision to send troops into war.
They have to know that a justified war won't hurt them, but an
unjustified one will.
Mike
Bush and tried to tell us the war could not be won and even voted against
the surge like BO and said the war was lost like Senator Reid, are now
saying what a great Job WE did in Iraq? LOL
"matrixxxx09" <matri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfa00216-e79a-4bdb...@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 6, 1:54 pm, Conscience <nobama@g�v.com> wrote:
> On 2009-07-06 10:43:48 -0700, matrixxxx09 <matrixxx...@gmail.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 1:34 pm, Conscience <nobama@g�v.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-07-06 10:28:37 -0700, matrixxxx09 <matrixxx...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >>> On Jul 6, 1:07 pm, Conscience <nobama@g�v.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> So where are we on the troops question?
>
> >>>> Asked and answered.
>
> >>> What, in another thread?
>
> >> Nope. The answer appeared in the very same post you quoted prior to th
> > is one.
>
> >> I'll included it here in case of server "problems" :
> >> ========================
> > =======================
>
> >> On 2009-07-06 09:00:06 -0700, matrixxxx09 <matrixxx...@gmail.com> said:
>
matrixxxx09
> On 2009-07-06 11:05:53 -0700, matrixxxx09 <matrixxx...@gmail.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Do you agree that such protesting is 'not supporting the troops'?
>
> >> The best examples I can provide that give an answer that far outweighs
> >> anything you or I could muster up on this subject would be from several
> >> young men I've "spoken" to DURING their tours and AFTER their return
> >> home. These were friends of my own children and offspring of younger
> >> couples we know. My wife and I remotely "befriended" them in the way
> >> of correspondence, DVDs, food "surprises", and toiletries difficult to
> >> obtain. One creative mailing I know of involved blue-tinted vodka in
> >> Listerine bottles. That one was a big hit. :-)
>
> >> Now, I realize that this sampling is hardly a lot, but it still carries
> >> more weight than our opinions. They were there. They did the job.
> >
> >> Enough said.
>
> >> Without exception, they felt betrayed, let-down, and sometimes even
> >> depressed over the attitude of the Americans who criticized Bush during
> >> their tours. Words like "ignorant", "ungrateful", "stupid", and
> >> "short-sighted" were legion.
>
> >> From those many comments and letters, I figure they didn't feel too
> >> "supported".
>
> >> What do you think?
>
> > Yes, it's a fine line. You want them to think that they are risking
> > their lives for a noble cause, but you don't want to just sit there
> > and lie either.
>
> emailings they sent me detailed some really humanitarian efforts and
> concern for the Iraqis. You didn't see those stories on CNN.
Really? Where did I see them?
And what's the connection between the reasons for war being a lie and
humanitarian efforts? If I say that Bush and Co. were full of shit,
does the existence of humanitarian efforts somehow serve as evidence
against my claim?
matrixxxx09
> Don't you find it strange that all those on the left continually attacked
> Bush and tried to tell us the war could not be won
Don't rewrite history. The main concern was that the *war on terror*
couldn't be won by *invading Iraq*, that it was the wrong country to
invade, that lies led us there, and those lies led young Americans to
an unnecessary death.
Mike
squeezins? ;)
"Conscience" <nobama@g�v.com> wrote in message
news:h2tjvo$rq9$1...@news.albasani.net...
> On 2009-07-06 12:36:55 -0700, "Mike" <mike...@lycos.com> said:
>
>> Don't you find it strange that all those on the left continually attacked
>> Bush and tried to tell us the war could not be won and even voted against
>> the surge like BO and said the war was lost like Senator Reid, are now
>> saying what a great Job WE did in Iraq? LOL
>
> Gosh, Mike. For an "Aunt Jemima" drunk, you sure clarified that a bit.
>
> I've been waiting for media stories lambasting Barack for not ending this
> war yesterday.
>
> For some reason, neither the media OR any Democrat in Congress has been
> particularly vociferous lately.
>
> I wonder why that is.
>
Mike
you will discover that defending against Iraq's invasion of Kuwaiti was not
an unjust war, it was authorized by the UN.
The subsequent invasion of Iraq was a resumption of hostilities in that war
because of Iraq continued violations of the cease fire ending that war.
The resumption was authorized by the UN.
"Conscience" <nobama@g�v.com> wrote in message
news:h2tir1$q43$1...@news.albasani.net...
> On 2009-07-06 11:05:53 -0700, matrixxxx09 <matri...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>>> Do you agree that such protesting is 'not supporting the troops'?
>>>
>>> The best examples I can provide that give an answer that far outweighs
>>> anything you or I could muster up on this subject would be from several
>>> young men I've "spoken" to DURING their tours and AFTER their return
>>> home. These were friends of my own children and offspring of younger
>>> couples we know. My wife and I remotely "befriended" them in the way
>>> of correspondence, DVDs, food "surprises", and toiletries difficult to
>>> obtain. One creative mailing I know of involved blue-tinted vodka in
>>> Listerine bottles. That one was a big hit. :-)
>>>
>>> Now, I realize that this sampling is hardly a lot, but it still carries
>>> more weight than our opinions. They were there. They did the job.
>>
>>> Enough said.
>>>
>>> Without exception, they felt betrayed, let-down, and sometimes even
>>> depressed over the attitude of the Americans who criticized Bush during
>>> their tours. Words like "ignorant", "ungrateful", "stupid", and
>>> "short-sighted" were legion.
>>>
>>> From those many comments and letters, I figure they didn't feel too
>>> "supported".
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> Yes, it's a fine line. You want them to think that they are risking
>> their lives for a noble cause, but you don't want to just sit there
>> and lie either.
>
> You'll first have to convince them it's not a lie. The dealings and
> emailings they sent me detailed some really humanitarian efforts and
> concern for the Iraqis. You didn't see those stories on CNN.
>
Mike
been invaded for starting the war in Kuwait? LOL
"matrixxxx09" <matri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0e0a68cf-9521-4cd7...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
matrixxxx09
> Lies? Is that you Nancy Polisi? Which county do YOU think we should have
> been invaded for starting the war in Kuwait? LOL
>
Kuwait?
I'm talking about the invasion of Iraq in response to the Sept. 11
attacks, while George Jr. was President.
matrixxxx09
> In article <h2tjvo$rq...@news.albasani.net>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Conscience <nobama@göv.com> wrote:
> > On 2009-07-06 12:36:55 -0700, "Mike" <mikehu...@lycos.com> said:
>
> > > Don't you find it strange that all those on the left continually attacked
> > > Bush and tried to tell us the war could not be won and even voted against
> > > the surge like BO and said the war was lost like Senator Reid, are now
> > > saying what a great Job WE did in Iraq? LOL
>
>
> > I've been waiting for media stories lambasting Barack for not ending
> > this war yesterday.
>
> > For some reason, neither the media OR any Democrat in Congress has been
> > particularly vociferous lately.
>
> > I wonder why that is.
>
> two or was it three. In small print no less, MSNBC.
>
> Had GWB been president, it would be front headline news and father
> christ mathews would be chewing on it and spitting all over himself for
> a week about it.
But in actual fact, GI's were killed virtually every day in the war
when GWB was pres. Are you saying then that the killing of GI's made
'front headline news' virtually every day when GWB was pres?
Think again about what you said.
Also, to which paper are you referring? And what do you mean when you
say it was in small print on MSNBC?
matrixxxx09
> > > been invaded for starting the war in Kuwait? LOL
>
> > Kuwait?
>
> > I'm talking about the invasion of Iraq in response to the Sept. 11
> > attacks, while George Jr. was President.
>
> This boy does not read or comprehend what he reads.
Either that or he's actually trying to say that the invasion by Bush
Jr. after Sept. 11 was actually in response to their invasion of
Kuwait.
matrixxxx09
> In article
> why you can't. If you can't explain why you can't explain then explain
> why you can't.
>
> When someone says small print what does that mean to you, explain what
> it means to you. If you can't explain then explain why you can't.
>
> If one GI is killed or 10, is there a difference to you? If not why
> not. Again, explain why or why not. If you cannot explain why or why
> not then explain why you can't explain.
> --
>
> The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.
> George Orwell
You could have saved time by simply saying "I don't want to tell you
which paper I'm talking about and I don't know what I mean by small
print on MSNBC."
matrixxxx09
> In article
> told you.
> --
>
> The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.
> George Orwell
I don't play these nonsense games.
I was talking about the Iraq war - the second one - and he's off
talking about the first one.
If you need to spin that into *me* being a twit, knock yourself out.
Obviously this is what you need to be true for some reason. So go do
what you need to do in order to make it true in your mind.
But just so you know, I won't be back to read how you attempt to do so.
matrixxxx09
>
> > You could have saved time by simply saying "I don't want to tell you
> > which paper I'm talking about and I don't know what I mean by small
> > print on MSNBC."
>
> It takes me only a few seconds to type. I am a fast typist.
>
OK, fine, so you would have saved only a few seconds. It still would
have been shorter.
matrixxxx09
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 05:38:51 -0700 (PDT), matrixxxx09
>
>
>
>
>
> <matrixxx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 6, 5:48 pm, dbu' <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <55596d69-3a3e-47f5-84b6-4fa0e28d8...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> matrixxxx09 <matrixxx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >>>Which county do YOU think we should have
> >> > > > > been invaded for starting the war in Kuwait? LOL
>
> >> > > > Kuwait?
>
> >> > > > I'm talking about the invasion of Iraq in response to the Sept. 11
> >> > > > attacks, while George Jr. was President.
>
> >> > > This boy does not read or comprehend what he reads.
>
> >> > Either that or he's actually trying to say that the invasion by Bush
> >> > Jr. after Sept. 11 was actually in response to their invasion of
> >> > Kuwait.
>
> >> I'm talking about YOU, twit. You didn't read and comprehend what he
> >> told you.
> >> --
>
> >> The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.
> >> George Orwell
>
> >I don't play these nonsense games.
>
> >I was talking about the Iraq war - the second one - and he's off
> >talking about the first one.
>
>
> The SECOND happened because Saddam did not obey the commandments given
> him by the UN.
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida
Are you saying that Bush Jr. didn't actually start any war, but was
just continuing an ongoing one?
Is that your contention, yes or no? I'm asking because your post,
though short, contradicts itself and so clarification is needed.
matrixxxx09
> >though short, contradicts itself and so clarification is needed.
>
> Fuck You Joey Junior....
>
Oh, relax.
And don't you want to clear up your contradiction rather than leave it
there forever?
matrixxxx09
> In article
> --
Ask away, friend.
matrixxxx09
>
> >And don't you want to clear up your contradiction rather than leave it
> >there forever?
>
>
Interesting choice.
matrixxxx09
> When you are right....no fear is necessary.
>
OK.
matrixxxx09
> In article
>
> I already have. Don't call me friend.
> --
>
What was it, friend? I'll answer.
matrixxxx09
> In article
>
>
>
>
>
> matrixxxx09 <matrixxx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 4:17 pm, dbu' <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <2353157b-e2ee-4a58-a7f3-2521acdf1...@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > matrixxxx09 <matrixxx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 7, 10:59 am, dbu' <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <4f34f496-5f8e-4507-b53f-2ca92443c...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > matrixxxx09 <matrixxx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> I'm asking because your post,
> > > > > > > >though short, contradicts itself and so clarification is needed.
>
> > > > > > > Fuck You Joey Junior....
>
> > > > > > Oh, relax.
>
> > > > > > And don't you want to clear up your contradiction rather than leave it
> > > > > > there forever?
>
> > > > > You ask questions but you never answer them, twit.
> > > > > --
>
> > > > Ask away, friend.
>
> > > I already have. Don't call me friend.
> > > --
>
> > What was it, friend? I'll answer.
>
> --
>
> The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.
> George Orwell
You whine that I don't answer questions, then you refuse to ask one?
Ask me the question, friend. I'll answer.
Last offer.
matrixxxx09
> In article
Well, if you think of any in the future I'll be around.