Spider hole...fiction?

[Hkmp5sd]

As to the original question, there were so many people involved in the capture of Saddam that if it were staged, it would be impossible to keep everyone involved quiet about it. Besides, staging it would require hundreds more people. Look at how much effort movie makers go through to film a single scene. This accusation is just stupid.

From all the posts I've read on this board and others, you all have a deep love of country, and of the constitution. why, then, do so many of you support bush and the admin.???

Because not all of us get out information from the Michael Moore news agency.

 

[R.H. Lee]

why, then, do so many of you support bush and the admin.??? IMHO He is clearly not on the side of the american people or the constitution, and his actions on every level, military, domestic, economic, environmental, have harmed us all.

What or who, pray tell, is the alternative?

 

[cuchulainn]

As to the original question, there were so many people involved in the capture of Saddam that if it were staged, it would be impossible to keep everyone involved quiet about it. Besides, staging it would require hundreds more people. Look at how much effort movie makers go through to film a single scene. This accusation is just stupid.

Great point!

 

[cory]

Cory:
There is absolutely nothing in your original post that has anything to do with intelligent, respectful debate. It was full of obnoxious, arrogant, uneducated opinions from the very first part of "...but the admin. has lied about just about every other damn thing so far..." to your sniveling bleat that people on this board "compartmentalize" their political beliefs.

that's a bit harsh. I think Gabe is right,(thanks for agreeing to disagree nicely, Sir.) not gonna answer this with a couple of posts, but we should be able to discuss this, and there is ample evidence of administration lies, so I don't think it's obnoxious, arrogant or uneducated to point that out. It isn't "sniveling" to point out that people, left AND right, compartmentalize. perfect example: dianne fienstein, anti-gun, but carries a pistol). Plus, you never addressed the question, just reacted to my asking of it. Sorry if you're offended, but these are valid questions.

 

[one-shot-one]

Well Lets See

Cory a new member from Hollyweird Ca. Does not like the current admin. in D.C. what are the odds?

 

[shermacman]

Cory:
You are absolutely right that I reacted to the way you asked your question. You are absolutely right that I did not answer your question.
That's because you didn't ask a question, you stated an opinion, your opinion, and tried to drag the basic discussion down to your level. Re-read your post.

 

[Harry Tuttle]

What or who, pray tell, is the alternative?

 

[mfree]

Simple truth:

Politicians lie. Democrat, Republican, almost every one of them. To hear that the administration lied about something or another is about as surprising as hearing that water's wet.

Bush serves my interests better than Kerry would have. I didn't vote for either, I voted for someone who covered my interests as closely as possible. But I'm *far* more accepting of Bush than I would be of Kerry.

Now, this thread's drifted pretty far... I don't believe for a moment that the spider hole story *isn't* true. If I'm *proven* wrong otherwise, then I'll change my mind. That's how rational thought works, if you're wrong you're wrong, stop justifying and accept it.

 

[papaone]

When will it ever stop????

Oh Sodom, the cruel lies continue to degrade your wonderful name. When will it ever stop? Oh dear leader Sodom, how long will thy majesty continue to be hidden from western eyes? How long must we endure the bashing of your name oh Sodom? Will it never stop?? :banghead:

 

[cory]

Bush serves my interests better than Kerry would have. I didn't vote for either, I voted for someone who covered my interests as closely as possible. But I'm *far* more accepting of Bush than I would be of Kerry.

hey, at least you have a reason. That's what I'm after, someone who can tell me why you think what you think. that helps me understand. Thank you. we're way off course, and it's my fault, but It's just that I don't want to have my liberal views in a vacuum, I want to understand the other side too, which is why I asked. sorry if some of you are pissed. btw, I voted for kerry, but I know full well he isn't the answer either. I'm still searchin' peace from hollyweird.

 

[R.H. Lee]

but It's just that I don't want to have my liberal views in a vacuum,

Modern 'liberalism' is untenable, that's why you are afraid of a 'vacuum' and require affirmation from others with your mindset. Without the mob mentality of group support, you can't maintain it.

 

[2nd Amendment]

It's not so much about support for Bush, it's about opposition to a variety of leftist Democrat policies, firearms certainly among them. Bush is a Moderate. He's a hack. But he's at least semi-acceptable on a variety of issues if for no other reason than simple inactivity. With Gore or Kerry we would have had tax increases already, as well as a new AWB, a weaker military and, most likely, still some form of Middle East war. Not to mention an equal debt as well.

So the advantages in not "supporting" Bush would be...?

 

[2nd Amendment]

Modern 'liberalism' is untenable,

There is no current mainstream modern "liberalism". It's leftist socialism, pure and simple.

 

[cory]

Modern 'liberalism' is untenable, that's why you are afraid of a 'vacuum' and require affirmation from others with your mindset. Without the mob mentality of group support, you can't maintain it.

not for nothin' but, I didn't see any affirmation of my pov on this thread, did you? nah, I don't need affirmation, I believe what I believe regardless. I'm interested in what YOU believe and why you believe it. I'm fully prepared to be wrong, too. I'm just trying to understand. gotta ask questions to do that. that's all.

 

[cuchulainn]

The socialists coopted the term liberal back with FDR, and now the term means pretty much the opposite of what it once did.

Liberal used to have the same meaning as libertarian.

Imagine if 100 years from now the word libertarian described a political system that focused on large government programs and high taxation. That's how someone from the 19th century would look at us today.

 

[secamp32]

I think its time to wrap my computer with tinfoil

to keep the aliens from reading this thread. :banghead:

 

[2nd Amendment]

Aliens are genetically engineered to see thru tinfoil...

Hmmm, so what IS the best caliber for gentically engineered X-ray vision aliens?

 

[OF]

I want to understand the other side too, which is why I asked. sorry if some of you are pissed.

I think you misunderstand. People here are not 'pissed' because you are trying to understand our point of view. They are pissed because your post(s) are dripping condescention and assuming things about the people you are speaking with that are unfair and derogatory. You didn't say 'some people compatmentalize their patriotism' you asked how 'some of you' do so.

I think you'll find people here more than willing to debate (to make the understatement of the century) any topic you feel like discussing until you have migraines. What we typically will not put up with is condescension, rudeness or shallowness. You'll also discover that if you accept for truth what are debateable concepts (like the admin. lies about everything, everything they do harms everyone in America...etc.) people are going to be less likely to get involved and spend the time it will take to layout their reasons when they feel it's all going to be a huge waste of time anyway.

My advice: if you're truly curious, just ask. Leave off the rubber-stamp DNC talking points preface. It reads like this would read: "Since it's a fact that guns kill so many people every year, cause so much heartache and pain the world over, are only made for killing and have no justifiable use how can you like them so much? Doesn't that make you complicit in the evil they cause? How can you profess to be a peaceful person and at the same time love death like you do? How do you compartmentalize yourself like that? I really want to know. I mean, I'm just asking."

How would you feel if someone asked you that one? I mean, where to begin? Is it even worth it? Wouldn't you be offended?

Think about it. If what you offered up is really fact that 'we' accept as truth (the admin. lies, we're all worse off, "he's going to kill us all", bye bye constitution, it's all about the oil, whatever, on and on and on) and then you ask us how we still support the administration, what does that say about us? We're either ignorant or evil. That's what pissed people off about your 'question'. It's a 'so, have you stopped beating your wife?' type of question.

It was offensive on it's face. And, to be frank, a very stereotypical hard-left liberal type of post to have made (self-centered, closed-minded, insulting, condescending and trying to mask it all with some thin veneer of false concern or inquisitiveness). So you've got that working against you too.

- Gabe

 

[Daemon688]

Conspiracy theories. One of my favorite quotes "Everybody has an agenda, except me". If this story was true, wouldn't you think Saddam would have told his lawyer this? He was able to tell his lawyer that the current government in Iraqi is not legit, and the Iraqi people should fight. Why not tell the truth of his capture as well?

 

[shermacman]

Ditto Gabe.
There are billions of electrons that gave their tiny lives so that we can debate the efficacy of political intent. There are those on this post who are dyed-in-the-wool Democrats who voted for Kerry, there are those (like myself) who are knuckle-dragging Neanderthal gun-toting Right-wing Conservatives who voted for Bush. There are Libertarians who voted for neither. All have their reasons, their thoughts and opinions.

The best debates on those posts are from hot-heads who are passionate about their beliefs...but who managed to express their thoughts without insulting other posters. We are all about anger and frustration, humor and cynicism, fact and opinion.

And any idiot knows that Glocks are worthless against tin-foil hats.

 

[buzz_knox]

GRD can some excellent advice. The key to initiating a discussion is to actually initiate a discussion. Putting in the cute but ignorant hints about Bush not being elected, being the death of the republic, etc. doesn't incite discussion, just reaction.

 

[OF]

All have their reasons, their thoughts and opinions.

I freaking love Bush. I think he's the right man at the right moment, as weird as that is when you look at him. He's not exactly the 'elder statesmen'...to put it mildly. But what we need right now is a spit-on-his hands cowboy who knows what time it is and keeps his eye on the ball 100% of the time.

I'm not a republican, actually I'm registered as 'I', whatever that means. It was my concept of 'none of the above'. I'm probably about as socially 'liberal' as anyone on this board, but I know we need to be over in the ME getting on with the killing right now like there's no tomorrow and thank my lucky stars that W understands that.

The point being, to come on this board and try to make assumptions that the people you're talking to are some cookie-cutter kool-aid drinking 'blinded by the right' types is not going to get you very far. Nor the opposite. There has to be at least one socialist on here who makes a good argument...isn't there? I'm sure there is somewhere...

- Gabe

 

[cory]

O.K., interesting points all, but it seems to me that you're taking the words I wrote and attaching them to a much larger "stereotypical" liberal pov. I'm not an across-the-board type of person,I am liberal,but at the same time it's on an issue by issue basis with me, for instance on immigration I'm more conservative. you may think it's condescension behind a veneer of inqusitiveness, but it actually is inquisitiveness legitimately. I do not condescend to anyone, but I think those who disagree politically automatically think we do, so anything we say to question your beliefs gets painted with a broad brush. I think it's a knee-jerk reaction, the same way anti-gunners knee-jerk react to those of us who like and/or respect guns and the 2nd amendment. We've spent a lot of time arguing the way I asked the question; O.K., mea culpa, I could have worded it better. my apologies. but only a couple of you gave a coherent reason why you support gwb. everyone else is just resentful. If someone were to ask me,(and they have) why don't you support the president? aren't you an american? do you hate america? why don't you support the war?, etc. I can say: I don't support the war because iraq, had no wmd's, was not an imminent threat, and had nothing to do with 9/11. I don't support the president because I believe he knew these things before he attacked, but did it anyway, not to defend us, but because of political ideology(neocons) I believe that act alone is enough to impeach. there are many other reasons, but I can, if asked, tell you why I think what I think, regardless of how wrong you may think I am, or how resentful I may be because someone questioned my patriotism(btw, I live in L.A., but I'm from NYC. I had a job once that had me in the wtc 5 days a week, I've been on almost every floor in every building of the wtc multiple times, so believe me when I say that I want anyone involved with perpetrating 9/11 to die a horrible death) so, agree with me or not, I can articulate and defend my pov,
and I was hoping to have someone here do the same. I'm not trying to drag anyone down to my level,as someone replied, because we're all on the same level. the american level. the level that says tell me the truth. that's all I'm after.

 

[buzz_knox]

O.K., interesting points all, but it seems to me that you're taking the words I wrote and attaching them to a much larger "stereotypical" liberal pov.

Here's the problem. Your first post used terms and concepts (such as Bush's "election," his being lethal to the nation, Bush lies about everything, etc) that are straight out of the DNC "convince someone Bush is the anti-christ" handbook. Whether or not you believe them, it is inevitable that such comments instantly put you in the "'stereotypical" liberal pov."

If you wanted to discuss why people believe what they believe, you don't do it by implying that those beliefs are wrong or misguided. And yes, that's precisely how your post came across. I believe (and in truth, it's hard to read your last post) that you were offended that someone questioned your patriotism. Well, you questioned a lot of people's intelligence in your post.

You dug yourself a hole from the get go, but it's the same thing we all have done, including me. All it takes to climb out is to articulate your position, argue the facts and not the person . . . and split the post into paragraphs!

 

[bill2]

Cory, your original post here was condescending, and full of the usual left of center comments about Bush. In no particular order here's what you might think about next time before posting something like that:

1) bush won the election in 2000. yes, it took the Supreme court in the end, but the fact of the matter is that Democrats also cheated. Military votes from overseas were delayed, people who should not have voted did (such as felons). voting arguements usually come down to 2 problems - Democrats getting homeless or felons registered to vote, i.e. people who shouldn't be able to vote, and Republicans trying to prevent legitemately registered voters from voting. Not saying this is correct, but it's usually what one side says about the other. And if you want to talk about stealing elections, let's talk about the 1960 presidential election. It all came down to Illinois, and that came down to Chicago. You may have heard of the unofficial city slogan when Mayor Richard Daley was in power: Vote early, vote often. The Republicans got over it, and the Democrats should stop whining about 2000.

2) As you may have surmised, several people took offense to your first post. Well, they had every right to. You stereotyped everyone by suggesting that they all voted for Bush. That's not true. People on this forum have a variety of backgrounds and political positions: gay, libertarian, conservative, Bush voter, Bush hater, liberal, support LEO vs not liking them at all, etc. etc. ad nauseam. I notice that liberals, for all their protestations about being open minded, tend to stereotype. They treat blacks as one monolithic voting block, think gays all vote for Kerry (Bush almost doubled the percentage of gays that voted for him, 2000 election vs the 2004 one), and assume that all gun owners think alike. We don't, not even close. So, don't stereotype and maybe we won't dump on you so much. and besides, if you don't stop stereetyping, some of your liberal friends might start thinking you're a conservative. and I know you won't want that!

3) If you're going to make statements, such as Bush lied!!! then back it up. Personally, I think he should have brought up more reasons as to why we went to war, but the fact is you can find statements from Pres Clinton, VP Gore, Sec State Madeline Albright, and various European government spokesman all saying that Sadam had WDM's and "something" needs to be done about it. Well the UN passed 18 resolutions, which is what it does best, and then sat on its ass. The US did do something, and now it appears (even though we've got a long way to go) that the whole Middle East is reacting to it.

4) Voting for someone, or not voting for someone, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with partriotism. By patriotism, of course, I mean loving your country warts and all. Just because I voted for Bush, and I did, doesn't mean that I think everyone who voted against him hates the US.

5) Glad to see you're becoming part of the dreaded "gun culture". Now try to convert some of your liberal friends to our side. the US will be a better country for it.