kapkomet

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 02:47 PM) I think we have an exciting group of candidates. Lots of star power. I accept they have to be camera whores. I don't think they are dumbasses, but I also don't see a Presidential leadership style out there yet. Maybe that's a better way of saying that none of them are "presidential" material, but neither is the "dumbass" we have in the White House now.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 02:34 PM) Really where? And isn't the opinion of the actual Iraqis pretty important? What exactly is my cause? That is pure comedy gold right there.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 02:15 PM) I'm sad to say I agree. He was on my short list of candidates early, but like every candidate so far in this campaign, I've grown colder and colder. I still cannot see why people say this is a good field of candidates. They are all a bunch of dumbasses and camera whores looking for a chance to make a soundbite. That's it. And basically, the office of president has become nothing but that.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 02:11 PM) LINK And quite a few accounts on the ground counters that OPINION poll. It just depends on where you are. But hey, if these further your cause, then it must be true.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 02:49 AM) Yep, and he would have been playing catcher. We'd have the same amount of lefties in the game if he caught or played first. Ahhh, yes, we all KNOW that Ozzie told Toby to dive for that ball, and more specifically, to injure himself all so that the great and mighty fathom could b**** about it almost on a daily basis - 9 months later at that! Therefore, it IS Ozzie's fault! That's about the level that this arguement has taken pretty much since day one.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 01:11 PM) I'd wager against that. So would I, because they know damn well that they will have an empty ballpark next year with this same roster. They have to get new guys if for no other reason other then to try and maintain interest in putting asses in the seats. That's where ultimately it comes down, and they know that the fans did not connect with this team.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 12:40 PM) Yep, he needs to grab the Rudy G playbook. Pretty much. That's exactly why I do NOT want Guiliani around much past Jan 15th. He's too much of a drama queen.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 02:08 AM) That pretty much tells you that a guy is dead and buried when he can screw up and no one notices... Exactly. As I said earlier, he's not slutty enough (and again, since you Dems are so damn touchy, that's not an insult, it's just a fact of public opinion now-a-days.)

I really hope he doesn't start pressing and continues to pound them over to get to 500 this year.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 10:56 PM) I simply said that the Iraq war was illegal and has resulted in a lot of bloodshed. Having a genocide would be a concerted, concentrated effort. It is giving the US too much credit and is also inaccurate to call it a genocide (and I don't believe I used the g word). Right now the US war policy couldn't find a clue with two hands and a detailed road map. And the corporate media cheerled the war effort throughout the buildup in 2003 -- when it was important to have the investigative arm of the media out there. Nary a dissident voice could be heard on the mainstream media during that critical time. And I agree about most Democrats. Watching John Edwards get his $400 haircuts -- that is 4 trips of groceries for me. Most of the Dems have whored for and cheerled the bloody war effort and have just as much blood on their hands as Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney, et al. I don't have blinders on for all Democrats. I do however, side with those Dems who have been opposed to the war and continue to do their job to GTFO of Iraq. Our armed forces are not meant to be an ongoing occupation force in a foreign land to an undetermined amount of time for the goal of nationbuilding (which the Bush administration was against before it was for it) As I said before, my vote goes on a candidate by candidate basis depending on their platforms, stances, etc. The last election I ended up voting Libertarian, Green, Democrat and Republican on the same ballot for different races simply based on the candidates that were offered. This is a good post and I agree with it 100%.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 08:22 PM) Al Qaeda wants war period - and so much the better for them being in their backyard, where recruting is so much easier. I don't disagree that SOME of UBL's stances appear to be similar to SOME of those of SOME Democrats. Same can be said for SOME views of the GOP, by the way. But whereas you think its because the Democrats are somehow wimps that want to surrender, I think its because AQ loves the idea of the christian conservative element staying in control in the U.S. It means more business for them. I don't disagree with that at all. But which is more dangerous? I don't think we will have a definitive answer to that question, but I will say that cowering to their wishes and "dialogue" will not work with these people. I also agree with Rex that Al Queda is an idealogue based organization who has no qualms about destroying anything that is not 100% on board to their views, including their own Islamic home bases.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 01:08 PM) part one or two? Or both? Part Two.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 05:47 PM) I'd say its the opposite. Al Qaeda wants war. They are feigning support of an anti-war cause in order to try to bolster those (generally, the GOP) that support the war. Al Queda wants war, but not in their own back yard. Yes or no? And to me what you're saying only emphasizes my point even more about the two sides using the same rhetoric. You're making it a better arguement then I have.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 05:37 PM) Again Kap, what is wrong with both sides wanting peace? That's the only way to end a war. I thought the GOP loyalists wanted peace also. There's two sides to "peace". One is a lasting peace, the other is a peace by burying your head in the sand and saying "let them all sort it out". That is where the Democrats side on this. They are taking the "anti-war" stance of the far left in this country and running pedal to the medal with that message. That is why I keep arguing that the rhetoric for Al Queda and the Democrat party is similiar in nature. Two examples, really quick. Al Queda: Harry Reid, 9/7/07: Now for the parallells. Both talk of this being "Bush's war". Both talk of getting the war stopped. Both talk about the harshness of the soldier's plight in the open in a negative connotation (i.e. get out of there because it's all for nothing). The discussions of "it's time for a change (let's not beat around the Bush (pun intended) here - we all know Reid means withdrawl. If there were MORE casualties, it makes the case for Reid that much more, does it not? They both reference the (dollar) cost of the war being too much - and oh by the way, how much of this money is earmarked toward reconstruction? This is just but one longer example - and frankly, the idealogy is very close. I'm sure I'll get nitpicked to death about how this isn't remotely the same, but these two areas definitely play and feed off of one another in the contexts of the two quotes. It's not that far of a stretch, but I'm sure that no one will admit to that, because it serves the purpose of "ending this war!!" cry that's out there right now. And this is a side discourse, but I find it quite interesting that they are now so quick to discredit General Patraeus' report - that started a month ago... because if it has any good news in it at all, the Democrats cannot rally around the "let's get out" war cry. They knew that the report was going to say where the surge was put in place it was working. It has allowed for political reconciliation where the peace has taken hold, but the Democrats can't have that, or we're there for another (period of) time.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 04:12 PM) As I pointed out, that's the CIA's perspective, though they also believe that American political ideology is completely different than al-Qaeda's and they prefer certain leaders because they can be better morphed into a campaign. Of course I completely made that up and it was blasphemy. Hawt. GP, of course, that's what the intentions of the organization called Al Queda wants. That's pretty clear. I also think they use our media effectively to obtain information to fuel the divisions when they write speeches like this.

Maybe I'm not getting through because ya'll want to make this something I'm not meaning. I'll try this (besides the quote stuff, which I hope I can get to later today, it depends on how long the kiddo will sleep). Al Queda = Anti-US Democrats = Anti-War Therefore, Democrats = Al Queda ANTI WAR RHETORIC. What I am NOT saying is that Al Queda = Democrat. I AM saying that the poltical discourse of wanting our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan are mutual to the line of thinking of both Al Queda and the Democrats. I am NOT also saying that Democrat = Anti-America, perhaps maybe this is why my point is getting lost in the translation - because some of ya'll are taking it that way. Is that any more clear? Edit: I also realize my initial post was a lot more over the top then I meant for it to be, and that's my fault. For that alone, I apologize. If some folks in this thread want to keep bringing that up, fine, but as of this post, I'm finished with that part of the conversation. I will re-iterate, though, that my basic premise stands that the rhetoric (talking points) are extremely close in nature.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 01:22 PM) Well this is hands-down the most embarrassing thread I've seen in my time in the 'Buster. I won't even bother trying to clean up anything, and instead say this: please, please, lets try to keep away from labelling all liberals as being like Al Qaeda (and yes Kap, that is 100% precisely what you did), and from labelling all the conservatives as brainless or otherwise stupid for wanting to stay the course. And I'll add just one talking point. If indeed the rhetoric being spewed by UBL has some similarities to stands taken by the Democrats... has it occurred to anyone that may have been done intentionally to try to keep the GOP in power in order to sustain the war? And that UBL and AQ have a vested interest in keeping the war going? Just something to consider. Hey, thank you very much for proving my point! I appreciate that. But of course, it's a "slap in the face" to admit that for "Democrats". And I'll say it for I think now the fourth or fifth time... the RHETORIC spewed is LIKE THAT of Democrats, not that "all liberals are like Al Queda". I've said it over and over and over after my initial post which was done on the way out the door and poorly worded.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 12:48 PM) This does not address the biggest problem facing us. We can find enough immigrants we like to be Doctors, software engineers, and similar, but we just can not find enough acceptable laborers. We should slash this funding and force Americans to accept these jobs Seriously, now comes another round of tuition hikes which will wipe out the increase as far as the students wallets. They will still need the same debt. This will help schools way more than it helps students. We accept debt in this society. That's true to a certain extent.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 06:16 AM) What was unclear about my post? I quoted you exactly. You felt qualified to speak on everything in the clip, without having even read it. That's some real desperation. The thing was only 7 pages long, for chrissake. You said you hadn't said it. You did say it. And you still try to attack me, for attacking "the messenger". What the f*** is your problem? If you said it, ADMIT IT.Btw, with all your "you libs" bulls***, I invite you to provide a few examples of where I blindly supported Dem positions. Like when I've said that we should stay in Iraq at this point, although the invasion was idiocy. Or when I've supported open trade or guest worker programs. Be my f***ing guest. On the other side, I'd like you to do exactly what you said you could -- put full quotes "side by side", and let us all gasp at how terrorist the Dems are. We're still waiting. Vague references about "global warming" are just sad. I did. But apparently you can't read. I'm done with you.

Since that time when I made the first post, and when I made my posts today, I was able to read the entire thing. So, I stand corrected on my original post when I said what I did, but subsequent to that, I read it. And at least I admitted the truth about "context" last night when I originally posted that - it's much more then you get from most of you libs around here anyway. I still stand by the "Democrat talking points" comment, especially after reading the whole thing!! - well what do you know, "talking points" and "rhetoric" are pretty damn close in meaning. Would you like to continue to assassinate the messenger, or do you have ANY point at all?

It's amazing what care-free baseball does for the clubhouse, isn't it?

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 04:53 AM) There's still a big problem, and that is that this entire argument revolves around this: A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form: Person A makes claim X There is something objectionable about Person A Therefore claim X is false Address the claims and the merits of the claims. Saying "Bin Laden believes it, so it must be bad" is a logical fallacy and, imo, a pretty stupid way to determine things. And that is incorrect. It's not "something objectionable about person A" that is the point I'm making. Therefore, your little cutesy argument that you like to post every time someone starts making things like this is false in this case. It's that Person A HAS SOMETHING OBJECTIONABLE to say, and there is a huge difference between the two. I don't feel like playing philosophy class anymore. With this I close for tonight. I have discovered that the more vigourously something like this is defended on Soxtalk, the more merit it has, because all you libs like to circle on the lump of chum in the water. There's small truths ( and I will allow not 100%, but definitely a majority) to the claim of RHETORIC that Democrats currently have and Binnie's latest video for us. I'm going to say this one more time. DEMOCRATS ARE NOT AL QUEDA so stop saying that I'm saying that. I am saying that there are certain idealogies being taken and twisted for his perverted view of the world, and the Democrats in this country make it easy for him to do so. And I'll add: So does George W. Bush, but I already said that. I agree with Flaxx's post up to the last paragraph. I think it's horse s*** that "Binnie doesn't matter" anymore. This tape is why it matters. The asshole was responsible for 3,000 deaths, and he needs to meet Allah for it to get his just desserts.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 01:08 AM) No -- I'd really like to see this, actually. The fact is, your statement was utter bulls*** from the start. What kind of f***ing sense does it make to comment on "damn near everything" in the speech when you admit that you haven't read it all? But, hey, go ahead. You made it sound like Reid was reciting the speech verbatim. How hard can it be? And Biden's on Meet the Press tomorrow morning. Should be pretty easy pickings. Put 'em side-by-side, just like you said you could. I can't wait. And by the way, I didn't say that either. I said I read the transcript, in it's entirety. And I have also said, now three times, the RHETORIC is the same -- and what Harry Reid is saying is VERY comparable to what Binnie had to say. So again, I politely ask, stop putting words in my mouth. That's the third time in this thread that someone has tried that, and it needs to stop. Thanks - much appreciated.

First, I said that Bush has royally f'ed up this war. But wow, it's amazing, no one wants to give me credit for that one, because it doesn't support all the f***ing sharks in the bloody water right now, now does it? Second, the only damn thing I can find of the transcript is in .pdf (on MSNBC where I read it yesterday), and frankly I am not retyping all that s***. Anyone want to find me a .html transcript? I told you once, I'm too lazy to spend the next three hours typing all this s*** out. But, I have gone back and transcribed Reid and Durbin for yesterday. For starters, all the global warming s***, well we know that's a Democrat talking point. Bin Ladin speaks of the billions of the cost of the war, well, so does Reid (as a defense to make it stop). Durbin, who once called our own troops Nazis, is talking about our troops "taking their last breath" in Iraq whlie we wait for political reconciliation. The RHETORIC (now read that AGAIN so I don't have to read about how I'm calling Al Queda = to Democrats again) is the SAME. It's not a direct quote, but they play right off of one another. Now, that's just the start, but the idea is there. For Cripes sake, Noam Chomsky? Wow... do I even have to explain that? Bin Ladin of course speaks of a civil war in Iraq, all caused by Bush - the Democrats talk about this every day. Bin Ladin references "war for corporations"... we see STILL all the Haliburton references quite often (although not as recently... but I know they are still out there). Bin Ladin talks about the capitalistic failures (oh, even home loans!!) and we need bailouts (yes that is a strech, but the points are there). There's many, many more... but that's a start.

I don't care what people's analysis of the speech is, I can read the transcript on my own, thanks, though.