|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 4, 2011 21:47:13 GMT -5
Not only does "ignorant educated" not make any grammatical sense (it should be "ignorantly educated"), it's also contradictory. But ok. it's quite possible to be educated and ignorant. maybe a more relatable term, educated and stupid - a common occurence. I can't believe I have to do this.... Webster dictionary definition: : the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness So how can you be educated but lack an education? The mind boggles.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on May 4, 2011 21:48:40 GMT -5
Hindsight is 20/20. Coming off of 9/11 - if you believe that Bush truly believe Sadam had WMD - it made sense. In fact, if you think Bush lied about the fact, then so did Clinton in the 90s, and so did most of America and the world in 2002 for that matter. It was bad intel, and nothing to do with lying. But coming on the heels of 9/11, we saw that we couldn't afford to wait to see if a threat materialized. Bush's pre-emption made sense in context. To deny that is absurd. That being said, once we got into Iraq, it became very important. It's where AQ ran into. It became an essential battle. So while you can argue, with your 20/20 hindsight, that we shouldn't have gone in originally, once we did it was essential that it became our essential focus, if you will. The Iraq War was more important than killing one man. --- What's also notable is that Bush denied joining Obama at Ground Zero. It's nice to see a (former) politician not milking anything. Bush was (and still is) genuine, and I admire that. It has nothing to do with hindsight. There were TONS of people against the Iraq situation while it was happening. Only blind sheeply republicans were behind that move. It made no sense, WMDs or not (i'm sure you'll refute this with "WHAT? You would leave nuclear weapons in the hands of a crazy dictator?" but this could be countered with the same Osama argument that he was not relevant. Saddam was not near the threat he used to be at the time, which is why most people went "what the fuck?" when it was announced we were going after him.). You didn't need hindsight to raise an eyebrow at us turning away from Osama/Al Qaeda and focusing on Saddam who had nothing to do with 9/11. You keep saying Iraq was more important than killing 1 man, but you and I both know Bin Laden was not the only man in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was/is ground zero for Al Qaeda...it wasn't just about Osama. And what do you call going into Iraq to overthrow Saddam? That was only 1 guy, and 1 guy that was only a real threat in his own country, not all over the world. The reason I'm so against this particular situation...9/11 happens and everyone is devastated. You had people of all ages signing up for the military to fight. We take off and start bombing Afghanistan. No problem with that, because we were going after the guys that just attacked us. Then Bush basically spits in everyone's face and focuses everything on Saddam and Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11. All those grieving families are looking to you to set things right...all those people who signed up for the military are putting their lives on the line to right a wrong and you can't even stay focused on the people that attacked us on our own soil. It was stupid and terrible, and it didn't take years of reflection to feel that way. That was apparent right away.
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on May 4, 2011 21:52:57 GMT -5
it's quite possible to be educated and ignorant. maybe a more relatable term, educated and stupid - a common occurence. I can't believe I have to do this.... Webster dictionary definition: : the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness So how can you be educated but lack an education? The mind boggles. because you can still be stupid and have an education. just like you, you spout off fact after fact, quote everyone under the sun, and base all your opinions off other people's opinions. that's not necessarily stupid but doesn't mean you're smart.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on May 4, 2011 21:55:15 GMT -5
NL4E, you really need to get your head out of George W. Bush's ass. all in all, you're just a classic example of a bigot, and it's the reason you get so much shit. Whoa. Wow. I'm not going to lie, I take great offense of that. I have given credit to Obama for this. And I have given credit to Obama for continuing Bush's policies, even if he didn't want to. But to call me a bigot or a racist because I simply don't like his liberalism? Wow. Could you sink any lower? Not only are you playing the standard liberal race card, you're playing it without any sort of evidence. I am truly shocked and appalled. In no way am I bigot. I expected better, LIB. I truly did. "you broke my heart, fredo." it's amazing that you don't see it. you've been out to get our president since day one. i quote, "i want him to fail." he can't do anything right in your eyes. if he ended all poverty and war, you'd still find fault with him. you are so blind in your disgust of this guy and don't even realize it. how will anybody hire you as a political scientist if you can't think reasonably and objectively? and if you call what he's doing socialism or liberalism, you really need to go back to the books. the spectrum has gone so far to the right that what's liberal now was center-right 15 years ago. you think i'm lying? that socialist healthcare he enacted was pretty much mitt romney's same plan from 1994. lib did not call you a racist. he called you a bigot. i think he chose the wrong word. prejudiced is the right word. prejudiced against differing points of view, so please quit the martyr act.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on May 4, 2011 21:55:56 GMT -5
it's quite possible to be educated and ignorant. maybe a more relatable term, educated and stupid - a common occurence. I can't believe I have to do this.... Webster dictionary definition: : the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness So how can you be educated but lack an education? The mind boggles. The inclusion of "or" in that definition renders your point moot. You can still lack in knowledge and/or awareness and be considered ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on May 4, 2011 21:56:11 GMT -5
Completely disagree.
Photos have been used as a way to create or make a person into a martyr. They can be widely distributed, and be used as a rallying cry. That is the main that they will not release the photo. And there have been plenty examples of this happening.
Secondly, the fact that he did invite Bush says that he's not "spiking the ball". He didn't have to invite Bush, he could've take the credit all for himself. From day one, he has given Bush credit (more than he deserves), for killing of Osama. Also, you're contradicting yourself when you say that he's trying to score political points. As you said, this will filter out after the next news cycle. Why would he have to spike the ball? If we went with you logic. I agree with you that this is a short term thing and by the coming news cycle this will all be washed away and it won't help that much in the Presidential election, but I completely disagree with you that he's "spiking the ball".
When you don't back your argument with facts, you weaken them.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on May 4, 2011 21:58:05 GMT -5
it's quite possible to be educated and ignorant. maybe a more relatable term, educated and stupid - a common occurence. So how can you be educated but lack an education? The mind boggles. there's a word for that. it's sophomoric. the word sophomore apparently came from greek, meaning wise fool.
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on May 4, 2011 22:00:11 GMT -5
bigot - a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of political views, different ethnicity, race, class, religion, or gender.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 4, 2011 22:05:52 GMT -5
Hindsight is 20/20. Coming off of 9/11 - if you believe that Bush truly believe Sadam had WMD - it made sense. In fact, if you think Bush lied about the fact, then so did Clinton in the 90s, and so did most of America and the world in 2002 for that matter. It was bad intel, and nothing to do with lying. But coming on the heels of 9/11, we saw that we couldn't afford to wait to see if a threat materialized. Bush's pre-emption made sense in context. To deny that is absurd. That being said, once we got into Iraq, it became very important. It's where AQ ran into. It became an essential battle. So while you can argue, with your 20/20 hindsight, that we shouldn't have gone in originally, once we did it was essential that it became our essential focus, if you will. The Iraq War was more important than killing one man. --- What's also notable is that Bush denied joining Obama at Ground Zero. It's nice to see a (former) politician not milking anything. Bush was (and still is) genuine, and I admire that. It has nothing to do with hindsight. There were TONS of people against the Iraq situation while it was happening. Only blind sheeply republicans were behind that move. It made no sense, WMDs or not (i'm sure you'll refute this with "WHAT? You would leave nuclear weapons in the hands of a crazy dictator?" but this could be countered with the same Osama argument that he was not relevant. Saddam was not near the threat he used to be at the time, which is why most people went "what the fuck?" when it was announced we were going after him.). You didn't need hindsight to raise an eyebrow at us turning away from Osama/Al Qaeda and focusing on Saddam who had nothing to do with 9/11. You keep saying Iraq was more important than killing 1 man, but you and I both know Bin Laden was not the only man in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was/is ground zero for Al Qaeda...it wasn't just about Osama. And what do you call going into Iraq to overthrow Saddam? That was only 1 guy, and 1 guy that was only a real threat in his own country, not all over the world. The reason I'm so against this particular situation...9/11 happens and everyone is devastated. You had people of all ages signing up for the military to fight. We take off and start bombing Afghanistan. No problem with that, because we were going after the guys that just attacked us. Then Bush basically spits in everyone's face and focuses everything on Saddam and Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11. All those grieving families are looking to you to set things right...all those people who signed up for the military are putting their lives on the line to right a wrong and you can't even stay focused on the people that attacked us on our own soil. It was stupid and terrible, and it didn't take years of reflection to feel that way. That was apparent right away. I don't even know where to start. Tons? Hardly. I think you mean TONS of people worldwide supported the endeavorer..... As for Saddam, he violated several UN Resolutions, that's enough to go to war there, regardless of WMD. In fact, Bush had a more justifiable reason to act in Iraq than Obama has had in Libya (which, by the way, is turning into the nightmare most critics told him it would). You're right about Afghanistan. But do you know how many serious plots Bush had stopped because of his actions? Look it up, it amounts to 20+ serious plots on the US alone. From hijackings on the West Coast to bomb plots in the central part of the country, Bush kept us safe. No one, including me, thought we'd go 8+ years without another attack on the homeland. Not only that, but Bush weakened AQ considerably. While they still remain a threat, they no longer can mount 9/11s. Look at their last few plots (which failed not because of Obama but because of their own incompetence - Xmas 2009, Times Square attempt, Fedex/UPS bombs Oct 2010, etc). Bush did a remarkable job of disenfranchising AQ. Any credit? Nope. Still don't hear any. Saddam no connections to 9/11? Ok, strictly speaking you may have a point. But there were connections. Saddam did meet OBL several times. And to think Iraq wouldn't harbor AQ terrorists is naive. Just look at what Pakistan - our perceived ally - just did! Again, based on historical context, coming off of 9/11, we couldn't afford it. So basically, if Bush didn't do anything but Saddam eventually acquired WMD and used them against us, our allies, or sold them to terrorists who did likewise; and eventually harbored AQ terrorists who escaped from Afghanistan that would be ok? You wouldn't blame Bush then? The double standard here is incredible. Before I end this post, let me remind you that Clinton sent cruise missiles into Iraq for the same reasons Bush invaded. Let me remind you that Clinton sent cruise missiles also into Afghanistan for the same reasons Bush invaded......There was no difference between the rationale. You can't possible say Bush lied, and Clinton was right. The difference here is that Bush wasn't afraid to act decisively. That, to me, makes Bush a much better president. (Clinton, at the time, didn't think he was wrong about Iraq...Bush at the time thought he was right about Iraq....with those two concepts being equal, Bush's response was better....) But that's ok. Bush is to blame. For everything, except the capture of OBL.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on May 4, 2011 22:15:10 GMT -5
^^There's a difference between going into a country for war and sending cruise missiles. You're idea of "acting decisively" is the killing of 5,500 American soldiers. NL4E, I've lost a lot of respect for you. In trying so hard to prove your point, you really make yourself look closed minded and pitiful. And I feel so sorry for you, because you don't see it.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on May 4, 2011 22:33:19 GMT -5
Thank you for partially acknowledging the points I was actually making.
I did not mean tons of people worldwide supported Iraq. The only people I remember who thought it was a good idea, are people like you who defend EVERYTHING Bush did regardless of what it was. You would think everyone supported it because you're probably surrounded by people with the same opinions as you and you probably only watch Fox News.
I never said Bush didn't do ANYTHING. He deserves credit for any positive impact his policies or decisions have had. When everyone was going apeshit about the Patriot Act, I understood why they signed that. I know a lot of people think it violates our rights etc. but I have nothing to hide from anyone so I actually don't mind, and i'm sure it helped foil many terrorist plots. You have to adapt to changing times, and if we need to give up certain rights to prevent psychos from attacking us, then so be it.
We weren't talking about that?
That's A LOT of "What ifs". Way too many in fact to justify what was done.
I don't care about Clinton. We were talking about Bush and Obama and how Bush somehow deserves a ton of credit for Osama's death...which he doesn't.
It would be much healthier for you to try to step back and look at situations without any bias and instead of trying to twist facts to fit an agenda, just call it like it is. Republicans and liberals, alike, spend way too much energy spinning things and figuring out ways to further their agenda. No one cares about reaching any kind of solution or even trying to get along.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on May 4, 2011 22:36:46 GMT -5
As for Saddam, he violated several UN Resolutions, that's enough to go to war there, regardless of WMD. In fact, Bush had a more justifiable reason to act in Iraq than Obama has had in Libya (which, by the way, is turning into the nightmare most critics told him it would). just because he's a bad guy who violated un resolutions doesn't mean the united states has to go to war. we didn't go to war with other nations that have broken un resolutions, like cambodia in the 70s, north korea, the ussr or iran. libya has broken plenty of un resolutions in the past, by the way. gaddafi's no angel. You're right about Afghanistan. But do you know how many serious plots Bush had stopped because of his actions? Look it up, it amounts to 20+ serious plots on the US alone. From hijackings on the West Coast to bomb plots in the central part of the country, Bush kept us safe. No one, including me, thought we'd go 8+ years without another attack on the homeland. Not only that, but Bush weakened AQ considerably. While they still remain a threat, they no longer can mount 9/11s. Look at their last few plots (which failed not because of Obama but because of their own incompetence - Xmas 2009, Times Square attempt, Fedex/UPS bombs Oct 2010, etc). Bush did a remarkable job of disenfranchising AQ. Any credit? Nope. Still don't hear any. your argument is, "apart from the worst attack on our soil by an outside force, president bush kept us safe." do you give credit for obama keeping the country safe, or is he just some socialist commie kenyan muslim terrorist nazi trying to destroy this country as we know it? Saddam no connections to 9/11? Ok, strictly speaking you may have a point. But there were connections. if you search hard enough, there are connections between the kennedys and carrot top. what does that mean? absolutely nothing. Saddam did meet OBL several times. And to think Iraq wouldn't harbor AQ terrorists is naive. Just look at what Pakistan - our perceived ally - just did! Again, based on historical context, coming off of 9/11, we couldn't afford it. that's a lie. osama bin laden and saddam hussein were never friends or allies. ever. saddam hussein was a sunni. osama bin laden was a shiite. if you haven't noticed, shia and sunnis have hated each other for centuries. So basically, if Bush didn't do anything but Saddam eventually acquired WMD and used them against us, our allies, or sold them to terrorists who did likewise; and eventually harbored AQ terrorists who escaped from Afghanistan that would be ok? You wouldn't blame Bush then? The double standard here is incredible. so if it's justifiable to go to war with a country with a megalomaniacal dictator who killed a large number of his own citizens, broke un resolutions and had weapons of mass destruction, explain to me how going to war with libya is a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 4, 2011 22:37:17 GMT -5
No one cares about reaching any kind of solution or even trying to get along. So you admit that Mr. Transparency, Mr. Post-Partisanship Obama was just an empty suit then? (Of course he was, I just wish liberals would admit that).
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on May 4, 2011 22:46:31 GMT -5
No one cares about reaching any kind of solution or even trying to get along. So you admit that Mr. Transparency, Mr. Post-Partisanship Obama was just an empty suit then? (Of course he was, I just wish liberals would admit that). Ugh....you're so conditioned to hate on Obama, you of course just focus on something you can make a snide remark to.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on May 4, 2011 22:58:01 GMT -5
Ugh....you're so conditioned to hate on Obama, you of course just focus on something you can make a snide remark to. That was a big part of his campaign....it's a big part of who he said he would be. So much for that. It's a big let down, and even his supporters must agree with that. For a candidate who promised so much, a candidate who said he would be above politics, a liberal candidate who drew in so many republicans, and a candidate who was compared to JFK in the early stages.....he's been a 100% flop and complete disappointment. Even NYR is on record of saying how disappointed he is. you didn't directly respond to his statement. maybe it's because he's right. the only reason why obama got any republican support is because mccain doubled down on bush's failed neoconservative policies. plus, he unleashed a horror unto the world that is known as sarah palin. i'm disappointed in him, but i'd much rather have him in office than any of the republicans planning to run for president.
|
|
|
Post by masterplan200 on May 4, 2011 22:59:17 GMT -5
Wqas listening to the radio last night and the so called idiot who doesn't know Muslim rites for funerals has me fuming. He was meant to be buried in 3 days, you idiot! But why the sea? The GROUND is supposed to be the place.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 4, 2011 23:01:52 GMT -5
That was a big part of his campaign....it's a big part of who he said he would be. So much for that. It's a big let down, and even his supporters must agree with that. For a candidate who promised so much, a candidate who said he would be above politics, a liberal candidate who drew in so many republicans, and a candidate who was compared to JFK in the early stages.....he's been a 100% flop and complete disappointment. Even NYR is on record of saying how disappointed he is. you didn't directly respond to his statement. maybe it's because he's right. the only reason why obama got any republican support is because mccain doubled down on bush's failed neoconservative policies. plus, he unleashed a horror unto the world that is known as sarah palin. i'm disappointed in him, but i'd much rather have him in office than any of the republicans planning to run for president. Actually, the reason is the economic meltdown. Please realize that McCain led most polls up until that point (which is amazing considering how hated the incumbent was - another big election decider coupled with the economy). If it wasn't for the credit crunch, it's dubious Obama would have even won in the first place, thus proving my original point. But never mind. I'm "ignorant educated."
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 4, 2011 23:04:48 GMT -5
Wqas listening to the radio last night and the so called idiot who doesn't know Muslim rites for funerals has me fuming. He was meant to be buried in 3 days, you idiot! But why the sea? The GROUND is supposed to be the place. I don't fully get the whole burial issue. The guy is dead, who cares if we respected his body after the fact? Although I don't understand why the administration continues to say he wasn't a Muslim, and didn't stand for Islam, yet they provided him with a like minded ceremonial burial. But hey, whatever, this administration seldom makes sense....
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on May 4, 2011 23:30:11 GMT -5
Actually, the reason is the economic meltdown. Please realize that McCain led most polls up until that point (which is amazing considering how hated the incumbent was - another big election decider coupled with the economy). If it wasn't for the credit crunch, it's dubious Obama would have even won in the first place, thus proving my original point. But never mind. I'm "ignorant educated." You kind of are though. You're completely unaware of how douchey you come off with comments like that. Obama won because Bush ran the country into the ground and Obama's "Change" message was exactly what people wanted to hear. Bush would've lost in 2004 if Kerry wasn't a useless corpse that couldn't give a straight answer to ANY question. If Kerry had an ounce of charisma or any semblance of a message, he would've beaten Bush. Obama got people to vote that don't normally vote and had people in a frenzy with his message and charisma. McCain was too old and Palin destroyed any chance he had of winning when she started piping up.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 4, 2011 23:47:24 GMT -5
Actually, the reason is the economic meltdown. Please realize that McCain led most polls up until that point (which is amazing considering how hated the incumbent was - another big election decider coupled with the economy). If it wasn't for the credit crunch, it's dubious Obama would have even won in the first place, thus proving my original point. But never mind. I'm "ignorant educated." You kind of are though. You're completely unaware of how douchey you come off with comments like that. Obama won because Bush ran the country into the ground and Obama's "Change" message was exactly what people wanted to hear. Bush would've lost in 2004 if Kerry wasn't a useless corpse that couldn't give a straight answer to ANY question. If Kerry had an ounce of charisma or any semblance of a message, he would've beaten Bush. Obama got people to vote that don't normally vote and had people in a frenzy with his message and charisma. McCain was too old and Palin destroyed any chance he had of winning when she started piping up. Again, that's not true at all. Campaigns hardly matter. But never mind, continue to ignore the facts.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on May 5, 2011 0:20:05 GMT -5
Wqas listening to the radio last night and the so called idiot who doesn't know Muslim rites for funerals has me fuming. He was meant to be buried in 3 days, you idiot! But why the sea? The GROUND is supposed to be the place. besides the fact that no country wanted his remains, burying him at sea was because the u.s. was smart enough to know that any grave of his would turn into a shrine. he doesn't deserve to have a shrine. you didn't directly respond to his statement. maybe it's because he's right. the only reason why obama got any republican support is because mccain doubled down on bush's failed neoconservative policies. plus, he unleashed a horror unto the world that is known as sarah palin. i'm disappointed in him, but i'd much rather have him in office than any of the republicans planning to run for president. Actually, the reason is the economic meltdown. Please realize that McCain led most polls up until that point (which is amazing considering how hated the incumbent was - another big election decider coupled with the economy). If it wasn't for the credit crunch, it's dubious Obama would have even won in the first place, thus proving my original point. But never mind. I'm "ignorant educated." the economic meltdown which resulted from bush's failed policies. not to mention two failing wars, not finding bin laden or his godawful response to hurricanes katrina and rita. i never said "ignorant educated." i said sophomoric.
|
|
|
Post by bonkers on May 5, 2011 2:08:58 GMT -5
jesus christ on a pop tart and i thought i was bonkers!!!!
|
|
|
Post by masterplan200 on May 5, 2011 21:29:48 GMT -5
So Mike Jefferys is allowed to say offensive things to ALL Muslims on radio after this, yet won't let Muslims have a say. Is he really NL4E?
|
|
|
Post by NYR on May 5, 2011 21:45:07 GMT -5
So Mike Jefferys is allowed to say offensive things to ALL Muslims on radio after this, yet won't let Muslims have a say. Is he really NL4E? who?
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on May 6, 2011 5:38:19 GMT -5
Wqas listening to the radio last night and the so called idiot who doesn't know Muslim rites for funerals has me fuming. He was meant to be buried in 3 days, you idiot! But why the sea? The GROUND is supposed to be the place. I don't fully get the whole burial issue. The guy is dead, who cares if we respected his body after the fact? Millions of Muslims? And within those millions a fair number of would-be terrorists had his religious customs been disregarded in death. Its called being smart mate, fucking hell. You are scarily stupid sometimes.
|
|