Guest JMA Posted February 26, 2003 Report Posted February 26, 2003 I would like to see one fair quote towards Bush were you aren't calling him an alchoholic, cheating moron. I didn't say Bush. But if you insist, I will provide you with one. I already know what'll happen though...
Guest JMA Posted February 26, 2003 Report Posted February 26, 2003 Bush is better than Sadaam. I don't want Bush to die horribly or anything. I don't even want anything bad to happen to Bush. Yet I would relish the thought of something happening to Sadaam. Despite what you think I don't hate Bush. I just dislike him and don't think he's qualified or smart enough to be President. This is what I believe, not a fact. If you disagree, okay. That's your opinion. It doesn't matter to me. There you go. I simply gave my opinion in a non-antagonistic way. Of course, now someone will try to refute it. Well, it's never easy...
Guest Powerplay Posted February 26, 2003 Report Posted February 26, 2003 Bush is better than Sadaam. I don't want Bush to die horribly or anything. I don't even want anything bad to happen to Bush. Yet I would relish the thought of something happening to Sadaam. Despite what you think I don't hate Bush. I just dislike him and don't think he's qualified or smart enough to be President. This is what I believe, not a fact. If you disagree, okay. That's your opinion. It doesn't matter to me. There you go. I simply gave my opinion in a non-antagonistic way. Of course, now someone will try to refute it. Well, it's never easy... Well, it's certainly a step up from your random attacks on Bush. But that's about it :-\. Though I'm glad to see all of your posts aren't totally flames against our President.
Guest Some Guy Posted February 26, 2003 Report Posted February 26, 2003 Dreamer, I've rarely read you sticking up for any Conservatives. The quotes you listed aren't exactly sticking up for anything. Perhaps not "sticking up," but I was at least trying to be fair. I wasn't shilling for the Left or anything. I said what I thought in a non-partisan way. Read them again and you'll see that. I'm clearly not guilty of many of the things Eric accused me of. Admitting that intelligent Conservative comentray esists is not a non-partisan view, it's the truth. And sayign that Left Wing whacos are bad adn that the smchuck deserved to be fired for writing deplorable statements about an innocent woman who died in the 9/11 terrorist attack aren't really non-partisan either. They are just facts. I have yet to see you defend the president for anything that he has been unfairly accused of, in fact you participate in those unfair accusations. I thought I did a pretty good job of refuting the "Bush is stupid" bullshit in another thread. All you guys have is that he did poorly in high school (not an accurate guage of inteligence, maturity maybe but high school age kids can and do grow up), "his daddy got him into Harvard", he's a bad public speaker (again not a good way of judging intelligence), and he does stuff that you disagree with politically. Since the Leftist arrogance is that if you don't agree with them than you must be completely stupid, if not evil, that doesn't hold too much water. The continued mockery of someone who you know relativley little about and are unable to back up your insults on makes you look like the stupid one. just because a few others on the board agree with you doesn't make you right. I have defended Al Gore, Janet Reno, Bill Clinton, and a few otehr Dems who I felt have been wronged. Try to look outside of your own beliefs system for a minute and realize that not all or most Christain Conservatives are evil and deplorable people. that Ann Coulter doesn't really want all teh Liberals dead (if for no other reason than she would be out of a job, she gets paid to bitch about them), and that Democrats and the moderate Left are wrong on at least somethings.
Guest JMA Posted February 26, 2003 Report Posted February 26, 2003 Well, it's certainly a step up from your random attacks on Bush. But that's about it :-\. Though I'm glad to see all of your posts aren't totally flames against our President. I NEVER said I was unbiased. Never. I am biased towards the Left. I admit it. I feel liberalism is superior. Do I like Bush as a person? No. Do I wish him harm? No. Do I like him as a President? No. Are some of my reasons partisan ones? Yes. Yet I'm not a liberal. I'm not commited enough to be a liberal. I want my beliefs to be changable. I don't want to shoe-horn all my beliefs into liberalism. I feel that somewhere there is a philosophy better than liberalism, but right now I feel it is generally the best way to go (conservatives have some great economic ideas, though).
Guest Some Guy Posted February 26, 2003 Report Posted February 26, 2003 Do I like Bush as a person? No. Why not? What has Bush done as a person to maek you dislike him? Do you dislike Conservatives in general? If I were top say that Bill Clinton is a bad person, i could back that up with the indisputably facts that he is a liar, a cheater, and a ruthless son of a bitch when it comes to defending his own imoral actions, sicking his spin machine on anyone or anything that go tin his way to secure his own power and legacy. Has Bush done any of that? Not that I've seen.
Guest JMA Posted February 26, 2003 Report Posted February 26, 2003 Why not? What has Bush done as a person to maek you dislike him? Do you dislike Conservatives in general? No. I don't dislike him because he's a conservative. I don't dislike conservatives in general. I just don't with what he does.
Guest JMA Posted February 26, 2003 Report Posted February 26, 2003 BTW, the tags in your sig aren't working. I think you need to replace the < > with [ ]. Just trying to help.
Guest Some Guy Posted February 26, 2003 Report Posted February 26, 2003 They used to work as is until I added my DVD Collection to the sig, then they stopped. I think I'll ask Dames about it.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted February 26, 2003 Report Posted February 26, 2003 Why do you put quotes around "His daddy got him into Harvard"? I wasn't sarcastic, I DID apply to Harvard for kicks. I got denied, of course, but considering my SATs and GPA were better than Dubya, one may suggest Bush had outside factors working in his favor.
Guest TheMikeSC Posted February 26, 2003 Report Posted February 26, 2003 You'd rather believe in whoever told you to hate Bush and all things Republican. Who was that anyways? Actually I agree with some things Republicans want to do, like abolishing Affirmative Action and Welfare for one. I'm not a Saddam supporter AT ALL, i'm just saying he and Bush are not all that different. I mean wasnt Bush leading a State that, during his term, had more executions than any mass muerderer in hisroty? Sans Hitler of course, he was just sick. Of course, at the risk of sounding apologetic, you do realize that the Governor of Texas has no power whatsoever to prevent ANY executions, right? They have a board that does that. So, Saddam orders the gassing of untold thousands of his people. Bush had no power to stop less than a hundred executions in his state. Yup, they are morally comparable. -=Mike --- What next? Truman wasn't much worse than Stalin?
Guest TheMikeSC Posted February 26, 2003 Report Posted February 26, 2003 I think it's incredibly hypocritical that Bush is pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time. It's all about guilt v innocence. Unborn babies don't tend to be guilty of anything --- outside of the whole Catholic dogma of original sin. -=Mike
Guest Some Guy Posted February 26, 2003 Report Posted February 26, 2003 Why do you put quotes around "His daddy got him into Harvard"? I wasn't sarcastic, I DID apply to Harvard for kicks. I got denied, of course, but considering my SATs and GPA were better than Dubya, one may suggest Bush had outside factors working in his favor. I wasn't quoting you specifically, just liberals in general. I don't dispute that Harvard allowed him in because his father went there. I just think it's an old and tired statement, that proves nothing about his intelligence. Besides if he couldn't have kept up he would have flunked out, regardless of who his dad is. His father being a Republican may have actually hurt him in Harvard, a heavily liberal school once he was enrolled. Maybe he got inflated grades to keep him on the cheerleading squad though. Did you have enough money to go to Harvard? That plays a big part in admitance as well, unless your an Affirmative Action case. WHy did you waste the application fee money to apply just for kicks, my sister wanted to until she found out they charged like $75 or something. Which is actually to stop people from applying "just for kicks".
Guest cartman Posted February 26, 2003 Report Posted February 26, 2003 I admit the execution statement was stupid, I retract and apoligise. I wont, however, change any other statement I have made.
Guest Vern Gagne Posted February 27, 2003 Report Posted February 27, 2003 [ Yup, they are morally comparable. -=Mike --- What next? Truman wasn't much worse than Stalin? My AP History class in 10th grade put Truman on trial for War Crimes. He was found guilty
Guest Powerplay Posted February 27, 2003 Report Posted February 27, 2003 [ Yup, they are morally comparable. -=Mike --- What next? Truman wasn't much worse than Stalin? My AP History class in 10th grade put Truman on trial for War Crimes. He was found guilty Was it for the usage of the atomic bomb? Because if it was, some kids need a healthy slap or two...
Guest Olympic Slam Posted February 27, 2003 Report Posted February 27, 2003 [ Yup, they are morally comparable. -=Mike --- What next? Truman wasn't much worse than Stalin? My AP History class in 10th grade put Truman on trial for War Crimes. He was found guilty That in a nutshell pretty much sums up today's youth. The left is winning the culture war, that's for certain. I remember when I was in 10th grade and we'd have debates and it was just my friend and I that took a conservative stance on issues. He and I would take on the other 20+ "liberal" students in the class and kick their butts.
cawthon777 Posted February 27, 2003 Report Posted February 27, 2003 That in a nutshell pretty much sums up today's youth. The left is winning the culture war, that's for certain. That's def how it is in the college scene. Although I have the advantage since about 2% of students at my school watch AND understand the news.
Guest Brian Posted February 27, 2003 Report Posted February 27, 2003 [ Yup, they are morally comparable. -=Mike --- What next? Truman wasn't much worse than Stalin? My AP History class in 10th grade put Truman on trial for War Crimes. He was found guilty Was it for the usage of the atomic bomb? Because if it was, some kids need a healthy slap or two... Why? Because he didn't need to use it?
Guest Powerplay Posted February 27, 2003 Report Posted February 27, 2003 [ Yup, they are morally comparable. -=Mike --- What next? Truman wasn't much worse than Stalin? My AP History class in 10th grade put Truman on trial for War Crimes. He was found guilty Was it for the usage of the atomic bomb? Because if it was, some kids need a healthy slap or two... Why? Because he didn't need to use it? What would you have suggested? The invasion of Japan alone would have cost 1 MILLION American casualties, and that close to the Japanese mainland the Japanese casualties had, on average, been 10-15 times more than the Americans. The Japanese Military was in firm control of the Government at the time and peace would not have been reached through any amount of negotiations. The Atomic bombs saved more lives than they ever killed.
Guest Powerplay Posted February 27, 2003 Report Posted February 27, 2003 Well, while I got my information from a book, I found a website whose estimates, while far less, still show that the use of the atomic bombs were justified. I'll e-mail the guy who owns the book to get an exact figure and the name of the book itself. Click Here
Guest Silence Posted February 27, 2003 Report Posted February 27, 2003 I'll say it again. We don't need words, we need action. Saddam needs to die.
Guest Brian Posted February 27, 2003 Report Posted February 27, 2003 They didn't need to send any troops. We had already intercepted intelligence messages talking about them giving up. I'll post the Zinn excerpts, with parts of the actual conversations that were intercepted, later tomorrow when I get to them.
Guest Powerplay Posted February 27, 2003 Report Posted February 27, 2003 They didn't need to send any troops. We had already intercepted intelligence messages talking about them giving up. I'll post the Zinn excerpts, with parts of the actual conversations that were intercepted, later tomorrow when I get to them. Were these from the top brass military officials? Because, as far as I'm aware, they never had any intention of surrendering until the bombs were dropped. Edit: I'm just stating here what I know. I've seriously never heard mention of these anywhere or in any book I've read, and I have to say I'm a bit cynical about what they reveal.
Guest Kingpk Posted February 27, 2003 Report Posted February 27, 2003 They didn't need to send any troops. We had already intercepted intelligence messages talking about them giving up. I'll post the Zinn excerpts, with parts of the actual conversations that were intercepted, later tomorrow when I get to them. From what I've read, it took the Emperor himself to finally force his military to surrender, and this was AFTER the bombs were dropped.
Guest Brian Posted February 27, 2003 Report Posted February 27, 2003 The principal justification for obliterating Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that this action "saved lives." The claim is that, otherwise, a planned U.S. invasion of Japan would have been necessary, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans. In fact, the bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not forestall an invasion of Japan because no invasion was necessary. The Japanese were on the verge of surrender, and American military leaders knew that. Gen. Eisenhower, briefed by Secretary of War Henry Stimson on the imminent use of the bomb, told him that "Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." Former Ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew and others who knew something about Japanese society had suggested that allowing Japan to keep its emperor would save countless lives by bringing an early end to the war. In June 1945, six members of the Japanese Supreme War Council authorized Foreign Minister Togo to approach the Soviet Union, which was not at war with Japan, to mediate an end to the war "if possible by September." Togo sent Ambassador Sato to Moscow to feel out the possibility of a negotiated surrender. On July 13, he sent a telegram to Sato: "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace. It is His Majesty’s heart’s desire to see the swift termination of the war." The United States knew about that telegram because it had broken the Japanese code early in the war.
Guest Tim Posted February 27, 2003 Report Posted February 27, 2003 The principal justification for obliterating Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that this action "saved lives." The claim is that, otherwise, a planned U.S. invasion of Japan would have been necessary, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans. In fact, the bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not forestall an invasion of Japan because no invasion was necessary. The Japanese were on the verge of surrender, and American military leaders knew that. Gen. Eisenhower, briefed by Secretary of War Henry Stimson on the imminent use of the bomb, told him that "Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." Former Ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew and others who knew something about Japanese society had suggested that allowing Japan to keep its emperor would save countless lives by bringing an early end to the war. In June 1945, six members of the Japanese Supreme War Council authorized Foreign Minister Togo to approach the Soviet Union, which was not at war with Japan, to mediate an end to the war "if possible by September." Togo sent Ambassador Sato to Moscow to feel out the possibility of a negotiated surrender. On July 13, he sent a telegram to Sato: "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace. It is His Majesty’s heart’s desire to see the swift termination of the war." The United States knew about that telegram because it had broken the Japanese code early in the war. 1. The Japanese psyche would never have accepted a surrender without the use of A-bombs. Why, after the first bomb was dropped, would they not have immediately surrendered, as you suggest they are so willing to do? 2. Japan was allowed to keep its Emperor. As well, the conditions they gave were not surrender so much as cease-fire, or peace. If Japan got its way, it would have been left mostly intact, and paid no price whatsoever for the tens of millions killed under Japanese occupation, as well as in POW camps.
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Posted February 27, 2003 Report Posted February 27, 2003 "My AP History class in 10th grade put Truman on trial for War Crimes. He was found guilty" But was he found guilty of committing hate crimes? If so, he would REALLY be in trouble...
Guest Vern Gagne Posted February 27, 2003 Report Posted February 27, 2003 He was put on trial for using the atomic bomb. It was a very very heated trial.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now