Thank you.

For what? Man, this liberal vs. conservative crap is bunkus. Both sides have donw good and bad. I agree and disagree with both. Both use shitty tactics in their rhetoric. Neither side looks very good to me.

I think I'll just stay on the fence and make my own mind and not have my opinions dictated to me by some talking head.

And remember, voting only encourages them.

My guess? Quite a few. At that point it wasn't about ideology but innate aggressiveness and will to live.

For instance, I'd rather fight with Al Gore by my side than Ann Colter.

BTW, ever seen Al Gore in real life? He isn't a small man. Neither was Jessie Jackson (I will not call him Reverend though).

Personal experience has shown me that liberals show innate aggressiveness only when safely seated at the keyboard. Indecision and hesitation are inimical to aggressive action as well, but are hallmarks of the liberal mindset. They are so busy empathizing with the terrorists' plight, the tortured childhood that brought them to this state, that they cannot generate the rage necessary for all-out attack.

My wife met Al Gore at Clinton's first inaugural. She maintains he has all the warmth and personal charm of a room-temperature lizard. She liked Clinton, though, go figure! (But, she never voted for him.) She thought Hillary was a Stepford wife.

Don't sell Ann Colter short. She reminds me of a genuine ball-busting b*tch I once dated in college. Ann would fight dirty, get you to drop your guard and kick you in the cojones! Gore is like a Pillsbury Doughboy, no crust. Jesse probably came up the hard way, though he was no where near Memphis when Martin Luther King was murdered, despite his claims.

Some say a conservative is just a liberal that has been mugged.

at least wrap them in a pastrami sandwich!

Once again, you have missed the point entirely. You do everything possible to turn any argument into a pro-war/pro-Bush agenda that is propped up by the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality.

I never mentioned the war. I never mentioned Bush. I never said "if you're not with us, you're against us. This is what I said:

"Not all liberals are Democrats," but I submit that all Democrats are liberals, since anyone else has been driven out of the party, except, perhaps for Joe Lieberman (I can respect him, and I might even vote for him).

Try replying to what I post, not what you imagine. And, it is true that there used to be conservative Democrats, they called them "Dixiecrats" and "Blue-Dog Democrats," but they have gone the way of the dodo, since the party moved leftward and refused to support them or they left the Democratic party in disillusionment.

What exactly do you do besides rant and rave about people that are probably much more effective in their jobs than you? Or is your job so "hush-hush" that we can't talk about it lest you become a pawn in a political game of outing a covert operative? My guess is that you likely are a security guard at some Wal-Mart protecting the condoms from being used by Catholics.

With no clearance and no need-to-know, you'll just have to keep guessing, won't you? My watch starts soon, but I won't be putting on a blue Walmart vest. Was that an anti-Catholic slur? Did your dad name you "Scott" because "Broken rubber" was too long?

Once you start calling liberals cowards and assuming that they are unable to defend themselves against a violent attack, you start using them as pawns in your game of "my side is right and you are wrong." Alamo, Pearl Harbor, WTC. Yes, they are patriotic calls to action, but once the slogans are used inappropriately, they become calls for revolution... "Mission Accomplished"

Not all liberals are cowards, but it is true that they will negotiate and equivocate before they ever act. By then, the window of opportunity to act decisively has closed. Recent history bears this out. As for "mission accomplished," the mission of defeating Iraqi forces in the field and toppling the Saddam government was accomplished. Building a representative democratic government is a separate mission, still under way, and capable of success, despite liberal attempts to undermine it.

I would rather have pillars of disunity as those you mentioned than the goose-stepping, blind followers of "faith" that do nothing but tow the party line and do not question the motives of their "great" leader.

You are welcome to them; they build nothing, they offer nothing, they achieve nothing, they propose nothing.

Having the best intelligence available does not justify its use when it was wrong from the start.

Hindsight is 20-20. What if the intelligence had been right and we did nothing? We can't afford to be wrong. If our human intelligence (HUMINT) assets had been maintained through the Clinton years, our analysis would have been more accurate. Saddam tried to convince us he had WMD and he succeeded, all too well.

The budget was cut, not by Clinton, but by Congress... a Republican led Congress....

The Executive sends and negotiates the budget, often spending the money as it sees fit (or not), often moving it around from one pot to another, within limits. Newt Gingrich gave up his position as Speaker, in a deal to keep the intelligence budget from being cut yet again. Newt still does valuable, productive work (sorry, specifics are classified). While Clinton searches for his legacy and yearns for the spotlight.

And, we'll never know if Kerry or Gore would've done anything differently, but that argument is weak. Once Bush sued to be President, all bets were off. You can only assume that Gore would've been weak, but who's to say that 9-11 would have happened while Gore was President. We don't know. All that can be said is that under Bush's watch this country was attacked and we went to war in a country that had no direct involvement in said attack.

It's impossible to undo 8 years of neglect, gutting the military, undercutting the intelligence services, debasing the military profession and the honor of those who serve and protect IN SIX MONTHS! If Clinton had only acted after the first WTC attack, after Khobar Towers, after the attacks at the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on the USS COLE, if he had accepted Sudan's offer to turn over UBL, if he had not turned tail and run in Somalia or given the troops there proper armored support . . . Well, need I go on? . . . under Bush's watch . . . give me a break!

4-Letter words are used for emphasis to show additional emotion behind written commentary. If they don't buttress weak points or limp reasoning, that explains why you abhor them so much. You should find something to strengthen your points aside from namecalling and blind assumption.

"Emotion" adds no logic to your positions. I don't "abhor" 4-letter words, they just don't add any weight to the discussion, but are the recourse of weak minds with sparse vocabularies. As for namecalling and blind assumptions, your excellence in those areas puts me in the shade. Why not save your vitriol for the Political Discussion? This was supposed to be about a film, remember?

Personal experience has shown me that liberals show innate aggressiveness only when safely seated at the keyboard. Indecision and hesitation are inimical to aggressive action as well, but are hallmarks of the liberal mindset. They are so busy empathizing with the terrorists' plight, the tortured childhood that brought them to this state, that they cannot generate the rage necessary for all-out attack.

Not sure about this one. I am very liberal in some aspects and very conservative in others. I have friends in my office (trained, awesome operators) who are very liberal. Honestly. And they'll kill a terrorist lippity-lop.

Please allow me another perspective - conservatives are only agressive when they can hide behind their money.

Really it depends, I guess. I worked the projects for a long time when I was a local. And they generally vote liberal. And a lot of the people there would jack you up as soon as look at you.

Put it this way - who would you rather fight : Jessie Jackson's entourage or Rush Limbaugh's? OTOH, I would definitely rather fight Michael Moore's than Michael Savage's!



Just another perspective. YMMV.

Originally Posted by Scott Hajek

Once again, you have missed the point entirely. You do everything possible to turn any argument into a pro-war/pro-Bush agenda that is propped up by the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality.

I never mentioned the war. I never mentioned Bush. I never said "if you're not with us, you're against us. This is what I said:

"Not all liberals are Democrats," but I submit that all Democrats are liberals, since anyone else has been driven out of the party, except, perhaps for Joe Lieberman (I can respect him, and I might even vote for him).

Try replying to what I post, not what you imagine. And, it is true that there used to be conservative Democrats, they called them "Dixiecrats" and "Blue-Dog Democrats," but they have gone the way of the dodo, since the party moved leftward and refused to support them or they left the Democratic party in disillusionment.

What exactly do you do besides rant and rave about people that are probably much more effective in their jobs than you? Or is your job so "hush-hush" that we can't talk about it lest you become a pawn in a political game of outing a covert operative? My guess is that you likely are a security guard at some Wal-Mart protecting the condoms from being used by Catholics.

With no clearance and no need-to-know, you'll just have to keep guessing, won't you? My watch starts soon, but I won't be putting on a blue Walmart vest. Was that an anti-Catholic slur? Did your dad name you "Scott" because "Broken rubber" was too long?

Once you start calling liberals cowards and assuming that they are unable to defend themselves against a violent attack, you start using them as pawns in your game of "my side is right and you are wrong." Alamo, Pearl Harbor, WTC. Yes, they are patriotic calls to action, but once the slogans are used inappropriately, they become calls for revolution... "Mission Accomplished"

Not all liberals are cowards, but it is true that they will negotiate and equivocate before they ever act. By then, the window of opportunity to act decisively has closed. Recent history bears this out. As for "mission accomplished," the mission of defeating Iraqi forces in the field and toppling the Saddam government was accomplished. Building a representative democratic government is a separate mission, still under way, and capable of success, despite liberal attempts to undermine it.

I would rather have pillars of disunity as those you mentioned than the goose-stepping, blind followers of "faith" that do nothing but tow the party line and do not question the motives of their "great" leader.

You are welcome to them; they build nothing, they offer nothing, they achieve nothing, they propose nothing.

Having the best intelligence available does not justify its use when it was wrong from the start.

Hindsight is 20-20. What if the intelligence had been right and we did nothing? We can't afford to be wrong. If our human intelligence (HUMINT) assets had been maintained through the Clinton years, our analysis would have been more accurate. Saddam tried to convince us he had WMD and he succeeded, all too well.

The budget was cut, not by Clinton, but by Congress... a Republican led Congress....

The Executive sends and negotiates the budget, often spending the money as it sees fit (or not), often moving it around from one pot to another, within limits. Newt Gingrich gave up his position as Speaker, in a deal to keep the intelligence budget from being cut yet again. Newt still does valuable, productive work (sorry, specifics are classified). While Clinton searches for his legacy and yearns for the spotlight.

And, we'll never know if Kerry or Gore would've done anything differently, but that argument is weak. Once Bush sued to be President, all bets were off. You can only assume that Gore would've been weak, but who's to say that 9-11 would have happened while Gore was President. We don't know. All that can be said is that under Bush's watch this country was attacked and we went to war in a country that had no direct involvement in said attack.

It's impossible to undo 8 years of neglect, gutting the military, undercutting the intelligence services, debasing the military profession and the honor of those who serve and protect IN SIX MONTHS! If Clinton had only acted after the first WTC attack, after Khobar Towers, after the attacks at the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on the USS COLE, if he had accepted Sudan's offer to turn over UBL, if he had not turned tail and run in Somalia or given the troops there proper armored support . . . Well, need I go on? . . . under Bush's watch . . . give me a break!

4-Letter words are used for emphasis to show additional emotion behind written commentary. If they don't buttress weak points or limp reasoning, that explains why you abhor them so much. You should find something to strengthen your points aside from namecalling and blind assumption.

"Emotion" adds no logic to your positions. I don't "abhor" 4-letter words, they just don't add any weight to the discussion, but are the recourse of weak minds with sparse vocabularies. As for namecalling and blind assumptions, your excellence in those areas puts me in the shade. Why not save your vitriol for the Political Discussion? This was supposed to be about a film, remember?

You are correct on one point and one point only... this was supposed to be about a film, but you took it into a discussion of "liberal v. conservative" by making a broad assumption that is about as false as can be.

All of your other points, including those about weak minds, sparse vocabularies, name calling, etc. are way off subject and prove that you are completely a hypocrite which you claim to despise. Did I ever make a comment regarding your parents and their bad luck with a prophylactic? Was I the one that continues to berate and insult everyone who has a point contrary to my own? Do I throw out childish taunts to anyone who responds with care, intelligence and logic? Look into a mirror and point your finger straight ahead... that is the single individual on this board who refuses to acknowledge opposing viewpoints with maturity and dignity in all cases.

And as far as your "top-secret, classified, need-to-know" profession? I don't really care. You've lost all credibility and whatever it is you do is highly unlikely to be in the intelligence community.

Back to the movie... I figure that if you were on United 93, either you would've joined with the terrorists since you only side with those in power and control, or it would've hit its intended target since you would've screwed up the storming of the cockpit by first asking all the liberals to please be seated as only "real men" can properly storm a cockpit. And, then only you would've been there to attack the other bad guys.

You are correct on one point and one point only... this was supposed to be about a film, but you took it into a discussion of "liberal v. conservative" by making a broad assumption that is about as false as can be.

All of your other points, including those about weak minds, sparse vocabularies, name calling, etc. are way off subject and prove that you are completely a hypocrite which you claim to despise. Did I ever make a comment regarding your parents and their bad luck with a prophylactic? Was I the one that continues to berate and insult everyone who has a point contrary to my own? Do I throw out childish taunts to anyone who responds with care, intelligence and logic? Look into a mirror and point your finger straight ahead... that is the single individual on this board who refuses to acknowledge opposing viewpoints with maturity and dignity in all cases.

And as far as your "top-secret, classified, need-to-know" profession? I don't really care. You've lost all credibility and whatever it is you do is highly unlikely to be in the intelligence community.

Back to the movie... I figure that if you were on United 93, either you would've joined with the terrorists since you only side with those in power and control, or it would've hit its intended target since you would've screwed up the storming of the cockpit by first asking all the liberals to please be seated as only "real men" can properly storm a cockpit. And, then only you would've been there to attack the other bad guys.

This whole discussion has me very interested in one thing...and it really is like an elephant in the room that everyone is trying to ignore. What did everyone think of Brokeback Mountain?

This whole discussion has me very interested in one thing...and it really is like an elephant in the room that everyone is trying to ignore. What did everyone think of Brokeback Mountain?

Tony, I can only answer that by pointing you to some bunnies

If you must put words in my mouth . .

at least wrap them in a pastrami sandwich!

How does one wrap something in a sandwich?

Not all liberals are cowards, but it is true that they will negotiate and equivocate before they ever act. By then, the window of opportunity to act decisively has closed. Recent history bears this out. As for "mission accomplished," the mission of defeating Iraqi forces in the field and toppling the Saddam government was accomplished. Building a representative democratic government is a separate mission, still under way, and capable of success, despite liberal attempts to undermine it.

No, it’s not “TRUE.” You even said before that it was your “personal observation,” which –NEW FLASH- is not the same thing as TRUE.

You are welcome to them; they build nothing, they offer nothing, they achieve nothing, they propose nothing.

Or maybe the Republican controlled congress doesn’t allow introduction of Democratic legislation. I also remember Republicans voting down a Democratic sponsored bill and then reintroducing it as their own.

Hindsight is 20-20. What if the intelligence had been right and we did nothing? We can't afford to be wrong. If our human intelligence (HUMINT) assets had been maintained through the Clinton years, our analysis would have been more accurate. Saddam tried to convince us he had WMD and he succeeded, all too well.

Then theres the fact that any dissenting intelligence was pushed aside in order to follow policy of going to war.
Drumheller

The Executive sends and negotiates the budget, often spending the money as it sees fit (or not), often moving it around from one pot to another, within limits. Newt Gingrich gave up his position as Speaker, in a deal to keep the intelligence budget from being cut yet again. Newt still does valuable, productive work (sorry, specifics are classified). While Clinton searches for his legacy and yearns for the spotlight.

In the interest of not being hypocritical (as you claim), let’s not forget to mention the FACT that Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney did a LOT of scaling down of the military in his day.

Here and Here and Here

It's impossible to undo 8 years of neglect, gutting the military, undercutting the intelligence services, debasing the military profession and the honor of those who serve and protect IN SIX MONTHS! If Clinton had only acted after the first WTC attack, after Khobar Towers, after the attacks at the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on the USS COLE, if he had accepted Sudan's offer to turn over UBL, if he had not turned tail and run in Somalia or given the troops there proper armored support . . . Well, need I go on? . . . under Bush's watch . . . give me a break!

Given the proper armor? Surely you jest. Certainly you remember the Republican congresses since 2003 failing to authorize proper armor, no?

And there’s that fallacy again (perpetuated by the likes of Drughead Limbaugh and Slanthead Hannity) that Clinton was offered OBL(the same OBL that Bush “doesn’t think much about”) on a silver platter.

Not true
The 9/11 commission also agreed that there was no such offer.

What Clinton did do

Did your dad name you "Scott" because "Broken rubber" was too long?

I guess you aren't interested in civil discussion, despite your claims.

Consider the editing as a gift; unfortunately, no substance in your post worthy of response.

I remember you've said you work with your hands, but there has to be a mind there somewhere directing them.

Congradulations on your progress with Ginkgo Biloba! Your memory is improving.
As far as my mind,wel,l of course there is Joe! I just won't waste much on you, I figure you're an "Apt Pupil", you'll figir it out, DUDE!


KRW-Feel free to korrcect me annytime Joey!