How many liberals does it take to win a war?

Yes, in fairness, Ponco, that probably also happens from time to time.

 

Dragoon I think you protest to much I was asking
carpro to reflect on the list again and so I made
it available within the context of the page...so
look out the black helicopters are hovering over
your house and Janet Reno is going to repel down
and deliver your pizza.

Major paranoia Dragoon along with the major media


So do you have something to say about the list
or the poem? Then say it..or should I post the list again for you.

 

I did but you didn't get it.

 

carpro, Any indications of how many members with military experience were drafted versus volunteering?

 

That's a weird sentence - "If that were ... " subjective tense, meaning 'it is not' "... the long standing policy ..." as if the length of time a particular policy has stood determined it's validity - but this policy has already been determined not to exist by the tense of the preceding verb "...of the more evolved community..." I have no idea what a more evolved community means or implies "...some believe they live in,... who are these mysterious people who believe they live in a 'more evolved community', whatever that is, which does not have a long standing policy of refuting lies? "...then there would be no reason to continue this arguement" future conditional, the condition is false, so 'no reason' becomes 'the reason', turned around, we get -

'The reason to continue this arguement is that some people falsely believe they live in a more evolved community and this community they don't live in does not have a long standing policy of letting lies stand unanswered.'

Well, ok, sure.

That begs the question, actually many questions. I don't necessarily think *my* agenda (such as it may be), will be respected, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Who does Russ think I'm claiming as innocent? I know who I think is misguided, but I doubt that is who you think I think is (this day is filled with awful sentences).

It might. I'd like some, please - ice cream, not so much the group hugs. </font>[/QUOTE]Give me your address Daisy and I am going to send you a wig so you can split all THOSE hairs.

You serve as nothing but a cautionary tale for citizens in this country who have this preponderance for over pontificating the nature of this world.

The moral of the story: You are still talking peace and love, right and wrong, and yet this world is still in a peck of trouble. Not helping much is it?

So lets break this down barney style for you. The OP is really about the poem and not dictionary.com (although I applaud your attempts at relevant discussion). The poem represents the words and attitudes you will be hearing as your screeching about who got us into this mess, is drowned out. Might as well get used to it.

 

Trying to make sense of your words is not splitting hairs, although there may well be no sense there to be made.

"Preponderance" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does; try "predilection". I think "pondering" would be more accurate than "pontificating" if I am the subject; the latter word is more emeraldctyangelish than Daisylike.

Yes, the world would be much worse without peace and love, and without the distinction between right and wrong. Do you really think the world is better for the folk who preach war and hate, who don't distinguish between right and wrong, but only between us and them?

What does "barney style" mean? Is that Fife, the purple dinosaur or some other? If it is Fife, I'll be Taylor...

Grammar.com would be a more appropriate come back (but since you are aware of dictionary.com, perhaps you should avail yourself of its services). In order to have a relevant discussion, it helps to understand what the other guy is trying to say ~ sometimes a daunting task, but I try.

Drowning out the other side does seem to be the goal as the poem's words and attitude do not invite civil discussion. That whole mess o'words is just nasty and self-congratulating, but apparently that appeals to a certain element here.

 

Not at all, carpro. The poem is a nasty mess o'words, it is very self-congratulatory and many people here have said that the poem expresses their feelings.

What is nasty about it? First off, it divides Liberals from the rest of the populace as objects of derision and ridicule and puts Liberals squarely in the "them" camp. That's nasty.

It unfairly attributes attitudes to Liberals that both apply to non-Liberals and does not apply to all Liberals. "You’d pull us from the battle, march us home in full disgrace": Although I opposed the Iraq War in the first place, I am even more opposed to leaving the country before we fix it, while many conservatives are for pulling the troops out as soon as we can foist the semblance of a self-government onto the Iraqis (as opposed to a fully functioning, self-supporting, actual self-government).

Other bits of nastiness: "smell your craven breath", "protest piously", "same old clueless", "flawed eugenics", "pimpled teens", "common sense you still ignore", "fuzzy-headed", "you fools".

It lauds torturing the enemy, "We inflict pain upon a captive wolf to learn what’s in his head?", ignoring international rules of warfare, "Ignoring that their wolf packs never fight within the rules? /By your demand we stay our hand, you weaken and you bind us;/Forcing us to fight off wolf attacks with that hand tied behind us." and foregoing our own civil liberties, "search lairs without signed warrants". That's nasty.

How is it self-congratulating? It posits men such as himself as the hero of the piece..."Till “thinking” men took back the courts, put the wolf packs back in cages"..."“thinking” men fight to protect".

How is it a mess o'words? It rhymes, if you consider that to be merit, but it lacks rhythm and grace. It overuses a hackneyed metaphor. It's ugly and repetitive.

How does it appeal to a certain element here? Surely that is too obvious to require my highlighting the evidence (but if you insist, I will).

Now, carpro, defend your stance that I have not discussed this civilly. By civilly I mean without finger-pointing, name-calling, without smearing broad groups, without lies, without unjust accusations.

Prove it or take it back.

 

I agree with Carpro, believe he's handled the discussion just fine, and I also enjoyed reading what Russ had written.

 

Carpro wrongly accused me of being uncivil. If you agree with him, you really ought to back it up.

As for your enjoyment of Russ, well, I've already covered that.

 

He didnt accuse you of being uncivil, he accused you of talking about the trees while ignoring the forest fire. Good job, well done, way to go!

Nobody is drowning you out - yet. There are many who are weary of your insistance of being more evolved than all others (talk about arrogance, and yes that is an accusation based on your many posts about how wonderful your world is) who will eventually drown you out. You might live long enough to see how this trend of "everyone is so beneath me" way of thinking will get you nowhere, with little value unless we want to talk everyone to death. Maybe you are on to something...hmmmm.

The poem doesnt have to invite anything. It is simply somebody putting pen and heart to paper. For some of us, we knew what the author meant. Get over it.

 

You're wrong: "Civil discussion is always invited but sometimes you seem to go out of your way to keep it from being so...It seems you have declined the invitation once again" [aside]carpro is not without wit[/aside] is an accusation of incivility, not misdirection. The "it" kept from being so is "civil discussion" and since the discussion is ongoing, the civility must be lacking. Sorry to keep parsing sentences for you but I don't know how else to explain the point.

Oooooo! Is that a threat in your yet?

Um, what does "more evolved" mean and is it something that a person can insist on being? Since I don't know what it is, I really doubt that I do insist on it. As for the weariness of many, whoever they may be, that would not be my responsibility even if it were true.

Could you please provide an example where I've posted how wonderful my world is? For that matter, what do you think I consider "my" world to be?

If they're not too weary, perhaps.

If you are saying that I think anyone is beneath me, you are mistaken; perhaps your own insecurity is affecting your perceptions.

The poem doesn't have to be full of nasty, inflammatory rhetoric.

A poison pen and a bitter heart makes for a nasty mess o'words.

The author is not subtle in his expressions.

No, I choose to fight back....isn't that what the poem advocates?

What ever happened to the ice cream and hugs?

emeraldctyangel, What does the odd, interesting phrase "barney style" mean?

 

Carpro wrongly accused me of being uncivil. If you agree with him, you really ought to back it up.

As for your enjoyment of Russ, well, I've already covered that.</font>[/QUOTE]See Carpro's postings and Emeraldctyangel's last response. I don't need to elaborate on it any further.

 

Seen and replied to before you posted as you clearly can see. Did you notice emeraldctyangel contradicted carpro's allegation?

So you have no answer either...

 

Q: How many liberals does it take to win a war?

A: For which side?

 

See Aslanspal's list.

 

Just as a courtesy to be on the same page and save
time...love effiency ..here is the list.

FYI


Democrats
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan.
1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor,
Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze
Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze
Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star &
Bronze Star, Vietnam.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve,
1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army
Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star
and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam,
DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple
Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne,
Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in
Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments.
Entered draft but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy. Graduate of Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal
with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII.
* Paul Hackett: Major, USMC, Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Republicans
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the
last by marriage.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to
teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man
who attacked Cleland's patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight
instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year
Air National Guard tour of duty; got assigned to Alabama so he could
campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a
non-combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting
was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of
Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although
continued in NFL for 8 years.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National
Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army
base.
* John Bolton: "I didn't want to die in some South Asian rice paddy. . ."

Pundits & Preachers
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a
'pilonidal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at
things that don't shoot back.)

you can thank me later Dragoon68 after you get
back from your black helicoptor ride with Janet
Reno.