How many liberals does it take to win a war?

Oh but it wont stop you from trying I see.

Oh I didnt contradict Capro, what I said in the second paragraph is all my opinion. Of you - because its alllll about you. And I find you boring. If you do not like the poem fine - but really who cares? It isnt full of hate, it is apparently written with many ideas you have no ability to grasp. Nothing wrong with that but continued posting about posting about what he said she said, takes civil discussion and flushes down the plumbing.

And yet you keep on truckin. Yay.

Not a threat from me, but if you want to have your fantasy, you are certainly entitled. Even ignorance has consequences.

Hmmm you havent heard much rap music lately have you? *shakes head*

Neither do your posts, yet we tolerate you just the same. How bout a little in return?

Overheard at a liberal rally..."wait, there are sides?"

 

Well, duh. The list, I imagine, was compiled specifically to refute the "liberals/Democrats won't fight" idiocy of the poem. Refuatations of the original point are not required to represent all sides equally.

Where are those men? Left off as irrelevent to the arguement.

Yeah, as opposed to your fair and balanced poem...

Well, I guess we'll just have to russtle up some nice counter-poems, eh? Apparently, all sides are to be presented.

 

The poem was countered and has nothing to do
with anyone speaking out military or non-military
but it has to do with puffed out self righteousness and trying divide...when if fact
people will fight from left to right to moderate.
World War II is a prime example...George McGovern
is a prime example.

to the Poet I would say "The humble will be exalted"

Without moderates to liberals in your ranks their
would be no fight. imho

The poem was not fair and balanced but instead
divisive..and that is why the counter point and
a legitimate one. The topic was divisive and suggested people will not fight because of a
certain label and I countered that.

If you find a poem that actually unites then you
have a fight on your hands and winning hand.

Sincerely
Aslanspal

 

No, should it?

You did, directly.

Then don't make personal attacks on me. Your personal attacks do derail the thread. It is boring, but it is difficult not to respond to an attack...and since this particular thread is about liberals fighting back (or not) when attacked, perhaps, in this case, my defending myself is directly illustrative of my point.

You, evidently.

Who said it was?

Let's see: "liberals are stupid and cowardly, so smart, brave conservative soldiers do their fighting and thinking for them". It's not rocket science.

Only when what he or she says is uncivil - such as name-calling or caracturizing a fellow poster in an insulting manner. Trying to understand what someone is saying is not uncivil.

Speaking of which, what does "barney style" mean?

Trying to understand and be understood? Sure.

This is relevent, how?

My posts aren't, you don't and you get lots.

 

To carry on the wolf metaphor:

Christopher John Donato (<-linkie)
31 years old
Christopher John Donato works as an editor for a Christian religious publication.

 

Here's another one for you, representing a different pov:

Thomas Hubbard (linkie)
66 years old
retired teacher

 

Sure there would. They would fight each other. Kind of like you and a few others insist on doing in here (lame really).

Yeah those poor terrorists opps! I mean airline passengers. Perhaps they didnt like the way the pilot kept turning on the FASTEN SEATBELTS sign and felt it denied them their rights. That sign does often make me want to take over the plane and ram it into the nearest tall building.

I dont know how Hubbard sleeps at night. With that kind of deep thought, it would seem he would convert to being a goat farmer in South America or something. After all, being a former educator, he is a large part of the American problem teaching all those draconian American ways. *smirk*

Self hate is such a terrible human condition.


Hint:
If you want to debate grammar, slang, or otherwise start a new post. If not, continue to threadjack and be ignored. *shrugs*

 

This written from a supposed Iraqi pov. You criticized the A-list for being onesided, so I thought you'd appreciate more sides represented in the Verse-Off. So far, you've only presented your own - a bit unbalanced, don't you think, in a goose-gander way?

I have sympathy for the Iraqi civilians caught in a war soon to be a civil war. I also have sympathy for exploited 3rd world countries.

Here's one from WWI:

Wilfred Owens

 

Hey emeraldctyangel,

What does 'barney style' mean?

Inquisitive minds want to know.

 

(eca could be coming from a flintstones point of view)
or
(or eca may like the
Color Purple)


(nah! probably not this point of view)


(maybe I would not be surprised..mayberry is beloved on this board)

(bush has to explain things to
his dog ..so perhaps it is this one)

<gig>

 

Let's see, you posted a poem which reflects your views and Russ's views - that's applesauce for the goose.

Aslanspal disputes one of the main points of this pov the poem represents, so he posts a factual list as evidence - but that's orange sauce for the gander not because the facts on the list are false, but because they are selected to support his pov and not yours?

It's ok for the OP to be not only one-sided, but completely disparaging of another side (including allegations of stupidity and cowardice), but his refutation must not only support his side, but your side as well? Hmmm, those are, um, interesting debate rules, but not exactly conventional or conservative in the old-fashioned sense.

His point is that liberals/Democrats are not necessarily cowards who won't fight and non-liberals/Republicans are not necessarily brave fighting men. If you want to argue that certain names don't belong on the list, that's a valid arguement, but if you are arguing that his list must include names irrelevent to his point, that is a ridiculous arguement.

You're welcome. More to come...

[ August 18, 2005, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Daisy ]

 

Whose intentional deception are you speaking of? You'll have to be more specific.

 

You're really getting silly with your postings, ASLANSPAL.

You've posted this selective listing three times now. Are you looking for extra credit for doing that or just flooding this thread? Be honest now!

Janet Reno must be one of your heroes. She's certainly not one of mine!

 

This article represents a very flawed point of view. It's a typical liberal point of view that discredits our motives and methods, places us in the role of evil aggressor and oppressor, and blames us for "all" that's wrong in the world. It cheapens the sacrifices of all those who serve and who have served. It's a view that doesn't support winning wars and is very harmful to our nation.

Those who support this view, in effect, support our enemies. It is truly disgusting that any American could buy into such a point of view.

More specifically, it clearly illustrates why liberal thinking can not win wars.

 

It's a poem, not an article, and as such, far better than Russ's.

No, not "all", just certain, specific things.

No, it doesn't. It merely decries imperialism.

No, it's a view that doesn't support starting wars - that would have saved our nation much grief had it been heeded.

Utter nonsense. This poem shows how an innocent civilian who was NOT an enemy before the invasion, becomes one.

What is disgusting wanting to invade countries that pose no credible threat to us and pretending that it is moral and right.

No, it shows clearly why liberal thinking PREVENTS such wars. Once thinking such as yours gets us into these horrible messes, liberals fight to set things right as ably as anyone.