Re: Time to leave Britain....

Christian Williamson wrote:

Sure one can. The principl you leftists continue to espouse is that if

Leftist? What leftist? What's a "leftist"? Someone who opposes
extremism, corruption and incompetence at both ends of the political
spectrum? Someone who opposes Bush's historic failure? Someone with a
high, broadly-defined stardard of morals and ethics, but doesn't want
Big Government being the adminstrator of personal, individual
morality?

According to you, then, at least 70% of Americans are "leftists".

With this degree of inaccurate, disingenuous pigeonholing, it's hard
to take anything else you say seriously.

This has been a problem with the Left for years. Hence, the CSPAN caller
the other day telling us that violent weather will cease once Bush
leaves the presidency.

If true, then they are the left-wing equivalent of right-wing idiots
like Limbaugh, et al, who I suspect you hold in much higher regard.

I have little tolerance for stupidity and dishonesty, regardless of
which part of the political spectrum from which it emerges.

Your intelligence is not the issue. It's a matter of your hatred for
Bush and unwillingness to use your smarts.

You mean my unwillingness to agree with you and the rest of the far-
right fringe extremists? You know, the 20 to 30%?


One simply can NOT debate blatant nonsense. You make a living at it,
however.

We have leftists debate blatant nonsense in this newsgroup daily. "Jews
committed 9/11", "Bush could nuke St. Louis and Congress wouldn't
impeach him", and "Bush should apologize to Saddam." Yes, the Left does
a great job generating blatant nonsense.

You mean extremist morons on both ends of the spectrum. Surely you
read more than just my posts here. But that's your problem, you're so
extreme and on-the-fringes that you assume the rest of us are as well.
It's just not so.

The epithet of "far-right extremist" aside, I raise the UN not because
I'm a big fan, but because you are.

Telling me what *I* am, again? Based on what? I could be a fan of the
UN in principal, but I'm not convinced I am in practice.

No wonder you evoke such universal loathing from folks here.

Epithet? Lying or hypocrisy noted.

No. Simple neutral description. At least it's accurate, unlike calling
ALL Bush-haters "leftists". That's just stupid. Hell, I used to be
rather conservative until the GOP began its long and concerted assault
on genuine, respectable conservatism. I also got tired of my own
youthful stupidity and arrogance thinking it's the federal
government's job to enforce my personal embracement of morality and
ethics. Maybe you will one day, too.


The agenda isn't twisted. Wanting peace and freedom around the world
isn't easy. It's still to be seen if Islam in its present condition will
embrace democracy. My bet is that Islam in the Middle East -- like
Turkey and Indonesia -- will change to make freedom doable.

Keep idiots like Clinton and especially Bush out of their affairs, and
I hope you're right.

engender there. You, on the other hand, want the whole enterprise to
fail. Why? Probably your hatred for all things related to Bush.

More blatant lies, and thus, slander, Mr. Slander.

Post your proof of my desire for Iraq to spiral into irretrievable
chaos below:

_______________________________________

You apparently had no trouble with Clinton toppling Milosevic. But if Bush
is involved, I expect you to be his opposition no matter waht.

Switch Bush with Clinton and you with me, and you have a fair
description of your self.

Now post your proof of my broad support for Clinton's foreign policy
right here:

______________________________________

Hint: Searching Google Groups for Zigler and Clinton's foreign policy
will give you yet another opportunity to admit error.


Actually you'll want to start with Muhammed himself, and it involves a
study of the state and religion and their linking in Isalm. Go back
further than WW I. (WW I is definitely a big factor in the shaping of
the nations currently in the Middle East.)

Which is why I emphasized WWI regarding its immediate relevance to the
current time and situation. That established, a throughout review of
not ONLY state, religion and Islam, but also of Christianity and its
long history of barbarism and terrorism would be prudent. You see, I'm
just not a fan of Theocracy and barbarism in the name of religion,
regardless of which religion, and both aforementioned religions have
such a tainted history it's a wonder they have remained relevant at
all.


Another I believe you have tattooed on your forehead: the fact that a
small, splinter faction of radical extremist idiots hate the US based
on barbaric, ancient religious insanity and rivalry. Of course, run
through your rewriting machine, that would equal 80% of the Islamic
community.

I'll give you a second chance to rewrite these sentences.

Cute. But it doesn't win debates.





Rants occur among you leftists; you end up making statements that are
devoid of "facts and common sense."

More inaccurate pigeonholing (as usual) and horse's blinders noted
(only "leftists" are capable of being idiots).

Geeeee. Never seen a right-winger go off on a senseless rant, devoid
of facts?

I'll suggest Limpballs, for starters. He's king.


But I thought that understanding people and analyzing history was a
waste of time when fighting an enemy. (No, I didn't. But you and Bush
did.)

Not at all. But killing and capturing terrorists is paramount. If you
think you're going to negotiate with these people, well, I'll give the
chance to deny that you actually believe you can do that -- and live.

Of course these tensions existed long before Bush. I suggested even
many centuries ago, in the very post to which you are responding....

Then why blame Bush?

I dunno. Ask 70% of Americans. He's made a bad situation worse on an
order of magnitude. He's made good situations bad. All in all, Bush is
the worst news for not only America but for the GOP as well.

But because of your blind political allegiances and relentless ego
defenses, you are utterly incapable of evaluating Bush's performance
over the last 6 years, as well as that of the current GOP. But you'll
recall America did just that, in no uncertain terms, during the last
election.

And if you want my opinion, it looks like my debating skills are just
fine.

You also neglected to add that, according the the clear majority of
experts the world over,

Here we go again. "Experts." Which experts. Imams from Cairo University?
Leftists in Britain? Who?

Well, start with 16 US intelligence agencies that have said just that,
corroborated by similar assessments from other parts of the world. But
I suspect you filter out information that contradicts your
preconceived notions, so why bother with exhaustive research?

Bush and his insane, cowboy-western "policies"
abroad have made the country LESS safe, not more, and have emboldened
and recruited many more anti-American extremists globally, not the
opposite, desired effect.

It's going to get worse before it gets better. In war, the other side is
always used to recruit new soldiers; Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have
certainly done that. It's too late. If you want to negotiate with the
Germans, so to speak, you'll be negotiating in good faith while the
Germans will deal with you treacherously.

You cite the far-left extremist view as justification for the far-
right extremist view.

Sounds like it's you who needs to brush up on his debate skills. Let
me know of your next public debate. I'll book a flight and buy a
ticket.


You, Bush and Hillary are just dead wrong with your heads in the sand
on this one. You see, before Bush and his Iraq cataclysm, there was no
"civil war" raging in Britain, either....

Wrong. Islamic extremists declared war on the West in 1998. Guess what?
9/11 was not an anomaly.

So there IS civil war in Britain, you say. Why then there IS civil war
in Iraq. Why is Bush denying this fact to date?

Dude, your spinning so hard, you've turned circles round and round.
I'm even losing my ability to interpret your language. It used to be
easy.


And estimates of the slaughter in Iraq, made possible by Bush, surpass
a half million.

Does that number include Ahmed the suicide bomber who came from Saudi
Arabia for Allah? And why are you blaming Bush for a suicide bomber
killing innocent civilians? That's like blaming FDR for Hitler's atrocities.

Because the stubborn little ass just wouldn't listen to reason, and
the disastrous results to date have been eerily similar to what the
truly conservative voices of reason feared in their ubiquitous and
detaieled admonishments. And blaming FDR for Hitler's atrocities is
like blaming Bush for Saddam's, which is absurd.... You don't seem to
understand simple analogies. I'll give you a chance to rewrite that
one.

Actually, you can blame Reagan and Rumsfeld for Saddam's. They are the
ones that armed him, if I am not mistaken.


But the little brown people don't really matter to
some far-right extremist assholes I know. Hopefully you are different.

Yeah, calling your opponent a racist is another example of your tendency
to slander.

I'm expecting a cite to where I erroneously labeled someone "racist".


the hands of suicide bombers is like blaming FDR for all the deaths
in Europe in WW II.

Equating Iraq to WWII again.... What a ridiculous notion. So no, it's
not like it at all. You are dead wrong.


Yeah, similarities in conflict are hard to find, eh?

Like 'Nam and Iraq?

But for the political shills, extremists, and just plain morons, they
are unfortunately simple to concoct out of thin air. However, they
never hold up under scrutiny.


> Jesus. What a blazing strange coincidence. Today's Great Britain
> sounds just like Iraq.

As far as the civil war argument you leftists are always using,
yes. That was the point of my post. Civil war is not the reason for
leaving.

Sorry... it's a loooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnggggg stretch. Even for
you.

No dice.

Civil war in Britain? No.

Iraq? Yes, among other aspects of conflict.

Bottom line: the US occupation is MUCH of the reason for the conflict
in the first place. Second, the other aspects of conflict are MUCH of
the reason for not recklessly invading in the first place with no real
justification, no broad coalition, NO plan to "win the hearts and
minds", and NO exit strategy.


It's part of the puzzle, genius. When US troops are inciting more
violence than they could ever hope to quell, it's a darn tootin'
disaster of a policy. Criminal, even. You may have noticed things only
continue to worsen, even with troops a-surgin'.... In fact, they have
been getting worse and worse almost by the day.

As I said before, it's gonna get worse before it gets better. Hitler
didn't lie down at resistance. He got tougher to beat.

Are we still comparing Hitler to Iraq?

Good lord.


It's a bad day for the blind Bush drones.

Not really. But you can say whatever you want. It's an alternative
newsgroup.

Thanks for your permission.


America goes in the direction of the electorate. This is a democracy,
and when Americans go to war, it's reluctantly. Read "Never at War: Why
Democracies Will Never Fight One Another."

There was absolutely NOTHING reluctant about Bush's rush to war. In
fact, it was the OPPOSITE of reluctant.

It's especially despicable how Bush shamelessly exploited the horrors
of 9/11 for his own twisted, preconceived agenda.

Maybe THAT contributes much to the wide-spread hatred for Bush all
across the nation and world.

What do you think?


I've dispensed with the other inaccuracies and misperceptions you've put

Like the "civil war" raging in Britain in which nearly 200,000 US
soldiers are embroiled?

It's not an inaccuracy to point out the silliness of the reason leftists
have been using to argue pulling out of Iraq.

The silliness that ONE foiled terror plot in Britain equates to the
CEASELESS carnage and chaos in Iraq for 4 1/2 years, much of it
between divisions of the Iraq people themselves?

Just remember: IT'S OK TO ADMIT YOU'RE WRONG.

You don't like the truth. You don't like the "f" word. What another
blazing strange thing... You so strongly dislike the "f" word and
other profanity, but not once have I ever seen you call ANY single
Bush worshiper on their incessant use of "***" and "cocksucker" and
the list goes on and on and on.

Actually, I have. But I don't have a lot of time.

Good. But rather than focusing so much on other people's faults,
however trivial, take an occasional glance into your own from time to
time. Deal?


Are you (1. being dishonest again, or (2. practicing extreme bias and
even outright hypocrisy?

Check your answer to this one right here:

1. ___ Dishonesty
2. ___ Extreme bias and even hypocrisy

Let's turn the tables. How old are you, kid?

For the record, the correct answer to my query was "all of the above".

As for the "turning tables", I'm almost 37. And you?

I'm sure you'll explain why that matters.

Then you'll explain why Newt Gingrich is NOT a "leftist Bush-hater"
for calling the Bush administration a dysfunctional failure on Fox
News. I've been waiting for that one for some time.... You must have
missed my repeated beseeching. It's easy to miss things in this group.

I'm all ears... I mean eyes.

.

Loading