Boy, have you got it backwards!

[OilStorms]

What is your definition of crazy?
Invading and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Legalizing torture. Shredding the constitution and Bill Of Rights and installing a dictatorial regime of a presidency. Blaming the nation's economic and social woes on illegal immigrants who break their backs picking our crops for sub-minimum wage. Protecting sickly-corrupt and often hypocritically bible-thumping and often secretly gay Congressmen who engage in criminal election fraud, prostitution parties, whom receive huge kickbacks from defense contractors while our troops die from lack of armor. Purposefully setting out to deconstruct our entire government and strip all powers of oversight regulation while filling every high office with bought-off corporate lobbyists. Denying mainstream science - calling it partisan while adamantly refuting that Global Warming even exists.
Yeah, Liberals sure are the crazies these days.

[Cortese]

Let's see...definition of crazy...see the above post.

[rendezvouswithdestiny]

What is your definition of crazy?
Invading and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Legalizing torture. Shredding the constitution and Bill Of Rights and installing a dictatorial regime of a presidency. Blaming the nation's economic and social woes on illegal immigrants who break their backs picking our crops for sub-minimum wage. Protecting sickly-corrupt and often hypocritically bible-thumping and often secretly gay Congressmen who engage in criminal election fraud, prostitution parties, whom receive huge kickbacks from defense contractors while our troops die from lack of armor. Purposefully setting out to deconstruct our entire government and strip all powers of oversight regulation while filling every high office with bought-off corporate lobbyists. Denying mainstream science - calling it partisan while adamantly refuting that Global Warming even exists.
Yeah, Liberals sure are the crazies these days.

Reeelaxxxx!!!!! CALM DOWN!!! Your pills are probably in the medicine cabinet. Go find them and follow the directions. Cool?

[John Gilchrist Lodge]

What is your definition of crazy?
Invading and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Legalizing torture. Shredding the constitution and Bill Of Rights and installing a dictatorial regime of a presidency. Blaming the nation's economic and social woes on illegal immigrants who break their backs picking our crops for sub-minimum wage. Protecting sickly-corrupt and often hypocritically bible-thumping and often secretly gay Congressmen who engage in criminal election fraud, prostitution parties, whom receive huge kickbacks from defense contractors while our troops die from lack of armor. Purposefully setting out to deconstruct our entire government and strip all powers of oversight regulation while filling every high office with bought-off corporate lobbyists. Denying mainstream science - calling it partisan while adamantly refuting that Global Warming even exists.
Yeah, Liberals sure are the crazies these days.

Wow. More far-left talking points. Did you copy-and-paste that bilge from Michael Moore's site?

As for your fraudulent allegations of "torture and murder," those were perpetrated by Saddam Hussein (Rest in Pieces), not by W. You might want to get your facts straight before posting your nonsense.

[Jim Rutledge]

Oilstorms makes seven points.

Cortese, Ren...iny, & John..Lodge reply without addressing any of the points.
Cortese chooses to change languages (that's o.k. my mother is Italian); Ren...iny & John..Lodge choose to reply with Ad Hominen responses.

This is not the level of discourse I expected from this forum.

Jim Rutledge

[rendezvouswithdestiny]

Oilstorms makes seven points.

Cortese, Ren...iny, & John..Lodge reply without addressing any of the points.
Cortese chooses to change languages (that's o.k. my mother is Italian); Ren...iny & John..Lodge choose to reply with Ad Hominen responses.

This is not the level of discourse I expected from this forum.

Jim Rutledge

I agree, he makes 7 points and we didn't address them on this thread. But understand that we've made our views known on all those points on plenty of other threads so many times that we can't do it on every thread. And besides, the author really does need to calm down and make a stronger case for one of those points and devote a thread to one (or maybe 2) arguments.

[SinThetaDTheta]

Well, I just finished the book. Obviously "Oilstorms" read the title, I feel like we have that in common.

[SinThetaDTheta]

John Gilchrist Lodge. I'm a big cardinals fan. It's been a disappointing year so far.

Not to toot my own horn but...

I am actually responsible for the cardinals winning the world series last year. I rooted against Houston at Turner Field the last game of the season. Had houston won that game, the cardinals would have lost to san francisco and perhaps not have made it to the playoffs. Thus, by rooting against houston I am directly responsible for the cardinals winning the world series.

I'm still waiting for my world series ring in the mail.

[Tiffany]

Rutledge-

Maybe posters didn't respond to specific points b/c those points seemed so completely illogical to said posters... but I'll give it a shot:

What is your definition of crazy?
Invading and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Who did that? Saddam? And then we got rid of him.

Legalizing torture.

I think I know what he's talking about here, and if I do, while that may've been characterized by some in this particular way, it is a GROSS overstatement and a singularly pessimistic interpretation of what actually happened.

Saying Dubya "legalized torture" is ridiculous. He signed the torture ban, and added that he'd use his powers as executive to construe the language in that ban as he saw fit in an effort to maintain security.

He didn't say he'd ignore it, did in fact sign it, and simply made a point about the language. Language, statutory construction, is examined all the time, and this was no different.

Shredding the constitution and Bill Of Rights and installing a dictatorial regime of a presidency.

This is the language of an alarmist. If that's what he thinks, there's little I can say except that I've seen little evidence of a "dictatorial regime". So different strokes, I guess.

But I would like to say: If Dubya's administration is a dictatorial regime, this guy must have a long, long list of dictatorial regimes... perhaps some over-the-top kindergarten classrooms in some private schools.

Blaming the nation's economic and social woes on illegal immigrants who break their backs picking our crops for sub-minimum wage.

Oh, do they? Where's he from? I'm from NW Arkansas... beat that for illegal immigrants!

And I don't think it's fair to say any "break their backs" any more than many legal immigrants or regular Americans, nor do I think it's safe to say they pick our crops for "sub-minimum wage". That's an opinion, he has no way to back it up, and I don't believe it.

And this has nothing to do with my personal illegal immigration feelings. When you are from NW Arkansas, you're friends with illegals, and that's that. You go to people's houses knowing they're legal and their parents aren't, sometimes even knowing they had to somehow fabricate documents to go to school with you, and that's just the way that is.

And these are normal people, regular Americans (at least living as Americans) just like you and me, and they don't deserve any more sympathy than any other hard-working person.

Pretending they all share a common sob story, frankly, insults them.

And another thing, Bush blames them? Has this guy heard Bush's immigration policies? What could he possibly mean Bush blames them? And for what?

Protecting sickly-corrupt and often hypocritically bible-thumping and often secretly gay Congressmen who engage in criminal election fraud, prostitution parties, whom receive huge kickbacks from defense contractors while our troops die from lack of armor.

And everything here is an overstatement, again, the language of an alarmist that I have trouble taking seriously. "Often secretly gay Congressman"? Am I really gonna have to define the word "often"?

Gimme a break. When someone spouts things like that, how can you really consider anything else they have to say?

Purposefully setting out to deconstruct our entire government and strip all powers of oversight regulation while filling every high office with bought-off corporate lobbyists.

And another Bush-hater/lover. You can't stand the guy, yet you believe he's hatched a plot to "deconstruct our entire government and strip all powers of oversight regulation"?

Alarmist. Do you really think he's that powerful or clever?

Denying mainstream science - calling it partisan while adamantly refuting that Global Warming even exists.

If every scientist agreed on global warming (or if the same people hadn't predicted a new ice age in the 70s) then maybe more conservatives would believe in it.

Until such time that it's accepted as fact everywhere, by everyone, I'll remain skeptical.

Btw, y'all love it when I'm skeptical of any assertion made by a Republican administration, but you get all huffy if I defy Al Gore...

Why is that? What, "eternal vigilance" is supposed to be eternally one-sided?

Yeah, Liberals sure are the crazies these days.

Uh... yeah, they are. Relax, yo. Contrary to popular liberal belief, the sky is not falling. Everything's gonna be fine.

[Jim Rutledge]

Tiffany,

Thanks for setting me straight!!

On OilStorm's Point 1: No real response from you, just a deflection.

On OilStorm's Point 2: An absolute lie. George Bush did allow torture, in violation of the Geneva Convention. Now tell me that it didn't count because we aren't at War. The President can't have it both ways.

On OilStorm's Point 3: Admittedly, his point was vague, but your response has become more and more predictable. If you say "ALARMIST" loud and long enough, or make comments about someones kindergarten experiences, does that mean you win the argument??

On OilStorm's Point 4: I can't follow OilStorm on this one. I live in SW Missouri, and we have plenty of hard-working immigrants. And I'll be honest with you, I have no idea what the President's views on illegal immigration is. I don't think he has any idea either.

On OilStorm's Points 5 & 6: Primarily points about corruption. And your response: ALARMIST!!!, but no real rebuttal. You may want to refer to page 138 of Bernie's latest for a refresher course on Republican corruption.

On OilStorm's Point 7: Denying mainstream science.
This goes to Global Warming & Evolution. You wrote "If every scientist agreed on global warming then maybe more conservatives would believe in it." Chances are there will never be a time that all scientists will agree on anything. And I agree that we should be skeptical. But does that justify denying the possibility of the dangers of Global Warming?
And then Evolution. Check out Bernie's comments on page 23 of his latest.

Jim Rutledge


I'm not even a Liberal, I'm a Libertarian for Christ-sake!!
And I liked B. Goldwater!!

[rendezvouswithdestiny]

Tiffany,

Thanks for setting me straight!!

On OilStorm's Point 1: No real response from you, just a deflection.

On OilStorm's Point 2: An absolute lie. George Bush did allow torture, in violation of the Geneva Convention. Now tell me that it didn't count because we aren't at War. The President can't have it both ways.

On OilStorm's Point 3: Admittedly, his point was vague, but your response has become more and more predictable. If you say "ALARMIST" loud and long enough, or make comments about someones kindergarten experiences, does that mean you win the argument??

On OilStorm's Point 4: I can't follow OilStorm on this one. I live in SW Missouri, and we have plenty of hard-working immigrants. And I'll be honest with you, I have no idea what the President's views on illegal immigration is. I don't think he has any idea either.

On OilStorm's Points 5 & 6: Primarily points about corruption. And your response: ALARMIST!!!, but no real rebuttal. You may want to refer to page 138 of Bernie's latest for a refresher course on Republican corruption.

On OilStorm's Point 7: Denying mainstream science.
This goes to Global Warming & Evolution. You wrote "If every scientist agreed on global warming then maybe more conservatives would believe in it." Chances are there will never be a time that all scientists will agree on anything. And I agree that we should be skeptical. But does that justify denying the possibility of the dangers of Global Warming?
And then Evolution. Check out Bernie's comments on page 23 of his latest.

Jim Rutledge


I'm not even a Liberal, I'm a Libertarian for Christ-sake!!
And I liked B. Goldwater!!

Ohh god...okay, fine.

Point #1 - If the author is saying that our military has killed hundreds of thousands of innocents in this Iraq conflict then the author is blinded by his/her own hatred of America. And honestly, I'm offended by this kind of anti-military/anti-government garbage. We follow Geneva, our enemies don't. Abu Ghraib scandal was a single violation that doesn't reflect 99% of our servicemen. Although when two American soldiers bodies were found yesterday that had been completely mutilated in every sick way imaginable the media didn't have nearly as much to say about that as Iraqi terrorist getting thrown in a naked pile and photographed. And yes, Saddam, the guy we took out of power, killed a couple hundred thousand people in his own country with chemical weapons.

Point #2 - No, Bush didn't allow torture. The people responsible for Abu Ghraib were investigated and some were brought to trial. Bush isn't that powerful. He can't stop investigations that have been brought about. The only thing he could do is try to cover things up. No evidence has been brought forth that links Bush to a torture cover-up.

Point 3 - Shredding the Bill of Rights? Bush a dictator? Bush is a president of a free country that elected him into office twice. At no time has our Bill of Rights or constitution changed during his presidency.

Point 4 - If illegal immigrants break their backs working as slaves in the U.S. then the humane thing would be to make them come through our system the legal way so they could get a better job. If they're not willing to do that then maybe they're better off in Mexico.

Point 5 - Not a word of that section was true and theres no evidence to back it. In the beginning of the war not all the soldiers had armor but that was addressed as quickly as it could be. Bible-thumping? Obvious intolerance of religion. Secret gay congressmen? Criminal election fraud? Are you kidding me? Who is this aimed at?

Point 6 - Every administration is lobbyed. No one is completely innocent there. And the deconstruct government part is vague and lacks any evidence for me to argue.

Point 7 - Nothing to say really, it's hard to tell at this point if it exists, but if it does theres no way it requires giving our money to the U.N. so they can give us regulations they won't follow themselves.

Point 8 - Yes, many liberals are crazy, like the author of this thread and the offensive hatred he/she spewed.

[Tiffany]

Tiffany,

Thanks for setting me straight!!

Is that sarcasm, Jim?

On OilStorm's Point 1: No real response from you, just a deflection.

B/c a response wasn't deserved. Saying we "slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people" is just completely wrong. What does one say to that?

On OilStorm's Point 2: An absolute lie. George Bush did allow torture, in violation of the Geneva Convention. Now tell me that it didn't count because we aren't at War. The President can't have it both ways.

First, OS didn't say he allowed it... he said he "legalized" it, w/c I assumed meant he wanted to talk about the President's added condition on the ban. Did you take that differently?

And if we want to talk about the other instead, w/c part of the Geneva Convention was violated, seeing as how those prisoners aren't sanctioned by any foreign govt?

Has the President said we're not at war? B/c I didn't think that was the point. I thought the point was that we are indeed at war, but it's a bit nebulous and that we are in no way at war with any legitimate government that sanctioned those at Gitmo.

No? Do you disagree?

And real quick, it's not as if I think torture is good... I just don't think the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists that work in groups (NOT govts) and at times alone.

So it's not that I disagree with your result, but I disagree with how you're getting there.

On OilStorm's Point 3: Admittedly, his point was vague, but your response has become more and more predictable. If you say "ALARMIST" loud and long enough, or make comments about someones kindergarten experiences, does that mean you win the argument??

Did you read what he wrote? Sorry for being predictable, but if someone keeps saying the same sort of thing, I'll keep saying the same sort of thing back.

And the kindergarten thing was just a joke, simply shedding light on the fact that I obviously think referring to our current situation as a "dictatorial regime" is equivalent to claiming the same of a strict kinder classroom.

I wasn't trying to make that difficult, and I was just kidding.

But I stand by it. "Regime"? Please. And you wonder why I keep using the word "alarmist".

On OilStorm's Point 4: I can't follow OilStorm on this one. I live in SW Missouri, and we have plenty of hard-working immigrants. And I'll be honest with you, I have no idea what the President's views on illegal immigration is. I don't think he has any idea either.

Yeah, you can't follow it b/c it's wrong... and I'm not.

On OilStorm's Points 5 & 6: Primarily points about corruption. And your response: ALARMIST!!!, but no real rebuttal. You may want to refer to page 138 of Bernie's latest for a refresher course on Republican corruption.

What sort of rebuttal do you want? I explain why he can't be taken seriously... what he said is like my saying that b/c of Ted Kennedy, Democrats "often drink too much and get in accidents that kill people".

It's preposterous. I know there are corrupt Republicans, just as there are corrupt Democrats, but what I don't know is why you'd expect me to let what he said go.

Seriously... are you reading it?

On OilStorm's Point 7: Denying mainstream science.
This goes to Global Warming & Evolution. You wrote "If every scientist agreed on global warming then maybe more conservatives would believe in it." Chances are there will never be a time that all scientists will agree on anything. And I agree that we should be skeptical. But does that justify denying the possibility of the dangers of Global Warming?
And then Evolution. Check out Bernie's comments on page 23 of his latest.

Jim Rutledge

I don't know who you think is "denying the possibility" of global warming. I don't believe that's the case at all. What I do think is happening is that some are skeptical enough to resist drooling all over Leo and Al because it seems very "now".

Personally, I'll wait, for more consensus or whatever. There's just too much out there that says no dice, and I can't commit to believing in it.

The part that irritates me is the arrogant belief that anyone who doesn't drool on Al and toe the line is somehow not as evolved or informed as the one who does.

And I've got no beef with evolution. Many conservatives don't. Are you talking about Robertsons and people like that?

I read the book but I finished it days ago and I can't place what you're asking me about right now.

I'm not even a Liberal, I'm a Libertarian for Christ-sake!!
And I liked B. Goldwater!!

Uh... okay. Many here are, too.

[Cortese]

Cortese, Ren...iny, & John..Lodge reply without addressing any of the points.

The reason why I was being sarcastic and did not address any of those points is because I have been on this board well over a year now. I have seen these kind of posts a hundred of times now and have given up trying to debate somebody who has this kind of mindset. So I guess I'd rather just be a sarcastic ass instead.

BTW, I wasn't changing languages for one particular post, it's part of my signature for every post. It's amazing how truthful it can be at times.

[John Gilchrist Lodge]

John Gilchrist Lodge. I'm a big cardinals fan. It's been a disappointing year so far.

Not to toot my own horn but...

I am actually responsible for the cardinals winning the world series last year. I rooted against Houston at Turner Field the last game of the season. Had houston won that game, the cardinals would have lost to san francisco and perhaps not have made it to the playoffs. Thus, by rooting against houston I am directly responsible for the cardinals winning the world series.

I'm still waiting for my world series ring in the mail.

And you're right about the season thus far. 8-11 does not make for good times.

[John Gilchrist Lodge]

Oilstorms makes seven points.

Cortese, Ren...iny, & John..Lodge reply without addressing any of the points.
Cortese chooses to change languages (that's o.k. my mother is Italian); Ren...iny & John..Lodge choose to reply with Ad Hominen responses.

This is not the level of discourse I expected from this forum.

Jim Rutledge

In the interim since Oil's initial post, he has not participated in this thread. Which (GASP!) leads me to believe that he's a troll. I reserve my ad hominem stuff for such folks.