 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Libs....get your numbers straight....
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:23 PM I guess all of you libs out there feel like you're in Florida once again by the way you're attributing the numbers of the war dead as all "civilians". (Yes, Bobert, you keep referring to all 100,000 as civilians.) It's as if you're still trying to discover the intent of the voter by looking at a blank ballot and willing it to be a vote for Gore or Kerry or whomever you're putting all of your hope and faith in at the moment. Let's get to the count. In another thread, a Catter asked for "proof" of where the 100,000 number came from. A fellow poster listed two links which, while putting on a seatbelt to keep out the river of sh*t because of the liberal slant (actually only one was severly slanted, the other was trying as hard as they could to actually list the numbers with some accuracy), I actually took time to read, once I got home from work. (Because I always try to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to try and care for me and mine.) First, I'll admit that the 100,000 is an accurate number but the accuracy of the "facts" dreamed up by our fellow catters as to what exactly the 100,000 refers to is way off base. I shall explain. Both sites listed that only 15000-20000 of the dead were actually Iraqi CIVILIANS. A number that I actually quoted in one of my first posts on the Cat (if my memory serves me correctly). The rest of the 100,000 are attributed to Saddam's regular army, Republican guard, and the special guys in the white jump suits ( sorry, I forgot their names). Oh…let's throw in quite a few terrorists into the mix as well as well as other fighters that came in from Syria, and other terrorist supporting countries. They make up the remaining 80,000-85,000 dead. In other words, by far, the HUGE majority of the dead were BAD GUYS. Now let's throw this out for some analysis. Out of the 15000-20000 civilians killed, how many of these were, perhaps, killed by the 80000-85000 bad guys that we managed to kill? If memory serves me right, our troops in Fallujah stumbled across scores of individuals and entire families that were wiped out due to the bad guys holding the town for so long. How quick you libs are to forget that little fact. Here is where I will state that although the number of civilians killed is still way too many, civilians do get killed in war. Don't forget 9/11/01 and 12/7/41. 6000+ of our innocent people were killed. So before you go and start spouting off your manufactured "facts", please take a little time to read the whole article from the source where you pull your numbers. You sure will save A LOT of embarrassment in front of your loyal throngs of lemmings. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:29 PM What does 9/11 have to do with the war in Iraq? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:33 PM Carol, I'm not attempting to make that tie in this thread....my point is that civilians die in War. It's happened to all countries that go to war with other countries. It's happened to us, it's happened to everybody else. Please don't read it while still in your liberal frame of mind. You'll just get confused with the true facts. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:58 PM Susu's Hubby said to CarolC:
What a self-serving, dismissive piece of trash you've contributed, "Hubby." Anything you don't agree with is in quotes, and your "facts" are the accurate ones, right? Except you can't remember some of the names "( sorry, I forgot their names)" or figures "A number that I actually quoted in one of my first posts on the Cat (if my memory serves me correctly)" or places. . . or the truth. If you're going to trounce people with what is your dilusional version of the truth, pal, you should at least go back and check your own facts! Hubby said:
What Bullshit. Are you adding these events from sixty years apart? Or are you saying each one had that many dead? Talk about a disorganized argument. You're good at inflation--the kind of man Dubya wants on his team. The latest authoritative figure for September 11, 2001 is under 3,000. 2,977 comes up at a topical encyclopedia site Wikipedia. I've seen your name a couple of times around here, and in the 126 posts you've contributed so far, not a single one has to do with MUSIC, the raison d'être of this place. I can see we're not going to get along, for a lot of reasons. And you needed to start a new thread for this, eh? SRS (And they still don't add up to 6000 when lumped together, since Pearl Harbor was 2,403). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST Date: 19 Mar 05 - 12:17 AM Ask SRS what instrument she plays |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Troll Date: 19 Mar 05 - 12:32 AM SRS, using argumentum ad hominem makes you no better than the person you disagree with. 9/11 and 12/7 are both instances where US civilians died in enemy attacks. The total number of deaths in both attacks was around 6000. The fact that the two events were 60 years apart is really irrevalent. They took place on US soil or in a US Territory. They were innocent civilians, killed in an enemy attack. I think that was his point. We, too, have had civilian casualties over the years and though others have had more than we have, it happens in war. Even one is too many but it happens. The Russian civilian losses in WWII make Iraq look like a minor fender-bender. There are STILL too many Iraqi civilian deaths but to attribute them all to US troops smacks strongly of ideological wishful thinking. And what is the reason for pointing out Hubbys lack of musical posts? Last time I checked, this forum was open to all, not just the musically inclined. Or would you rather have a quota system: one BS post for every three music posts? That which is not compulsory is forbidden! Jawohl, Herr Oberst! And from what I've seen over the years, you don't tend to get along with the people who don't agree with you anyhow. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,Miss Manners Date: 19 Mar 05 - 01:04 AM Oh dear me, now you too Mr or Ms Troll have contributed a 'self-serving, dismissive piece of trash.' All too soon the entire website may become filled with those who dare to disagree with SRS. You must leave at once, before this thread is closed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,Stilly River Sage Date: 19 Mar 05 - 01:23 AM Piano. And processing a collection of folk music. Carol's the only other bona fide musician I see on this thread. But this thread is beyond BS, it's just plain stupid, as are so many of the self-serving political threads. This one was started by one who is a hanger-on, only here to find a place to vent his off-kilter views, not to really participate in what the site is about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 01:28 AM Susu's hubby, do you consider everyone in the world who isn't Susu's hubby to be a "liberal". I sure don't. Please don't read it while still in your liberal frame of mind. You'll just get confused with the true facts. That's a hell of a big assumption to make based on one little eleven word question. And what an abusive little shit you are, too. I pity your poor wife for getting her screen name all contaminated with your vitriolic bile. BTW, 9/11 wasn't a war. It was a terrorist attack. Just like the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City was a terrorist attack. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 01:33 AM troll's a bona fide musician. I know. I've seen/heard him play. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Boab Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:39 AM Deletion of the self-praise and abuse of others in the "leader" here would condense a long-winded, convoluted load of eyewash to about four lines. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: robomatic Date: 19 Mar 05 - 04:20 AM Nanki Poo: I'm not really a musician Yum Yum: I knew it directly I heard you play! - from "The Mikado" It's my understanding that the 100,000 'civilian' deaths came from an article out of Johns Hopkins which came up with that figure as an 'average' probability, whereas the actual count of 'collateral' civilian deaths was about one tenth of that. I haven't seen any other source for that figure. If the original poster could cite sources for his arguments this thread might be able to settle into something capable of dealing with reality. Otherwise, it's just a mud throwing contest (fun as that can be). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Barry Finn Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:12 AM There's nothing correct in this number game with the exception that playing it is only a distraction. Wither the number of dead is 10,000 or 1,000,000 the death of one innocent child is to much. Iraq & 9/11 no connection, Iraq was not a threat to the US. We needed to free the Iraqi people, it's a part of the war on terrorism. Why are we there & are we having fun yet. All after thoughts when the WMD didn't pan out like the rock solid intelligence that was presented to the world assured us it would. Numbers!! Can anyone come up with the amount spent as of today on the war? Can anyone come up with an amount that this invasion/occupation will cost when it's over? Can anyone tell us when it will be over? It seems to me that a privileged few thinks that war is good for business, their business. All the while the numbers that all this is costing will most likely remain untold. The number on jobs lost, the number social services slashed, the number it's done to our educational system, our health care, our future, our dead, our good name, our FREEDOM, are these any of the numbers that anyone would care to or dare to put an amount to? NUMBERS, no one will ever be able to put a number on what this has cost or what we have lost. We can take all the statistics, the polls, the numbers, the surveys, the outcome of all the investigations, panels & inquiries and put them to good use as toilet paper. The bottom line is America & the world were sold a lot of shit & the price we will pay for generations to come will be dear, if it can be paid at all. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST Date: 19 Mar 05 - 06:16 AM Susu's hubby is one of our long time flamers who has been here many years stirring up shit. He is not a new person in the forum. His name is Will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 19 Mar 05 - 08:42 AM First of all, since Hubby mentioned me in this thread, I like to clear up one point. I am very much a boni-fide musican and many Catters have heard me play... Second, when it comes to numbers, it's tough to put a handle on the actual numbers as the Bush ahministration is doing everything in its powers to keep these numbers from seeing the light of day but... The Pentagon bragged after the initial invasion that it had flown over 30,000 sorties. A sortie is an air strike. In other words, over 30,000 bombs of some sort were dropped on on a country the size of Texas, most of them in densely populated areas. Now I know that they like to brag that some of these bombs were smart bombs but if that smart bomb just happens to land next to you there ain't nuthoin' yoo smart about it!!! So we have over 30,000 bombs dropped over a populated area. Now, let throw in the millions of tank, artillery and small arms rounds being fired in this populated country and it becomes apparent that if only 20,000 people died then God Hisself was certainly redirecting one heck of a lot of bombs and bullets away from people... I mean, think about it. This don't take a Wes Ginny Slide rule to figure out here, folks... And lastly, yeah Pearl Harbor and 9/11 really sucked. They were carried out by some purdy danged God-less and evil people. Sho nuff were. So was the invasion of Iraq... Same mentality... I don't blame the troops but I do hold Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Kerry, Clinton, etc. accountable... And fir gosh sakes, hubby, pleeeease stop falsely associating me with Democrats, thank you... That blank ballot statement with "Gore and Kerry" reference was out of bounds. I am a Green Party guy and have no more use for Kerry than I have for Bush... If you make that reference again I will start making references to you and Adolf Hitler of Charles Manson. Would you like that? No, I didn't think so. Plus, when you do rhose kinds of things it just adds to an image that you are ignorant of the facts. I have stated my Green-ness here going back a long time so, knock it off. Okay? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: harpgirl Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:42 AM To the republican and other war mongers at mudcat: We went to war so the republican elite could line their coffers with war generated profits, so George could seek revenge for the attempted murder of his father and prove that he can win the Oedipal contest, and so America could control more of the world's oil production ( doesn't seem to be happening), The "war on terror" was the official excuse. Anyone who believes that human deaths of any number are an unfortunate byproduct of this sanctioned global violence is not only in denial about what evil really is, but is also dangerously misguided and not thinking independently. I am truly frightened by these folks, many of which are right here on this thread. You have seen what can happen when too many people begin to accept the party line. I guess you folks would fight WWIII if George made up a reason. How about "all arabs are an inferior race?" Let's exterminate them. Does that float your boat? disgusted, harpgirl |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST Date: 19 Mar 05 - 10:23 AM Bobert, I would never dispute that you are a musician, and you hadn't posted here! I was simply getting to the argumentative motive of the original poster. Thanks to the 'catter who clarified the troll status of Mr. Hubby. That possibility occurred to me as I considered the matter. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Frankham Date: 19 Mar 05 - 01:31 PM As long as we're engaging in "fuzzy math" here, let's try this on for size. How many insurgents are Iraqi citizens fighting for their country? How many American troops really have been killed in Iraq? Not just the ones that the news reports. (Those are only the ones listed as having died in combat.) How many American soldiers are going through Walter Reed Hospital? How many American ex-soldiers are living on the streets of America? As for blog sites, how reliable are they? I guess it depends on which ones you choose to believe. And once more with feeling, 911 had nothing to do with Iraq. It has been stated by so many sources you would think that people would understand that. We are not getting accurate numbers from any source about casualties or torture by both Americans and Sunni Guards. You can't talk about numbers when they are being distorted by the media, the government and by partisan hawks. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: DougR Date: 19 Mar 05 - 01:57 PM My, my, my, Hubby, you do have a way of stirring up a liberal amount of discontent among the faithful don't you? Welcome to the Mudcat (although you have been here awhile I know). You probably are aware that anyone who does not spew forth the Liberal line on this forum is a candidate for being bludgeoned with abuse. If you weren't, this thread should introduce you to true blue liberal tolerance. They have tolerance for anyone they agree with, and anyone who introduces a different point of view is sentenced to walk the plank. Come on in, the water's fine! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 19 Mar 05 - 02:10 PM "(Yes, Bobert, you keep referring to all 100,000 as civilians.)" The figure of 100,000 came from the British medical publication entitled "The Lancet". Hubby, stop with the bullshit, OK? I am on occasion a lib; on other occasions I am to the right of Stalin. Regardless of how many civilians were killed in Iraq, as one poster said above, one is too many. The US has no reason to be in Iraq--at least none that the government ever mentioned. Let me ask you one thing: Hussein has been taken down and no WMD were found. So why the hell is the US still there? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 02:15 PM My problem with Mr. Hubby, DougR, has nothing whatever to do with "liberal" vs anything whatever. It has only to do with Mr. Hubby's abusive behavior and stereotyping of me based only on my having asked that one question. It is the assumption the he knows what my political inclinations are, based on that question, that I have a problem with, along with his abusive way of communicating those assumptions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Don Firth Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:08 PM GUEST (19 Mar 05 - 12:17 AM), that is a cheap shot. SRS has answered your question, but let me just say that I do know a fair amount about her background in folk music, and it's extensive. There are many folklorists, ethnomusicologists, archivists, and others associated with various aspects of folk music who are not what one might call "practicing folk musicians," in that they don't perform folk songs in front of audiences—or perform at all. One of the most knowledgeable (about folk music) people I knew didn't sing or play a musical instrument at all, but for decades his house was available almost any weekend if a group of folksingers wanted to get together and have a songfest. He also had a huge collection of folk music records, which, as long as we were careful with them, we were welcome to borrow to learn songs from. Let me ask you this: would you raise a question if, by some miracle, Francis James Child posted on Mudcat? F. J. Child was an English professor at Harvard. There is no record that he ever played a musical instrument. You do know who F. J. Child is, don't you? Obviously Susu's Hubby is here strictly for the politics. By the way, Doug, how long has it been since you've posted to a music thread? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: DougR Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:13 PM Carol: it is not my intention to defend Hubby. He can do that pretty well on his own. Perhaps he has read some of your posts in the archives and believes that your leanings are to the left. But the attacks on him by SRS, brucie and others is, in my opinion, unwarranted. It seems perfectly reasonable to me if someone posts something that another catter questions, for that someone else to challenge them on what they postedwithout being personally attacked. But that does happen frequently. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:20 PM DougR, the opening post to this thread is more abuse than it is substance. The response he is getting is entirely in keeping with the tone he, himself, set in that opening post. And I don't care what he has read of mine in the archives. He doesn't get to tell me what my political philosophy is. I'm the only one who gets to do that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Amos Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:24 PM Not only is it rude, ill-mannered and abusive, it isd also short in tyhe analysis department, riddled with factual and logical flaws and layered with rather ham-handed rhetopric. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:14 PM Doug: Think what you want. The US has no right being in Iraq. You know that as well as I do. Hubby's post was a bullshit attempt to stir the pot. The Lancet reported the 100,000 figure. A more conservative and maybe accurate group gave a figure closer to 20,000. I posted the link on another thread. You can no more determine from people's posts how they vote than you can determine from Bush's words what he means. As I siad, think what you want. So will I. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:34 PM Please don't read it while still in your liberal frame of mind. You'll just get confused with the true facts. "Please don't read it while still in your liberal frame of mind. You'll just get confused with the true facts." This was Hubby's remark to Carol near the top of this thread. Carol has lots more class than I ever will; I'd a told ya to GFY. Carol is so far beyond liberal it's great. She has, IMO, a great sense of right/wrong, an intellect that is worthy of admiration, a tenacity I think is great and a patience I can but view from afar, because I have never had that sort of equanimity in my life. I was the fellow catter you mentioned who posted those links (see your first post, Hubby). You, my friend, do NOT piss on me. I posted those links to give a balanced view. Your game with the numbers means to me that you put your bullshit political aganda ahead of human life. I think that sucks. One guy to another, I do not give a rat's ass how much you like the Republicans or George Friggin' Bush, but I care very much for some of the folks you get off slagging. Your intent was to cause trouble. You have done so. Congratulations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: DougR Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:42 PM Brucie: I just read Hubby's post again. I do not see why what he posted would get everybody so upset. His post is not nearly as rude or insulting as Amos' or SRS's in reply to him. It appears to me that he was merely trying to set the record straight as he sees it. The fact that others see it differently is no big news and certainly not surprising. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:52 PM The links I provided on another thread give the following 1) 100,000 dead 2) 20,000 dead He slurred me. I don't give anyone free shots, ever. Just the way it is. You want nice from me you give nice. Ya got somethoing to say, say it. But no one f#cks with me and gets away with it. Never have and never will. That's all I have to say. If this guy has a problem with me he can friggin' well explain what it is. If he wants a problem with me, he just got it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Greg F. Date: 19 Mar 05 - 06:14 PM I do not see why what he posted would get everybody so upset. Precisely so. A quite idiotic observation. Stupidity - not political affiliation- is the root problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: DougR Date: 19 Mar 05 - 06:37 PM Thank you Greg. I can alway count on you for an insult and you didn't disappoint. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 05 - 06:40 PM "And I don't care what he has read of mine in the archives. He doesn't get to tell me what my political philosophy is. I'm the only one who gets to do that. " I agree with you on this, CarolC. I just hope that you will be just as indignent when those on mudcat use the same tactic against myself, or others that they disagree with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 06:50 PM Thanks for the kind words, brucie. beardedbruce, I don't like it when it is done to anyone, no matter what their political views are, and I wish people wouldn't do it. I think it causes more problems than it solves, and it gets in the way of real dialogue. But I don't consider myself anyone's nanny, and therefore I try to put careful thought into whether or not I will interject anything on behalf of others. In your case, I see that you give pretty much as good as you get, so you clearly don't need my help. But I do reserve the right to stick up for myself under any circumstances. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 06:52 PM BTW, beardedbruce, I have on some occasions, when I thought it needed to be done, gone to bat for people with political points of view that are quite the opposite of my own. And I have taken plenty of hits for it as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 05 - 06:54 PM And while I often disagree with your views, I support your presenting them in a reasonable fashion. ALL sides of issues should be discussed, not just those that the (here) Liberal dictatorship want brought out. And when EITHER side brings up "statements" they should be based on fact. We can differ as to the meaning of facts, but there has to be some basis of reality before any discussion can have meaning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 05 - 06:55 PM The second paragraph above was a general comment, and NOT directed at CarolC. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Amos Date: 19 Mar 05 - 07:09 PM OF course the notion of condoning the random death of 1, 2 or 20 or 100 thousands of human beings, no matter what rationalization you use, is conceivable only to those who feel they have the power to decide on life or death for non-combatants. Folks like George and Osama. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: artbrooks Date: 19 Mar 05 - 08:12 PM BTW, did you all notice that, like all good trolls, he threw out a idiotic comment and is now gleefully watching everyone elses' reaction? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Don Firth Date: 19 Mar 05 - 08:15 PM "Liberal dictatorship??!??!???" Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 08:30 PM LOL artbrooks, do you have a secret "troll-cam" hidden at the H's house? If so, please tell me where you got it. I want one too! Or at least post the pictures... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 19 Mar 05 - 08:47 PM My, my, my... Well, ain't this somethin'... Here I go off and play a little blues and come home and there sho nuff been one heck o' a food fight going on here in Mudville.. (But, Bobert, why do you think they call it Mudville?) Okay, never mind the food... We'll clean it up later but to... Dougie: Hey, it's very much okay to disagree with Hubby's tactic shile not disagreeing with his politics. Might even make some of your arguements more credible since hibby's ain't and... bb: Good on you for supprting CarolC. Now I would hope that you would see that what hubby does in inventing other people's poiltics is what you also have done repeatedly. It's not only irritating, but dishonest. It also hurts your arguments... and Amos: Good to see you back in the fray... Not sure where you been hidin' but we don't need you in hidin', thank you. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 05 - 08:53 PM Bobert And you have called me a bushite how many times? Maybe you should think before you comment. For a change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 05 - 08:55 PM And how many times have you stated I get my information from sources I do not listen to? And I am STILL waiting for any evidence to back your "statements" about conservative control of media..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:00 PM Okay, "Bush apologist". Like that any better? You support everything that Bush does, bb, so you pick the name... You are one of the most *patisan* people in Mudville. It doesn't seem to matter the issue. If Bush is for it, yer for it. If he's against it, you are agianst it. Then you attack anyone who is against what ever Bush is for ot against... Seems like blind loyalty to me... You look at my positions. They aren't *partisan*. They are pro-human and pro-earth. I couldn't give a rat's butt about either Repubs or Dems... They are nuthin' but rival fraternities... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:05 PM Not everything, as you might realize if you bothered to read my statements before passing judgement. I can see that you are anti-Bush, Sounds like blind hatred to me... As for pro-human and pro-Earth, perhaps we should look at the effects of the principles you seem to be pushing, and let people decide if you can claim that- Perhaps I am pro-Earth, and you are not. It really depends on what the RESULT of out policies would be, NOT the intent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:07 PM Ok, I'll step up to the plate for bb this time... I have actually seen beardedbruce criticize GW on at least one occasion. I saw him say once that he wasn't happy about the Bush adminisration dragging its feet on the subject of Sudan. But really, bb, "liberal dictatorship" isn't any better than the kinds of things you don't appreciate other people saying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:07 PM And what, exactly, do you know about what I support and what I don't? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:15 PM GUEST, 19 Mar 05 - 09:07 PM, who are you and whom are you addressing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:21 PM Well, excuse me... Looks as if bb has, over the 1000 things that Bush has been fir or aginst disagreed with him 1 time.... Wow, real disgruntled worker... Okay, Dougie is the most partisan, bb... Now yer running a close 2nd... That feel better? And as fir policies, you wanta argue them? Like where you want start? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: heric Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:23 PM I think I can wrap this up. 1. Progressive taxation is good. 2. Social safety nets should be strengthened. 3. War is bad. 4. Global markets oppress the citizenry of poorer nations. 5. Third World aid is good. 6. Propoganda is prevalent and bad. 7. The Bush administration makes all decisions in accordance with oil industry objectives. There you have it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:25 PM Since you don't even know what I think, how can you argue? The guest above was me- sorry, no cookie on this machine. And I hear a lot about the Bush dictatorship, so WHY can't I talk about the liberal one here on Mudcat? I have presented as much, if not more evidence than those attacking Bush have presented. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:30 PM Are you addressing me, beardedbruce, or Bobert? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:34 PM I think you are addressing me. So here goes... And I hear a lot about the Bush dictatorship, so WHY can't I talk about the liberal one here on Mudcat? I have presented as much, if not more evidence than those attacking Bush have presented. Nobody said you can't talk about there being a "liberal dictatorship" here in Mudcat. But if you do that, you're not really in a position to criticize those who talk about there being a "Bush dictatorship". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:35 PM commnet was addressed to Bobert. CarolC. As I have said, I do not usually agree with you, but the facts you present are a valuable part of discussion. Bobert states opinion as fact, and expects all to accept his god-like pronouncements. You have not- I may not like what you present, or agree as to it's applicability on specific topics, but you do present supported facts. I may choose to question the source, but that is fair- I do not state that anything you say MUST be false, as a number of those here have said about me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:35 PM sorry... I need my cookie! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:39 PM Bobert, You are one of the most *patisan* people in Mudville. It doesn't seem to matter the issue. If Bush is for it, yer against it. If he's against it, you are for it. Then you attack anyone who is for what ever Bush is for ot against... Seems like blind hatred to me... SHould I presume that the above statement is true? You have made a similar type of claim about me- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:43 PM Thanks beardedbruce. Bobert, it looks to me like you're also not in a position to criticize people for doing stuff that you also do yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 19 Mar 05 - 10:11 PM Ahhhhh, the usaul slight of bb's hand... If you reread what I have said and then compare it to what pathological bb *wishes* I'd said, as evidenced in pathological bb's last post where he cleverly manipulares that I have said into a non quote then it become apparent that pathological bb is, ahhh, indeed pathological... So, bb, you want to go back to the post where you cleverly imply that I, pro-human, pro-earth, used the word "hate".... Oh, real easy for you to sneak it in as if you had *hpoed* I had used such a word but, alas, I didn't. You did. This is what I mean by patghological. I don't mind being quoted. I don't like for one minute being misquoted, especiallu by a pathological liar, as bb is... He loves to misquote folks and make it look as if they said what e would loved foir them to have said. That, my frineds, is pathological lieing... Hey, bb, you have domne the crime. Now do the time... Andfor the 100th time. If you want to discuss issues... fine, discuss them but don't friggin'lie to about what other people have said... It's immoral and it doesn't make you the least bit credible... Now, next time you quote me you had better make danged sure that you are quoting me. No more of yer BS games.... And I mean this very seriously, pal... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 19 Mar 05 - 10:13 PM "And I am STILL waiting for any evidence to back your "statements" about conservative control of media....." http://www.liberalslant.com/mediaownership.htm It's a start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST Date: 19 Mar 05 - 10:23 PM Bobert That was NOT a quote of you, as you so brilliantly determined. It was a statement that I made, and then asked if I should consider it true. ***************** "Bobert, You are one of the most *patisan* people in Mudville. It doesn't seem to matter the issue. If Bush is for it, yer against it. If he's against it, you are for it. Then you attack anyone who is for what ever Bush is for ot against... Seems like blind hatred to me... SHould I presume that the above statement is true? You have made a similar type of claim about me- " ******************************* "This is what I mean by patghological. I don't mind being quoted. I don't like for one minute being misquoted, especiallu by a pathological liar, as bb is... He loves to misquote folks and make it look as if they said what e would loved foir them to have said. That, my frineds, is pathological lieing..." THAT is a direct quote- and YOU are the one who is described so well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST Date: 19 Mar 05 - 10:27 PM "pathological bb *wishes* I'd said," and you are making more claims for which you have no supporting evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 19 Mar 05 - 10:38 PM Hey, can you friggin' read, bbbbbbbbbb? Reread yer 9:39 post... Yeah you cleverly use most of what I said then throw in, with out comma or anything, bb's pathological addition... Even CarolC thought you had a point with the juxtipostion of fact and fiction... Nice work fir a liar... This is my last warning to you. You misquote me again and you won't want to see me at this year's Getaway... I mean this... I don't mind the rest of yer crap but I will ******not****** allow you to use slight of hand to put words in mt mouth that I would never speak.. This is you last warning... If you continue this pathological path then don't ever say they you weren't nor only given examples but allowed to change the way that you present your positions... I am serious as a heart attack here, my friend. Quit the crap... Quit lieing about what folks say... Argue yer positions and leave yer opponents to do the same but.... quit lieing... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Barry Finn Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:00 PM I would say in the case of Bush always being wrong. When has he ever been right. Never. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: heric Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:02 PM He was trying to replace the allegations with antonyms, and made a mistake using "hatred" in place of "blind loyalty." He should have used "blind rebellion" (or "blind seditiousness," for stronger effect). Bad bb. No need for a food fight at the Getaway, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:06 PM the section between the ***** WAS NOT A QUOTE!!!!!!!!!! WHERE DO YOU SEE A QUOTE??????? BELOW IS MY POST: NOT A QUOTE FROM BOBERT! *************************************************************** Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:39 PM Bobert, You are one of the most *patisan* people in Mudville. It doesn't seem to matter the issue. If Bush is for it, yer against it. If he's against it, you are for it. Then you attack anyone who is for what ever Bush is for ot against... Seems like blind hatred to me... SHould I presume that the above statement is true? You have made a similar type of claim about me- ********************************************************************* Similar does NOT mean a quote. YOU, Bobert, need to quit lieing about what folks say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: heric Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:08 PM oh, what the hell. . . . FOOD FIGHT |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:10 PM Sorry Bobert. I actually wasn't thinking about bb's misquote of you when I said that. I was thinking more about calling people "Bushites" and stuff like that. I honestly don't see what that contributes to the debate, and it does give people who support Bush some ammo to use against you in discussions like this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:11 PM Barry, So you think the UN, rather than the Bush administration, is correct about Sudan? No genocide there, I guess............. I disagree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:12 PM You know what you did, bb Don't act so innocent, you pathological liar... Yeah, keep it up.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:13 PM Oh, man. I keep crossposting with people. heric, would you please serve the milk and cookies now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: heric Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:14 PM There was no misquote, Carol. >>>SCHPLLAPP. . . Here's mashed potatoes in yer eye.<< |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:15 PM Bobert, Learn to read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:17 PM Nice to see this thread really taking off. The guy that started it ain't been back in 24 hours and everyone's jus' gettin' along. Jaysus, those folks in Dallas sure know how to get a fight goin'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:26 PM Can't we all just get along....? I notice that there are no challenges to the numbers I originally posted. So I guess if you can't support your position then it must be on to the next step.... Crucify the messenger..... That's expected. Hubby (Bobert, I didn't mean to loop you in with the dems.....from now on I'll refer to you as lib-lite. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:40 PM Well I'm not going to challenge them because I don't really have an opinion on this subject yet. I'm still in the finding stuff out phase. Thanks for asking though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:40 PM Geez. It really IS a food fight. . . My initial post in this thread came after "Hubby" posted some squishy at best (and obviously inflated) "facts" with no credible citations, then suggested snidely to Carol, when she protested, that her political views were blocking her understanding of The Truth. I did a little research before I slapped back at Susu's Hubby, to see if this was an anomaly in his participation at Mudcat. I found that not only did he follow in the footsteps of some of our rightwing political arguers in his political leanings, he didn't even attempt a pretense at being here for the music. He's here for the trolling. BB and DougR have musical connections, and dropping "below the line" is a time-honored form of recreation here at Mudcat. But Susu's Husband has never been above the line. This is an open forum, and lots of folks pass through here, offering a few posts or asking a question then moving on. But it has been my observation that those who come just for the BS have a different agenda than those who are here for the music or the musical scholarship (thanks, Don!). They have nothing to lose, because they won't be meeting Mudcatters face to face at music events, they won't be offering support when someone has a personal or professional catastrophe. They're just here to stir things up, in a pathetic bid for attention. By that measure, it's too bad this thread has gone on for this long, because it gives quite a feast to a troll, "member" or not. Little did I realize when I confronted the troll "Hubby" (not to be confused with the troll "Troll") that the group would be full of piss and vinegar this weekend and feeling like going a few rounds. When you finish with this slug-fest I want Bobert to get out P-Vine's new hose from the garden center (has she bought any new stuff yet this year?--I'm just guessing, I don't have a camera in your garage!) and hose it off before you go to bed. :) SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:44 PM No challenges to the numbers? Go back and read the stupid thread, Hubby, starting with post number four. Your understanding of the topic and your bogus numbers are what set people off. But there I go, feeding the same troll. He's good at it, isn't he? It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, he can just say something to make people think he must really be stupid, and that gives meaning to his existence because it starts them arguing again on HIS thread. Get a life, fella. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:50 PM SRS, You're really hurting my feelings.....:-( I can play a mean radio! Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:53 PM I'm fine, SRS.... bb, different story... Same post,differnt thread... The guy loves to make up stuff that he wishes other folks had said. Problem is, they didn't... So bb goes about carefullu postioning what othe folks said (fact) and what bb wishes they had said (fictio0 to make bb's points. Problem is... bb is using tactics to smear othewr folks opinions with the use of carefully crafted quoting... This, IMO, is immoral and dishonest... bb, on the other hand, finds nuthin' wrong with misquoting folkds as long as he has an out... Like big whup... Only big whup is the bif whup I'm gonna put on bb at Getaway if he continues to make statements about what I have said that I didn't say... You want call it a food fight, fine. It's lieing as far as I can see... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:54 PM SRS, What I have read is, and let me paraphrase, if you may,.... You're numbers aren't right because they don't meet up with our liberal agenda.... or Since we can't argue intelligently with these numbers then let's shift the focus to something else. That's what I've read up to this post. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 20 Mar 05 - 12:12 AM Ahhhhhh, yeah, hubby... Yer numerbers aren't tight her in Mudville... That is no excuse to lieing and stating that other folks said "this 'er that" that they didn't say...That is the problremwith I have with yer cohort... Maybe you need to take hi aaide and explain that out right lieing ain't cool... Oh yeah, he's gonna say "this and that".... Go back an reread what he has said and even you, Bush-head extriodinaire, will admit that the guy lies thur carefully crafted so-called statements of those who hold differing opinions... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 05 - 12:25 AM ...anyway, Mercury is going retrograde for a while, Mouseketeers, and if this thread ain't a perfect example of how communications get f*cked up during Mercury retrograde, I don't know what is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Barry Finn Date: 20 Mar 05 - 12:36 AM Guest Bush & company has trashed human rights here & abroad by setting an example of abuse for others to follow, aren't we the fine roll model, places like the Sudan & Israel wouldn't be able to hold up a mirror to our faces & do as they please & then tell us to piss off that they're no different than us. Bush needs to put his own house in order first before saying to the world "do as I say not as I do". I also suspect a hidden aggenda. It seems as of late every where we set our foot on foreign soil that country ends up losing something valuable in the process & we end up some how coming out smelling like roses after falling face first into a bed of shit. If we can end up with Sudan in the palm of our hand then we'd need control of only one more nation in north Africa to lock up that part of the world including the Med. Sea. A bit like what's being played out in Afghanistan & Iraq and to gift wrap & complete the package there our eyes have set their site on Iran. If this is how it's going to go down we can call our new foreign polic(e)y as the "American Strangle Hold". I still say Bush has done nothing right & when he tries it's been for the wrong reasons & still he f**ks it up. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 20 Mar 05 - 12:39 AM You didn't "paraphrase" anything, Hubby, you just tried to place your spin to an argument that was better stated and positioned than the nonsense you started the thread with. Paraphrase (take your pick from the following definitions): www.bedfordstmartins.com/history/benjamin/content/page03.htm www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/ollc_glossary.html itc.gsu.edu/academymodules/a202/support/a202b0_50100.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 20 Mar 05 - 12:49 AM "Libs....get your numbers straight...." If we get our numbers straight will they all look like ones? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST Date: 20 Mar 05 - 01:34 AM Bobert, If my telling my opinion is lieing, and your telling the world what YOU think I am thinking is truth, we DO have a definite problem. I suggest that you look back at the posts, and BACK OFF! If there is anyone who has made a habit of stating what others are supposedly thinking, it is YOU. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 05 - 01:34 AM sorry, last post mine... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:11 AM No, you don't strop at *just* telling you opionion, bb. You clevery yake waht someone has said, many times word for word that others reading you post may think is exactly what someone else said then you thorw in language which changes then intent of the other person (specificaly me) in a manner to suit your argument. That, my friend, is not arguing or stating *your* position... It is your dihonest attempt to mistate others positions. When I, on the other hand, make a statement about how I think someone else thinks I leave no doubt that the words are mine... Thats where the difference lies (pun intended). Like I'm not going to try make others think you said something that you didn't. Sure, I might point out the hypocrisy of yer positions but I don't have to put words in your mought to do that. You do a fine enough job all by your self... Now I'm going back to to ignoring you becasue it is always the same end game with you. Just proves to me that you musy not be too comfy with the set of values you live with. Bye. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:18 AM "Just proves to me that you musy not be too comfy with the set of values you live with." Is that an accurate quote of you? No additions, or changes. But your usual lying statement of what you say others mean. Your statements here prove to me that IMO, YOU have a real problem dealing with anyone who disagrees with your warped worldview. NOT that you MUST have a problem, but that it is my opinion that you do. Perhaps accuracy is too subtle for you to understand? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:19 AM sorry, again- no cookie above... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: freda underhill Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:40 AM 100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq By Rob Stein; Washington Post Staff Writer; Friday, October 29, 2004; Page A16 One of the first attempts to independently estimate the loss of civilian life from the Iraqi war has concluded that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the U.S. invasion. The estimate is based on a September door-to-door survey of 988 Iraqi households -- containing 7,868 people in 33 neighborhoods -- selected to provide a representative sampling. Two survey teams gathered detailed information about the date, cause and circumstances of any deaths in the 14.6 months before the invasion and the 17.8 months after it, documenting the fatalities with death certificates in most cases. The project was designed by Les Roberts and Gilbert M. Burnham of the Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore; Richard Garfield of Columbia University in New York; and Riyadh Lafta and Jamal Kudhairi of Baghdad's Al-Mustansiriya University College of Medicine. Based on the number of Iraqi fatalities recorded by the survey teams, the researchers calculated that the death rate since the invasion had increased from 5 percent annually to 7.9 percent. That works out to an excess of about 100,000 deaths since the war, the researchers reported in a paper released early by the Lancet, a British medical journal. The researchers called their estimate conservative because they excluded deaths in Fallujah, a city west of Baghdad that has been the scene of particularly intense fighting and has accounted for a disproportionately large number of deaths in the survey. "We are quite confident that there's been somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 deaths, but it could be much higher," Roberts said. When the researchers examined the causes of the 73 violent deaths collected in the study, 84 percent were due to the actions of coalition forces, although the researchers stressed that none was the result of what would have been considered misconduct. Ninety-five percent were due to airstrikes by helicopter gunships, rockets or other types of aerial weaponry. Forty-six percent of the violent deaths involving coalition forces were men ages 15 to 60, but 46 percent were children younger than 15, and 7 percent were women, the researchers reported. The researchers and the Lancet editors acknowledged that the study has clear limitations, including a relatively small sample of violent deaths that were examined directly and the researchers' reliance on individual memories for some information. But the researchers said the findings represent the most reliable estimate to date. The paper was "extensively peer-reviewed, revised, edited" and rushed into print "because of its importance to the evolving security situation in Iraq, Richard Horton, the journal's editor, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Staff writer Josh White and research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:46 AM Thank you, Freda.... I knew I read the 100,000 wstimate somewhere and since I read the Post evryday, now I know where... I try to keep as many articles I find interesting in a file but miss quite a few... Thanks again... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:48 AM brucie, Interesting points in the clicky (19 Mar 05 - 10:13 PM ), but hardly evidence of what is presented in the media. Since Max owns the machine that Mudcat is on, are we to assume that Mudcat has *only* his biases? ( and no, I DO NOT know Max's bias or opinion on any topics- Like most media owners, he has NOT forced us to comply with his views on any topics.) Or perhaps those who post ( like the media reporters, investigators, and editors who determine what is placed on the media in question) make a contribution. And ALL the studies I have so far seen show that those people are out of line with the ratios of conservatives to liberals, Dems to Reps, etc that the population as a whole can be shown to have. The studies which look at the articles that proport to be news as opposed to opinion show a liberal bias, as opposed to the polled results on those issues of the general public. The studies that look at the self-declared politial leanings of reporters and editors show a liberal bias, as compared to the general public. The studies which look at the beliefs of those in the media who declare themselves to be middle of the road show a majority have stands on issues that the general public considers liberal ( in comparison with the same issues as polled in public) Obviously, if the person selling the paper to you is a conservative, this would make it conservatively biased? NOT If you can show where the ownership of the media has dictated the choice of stories, or slant put on the news, I would certainly be willing to listen. I know there are cases where this has occurred- I just do not see enough of it to belive that it over-rides the demonstrated liberal bias as shown by looking at the actual news presented to the public. But thank you for at least attempting to address the issue, rather than making ad hominim remarks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: freda underhill Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:49 AM it's a pleasure Bobert - and just for you, i put the article in, instead of a blue clicky! It's so hard to know what's going on, because the first casualty of war is always the truth. It's likely US casualties are higher than stated as well - the true casualty figures will only be known by those at the Pentagon and a few selected personnel. Vietnam was a good reflection initially 6,000 Killed in Action were reported. later that rose to 58,000 and later a further 40,000 were deemed missing in action. So if Vietnam is anything to judge, then most certainly casualty figures are manipulated for public consumption. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: freda underhill Date: 20 Mar 05 - 09:03 AM p.s. "We don't do body counts" General Tommy Franks, US Central Command |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: susu Date: 20 Mar 05 - 09:13 AM Thanks Freda for posting that story. That was some good info. Now go to The Lancet, the source quoted in the story and read the entire first page and learn how the numbers are broken down. If you read my original post, I do not disagree with the number of 100,000. What I disagree with is that all 100,000 are innocent civilians and all were caused by US military forces. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Frankham Date: 20 Mar 05 - 09:27 AM Hey what happened to the policy of including BS under the BS category? Do we have to wade once more through the crap to get to the music? This thread represents a low water-mark in the Mudcat thread game. This "Libs" diatribe was intended to be provacative without adding a shred of insight or useful factual information. Maybe Mudcat should change it's name to Mudslinging instead. I'm not advocating censorship here, though. If someone wants to crap on Mudcat by this kind of provocation they should be allowed to do so. But it's still crap. And the ones that do it should be ashamed of themselves for not only displaying their stupidity but engaging in a wasteful smear campaign. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CStrong Date: 20 Mar 05 - 09:37 AM Whew! Is it over yet? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: DougR Date: 20 Mar 05 - 01:24 PM Frank: I fail to see your point (if you intended one). Susu's husband has only attempted to clarify, with data supplied in his first post, the breakdown of the 100,000 figure contained in the Washington Post story. Some here on the Mudcat have evidently claimed that all 100,000 deaths should be credited to U. S. forces. Clearly, according to the date Hubby provided, that is not the case. If anyone wants to challenge the data, then do so! I see nothing diabolical about this thread at all. The objection from the left appears to be that Hubby has pricked a hole in their balloon. As to having to wade through stuff to get to the music threads, the thread is clearly included with the BS section of Mudcat. What's the problem? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 20 Mar 05 - 01:33 PM All the stuff above not withstanding, the US has no right still being in Iraq. That, pal, should be the whole point of the thread. Arguing as to whether 20000 or 100000 civilians have been killed is futile. One is too many in a bullshit war. Fabricated evidence to invade, and crap spin to stay. America is out of control, and that is being orchestrated by folks in Washington. Period. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Amos Date: 20 Mar 05 - 01:57 PM DougR: That is not true. SH also wanted to throw a few nasty comments at a class of people he has categorized condescendingly and inaccurately, using pushbutton language intentionally designed to disrupt communication and upset. That is reactive Zolery at its worst, and is exceeding rude. For you to then support him by altering this fact and trying to place an innocent rational statistical face on his original post would be disingenuous in a high school student, but in a man of your maturity it looks faintly ridiculous. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 20 Mar 05 - 02:26 PM I think that I have thoroughly made my point. If we want to discuss why we are in Iraq then let's discuss it. But don't come at me with made up numbers and half truths. You'd better be armed with substancial fool proof evidence if you want to try and change my mind. brucie, Earlier in this thread, I believe you took offense at me bringing up the numbers that were on the links that you provided in another thread. My comments in this thread regarding the info found in those links was not in any way negatively directed at you. Your earlier post about me F*****g with you really threw me for a loop. I just really appreciate you posting those links so that I would finally understand where the majority of the libs found on Mudcat actually get their info. Post more of them. If I need to, I've got a whole drawer full of clothes pins for my nose in case I get mired in the world of false and misleading information that's found here so frequently. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 05 - 02:40 PM Well, your original post does conatain some pretty slippery language, cowardly person who hides behind his wife's screen name. Take this bit for instance... If memory serves me right, our troops in Fallujah stumbled across scores of individuals and entire families that were wiped out due to the bad guys holding the town for so long. ...entire families that were wiped out by US forces (ostensibly due to the "bad guys" holding the town for so long). One has to accept the premise that the US had a right to try to take Fallujah from the people you categorize as "the bad guys" in the first place before one can accept that the blood of these families is not entirely on the hands of the US government. Not everyone does accept that premise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Frankham Date: 20 Mar 05 - 03:59 PM Well Doug if you don't see an attack here, then I guess that's a matter of perception. His attempt was not to clarity anything but to attack a Liberal point of view. He did not say where the Washington Post story appeared. Probably in an op-ed column by a Right-wing editorial. " Susu's husband has only attempted to clarify, with data supplied in his first post, the breakdown of the 100,000 figure contained in the Washington Post story. Some here on the Mudcat have evidently claimed that all 100,000 deaths should be credited to U. S. forces. Clearly, according to the date Hubby provided, that is not the case." There is no substantial number that has been verified by anyone except the proponents of the Iraq war. No one knows how many deaths have occurred because there is a virtual news blackout on what's really going on over there. The Washington Post is known for spin as much as any of the current mainstream newspapers and I challenge the data and offer that those who want to know what's really going on visit Dar Jamail's website. "I see nothing diabolical about this thread at all. The objection from the left appears to be that Hubby has pricked a hole in their balloon." He has done nothing of the kind. He's merely parroting the current spin by the White House. And he is provoking an answer through insult, not through dialogue. He is obviously not interested in dialogue but in attacking Liberals. And he doesn't have the facts. "As to having to wade through stuff to get to the music threads, the thread is clearly included with the BS section of Mudcat. What's the problem?" In my setup, the BS threads are mixed up with the music threads. That is the problem. It was OK before when the BS threads were at the bottom. It got changed. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: susu Date: 20 Mar 05 - 04:02 PM Okay this is the actual Susu on this post. The post on 20 Mar 05 - 09:13 AM with my moniker was a mere oversight on hubby's part as I did not log out of mudcat after I checked to see what had changed that made me start getting emails from people. You want to talk about cowards! I would suspect that the emails I received are from the same person or a couple of people who got together and made up false email addresses with yahoo and hotmail, and some other thing called gmail. But I digress, I came onto mudcat only to find that in this particular thread my info was reposted, it was done to prove a point that hubby is not some other long time poster to mudcat that was being slandered by the accusation that he merely changed his moniker to be a troll, as you guys put it. Now that being said I would like to clarify some things with you people. Hubby received a music scholarship to OBU (Oklahoma Baptist University) and plays piano as well as sings he was also the music minister to our church for 3 years prior to us moving out of state. I found mudcat around Christmas by accident when I was searching for lyrics to Christmas songs and found someone was looking for the 12 Drinks of Christmas lyrics, which I knew one version that was not posted, so I posted it. I showed my husband the website because I know that he is interested in music and there were also other interesting posts on here. He began to post under my moniker, and to clarify that it was not me, he would sign it as Susu's Hubby. When he created his own moniker, it seemed only natural that he used the name Susu's hubby since that was what he became known as. Cowardly? No Carol, GET A CLUE!!!! Cowardly would be if he were to make sure that it couldn't be identified as a previous poster by hiding under a totally different moniker. I guess if any of you would like to comment to me the best way is to send me an EMAIL since I do not log on too often to mudcat anymore and most likely will not see your PM's. At this time I am trying to find out how to get my moniker disabled if I can. Best of luck to all of you, and if you disagree with hubby fine, but try to leave me out of it okay. Susu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 05 - 04:09 PM Have it your way, Susu. No skin off my nose either way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 20 Mar 05 - 04:16 PM Susu, Have fun with your music duo and stay well. Things get pretty heated around here sometimes. Just the way it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: robomatic Date: 20 Mar 05 - 04:24 PM Freda: Thanks for the post clearing up the source of the 100,000 figure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: artbrooks Date: 20 Mar 05 - 05:05 PM While I have seen a number of different figures quoted, and I am personally unable to validate or debunk any of them, I'd be interested in knowing the source of Susu's Hubby's statement that Only 15000-20000 of the dead were actually Iraqi CIVILIANS. ... The rest of the 100,000 are attributed to Saddam's regular army, Republican guard, and the special guys in the white jump suits ( sorry, I forgot their names). Oh…let's throw in quite a few terrorists into the mix as well as well as other fighters that came in from Syria, and other terrorist supporting countries. They make up the remaining 80,000-85,000 dead. In other words, by far, the HUGE majority of the dead were BAD GUYS. He said that this came from a couple of web sites, and I have seen the ones with the 100,000 figure and the much smaller 10-15,000 figure. Where does the information that 80,000 (or so) of the known dead were Iraqi military, paramilitary or terrorists come from? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 05 - 05:13 PM Good point, artbrooks. Even though he has made a few posts subsequent to his original one, so far he has offered absolutely no supporting documentation for any of his assertions. Maybe he hasn't because there isn't any. Maybe he just made it all up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: freda underhill Date: 20 Mar 05 - 05:24 PM here is another source, Al Jazeera, citing a similar survey, but done by Iraqis, from July 2004. Iraqi group: Civilian toll over 37,000; By Ahmed Janabi; 31 July 2004, http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/66E32EAF-0E4E-4765-9339-594C323A777F.htm An Iraqi political group says more than 37,000 Iraqi civilians were killed between the start of the US-led invasion in March 2003 and October 2003. The People's Kifah, or Struggle Against Hegemony, movement said in a statement that it carried out a detailed survey of Iraqi civilian fatalities during September and October 2003. Its calculation was based on deaths among the Iraqi civilian population only, and did not count losses sustained by the Iraqi military and paramilitary forces. The deputy general secretary and spokesperson of the movement told Aljazeera.net he could vouch for the accuracy of the figure. "We are 100% sure that 37,000 civilian deaths is a correct estimate. Our study is the result of two months of hard work which involved hundreds of Iraqi activists and academics. Of course there may be deaths that were not reported to us, but the toll in any case could not be lower than our finding," said Muhammad al-Ubaidi. "For the collation of our statistics we visited the most remote villages, spoke and coordinated with grave-diggers across Iraq, obtained information from hospitals, and spoke to thousands of witnesses who saw incidents in which Iraqi civilians were killed by US fire," he said. Al-Ubaidi, a UK-based physiology professor, provided a detailed breakdown of the 37,000 civilian deaths for each governorate (excluding the Kurdish areas) relating to the period between March and October 2003. The People's Kifah said the process of data gathering stopped after one of the group's workers was arrested by Kurdish militias and handed over to US forces in October 2003. The fate of the worker remains unclear. "I am taking this opportunity of talking to Aljazeera.net to request that the US occupation authorities reveal the whereabouts of the worker, who was arrested and then went missing. We are afraid he is being tortured the way Abu Ghraib prisoners were tortured," al-Ubaidi said. "His name is Ramzi Musa Ahmad. He is a 32-year-old Iraqi engineer who was on his way to the Iraqi Kurdish governorate al-Sulaimania last October to fax me the information to Britain, because telephone services had not been restored in Baghdad." According to al-Ubaidi: "The minibus in which Ahmad was travelling was stopped at a Kurdish checkpoint. He was arrested and handed over to US army." As of now, there are no reliable estimates of total Iraqi civilian fatalities. The interim Iraqi government has not made available any statistics, while US occupation authorities in Iraq reportedly issued orders to the forensic medicine department not to talk to the media about the number of bodies it receives. Liqa Makki, a political analyst, said it is widely known in Baghdad that Iraqi officials are prohibited from releasing any information about body count. "The director of forensic medicine department said publicly some months ago that his department was receiving 70 bodies a day. But he was reprimanded and a statement was published in the Iraqi press prohibiting the announcement of any kind of body count," Makki said. Iraq's interim government is preparing the first post-Saddam census in Iraq. It hopes that an accurate census will unearth long-buried facts about Iraq's wars. The Planning Ministry issued instructions to Iraqis not to leave their homes on 12 October when 150,000 workers will be engaged in conducting the census. According to the last official census - conducted in 1997 - Iraq had a population of 24 million. Aljazeera + Agencies |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:05 PM Doug: Pieced a hole in the liberal's baloon? Seems to me that quite the oppoiste has occured. I got accused of making up a number, couldn't find where I had read it and now severasl people have come up with the sources that just make this thread pudry danged meaningless. And looking back on this thread I think it goes well beyond meaningless as it was posted just to be combative, devisive and a distartion to the real events that it's author would rather not have being discussed. You, IMO, have gotten sucked into it as well as many others who used to know how to play a lot nicer and with more respect and integrity... I, for one. have written and will no longer recognize of one of yer buddies on this thread and am seriously considering writing off hubhy as well. Some folks just don't have any class. You have always had class, Dougie, and I wish you'd take a couple of yer cohorts unner your wing and teach them a little of it. The two of them are hurting your cause... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:21 PM CarolC, "One has to accept the premise that the US had a right to try to take Fallujah from the people you categorize as "the bad guys" in the first place before one can accept that the blood of these families is not entirely on the hands of the US government. Not everyone does accept that premise. " Actually, the UN imposes certain obligations on an occupying power, so we were obligated to put down the insurgency by UN mandate. Frank, "There is no substantial number that has been verified by anyone except the proponents of the Iraq war. No one knows how many deaths have occurred because there is a virtual news blackout on what's really going on over there. The Washington Post is known for spin as much as any of the current mainstream newspapers and I challenge the data and offer that those who want to know what's really going on visit Dar Jamail's website." The numbers in question are from the Lancet article, issue 364. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Greg F. Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:28 PM You have always had class, Dougie... Perhaps once, Bobbert, but not for a very long time. He squandered all that capital blindly defending indefensible bullshit like And THAT's insulting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:28 PM Actually, the UN imposes certain obligations on an occupying power, so we were obligated to put down the insurgency by UN mandate. Please show some documentation in support of the claim that that particular campaign was mandated by the UN, and also for the obligations you say the UN imposes on occupying powers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:35 PM Particular campaigns are not mandated- the operation of a civil society ( under martial law) is. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2003/04/responsibilities-of-occupying-powers.htm One cannot hold that the US is the occupying power, with it's commitments, and deny it the ability to put down armed insurrection. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:36 PM http://www.amnesty.org.il/iraq/order.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:41 PM INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING THE SITUATION Article 43 of the Hague Regulations spells out the specific responsibilities of occupying powers under international humanitarian law. These include the duty to restore and maintain public order and safety. Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that "to the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:46 PM What is not spelled out anywhere is America's right to be IN Iraq in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: freda underhill Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:50 PM what is an expert? nowadays, its someone with letters after their name who will justify your cause. Forty-three Australian experts in international law and human rights legislation have issued a declaration that an invasion of Iraq will be an open breach of international law and a crime against humanity, even if it takes place with the authorisation of the UN Security Council. The statement concisely argues that any Australian participation in a war on Iraq—as part of the Bush administration's "coalition of the willing"—will make the government of Prime Minister John Howard and Australian military personnel liable for prosecution in the International Criminal Court. Submitted as an open letter to Australian newspapers and published yesterday by the Sydney Morning Herald, the signatories include Professor Chris Sidoti of the Human Rights Council of Australia; Sir Ronald Wilson, a former High Court judge and the President of the Human Rights Commission; Simon Rice, the president of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights; the directors of several university centres for human rights law; prominent barristers; and lecturers at Australia's most prestigious law schools. The legal experts reject outright the justifications for war being made by the American, British and Australian governments as a violation of the UN Charter, under which there are only two grounds for the use of force in international conflicts. As they explained: "The first, enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, allows force to be used in self-defence. The attack must be actual or imminent. "The second basis is when the UN Security Council authorises the use of force as a collective response to the use or threat of force. However, the Security Council is bound by the terms of the UN Charter and can authorise the use of force only if there is evidence that there is an actual threat to the peace (in this case, by Iraq) and that this threat cannot be averted by any means short of force (such as negotiation and further weapons inspections)." Having outlined the legal basis for war, the declaration concluded: "Members of the 'coalition of the willing', including Australia, have not yet presented any persuasive arguments that an invasion of Iraq can be justified at international law." Moreover, as the authors pointed out, the doctrine of "pre-emptive strike" elaborated by the Bush administration represents a fundamental repudiation of the UN Charter. "This doctrine contradicts the cardinal principle of the modern international legal order and the primary rationale for the founding of the UN after World War II—the prohibition of the unilateral use of force to settle disputes. "The weak and ambiguous evidence presented to the international community by the US Secretary of State Colin Powell to justify a pre-emptive strike underlines the danger of a doctrine of pre-emption. A principle of pre-emption would allow particular national agendas to completely destroy the system of collective security contained in Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and return us to the pre-1945 era, where might equaled right." In fact, although the lawyers chose not to raise the issue, the indictment of the German Nazi leaders at the 1945-1949 Nuremberg War Crimes Trials was precisely for carrying out preemptive military strikes against neighbouring countries. They were tried and convicted of "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances". The letter goes on to note that there is a "further legal dimension" that would form the basis for a war crimes indictment of those responsible for any invasion of Iraq—the likely extent of Iraqi civilian casualties: "Even if the use of force can be justified, international humanitarian law places significant limits on the means and methods of warfare. "The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their 1977 protocols set out some of these limits: for example, the prohibitions on targeting civilian populations and civilian infrastructure and causing extensive destruction of property not justified by military objectives. Intentionally launching an attack knowing that it will cause 'incidental' loss of life or injury to civilians 'which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated' constitutes a war crime at international law." The international media has already carried a number of reports of the "shock and awe" tactics that the US military intends to use to intimidate and terrorise the Iraqi military and population into submission. These include the destruction of power plants, electricity grids, sewerage treatment facilities, water reservoirs, bridges and roads. Washington has specifically warned that it has not ruled out the use of nuclear weapons. The letter concluded: "The military objective of disarming Iraq could not justify widespread harm to the Iraqi population, over half of whom are under the age of 15. The use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive attack would seem to fall squarely within the definition of a war crime... "Estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq suggest that up to quarter of a million people may die as a result of an attack using conventional weapons and many more will suffer homelessness, malnutrition and other serious health and environmental consequences in its aftermath. From what we know of the likely civilian devastation caused by the coalition's war strategies, there are strong arguments that attacking Iraq may involve committing both war crimes and crimes against humanity." The fact that 43 eminent members of Australia's legal establishment felt the need to issue such a public statement is a sign of the breadth of the opposition among many social strata to the Howard government's support for the Bush administration and its planned war on Iraq. The letter confines itself to pointing out that Australian government leaders, officials and military personnel may find themselves in front of the International Criminal Court. But the comments clearly reflect a far broader public outrage at the criminal character of the war that is about to be launched. Despite all the efforts of Canberra and Washington and the media, a majority of the population does not accept the government's claims that war is necessary to eliminate "weapons of mass destruction" and are profoundly disturbed about the consequences of invading Iraq. The largest demonstrations in the country's history took place on February 14-16, appealing to the government to withdraw the 2,000 Australian troops that Howard has deployed to the Persian Gulf without even a vote in parliament. Just as the government dismissed the sentiments of the demonstrations—with Howard referring to them as a "mob"—so too it has rejected the statement by the legal experts. The office of Attorney General Daryl Williams issued a perfunctory statement that no Australian could be sent to the International Criminal Court without its approval, and that the court's jurisdiction did not cover "the legal basis for an armed conflict". But neither Williams, nor any other government minister, has attempted to answer the charge that there is no basis in international law for the planned war on Iraq and that those responsible for launching it will be the authors of war crimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:50 PM My point, beardedbruce, is that some people don't agree with the premise that the US has any right to be in Iraq as an occupying power in the first place. And without that right, there is no mandate from the UN for putting down insurgencies or doing anthing else, for that matter. I know you and I have hashed that one out a time or two, and I know you are not one of the people who see things in that way, but that is how some people look at it. And for those who do, the blood of the families who were killed by US forces in Fallujah is entirely on the hands of the US government. I'll check out the stuff in your links, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: DougR Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:55 PM Thank you BB. That looks like a credible resource to me. Carol C. You? Frank? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: artbrooks Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:00 PM Interesting article, Freda...direct copy from the World Socialist Organization web site, isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:06 PM DougR, please see my 20 Mar 05 - 06:50 PM post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:07 PM http://www.vicpeace.org/stories/05/1134.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: freda underhill Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:09 PM thanks bruce. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:11 PM As interesting as the article is the list of people who signed it. Wow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:12 PM As forces of an occupying power they should urgently take measures to enforce law and order in the areas under their control, specifically by preventing acts of pillage, destruction, and violence to persons I have to agree with that one. Too bad the US forces wouldn't allow the civilians of Fallujah to leave before they started bombing it (they "claimed" that there were no civilians there at the time... obviously the bodies of the dead families tell a different story). Since they did not take this measure to protect the civilian population of Fallujah before they started shelling, the US forces and the US government are in violation of this part of the UN mandate as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:14 PM Welcome, Freda. Shooting the content down because it might have associations with socialism jus' don't cut it for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:22 PM CarolC, That is a point with facts on both sides of the issue, and well worth a thread of its own. I am not saying that you are not right- the US DOES have responsibilities that were not adaquately performed in this case. However, we are now supposed to wait for the "infinately more comapssionate, wise and intellegent..." folks here to tell us what to think, and what facts are permissable to be discussed. We can talk once you have permission from the powers that be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Once Famous Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:31 PM Susu's Hubby, my hat is off to you! I couldn't have started a better post myself. Bobert's idea of class is starting 15-25 threads a week ridiculing the President and ripping this country. His own class is up his ass. Great job, hubby. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: susu Date: 22 Mar 05 - 07:48 PM Brucie, I was surprised that you remembered I was part of a duo; that made me feel good. I think Hubby must have made his point effectively and scared all the liberals off, and onto Boberts thread, oh well! I have found that a similar thing happens when people get convicted in their hearts when Christians speak the truth. I enjoy reading a lot of the posts that many of you place on the cat, and I find this type of thread somewhat refreshing. I am actually very proud to be married to Hubby as things are always interesting. As for those who think the way he is responding to you is abusive, I have never known him to be abusive and I did not see anything about any of his posts to be such. I think that some people should refrain form political debates if they are going to wear their hearts on their sleeves. I don't know, maybe I am just too callous to care, no that isn't it… for if I was insensitive, I would not cry every time I ponder on Sept. 11. It strikes me as sad that so many people not only bashed Hubby, but also EMAILED me about their opinions and how sorry they felt for me as well as a few choice hateful things to me, and about hubby. Do not feel sorry for me, as he is a wonderful husband, and the best dad my kids could have ever asked for (he is their step-dad, but they refer to him as their "real dad" and their biological father as "the sperm donor") He stepped in and saved not only them, but me as well. Ask him, they are HIS children. He wants what is best for their future, and that is why he has the political views that he has. I cannot speak for any of you as to whether or not you cry at the thought of what happened on Sept. 11, but you know what? He does. He does not blindly follow G.W. like many of you think, there are things he disagrees with, but being patriotic he supports his president, even when it was Clinton, and others from our era, he tries to find the positive in each incumbent, can you say the same? Susu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Mar 05 - 07:52 PM Huh? Have I missed another chance here to squander a couple more hours of my life on a political discussion that goes nowhere and changes no one's opinion about anything? :-) How goes it, Doug? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:05 PM Yes, LH. This thread does seem to have been started specifically for the purpose of lableing people and then bashing them over the head with those lables. Not much light... plenty of heat. NO attempts whatever to behave like the true Christians some on the thread have claimed to be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,Guilda Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:20 PM The real Christians are a rare breed Carol......the others Talk the Talk but rarely practice what they Preach... Good to know that the Guy with NO identity other than someone's Hubby is having a night off from being a mouth piece though. Now we know were he gets his cript....yawn |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,Guilda Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:22 PM Script not cript....heehee. Guess I am just as dumb as some....nighty night y'all |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: susu Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:34 PM Well thank you Guilda for enlightening me to the fact that I am not a real Christian, it is wonderful that someone who doesn't even know me can say what is in my heart. I wouldn't even do that about people I know personally, as only God can say if someone is truly a Christian or not. You do not know me so do me a favor and do not judge me, as I do not judge you. Sorry to everyone that this has absolutely nothing to do with this thread but I reserve the right to defend myself, and those I care for. Take Care, Susu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: susu Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:38 PM P.S. And since Guilda is on as a guest I was not able to PM her and do it privately otherwise I would have takn that route first. Susu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:44 PM A real Christian would be someone who followed Jesus' teachings and example, right? Now if we can all just agree on WHAT Jesus' teachings and example actually WERE... :-) I've got my own ideas about it, that's for sure. That makes me, in my own eyes, someone who is at least attempting to be a "real Christian", I suppose, although...I am also attempting to be a real Taoist, a real Buddhist, and so on...(given that there is a common thread of wisdom running through all the great religions). I'm attempting to be a real HUMAN BEING. I don't figure it has ANYTHING to do with churches or with belonging to a church. It has to do with following the example set by the greatest inspired teachers, such as Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, etc. That means: Love the Lord God (or whatever you wish to call It) with all your mind, all your heart, and all your strength. Love your neigbour as you love yourself. Forgive people. Be merciful. Come to the aid of those in need and defend the helpless. Strive for perfection. Do not judge the mote in your brother's eye while ignoring the beam in your own. And so on... How are we all doing? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:52 PM Ahhhhh, as to yer Faith, susu, that is between you an' the Big Guy. If you are of Faith then you know what I mean... I am a Christian. I go to church every Sunday and do what I can for the church. My wife, the infamous P-Vine, has sung in church choirs for the last 30 years... Yeah, I know I have been hard on yer hubby and will continue to do so as long as he preaches thre same ol' fundamentalist stuff that he has been preachin 'round this joint which, IMHO, ain't got not one thing to with the teachings of Jesus... Like I said, MO.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: susu Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:13 AM I respect that Bobert, and I too go to church every Sunday, I sing in the choir and all that stuff and I do know what you meant by "If you are of Faith then you know what I mean..." and so I am not directing this statement at you, but you have to agree, there are alot of people who go to church every Sunday and do "all the right things" for all the wrong reasons. Again I do not think that you are one of them or you wouldn't have said "...then you know what I mean" I want you to continue to state your opinions and not let Hubby get you too riled up. He is just as passionate about his beliefs as you are, and truly wants to understand where other people are coming from, as he just doesn't get it. He is actully a funny guy and I think if you meet him in some other way you would have actually become friends, funny huh? I also want to say that I enjoy reading your posts as well as many others who post on the cat. I just get sad when people start name calling, including Hubby, if he has, I don't think he means anything by it he just gets caught up in it all like you all do. Talk to you later? Susu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: number 6 Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:46 AM LH .... I'm doing fine thank you. :) Good post up above .... I'm with ya on that ! no more to be said from me in this thread. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:57 AM Bless you, susu. I'm sure that if I met nubby that I would enjoy being in his company... I've been told I'm a purdy funny guy, too... No, not funny, but funny... And a big 10-4 on the folks who go to church every Sunday who don't get it... Yeah, one's relationship with the Big Guy and His Son ain't a one day a week thing... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:21 AM "I'm sure that if I met nubby that I would enjoy being in his company..." Nubby???....Susu, what have you been telling these people? Hubby ;-) |
