[Bashing America] The Great Right vs Left Debate

[INVAR]

This debate actually began on another thread here: http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1018804
and I've decided to start a new thread for the sole purpose of continuing and furthering that debate.

Many news items are becomming fraught with the arguments of the kook Left and the rabid Right in this country - mainly stemming from the Bash America movement that injects every subject with any political overtones with it's venom.

So I decided to have at with this debate and to free-up the threads that were taken off-course with this argument.

This is the thread to have that argument.

Bashing America - The Great Right versus Left debate.

****

Invar, .....Bush - Campaign Finance Reform (backed by the Supreme Court) Tally - First Amendment Gone.

You forgot to add the parts about the removal of the Commandments Monument (Separation of C&S Myth) upheld by the SC, the restrictions on peacable assembly and regulations on redressing grievances.

Bush the Elder and the late 1980's weapons statutes (Brady Bill?)
Clinton - Assault Rifle Ban

Been going on since 1934 and ensconced in illegal precedent by the 1939 unlawful SC ruling that all gun laws are built upon.


Now, turning to 9/11.

If you truly believe that a bunch of "fundamentalist" muslims who hang out in titty bars drinking alcohol and eating pork could take a fly-by-night (pun intended) training course, fly a few hours and hit the WTC's, then you might as well crawl under your bed and fear the tooth fairy.

You don't understand Radical Islam, OR our enemies' thinking. Islamic law more than allows for a Muslim to lie, rape, murder and deceive unbelievers in order to "defend" Islam.

Your insane need to delve into the rabid kook conspiratorialism that both the Islamic Press and the rabid left in this country engage in only solidifies my opinion that you're nothing but a wacked-out kook.

It is an undeniable truth of life that the simplest observations and explanation is usually the truth. Looking for the Government boogie-man in something as horrific as 9-11 serves only those that wish to muddy the waters to push a kook agenda that casts doubts on that which all Americans witnessed with their own eyes.

We have at-length and ad-nauseum on this forum discussed and debated the conspiracies of 9-11. We had structural engineers provide data, our resident hounds dug up reports and documentation and we have wholesale come to the conclusion with all that evidence that 9-11 happened exactly as we saw it happen. No bombs in the WTC, no remote piloted aircraft, no nefarious Bush plan for becomming dictator etc., etc., etc.

I don't buy the kook insanity you are pushing - so please peddle it elsewhere.

So, if you want to defend your beloved President Bush, it is well within your right.

I didn't realize I needed your permission.

You may know kung fu, etc. But I know logic.

Then it's fatally flawed by insane conspiratorial paranoia. You have obviously come to a preconceived conclusion that requires you to craft these insanities into the bizarre loops of pretzledom in order to give your "conspiracy conclusions" legitimacy.

You give the government waaaay too much credit when it has time and again proven it is nothing but an inept behemoth that is slow to react due to bureaucracy and partisan agendas and only good at sucking our money from our wallets and misusing it.

It wasn't a bunch of camel jockeys masterminding this from a cave in Afghanistan. And if you truly believe it was, you are afraid of your own shadow.

Satan would like nothing better than for us to believe he doesn't exist either. Al Qaeda and the Mujahadeen beat back and destroyed the Soviet invasion - our enemies have historically proven they are more than capable of masterminding something as simple as commandeering civillian airliners and turning them into fuel-air bombs.

Both parties are using this politically, and yes, the communists as well. You need to think for yourself and not trust Fox News.

I get my news from the net thank you very much.

I have reluctantly come to the view that the election was unconsitutional.

You are proving yourself a loon with every sentence you post.

...... the constitutional principle is that it should be resolved in the House of Representives and not the Supreme Court.

Tell that to the Democrats who WENT TO THE COURTS TO GET THEIR WAY.

we have now set up the Judicial Branch with more power than could possibly be imagined.

THAT has been going on with oncreasing regularity since Brown Versus Board of Education and Roe V Wade. The Left in this nation cannot get their agendas passed via legislation - so they use the Courts to do it for them and bog the entire system down in endless litigation by a priesthood of lawyers and Judges..

The 2000 elections HAVE NOTHING to do with the Judicial Activism abolishing the Constitution incrementally. The SC had to issue the decision on the FL debacle because the Democrats had litigated it in the courts.

The "American Way". What might that be? Might makes right?

In our case - yes. We have real enemies in a real world that has a 6000 year history of evil and opression on the majority of mankind. We are an abberration of that 6000 year history. If we wish to continue, then force is all the world understands.

But to say that it was "right" to kill Indians, take their land, and stick them on reservations is a bit of stretch, isn't it?

God allows things for His Purpose. Take the issue up with Him - for He Himself ordered His People to utterly annihilate the Caananites and posess their lands in Ancient Israel. Had God decided manifest destiny was not of His desire for us as a nation - we would have come to nothing as a nation by at least the end of the Civil War.

But blessed we were, and the most powerful nation in all history have we become - none of that without the blessing of God, all our woes and evils included.

Our economic way will shortly be leaving you with questions about the purpose of the Federal Reserve Board. And a 30-40 % tax rate, which is what serfs paid, sounds about the norm these days. Again, the American Way?

Not the intent of our Founders. BTW, your numbers are off. To keep government services including SOSEC and medicare at their current levels with no increase of benefits, will require a tax rate of 82% across the board in 10 years - and them is CBO numbers toots.

Yes, we had Henry Ford and the engine of democracy. Have you asked yourself why? Ever researched a few big non-profit organizations like Carnegie?

Ahhh yes, I was wondering when you were gonna get to reveal your marxist motivations.

Capitalism works. It is our system, not perfect - but the system that has brought the world's standard of living to all-time historic highs. I have no time to go hunting for the nefarious world domination plots you people dig up at every turn.

Wilson and Roosevelt run on peace platforms. The result - US involvement in WWI and WWII. More American Way?

No, more of the "Turn a blind eye and ignore evil way". We got into both wars, and our current one because America DIDN'T adress the problems brewing overseas until the problems ended up visiting our doors and we cold no longer ignore them.

What did Korea and Vietnam get us? We both know the U.S. could have won them. Why didn't we? Because it was the American Way?

No, because we let the UN dictate our policies for appearances sake.

However, I am open minded enough about history to not resort to name calling.

A commie-lib pinko Socialist is nothing but a commie-lib pinko Socialist. I call things what they are - based on what they are.

Ask yourself why you think we are always right.

Our generosity, service, sacrifice, and leadership is unlike anything ever recorded in the entirety of human history. We have defeated tyranny and evil with the blood of our own sons, aided freind and foe alike in times of natural disaster and famine, and through our own blood, sweat and tears - have lifted this sick world's standards as they desire to emulate us and share in the wealth and prosperity that we have been blessed with by God, and that we have built on our national character and good will.

That is why America is right.

Sometimes we are not - national self-interest or because of other factors?

Human nature is human nature. This is the way of the world, and we are not immune from it. However, there is no better place on earth than right here in the good ol' US of A. Perhaps France is more to your liking for a home?

Self-examination is very important.

No one is saying it isn't. But I note how quickly and how often you people blame America First for everything - and play apologists for the rest of the world's evil in order to paint Amreica as the great Satan.

David ("The pinko scumsucking crypto fascistic Communist with a Libertarian twist ...)

At least you're honest about who you are.

 

[lynnie]

Invar, you might enjoy finding the last few issues of American Spectator at the library and reading Ben Steins diary, where GWB is concerned.

Right versus left? As in modern science where a stalk of corn with two bunches of tassels and no ears of grain is a normal stalk of corn? Oops, I don't mean corn, I mean men sticking their private parts up rear ends and calling it normal marriage.


Then there are babies getting born, full term, and the left thinks it is just dandy to slit the neck and suck out the brains.

I myself have plenty of gripes with Bush. He's faltered on Taiwan and the debt spending is worse than robbery...robbers steal from adults but we are stealing from our kids. But there are still differences. Ask the 40 million dead babies the left has murdered.

 

[INVAR]

Lynnie, I framed the debate as RIGHT versus LEFT, not Republicans versus Democrats precisely because many of the Conservative Right's values and ideas are not shared by or championed by the GOP, nor are all Commie-Lib Pinko Socialists Democrats - some of them are "Independants", "Naderites" and "moderates".

Political expediency is a poison to the GOP and the Right within it are finding they are not very welcome by the majority of those willing to capitulate or compromise staunch Constitutional and Conservative values to the Left, the Appeasement crowd and the morally bankrupt.

But one group and ideology will get us killed and buried quicker than the GOP will - and I'm all for buying some more time.

We have to still be around as a nation if we want to even have a chance to fix the problems that plague us and turn the nation's people back to our Foundations.

But even at this time - there is a clear distinction between what it means to be a Democrat (Pro Abortion, Gay marriage, Anti-God, Anti-Gun, Class Envy, Socialism) and the Republicans (1960's-style Democrats and a few hard right wing nutballs like myself.)

 

[housemouse]

I honestly do not know what to make of the left in this country. It seems they really do not understand that Al Qaeda is as much a threat to them as it is to the rest of the civilized world.

I can only think they have become delusional since 9/11. The sobering fact that a handful of middle eastern men could so easily take over airplanes and snuff out the lives of over 3,000 people must have been too much for them to process mentally.

There is a word in psychiatry that may be close to what I think has happened to the left. It is "Cognitive Dissonance", which is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you*already know or believe, and new information or interpretation.

If learning something new has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are not likely to admit that the content of what has been learned is not valuable. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".

I think many on the left are having major problems with the new sets of information coming from the attacks on the US, and are not able to resolve the conflict appropriately, and adjust their thinking, and their political views to accomodate the new reality.

Therefore, they need to deny it, find alternative explanations, such as wild conspiracies that no sensible person could accept, and when these are legitimately questioned, the defenses they need to protect their "status quo" become even more bizarre.

Haven't you noticed how often any effort to discuss the pros and cons of various issues between the right and the left quickly break down into ad-hominem attacks, which is name-calling. Either that or the other two poor debating strategies, such as the "slippery slope" and "false dilemma" methods of trying to argue their case.

The major problem I have with the ideas of the left is that there is no thought given to the long-term consequences, how it will work over the decades, over the generations. I suppose it is because so many on the left are concerned with individual "wants", and try to legislate or judiciate to this end, without thinking about the consequences of the means they use.

I might "want" no one in this country to be poor, homeless, picked on, or looked down upon, just as I might want no-one to have an unwanted pregnancy, a child with serious birth defects, an abusive marriage, an accident, or medical mistake befall them.

To think that I could legislate these undesirable situations or events away by stroke of the pen, law of the land, or court judgement is ultimately destructive to society as a whole, however. And, those on the left just do not understand the damage they are doing to the country. They really do think there is some kind of solution that can be found to "fix" any social ill they find unpleasant, difficult, or uncomfortable.

What they do not realize is that you can never "fix" just one thing without messing up something else. In "fixing" poverty with welfare, several generations have been doomed to fatherless families, and stuck in drug-infested ghetto-hells. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a democrat Senator from NYC, who was raised in "Hell's Kitchen", NYC, recognized the damage the left was doing to black families with the welfare programs, but he was ignored, because people really thought if you just gave unwed and abandoned mothers money, that would "fix" the problem.

It didn't, but because of "cognitive dissonance" the left cannot recognize it, and continues to look for scapegoat reasons that will leave their erroneous thinking in place and without need of re-examination.

 

[buttie]

The greatest false dichotomy

Limiting the choices to left and right

 

[Kimber]

Invar,

A rational debate seems out of place on this thread. I'll just stick to a few of your points for now:

1. It was OK to kill the Indians because God said it was? Do you really believe this?

2. Have you even read Das Kapital? You should at least know what a true Marxist is before you call people a Marxist. If you'd study Marx and Engel, you'd see that they viewed Communism as an evolution from modern industrial society. I'm not a big fan of modern industrial society, but I don't want to "evolve", I want to go back. If anything, call me a quasi-anarchist. (In truth, I'm sort of a Jeffersonian libertarian, but then he was a revolutionary too - must have been a pinko Marxist.) The parenthetical between my name was sarcastic and internally inconsistent - Perhaps you missed this point.

3. So, you've researched large non-profit foundations like Carnegie, and have come to the conclusion that they are a good thing? Either you missed my point completely, or you think I'm a Marxist because I dislike their one world government point of view. I see that I must now type very clearly so you get my points.

4. IMHO - Islam properly understood is a cult no different that National Socialism. The concept of jihad started on day one. Still, I don't believe that some guy in a cave masterminded the 9/11 operation. Too many questions remain. I'm not saying our government did it, but certain elements within the government may have assisted. I'm cautious by nature anytime someone tries to take away my liberties. After all, the Germans believed Communists caused the Reichstag fire. I suppose if was suspicious of that fire in the 1930s, you would have labelled me a loon or a pinko. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said something like, "If you give up your liberty for security, you will have neither."

Finally, I think the terms right and left wing are meaningless. As you appear to define these terms, both want to take away your liberties - you're just arguing over which rights are better to lose.

David

 

[zavi]

Political Christianity

A different perspective that seems to apply somewhat:

http://www.endtimesnetwork.com/oldnews/PolChrs.html

 

[housemouse]

zavi, that is a veryonteresting article~! I am about halfway through it, and came back to thank you for posting it. There is a lot to think about to be found there.

 

[buff]

after reading that tripe...my boys can certainly scratch off george mason as a college choice...

 

[lifestuff]

You seek to put me in this ( left ) catagory but I decline your intent.

Anyone that QUOTES DARTH VADER as there mentor ( Well Nuff Said SADLY )
INVAR this is not TV or Movies, its real life stuff wake up or shut up !
Oh no my young Jedi, you will find it is YOU who are mistaken...about a great, many things". - Emperor Palpatine

"I find your lack of faith...disturbing". - Darth Vader

"Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly." - Benjamin Franklin


Housemouse wrote
I honestly do not know what to make of the left in this country. It seems they really do not understand that Al Qaeda is as much a threat to them as it is to the rest of the civilized world.
Now here is an honest statement ( DO NOT KNOW )
------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't Jack with the stuff baby..lol

 

[Flagwaver]

With all due respect for Zavi, a fine Christian on this board and one whom I respect highly, I stand to differ somewhat with the commentary quoted. It is true that in any group there will be those with an agenda. But overwhelmingly the problem Christians have before them today is to restore the disintegrating culture of what America once was. This, I contend, is the primary reason most Christians (and others sharing similar values) speak out today. They grieve seeing how degraded society has become in just the last 40 years and they want their children to inherit "America" - not a socialist state.

I offer two websites showing this to be the case.

http://www.towardtradition.org

http://www.newtotalitarians.com/FrankfurtSchool.html

And more and more I am becoming convinced that it is hatred of Christianity itself which stands at the root of much the Leftists embrace. Sadly, they are true Hatriots.

 

[housemouse]

Having finished reading the article, and then going to the main page of the site, while I found the article interesting, I did not agree with the concluding prediction.

I cannot agree that Christians will behave in this way, and consider the site alarmist.

Others may have a different opinion, of course.

 

[lynnie]

Do you think most people care?

I mean, Christians feel very strongly about moral issues and abortion and vote right accordingly. And some very concerned greenies, or angry rebels, or save the world socialists, care and vote for the left.

But I don't think most people really have ideals or values anymore, they just want more money, less taxes, health care, etc. I honestly think it isn't about ideals anymore, just money.

If Bush going into Iraq had caused us to find a gold mine there and every citizen got a 10,000 bonus, most people would be pro war.

I only say this having known two incredibly rich persons in my life, and what I saw over the years was that money seemed to win out over principle and value every time with their "friends", church, and associates. Everybody grovels at the feet of the rich- or hates the rich. If Bush and Cheney were really poor, they'd be more popular. Money is a source of great deception and blindness.

Even the far right often harps endlessly about money and cares more about illegal taxes than greater evils ( sex slavery, abortion). And the left is all about handouts seems like.

 

[jed turtle]

good points lynnie. "the love of money is the root of all evil".



just how does one transform our nation's love affair for wealth to a love for God?

suggestions:

personal example (avoid conspicious consumption and high-priced lifestyles and houses and clothes and cars)

equating those whose main mission is the pursuit of wealth with those whose main mission is obscenity.

wealth, in and of itself, is merely a large amount of energy, and in effect, a tool to do things with. but like a hammer, it can be a tool for good and evil.

there are any number of wealthy individuals whose main mission is helping others. for them, wealth is not an obstacle to loving God and others. however, the temptation to use wealth to serve one's own desires is all too often intoxicating. "it is easier for a camel to pass throught the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven".

this pursuit of wealth for its own sake equally affects both those on the left and right and is not the message of the thread.

 

[INVAR]

1. It was OK to kill the Indians because God said it was? Do you really believe this?

Not what I said. God allowed for it to happen, our nation has become the most prosperous and powerful nation in all history since then.

I love how you America-hating liberal Marxists keep going back to the 'Indian' wars to make the argument or insinuation that our American existence is unlawful and illegitimate because of our treatment of some of the native population. You could make the same claim about the Brits due to the unlawful conquest of the natives by William the Conqueror.

Wars happen. Lands are conquered. To the victor goes the spoils.

Welcome to the real world. All the self-loathing and America-hating isn't going to make any difference. America has more than made-up for our shortcomings by the service, sacrifice and aid we have shared with the world.


You should at least know what a true Marxist is before you call people a Marxist.

Save your book definitions. If what you post is Marxist, Communist or Socialist in appearance and substance - regardless of the semantics - I'm gonna call it for what it is.

I'm not a big fan of modern industrial society, but I don't want to "evolve", I want to go back.

So you're an Eco-nazi Uni-bomber-type as well, or are you Amish?

If anything, call me a quasi-anarchist.

I might call you much worse depending on what you post.

3. So, you've researched large non-profit foundations like Carnegie, and have come to the conclusion that they are a good thing?

Non-sequitor - I have my own views of them.

Either you missed my point completely, or you think I'm a Marxist because I dislike their one world government point of view.

I think you're a Marxist (or at least parrot their ideological points as your own) based on what you write. The Indian thing is a familliar clue.

I see that I must now type very clearly so you get my points.

You can transcribe it in the King's English for all I care - I don't agree with your points.

4. IMHO - Islam properly understood is a cult no different that National Socialism.

They don't need understanding. If they pose a threat - we annihilate them.

Still, I don't believe that some guy in a cave masterminded the 9/11 operation.

Your opinion. It's wrong, but your opinion. There's enough historical evidence and declarations to more than validate Bin Laden's masterminding of 9-11 with whatever other Islamic minds contributed to the effort. As an open society, uniquely fragile and completely oblivious to terror and war on our soil - anyone with a pipe bomb and a cause could have wreaked havoc.

The idea to hijack an airliner and plow it into American buildings is not some kind of black-bag ops idea. The technique itself was penned in a fictional novel by Tom Clancy nearly a decade before 9-11.

With a technologically-dependant culture like ours, using base methods of barbarism and simple tools to thwart hi-tech securityand bureaucratic morons was as easy as pie.

....certain elements within the government may have assisted.

Yeah, it's called INDIEFFERENCE to the threat assesments given during the 1990's and our lack of any retalliation on Al Qaeda since 1993.

I'm cautious by nature anytime someone tries to take away my liberties.

They have been disappearing under your nose by Judicial Activism and politcal pandering for 40 years plus.

I suppose if was suspicious of that fire in the 1930s, you would have labelled me a loon or a pinko.

Apples and oranges. Not even in the same univers of comparison. There wasn't any eyewitnesses to who started the Reichstag fire. We had millions of eyes watch civillian airliners plow into buildings, piloted by suicide maniacs FOUR YEARS after two formal declarations of Jihad were declared by Bin laden and after the Khobar Towers attack, the African Embassy bombings and the U.S.S. Cole attack. Not only did we have declared warnings of such attacks - but we have a HISTORY of previous attacks by these jihadists.

Your supposition is as always - idiotic.

I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said something like, "If you give up your liberty for security, you will have neither."

Yes he did. As the Founders wrote and understood - human nature is more willing to suffer the shackles of slavery and opression than risk throwing off the yoke of tyranny.

Finally, I think the terms right and left wing are meaningless.

Only to someone trying to masquerade their identity or show themselves to be some kind of Elitist that exists over such "simple" definitions.

Right and Left are more than apprapo to describe the main political ideologies in America's culture war and beyond.

As you appear to define these terms, both want to take away your liberties

One is more instant than another. One party has already shown me that my religious rights, my speech, my guns, my money are inconsequential and totally arbitrary at the hand of the government. The other party has yet to actually TAKE any of my rights away outside of a few minor instances that have yet to alarm me the way Judicial Activists and the Leftist politicos have already.

you're just arguing over which rights are better to lose.

Really? Please cite for us where I've actually enumerated ANY rights or liberties which I have stated is good or okay to lose.

You can't - because you're a liar - like all Leftists I run across.

 

[Cabal]

I'd just like to add 1 thing to Invar's post...

throughout our wars as a modern nation... the only land we ever "took", more literally, asked for, was used to bury our dead...

We've never been conquers... Germany is a free nation, Italy is a free nation, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama... all free...
Yes we do maintain troops in some of these nations, but it is by no means an occupation force...

 

[Kimber]

Invar,

I see that any attempt at rational discourse will not be productive. I surrender the ground to you and will go about my merry way. At present, off to the new reading room to embark on a labor of love. (Shameless plug for the new media forum. ) Maybe I'll add a recommended reading list of books just for you. Like the Federalist Papers. You have no concept of Liberty. And has anyone mentioned you have a lot of pent-up hostility and intolerance?


David

 

[calliope]

Invar, on the Indian thing. You said "God allowed for it to happen" and "To the victor goes the spoils". Are you saying that whoever the victor is in any conflict is the victor because that's the way god wanted it? Like God didn't allow us to win in Vietnam or we would have?

 

[Capt Teach]

Without trying to put words into INVAR's mouth, I believe he meant, certain things must come to pass for God's will to be done. We could never have come to this position in time, if this country did not come into being as it is. We didn't win in Vietnam, and look how it has been made into political hay. Iraq is a "quagmire", Kerry is a Vietnam war hero, Bush didn't serve, etc. None of these things could be said, or happen, if Vietnam did not end as it did.

In my own life, I frequently say, "Thy will be done". I mean it's not like I have an option. I have also learned to not be disappointed from losses or setbacks, as they usually cause me to deviate in my plan, (but not my values) and things turn out much better in hindsight.

Back on topic, left vs. right. Perhaps we need one of those adjustments now. If Kerry (the left) wins, it will cause us to change our tactics. There will also be consequences to a win by the left, that will eventually make us stronger, or go the way of the Indians. I would prefer to buy more time, but...thy will be done.

INVAR, I apologize for sticking my nose in. Correct me, if I miss represented your points.

Capt Teach

 

[bigwavedave]

Invar, on the Indian thing. You said "God allowed for it to happen" and "To the victor goes the spoils". Are you saying that whoever the victor is in any conflict is the victor because that's the way god wanted it? Like God didn't allow us to win in Vietnam or we would have?

he-heh. if god is the source of our dominance, we need not do anything. god will take care of it. we can sit back and quaff brewskis.

welcome to more of the same christian delusions, calliope.

i'll bet when some day we are destroyed, it will also be god's will. we'll kneel quietly mumbling, "why god? why have you forsaken us?"

and god will say . . .

 

[freebyrd]

I surrender the ground to you and will go about my merry way.

oh lord...thats like feeding invars ego a t bone steak with all the fixin's, they'll be no living with him now

freebyrd

 

[Kimber]

Freebyrd,

A quick parting shot then. When asked to debate anyone who can't or won't grasp sarcasm, won't read or argue the complete thoughts from their opponent not taken out of context, or who cannot grasp the fact that Jeffersonian libertarians are not Marxists, there is no choice. Ever try to argue with a mule? You just let them come around on their own accord. Hopefully, he will one day.

David

In the meantime, "Via Con Dios" Invar. Yes, Slim Whitman Spanish. But then, you "knew" that I want open borders too, right?

[Edited for typos.]

 

[Jesse]

Invar:

"But even at this time - there is a clear distinction between what it means to be a Democrat (Pro Abortion, Gay marriage, Anti-God, Anti-Gun, Class Envy, Socialism) and the Republicans (1960's-style Democrats and a few hard right wing nutballs like myself.)"

Y'know Invar, I am anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, Pro GOD, Pro Gun (for hunting purposes only), against making class distinctions, and I am not a socialist.

However, I am anti-government in as far as the Bush administration goes, and I don't imagine Kerry would be any better. I am also anti-war as well.

Things aren't quite as neatly packaged as you seem to think, and I must confess I believe you to be in error in a number of your assumptions about 9/11 and other matters. Even if you are not in error though, I am still anti-war, and any administration that endorses it. - Dee.

 

[INVAR]

Invar,

I see that any attempt at rational discourse will not be productive.

How do you define "productive"???

By "productive" I'm assuming by your smug elitism that I should agree with your "points" to demonstrate myself "rational" in your estimations??

You can get bent if that's the case. I'm not interesteted in being "educated" by the likes of you. I prove all things for myself - and the talking points and positions you espouse are things I've disproven or completely disagree with. Period.

I surrender the ground to you and will go about my merry way.

One down...thousands to go. Perhaps you might convince your ideological pals to do the same?

Maybe I'll add a recommended reading list of books just for you.

Don't waste your time, I have no interest in whatever Oprah book Club list you have.

Like the Federalist Papers.

Already have the set both on parchment and electronic formats.

You have no concept of Liberty.

If you think the freedom to bash America at every turn and ascribe slanderous intent upon our leaders for political purposes is something you should be allowed to do with impugnity and without any rebuttal or harsh retalliation - I submit sir IT IS YOU who have NO CONCEPT WHATSOEVER of what true liberty is.

No one has suggested you be silenced. No one here has suggested you should not post. But NO ONE has to listen to, agree with or allow your America-hating kooked-out Leftist tripe to be stated without our freedom to cut your crap down to size.

Liberty does not mean we must subjugate ourselves to YOUR ideological mindset, as if that is somehow some mark of 'enlightenment'- which comes across with all of your posts.

I know how you people disguise yourselves behind clever rhetoric and reasonable-sounding dialogue - but your true motives are poison to this nation, and they come across clear as a bell with the kind of kook Conspiratorialism the rabid Left is promulagating on the net and in the media.

Plus, as I've said earlier in this thread - you're a liar, ascribing to me things I've never said nor implied.

As such, your character sucks- and is not one to be trusted based on what you say.

And has anyone mentioned you have a lot of pent-up hostility and intolerance?

Ask anyone on this board that has been with TB2K since 1998 - and you will find that is what I'm known for. I don't suffer bullshit, I cut crap down to size and I am completely intolerant to things I consider evil or dangerous to my liberty, our culture and the lives of my countrymen.

 

[INVAR]

Invar, on the Indian thing. You said "God allowed for it to happen" and "To the victor goes the spoils". Are you saying that whoever the victor is in any conflict is the victor because that's the way god wanted it? Like God didn't allow us to win in Vietnam or we would have?

Good question. I think Capt. Teach spoke to that issue very well.

We are told to judge the fruits of both men and nations. Overall, the fact America is the most prosperous, wealthy and generous nation in all human history is a testament that the stepping stones; both good and bad - worked-out for the greater Purpose God intended for this nation and people.

But as always with God's People - we have decided to go our own way - and fight conflicts and make alliances God and our Founders would not have approved. None of this detracts from the greater good and blessings we Americans have contributed to the world. No nation in history ever rebuilt their defeated enemies with their own money and put them onto the path of peace and prosperity like we have. There are moves made in the global game of geopolitics that are a benefit in the short-term, and moves made that might cost us in the short-term, but are calculated into the long-term goal of winning.

As I've said before - I thing the intentions of the vietnam conflict were in our best interests. It became a problem because we ceded our own authority to the UN and fought the war based on political interests, and not upon destroying the enemy. In-turn, the war itself became a politcal weapon and we withdrew - to our shame.

The difference between Vietnam and now in matters of the war we are fighting - is that the Vietnamese did not pose a threat to our very survival - nor did they vow that they would do everything they could to utterly destroy the American homeland. Vietnam was a check move to the Soviet expansion of Communism. The war on Jihadist Islam is for our very survival as a global power and nation.

The Hate-America crowd refuses to see that - and like Vietnam, wishes to utilize the war as a political weapon to destroy our resolve to prosecute the war and extermnate the threat. If they are successful, America WILL BE destroyed in short order - because our enemies already see that appeasement as weakness to exploit.

BWD makes some interesting observations:

if god is the source of our dominance, we need not do anything. god will take care of it. we can sit back and quaff brewskis.

Scripturally ignorant. God uses human instruments to execute His Will. We can sit back all we like and resort to wishful thinking or wishful prayer - and we will have the same result of coming to nothing. Parable of the talents comes to mind.

welcome to more of the same christian delusions, calliope.

Well, there is alot of Christian Traditions that have been read into the faith that contradict scripture. They're not delusions, just misguided traditions.

i'll bet when some day we are destroyed, it will also be god's will.

And Dave hits one out of the park!!

Yes. Dave, you are correct. Scripture tells us that God sets up and brings down nations for His Will to be accomplished.

we'll kneel quietly mumbling, "why god? why have you forsaken us?"

and god will say . . .

{paraphrasing here folks}

"Because you have forsaken My Commandments and replaced them with your own traditions which are contrary to My Word. You have remade Me into your own perverted image and combined the worship of Me with the traditions of men. Therefore I have spit you out of My Mouth and have handed you over to your enemies who are the Rod of My correction. Therefore I will laugh at you in the day of your calamity and not hear your prayers - because you did not seek Me when I could be found and have instead turned to your own ways and traditions."

I think that is what God will say, or something close to it based on what scripture says.


oh lord...thats like feeding invars ego a t bone steak with all the fixin's, they'll be no living with him now

Like there was any living with me before???

Y'know Invar, I am anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, Pro GOD, Pro Gun (for hunting purposes only), against making class distinctions, and I am not a socialist.

Well Dee, aside from your limitations of the Second Amendment you apply to yourself and your aversion to making class disctinctions - we hold similar views.

However, I am anti-government in as far as the Bush administration goes, and I don't imagine Kerry would be any better.

So you're only anti-Government when it comes to Bush?? That's a partisan identifier as far as I'm concerned.

I am anti-government (in terms of intrustions and usuraptions) no matter WHO is in office. Government is a fearsome beast that MUST be caged and limited. However, the reality we live in is that for almost 80 years, the American mindset has devolved into a nanny-state of Americans believeing the government is there to take care of them and restrict the freedoms of those they do not trust freedom with.

I support Bush in the WOT. He is doing what the CINC SHOULD be doing. I do not support his domestic appeasement policies with the exception of the tax cuts - which should be permanent and larger.

I am also anti-war as well.

This is where we firmly part ways.

We were attacked, and have been getting attacked by Jihadist Islam since 1993.

Sorry Dee, but we tried things your way under the Clinton Administration. Everything was deferred to the UN, we did not retailliate after WTC I, Khobar Towers, Africa and the Cole bombing. We attempted to handle it as a "law enforcement" problem.

The result was 9-11.

Now if America adopts your anti-war mindset in the wake of 9-11, even after Jihadist Islam has VOWED our utter destruction by their hands - then we will have signed our own death warrants and have capitulated to the enemy.

Things aren't quite as neatly packaged as you seem to think,

Please provide incontravertible proof to the contrary.

and I must confess I believe you to be in error in a number of your assumptions about 9/11 and other matters.

You are certainly free to think that, but of course - I disagree.

Even if you are not in error though, I am still anti-war, and any administration that endorses it. - Dee.

Then you bare our necks to Jihadist steak knives, fuel-air civillian airliner cruise missiles, nukes, bios and whatever other treats the Jihad warriors will use.

We either kill them on their streets, or they will kill us on ours.

It's actually that simple - because the jihadist mindset is to kill us on ours - and unless we want to become a fortress and an official police-state, we need to annihilate them where they live.

I'm sorry you cannot see or understand tha there are evil people that you cannot reason with that seek our death and destruction by any means necessary.

 

[bigwavedave]

we'll kneel quietly mumbling, "why god? why have you forsaken us?"

and god will say . . .

{paraphrasing here folks}

"Because you have forsaken My Commandments and replaced them with your own traditions which are contrary to My Word. You have remade Me into your own perverted image and combined the worship of Me with the traditions of men. Therefore I have spit you out of My Mouth and have handed you over to your enemies who are the Rod of My correction. Therefore I will laugh at you in the day of your calamity and not hear your prayers - because you did not seek Me when I could be found and have instead turned to your own ways and traditions."

I think that is what God will say, or something close to it based on what scripture says.

so what happened prior to the formulation of a christian god? great nations rose and fell, just as they have in more recent history, the last 2000 years. belief in one god, or no god, or gods HAS NOTHING to do with the fortunes or misfortunes of a nation. brute force DOES work without the need to resort to invoking some higher power. calling on a higher power to explain our actions is nothing but the search for moral justification for bad behavior. it is worse than dishonesty towards others - it is dishonesty to one's self.

but i know you can't help it. it is engrained.

 

[INVAR]

so what happened prior to the formulation of a christian god?

I don't want this thread to get sidetracked into another Atheism vs Christian bash-fest.

But to answer your question - there is no such thing as a "Christian God" as some kind of separate entity from the God revealed in scripture.

If some Christians would abandon their traditions and look at the Gospel of John 1:1-3, they will discover there is only God the Father and the Word who made all things and for whom all things were made.

Scripture is clear that God raises up and fells nations.

belief in one god, or no god, or gods HAS NOTHING to do with the fortunes or misfortunes of a nation.

I can understand your unbelief - I don't expect you to see otherwise.

brute force DOES work without the need to resort to invoking some higher power.

Nazi Germany certainly proves that point. They were however defeated, by brute force - brought by a nation of God's People used to destroy what would have become an extinction for the descendants of Israel (Benjamin, Judah & Levi).

The history of man's hand has been one of stark and brutal terror and opression, while our very short history has been one largely of the exact opposite.

calling on a higher power to explain our actions is nothing but the search for moral justification for bad behavior.

Was it wrong for us to go to war against nazi Germany and Japan?

Some things are self-evident, but to those that think themselves wise in their own estimations, are in reality fools.

it is worse than dishonesty towards others - it is dishonesty to one's self.

Well if mankind can decide for himself what morality is - then morality should be nothing more than the strong rule the weak, and one can do whatever he pleases if he is physically able to.

but i know you can't help it. it is engrained.

No, it's studied and learned....at least in my case.

 

[Kimber]

Invar,

OK, I won't try to educate you. I would, however, love a full explanation of your political beliefs. I will post mine a bit later on this thread - assuming you don't ask me not to do so. I have nothing to hide. And as for whether you are correct or not, I don't really care. But I believe that some of your views need to be countered so any reader may form an intelligent opinion for themselves. We seem to differ on so many fundamental concepts, I thought I would share mine. Perhaps you would be so kind as to share yours.

And, before I do so, I would request the courtesy of not cutting selected portions from my posts and responding piecemeal. The philosophical point of view running through them is entirely consistent. Grabbing a "sound bite" out of context and responding with another one of your own does not strike me as the most productive way to handle a debate. This is the way politicians and the media currently handle discourse, and I'm sure we can both agree it is not the best approach to inform people of one's position.

So, if I have the time later today and after you have first had time to respond to this post, I will post an attempt at restating some of your positions (as best I can tell) and then providing a point of view that differs. Because you may accuse me of doing the same thing, I've just asked you not to do, I would ask you to clearly state out your positions on the following issues in advance. These will be the subjects of my post. I don't want to mistate your position, and I'm providing a sneak preview of where I'll be coming from. Consider the topic of my post "American - Right or Wrong?"

We might actually agree on some of these points. If so, that's great, and I can then point out why I differ in other areas. Here are some of the bigger points I will address. Feel free to share your views in advance:

1. Politically, in your view, which side should have won the War Between the States and why? (Me - the South because of the Constitution, original state intent, and the principal of smaller government, not because of slavery - the U.S. government was wrong.)

2. If this had been the 1950s, would you have been a Democrat or a Republican, and why? Is segregation a factor in your conclusion? (Me - I wouldn't be either. If forced to choose, I'd probably be a Scoop Jackson Democrat because of the USSR.)

3. Was the US wrong to bomb Kosovo, and why? (Me - the U.S. government was again wrong. We had no national security interest there, and even picked the wrong side strategically by siding with radical Islam.)

4. Vietnam - Was it right to become involved in the first place? (Me - No, because the Gulf of Tonkin incident was bogus and there was no formal declaration of war by Congress).

Please, I would respectfully ask you respond with your views, as I don't want to try to put words in your mouth. And saying I "hate America" or "want U.S. troops" to die is just plain wrong. I don't hate America or want U.S. troops to die. If you want to revert to name calling and accuse me of not telling the truth on these two points, that's within your right. However, if you do this again, you will be giving up a golden opportunity to convince me you are correct and my views are wrong. I don't know you, and would never intentionally call you something you are not. In fact, I tend to think I would not like you personally. I could be mistaken here, however, also.

So, if you would be so kind as to respond with your positions on the above four items, I can tell you mine in further detail. We can then see where we disagree and why. Is that too much to ask? You wanted a debate and, I'm assuming, not a name-calling festival. I will accept your opinions as ones held honestly in good faith if you will show me the same courtesy.

Shall we begin the debate again? And, technically speaking, I would call this "The Great Ivar vs. David Debate." As you have not yet clearly defined what you mean by left or right, and I personally do not believe I am either.

Also, I don't mean to try to hog the thread, but you did open this thread up with a broadside against one of my posts on another thread. It is only natural for me to respond and defend my positions.

I welcome anyone else's views on the above subjects, as I'm sure Invar would as well, but you'll forgive me if my posts are mainly directed back at Invar. As for Invar's other positions on this thread not directed to me, you guys are on your own.

P.S. If others want to attack me as well, that's fine. May I suggest starting another political forum thread, however, and cross linking it from this one? Otherwise, the thread thrift would be too much for me. And, I generally don't discuss politics in this forum, so I might not otherwise notice your post.

David

 

[INVAR]

First of all David, this is a DISCUSSION FORUM. The manner in which I reply to posts is no different than if we were having a conversation and I wanted to take you to task for a specific point or argument you make.

Now,

I would, however, love a full explanation of your political beliefs.

What I have posted on this board since 1998 is more than evident of what my political beliefs are. Nothing is posted in secret, nothing I've ever said was done to obfuscate my true motivations. What I believe and what I stand for is very clear to most - I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. Even my long-time ardent opponents can tell you I am consistent.

If I had to classify my politics - they most closely match those of a Constitutionalist.

I have nothing to hide.

You definitely misrepresented.

And as for whether you are correct or not, I don't really care.

Likewise.

But I believe that some of your views need to be countered so any reader may form an intelligent opinion for themselves.

I simply think some of your views need to be slammed and rendered irrelevant by pointing out what they truly are.

It's called debate.

We seem to differ on so many fundamental concepts, I thought I would share mine. Perhaps you would be so kind as to share yours.

Ask a specific, I'll give you an answer, no bullshit - no beating around the shrubbery - just a flat answer.

....I would request the courtesy of not cutting selected portions from my posts and responding piecemeal.

Like I said above, this is a discussion forum, not a college poli-sci class complete with thesis papers and constant manifestos being touted. I've done my share of rants and soapbox peddling here. I have no need to give a sermon on my entire political belief system, it would bore most folks to death.

The philosophical point of view running through them is entirely consistent.

We shall see.

Grabbing a "sound bite" out of context and responding with another one of your own does not strike me as the most productive way to handle a debate.

BULLSHIT. Nice try at the lie again. If you would read a little more carefully you would find that THEY ARE NOT OUT-OF-CONTEXT SOUNDBITES, BUT YOUR OWN DAMN WORDS! They are copied and pasted exactly as you typed and posted them. If you are worried about them being taken out of context - you impugn the intelligence of the rest of the members of the board who have only to scroll up to read your entire post, in-context the way you posted it.

As to whether or not this manner of discussion is 'productive' in terms of having a debate, I find it is extremely productive to adress each and every point someone makes that requires a rebuttal - and post that point as written before I give my take on it.

This is the way politicians and the media currently handle discourse, and I'm sure we can both agree it is not the best approach to inform people of one's position.

Wrong. Both the media and politicians DO NOT counter point-by-point statements and positions, nor do they point out the inconsistencies made by a candidate or a party if said party shares an ideology the media wishes to promote. The alternative media and talkradio is the only exception to that reality.

Politicians today drivel on and on with making grand speeches detailing their position-of-the-moment (which is what you seem to be suggesting we do here) and all it does is bog down a discussion and baffle the listener with so much bullshit as to weary any criticisms or counterpoints one would want to make in a ranting diatribe paragraphs or pages long.

I will post an attempt at restating some of your positions (as best I can tell) and then providing a point of view that differs.

Must you continually illustrate yourself as having the same modus operendi as the Elite Leftists??

How about instead of attempting to "restate" my positions in your own framework, you instead state your own positions or simply ask a point-blank question for a specific answer instead of trying to analyze my P.O.V. through Elitist Glasses?

Because you may accuse me of doing the same thing, I've just asked you not to do, I would ask you to clearly state out your positions on the following issues in advance.

When exactly did I decide to go back to college? I don't remember signing up, or standing in line to buy used books?

I don't want to mistate your position

You have already on several occasions.

Consider the topic of my post "American - Right or Wrong?"

The topic of this thread is entitled "BASHING AMERICA, The Great Right vs Left debate."

"America Right or Wrong" is not the topic of this thread - unless you are now intending to steer the discussion in that direction (making it a moral issue instead of simply political).

I understand many of you folks consider your politics a religion.

I suppose that can be allowed - though arguing politics and religion is often avoided by most.

1. Politically, in your view, which side should have won the War Between the States and why? (Me - the South because of the Constitution, original state intent, and the principal of smaller government, not because of slavery - the U.S. government was wrong.)

Gee Professor, when exactly did I sign up for your class again? is this just a quiz or will it be on the mid-term??

I side with the South. States Rights was the just cause for the war. Slavery wasn't even an issue until Lincoln needed a political boost for his war, it was the issue of Federalism over Republicanism. Please tell me I don't need to include footnotes and the bibliography.

2. If this had been the 1950s, would you have been a Democrat or a Republican, and why?

I'd be what I am today - though I would have sided more often with the Democrats back then, especially in countering the growing Soviet menace.

Is segregation a factor in your conclusion?

No. Though I will note that most Democrats (including Gore's father) were opposed to the Civil Rights issue that finally exploded to a head in the 60's.

3. Was the US wrong to bomb Kosovo, and why?

Not only wrong, but criminal. We violated NATO's own Charter, and bastardized a DEFENSIVE PACT for aggessive interference in a civil war of a sovereign nation. The excuse of "stopping ethnic cleansing" was as bogus as Lincoln's use of slavery to engender support for our own civil war.

What hypocrisy I love to note is that Clinton had the unwavering support of the entire Democrat and Liberal Left, who now are as rabid dogs in opposition to the same efforts being used to depose Sadaam, who was a hundred times worse and more dangerous to our security than Milosevich could ever dream of being.

It was at the EU's and the UN's behest and an all-to-willing Administration looking to thwart scandal headlines that fostered the Kosovo Campaign.

Can I get some extra credit for the added observation before the final grade?

4. Vietnam - Was it right to become involved in the first place?

I have no opinion in terms of how history eventually played it out as 'right or wrong'. I agree with the idea of countering the Soviet expansion. I agree with the idea of sending troops and materiel, I agree with seeing national policy being followed-through. I DO NOT agree with ceding military planning to the UN or politicians, nor do I agree with refusing to prosecute the war to ultimate victory once we were involved.

...saying I "hate America" or "want U.S. troops" to die is just plain wrong.

If you parrot the Bush-hating talking points of the Communistic Left, then I am going to make a blanket assumption you agree with that ideology - which WILL jeopardize our troops and put all of us at horrible risk, as it demeans our resolve to prosecute that war until our enemies are either extinct or have sued for peace on our terms.

With the polarization that has taken place over the last decade - it has become increasingly difficult if not impossible to identify those folks simply misguided, misinformed or of multiple opinions versus those that are staunch in thier ideology.

I will be clear however that certain ideas, positions and views are either wrong, dangerous and/or a threat to our survival as a republic and a nation and I will call those ideas as I see them.

However, if you do this again, you will be giving up a golden opportunity to convince me you are correct and my views are wrong.

It's not up to me to convince you that your views are wrong. Only you can do that. All I'm doing is voicing my thoughts and opinions and calling things as I see them, nothing more. We are told to prove all things. A well-researched and cogently passionate opinion is of more value and respect than one simply made out of talking-point ignorance and shallow opinion.

I don't know you, and would never intentionally call you something you are not.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth (or fingers) speak. Since all we have here are digital words and ideas, our impressions of one another are based on that fora. I judge and base folks on the fruits. In the meat world, it's on their actions and character - in cyberspace it's on the things they post.

In fact, I tend to think I would not like you personally.

Probably not. I don't pretend to be something I'm not - I don't play two-face very well and I'm not governed by what others think of me. I go my own way, do my own thing and believe my own beliefs without compromise. Most folks nowadays don't like people with firm beliefs and opinions. They think it is more righteous to have an 'open mind' and 'tolerant' of any and all ideas contrary to one's own. I don't play that game - and it is not a popular thing to refuse to play.

You wanted a debate and, I'm assuming, not a name-calling festival.

You can call me anything you like....just don't call me Shirley.

I will accept your opinions as ones held honestly in good faith if you will show me the same courtesy.

I think I just did.

Shall we begin the debate again? And, technically speaking, I would call this "The Great Ivar vs. David Debate." As you have not yet clearly defined what you mean by left or right, and I personally do not believe I am either.

No. America-bashing is in-fact a trademark of the Left in the debate over what America is supposed to be and do. The debate that began on the thread I linked to at the start of this one, and on many other threads of recent - was not between just you and I, but between myself and others on the Right and those clearly on the Bash-America/Left end of the political spectrum.

It is only natural for me to respond and defend my positions.

Defend away. I do likewise.

I generally don't discuss politics in this forum, so I might not otherwise notice your post.

You generally don't discuss politics in a "All Things Political" SIG forum???

I'm at a loss....truly. Then again, I'm pretty sure I didn't sign on for college classes. Maybe I took a wrong turn at Albequerque.

 

[Kimber]

INVAR,

I'm not going to take your bait. It smells too bad. So, does this mean you don't want to discuss or debate the subject of your own thread?

David Darland

(And thank you for deleting my surname earlier - I appreciate the thought, but TPTB already know. Heck, I did throw it on the information page - see edits below. It's in my nature, sorry.)

[Edited to add:] And it probably grates you to no end to discover we believe many of the same things. Can't you settle down a tiny bit? If not, this might set you off: (1) my wife's grandfather was an NKVD/KGU instructor of Soviet history under Stalin and lived a happy full life, surviving the purges; (2) I was in the Office of General Counsel of the CIA for a brief time, surviving an extended background check and being given crypto-clearances. This was before Aldrich Aames; (3) I voted for Reagan, Bush, Perot, Perot and then Bush, Jr. I'm done with them now; (4) Both parents have recently undergone similar background checks recently, and passed; (5) my wife's recently deceased father was a nuclear physicist for the Soviet Union. After the breakup, he was paid by a U.S. slush fund so he wouldn't travel or provide his services to anyone else. He died of alcoholism two years ago. I have nothing to hide. Fire away big boy. Truth is the ultimate disinfectant.

 

[Kimber]

Debate Warning

Before reading an Invar post, I urge you to first go back and read any thread he responds to, in its entirety. His selective sound bites, to my knowledge, do no prior post by anyone justice.

INVARiably, you run into people who dislike having words put in your mouth through editing. I'm no different.

David

 

[Kimber]

Chumming

Invar,

Still no reponse? I got bored and checked. Thought I throw this into the mix to add excitement:

From one of your posts above:

"But to answer your question - there is no such thing as a "Christian God" as some kind of separate entity from the God revealed in scripture."

"If some Christians would abandon their traditions and look at the Gospel of John 1:1-3, they will discover there is only God the Father and the Word who made all things and for whom all things were made."​

So, "there is only God the Father . . ."? Have you forgotten Jesus? You have revealed your true self. You are either a Freemason or a Morman. Which one is it? I've been honest. Why can't you be the same?

David

P.S. Nah, I'm just funnin' with you. This is what you do, I thought I'd try the same.

 

['plain o joe']

I'd just like to add 1 thing to Invar's post...

.

I'd like to add one thing to cabal's post to add to Invar's post....


We never won a war we didn't declare first.

and Irag isn't won yet...

 

[INVAR]

Well Pro, now that I know who you are (you couldn't resist INVARiably could you?) I think we can dispense with the pleasantries and false pretenses of sincerity on your part and deal directly with the words you wrote.

I'm not going to take your bait.

WHO was it again who ASKED the for answers to your questions?

It smells too bad.

You might stop dishing out deceptive bullshit then, and breathe the fresh air of truth.

So, does this mean you don't want to discuss or debate the subject of your own thread?

Not according to YOUR rules.

If you had bothered to read, you would have discovered your questions were answered and therefore debate was engaged.

(And thank you for deleting my surname earlier - I appreciate the thought, but TPTB already know.

What the hell are you talking about? You're like a woman wanting her mind and intents read followed by some menstrual paranoia.

And it probably grates you to no end to discover we believe many of the same things.

No, it baffles me that someone who can state they "believe many of the same things" I do, could give their minds over to the rabid kind kook Leftist Conspiratorialism that you've bantered about on several threads.

Can't you settle down a tiny bit?

First you want me to play by your rules on my thread, then you want me to adjust my tone?

You aint the wife..so don't ask. Deal with what I write - not how you want me to respond to what you write.

(1) my wife's grandfather was an NKVD/KGU instructor of Soviet history....I was in the Office of General Counsel of the CIA......I voted for Reagan, Bush, Perot, Perot and then Bush, Jr....Both parents have recently undergone similar background checks......my wife's recently deceased father was a nuclear physicist .....I have nothing to hide. Fire away big boy. Truth is the ultimate disinfectant.

Then you might wish to use it more often. Frankly, I can care less what your background, family history, who you say you voted for and what genetics you claim grant you genious status - I'm addressing what you WRITE in context of the issue of America Bashing. Taking note of your family history however - it comes as no surprise you have been tainted Red in your rhetoric - at least when it comes to the Kook Leftist Conspiracy stuff you've alluded to in regards to 9-11 and Bush's motives.

Before reading an Invar post, I urge you to first go back and read any thread he responds to, in its entirety.

Yes, I urge them to do the same. Look, I been around here for awhile, I stand on my rep - and what I post. The long-time vets of this board know what to expect from me, so your "advice" is more than a little ridiculous.

His selective sound bites, to my knowledge, do no prior post by anyone justice.

AGAIN, as I stated before - I copy and paste YOUR OWN DAMN WORDS before I reply, so everyone knows what I'm responding to. They are not "selective", they are the specific statements YOU MADE that I am addressing. If you are worried about your own words in context, all the reader has to do is scroll to your reply and READ it.

For someone that says they wish for the folks on this board to read your arguments so they can 'form an intelligent opinion for themselves', you certainly don't trust their intelligence to decide whether or not I'm taking any of your statements 'out of context'. NONE of your statements are out of context in the manner in which you posted them and I responded. Your original words are there for anyone to cross-reference.

The truth is that my replies to your actual words make you look like a fool - and you cannot deal with that. So not only do you make false statements about things I've never said or implied - you cry like a baby that I'm taking your actual words "out of context" because I am showing them for how silly they are.

INVARiably, you run into people who dislike having words put in your mouth through editing. I'm no different.

Where have I "edited" (outside of abbreviating) ANYTHING YOU'VE POSTED that can be proven that I am "putting words in your mouth"??? PLEASE - demonstrate for everyone here where I have deliberately "edited" your own words so that I can deliberately "take them out of context".

Go ahead, I'm waiting.

You made statements like the following: " If you truly believe that a bunch of "fundamentalist" muslims who hang out in titty bars drinking alcohol and eating pork could take a fly-by-night (pun intended) training course, fly a few hours and hit the WTC's, then you might as well crawl under your bed and fear the tooth fairy."

Those are YOUR OWN WORDS dude. They match almost verbatim the talking points the Democrat Underground and the kook Conspiratorial Left make to foster the notion that Bush flew the planes into the towers via remote control or via some kind of black bag ops. That kind of wacked-out nonsense is often found at GLP and their trolls have been kind enough to try and dump it here for aggrivation's sake. BASED ON THOSE UN-EDITED WORDS OF YOURS - I made the charges I did against them and you. You did not refute them with any other statment of facts or give reason for me to believe otherwise.

You can make all kinds of claims, state all kinds of "facts" about yourself - but the truth is - this is cyberspace - we don't have a flying Fangoolie who the hell you are, or whether what you say about yourself is bullshit or truth. So I go by what you write, and if it smells like Leftist bullshit - it probably is.

Which is why we have this debate.




P.S. Nah, I'm just funnin' with you. This is what you do, I thought I'd try the same.

You failed miserably.

 

[Kimber]

Do you really think I take the time to read your rants anymore? If so, you give far too much credit to yourself.

You can't even respect a polite "don't cut and paste" request. Why don't you crawl back under the rock from which you came?

Has anyone called you a functional illiterate before?

David

P.S. Civility is something that should be earned.

 

[Kimber]

Invar,

Lets chat a bit about Jesus,

(1) Jesus is our Lord, and part of the holy trinity? I.E., Jesus is God! (my choice )

(2) Jesus is someone who is the Son/son of God? And we can all aspire to be like him.

(3) Jesus is a prophet;

(4) Other.

Yes, Yeshua. But all this language is in English anyway. It's the thought and belief that counts. Take your pick!

While you're at it: (A) Are you freemason, and what degree?; and (B) Are you a Morman?

David

[Edited to add:] Thank you, truly, for reaffirming my faith. I know now that false witnesses are everywhere. And I think I'm strong enough to battle with them!

 

[INVAR]

Do you really think I take the time to read your rants anymore? If so, you give far too much credit to yourself.

So again you prove yourself a liar and make my point about you.

You asked questions.

I responded.

Then you admit you don't read my "rants".

Therefore it has become obvious to everyone, you are only here to spam the board with your Leftist trolling nonsense with impugnity - just as I suspected. You have nothing to contribute except talking points and bullshit history to make yourself out to be some kind of intellectual powerhouse - which I assure you , you are not.

You can't even respect a polite "don't cut and paste" request.

Like I said before - you don't make the rules here as to how I choose to debate. You can refute my arguments point by point as I do yours, or you can cry like the baby you are and make all kinds of noise that you Lefty Pinko Anarchists are known for.

I'll just keep tearing the shit out of you.

Why don't you crawl back under the rock from which you came?

Well, since TB2K IS my rock as far as cyberspace goes - I'll suggest you go and crawl back to GLP where you belong.

Has anyone called you a functional illiterate before?

That and much worse. Coming from someone like you - I take it as a profound compliment.

Civility is something that should be earned.

And you sir have DEFINITELY not earned it from me based on your last two replies.

Lets chat a bit about Jesus,

Based on your own admission above that you don't read any of my "rants", I would just assume discuss Jesus with Flint than with you. You sir would be what Jesus admonished us NOT to throw our pearls before.

You clearly are not interested in either debate or the truth. You are here to spam and put yourself on a platform to hear yourself spout all your talking points and frame yourself as some great intellectual benefactor.

You're a buffoon, a clown. A Lefty nincompoop disguising himself as a "Jeffersonian Constitutionalist" so as to hide your true politics like all good liberals do. Nothing more.

What you state about yourself is so easily debunkable based on your past history of what you write and post, and the subsequent replies you make.

So keep it up. I got your number.

 

[Kimber]

That's twice.

Care to deny Jesus a third time?

David

Edited to Add:

"if you negotiate the minefield in the drive
and beat the dogs and cheat the cold electronic eyes
and if you make it past the shotgun in the hall
dial the combination. open the priesthole
and if i'm in i'll tell you what's behind the wall"

Pink Floyd - The Final Cut.

 

[INVAR]

Nice bait attempt, I'm not biting.

I know your motives, and rather than have pearls trampled by the likes of you I will refrain from answering you on that issue.

You are NOT interested in discussion, or debate as the post whereof I answered your questions was ignored and completely disregarded, so you have already established the proof and record that you are not here for discussion and debate - but for trolling and ridicule with your compadres of likemind.

I will not be suckered by you into answering questions of faith now that the questions you asked regarding politics was met with the responses you provided.

But I will cut your crap down to size when I see it.

I promise you.

 

[Jesse]

Evening Invar...

While I know that you have always had the best of intentions, it seems that at this juncture you have bought into the lies of the Beast system. (Forgive me for speaking to you in this manner, but I must.) Wars today have nothing whatsoever to do with honorable principles and freedom, but rather with greed, power, and acquisition.

9/11 was designed and orchestrated to get people (globally) to think and behave as you do. By whom and for what reason doesn't matter. Unfortunately it has worked rather well.

It has been used as a catalyst to empower hatred in this world, and that is never of GOD. It has been used to turn people one against the other, each believing things of the other that are only true of a few radicals leading the masses, who would happily live in peace if given the chance again.

The War ON Terror is not appropriately nor honestly named. It is a war that BREEDS and FEEDS fear and terrorizes people on ALL sides, and in that it really isn't very different from the wars of the 20th century. It is more realistically a war created FOR the purpose of TERRORIZING people everywhere. This war can never be won. In this war everybody loses excepting those who profit from it financially and who are jockeying for positions of power.

We are talking about a handful of people; zealots and world leaders (and those who support them) who have used lies and deceit to manipulate the masses and whip them into the frenzy necessary to give rise to fear and hatred, which always leads to the wars which line the pockets of only a few. They lie, and people die. If the masses could not be persuaded so easily, both zealots and world leaders would soon lose the power to wage unnecessary wars.

You like Yoda. Think about it. These are things from "the darkside" Invar, and "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."

I am not only against the Bush administration, but against all human governments when they depart from the Laws of GOD. I don't know of any earthly government presently adhering to those Laws, therefor I patiently wait and actively pray for HIS Kingdom Rule, and that it come soon.

No doubt YHVH will use this war to further His Purpose as he uses ALL things, bad and good, to that end. (Romans 8:28) This in no way implies that He either approves of or endorses the insanity in which most of the world is presently engaged. (Romans 8:5-8)

If you will search your Bible a little more closely, you will see that we (who profess to be followers of Christ) were never called to do battle in the flesh, but rather to engage in spiritual warfare *always.* (Ephesians 6:10-13)

The only weapons we are authorized to use are "The Sword of the Spirit," which is the Word, and the Truth. Courage is also necessary, and I submit to you that it takes far more courage to love your enemy, than to kill him.

Remember Invar, it is "Love (that) conquers all," not revenge, and not naked aggression.

Love in Christ - Dee.