Political Crossfire Forums

[Sucker Punch]

Heinz wrote:
That doesn't mean you need the party to make your stance legitimate.

Never said I did. You did.

Quote: Quote: Where did I say that I required their support or needed someone to lean my shoulder on (whatever the hell that means)?

Quote: No, I’m saying that I have to defend, for example, the civil liberties stance that I take (which by de facto is aligned with the democrat party)

Why does it matter if they support it to? You don't need them.....

I never said I needed them. That is you manufacturing some point to argue. You know what happens when you keep doing that right? You end up arguing with yourself. I never said I needed a political party to substantiate my views.

Quote: You are a hack so I have no clue why you have discontent for them. Do you secretly hate yourself? You think just because you have views that are similar to the DNC that you need to be in the DNC or you're at least a democrat.


Well… lets see. When I registered to vote – it said to choose a party. Hmmm… now I know this is a tough critical thought but lets see. Republican? Nah, don’t agree with them. Democrat? Well, I agree with most of their ideals – lets go with the left.

The democrat party does not substantiate my views. I said it again because I’m pretty sure you’ll try and inject that into the discussion again.

Quote: The GOP believes in government and I Don't, so.......

So move somewhere where there isn’t a government? Oh wait, I hear Iraq is nice this time of year.

Quote: You're forcing yourself to participate in party politics because you feel that that is the only way you can get any real representation.

As opposed to what? An anarcho-capitalist? :lol: When was the last time you saw one of them in congress or the white house fighting for your beliefs? Oh wait, that contradicts your belief – to actually have representation in a government you hate. Well, with that being said (and the utter silliness of an anarchist arguing politics on a debate forum) – I will leave you to seek out you own anti-political party and be represented in an anti-government.


Quote: Which is what I do; Why did it take you this long to figure this out.....


Yes except you exclusively withhold any political alignment that enables you to complain about everything with little to no culpability. I think we’ve been through this.


Quote: Not really, because most government systems are so corrupt and not well kept that I'd be better off taking care of myself, which I do anyways. They are more useful than welfare, but if they were gone, I wouldn't cry over it.

You, supposedly being a vet, wouldn’t cry if VA went away? And I love how you try and quantify the value of helping vets over the value of helping poverty stricken children.

Quote: If we had no government tomorrow.......party at my house. Just because I put up with some doesn't mean I full-heartedly support them.

I don’t think you have truly ever pondered the consequences of what would happen if our govt just disappeared. Party at your house? :rofl:

Quote: You love the democratic party and you feel that you need a party to make your views legitimate. You love parties in general. You love the idea of being in a group of your peers. Sure, you may dislike the GOP, but you like the overall idea of parties.


I never said that. Ever. You keep using that as an argument point – but I never said it. Ever.

As far as liking being in a group of my peers – you are right there. I like it. Its called team work. I don’t see how you can possibly work anywhere and not see the benefit of that in a professional setting. By carrying on with this solo rogue mentality – I can only assume that you have never worked for any successful business or corporation.

Quote: Emo isn't my style of music....to soft. Still sticking with the name calling I see.

Heinz wrote: Tool

Hypocrite.

Quote: It must really bug the s**t out of you that people exist in our country who hate parties and government. You can go back to yoru little make believe world now.

The only reason it bugs me is because it is completely illogical. If you hate cold weather – you move south. If you dislike modern religion – you don’t go to church. If you hate government – you stay in a country that has always been a democratic government? Do you even vote? If you do – you are voting for someone who will serve an entity you hate. The fact that you say you represent a ideal (and anarcho-capitalist) is contradictory to say the least. Yeah, we get it. You hate government but like big business.

Quote: I also like the vast assumption that I liked to physically harm myself....is that really all you have left? What a sad life you must lead.

It was to make fun of your “I hate everything”. Yeah look at me – I hate government – they all suck- I’ll come to a political discussion board and b**** about it all day though- yeah.

[Heinz]

Quote: Never said I did. You did.

Yes you did.

Quote: No, I’m saying that I have to defend, for example, the civil liberties stance that I take (which by de facto is aligned with the democrat party)

You believe that since you have similar views that you for some reason must protect the party and be a member. You also feel that since you hold these views, you have to associate with them in the first place.

Quote: I never said I needed them. That is you manufacturing some point to argue. You know what happens when you keep doing that right? You end up arguing with yourself. I never said I needed a political party to substantiate my views.

Quote: Yes except you exclusively withhold any political alignment that enables you to complain about everything with little to no culpability. I think we’ve been through this.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Foot in mouth. You're saying that if I don't have a party I don't have a voice in government.

Read your own quote.

Quote: Republican? Nah, don’t agree with them. Democrat? Well, I agree with most of their ideals – lets go with the left.

You just made my point.....

My ideals cover a wide variety of views, so I fit nowhere. Is this so hard to contemplate?

Quote: As far as liking being in a group of my peers – you are right there. I like it. Its called team work. I don’t see how you can possibly work anywhere and not see the benefit of that in a professional setting. By carrying on with this solo rogue mentality – I can only assume that you have never worked for any successful business or corporation.

The typical party mentality....And yes, I have worked for and ran businesses. Why do you think I am a capitalist? For fun? Kudos points?

Quote: It was to make fun of your “I hate everything”. Yeah look at me – I hate government – they all suck- I’ll come to a political discussion board and b**** about it all day though- yeah.

Regardless of hwo you try and spin it, I think that calling someone a suicide is against forum rules.

[Heinz]

Quote: And I love how you try and quantify the value of helping vets over the value of helping poverty stricken children.

Vets give something to society; A person who volunteers to fight for hhis/her country risking life and limb. What do your starving children give me besides less money on my paycheck?

[Sucker Punch]

[quote="Heinz]

Yes you did. [/quote]

Where? Link me please.

Quote: You believe that since you have similar views that you for some reason must protect the party and be a member. You also feel that since you hold these views, you have to associate with them in the first place.

I’ll be the first person to call Kerry a douche bag when he deserves it. If Bush would have captured Bin Laden – I would have been the first one to think in my head “Good Job”.

Quote: Quote: I never said I needed them. That is you manufacturing some point to argue. You know what happens when you keep doing that right? You end up arguing with yourself. I never said I needed a political party to substantiate my views.

Quote: Yes except you exclusively withhold any political alignment that enables you to complain about everything with little to no culpability. I think we’ve been through this.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Foot in mouth. You're saying that if I don't have a party I don't have a voice in government.

Read your own quote.


WTF are you talking about? The first quote is basically trying to explain to you that I never said I needed a party to substantiate my views (which I didn’t). The second quote is about you not aligning yourself with a party so that you can b**** about everything. Man, your reading comprehension s*cks.

And really – you hate the government, you despise it, you dislike everything about it – but you still vote for people to run it and come to an internet forum to argue about it. If you are truly an anarchist – you wont want to vote. In fact, voting actually negates the anarcho- portion of your ideals.

Quote: Republican? Nah, don’t agree with them. Democrat? Well, I agree with most of their ideals – lets go with the left.

You just made my point.....

My ideals cover a wide variety of views, so I fit nowhere. Is this so hard to contemplate?

And my ideals don’t exactly fit anywhere either – but I chose the closest fit.

Quote: The typical party mentality....And yes, I have worked for and ran businesses. Why do you think I am a capitalist? For fun? Kudos points?

If you are business oriented, how do you not understand the team work mentality? And since you used the word “ran” instead of “run” I’m assuming your ignorance of teamwork lead to your demise. Just a guess though.

Quote: Regardless of hwo you try and spin it, I think that calling someone a suicide is against forum rules.

Calling someone a cutter is not the same as calling someone suicidal. You fail.

[Heinz]

Quote: Calling someone a cutter is not the same as calling someone suicidal. You fail.

I'm not the one you have to convince.

Can we get back on topic now? I didn't realize that I was a hot political topic worthy of your debate.

[Zadoc]

jamesp wrote: jamesp wrote:
any ticket with Edwards is a doomed campaign.


Zadoc writes:
That's a rather baseless statement; do you have any ability to back it up?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ability or opinion ?


A VP who didn't make it in a previous campaign will add nothing to a ticket.

He didn't even deliver NC for Kerry..

thats not an opinion ....

A VP is supposed to deliver there own State , if they can't do that then they are a waste if time.

Like they said in NC at the time

'We don't care where he goes as long as he leaves here"....

Wow. So far you've dazzled me with your lack of capitalization and punctuation.

"there own state"

ROTFL LMAO, I love it! HA!

Because what you're saying is so mixed up and jumbled, are you attempting to say that because Kerry didn't win North Carolina that Edwards is a bad national candidate?

If so, that's still pretty baseless. Can you formulate a theory as to why what you are trying to say is true?

[blockhead]

Zadoc wrote: jamesp wrote: jamesp wrote:
any ticket with Edwards is a doomed campaign.


Zadoc writes:
That's a rather baseless statement; do you have any ability to back it up?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ability or opinion ?


A VP who didn't make it in a previous campaign will add nothing to a ticket.

He didn't even deliver NC for Kerry..

thats not an opinion ....

A VP is supposed to deliver there own State , if they can't do that then they are a waste if time.

Like they said in NC at the time

'We don't care where he goes as long as he leaves here"....

Wow. So far you've dazzled me with your lack of capitalization and punctuation.

"there own state"

ROTFL LMAO, I love it! HA!

Because what you're saying is so mixed up and jumbled, are you attempting to say that because Kerry didn't win North Carolina that Edwards is a bad national candidate?

If so, that's still pretty baseless. Can you formulate a theory as to why what you are trying to say is true?

Gore didn't carry Tennessee and yet had more votes than Bush in 2000.

[Lumina]

callous wrote: blockhead wrote: Seriously, I think Wesley Clark is the next Eisenhower.

What do you think? Tell me what's wrong with this ticket. I would use my vacation to help campaign for this ticket.

Edwards is an opportunist and extremely shady lawyer. I wouldn't trust him farther than I could pee.

Clark is an insider, no one knows what his priorities are other than his talking points.....

I wouldn't vote for either of them.

Double-ditto, Callous.

Actually, I don't have any inside-knowledge, but I do know that Edwards is a P.I. attorney. 'Nuff said. Know 'em and have worked with 'em. NEVER.

[eynon]

blockhead wrote: Seriously, I think Wesley Clark is the next Eisenhower.

What do you think? Tell me what's wrong with this ticket. I would use my vacation to help campaign for this ticket.

Edwards was on the daily-show tonight..........I was thinking the exact thing you were thinking.........2 Dems with a good tax policy? wow! :-D

[_Kev_]

Lumina wrote: callous wrote: blockhead wrote: Seriously, I think Wesley Clark is the next Eisenhower.

What do you think? Tell me what's wrong with this ticket. I would use my vacation to help campaign for this ticket.

Edwards is an opportunist and extremely shady lawyer. I wouldn't trust him farther than I could pee.

Clark is an insider, no one knows what his priorities are other than his talking points.....

I wouldn't vote for either of them.

Double-ditto, Callous.

Actually, I don't have any inside-knowledge, but I do know that Edwards is a P.I. attorney. 'Nuff said. Know 'em and have worked with 'em. NEVER.

Edwards case history:

http://news.findlaw.com/newsmakers/john.edwards.html

Edwards's record is classic example of the challenges in the plaintiff-oriented legislative trend in this country. I don't think that anyone here would disagree that THIS girl deserves compensation and THIS defendant deserved punishment:

Quote: 5-year-old girl was disemboweled, but survived, after being caught and suctioned by wading pool's defective drain. Despite 12 prior suits with similar claims, manufacturer continued to make and sell drain covers lacking warnings.

But some of the others aren't so clear:

Quote: Suit against trucking company by estate of man killed by company driver, arguing that company acted recklessly in paying drivers by the mile, thereby encouraging unsafe conduct.

Tort law is necessary. But abused. I'm not however willing to lump all personal injury/med malpractice attorneys together. Though the former Senator from North Carolina is skirting the line at best...

[eynon]

KRiche2 wrote: Lumina wrote: callous wrote: blockhead wrote: Seriously, I think Wesley Clark is the next Eisenhower.

What do you think? Tell me what's wrong with this ticket. I would use my vacation to help campaign for this ticket.

Edwards is an opportunist and extremely shady lawyer. I wouldn't trust him farther than I could pee.

Clark is an insider, no one knows what his priorities are other than his talking points.....

I wouldn't vote for either of them.

Double-ditto, Callous.

Actually, I don't have any inside-knowledge, but I do know that Edwards is a P.I. attorney. 'Nuff said. Know 'em and have worked with 'em. NEVER.

Edwards case history:

http://news.findlaw.com/newsmakers/john.edwards.html

Edwards's record is classic example of the challenges in the plaintiff-oriented legislative trend in this country. I don't think that anyone here would disagree that THIS girl deserves compensation and THIS defendant deserved punishment:

Quote: 5-year-old girl was disemboweled, but survived, after being caught and suctioned by wading pool's defective drain. Despite 12 prior suits with similar claims, manufacturer continued to make and sell drain covers lacking warnings.

But some of the others aren't so clear:

Quote: Suit against trucking company by estate of man killed by company driver, arguing that company acted recklessly in paying drivers by the mile, thereby encouraging unsafe conduct.

Tort law is necessary. But abused. I'm not however willing to lump all personal injury/med malpractice attorneys together. Though the former Senator from North Carolina is skirting the line at best...

:) nice post.........he's like a character from a Grisham novel, isn't he?

[tmoore]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Clinton - Clark.

Both have excellent and proven records at home and abroad. Even though Clinton has gotten more Centerist in her old age for my liking, I think it will resonate with the American public. Clark is just a plain solid American, without the nuttiness of McCain.


Wesley Clark record is not so excellent

On June 12, 1999, in the immediate aftermath of NATO's air war against Yugoslavia, a small contingent of Russian troops dashed to occupy the Pristina airfield in Kosovo. Clark was so anxious to stop the Russians that he ordered an airborne assault to confront these units--an order which could have unleashed the most frightening showdown with Moscow since the end of the Cold War. Hyperbole? You can decide. But British General Michael Jackson, the three-star general and commander of K-FOR, the international force organized and commanded by NATO to enforce an agreement in Kosovo, told Clark: "Sir, I'm not starting world war three for you," when refusing to accept his order to prevent Russian forces from taking over the airport. (Jackson was rightly worried that any precipitous NATO action could risk a confrontation with a nuclear- armed Russia and upset the NATO-led peacekeeping plan just getting underway with the withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo.)



After being rebuffed by Jackson, Clark, according to various media reports at the time, then ordered Admiral James Ellis, the American in charge of NATO's southern command, to use Apache helicopters to occupy the airfield. Ellis didn't comply--replying that British General Jackson would oppose such a move. Had Clark's orders been followed, the subsequent NATO- negotiated compromise with the Russians--a positive element in the roller- coaster relationship between Moscow and Washington, which eventually incorporated Russian troops into peacekeeping operations--might well have been undermined.



In the end, Russian reinforcements were stopped when Washington persuaded Hungary, a new NATO member, to refuse to allow Russian aircraft to fly over its territory. Meanwhile, Jackson was appealing to senior British authorities, who persuaded Clinton Administration officials--some of whom had previously favored occupying the airport--to drop support for Clark's hotheaded plan. As a result, when Clark appealed to Washington, he was rebuffed at the highest levels. His virtually unprecedented showdown with a subordinate subsequently prompted hearings by the Armed Forces Services Committee, which raised sharp questions about NATO's chain of command.



As a Guardian article said at the time, "The episode triggers reminscences of the Korean War. Then, General Douglas MacArthur, commander of the UN force, wanted to invade, even nuke, China, until he was brought to heel by President Truman." Of course, the comparison is inexact. The stakes were not as high in the Balkans, but Clark's hip-shooting willingness to engage Russian troops in a risky military showdown at the end of the war is instructive nonetheless.



Indeed, it is believed in military circles that Clark's Pristina incident was the final straw that led the Pentagon to relieve him of his duties (actually retire him earlier). Clark had also angered the Pentagon brass--and Secretary of Defense William Cohen in particular--with his numerous media appearances and repeated public requests for more weapons and for more freedom to wage the Kosovo war the way he wanted (with ground troops). At one point, according to media reports, Defense Secretary Cohen, through Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, told Clark to "get your f***ing face off of TV."

[ubikk]

blockhead wrote: Seriously, I think Wesley Clark is the next Eisenhower.

What do you think? Tell me what's wrong with this ticket. I would use my vacation to help campaign for this ticket.

Clark is reasonably competent individual, but he's a terrible politician. He made a fool of himself last time he tried to run. Also, Edwards probably wants to run as the lead on the ticket.

Maybe an Edwards/Clark ticket would work.

[Zadoc]

KRiche2 wrote:

But some of the others aren't so clear:

Quote: Suit against trucking company by estate of man killed by company driver, arguing that company acted recklessly in paying drivers by the mile, thereby encouraging unsafe conduct.



What is not clear about that? The quoted statement is completely true.

[Zadoc]

ubikk wrote: blockhead wrote: Seriously, I think Wesley Clark is the next Eisenhower.

What do you think? Tell me what's wrong with this ticket. I would use my vacation to help campaign for this ticket.

Clark is reasonably competent individual, but he's a terrible politician. He made a fool of himself last time he tried to run. Also, Edwards probably wants to run as the lead on the ticket.

Maybe an Edwards/Clark ticket would work.

...and I am good with that.

What about an Edwards/Richardson ticket? He would win New Mexico and Arizona for sure... possibly Nevada.

[ubikk]

Zadoc wrote: ubikk wrote: blockhead wrote: Seriously, I think Wesley Clark is the next Eisenhower.

What do you think? Tell me what's wrong with this ticket. I would use my vacation to help campaign for this ticket.

Clark is reasonably competent individual, but he's a terrible politician. He made a fool of himself last time he tried to run. Also, Edwards probably wants to run as the lead on the ticket.

Maybe an Edwards/Clark ticket would work.

...and I am good with that.

What about an Edwards/Richardson ticket? He would win New Mexico and Arizona for sure... possibly Nevada.

Edwards with either Clark or Richardson works for me too.

[el_hombre_de_Dios]

blockhead wrote: Seriously, I think Wesley Clark is the next Eisenhower.

What do you think? Tell me what's wrong with this ticket. I would use my vacation to help campaign for this ticket.

Clark's a kiss-arse. We don't need another appeaser like Bill C. We are just now reaping the fruits of the Clinton Kiss-arse with N. Korea and all his other do-nothing-isms. WE need a strong leader who won't take a popularity poll before every decision. Clark's a loser. :td:

[_Kev_]

Zadoc wrote: KRiche2 wrote:

But some of the others aren't so clear:

Quote: Suit against trucking company by estate of man killed by company driver, arguing that company acted recklessly in paying drivers by the mile, thereby encouraging unsafe conduct.



What is not clear about that? The quoted statement is completely true.

I was referring how "clear" it is that this lawsuit was justified. I'm not challenging the statement itself.

[maskedJR]

blockhead wrote: In July 1962, at age 17, Clark entered the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, beginning his 38 years in the U.S. military.

Clark graduated from West Point as valedictorian in June 1966, at the age of 21.

When I read something very similar in the Daily Kos recommended diaries, I thought it was a joke. What serious liberal would want to endorse the man who almost started WW3?

antiwar.com/orig/jatras.php?articleid=1502

www.counterpunch.org/clark.html

[eynon]

maskedJR wrote: blockhead wrote: In July 1962, at age 17, Clark entered the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, beginning his 38 years in the U.S. military.

Clark graduated from West Point as valedictorian in June 1966, at the age of 21.

When I read something very similar in the Daily Kos recommended diaries, I thought it was a joke. What serious liberal would want to endorse the man who almost started WW3?

antiwar.com/orig/jatras.php?articleid=1502

www.counterpunch.org/clark.html

Yeah, he kicks ass! :-D