|
|
Post by MARIO on Aug 25, 2005 19:58:38 GMT -8
Okay, to make a long story short, I'm hanging out with my friend today. So we had to swing by his girlfriend's place to pick her up. So we're waiting downstairs and my friend tells her father that I'm a Republican. That was it - the guy began his liberal ranting. Mind you, this guy is 77 yrs old and a retired accountant. So I'm there trying to go easy on the old guy, but he keeps ranting about how evil George Bush and how wonderful SS, graduated taxation, and the estate tax are. At this point he's really emotional, because he's taking an intellectual beating from a 21 yr old, and my friend obviously regrets mentioning my political affiliation.
Anyway, without detailing our entire discussion, let me just get into the Iraq war debate.
This guy is there praising Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan, saying the war in Iraq is wrong and evil and how we shouldn't be there. He goes on to call Bush a liar because he "knew" there were no WMD's in Iraq and that our troops weren't prepared for a biological weapons attack because they knew Iraq did not possess such weapons.
A few minutes later, after this liberal nut asserting how evil this war is, he says Bush should send MORE TROOPS TO IRAQ. Bear in mind, a few minutes prior this guy was demanding that we leave Iraq because we shouldn't be there in the first place.
So I asked him why he would send more troops to Iraq (he was saying that not one more soldier should die in Iraq) if he opposed the war and didn't believe it was a noble cause. He said we should send more troops so WE CAN BRING ALL OF THE TROOPS HOME AND JUST FINISH IT.
Can ANYBODY please explain the liberal logic to me?
I don't get these people. I left that house shaking my head. These guys are out there having kids. It's no wonder we have so many morons in this country.
|
|
|
|
Post by CommonSense on Aug 25, 2005 20:45:58 GMT -8
Changed his story huh?  Sounds like desperate measures trying to win an argument. |
|
|
|
Post by jaber1 on Aug 26, 2005 0:00:50 GMT -8
MARIO: What's not to understand?
His first assertions were in respect of the *beginning* of the war: its 'cause'; the 'lies' about WMD ... yada, yada, yada.
His next were in respect of the *current* situation and his view of the way forward, namely to field more troops to *finish the job* - in direct support of the C-in-C "stay the course" - as quickly as possible, and then to bring ALL the troops home.
He clearly does not want a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq any more than Iraqis want one.
A 'liberal' mind actually permits more than one thought at a time. With the right-wing penchant for 'liberation' you should try it - it really can be 'liberating'.
|
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Aug 26, 2005 1:24:28 GMT -8
In those situations Mario I generaly just smile at them, state my retorts as politly as possible (I'd smack any 20 year old yelling at a old man), and go about my business.
|
|
|
|
Post by Husky23 on Aug 26, 2005 17:27:51 GMT -8
MARIO: What's not to understand? His first assertions were in respect of the *beginning* of the war: its 'cause'; the 'lies' about WMD ... yada, yada, yada. His next were in respect of the *current* situation and his view of the way forward, namely to field more troops to *finish the job* - in direct support of the C-in-C "stay the course" - as quickly as possible, and then to bring ALL the troops home. He clearly does not want a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq any more than Iraqis want one. A 'liberal' mind actually permits more than one thought at a time. With the right-wing penchant for 'liberation' you should try it - it really can be 'liberating'. I dig Jaber… But here’s the fundamental error in that unconnected logic. …… Hmmmm, fuck it. OK, I was going to benefit you with a long protracted analysis of why and how the liberal mind not only desires, but requires immediate satisfaction and how this heavily influences their outlook – but fuck it. It’s Friday, it’s been a hell of a busy week for me, and I just wanna listen to few tunes, sip some beer, and tinker with my bike. But, if I may, allow me to leave you with real this analogy; My wife, which happens to be quite pragmatic, analytical, and of Asian pedigree has over our years together, on numerous occasions, revealed that my whole purpose is to prepare us for our security, prosperity, and enjoyment in our ‘golden years’ – whatever it takes. Now, whilst I can identify with that position, and in many ways even bust my ass to support ‘her’ long term vision. It is, at times, not difficult for me to mentally envision bending my dear wrinkled spouse over the jet bubbling Jacuzzi with her tits dragging on the floor at 0200 on a 5 star world cruise ship and me with a martini in one hand and her hip in the other and unable to sport a hard-on at 85 years old – even if I could afford to continually exist in that manner, of which I'm near certain I won't seeing how they tax the hell outta my ass. Hence….well…never-mind. Anyway, you don’t base a nations foreign policy, nor household policy off whimsical immediate self serving satisfy me "now" attitudes – nor do you up and split at the first unsatisfying moment. |
|
|
|
Post by MARIO on Aug 26, 2005 18:03:03 GMT -8
MARIO: What's not to understand? His first assertions were in respect of the *beginning* of the war: its 'cause'; the 'lies' about WMD ... yada, yada, yada. His next were in respect of the *current* situation and his view of the way forward, namely to field more troops to *finish the job* - in direct support of the C-in-C "stay the course" - as quickly as possible, and then to bring ALL the troops home. He clearly does not want a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq any more than Iraqis want one. A 'liberal' mind actually permits more than one thought at a time. With the right-wing penchant for 'liberation' you should try it - it really can be 'liberating'. -You don't get it, Jerome. This guy is sitting there telling me he heard President Bush on the radio saying that we must stay the course so that those who have died did not do so in vain. Then this guy asks me, "Why sacrifice any more men?" Then 20 minutes later, he's syaing we should put MORE troops in Iraq, while denying any nobility to the cause in Iraq. It's irrational! He had a few whoppers. For example, he said we had no right having inspectors in Iraq! I had to remind him that we fought and won the Gulf War. The victor sets the terms of surrender. Saddam Hussein agreed to weapons inspections. He can't just up and say he no longer has to abide by the agreement his government signed. Puh-leeze! |
|
|
|
Post by jaber1 on Aug 27, 2005 7:00:39 GMT -8
MARIO: What's not to understand? His first assertions were in respect of the *beginning* of the war: its 'cause'; the 'lies' about WMD ... yada, yada, yada. His next were in respect of the *current* situation and his view of the way forward, namely to field more troops to *finish the job* - in direct support of the C-in-C "stay the course" - as quickly as possible, and then to bring ALL the troops home. He clearly does not want a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq any more than Iraqis want one. A 'liberal' mind actually permits more than one thought at a time. With the right-wing penchant for 'liberation' you should try it - it really can be 'liberating'. -You don't get it, Jerome. This guy is sitting there telling me he heard President Bush on the radio saying that we must stay the course so that those who have died did not do so in vain. Then this guy asks me, "Why sacrifice any more men?" Then 20 minutes later, he's syaing we should put MORE troops in Iraq, while denying any nobility to the cause in Iraq. It's irrational! He had a few whoppers. For example, he said we had no right having inspectors in Iraq! I had to remind him that we fought and won the Gulf War. The victor sets the terms of surrender. Saddam Hussein agreed to weapons inspections. He can't just up and say he no longer has to abide by the agreement his government signed. Puh-leeze! But I do get it Mario and the elucidation in your first paragraph confirms what I thought. Let me try to explain where I think he is coming from: - Dubya says "stay the course" but is not prepared to make any essential adjustments necessary to make that course viable, hence more boys will be lost or maimed. Further, it would seem that the Generals are firmly toeing the party line laid down by Dubya and clung to by Rumsfeld. - So, what is the way forward? Basically three ways: > Cut and run; > Negotiate your way out; > Finish the job correctly. The first two are politically [and socially to many] unacceptable, so how do you finish the job correctly - with the minimum losses? There is only one way - in WWII you dropped the bombs [not an option here] so you gotta swamp the field to flush out the rats and bag them. Here's my thinking: Field another 150 to 200,000 men [U.S. and Allied], put [and keep] the rookies with some IDF and Kurd companies along the Syrian, Jordanian and Iranian borders, then with the vets and remaining IDF sweep from north, west and east down to the south. The Shias will help the Brits in the clearance upwards from the south and in the bagging; the Saudis and Kuwaitis will marshall their borders. Publicise the sweep in advance for the weaklings to run ahead; put a bounty on the head of ALL those who make preparations to impede the sweep [so that locals also feel involved 'for their country' and help pinpoint such impediments], and crank up the publicity machine in all coalition and neighbouring countries as well as Iraq. Important: NO embedded newscrews! Immediately after that operation completes you tell Jaafari and his crew "We're done. Now it's your baby." and get out of there as quickly as you can whether into Saudi, Kuwait or ships in the Gulf. What happens after that is their problem - you did your best. If you want to be a 'bully-boy' show just how big a bully you can be! That might help further down the road. As for the Inspector comment he may just have been pulling your chain to check the reaction  . |
|
|
|
Post by jaber1 on Aug 27, 2005 7:08:29 GMT -8
I dig Jaber… But here’s the fundamental error in that unconnected logic. …… Hmmmm, fuck it. OK, I was going to benefit you with a long protracted analysis of why and how the liberal mind not only desires, but requires immediate satisfaction and how this heavily influences their outlook – but fuck it. It’s Friday, it’s been a hell of a busy week for me, and I just wanna listen to few tunes, sip some beer, and tinker with my bike. But, if I may, allow me to leave you with real this analogy; My wife, which happens to be quite pragmatic, analytical, and of Asian pedigree has over our years together, on numerous occasions, revealed that my whole purpose is to prepare us for our security, prosperity, and enjoyment in our ‘golden years’ – whatever it takes. Now, whilst I can identify with that position, and in many ways even bust my ass to support ‘her’ long term vision. It is, at times, not difficult for me to mentally envision bending my dear wrinkled spouse over the jet bubbling Jacuzzi with her tits dragging on the floor at 0200 on a 5 star world cruise ship and me with a martini in one hand and her hip in the other and unable to sport a hard-on at 85 years old – even if I could afford to continually exist in that manner, of which I'm near certain I won't seeing how they tax the hell outta my ass. Hence….well…never-mind. Anyway, you don’t base a nations foreign policy, nor household policy off whimsical immediate self serving satisfy me "now" attitudes – nor do you up and split at the first unsatisfying moment. I hear you H23 and when you are ready I am sure I will be able to put back just as long and protracted alternative view  As for dream, that sounds as good as any I have heard [or had but not with your missus  ] I would make one observation, namely that when you get there the cost of Viagra would no longer be a problem  As for the FP comment, I hope my response to Mario shows that I tend to agree with you. Have a good weekend. My week started today which is why I'm late to the party. |
|
.
]