A Democrat with no courage [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

JustRalph

12-06-2005, 08:36 AM

~Snippet from the article:~
"Schumer questioned the legitimacy of the Iraqi vote despite sky-high turnouts for the country's January and October elections, which saw a higher percentage of voter participation than in U.S. elections. Still, despite the stunning success of the two prior votes, Schumer painted a gloomy picture. " ~end snippet~

This is amazing. I saw the interviews with Iraqi's who despite death threats stood in line for 4 hours in the heat to cast their single vote. U.S. soldiers stood by providing water and food while the Iraqi's waited. They came out in droves.

I also saw interviews with Iraqi women after they voted. They rejoiced at participating in the elections. One commented that she only wished that her parents (who were killed by Saddam) could witness the lines to vote.

Shumer betrays these people with his comments. It is sickening to think that these Dems will do anything to regain power. Including undermine our military and our leaders just to make political hay for the next election. Schumer is a fool. And the larger fools are those who elect him and his kind.

lsbets

12-06-2005, 09:03 AM

This is nothing but political posturing. As I said - the plan for less troops was out publicly 3 weeks before Murtha's cut and run speech. There was no big announcement - the Pentagon said which units were due to rotate in next and the numbers added up to less than 100,000 troops.

So, according to the guys on the ground things are going well. The Iraqi forces are starting to step up and taking sole control of more and more areas, suicide bombings are way down, and next week there will be another election. That would probably make Bush look good - especially if we are able to reduce troops by 1/3 or more as the current plan is outlined (who cares, he's the President, if he looks good that means things are going well for the country - I want him to look good just like I wanted Clinton to look good).

With all that good news that doesn't get covered, the Dems must be worried about the mid terms that they think could turn out really well for them. So what is their strategy? Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Cast everything in the negative light because if Bush look good its bad for them and who the hell cares if its good for the country. Its a really sad statement about the vacuum of leadership and morality in that party. THe country doesn't matter, only power and party do. I said a long time ago that too many on the left want us to fail because if we do well it makes it harder for them come election time, and I stand by that. Too many leaders in the Democratic party want to see us fail not only in Iraq, but around the world. THey must be shitting that gas prices have gone down. I bet they sit around and hope for bad news, and if they don't get any, as we've seen with Dean and Shumer in this thread, they go out in the media and make bad news up. They disgust me.

GaryG

12-06-2005, 11:43 AM

Finding a democrat with no courage is like finding a gelding with no balls.

Bobby

12-06-2005, 11:50 AM

how is the USA better off today after having invaded IRAQ than it was before the invasion?

Lefty

12-06-2005, 12:01 PM

Well, bobby, Saddam no longer shooting at our planes and he is not able to find a way to use that 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium. He is no longer able to fund terrorists who again would undoubtedly end up here. He won't be able to find a way to use all those warheads full of a gas 5 times worse than sarin and direct them at us or others. That's just a short list off the top of my head.

Bobby

12-06-2005, 12:10 PM

Lefty, one of the planes crashing b/c of mechanical failure was more likely than it was for Sadaams forces to shoot down one of our planes. It just didn't happen.

What WMD? There aren't any. Enriched uranium . . .???

There's no proof he funded terrorists. In fact, it seems to me there are more terrorists over there now than ever.

How are we better off?

Innocent lives are lost every single day.

We're spending trillions and all we hear about is the latest roadside bomb that killed 50 people. OR some suicide bomber blowing up a wedding party.... Is this a sick joke or what?

Lefty

12-06-2005, 12:39 PM

bobby, guess you are on Saddam's side. Yes, he shot at planes. I didn't say he shot any dn, but sooner or later...
Yes, 1.77 tons of enriched uranium plus other stuff I mentioned. Guess you just don't want to blve the worst of Saddam. Yes, he was funding terrorists and yes, Zaquari was in Baghdad traing before 9-11. Why are you so willing to say these guys are ok but GW isn't?
Sadly, lives are always lost in war. The troops blve in what they are doing, In fact re-enlistment by the troops that are there is high.why don't you. Those car bombinfg and the wedding bombing were terrorists, bobby. The terrorists are the bad guys. Iraq is pivotal in the war on terror bobby. Our troops neeed your support bobby, not your whining.

Indulto

12-07-2005, 03:58 PM

Lefty wrote:

“In fact re-enlistment by the troops that are there is high.”

First I’ve heard of that. What evidence or sources do you have to support that statement?

“bobby, guess you are on Saddam's side.”
"Our troops neeed your support bobby, not your whining.”

The technique of attempting to marginalize opponents by twisting their intent and attributing false conclusions to them is employed with far greater effectiveness by Rush and Sean.

One of the most misleading artifices used by some supporters of this Administration’s policies in Iraq is to claim that their opposition does not "support the troops." IMO to ask soldiers to sacrifice their lives and limbs as well as the happiness and security of their families in order to implement questionable decisions that benefit only a small portion of society at their expense is not only the height of non-support, but unpatriotic as well.

lsbets

12-07-2005, 05:35 PM

Lefty wrote:

“In fact re-enlistment by the troops that are there is high.”

First I’ve heard of that. What evidence or sources do you have to support that statement?

First, as a company commander in Iraq for 13 months, I can say I have never had an easier time reenlisting soldiers. I can only think of one who said no, and she reenlisted two months after we got home. Second, Army wide the numbers are at historic highs for reenlistment, it was not just a one company occurence.

Indulto

12-07-2005, 06:40 PM

Lefty

12-07-2005, 07:14 PM

indulto, those nimbers have been on foxnews. Foxnews presents all the facts and does not pick and choose like the lib sources do.
I did not twist any words. bobby agreed with dean and dean said we were losing. Everything bobby has written has been against the war. If he's not on our side then he must be on the other side. Only two sides in this damn thing. But really, i think bobby is just an infantile handwringer who prob blves the left's extreme position that if we just left Iraq everything would be ok. I can only go by the man/boy's words.
What dean and kerry said recently, goes way beyond debate, it borders on treason, in my humble opinion.

lsbets

12-07-2005, 07:45 PM

lsbets,

Thanks for your input. Do you know whether the same willingness applied to both regular army and National Guard units? Could you provide some insight into why re-enlistment is high? What can you tell us about how well new recruitment is going.

I sincerely appreciate the courage and dedication that you and all who serve there have shown in the name of protecting my freedom; including the right to disagree with this administration. I hope that you, personally, don't buy into the oft-repeated contention that people who share my viewpoint don't support the troops.

Some tough questions - I commanded a reserve company that fell under an active duty battalion and had other companies in the battalion from the National Guard. So, I saw a little of all components. I think the reason that reenlistment is so high is the soldiers feel a sense of purpose and accomplishment and increasingly feel a disconnect from the rest of society that doesn't acknowledge the good things that are happening and the progress that is being made.

As far as supporting the troops, I have not seen you say anything that would make me believe you don't. But, there are folks out there who do not support the troops and seek to politicize the war for either personal or party gain. I think those folks are simply scum and have no respect for them. I actually have a lot of respect for people who don't support the troops and have the courage to say so- but way too few people have the courage in this PC age to really say what they feel. I have no problem with disagreement and dissent - I have huge problems with lies and statements designed to score political points that embolden our enemies. Howard Dean does not support the troops. The fact that he leads one of our two major parties is a national disgrace. He is scum. If I ever met him, I would proudly kick his ass and then let a jury decide if I should go to jail or not, and I would have no regrets about it. He needs to be pummelled to within an inch of his life. The man deserves pain and humiliation - his reckless political bullshit has emboldened our enemies and further endangered the lives of our servicemen and women - he is simply treasonous. Fortunately most soldiers don't know and don't care who Howard Dean is, but you can bet your ass his comments have been broadcast all over the Middle East. Do you follow my train of thought on the support vs. no support argument?

Secretariat

12-07-2005, 08:22 PM

Obviously, the Army Reserves and National Guard in particular are struggling.

Interesting article below:

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/11/03/editorial_main/doc436809937fb4f031744218.txt

"The Army’s recruiting shortfall of more than 6,500 was the biggest in the past quarter century. Also experiencing shortfalls were the Army Reserves, which reached only 54 percent of its goal and the Army National Guard, which reached only 80 percent."

....

"Some observers believe the condition of the Army has reached a perilous state. “Now they’ve broken the Army, and after this administration is history, it will take 12 or 15 or 20 years to repair the damage it’s inflicted on an institution that our country desperately needs in a century as this one,” wrote Joseph L. Galloway, senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national best-seller, “We Were Soldiers Once … and Young.”"

....

"In addition, the Army has experienced remarkable success in retention, recording 108 percent of its target goal. Reenlistment was high among soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the failure to reach recruitment goals has ramifications beyond the damage done to expansion plans. The Army, for example, must continue to order personnel in certain specialized jobs to stay in the service beyond the expiration of their contract. The Pentagon also has lowered its minimum testing qualification standards and intends to privatize some jobs on military bases."

lsbets

12-07-2005, 08:44 PM

Secretariat - the issue at hand was reenlistment - I know, you are one of those who cannot acknowledge good news because you are a political bitch. Indulato - do you see what I mean when I discuss those who dissent but do support the troops and those who are political whores?

Tom

12-07-2005, 11:36 PM

From the nunbers that are re-upping over there, one might assume that the majority of those who are THERE and know what they area talking about think what they are doing is the right thing, and a worthwhile thing.

Must be the defeatocrats talking points are not delivered on time over there.
Howie Dean's boys must be slipping.

Indulto

12-08-2005, 12:06 AM

Lsbets,

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, for now anyway.

Lefty wrote:

“Everything bobby has written has been against the war. If he's not on our side then he must be on the other side.”

That statement epitomizes what has gone wrong with politics in this country. Once you disagree with someone, then nothing they think or say has any validity much less any basis for compromise.

lsbets, I believe you have witnessed improvement in the lives of some Iraqis since the invasion, but I am not convinced that their number is significant or that it can increase significantly under an American-only military presence. You feel that whatever was accomplished was worth the price in loss of -- and damage to -- Iraqi as well as American lives while my second-hand impression is that it was -- and will be -- too high.

What you and Lefty may never be able to acknowledge is that 1) rational, well-meaning people can legitimately find fault with the invasion and occupation of Iraq from many standpoints, and 2) that even the two of you might not disagree with all of them provided they were raised by someone you didn’t already have it in for.

Bobby

12-08-2005, 12:22 AM

e then he must be on the other side. Only two sides in this damn thing. But really, i think bobby is just an infantile handwringer who prob blves the left's extreme position that if we just left Iraq everything would be ok. I can only go by the man/boy's words.
What dean and kerry said recently, goes way beyond debate, it borders on treason, in my humble opinion.

DO you really want me to do a search on the headlines in newspapers/ tv news in the last 30 days?

What would it be . . . . 50 killed here, 50 killed there . . . Wedding party bombed. Funeral wake annilihated. When does it end for you and the Repubublicans?

You just don't understand LS. We're in another country that we have no business being in. THATS THIER COUNTRY NOT OURS. We shouldn't just go over there and take over the oil . . . . like we have done.

Well, its halliburtons . . .I guess thats what you say Lefty.

Lefty

12-08-2005, 01:08 AM

indulto says: What you and Lefty may never be able to acknowledge is that 1) rational, well-meaning people can legitimately find fault with the invasion and occupation of Iraq from many standpoints, and 2) that even the two of you might not disagree with all of them provided they were raised by someone you didn’t already have it in for.

________________________
Key word is legitimate. For the head of the DNC to say we will not win this war is far from legitimate discourse. For Kerry to say our troops are invading Iraqui ho,mes and terrorizing them is far from legitimate.

Lefty

12-08-2005, 01:17 AM

bobby says: DO you really want me to do a search on the headlines in newspapers/ tv news in the last 30 days?

What would it be . . . . 50 killed here, 50 killed there . . . Wedding party bombed. Funeral wake annilihated. When does it end for you and the Repubublicans?

You just don't understand LS. We're in another country that we have no business being in. THATS THIER COUNTRY NOT OURS. We shouldn't just go over there and take over the oil . . . . like we have done.

Well, its halliburtons . . .I guess thats what you say Lefty.
__________________________________________________
Well bobby, war is hell. We do have business in Iraq bobby. Saddam was dangerous and sooner or later he would have gotten stronger and more and more dangerous if left unchecked. ALL the Dems blvd that and now they're trying to pretend they didn't strictly for politics.
Did you know there's a cap on what companies like Haliburton can make on war contracts. Don't you realize they employ peopple and make the economy stronger?
Don't you realize Michael Moore mad more with his crockumentery than Haliburton? Don't you realize that Iraq is pivotal to this war on terror with Iran right next door?
Don't you blve that the people of Iraq also deserve a shot at freedom after being terrorized for yrs by a madman? Many reasons for this war, bobby. Start listening to our side as well as the liberal side and get some perspective.
And while you're searching those headlines, search back a few yrs to where we found the 1.77 tons of enriched uraniun, bobby. I forget which yr, but you can find it if you look hard enough; unless you just don't want to be confused with facts.

Lefty

12-08-2005, 01:24 AM

bobby said: We shouldn't just go over there and take over the oil . . . . like we have done.
_____________________________________
If you blve this bobby, we have gotten to the core of your problem. You have listened and blvd a lie.

lsbets

12-08-2005, 08:46 AM

What you and Lefty may never be able to acknowledge is that 1) rational, well-meaning people can legitimately find fault with the invasion and occupation of Iraq from many standpoints, and 2) that even the two of you might not disagree with all of them provided they were raised by someone you didn’t already have it in for.[/font][/font]

Indulto -

I won't dispute that rational, well meaning people can find fault with the invasion. There are not very many rational, well meaning people in politics today. Maybe a handful.

Bobby -

I love being told that I don't understand by someone who gets his news from the Enquirerer. You are a simpleton with the mind of a child. When you grow up we can talk.

Indulto

12-08-2005, 12:25 PM

lsbets and Lefty,

Since WE can maintain mutually respectful dialogue, then there must still be hope.

Who knows, maybe more kneepad jokes and less name-calling would not only raise the level of discourse, but might even encourage similar tactics from some of your designated targets. Making fun of Clinton makes more sense to me than alienating other opinionated individuals who share a common passion (horseracing).

lsbets

12-08-2005, 12:33 PM

Indulto, I have no problem engaging in debate and discourse with people who I feel are either capable or interested in it. Those who I revile (and I do not hide my feelings) have earned my contempt, and I am not concerned about alienating them. I think our national dialogue would be better served if we called out those who deserved it instead of pretending that they make serious remarks and observations. Hcap and I agree on very little, but he has shown me that he is genuine with what he believes. I would say the same for Suff and many others on the left. It is actually a small number who I view with contempt, and if I feel they deserve it for their disingenuousness and dishonesty, I don't see why I should hide it.

Indulto

12-08-2005, 07:30 PM

lsbets,

I’m all for poking fun at people who say things that I feel justify it, but I feel it’s important to differentiate between someone’s sounding foolish and their being a fool. Once I’m convinced I’ve encountered the latter (regardless of intelligence), I try to ignore him unless doing so would only contribute to undeserved injury (or unless I just happen to be in possession of a fact to contradict a particularly aggravating assertion).

It isn’t necessary to hide one’s contempt, only to justify it. If your opposing viewpoint is based in fact, then supply them with maximum clarity. The only thing more embarrassing than being proven wrong is being proven untruthful. The main reason to avoid name-calling, however, is that too frequently it gives the impression of immaturity.

Your references to your recent military service suggest that maturity, wisdom, and a sense of responsibility have been generated through an incredibly powerful life experience. Your posts demonstrate that you are an articulate, independent thinker with a sense of humor and the flexibility to change an opinion. With all that going for you, why sacrifice your credibility just to experience a very brief moment’s emotional gratification, much less waste an opportunity to provide facts or request clarification.

I apologize if I have overstepped the bounds of personal propriety, but I sense in you someone with extraordinary potential for important accomplishments off this board. I would be remiss if I were to ignore your unusual ability to communicate such qualities in cyberspace.

lsbets

12-08-2005, 07:52 PM

Indulto, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I personally think that when someone prcatically begs to be belittled, its perfectly okay to belittle them. If that makes someone think I'm immature, its their right to think that, and it has no effect on me at all. This is a mostly anonymous internet board. There are only a handful of us (and I am one) who have had their names and other information revealed to anyone who read the post. So, if someone doesn't like what I say to someone who hides courageously behind anonymity - oh well. But, I will give you this concession - there are times when I feel bad about some of the things I have said, not because I don't feel what I've said is justified (I've apologized when I've done that) but because it is just way too easy sometimes. It reminds me when I was a kid in school and there was the class full of Downs children. My mother taught me it was not nice to pick on them because they couldn't really defend themselves (among other reasons, but that was one). I can hear my Mom's voice in the back of my head sometimes when I get on 2 particular posters a little too harshly.

Indulto

12-08-2005, 10:57 PM

lsbets,

We do not disagree that belittling is often appropriate. Indeed, when done with style, subtlety, and/or humor, it enhances the on-board experience. You achieved that to some degree (I assume intentionally) in the final statement of your last reply. I merely suggested that one not belittle oneself in the process.

You have, however, touched upon a topic where we are in considerable disagreement:

“So, if someone doesn't like what I say to someone who hides courageously behind anonymity - oh well.”

Anonymity is the default standard when participating in discussions in cyberspace. It maximizes the free exchange of ideas while minimizing the unintended and/or retaliatory negative effects in the real world. It has been my experience that people who choose not to be anonymous are generally seeking recognition for commercial, social, and/or egocentric purposes; including the expectation that their opinion carry more weight due to their roles and/or associations in the real world.

There are legitimate reasons one might not wish to have one’s employer, family, friends, or others to have knowledge of – or be affected by -- their opinions and participation that have nothing to do with courage and everything to do with discretion.

What I do find offensive is the practice of posting under multiple pseudonyms in an effort to disguise or misrepresent one’s participation, or to separate oneself from his/her previous statements or positions. Consistency is critical to credibility unless change is carefully and convincingly choreographed.

If you think I should be impressed by your decision to publicly identify yourself or that you should be credited with greater accountability for what you say – oh well.

Tom

12-08-2005, 11:01 PM

DO you really want me to do a search on the headlines in newspapers/ tv news in the last 30 days?

What would it be . . . . 50 killed here, 50 killed there . . . Wedding party bombed. Funeral wake annilihated. When does it end for you and the Repubublicans?

You just don't understand LS. We're in another country that we have no business being in. THATS THIER COUNTRY NOT OURS. We shouldn't just go over there and take over the oil . . . . like we have done.

Well, its halliburtons . . .I guess thats what you say Lefty.

The majority of the attacks are NOT on US soldiers. And we are there to hhelp THEM take control of THIER country. The REAL owners of Iraq have a shot at running it for the first time in three decades. Sadaam was NEVER,EVER, the legal ruler of Iraq - he was a dictator that stole the country from it's people by military brutality. THEY are voting on who THEY want to run THIER country next week, thanks to US and no damn body else.

lsbets

12-08-2005, 11:09 PM

Indulto -

I did not decide to publicly "reveal" myself. I was outed much in the same manner as the not quite so undercover Valerie Plame. :lol: Someone who I know from the board posted a newspaper aticle that was written about my wife and I. It had our names, the names of our children, and the subdivision that we live in. Until then, only a handful of people knew that information, and I was more than happy with that. However, there have been no subpoenas, no grand jury, no special prosecutor. While my defenders might say that national security has been compromised, I don't really think that is the case.

I would say that the majority of the "known" quantities are such because they have posted here for a long time, and one of the great things about this board is there is a sense of community. A lot of us communicate with each other on a pretty regular basis.

You and I must have different definitions of subtle, because in my last statement of my previous post, I pretty much compared poking fun at a couple of people here to picking on the retarted kids in school. That doesn't seem very subtle to me, and I could see where some folks would find it downright offensive.

Steve 'StatMan'

12-08-2005, 11:11 PM

Indulto, you should have read some of the posts Lsbets had to read while he was taking the time to post while deployed in Iraq. People quoting the news and the Democrats talking points that contradicted what he was experincing on the ground in Iraq. Some actually looking into getting into arguments with him while he was deployed about how our troops were wrong to be there. He handled himself very well during that time. I doubt I'd have been as professional as he was, while a couple of people were trying to tell him as well as the rest of us that what he was doing wasn't worthwhile, not a good cause, etc. Even trying to tell him he didn't have proper equipment and body armour, despite him telling us that he and his troups HAD their equipment! More than just myself were aghast that we had people that would try to discourage one of our servicemen while deployed, and try to contradict his experiences that he took the time to share with us. Lots of the feelings here go back a couple years, well before the 2004 Election mess.

By the way, does anyone still miss Amazin? :lol:

Tom

12-08-2005, 11:22 PM

By the way, does anyone still miss Amazin? :lol:

What makes you think he is not still with us? :confused:

Steve 'StatMan'

12-08-2005, 11:27 PM

What makes you think he is not still with us? :confused:

Yeah, I took a risk. God knows we don't need any more 'arguments to forever' around here. :bang:

lsbets

12-08-2005, 11:30 PM

Steve, you bring up the exact reasons that I hold a couple of folks in the contempt that I do. I loved the fact that people were telling me that we weren't properly equipped when the fact is we had the best equipment I had seen in my 9 years in the Army. But, to some, politics matters more than reality.

Indulto

12-08-2005, 11:37 PM

Statman,
Thanks for your input and clarification.

Lsbets,
What’s that old saw, “When you assume …”

May I report conclusively that ignorance is NOT bliss.

I apologize for my emotional response to having one of my hot-buttons pushed.

Are any of the posts other than the “outing” still accessible?

lsbets

12-08-2005, 11:58 PM

Emotional? I'd hate to see calculating and detached. :D

Indulto

12-09-2005, 12:55 AM

lsbets,
It was my final, non-subtle sentence that I considered emotional.

Re: your prior “non-subtle” final sentence; it wasn’t stylish, either, but one out of three aint bad.

Secretariat

12-09-2005, 01:14 AM

Indulto,

I suggest you go back into the archives, and read past posts yourself, and make your own determinations about what was said, and the justifcations for it.

You will get viewpoints from both the left and the right. Make your own call based on your own due diligence, not on how they tell you to think.

Secretariat

12-09-2005, 02:14 AM

Indulto,

The CBO did a study released on 11/30/05 on some of your questions.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6906&sequence=0

Indulto

12-09-2005, 08:06 AM

Sec,

I had to chuckle when I read your initial post to me because it was so similar to one of my own to a newbie on another board regarding a conflict of a different sort. My participation in off-topic is prompted by a tendency to challenge the absurd or untrue with respect to issues of interest to me so I welcome facts provided from any source.

My traversing the archives is unlikely at best. While I haven’t read any posts of yours so far that compelled me to take exception, it’s probably because I haven’t had the time to follow all the off-topic threads. I like to think it’s difficult to lead me around by the nose, and I hope that I can enjoy interactions with posters representing a variety of perspectives.