Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    Originally posted by waxman View Post
    No one IN THERE RIGHT MIND wants American Troops to die for a hegemonistic war based on a Global Agenda. The only thing this war has guaranteed is we will have a precense their.... FOREVER.... and guaranteed generations of Americans will have to deal with this mess for the unforseeable future. Think Israel and Palastine x 100.



    No... we've already lost it.
    These are really good points. It strikes me that some on this board and certainly many in the Bush administration take a certain tack: either you want war or you don't want to do anything. As though the options for dealing with Iraq (and Iran for that matter) are either bomb the hell out of the place or leave and go home.

    This country has become so militarized that we think that war is the only foreign policy option. Estimates of the cost of this war have ranged from only a few hundred billion dollars up to over a trillion. A trillion dollars. Can you imagine what could be done with that money?

    There is a lot of talk about how much health costs in this country. France has the best health care system in the world, and they spend about $3000 US per person per year. The US has something like 45,000,000 uninsured. For $trillion, we could buy the best health care in the world for that group for 7 and a half years, without raising taxes.

    The largest college endowment in the world is Harvard with $28 billion. Number two is Yale with only $18 billion. For a $ trillion you could give a Yale-sized endowment to a college in every state in the country.

    This is a completely back of the envelope calculation, but US citizens use about 7kw, and a single large wind turbine costing $500,000 can produce enough for 100 people. A $trillion dollars would 200,000 such units, or enough energy for 2/3 of the country. Now, obviously, it wouldn't work quite like that, but you get the idea about the kinds of options would could have had.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

      Originally posted by waxman View Post
      I just came back to this today.... wow.

      Oh **** you caught me. I didn't read any of the other poll questions .... You do realize you only solicited a response for the posted question? right? Therefore I answered only based on the one question. Do you work for Fox? If not you should.

      Oh so this is a loaded thread.
      waxman, with respect, and I mean that, you are way off base here. I linked to a poll which had a number of questions, including a number of clear, unambiguous questions (of the type liberals usually love) regarding the President's relative popularity or unpopularity.

      Elsewhere on PD I am criticized for posting too much information from articles, and recently had a thread closed as a sanction for violating PD policy on article length, yet when I quote the narrower, specific question in a poll with dozens of questions, and also provide a link to the entire poll, your response is to suggest you somehow got tricked by me.

      One of the poll questions revealed that a much higher percentage of Democrats than of either Republicans or Independents either actively hope that the troop surge announced by Bush for Iraq will fail (Dems 34%) or are ambivalent ("Don't know" - Dems 15%) on that important question.

      That question is very important because the strategy chosen by the administration -- whether it is popularly approved of or not, is and will continue to be implemented in the coming months -- will put our troops in harms way in Iraq. If it fails it will necessarily be because of Amercian troop casualties -- woundings and killings of our soldiers. And on that key question, more than 1/3 of self identified Democrats have answered that they actively wish for the plan's failure. I don't expect you to like that stark formulation, and you can spin that all you want, but don't expect others not to notice.

      So what is your response? First, you claim that the question was "loaded in a deliberately confusing way." That is, you claim bad faith on the part of the pollsters for asking a "loaded" question, yet you had not bothered to read the poll itself. If you had, of course, you would have seen that it was not a loaded question, but one in a series of questions designed to allow participants to explain their views, and your criticism and smearing of the poll is unfair.

      The answers to the question were revealing in the very ways we are now arguing about. You simply did not like what the answers implied about the Democrats, falsely recast the question to make it appear that Dems intended to answer something else, and you did so in order to discredit and smear both the pollsters and others who have discussed these results. That is your right, waxman, but it tells us all something about you.

      You substituted your own charitable view of the Dems' answers, and re-worked the question so that it was not the one asked, but a different question for which Dems intended -- in your view -- to express disapproval of the fact that it was Bush's plan. That is nice spin, but again, utterly false -- let's be clear, it is a lie. As a review of the poll makes clear, the actual question you wanted to substitute was specifically asked elsewhere in the same poll, participated in by the same responders. In other words, the Dems (and all other poll responders) knew of the distinctions in questions that you are now trying to gloss over.

      I point out all of the above, and your response? Do you say in effect "oops, my mistake, I did not realize that the basis of my explanation/spin/defense of Democrats was rebutted by the other questions in the poll?" Did you say "must have been a bad statistical sampling -- my Democrat friends overwhelmingly support the troops and hope the surge is successful?" Did you respond in any way to the actual facts set forth in the poll?

      No, you did not. You opted instead to try to stay on the offense, continued to blame others, suggested that the question was loaded or a trick, claimed that the thread itself is loaded, and said shame on the neo-cons and others for lying and manipulating the country into war.

      So, you want to weigh in and give your opinion, but you don't want to be bound in expressing that opinion to the relevant facts, and when your clear mistake is pointed out, it is somebody else's fault. Gee thanks -- way to man up. Of course, now that all of this has been laid out, we still do not know what you have to say about the actual poll results, and the unhappy conclusions some of us are left to draw about the Dems' ... what, "support for the troops?" You hate Bush, and in your mind that is a sufficient answer to any question, no matter what the question.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

        Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
        These are really good points. It strikes me that some on this board and certainly many in the Bush administration take a certain tack: either you want war or you don't want to do anything. As though the options for dealing with Iraq (and Iran for that matter) are either bomb the hell out of the place or leave and go home.

        This country has become so militarized that we think that war is the only foreign policy option. Estimates of the cost of this war have ranged from only a few hundred billion dollars up to over a trillion. A trillion dollars. Can you imagine what could be done with that money?

        There is a lot of talk about how much health costs in this country. France has the best health care system in the world, and they spend about $3000 US per person per year. The US has something like 45,000,000 uninsured. For $trillion, we could buy the best health care in the world for that group for 7 and a half years, without raising taxes.

        The largest college endowment in the world is Harvard with $28 billion. Number two is Yale with only $18 billion. For a $ trillion you could give a Yale-sized endowment to a college in every state in the country.

        This is a completely back of the envelope calculation, but US citizens use about 7kw, and a single large wind turbine costing $500,000 can produce enough for 100 people. A $trillion dollars would 200,000 such units, or enough energy for 2/3 of the country. Now, obviously, it wouldn't work quite like that, but you get the idea about the kinds of options would could have had.
        Debates on budget priorities, health care availability, the economy, alternative energy technologies, etc. are all so much a waste of time if people are enslaved by violent, tyrannical, totalitarian movements such as the one we are now at war resisting.

        Nice hijacking of the thread, 3B, even if, like waxman, you continue to ignore the original topic. So tell us again, and still again, about how wonderful is France and its marvelous health care system. What a wonderful place it must be, why can't we all live like they do there?

        Last Summer, of course, thousands and thousands of its senior citizens perished for lack of air conditioning during a heat wave while their (indifferent) children and grand children were on holiday on the beaches of Spain. Grandma and old Uncle Pierre were left behind in the care and comfort of that marvelous, to-be-envied socialized state, but the state dropped the ball on keeping their body temperatures in the low triple digits.

        Other than that -- and , uh, hundreds and thousand of other reasons that are an outgrowth of the highly socialized health and political system that has been the face of much of post-WW II France -- I'm sure France is a great place, with a great respect for human life and dignity. So long as you are under age 50 or so and employed. Or so long as you are not a Jew of any age, living within an arms' and knife blade's reach of one of the thousands of unassimilated, violent Wahhabi Muslims in France. Let's do like the main stream media and call them "unemployed, disaffected youths," like those who burn cars by the dozens on any given night in Paris suburbs. You know, those folks allowed to immigrate to France in order that it might have a work force sufficient to provide a tax base sufficient to allow extended holidays on the beaches of Spain. That's the real problem here in America, not enough holidays, not enough health care, not enough wind turbines.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

          Batboy, I think you're thinking of the 2003 heatwave, and I don't see how that has anything to do with the health care system at all. France is no panacea, and like I've said a million times, I choose to be an American. But our health care system stinks, and we should upgrade to a system that works better. With the kind of money that we're throwing down a rat hole in Iraq, we could have a better system. And then we could use all the money that we HAD been spending on health care and have a sexy party.

          Are you so blinded that you refuse to admit that American could improve herself in any way? Isn't that the whole dream of America?

          I like most Americans wish that the lives, money, and effort wasted on this war had been spent to make our lives better. And I hope to see the presidents plan defeated in the congress. I hope it doesn't get far enough to be defeated in Iraq.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

            Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
            Batboy, I think you're thinking of the 2003 heatwave, and I don't see how that has anything to do with the health care system at all. France is no panacea, and like I've said a million times, I choose to be an American. But our health care system stinks, and we should upgrade to a system that works better. With the kind of money that we're throwing down a rat hole in Iraq, we could have a better system. And then we could use all the money that we HAD been spending on health care and have a sexy party.

            Are you so blinded that you refuse to admit that American could improve herself in any way? Isn't that the whole dream of America?

            I like most Americans wish that the lives, money, and effort wasted on this war had been spent to make our lives better. And I hope to see the presidents plan defeated in the congress. I hope it doesn't get far enough to be defeated in Iraq.
            My bad -- in making my argument about how health care in France may not be as glorious as some claim, I apparently misrecalled the particular recent year in which thousands and thousands of senior citizens cooked to death in their apartments due to the indifference of the state and the attitudes of their offspring who were on holiday. A thousand pardons.

            So France is no panacea? I guess I misunderstood your claim that it has the best health care system in the world, and one that Americans should emulate. You say our system "stinks?" This is patent nonsense -- our system is the most highly-developed in the world, dispensing high quality health care while innovating new drugs and surgical techniques that have increased the average life span (not just here, but the world over). That system is expensive, because after all someone has to pay for the research that goes along with these advances, but to say that our system stinks is simply a falsehood. It is expensive, it is imperfect, but your criticisms about the efficiency of its distribution and availability should not be confused with its state of the art supremacy throughout the world.

            Lots of money gets spent on lots of different ventures. You seem to think that securing our citizens should be less of a priority and lower cost than some of the less-than-panacean health care schemes you would foist on the rest of us. You do not fear another 9-11, and those of us who do are hard hearted and unfeeling because we would favor war in Iraq over war and terrorism throughout the US (as the jihadis continue to vow).

            If wasteful expenditures of huge sums is your complaint, I suppose you really REALLY condemn left wing trust fund baby Ned Lamont's excessively expensive vanity campaign for Senate in Connecticut? What a colossal waste of tens of millions of dollars that might have been better spent helping the poor! How many health clinics could Ned's inherited trust fund money been better spent building than on his hopeless campaign against Joe Lieberman? (Oops, I seem to recall you had positively effusive praise for Lamont's wasteful campaign -- sorry!) How about putting to better use to help the poor the sums spent on fuel for Barbra Streisand's or Michael Moore's personal jets? How about the sums spent on the Kennedy family's alcohol and cocaine (or was it heroin)? We're talking big dollars here! Why do you characterize the expenditures for safeguarding decent, law abiding citizens as money down a rat hole, yet the examples of outrageous indulgences by Lamont et al never draw criticism?

            Yes, 3Ball, America can improve, can get better. But we have vastly different "dreams" about the way to go about it. My dream is that my kids and grandkids make it better without the fear of a dirty bomb, or with the economic and educational opportunities that come in a country that is safe and secure.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

              Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
              My bad -- in making my argument about how France may not be as glorious as some claim, I apparently misrecalled the particular recent year in which thousands and thousands of senior citizens cooked to death in their apartments due to the indifference of the state and the attitudes of their offspring who were on holiday. A thousand pardons.
              It's the French government's fault that many of its citizens didn't have air conditioners? Do you give the same kind of blaim for Katrina?

              [QUOTE=Bat Boy;535708]
              Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
              So France is no panacea? I guess I misunderstood your claim that it has the best health care system in the world, and one that Americans should emulate. You say our system "stinks?" This is patent nonsense -- our system is the most highly-developed in the world, dispensing high quality health care while innovating new drugs and surgical techniques that have increased the average life span (not just here, but the world over). That system is expensive, because after all someone has to pay for the research that goes along with these advances, but to say that our system stinks is simply a falsehood. It is expensive, it is imperfect, but your criticisms about the efficiency of its distribution and availability should not be confused with its state of the art supremacy throughout the world.
              No, it's YOU that shouldn't confuse our medical research victories with a lousy system of delivery. Check here for more info:
              http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html

              If you don't like comparing our lousy and expensive health care system to France (I know it hurts any conservatives pride to be compared unfavorably to France), then compare us to Japan, Germany, Denmark, or any of a few dozen countries who have a far better system. The United States has great doctors, great hospitals, great research institutions, but a lousy system for delivery. Look it up.

              Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
              Lots of money gets spent on lots of different ventures. You seem to think that securing our citizens should be less of a priority and lower cost than some of the less-than-panacean health care schemes you would foist on the rest of us. You do not fear another 9-11, and those of us who do are hard hearted and unfeeling because we would favor war in Iraq over war and terrorism throughout the US (as the jihadis continue to vow).
              If Iraq had been a threat to us I might have supported a war. It wasn't.

              Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
              If wasteful expenditures of huge sums is your complaint, I suppose you really REALLY condemn left wing trust fund baby Ned Lamont's excessively expensive vanity campaign for Senate in Connecticut? What a colossal waste of tens of millions of dollars that might have been better spent helping the poor! How many health clinics could Ned's inherited trust fund money been better spent building than on his hopeless campaign against Joe Lieberman? (Oops, I seem to recall you had positively effusive praise for Lamont's wasteful campaign -- sorry!) How about putting to better use to help the poor the sums spent on fuel for Barbra Streisand's or Michael Moore's personal jets? How about the sums spent on the Kennedy family's alcohol and cocaine (or was it heroin)? We're talking big dollars here! Why do you characterize the expenditures for safeguarding decent, law abiding citizens as money down a rat hole, yet the examples of outrageous indulgences by Lamont et al never draw criticism?
              Yes, I hate our current system of campaign financing. It wasn't Lamont's fault. Bush still has the record for the most money spent on a campaign anyway.

              Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
              Yes, 3Ball, America can improve, can get better. But we have vastly different "dreams" about the way to go about it. My dream is that my kids and grandkids make it better without the fear of a dirty bomb, or with the economic and educational opportunities that come in a country that is safe and secure.
              Yes, we do have different dreams for America. But it's laughable to think that attacking Iraq has made us safer or that escalating the war now will do the job.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                It's the French government's fault that many of its citizens didn't have air conditioners? Do you give the same kind of blaim for Katrina?
                Whew. The French government -- which over the past 50 years has, through increasingly socialist policies, shifted responsibility for such things as health and welfare of its citizens away from individuals and families and on to the state, in exchange for ever higher taxes, thereby absolving individuals of responsibilty for care and oversight of aging parents -- and you think the French government bears no blame when thousands of seniors are baked to death while their offspring are on holiday? You absolve the French government of this completely avoidable tragedy because, after all, people did not buy air conditioners? Okay, what was the French government doing over the several weeks of the heat wave - taking affirmative steps (as both our government AND individuals did here in the days after Katrina) to alleviate the problem? Moving folks to air conditioned sites? Nope. And you would blame the French seniors who died for not buying air conditioners, yet you had little to say about citizens of New Orleans who ignored storm warnings, refused to leave when instructed to, and then complained that the government was not fast enough in helping them. Seems to me you have the Katrina arguments backwards.

                The French situation was classic neglect, by both the government and the cradle-to-grave socialist French people who failed to look after their elder families, and your reference to Katrina -- in which the local governor and mayor were more interested in scoring political points than putting its vulnerable citizens on later-flooded buses and moving them to higher ground, only later blaming the Feds for not doing more. Two separate acts of nature, one much more catastrophic (Katrina) than the other (heat wave, but no flooding, flattened buildings, transportation issues, etc.), and you draw exactly the wrong conclusions. In Katrina, both the government and individual citizens worked hard to overcome enormous damage, and in France, neither the government nor individuals exerted efforts, and yet you would attempt to play the blame-the-victim of catastrophy (i.e., the French government) card.


                No, it's YOU that shouldn't confuse our medical research victories with a lousy system of delivery. Check here for more info:
                http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html

                If you don't like comparing our lousy and expensive health care system to France (I know it hurts any conservatives pride to be compared unfavorably to France), then compare us to Japan, Germany, Denmark, or any of a few dozen countries who have a far better system. The United States has great doctors, great hospitals, great research institutions, but a lousy system for delivery. Look it up.
                Ah, I see. I guess, to paraphrase a famous guy, "it all depends on what the meaning of 'health care system' is." You now acknowledge our services, research and technology to be superior, you just don't want to count them as part of "the system." As if those superior services, research and medical technology advances spring forth out of thin air, rather than, say, in the course of an economic system that fosters and encourages experimentation and testing of new and better drugs, techniques, products, etc., but rewarded by profits to investors who take the investment risks. Lots of other countries, particularly socialist countries, have in your view better "delivery systems." No doubt, but that doesn't make them better, and it doesn't make them the best in the world. I will take my chances on receiving medical treatment here, where a small percentage of people do not purchase health insurance for innumerable reasons, including their free choice to spend on beer and pizza while they are young and healthy, rather than in, say, Bulgaria or Venezuela where, even if the government guarantees 100% government paid health care, the services will not be as good or competent or utilizing the best medical practices.

                If Iraq had been a threat to us I might have supported a war. It wasn't.
                Sure they were no threat to us. The aid and comfort and terrorist training camps and harboring terrorists -- no threat to us at all. The payments Saddam was making to families of suicide bombers? No threat to us at all -- they'd never try that in America, right?

                Yes, I hate our current system of campaign financing. It wasn't Lamont's fault. Bush still has the record for the most money spent on a campaign anyway.
                Nice dodge of the relevant point. When you argue that you disagree with how money is being spent, and claim it could be better spent on helping the poor, that's fine, but you then have to answer for why all "wasted" money should not be so directed. But you liked Lamont, and so you aren't bothered by his fruitless, ineffective vanity campaign using trust fund money he inherited. I assume you like the Kennedys, so their expenditures on self indulgences doesn't bother you. Fine, but before you so sanctimoniously start calling our expenditures -- in blood and treasure -- to be so much "rat hole" filler, kindly pause for a split second and acknowledge the uses to which those expenditures are being put.

                Yes, we do have different dreams for America. But it's laughable to think that attacking Iraq has made us safer or that escalating the war now will do the job.
                3Ball, we disagree. I respect your opinion, but there is ample evidence that the war in Iraq is keeping the war over there and not in America.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                  Batboy, By your logic every single political campaign is a big waste of money. What's your alternative? Dictatorship?

                  I'm not advocating becoming France. I'm advocating using health care policies that work for dozens of countries and are far better, by the simple numbers, than ours. It doesn't mean that we stop doing medical research.

                  And I have yet to hear a single piece of evidence that convincingly argues that Iraq has in any way made us safer. I think it's pretty clear that the reverse is true.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                    Originally posted by 3Ball View Post

                    I like most Americans wish that the lives, money, and effort wasted on this war had been spent to make our lives better. And I hope to see the presidents plan defeated in the congress. I hope it doesn't get far enough to be defeated in Iraq.
                    Of course if you can't defend this country from a enemy that wants to exterminate us at all costs what good does all that do you.Free Health Care, a great economy, nice job, nice car it will all be gone in a second once our enemy decides or gets its hands on a biological/chemical/dirty bomb in a major city.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                      Originally posted by mike_D View Post
                      Of course if you can't defend this country from a enemy that wants to exterminate us at all costs what good does all that do you.Free Health Care, a great economy, nice job, nice car it will all be gone in a second once our enemy decides or gets its hands on a biological/chemical/dirty bomb in a major city.
                      Who wants to stop defending the country? I just want to stop invading and occupying countries that haven't attacked us. Think about it this way: the Bush doctrine is basically "invade and occupy countries that might someday prove to have been a threat to the United States in some way." Imagine if every country adopted the Bush doctrine, what would be the result? This is why the US at Nuremberg tried to define aggression, invading a country that had not attack you first, as the ultimate war crime. Worse even than terrorism. We're now being reminded of the wisdom of that generation. You don't defend your country by starting wars.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                        Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                        Who wants to stop defending the country? I just want to stop invading and occupying countries that haven't attacked us. Think about it this way: the Bush doctrine is basically "invade and occupy countries that might someday prove to have been a threat to the United States in some way." Imagine if every country adopted the Bush doctrine, what would be the result? This is why the US at Nuremberg tried to define aggression, invading a country that had not attack you first, as the ultimate war crime. Worse even than terrorism. We're now being reminded of the wisdom of that generation. You don't defend your country by starting wars.
                        3Ball, your posts have become downright hilarious. What you refer to as the "Bush doctrine" to invade and occupy poor, innocent "countries that haven't attacked us," like Iraq, controlled by (the late) humanitarian Saddam Hussein, was viewed differently by Democrats not so long ago.

                        Since we just had the President's SOTU address, it is revealing to revisit the Democrats response to the SOTU just a few years ago, in 2003, in which Gov. Gary Locke (D-WA) stated about Bush's policy:

                        Democrats support President Bush's handling of the Iraq situation but believe he must do more to strengthen America's economy and its homeland security, said a Democratic governor delivering the opposition party's response to the Republican president's State of the Union message.

                        Bush has dealt properly with Iraq and its "ruthless tyrant," Saddam Hussein, said Washington Gov. Gary Locke, who spoke Tuesday night after the president's annual speech,
                        the second in his administration.
                        http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...nse/index.html

                        So, not so long ago, the Democrats supported -- or at least claimed to, even though it is fair to doubt their candor -- the very Bush doctrine you are now complaining about, and approved of what was done in Iraq. Were they lying then? Were they simply pandering, based on then-existing popular opinion?

                        You actually want to harken back to Nuremburg as an (alleged) history lesson? Try Edmund Burke's history lesson: " The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                          Saddam was no humanitarian, my friend. He was a villain plain and simple, and I don't know of anyone sad to see his demise. The Democrats that supported the war like Hillary Clinton were as wrong as Bush. It's not hilarious, it's damn serious. They didn't have the strength to stand up to an illegal war then. Let's hope they do know. That's the lesson of Burke.

                          And once again, you continue to put forward the false choice: invade and occupy or do nothing. That wasn't the choice then, and it isn't now.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                            Originally posted by mike_D View Post
                            Of course if you can't defend this country from a enemy that wants to exterminate us at all costs what good does all that do you.Free Health Care, a great economy, nice job, nice car it will all be gone in a second once our enemy decides or gets its hands on a biological/chemical/dirty bomb in a major city.
                            I'd almost like to start this up as a separate discussion. How many foiled terrorist plots have there been in the 5.5 years since 9/11? Keep in mind, I'm not talking about where we thought something might be happeneing and then it didn't. I'm talking about situations where we caught someone planning an attack on US soil. Have our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq really been the reason there hasn't been another attack? From what I hear, the Taliban has set up camp in northern Pakistan, and is slowly turning that country from moderate Islamic Democracy to radical Islamic State. Why are we not in Pakistan stopping that ongoing problem? Surely if they were training terrorists in Afghanistan, they're training them in Pakistan, our ally, as we speak.

                            I'll tell you my opinion why. This time around, there's no incentive for Bush to chase after terror, because he doesn't need to distract people from his other failures by shining a spotlight on a different problem. I think it's no coincidence that his failure to catch bin Laden in Afghanistan was causing his approval ratings to drop like a stone, and we just happened to hear (fake) intelligence that Iraq had WMDs, forcing us to invade, and boosting Bush's approval ratings just prior to the election, giving him a strong platform to run on, and simultaneously robbing the Democrats of any leverage they had. After all, it's bad business to oust a sitting President in the middle of a war he started.

                            I think his goal over the next two years is to try to stabilize Iraq and try to avoid a war with Iran. Accomplishing those two things will repair most of the damage he's done and keep the incoming President from having to deal with an ongoing war. Of course, that same President will have to deal with a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan (another project Bush didn't finish), a possibly nuclear Iran, and not to mention our oft-neglected friend North Korea.

                            One final comment. If we're so concerned about terrorists getting WMDs, then why have we allowed North Korea to continue making nuclear weapons? Let's run down the checklist:

                            Hates America? Check.

                            Dirt poor and desperately needs income? Check.

                            Has something that wealthy terrorists desperately want? Check.

                            If anything, Bush has flat-out ignored the biggest threat to the United States, which continues to be North Korea via terrorists. Osama's planes and Saddam's Scuds full of Anthrax are mere drops in the bucket compared to that.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                              Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                              I'd almost like to start this up as a separate discussion. How many foiled terrorist plots have there been in the 5.5 years since 9/11? Keep in mind, I'm not talking about where we thought something might be happeneing and then it didn't. I'm talking about situations where we caught someone planning an attack on US soil. Have our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq really been the reason there hasn't been another attack? From what I hear, the Taliban has set up camp in northern Pakistan, and is slowly turning that country from moderate Islamic Democracy to radical Islamic State. Why are we not in Pakistan stopping that ongoing problem? Surely if they were training terrorists in Afghanistan, they're training them in Pakistan, our ally, as we speak.

                              I'll tell you my opinion why. This time around, there's no incentive for Bush to chase after terror, because he doesn't need to distract people from his other failures by shining a spotlight on a different problem. I think it's no coincidence that his failure to catch bin Laden in Afghanistan was causing his approval ratings to drop like a stone, and we just happened to hear (fake) intelligence that Iraq had WMDs, forcing us to invade, and boosting Bush's approval ratings just prior to the election, giving him a strong platform to run on, and simultaneously robbing the Democrats of any leverage they had. After all, it's bad business to oust a sitting President in the middle of a war he started.

                              I think his goal over the next two years is to try to stabilize Iraq and try to avoid a war with Iran. Accomplishing those two things will repair most of the damage he's done and keep the incoming President from having to deal with an ongoing war. Of course, that same President will have to deal with a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan (another project Bush didn't finish), a possibly nuclear Iran, and not to mention our oft-neglected friend North Korea.

                              One final comment. If we're so concerned about terrorists getting WMDs, then why have we allowed North Korea to continue making nuclear weapons? Let's run down the checklist:

                              Hates America? Check.

                              Dirt poor and desperately needs income? Check.

                              Has something that wealthy terrorists desperately want? Check.

                              If anything, Bush has flat-out ignored the biggest threat to the United States, which continues to be North Korea via terrorists. Osama's planes and Saddam's Scuds full of Anthrax are mere drops in the bucket compared to that.
                              Do you know for sure that were not in anyway operating in Pakistan with the help of the Pakistani intelligence.Just because you don't hear about it on CNN or Fox News doesn't mean its not happening.

                              As far as Saddam having WMD, my Battalion before being deployed spent alot of time training like Saddam had WMD, and as far as I know the most of the Worlds intelligence pointed to the fact that Saddam had WMD.Where did they go?Did he have them?Did he destroy them before the invasion?These are all questions that should be asked but I don't think Bush knowingly lied. I honestly think he expected to find the huge weapons caches like most of us in the military and rest of world believed.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                                Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                                Who wants to stop defending the country? I just want to stop invading and occupying countries that haven't attacked us. Think about it this way: the Bush doctrine is basically "invade and occupy countries that might someday prove to have been a threat to the United States in some way." Imagine if every country adopted the Bush doctrine, what would be the result? This is why the US at Nuremberg tried to define aggression, invading a country that had not attack you first, as the ultimate war crime. Worse even than terrorism. We're now being reminded of the wisdom of that generation. You don't defend your country by starting wars.
                                The irony of this whole debate is Bush and Clinton were both blamed after 9/11 for not going into Afghanistan to destroy Terroist training camps and capture Bin Laden and his group of Thugs.They made the wrong decision and we paid the ultimate price. If Bush or Clinton had decided prior to lauch an large scale invasion in 99 or 2000 people like you would be saying the same exact thing that your saying right now.Meanwhile the Twin Towers would still be standing 3,000 innocent civilians would still be alive, first responders(FD,NYPD,EMS) wouldn't have the health/breathing and financial hardship they have today.

                                No one can predict the future but if you have a problem with a country/Enemy that is a threat to your National Security and they are unwilling to negotiate what are else are you left with.Where do you go from there?Iran is a perfect example.They have publically said they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.They don't recognize Israel so they won't talk to them if your Israel what do you do.Do you wait for them to get the bomb and hope they don't set off a nuke in Tel Aviv or do you start prepping for a war plan to dismantle Iran nuclear capability.Both options suck but one is much worse then the other Israel.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X