With your guy's regime appearing more and more discredited, wholly bankrupt in the eyes of most, and in a state of rapid decline (even bush is distancing himself from his policies these days) its no surprise that you choose to duck debates at coopers confining yourself instead to your own echoe chambers. that said i thought you fellas might find this interesting

A Short History of The Bush Administration

Posted by ahmed at October 26, 2006 12:25 AM

Ahmed:

its no surprise that you choose to duck debates at coopers confining yourself instead to your own echoe chambers.

If you want true debate, come here, we argue ideas, not personalities. Your comment here and my response (as well as the responses of others in other threads) are fairly good proof of that.

Sorry Ahmed, close but no cigar for you!

Posted by GM at October 26, 2006 06:32 AM

Ahmed, as a famous orator once said, "It ain't over 'til it's over." We've seen what a Democratic "regime" has done for our national security and our military in the past. Eventually, it always takes the Republicans to end the foreign conflicts that Democrats started or didn't finish.

It's so funny to say that we duck debates at Cooper's. Perhaps you never read Ann Coulter's book on arguing with liberals. One might as well be talking to a wall. And, as to who is ducking debates or talking nonsense, consider this:

http://marccooper.com/closed-until-tues-august-22nd/#comments

Michael Turner: I suggest: ignoring Woody the Troll. ...A guy who can accuse someone like reg (articulate, open-minded, and, last I checked, citizen of a liberal democracy) of living in a world as insular as the Cuba of Woody’s imagination? ...Just ignore him. He comes here only to vent, and to get attention. Just ignore him.

Bubba: You mean ignore him by devoting a whole thread — from now until Aug 22nd — to what a bonehead he is? Or isn’t? Okay, I’m in. I say he is. Let’s discuss.

Woody: It’s so funny that Michael Turner wants people to ignore me, and yet he used his entire comment to discuss me. Michael, there’s another world out there–the real world–and, you can stay ignorant believing that leftists have all the answers and that they could push them through if only voices from the right were silenced or ignored. Think what this country would actually be like if the proposals of liberals were all implemented. Yikes! ....

Michael Balter: Michael, in regards to Woody: Some months ago a handful of us agreed to do what you suggest, ignore Woody, and in the end we found that it was impossible because like it or not he is part of the life of this blog. My own view is that Woody represents a trend in rightwing thought that is almost willfully ignorant, but unfortunately is adhered to by many millions of Americans. So, sorry, can’t agree to snub Woody, he is too good an example of the ignorance and stupidity so widespread in America and which extends to its very highest levels of leadership. ...In fact, thinking about this further, I think a more interesting discussion would be for those of us who disagree with Woody and his ilk to try to understand why they can continue to hold the views they do in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are full of s**t.

Woody: Despite many incorrect observations about myself from you on the left, I’m not a very interesting subject to discuss–especially, when you can sit around in your mutual admiration society trying to out-impess everyone and getting confirmation of your beliefs despite being wrong and despite all reason to the contrary. What I think is significant about our differences is how we arrive at conclusions, which I’ve covered before. People on the left will say that Bush was the brilliant and sinister mind behind the 9-11 attack on the WTC, and turn around and say how stupid he was as he continued reading to a classroom of kids after being told of those attacks. Smart and stupid? Your minds work in wondrous ways. We can argue about “facts”–but I mean real facts, not a lot of make-believe that comes from tainted and misleading liberal sources. If given the exact same information and if that information is correct, a conservative would come away with a more logical analysis than would a liberal. You can take that to the bank.

reg: Yeah, this is why we were told that the Iraq war would be a “cakewalk”.... ...the cost estimates of the war have been consistently wrong.

Woody: Regarding war costs, the cost of any war cannot be predicted realistically. Take, for example, the Democrats’ war on poverty that has run into the trillions and is still not conquered.

Woody: Balter, there is too much inbreeding in your ranks when you and others buddy up and always think that you’re right and somehow prevail, and I really had to laugh when you discussed contradicting me. The phony superiority of the left knows no ends. You must understand that I don’t respect the views of the left, for good reason based on its history, and I can only roll my eyes as you guys espouse wondrous thoughts that may make you feel good but are simply foolish to rational minds. It’s like watching a Democratic convention when Ted Kennedy speaks and the loyal supporters wet their pants with glee with every repetitive, anti-Republican chant that he starts and builds in a crescendo.

Samual Stott: love this meme about how Woody is neither a genuine conservative nor a respectable spokesman for the American Right nor for American Republicans. He is all of these. Beyond that, he is brave and admirable for giving as good as he gets without resorting to personal insults. (Personal; Personal; Personal). Multi-culuralism only goes so far, eh? You can find kind and extenuating words for Jihadis who advocate executing infidels, Christians and Jews, who advocate clit-chopping and execution of “warm brothers,” as the Germans say, but Woody? Man, Woody is really the problem! Woody is the most stand-up guy on this blog.

Woody: Samuel (not Stott above), no I don’t care for attention and what’s sad and adolescent, to use your words, is that you would attack me personally rather than address the point that I made. But, I’m used to it, as that is par for the course from the left side of the political spectrum. It’s just that I noticed that when Marc left the thread open to his commenters, the liberals took over and, as you tried with me, drove others away–as is often the case when a vacuum exists in any organization. ...Forgive me for expressing my opinion once you guys on the left claimed this comment section for your own. And, you wonder why liberal talk radio fails.

reg: I find it hard to believe a discussion of Noam Chomsky...would seem obscure to a right-winger, since he’s routinely demonized and put forward by your crowd as an example of how loonytoons the mentality of anyone and everyone on the left is. ...Also, why bother when football season is upon us…Why don’t you do Marc’s hits a favor here by posting links to the Heisman Hopefuls ?

Woody: reg, nope. I don’t read Chomsky and neither does 99+ percent of Americans. There is another life out there, and I’m not going to spend my time trying to keep up with everything and everyone discussed in the Daily Kos, for which this has become an extension in the last few days. And, I’m confident that more Americans can tell you who won the Heisman Trophy than anything about Chomsky–and, that’s good. But, since I’m very proficient at using google, here’s what I found as one of the first links: Noam Chomsky--"If George Bush were to be judged by the standards of the Nuremberg Tribunals, he’d be hanged. So too, mind you, would every single American President since the end of the second world war, including Jimmy Carter." Uh, huh…. Good reading there. That kind of thinking is worth less than the time that it took me to type this.

Wall: Yes, obscure to Woody might be any book without a lot of good pictures. Woody, I’m no big Chomsky fan; but he is one of the most debated and read voices on the left. ...your a conservative, a word which alas has degenerated, thanks to people like you, into shorthand for “know nothing slob.”

Woody: bunkerbuster, if you will allow me to join the wine and cheese club for a moment, the little that I have read of Chomsky doesn’t impress me. He’s a cheerleader for the left, sort of like reg is here, but his statements are a little dishonest and his positions go to the point of being ridiculous–sort of like reg, too. The left claims heroes because of their extremism–not for any substance. Think about that. It’s true.

Woody: reg, the “mission accomplished” banner is an over-used, grasping-at-straws, meaningless attempt by Democrats to discredit the success of our troops, led by Bush, in moving into Iraq’s capital and overthrowing Hussein. That’s what it did. I think that it’s entirely appropriate to recognize and honor our troops when they have accomplished their missions–which those troops had. But, someone who does not support the troops would not care and would put politics above honor. Maybe you would prefer to keep kicking vets from Korea, Viet Nam, and Somalia, just as you do those in Iraq, for not finishing their jobs as you see it–just to gain a political point.

reg: F**k you, you disgusting moron. If you want to attack people for not supporting the troops and putting politics above honor, you can start with the little s**t Bush, Cheney and Don Rumsfeld who have consistently left our troops hang out to dry in Iraq from day one. People like you disgrace this country with your steady stream of political revisionism to cover your sorry asses.

Woody: Hey, reg. The soldiers in Iraq like to keep up with college football and those players in the running for the Heisman Trophy. In fact, they enjoy it and have games beamed to them. Should we stop letting the soldiers watch football so that they can spend more time worrying about George W. Bush and Iraq? I bet that you think they’re stupid for watching games, don’t you? Is it that the soldiers don’t have anything more important to worry about, or is it that you mock those who enjoy other aspects of life because you think you only what concerns you, to the exclusion of everything else, is important–which is your all consuming hatred for our President and the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces. Well, if that’s the case, you can stop. ...Maybe things will go better in Iraq once the radical left and the Democrats (hard to tell them apart) quit giving hope to the terrorists and encouraging them to hang on–like they, Kerry, and Fonda did on Viet Nam. If you guys support our troops (which you don’t), then quit helping the enemy.

Wall: Woody, like the dithering dittohead you will always be, you were finished before you got started. But I’d LOVE for you to post some more of your Fraud evidence against Kerry. The champion of W, the Babe Ruth of draft dodgers, spits on a Vietnam vet once again!

Bubba: Hey, I was outa town a few days and now there are way too many posts for me catch up. How did that “let’s ignore woody” thing work out?

Woody: reg, do you enjoy being miserable all the time?

Ahmed, that was near the end of my posting at Coopers. I haven't ducked debates and it's clear that a lot of Cooper's commenters wanted to duck them with me. At least, I've learned to use my time more wisely.

P.S. Regarding Europe hating America...any thoughts, since that was the topic?

Posted by Woody at October 26, 2006 07:03 AM

They could have shortened that whole skit to "Woody's a conservative - and we hate conservatives." Just a bunch of generelized ignorance and stupidity, full of s**t, willfully ignorant, know nothing slob, F**k you, you disgusting moron, ... blah,blah,blah.

And it's no wonder that one who identifies with the far left has such a profound understanding of that bastion of excellence and erudite intellectualism, Noam Chomsky, and would lean heavily on his work to make their points because Chomsky, if nothing else, is an avowed communist.

Let's take for instance Chomsky's recent article on the Israeli/Lebanese conflict. He begins with an immediate presupposition posed as fact;

"Though there are many interacting factors, the immediate issue that lies behind the latest US-Israeli invasion of Lebanon remains, I believe, what it was in the four preceding invasions: the Israel-Palestine conflict."

Interestingly, Chomsky begins, with his first sentence, labeling the conflict as a US-Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Not the Israeli invasion of Lebanon - not the Israeli invasion of Iranian and Syrian backed Hizballah controlled Southern Lebanon - not the Israeli retaliation for a Hizballah incursion into Israeli territory to kidnap and kill Israeli soldiers - not even the US backed Israeli invasion of Iranian and Syrian backed Hizballah controlled Southern Lebanon.

No. Just simply the Great Satan and the Little Satan attack on poor Lebanon who took the brunt of Israeli aggression over their frustration with another entity, the Palestinians.

Puhleeze.

This is the kind of rhetoric that Chomsky regularly engages in. He sets the tone with his own view set forward as absolute fact and off he goes. This is the kind of rhetoric that causes many to immediately reject his arguments, unless of course one already harbors the view that the US and Israel are the evil ones and everyone else is just a victim of unwarranted aggression. If he can't be intellectually honest enough to give it a proper label from the start then he can't be intellectually honest enough to be objective beyond that point.

There are two sides to every issue and Chomsky goes to great lengths to ignore the the fact that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been a cycle of violence for far longer than he's been alive or even his great grandparents.

And that's just the very tip of the iceberg that is Chomsky. I won't even go into his love affair with communism. Let me just suffice it to say that he talks big (and smugly) for one who enjoys all the capitalistic pleasures of the US.

And to try hard to tie this in with the subject of the original posting - Europe is full of Chomskys. (I know, weak attempt) And that's just a general statement. Because there are many in Europe who do not hold such disdain for the US or Americans. We just don't hear from them much because the vast majority of the media is on Chomsky's side of the spectrum.

Posted by Oyster at October 26, 2006 11:24 AM

And ahmed:

We are a republic with democratically elected representation. The word "regime", wile meaning a form of government is almost always reserved for those which are dictatorial or fascist in nature. So we get your point, but last I checked our current government was democratically elected and there was a fairly even split in political expression reflected in the vote. Sometimes we have more liberal representation, sometimes not.

Would you use the word "regime" to describe the Clinton administration, or the Carter administration? If you're going to be true to the definition, then I would expect you to use it more "liberally". Fat chance though, huh? Furthermore, Bush is not Hitler and conservatives are not evil. Understand?

Posted by Oyster at October 26, 2006 11:42 AM