Reply #26 October 16, 2004 12:00 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

With all due respect, dabe -

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I would hope it was tad more informed. Your responses to pictoratus's requests for substantiation of these claims are stunningly weak. You say that since everyone has opinions and is espousing them that it's OK to make a public claim of hypocrisy without any factual basis whatsoever?

Do a Google search? You have to be kidding.

I would rather you just admit you have a visceral dislike for Cheney and that the facts don't matter to you. That I could respect because it would be honest. And I'm not trying to demagogue anything. Without a factual foundation, there can be no other basis for your opinion.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Reply #27 October 16, 2004 12:27 AM from WinCustomize Forums Top

Daiwa, I have a visceral dislike for Cheney because the facts DO MATTER TO ME. I can't stomach Bush because the facts DO MATTER TO ME. Thing is, I have watched these two deep six our economy, sink this country into the worst deficits in history, which have resulting in the worst employment record since Truman. Record numbers of people are now without health insurance. This administration is sidestepping or overturning every environmental regulation that they find inconvenient to padding the profits of their corporate friends. This administration was handed a budget surplus by Clinton, and the idiot squandered it. All they had to do was remain fiscally conservative, and they would have been a shoe in in this election. Instead, they sunk us into a horrific and meaningless quagmire of a war based on lies, added insult to injury by giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country during wartime, which is freakin' irresponsible. They verbally assault anyone in their way, like John McCain and Max Cleland, which was shameful. They are blurring the lines between church and state, which is unconstitutional.

These things are facts. Our pres and VP are both lying hypocrites. THE FACTS DO MATTER TO ME, and honestly I cannot for the life of me understand how people refuse to see what's right in front of their faces. I guess it's ideological and philisophical differences, and as I cannot understand how anyone could side with this administration, you obviously cannot understand how I side with the Kerry/Edward ticket. So be it. But please stop this presumptious, condescending and patronizing garbage that I am uninformed. You are so wrong.

Reply #28 October 16, 2004 12:50 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

I have yet to see you say anything good about Kerry or Democrats in general and when you really don't have a substantive argument to present, you try to bully the writer into silence via intimidation. Example: the first time you visited my blog site, you basically had nothing to say except your brashly pointing out a typo made by me and another blogger in the "comment section" as if that was suppossed to scare me into silence

And to boot he doesn't have a blog site to respond to.

Only with clear dialogue, unencumbered by hyperbole, can issues really be discussed and thought out to their logical conclusions. Unfortunately in today's political discourse, demogogery has become the poor substitute for truth.

Agreed!

You know I almost don't want GW to win on Nov2.

And I thought you were a masochist.

Reply #29 October 16, 2004 1:25 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #27 By: dabe - 10/16/2004 12:27:16 AM Instead, they sunk us into a horrific and meaningless quagmire of a war based on lies, added insult to injury by giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country during wartime, which is freakin' irresponsible. They verbally assault anyone in their way, like John McCain and Max Cleland, which was shameful. They are blurring the lines between church and state, which is unconstitutional. These things are facts. Our pres and VP are both lying hypocrites. THE FACTS DO MATTER TO ME, and honestly I cannot for the life of me understand how people refuse to see what's right in front of their faces. I guess it's ideological and philisophical differences, and as I cannot understand how anyone could side with this administration, you obviously cannot understand how I side with the Kerry/Edward ticket. So be it. But please stop this presumptious, condescending and patronizing garbage that I am uninformed. You are so wrong.

Wrong answer Bud. Cutting out the marriage penalty and increasing the child credit and increasing the personal deduction on fed income tax returns are FAR from aiding just the rich. Unlike what Kerry has stated this is fact not fiction and is helping the lower and middle class also! And Kerry doesn't lie?

Reply #30 October 16, 2004 1:45 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

dabe -

You are the one condescending here. I suggest that facts would help us better understand your opinions and you fire back a diatribe of DNC propaganda. You have yet to provide any basis for your opinions, just told me that I "refuse to see what's right in front of" me yet given me nothing to "see."

And you've made my point for me. It's NOT about the facts, it's about your opinion. You're entitled to it, but a personal attack doesn't persuade me you're informed or that you're prepared for a civil dialog. I suggests that you're not interested in facts or truth, just in taking people down. Rather like your candidate.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Reply #31 October 16, 2004 5:27 PM from WinCustomize Forums Top

Daiwa, go do some research. Go to sites that actually have informative articles. A few sites that come to mind are:

http://www.commondreams.org
http://www.truthout.org
http://www.optruth.org/main.cfm
http://www.fair.org/
http://www.gregpalast.com/
http://www.truthout.org/environment.htm
http://www.sierraclub.org/wwatch/
http://www.gnn.tv/index.html
http://scoop.agonist.org/

I am not uninformed just because I don't agree with you or any of the rest of the republicans around here. If you call that condescending, I could care less. I don't base my decisions on FOX News, CNN, or other right wing propaganda machines. I also base my decisions on what I SEE happening in and to this country because of the misguided, criminal, self-serving policies perpetrated by our present administration. As for personal attacks, I have only responded with disdain to two posters here, that drmiler jerk and the flamethrower sicko. I'm going to leave it at that.

As for Bush, he's a pathetic moron of the worst kind. If not for his father, he NEVER would have been president because he just doesn't have the mental capacity to do it well. He's definitely proven that over the past almost four years. He does not deserve another four years, and I'll do everything I can to convince people of that. Period.

Reply #32 October 16, 2004 5:40 PM from WinCustomize Forums Top

Oh, and I forgot one site:

Evil GOP Bastards http://www.evilgopbastards.com/

Reply #33 October 16, 2004 5:55 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #31 By: dabe - 10/16/2004 5:27:48 PM Daiwa, go do some research. Go to sites that actually have informative articles. A few sites that come to mind are: http://www.commondreams.org http://www.truthout.org http://www.optruth.org/main.cfm http://www.fair.org/ http://www.gregpalast.com/ http://www.truthout.org/environment.htm http://www.sierraclub.org/wwatch/ http://www.gnn.tv/index.html http://scoop.agonist.org/ I am not uninformed just because I don't agree with you or any of the rest of the republicans around here. If you call that condescending, I could care less. I don't base my decisions on FOX News, CNN, or other right wing propaganda machines.

You wan to talk about right-wing? Just what do you think "http://www.sierraclub.org" is? It's a proven fact that they are as far *left* as you can get.

Reply #34 October 16, 2004 6:03 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Well gee wizzzz, drmiler, it is my humble opinion that

LEFT IS GOOD

:D:D

Reply #35 October 16, 2004 6:11 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #34 By: dabe - 10/16/2004 6:03:44 PM Well gee wizzzz, drmiler, it is my humble opinion that LEFT IS GOOD

Again that is your opinion and not everyone elses.

Reply #36 October 16, 2004 6:16 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

DABE YOU ARE NOW WANTED FOR TREASON.

Reply #37 October 16, 2004 6:18 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

"DABE YOU ARE NOW WANTED FOR TREASON. "

Reply #38 October 16, 2004 6:19 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

https://www.joeuser.com/forums.asp?MID=3&CMID=3&AID=31584#144229
U see that dabe? lol Link

Reply #39 October 16, 2004 6:21 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

"Myrrander, do you ever feel like you'd rather have a root canal than debate this stuff? I sure do.
I have to say, JU is the most vicious, arrogant blog site I've ever come across. I don't understand it. I don't understand the hatred and venom that spews forth against democrats from these guys. It's sick.
It's also very sad."

Hey Dabe, thanks for the sentiment. I can't actually post on that "dead children" thread, so I thought I'd answer you on one of your threads (and this way YOU get the points instead of that other guy) -- Yeah, I'd take the root canal. Especially with nitrous. I'm tired of being told I hate soldiers because I'm against the Iraq war. And I think I got blacklisted off that other thread because I made a correlation between the "preemptive" action in Iraq with the "preemptive" action of Pearl Harbor. Oh well. Keep up the good work, mate.

Reply #40 October 16, 2004 7:05 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

dabe -

All this back & forth & you've still not provided one, not one, solid fact that supports the allegations in Leopold's article on commondreams, which was the point of your article in the first place. You won't even bother to verify or back up your own articles. Listing a bunch of partisan websites and inviting me to help myself to more of the same is meaningless. This tells me that you are nothing more than a hack blasting JU with propaganda. This exchange has been helpful for me, however, since I now know I won't learn anything from your articles and can just pass them by.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Reply #41 October 16, 2004 8:18 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Well gee wizzzz, drmiler, it is my humble opinion that LEFT IS GOOD

you are entitled to that OPINION, but i believe you were asked for some sites that stated FACTS... I honestly dont know what you dont get about that... I learned the difference between fact and opinion in about 1st grade

Reply #42 October 16, 2004 9:00 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Having read the article again that you posted, Dabe, I do have a problem with it. Some of the things they attribute to Halliburton they refer to only as "happening in the mid-90's" -- no specific time frame. This is a bit disengenous, because by saying "mid 90s" they bring to mind that Cheney was hired on at Halliburton in 1995 -- it could have been something that happened before 1995. Plus, even those of us on the left have to admit that a CEO does what is best for his company -- and this doesn't always mean that the same ideas will apply in running the government. The article mentions that the Clinton administration blocked a Halliburton deal -- which to me says that Cheney was trying to make money for his company, and in an instant where it didn't jive with law, the company was stopped. This doesn't bother me a lot, because a company always tries to make money, and I can't fault Halliburton for wanting to make theirs. Besides, along with oil industry supplies, it says Halliburton sold water treatment and sewage equipment to Iraq, and I refuse to have a problem with anyone selling somebody something that gives people a clean drink of water.

I generally agree that Halliburton and Cheney have done some shady things, but I had to mention that I see the other side on this one, too.

Reply #43 October 16, 2004 9:47 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Myrrander, fair enough. I understand yours, and others point about the lack of backup to that story. However, I am not an investigative reporter, so I rely on the investigation done by others. One particular story, found here:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/carlyle.html is not specifically about Cheney and his dealings with Iraq, though it alludes to it. This story goes much deeper, into the investigation of the entire Bush, Carlyle, Baker, Cheney practices and abuses regarding the Mideast, oil and lots and lots of money. I sent this link to my sister a number of weeks ago, because the site's contents provide the most factual and investigative stuff about these crooks.

When I find more, I'll post it.

Reply #44 October 16, 2004 10:14 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Alludes to it? Clearly you don't understand. I'm sorry, but this is pathetic. I'm no investigative reporter, either, but anyone should be able to tell the difference between unsubstantiated speculation and factual documentation. This "I see smoke, therefore I know who burned the building down" school of thought is just ludicrous.

Props to you, Myrrander, for seeing this & trying to let dabe down easy.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Reply #45 October 16, 2004 11:11 PM from PolMach Forums Top

i know this might be a tint outa line but can some one give me a link to john kerry's medical records (for purple hearts in vietnam)

Reply #46 October 16, 2004 11:14 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Props to you, Myrrander, for seeing this & trying to let dabe down easy.

Well, contrary to the belief of some, I'm not a robot programmed by the DNC.

Reply #47 October 16, 2004 11:34 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Sheeesh..............................
Sorry I didn't get the Cheney substantiation. I will be looking for it. But Daiwa, did you read any of that article? It was well substantiated with cites and links. It points to the slimy history of the entire Bush/Cheney/Bin Laden regime. Maybe it's time for you to start substantiating some of your beliefs, like what a stand-up and honest guy Cheney really is. Maybe, you can submit a link to what that guy has actually accomplished, as VP, other than the secretive energy meetings with his corporate buddies. Point me to something you consider factually informative, please.

Reply #48 October 16, 2004 11:41 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

secretive energy meetings

I have my own ideas about why these meetings are being kept secret. Dick Cheney's a smart guy -- even his most vitriolic critics have to admit that. Geologic experts and energy experts are predicting that world oil production will surpass its peak sometime between 2008 and 2015. This is going to happen even if Iraqi oil production maxes out and ANWR drilling is approved. I have a feeling that a good portion of these meetings were about this impending crisis. Cheney has made a couple of statements that make me think that this "oil peak" is on his mind.

“By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves.”
--Dick Cheney, 1999

“The most significant difference between now and a decade ago is the extraordinarily rapid erosion of spare capacities at critical segments of energy chains. Today, shortfalls appear to be endemic. Among the most extraordinary of these losses of spare capacity is in the oil arena."
--Dick Cheney, 2001

My feeling is, Cheney wants to keep these meetings a secret because he feels that some of the content might cause a bit of panic -- not necessarily in the general populace, but in an already volatile energy market. I'm working on a piece about this Dabe, so I'll keep ya posted. P.S. I thought some of the article you posted was unsubstantiated, but there was a good deal of factual info in it too, so I don't want you to feel like I'm coming down totally against what you posted -- quite the contrary!

Reply #49 October 17, 2004 12:01 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Thanks, Myrrander. You're a good writer, and I'm looking forward to your article. But, this energy thing really makes me wonder.........
First of all, the secrecy of the meetings would inherently tend to be fraught with speculation. If the issue was regarding the peak oil production issue, well guess what? That's no secret. However, basing public policy on it in secret is very suspect, particularly if the only people invited to the table are oil and utility industry CEO's and the like. The fact that virtually no environmental organizations or community were invited to the table is scary. The fact that we are now in a war in Iraq, wherein speculation about when that war was actually planned is troublesome. Given that Iraq is the second largest producer of oil, and we went to war based on lies and deceptions compounds the problem of holding policy meetings in secret. Particluarly when such meetings are supposed to be open and honest. Gee, who was at the meetings anyway? See where I'm going with this, Myrrander. I do hope your article takes some of this issue into account.

Reply #50 October 17, 2004 12:04 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

But Daiwa, did you read any of that article?

Every word. And I've published no claims or allegations about Cheney, so there's nothing for me to substantiate.

And I think Myrrander may be spot on regarding the secret energy policy meetings.

Cheers,
Daiwa