Intelligence Chief Holds Class for Rightards

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Jul 26 2007, 08:22 AM) [snapback]485348[/snapback]</div>

Are you aware that using a word like Rightards is offensive?

 

I'm aware, yes. Next question.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Jul 26 2007, 08:22 AM) [snapback]485348[/snapback]</div>

To the moderator...please consider pulling this thread as name calling such as "rightard" or another other name calling regardless of party has no place on this board -- or anywhere else for that matter.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Jul 26 2007, 09:26 AM) [snapback]485351[/snapback]</div>

This FHOP. "Anything unrelated to the Prius. Come chat. First Amendment is your friend in here."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Jul 26 2007, 08:22 AM) [snapback]485348[/snapback]</div>

Dangit.... And Hillary voted to go to war IN IRAQ. She was wrong on the war then, so I'm not voting for her now!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Jul 26 2007, 08:33 AM) [snapback]485356[/snapback]</div>

I didn't say not to use it, but I would hope people here wouldn't use a word like "retard", altered as it is to "Rightards". Say what you want about people you don't agree with, but would you like that word if a family member of yours was handicapped? It isn't about the first amendment, it’s about being considerate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Jul 26 2007, 08:38 AM) [snapback]485361[/snapback]</div>

I think in this case, it's like one guy that's missing an arm calling his buddy who's missing a leg a lamo. Since EricGo is a tard of some kind or the other, he feels at ease with the word.

 

Seriously people... it's not that big of a deal. do a search, you'll find that the term has been used hundreds, if not thousands of times in FHOP. So have liberal-bashing terms.

But by all means, if that's all you have to say about the issue, i guess it just proves out what the dems have been saying - the war in Iraq was unjustified, as there were no WMD's, and no connection to 9/11 or Al Queda.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jul 26 2007, 08:49 AM) [snapback]485367[/snapback]</div>

Because it has been used before is not an excuse to allow it to continue. Once the name calling comes out, most threads and discussion usually break down into a back and forth flame match which resolves little but creates a lot of hard feelings -- a lot like our current political climate in this country.

Either this board permits this kind of name calling or it doesn't.

If it doesn't then the moderator has a duty to pull it. Want to start the discussion again, fine, take out the name calling and make your point (not you, the person who started the thread.)

If the board does allow this stuff, then flame on! Just don't expect much in the way of grown-up discussion.

 

And yet, it's only an issue because you guys all responded to it in such a strong way... Similar tactics used by the right leaning members of the board have generally been ignored, until they're directed at a specific person. You can search and find similar statements all over the place that make blanket name calling on the right and the left that don't cause the discussion to degenerate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Jul 26 2007, 09:08 AM) [snapback]485376[/snapback]</div>

The old 'fooled by the whitehouse' bit...

How stupid should our congress men/women be? Maybe if they were fooled so easily they should resign today and give way to some folks who can think for themselves.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jul 26 2007, 08:49 AM) [snapback]485367[/snapback]</div>

1) Using an offensive word previously doesn't justify it's continued use. Liberal bashing terms that make fun of people's handicaps are also offensive. Like I said, it isn't about whether you CAN use offensive language, it's about whether you should.

2) So you think that because I asked whether the OP knew the word is offensive, it proves the war in Iraq is unjustified and there is no connection between 9/11 and Al Queda? Man, that was easy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jul 26 2007, 09:09 AM) [snapback]485377[/snapback]</div>

I will gladly make the point if I see someone from the "right" acting in a similar manner. In fact, I would emplore other people to police this if they see it. I'm a strong believer that this kind of name calling and lack of respect is destroying civil discord in this country and it has to stop somewhere.

My point remains, is name calling permitted on the boards or not?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Jul 26 2007, 09:08 AM) [snapback]485376[/snapback]</div>

First, let's start on where we agree. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. An very small umbrella organization of Al Queda was in the northern part of Iraq -- of no threat to the U.S. The "peace" after major combat operations (engagement with standing units of the Iraqi army) was BADLY mismanaged. Dealing with Al Queda has become more difficult because of our large commitment of forces in the Iraq theater of operations.

Where we disagree is on the following:

Pre-war intel and intentions: The intel on Iraqi WMD's was confliciting. I do believe that the Administration emphasized intel that made their case rather than intel that did not support their case. However, to suggest there was no intel supporting this action is false. I would also take strong issue with your assertion that Member of Congress were "fooled" into supporting this war. The biggest indicator that this is probably not the case is looking at the statements made by Members on the House and Senate Select Intellegence Committees -- not to mention many other members of Congress. Given the past history with Iraq and their refusal to comply fully with the UN inspections, it was hard not believe the intel that suggested Iraq had WMD's and could use them down the road. This all coming shortly after 9/11 where the U.S. had some intel on what could have been coming and did not act -- I don't think anyone in the federal government wanted to be blamed for letting something happen when they had intel that suggested something was not right in Iraq -- a long time problem that had never been solved.

Our present situation: If you believe that Iraq was a mistake, the question becomes to we have a responsiblity to "fix" it or at least make it somewhat stable before we remove most of our forces? Whether you agree with the war or not, it is incumbent upon the U.S. to leave a government with a fair amount of stability. For example, the key to turning Anbar around was the shift in allegiance by tribal sheiks. But the sheiks turned only after a prolonged offensive by American and Iraqi forces, starting in November, that put al-Qaeda groups on the run. To just pack up our tents and roll out of town would likely leave Iraq in complete chaos and no hope of having a democratic government in addition to a new base for Al Queda.

If you believe that Iraqis being killed by suicide bombers and secterian killings is the fault of the U.S. rather than the persons actually committing those murders, then we're going to have a hard time finding common ground on the current situation.

The costs are heartbreakingly high -- increased American casualties as the enemy is engaged and spectacular suicide bombings designed to terrify Iraqis and demoralize Americans. But the stakes are extremely high as well.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Jul 26 2007, 09:26 AM) [snapback]485351[/snapback]</div>

He/she knows, & like the rest of the clan they could care less, they resort to name calling to initiate a retalliated responce from those who take offence. Thus the responder has to stupe to the OP's level.

Anyone that doesnt wear the same brand of rose colored glasses can see right through the header and know its a loaded thread....

And I guess the same could be said of the other side, however name calling is ok in FHOP. Its when the name calling turns into a personal attack, then the mods swoop in and take care of business...... B)