Edited title: Liberal talking points, reasons to hate Bush from the left.

[gbear]

Art, you said conservatives don't care about civil liberties, and that's a leftist platform. Are Libertarians liberals then? When did that happen?

Ah heck, I know things are messed up when I'm what you label a socialist, and I'm for more fiscal responcibility than Bush has shown.

I guess I should probably back off though, because clearly this is a right vs. right fight. The last president I disliked almost as much as Bush was Reagan, and that's the standard against which Bush is being found lacking on this thread.

Just please don't make the point that holding Bush up to Reagan standards is liberal talking points. The idea of Reagan being liberal is wacked.

[Larry]

Thought it was so refreshing to see somebody actually responding on-popic, I'd try to keep things going, too.

From panel:

From me:

2. Failed to reform, restructure and cut the American Military which spends more than the next 17 greatest military powers combined most of whom are our allies. Bush increased their budget.

We are in a war, this is war time, we better be spending some $ for the troups to have some stuff

Several mixed observations:

• Yes, we are, kind of, in a war. (Although it really ticks me when people announce we're in a "war against terrorism", since frankly that makes about as much sense as a war on poverty. A "war" is something that exists between countries. The "war against terrorism" is a political fiction that's simply being used as a justificatioon for political actions. What we are, right now, is at war with Iraq. But that's kind of a side issue, and a really semantic one).
  
• I like the US having the world's biggest military. Not because I really want my country to be a bully, but because the alternative to having the biggest military really stinks.
  
• I don't know if our military really needs to be this large. It's one thing to have the biggest army in the world. It's quite another to be big enough that you can simultaneously invade any coalition of up to three countries.
  
• If our military costs more than #2-#18 combined, then how come our military isn't big enough to fight a war (and win) against #2-#18 combined? Is there some way we could be big enough to fight (and win) against #2-#4 combined, while spending less?
  

3. Personally decided to grow the federal budget by hundreds of billions of dollars to fight an old man who lives in a cave and who attacked us on a budget of less than 20k.

Why down play Saddam, he was the second most dangorous person in the world. I'm glad he is out. That wasn't a waste. That was smart, bush gets slammed for not acting pre-attack on information about 9/11, and gets slammed for acting pre-attack in Iraq, some people just want to slam him.

Saddam wasn't "the secone most dangerous person in the world". He was a third-world dictator with delusions of grandeur. That's why the whole "WMD thing" is going to cost us. To use an analogy, most everybody recognizes the concept of shooting someone because "he was going for his gun". It's another thing, after shooting someone, to say "he was thinking about learning how to start making a gun."

I do like your comment about Bush being criticised for acting pre-attack vs. Saddam, the problem is, it's one thing to act when your enemy is a few days from attacking you, it's another when he's five years away.

6. Alienated and devalued the two standing cornerstones of America’s foreign policy for the last five decades. The United Nations (which we founded) and NATO.

Who cares if we allianate them, they are spinless groups that fold under pressure, and do what is politically what is in there favor, not what is right.

In short, they're politicians, and therefore are clearly inferior to our country, which never attempts to manipulate things for simple national advantage.

7. Failed to make any meaningful contribution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. It’s exploded with thousands of deaths per year under President Bush. Last year without any deaths due to terrorism was 1999 the year before Bush took office. Now both sides loose folks every weekend… Direct result of Bush’s hands off policy all the while he is arming Israel.

Lets be honest, that crap has always been going on, and it couldn't be fixed by ANY U.S. president. No one can control that crap, blaming some one for not stopping that juck is very un-fair.

I'm with you. When did bringing peace to the Middle East become the US President's job?

8. Hurt the governments credibility domestically by deliberately blurring the line between 911 an the invasion of Iraq.

Not a big deal at all. It isn't like Saddam cried for us, or like he cared that Alqada was in his country, if fact he incuraged that crap, and any trash against americans

It is a big deal. It's one thing to react to unexpected circumstances, but it's pretty obvious that what's happened here is an administration looking at a Pearl-Harbor type attack and saying "this is our chance to ram through all the things we wanted to do, anyway, but didn't have the votes for."

12. Held more than 200 POW’s / enemy combatants incommunicado for years now with no charges, evidence, judicial oversite, or Geneva convention rights, including three boys ages 11, 12, 13 (when captured) who were recently released.

Held four Brits for two years without any evidence of wrong doing who were recently released and who will not and can not be charged in Britain because there is no evidence against them. At least one was a relief worker.

I don't know too much about this, being held with out evedance sucks, and is really un american, But he would hve been trashed if he let go of anyone who turned around and blew stuff up, so I can understand holding them for a little while, but he held them too long, you got to check up on these things fast if you are holding people.

This is what I see as the biggest threat from this administration: The legal position that someone, once the Gov has him, can simply be denied any law whatsoever, simply because the Gov "decides" to put a different label on him.

It's a trend that didn't start here. ("Police announced they were scouring the state for John Doe, because they want to haul him to jail because his wife has been found murdered. But, they claim, they don't need a warrant for him, and don't need to let him talk to a lawyer, because he's "not a suspect". They just want to throw him a jail for a few days and interrogate him. But, as long as they don't call him a suspect, they don't have to give him the rights that murder suspects have.") It's the moral equivalent of the cops arresting someone and then driving him from police station to station, so his lawyer can't find him. The difference is, in this case, they're moving his file from one cabinet to another, and claiming that this law only applies if his file is in these cabinets. (And, we've got this new, 'special' cabinet, where we haven't even written down what the rules are.)

So, let's be blunt: You can't invade somebody's country and then claim that the citizens can't fight back because we haven't given them permission. You can't claim that terrorists are exempt from american laws and rules because we're at war with them, but the rules of war don't apply to them because they aren't a country. (It's the moral equivelant of the N Vitenamese claiming they can torture downed pilots, because the Geneva conventions don't apply, because the US didn't declare war. Were they justifed? They had a legal loophole they'd found.)

[Art]

Originally posted by thew

What a ringing endorsement of Bush there Art. If you don't value our NATO allies and you don't care about America's place in the UN, and you don't mind America running a 500 billion dollar trade deficite, and you don't mind that he's lost 1 out of 7 manufacturing jobs in the country, and you overlook that he's lost 3 million jobs while Clinton created 11 million jobs in his first term in office. If you don't mind him turning a 200 billion dollar revenue surplus into a 200 billion dollar deficite. If you don't care that he hasn't addressed any of his stated goals entering office. If you don't mind that he's spent 200 billion dollars to answer an attack which at most cost about 15k. If you don't mind all these things then you have a very good point.

NATO was put together to protect against the Soviet Union. The group is largely outdated at this point. Hell, Russia may join up one day. I've read the Constitution repeatedly and I can't find a United Nations branch of our government. I care not one little bit for the U.N. Neither does any conservative or Republican. The rest of your rant is merely out-of-your mind screaming for the sake of screaming.

Bush had to correct corporate business scandals that took place under Clinton, costing jobs. He had a major attack on our soil costing jobs. He had the internet bubble that created jobs that shouldn't have existed burst and cost jobs. If you don't appreciate the history of what we're going through, that's fine, but, to pretend events out of the control of Bush had nothing to do with the downturn you're simply a lunatic.

Your brand of Republicanism perhaps art. I'll explain your views to Charlton Heston at my next NRA meeting about how Republican's care less about civil rights than Democrates. I'm sure he'll bring it up with Ronald Reagan who did more than any other president to strengthen our right to bare arms. I guess they'll have to rewrite that "smaller less obtrusive government" to larger more instrusive government to make it jib with your new Republican platform.

Thew, for better or worse, civil rights was a liberal issue. Our side of the isle fought against it. Obviously several individual conservatives joined the fight. But, this is not an issue we can claim victory for. Fortunately civil rights is no longer an issue at the present time as both parties enjoy a largely improved situation. Though, the right has the right of it attempting to end unequal treatment through affirmative action programs. We have 24 more years of that though according to the Supreme Court at the timer they put on it. The civil rights movement is largely seen as that which got rights for blacks and, to a lesser degree, women in this country. Gun rights are largely viewed as gun rights, rather than civil rights, though, I appreciate your attempt to lump the two.

I don't. Neither did Bush. Bush brought Rumsfeild back from moth balls to reform the pentigon. No way outspending the next 17 greatest world powers combined makes fiscal sense. Conservative Republicans hate waste. Pentigon is full of it. The attack dogs they brought in to reform the place went crazy and there was no strong arm like Jim Baker to put some sanity into the disussion.

You keep saying military spending greater than others in the world is a bad thing. The Constitution specifically calls for military spending and very little else. So, we can spend a million times more than everyone else. As long as we have the strongest military in the world, bar none, I'm happy. As a conservative, so too should you be.

Giving folks back there money is great. But not if you increase spending by hundreds of billions of dollars while doing it. Cuting taxes, increasing spending and going to war all at the same time is a good example of an administration with no values, no fiscal responsibility, and no self control..... How can any conservative defend it?

And now Bush has submitted a budget that holds the line on spending. You will support it, right?

Last time I checked the Republican's controlled both the house and senate. When he didn't directly control both of the chambers he was only off by a single vote.. And what does he do for his legacy.. Iraq, grow government, cut taxes, increase spending, loose jobs, and insult our allies. He allows his aids to opennly moch the UN and then he goes back to them and asks for dept forgiveness, troops, and services. He's horrible.

We have more allies with our war on Iraq than we did during the first Persian Gulf war. Apparently you think it's ok for our allies to insult us, but we should not insult them. If our allies say no to us, we should do as they wish, rather than as we must? Are you sure you're American? Americans rule America son. We've got 90 nations signed on. The MAJORITY of Europe sent a letter THANKING America for all its done for the world before the Iraq war in support of us. Do you even know that?

The U.N. is a laughable body that shouldn't even exist, much less be catered to. We should kick it out of New York. But, since five nations have veto power over anything it does, what does it matter? No conservative thinks the U.N. is important. Hell, most liberals know it's not. Where are you confused.

Bush has control that other Republicans could only dream of. And what does he do... Nothing I agree with.. Bi Partisan.. please...

Bush has had passed more bipartisan legislation than any president you can name. You don't have to like it, but it's true. In fact, this is probably why you do not like Bush. It's because he's made too great an effort to include the left that the policies have too left a slant to them. He'll have to cater some to his base now.

Go back and re-read what I quoted then. First I quoted who the geneva convention applies to and then I posted the definition of a POW. Britain is treating their prisoners as POW's because they signed the Geneva Convention. Only Bush and America isn't. It's horrable....

I did read what you put. And I was struck that you didn't include the whole definition. You stopped before finishing the quoted passage because the REST of what you left out defines what a POW is and how he's not what you're saying. For the record, an English citizen in Afghanistan who is caught for fighting with the Taliban or simply being associated with terror groups aren't POWs. You still haven't posted the definition of POW. This is why you are confused.

Once again here is the definition....

http://www.aiipowmia.com/legis/geneva1950.html

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

So, again, I'll ask, can you please post the definition. You still haven't. You haven't provided the following conditions. It's the following conditions that satisfy the definition. You've now left them out repeatedly. It means you're lying because you know the conditions prevent the definition from applying. But, here they are for you.

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

( That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

© That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

You see, terrorists running around without uniform or insignia are not POWs. Only the national army of a country can be POWs. Not foreign citizens who are helping that army covertly. But, actual armed and identifable soldiers who are citizens of the countries at war or party to the war yet who are identifiable.

When you fail, repeatedly, to provide the full definition, it is a clear sign you know READING the whole definition makes your argument fall into dust. Don't ever do this again. When you can find the proper passage to define a POW and you are asked to provide it, either say you can't find it, or provide the whole definition. Don't cut and paste short, trying to sneak your way in, thinking others haven't already had this conversation with liberals before.

I know your tricks before you use them. So, again, can you please post the definition of POW as supplied by the Geneva Convention. I'll keep waiting for your first time, though, I've already done it for you.

Several of our "prisoners" have died due to their treatment. They weren't beaten that we know of but they are deprived of sleep and made to stand and sit in uncomfortable leading to the deaths due to DVT's....

We had an incident in Iraq where actual POWs were beaten and the men involved are being prosecuted. But, we're not talking about that isolated event. We're talking about the non-POWs in Cuba who live better than American soldiers in Cuba. One prisoner recently released actually said he wanted to go back and he hoped to be an American soldier one day. Want to see that testimony?

Do you not know the situation, and only pay attention to liberal blogs for your information?

Holding these folks without trial, lawyers or charges for years certainly is against American law. The administrations claim that they are not on American soil so they aren't subject to American law is a joke. They are directly under the control of the American country. If they are soldiers then they are POW's and if they aren't then they are criminals and subject to American law. Why the hell do you think all the American's were taken out of Getmo?

Actually, there still are a couple of Americans at Gitmo as best anyone knows. But, only Americans are subject to American law. Foreign battlefield combatants are not. See, our rights extend to us. Americans. Not the rest of the world. And, since the Gitmo activities have withstood several court challenges, we know it's not at all against the law. Again, it seems you've been fed a load of cr@p by a liberal blog somewhere and you've stopped paying attention to reality. That's too bad.

No press, no lawyers, no rights, no charges, no evidence, no limits.. How exactly could that ever be considered legal. Did you know they just released 13,14, and a 15 year old boy. They held them for two years so they were 11, 12, and 13 when we grabbed them. I thought only N Korea grabed little kids off the street and held them for years without trials or evidence without telling their parrents that they are alive or dead or even whether we have them or not... Didn't know that was a conservative value..

These prisoners are being held in full and complete accordance with military law. Do you know -- and you do since you pointed it out -- that we're releasing people as we give them hearings? Do you know only a couple are Americans who MAY have rights but the rest do not have a right to press, lawyers or anything other than the military book of justice. They are even being held in accordance with the physical terms of the Geneva Convention which is just plain nice of us. What's your complaint exactly?

Art... I don't agree with you, but at least you've pointed out specific issues to discuss. The others blanket labels without any refference to anything don't add to the debate at all..

Thew, a lack of agreement with me is a lack of agreement with reality. Like our unemployment numbers conversation where I proved you wrong and have yet to see you thank me for helping you better understand something. I want you to reflect on how off the wall you are. You seem to lack a basic understanding of the topics you're addressing and you are stunned when others can't communicate on that lacking level.

[Art]

Originally posted by gbear

Art, you said conservatives don't care about civil liberties, and that's a leftist platform. Are Libertarians liberals then? When did that happen?

Ah heck, I know things are messed up when I'm what you label a socialist, and I'm for more fiscal responcibility than Bush has shown.

I guess I should probably back off though, because clearly this is a right vs. right fight. The last president I disliked almost as much as Bush was Reagan, and that's the standard against which Bush is being found lacking on this thread.

Just please don't make the point that holding Bush up to Reagan standards is liberal talking points. The idea of Reagan being liberal is wacked.

Gbear,

I said the civil rights movement was largely a liberal experience as we know the term refers to acquiring rights for blacks. Civil liberties are an entirely different topic that Thew didn't bring up, though I know that's what he meant. I've just decided to chat on what people say, rather than what they mean.

This is not a right versus right fight, Gbear. Thew is a leftist so obviously it's laughable to pretend he's anything else. He's CLEARLY trying to pretend he's not but he can't do that well.

[Ghost of]

Art

One disagreement I have with you is about the civil rights thing. If I'm not mistaken a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the two or three major acts than Democrats.

Now, I understand that with demographics shifts came party alignment shifts, but I still don't consider it to be purely a left-wing issue. Didn't Eisenhower send in troops in support of the Brown v. Board decision, or am I completely misremembering my history?

I will agree though, that many on the right felt that anything more specific than the Constititution was unnecessary, but I also don't think that the "right" was responsible for the "anti" civil rights activism.

I think the right was just more concerned with international issues at the time and didn't like the heavy involvement of far left orgs(not that all were far left) in the movement.

[Art]

Chomerics,

Marty lost the football team after five games. The team revolted against him. Instead of holding firm, he caved. He gave into the players and altered the system both on offense and on defense. After arrogantly playing five games against our strengths, he finally allowed things to be played to them.

It was then, that he was lost. It would have taken him two years and a total roster purge just to get some semblance of a team back. Once he gave in to the the mutiny he was done here. What he accomplished was different than what Gibbs accomplished. Marty simply gave up. He let the defense be a high school basic setup, and the offense to be a high school basic offense and because we had good individual talent, we could beat teams, but we couldn't out scheme teams, so our top end was always low.

Marty wasn't short any number of dollars because of the Deion cut and a few other cap charges. Marty decided, on his own, as he had complete control, to have a $53 million roster that year. He left $27 million on the table that Snyder kept trying to get him to spend and he wouldn't. Marty took cap hits he didn't have to take, but did, and that's fine. The problem is he lost the team and never could get it back without sweeping changes. You can find a post on this board I wrote after that game saying his situation here was over.

Spurrier is a different story. Spurrier never seemed to have a core belief he wanted to maintain. If the media said he should do something, he did. If a player did, he did. If his friends did, he did. He never found who he was in the NFL. He lost because of it.

Snyder did make a number of higher-priced, free agent signings in 2000. But it was more than for making a splash. That team was coming off a division championship with a top level offense and the No. 30 defense. Snyder's free agents were to the defense -- we actually spent more money on draft picks and our own free agents than others -- and the defense improved from No. 30 to No. 4. Snyder's spending merited a wild success.

Unfortunately, the offense got injured and couldn't live up to the previous year, despite a 6-2 start against the toughest part of our schedule. The 2000 signings, however, did exactly what they were designed to do and is a feather in Snyder's cap for having helped us that much.

The problem with your link on ticket prices is Washington is treated differently than other teams in this. The yellow club level and specialty seats in the burgandy levels are counted as part of our ticket prices and we have MORE of these seats than any other team.

Our general admission prices, are middle of the road. It's the premium seats that push our value up to among the highest and measures of our ticket prices don't distinguish between our premium and GA seats. Only the GA seats is shared money with other owners. That's all that should be reflected in these assessments.

It's not.

In fact, you do not remember Snyder taking George over Johnson. It never happened. Snyder DID sign George to a cheap contract to backup Johnson and that made Johnson worried. Even Norv has said he was never told who to play. And George NEVER did play until Johnson was hurt while Norv was around.

George played again in Norv's last game as Johnson was getting stoned and George came in and almost rallied us to a victory. But, the George/Johnson situation had nothing to do with Norv's firing The firing had EVERYTHING to do with the team giving up on Norv almost completely that day. It was disturbing to watch. I was a Norv supporter. After that game I called a friend and said Norv had to be fired. That team rejected him and gave up on him that day.

I was very much a Norv fan. Snyder had no choice. I still might have waited until the end of the year, but, that move had to be made and it had nothing to do with George or Johnson. Snyder never directed any player to play at any time. Still hasn't.

Norv has said so. There was no pressure to do so. And George NEVER DID play unless Johnson was hurt and he had to, or until Johnson was so ineffective he was benched in game by Norv. Now, Snyder MAY have directed Robiske to keep George in there. That's the point Snyder could have flexed his muscles according to history.

But we know for sure he never dictated playing time to Norv.

Our future doesn't appear to be mortgaged at all. We are a young team with a lot of players in the fold the next few years. Contracts are structured to allow us to convert base to cash as we need, or to make cuts and absorb dead money as we need. If we win, this team will be held together until 2010 or so. If we lose, it'll disband and start fresh in 2006 or so. Nothing to do with mortgaging the future though.

We'll be under the cap without taking any critical losses in players as long as we want under Gibbs. Cash solves cap.

As for your politics, in the first thread we spoke in, down below, you repeated faulty stats over and over and over until you were provided with actual numbers. You actually thanked me for providing you the information and I assumed you learned from it. That's big of you.

But, I worry you are still to hyperventaliting for your own good.

[gbear]

Art, just so we're clear, is your definition of liberal anyone who disapproves of Bush? (which strikes me as odd because you yourself say you disapprove of Bush)

As I read this, the arguements on here seem mostly in the form of comparing Bush conservatism with Regan conservatism and conservatism under the Gingrich new deal. Would you agree that Bush's "conservatism" would satisfy none of the main tenets of conservatism from either of those time periods?

Is it solely his belief in the UN that has you thinking he is not conservative? Not trying to be a pain (maybe I missed stuff while out for a bit last week), just trying to figure out why you insist on labeling him a liberal when the comparissons he's made are all to conservative ideals. I end up at the same place on many issues...and I'm a liberal...but the path we'd take argueing is certainly different.

[Art]

Gbear,

Thew is a leftist almost as socialist as you.

If you've read anything here and felt he was speaking from the right, then, essentially, you're just being dense. He provided a list of reasons "conservatives" hated Bush, of which, almost all of them are reasons the left hates Bush and if the rest were true would be reasons conservatives would LOVE Bush.

A leftist, for example, believes the United Nations should run the foreign policy of the United States. A leftist, for example, believes the Federal Government has control of state education. A liberal, for example, believes the military should be cut. Example after example of legitimate liberal beliefs Thew is attempting to pass off as conservative.

Reagan would have giggled at that list.

Bush would have.

Any conservative would have.

[thew]

Art....

Don't confuse me having to sleep, eat and work with some sort of moral victory with regards to Bush's horrable job creation record. I've conceeded nothing to you on that subject other than you are too dense and opaque for me to justify spending any more time on.

on some Artisms...

NATO was put together to protect against the Soviet Union. The group is largely outdated at this point.

NATO represents a link and an alliance with the other richest and most successful democracies in the world. To suggest America's relationships with these countries and NATO itself is "outdated" is to be oblivious to why America has a foreign policy. NATO is our most important alliance bar non and has been for 50 years.

The Constitution specifically calls for military spending and very little else. So, we can spend a million times more than everyone else. As long as we have the strongest military in the world, bar none, I'm happy. As a conservative, so too should you be.

How much stronger do you wish to be Art? I mean the majority of the great nations are our allies. None are our enemies. Only a few in one's wildest dreams could potentially become enemies China maybe Russia?. America outspending the 17 greatest nations combined. Sure we need to be the strongest but that's more than we need and it's inherantly wasteful.

Thew, for better or worse, civil rights was a liberal issue. Our side of the isle fought against it.

Art you confuse civil rights with the civil rights movement. I in no way think Bush is persecuting black people who fought for the civil rights amemendment. I'm reffering to everybody's civil rights which bush is subverting which are contained in the the constitution..

Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]

Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)]

Amendment III [Quartering of Troops (1791)]

Amendment IV [search and Seizure (1791)]

Amendment V [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)]

Amendment VI [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)]

Amendment VII [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)]

Amendment VIII [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)]

Amendment IX [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)]

Amendment X [Rights Reserved to States (1791)]

Gun rights are largely viewed as gun rights, rather than civil rights, though, I appreciate your attempt to lump the two.

Actually Art the right to bear arms is one of the civil rights granted to all civilian Americans ( civil rights) in the constitution under the Second Amendment. Your belief conservatives care nothing for the constitution clearly labels you an idiot or a reactionary. I think personally you're a little of both.

And now Bush has submitted a budget that holds the line on spending. You will support it, right?

And he did it without cutting spending one bit too... He just took all his additional spending off budget!!! No I don't support it. Cut spending, give me back my balanced budget, then I'll support it. But I won't support Bush. Waking up his fourth year in office and setting up a little window dressing isn't enough for me. He's still running more than a 200 billion dollar deficite with no creditable enemy on the horizon and while prosecuting and elective war in Iraq..

We have more allies with our war on Iraq than we did during the first Persian Gulf war.

I'm pretty sure not even you believe this... It must have sounded good but you are terrible terrible wrong, just between the Arab states and Europe you have more than 20 a 20 country difference.... What's worse the allies we do have in this war ( other than Britain ) can't even afford to field their own soldiers.. So we're paying for them out of our pocket. Unlike the first gulf war when 80% of our expenses were re-embursed by our allies. The allies we have are the ones we paid for.. ( other than Britain ) They aren't allies at all but mercenaries.

The U.N. is a laughable body that shouldn't even exist, much less be catered to.

"If your not with us, your against us" Bush speak to our greatest allies... If you don't agree with us, you're our enemy. Moronic..

You want free trade but you dont want to be part of the world community. You want followers but you don't want to lead. You want to be listenned too but you won't hear....

Once again Art.. you're a radical not a conservative. I look like the left to you because you're standing at the extreme right over near where Stalin used to sit.

You see, terrorists running around without uniform or insignia are not POWs.

In Vietnam and even WWII American officers regularly covered their insignias so as not to be shot by the enemies.. Were they not still soldiers...

All of America's allies including Britain extend POW rights to these fighters, the American Army petitioned publically to do so. But Bush says no.. Why? because he's got no evidence against them for the civil courst and if they were POW's he would have to allow them visitation by independent overseers. Once again a policy Stalin would approve of, not any American Conservative.

One prisoner recently released actually said he wanted to go back and he hoped to be an American soldier one day. Want to see that testimony?

that's not an augument..

Thew, a lack of agreement with me is a lack of agreement with reality.

Just as I figured.... you are your own reality...

Bush will loose the next election. That will give you time to reflect on how out of touch and reactionary he's made you....

[Art]

Thew,

Stalin was a leftist, like you. As was Hitler. So, another trait of the left is to attempt to equate the world's most brutal leaders with the right, when in fact, they were socialists and leftists through and through.

Like you.

Your POW example is a bad one. Again, you found the definition. Read it again. Read why an American soldier who hid their insignia is still a POW if caught. Why? Because he qualifies under the FIRST definition. The second definition is what we run into with terrorist organizations. And they have to fit each of the four criteria to qualify as a POW under the Geneva Convention. If a single criteria is not met, they don't qualify. That we've accorded them many of the protections of the Geneva Convention is just a nice thing. They are due those protections however and can not be called POWs under the definition of what a POW is.

You are very far left in your views. Which, itself, is fine. But, when playing the sheep, you shouldn't be in John Kerry's clothing. You've repeated a half dozen liberal talking points that have no relationship to conservative values in any way, shape or form.

I'm hardly a reactionary. More appropriately, I'm an actionary, if such a thing exists. I believe in taking action rather than reacting to something. Bush MAY lose the next election. But it will be because he's running against himself and is listening too closely to the left you occupy.

[thew]

Art, reality is knocking and it's not your sister.

Stalin was a leftist, like you. As was Hitler.

fascism n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

fascism ( Hitler ) is on the extreme right not the extreme left. Also the extreme ends of the political spectrum reactionary and radicalism merge... both support your and Bush's policies..

Your POW example is a bad one

It's a bad one for you. The entire world and the American Army both disagree with you and Bush.

You've repeated a half dozen liberal talking points that have no relationship to conservative values in any way, shape or form.

When push comes to shove Art, you just lay back on your generalities... all your specific examples have been shot down....

You put Pat Buchannan, Ronald Reagan, James Baker and Myself on the left. The left of you. It's all relative man...

I'm hardly a reactionary. More appropriately, I'm an actionary, if such a thing exists. I believe in taking action rather than reacting to something.

you don't believe in our allies, you don't believe in the constitution, you don't believe in the UN, you don't believe in any conservative values. You just like to "act"... That's called reactionary... Get yourself a t-shirt...

But it will be because he's running against himself and is listening too closely to the left you occupy.

Well you are half right. Anybody but Bush in 2004!!

[Kilmer17]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nazi

NAtional SOCIALIST Workers Party

It was waaaaaayyyyyyy left.

[thew]

kilmer

NAtional SOCIALIST Workers Party

It was waaaaaayyyyyyy left.

Thanks for the dictionary link but it didn't say one way or the other... Thanks for the nice attempt but your not accurate, just like your football passes, I still hold you responsible for that Loss to Miami..

read all about it...

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2606/pol_spec.htm

[Kilmer17]

What does the word "Socialist"mean to you? Is that a left or a right stance?

[Ghost of]

thew

That you'd put Stalin, a Communist dictator on the far right illustrates what you are.

You're a deceiver and you've done nothing but put forth the bizarre view that somehow you're a conservative or right-winger when, in fact, you're not.

Stalin was a communist who starved and murdered millions. He followed most of, if not all, of the Communist platform and took Lenin's policies to a further extreme.

The experiment with eliminating money failed miserably, but other than that, the government of the Soviet Union was COMMUNIST. It was left-wing by any definition.

Are you really that braindead that you think you could come on this board and say something that stupid?

I mean, I understand left/right-wing dichotomy falls short of really capturing the true divisions in political philosophies, but come on--Stalin a right winger?

As for fascism, Mussolini helped form that party and was a Socialist initially. The only real difference is that the amount of government control was not as great and the nation or Volk was made the center of struggle rather than "the workers." But the difference was one of degree. Generally, the murderous rivalry between Commies and Nazis(and fascists) was more like the rivarlry between two gangs that wear different colors.

But they still operated in much the same way.

[Ghost of]

thew

interesting that the site you linked to has links to "Nixon's legacy: 2 million dead"(as if LBJ somehow never existed), the far left site Bartcop and Buzzflash.

Yes, Nolan's Chart is more useful, but the site you linked to is interesting.

YOU ARE NOT A RIGHT-WINGER OR CONSERVATIVE.

Stop lying man.

That link was filled with nothing but psychotic anti-Bush and leftist referall sites.

That's it.

You have no honor, thew, because you have yet to just admit that you are something other than conservative or right-wing. You may not even be a FAR leftist, but you are certainly no right-winger.

I refuse to believe that link you provided was just the first one you came across when googling "Nolan Chart" or "Political spectrum."

People who don't even have the honor to state clearly and frankly what they are do not deserve to be heard or be engaged in discussion or debate.

[Art]

Thew,

Know what a socialist is. Do you know the beliefs of Hitler? Do you realize that his beliefs are awfully similar to the American left of today? Facism can be implemented by either the right leaning or the left leaning.

It just so happens that Stalin and Hitler were both far left socialists. You don't know this because on the liberal blogs you frequent, they say something else and you're too dumb to go look up history.

Read what Hitler founded the National Socialist Workers Party on. Read his position against smoking, for example, if you want to know what the American left is doing because he did it first.

I hate a person who doesn't know history and refuses to listen when people try to correct him.

As for the rest, the U.S. Army has not called any of those held in Cuba a Prisoner of War. That is not their classification, so you continue to say the U.S. Army disagrees with Bush, when, in fact, it does not, has not, and will not.

A POW is clearly defined by the Geneva Convention. If you qualify, you know it. If you do not, you know it. You know it which is why you repeatedly refused to include the definition of what one was.

You seem to know far too little for a person who has spoken so much. You certainly are not a conservative by any definition of what a conservative is.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Art

Chomerics,

Marty lost the football team after five games. The team revolted against him. Instead of holding firm, he caved. He gave into the players and altered the system both on offense and on defense. After arrogantly playing five games against our strengths, he finally allowed things to be played to them.

It was then, that he was lost. It would have taken him two years and a total roster purge just to get some semblance of a team back. Once he gave in to the the mutiny he was done here. What he accomplished was different than what Gibbs accomplished. Marty simply gave up. He let the defense be a high school basic setup, and the offense to be a high school basic offense and because we had good individual talent, we could beat teams, but we couldn't out scheme teams, so our top end was always low.

Marty wasn't short any number of dollars because of the Deion cut and a few other cap charges. Marty decided, on his own, as he had complete control, to have a $53 million roster that year. He left $27 million on the table that Snyder kept trying to get him to spend and he wouldn't. Marty took cap hits he didn't have to take, but did, and that's fine. The problem is he lost the team and never could get it back without sweeping changes. You can find a post on this board I wrote after that game saying his situation here was over.

Art, I still completely disagree with you about Marty, your post makes no sense. So, what your telling me is that the Skins, after getting shellacked for 5 games, lost confidence in their coach and because they lost confidence in him, started winning??? This sounds almost as bad as some of your political nonsence.

First, the cap figure for 2001 was NOT $80million as you have stated, it in fact was $67Million!!! The Redskins spent $53 million on salary. Why only $53 million??? Because they had $14.8million of Dead Money on the cap!!!! This was BECAUSE OF SNYDER!!!

He signed overpriced, AGING veterans, and he was left with a watered down roster full of aging players!!!

Here's what one ESPN writer had to say about the Skins entering 2001:

Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, operating without adult supervision, tried to buy a title last year and ended up with a very old, very average team. Now, Snyder has brought in Marty Schottenheimer to clean up the mess. Schottenheimer is a disciplinarian, but a cap-related roster purge has left the Redskins with a handful of really good players and absolutely no depth. Schottenheimer inherited temperamental Jeff George at quarterback and they figure to butt heads at some point, so matching last year's 8-8 mark would be a major achievement.

Do you see, 8-8 WOULD BE A MAJOR ACHIVEMENT!!!! ESPICALLY AFTER STARTING OUT 0-5. This IS because of all the cap crap that went on the previous year!!! Now, because Marty started 0-5 he "lost" the team, but when the team won 8 out of their last 11 games, you claim he had NOTHING to do with it??? It's ludicrous reasoning like this which got you into the realm of mediocraty to begin with.

So now your blaming Marty for not spending ficticous money, an extra $13 million dollars, and you're claiming that he woundn't spend an EXTRA $27MILLION Dollars???!?!?

No wonder why you dislike Marty, your facts came right out of you neocon standard handbook of statistics. In the first chapter, they must tell you how to add $53 to $14.8 and end up with a budget of $80 million dollars. . . This in ADDITION to an extra $27Million to spend!!!

Here's a link to the overall cap situation of the Redskins, now tell me how $27 million in cap space becomes available, espically with $14.8 mil of dead cap space?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/s/2001/0305/1130374.html

Spurrier is a different story. Spurrier never seemed to have a core belief he wanted to maintain. If the media said he should do something, he did. If a player did, he did. If his friends did, he did. He never found who he was in the NFL. He lost because of it.

No, Spurrier didn't have a clue on how to coach a football team. He tried his "Fun and Gun" offense and never realized it took the rest of the NFL 4 preseason games to figure it out!!! Snyder was played like a flute to the tune of $10million dollars, because he was convinced Spurrier was going to be a great coach. The rest of the NFL knew how much of a joke he was and had Spurrier not quit, he would still be the coach right now.

I wasn't on this board last year, but I can't immagine the posts concerning Spurrier. Good old Dopey was sure a swell fella. It's just to bad he couldn't figure out a way to stop a zone blitz!!!

Snyder did make a number of higher-priced, free agent signings in 2000. But it was more than for making a splash. That team was coming off a division championship with a top level offense and the No. 30 defense. Snyder's free agents were to the defense -- we actually spent more money on draft picks and our own free agents than others -- and the defense improved from No. 30 to No. 4. Snyder's spending merited a wild success.

Unfortunately, the offense got injured and couldn't live up to the previous year, despite a 6-2 start against the toughest part of our schedule. The 2000 signings, however, did exactly what they were designed to do and is a feather in Snyder's cap for having helped us that much.

So Snyder's overspending and ignorance of the Salary Cap put a feather in his cap? Was that before or after the Skins had a winning record? Was that before they used 15 million in cap space on dead money in 2001 and 2002? Was that before or after he hired Dopey? Was the before or after HE TOOK ONE OF THE BEST FRANCHISES IN NFL HISTORY AND TURNED THEM INTO A JOKE????

The problem with your link on ticket prices is Washington is treated differently than other teams in this. The yellow club level and specialty seats in the burgandy levels are counted as part of our ticket prices and we have MORE of these seats than any other team.

Our general admission prices, are middle of the road. It's the premium seats that push our value up to among the highest and measures of our ticket prices don't distinguish between our premium and GA seats. Only the GA seats is shared money with other owners. That's all that should be reflected in these assessments.

It's not.

Oh, so I understand now, you say the Skins have a number of "luxury" seats, and therefor, they have a higher average price. . . Again, your failure to refute the facts befuddles the mind. The AVERAGE cost is based on an AVERAGE ticket, NOT PREMIUM SEATING!!! If that was the cost, the amount would be substantially higher!!! Again, I come out with facts to refute your claim and you deny them. It's staring right before you!!!

As for the rest of your dribble, I have to leave work, maybe I'll get to it tonight if I have time.

In fact, you do not remember Snyder taking George over Johnson. It never happened. Snyder DID sign George to a cheap contract to backup Johnson and that made Johnson worried. Even Norv has said he was never told who to play. And George NEVER did play until Johnson was hurt while Norv was around.

George played again in Norv's last game as Johnson was getting stoned and George came in and almost rallied us to a victory. But, the George/Johnson situation had nothing to do with Norv's firing The firing had EVERYTHING to do with the team giving up on Norv almost completely that day. It was disturbing to watch. I was a Norv supporter. After that game I called a friend and said Norv had to be fired. That team rejected him and gave up on him that day.

I was very much a Norv fan. Snyder had no choice. I still might have waited until the end of the year, but, that move had to be made and it had nothing to do with George or Johnson. Snyder never directed any player to play at any time. Still hasn't.

Norv has said so. There was no pressure to do so. And George NEVER DID play unless Johnson was hurt and he had to, or until Johnson was so ineffective he was benched in game by Norv. Now, Snyder MAY have directed Robiske to keep George in there. That's the point Snyder could have flexed his muscles according to history.

But we know for sure he never dictated playing time to Norv.

Our future doesn't appear to be mortgaged at all. We are a young team with a lot of players in the fold the next few years. Contracts are structured to allow us to convert base to cash as we need, or to make cuts and absorb dead money as we need. If we win, this team will be held together until 2010 or so. If we lose, it'll disband and start fresh in 2006 or so. Nothing to do with mortgaging the future though.

We'll be under the cap without taking any critical losses in players as long as we want under Gibbs. Cash solves cap.

As for your politics, in the first thread we spoke in, down below, you repeated faulty stats over and over and over until you were provided with actual numbers. You actually thanked me for providing you the information and I assumed you learned from it. That's big of you.

But, I worry you are still to hyperventaliting for your own good.

[thew]

NAtional SOCIALIST Workers Party

It was waaaaaayyyyyyy left.

Billy Killmer you wobbley passing excuse for a Quarterback

Let me mentor you like Sonny did.....

Nazi = Fascist = RIGHT!!

Got that....

As for Comunism...

I'll let my great admirire Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin answer your questions about that....

Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin Facism and Comunism..

two gangs that wear different colors.

But they still operated in much the same way.

Which was my point exactly... Much Like Lindon La Rooche Art has gone so far over the extreme right he's now showing up on the extreme left....

Thanks for the assist McPimpin..

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Art

Thew,

Know what a socialist is. Do you know the beliefs of Hitler? Do you realize that his beliefs are awfully similar to the American left of today? Facism can be implemented by either the right leaning or the left leaning.

It just so happens that Stalin and Hitler were both far left socialists. You don't know this because on the liberal blogs you frequent, they say something else and you're too dumb to go look up history.

Read what Hitler founded the National Socialist Workers Party on. Read his position against smoking, for example, if you want to know what the American left is doing because he did it first.

I hate a person who doesn't know history and refuses to listen when people try to correct him.

As for the rest, the U.S. Army has not called any of those held in Cuba a Prisoner of War. That is not their classification, so you continue to say the U.S. Army disagrees with Bush, when, in fact, it does not, has not, and will not.

A POW is clearly defined by the Geneva Convention. If you qualify, you know it. If you do not, you know it. You know it which is why you repeatedly refused to include the definition of what one was.

You seem to know far too little for a person who has spoken so much. You certainly are not a conservative by any definition of what a conservative is.

Sorry again Art, you're mixing up your politics. Hitler's regeme was facism, and the last time I checked, facism was a far right spectrum idea.

Although you are somewhat correct, because the waters become murky on the opposite end of the spectrum, Facism and extreme Socialism become almost intermingled in a circular political spectrum.

[Kilmer17]

Nazi = Fascist = RIGHT!!

That is incorrect.

Fascism can be many things. It is true that Naziism practiced under Hitler WAS a fascist regime. But they are not the same thing.

Naziism is a SOCIALIST political philosophy. Fascism is the manner it is practiced.

And while Socialism IS a leftist ideology. Fascism can be practiced by both right and left ideologies.

I suggest taking a couple of International Poly Sci courses before you continue to embarras yourself.

[Art]

Thew,

Here's a recap of this very debate on this very board:

Code,

You are a lost and deluded soul man. Not only does the word Socialist in the NAZI party name tip of the leftist origins, but the very actions and words by the men who led the party display their tendencies.

Not only were Hitler and his men hard-core socialists, which, itself removes them from the possibility of being right-wing -- in that they spoke constantly about the proletariate revolution that would destroy the bourgeois -- but, the Nazi party also promoted vegetarianism and organic gardening, practiced abortion and euthanasia, banned smoking in most public places, actually promoted animal rights by restricting the use of animals in biomedical experiments. All they while they were extreme environmentalists, who imposed control of hand guns, brought about socialized medicine, expanded unemployment insurance and social security such as it was.

In each and every single one of the above cases, this is a leftist ideal structure that took root and governed the party. What's clear, Code, is you don't know your history. You don't know anything about the Nazi party other than what some leftist told you and that was that fascism was right wing. But, let's go further to show, though it's already been shown without any doubt, how the Nazi party was leftist.

They wanted to replace the calendar, one based on faith and family, with one based on nation and race. While it can't be said the left in America necessarily wants to be all that racially motiviated, or even nationalistic, it can be said they have made an all out assault on faith and family in this country. Look no further than Kurp who is a classic Nazi. If he knew what he says is so in line with what Hitler led by, he'd probably be frightened. More than anyone on this board, Kurp is a classic Nazi.

Hitler had magazine ads in Germany expressing his anti-smoking beliefs with the caption: "brother national socialist, do you know that our Führer is against smoking and think that every German is responsible to the whole people for all his deeds and emissions, and does not have the right to damage his body with drugs?"

The Nazi party believed not in the individual, but the whole of society. They'll tell you what YOU have the right to do. You heard Kurp say something awfully similar above saying smokers should count themselves damn lucky people like him haven't outlawed smoking altogether.

Every single trait of the Nazi party was leftist. It screamed leftist. Your entire thrust against it was that it happened to also be nationalistic and led by a dictator. This is third grade stuff Code. Do you really not think a dictator can be leftist? Ever heard of Castro? Cuba? You know, like 90 miles south of the Florida Keys? Do you know the Soviet Union was intensely nationalistic? Does that mean on the whole it was a right-wing government?

Of course not, and you're foolish to have even attempted to make this point. Every single belief you have on how the Nazi party isn't a leftist party has been shattered by a factual recounting of actual Nazi party beliefs and governing profiles. Knowing you, you're going to complain about personal attacks and say you're not talking to me anymore. But, a smart man would say, "I never knew all that Art. Thanks." Because you clearly NEVER knew any of this, yet you speak as if you had a single clue.

The real difference with the left of today and the Nazi/communist left of 60 years ago is simple. Nationalism has largely been destroyed. That's why leftists now, in favor of national pride, propose a world government. International Criminal Courts. European Union. United Nations rule over all countries. While nationalistic views still exist, it is true that today, in today's society, nationalistic views are more right wing than left wing.

But, in the past, when governing a collective of people that counted on the whole of society to provide for the whole of society, it is no question that nationalism was a leftist trait. You see, you had to get people to love their country so much that they would work harder for it. That was the whole point of such governments. That is why your thought that being nationalistic isn't inherently leftist. It's PRIMARILY leftist in terms of understanding the Nazi government of that of the Soviet Union.

Today, as the left attempts to bring the U.S. into the "global community" at the expense of the U.S. ideals and Constitution it is the right that tends to be a little more nationalistic and nostalgic. But, that admission is simply as factual as everything else in this post. And you should appreciate the effort I've gone for you to summarize hundreds of books on the topic of Nazism, none of which you've ever read.

From this thread:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28970&perpage=15&display=&highlight=Hitler%20leftist&pagenumber=7

[thew]

interesting that the site you linked to has links to "Nixon's legacy: 2 million dead"(as if LBJ somehow never existed), the far left site Bartcop and Buzzflash.

It was geocity...

[Art]

Thew, Chomerics,

KNOW YOUR EFFING HISTORY CHILDREN.

Socialism is left. That's what Hitler's party and country were under his rule. You can't argue it. He happened to ALSO be a fascist. That doesn't mean he wasn't a leftist fascist. You people scare me.

I'll let a little political rhetoric go, but what I won't let you do is deny a Socialist government was left leaning. I presume you simply didn't know it was and having your views popped you don't like admitting to flaw in your knowledge.

[thew]

Coach

You are a lost and deluded soul man. Not only does the word Socialist in the NAZI party name tip of the leftist origins, but the very actions and words by the men who led the party display their tendencies.

Coach Hitler wasn't a socialist. National Socialism was named in the early days of the movement to attract followers. Hitler killed all the comunists and all the leading liberals of his day. He is a well documented Fascist. Infact he is even more closely aligned with Fascism than Mousalini who invented the Fascism movement..

I will reffer you to any elementary history book to confirm my statement. Still Arts underlying point that at the extremes both phylosophys mirge is correct. That is the same point I was making when labeling him farther to the right than Stalin... I thought he would have gotten the metaphor.

metaphor - A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison