Democrats lose another won war.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**alarmingrick**

Phanatik wrote:
Despite the lefty propensity to censorship of anything that doesn't agree with them, simply stating that facts/points of view they don't agree with are wrong doesn't make them wrong, or are refuted. Also, lefties are wrong on just about everything they believe in, and so will always find it hard to convince me of anything short of the Date or time of day.

One could say the same about the right.

Phanatik wrote: P.S. (since this is a letter...) Charles Krauthammer is a well respected individual; when he talks, people listen.

and same could be said about Maddow.

**Monster Rain**

I think they're both hacks.

At any rate, this thread is glorious.

**MrDwhitey**

Monster Rain wrote:I think they're both hacks.

At any rate, this thread is glorious.

Like Napalm at night in the jungle, viewed from the opposite riverbank with beautiful burning reflections...

**LoneLictor**

Kilkrazy wrote:It's pretty easy to recognise leftist views because you can just see they are wrong and therefore are clearly leftist.

At first I didn't understand Phanatik, but then Kilkrazy put his opinion in simple views that I could understand. Thanks Kilkrazy, its clear why you're a mod.

Phanatik wrote:What is surprising about people posting links to stuff that supports their pov, argument, etc.? Are you suggesting I'm the first to do this? Are you suggesting that lefties DON'T do the same thing? Careful, we might think you are full of sh...something.

Some "lefties" (as you call us) do that. That does not mean the "lefties" who don't post links to opinion choked articles have to sit by quietly and agree that its a good thing to do that.

Phanatik wrote:Despite the lefty propensity to censorship of anything that doesn't agree with them, simply stating that facts/points of view they don't agree with are wrong doesn't make them wrong, or are refuted.

MASSIVE GENERALIZATION ALERT! WEE WOO WEE WOO! Again, not all "lefties" do that and those that do are not very well respected. In fact, a lot of "lefties" are opposed to censorship, such as the "lefties" who supported the Ten Amendments (which includes freedom of speech, as you already know) along with the right wing people who supported it as well.

Phanatik wrote:Also, lefties are wrong on just about everything they believe in, and so will always find it hard to convince me of anything short of the Date or time of day.

"Lefties" are wrong about everything? Are you on crack or something? (No, that is not an actual question. I am just saying that to convey my opinion that you are acting like a drug addled lunatic.) Were Bill Clinton's economic policies wrong despite the fact that under his presidency our economy only went up and up? Was Franklin Roosevelt wrong when he started building up the US's armory prior to WW2? I don't expect a good answer from you considering you're going to tell me I got the facts wrong or something (despite the fact that I checked them on Wikipedia and additional websites) but I felt like stating that anyways.

**TrollPie**

LoneLictor wrote:Wikipedia

Never mention Wikipedia in front of a right winger. They will suggest an alternative, You know the one.

**Monster Rain**

I actually don't know what you're referring to.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Phanatik wrote:Also, lefties are wrong on just about everything they believe in, and so will always find it hard to convince me of anything short of the Date or time of day.

For someone who claims that us "lefties" censor or ignore everything we don't agree with, you sure are full of yourself.

**LordofHats**

Monster Rain wrote:I actually don't know what you're referring to.

Why, the greatest thing since forever: Conservipedia. Cause everything else is just lies and slander

**Karon**

Phanatik wrote:
Karon wrote:Your arrogance never ceases to amaze me, Phanatik.

Seriously, do you get off by doing this? It really is extremely pathetic.

I think I prefer your previous avatar. Seemed more appropriate somehow.

I doubt very little ceases to amaze you.

Ooh, you got me. You completely refuted the point of the article by launching a personal attack on someone you have no clue about. You're good.

Best,

How do YOU take yourself seriously when you spout stuff like "all leftist views are wrong"?

This "article" is biased and has no point imo. Edited for politeness

**Monster Rain**

Oh my sweet Lord.

**Karon**

My brain..its just bulging with rejection every time I read your posts, Phanatik.

I just can't process the amount of....wrong in your posts. My brain actively rejects your entire being.

**LoneLictor**

LordofHats wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:I actually don't know what you're referring to.

Why, the greatest thing since forever: Conservipedia. Cause everything else is just lies and slander

It says that John F. Kennedy was a conservative, Obama supports a complete ban on all hand guns regardless of circumstances, he wants to teach Kindergarteners about safe sex and that Hillary Clinton illegally wiretapped Bill Clinton's political opponents in 1992. Are you sure that website wasn't made by trolls?

**LordofHats**

Monster Rain wrote:Oh my sweet Lord.

Thank you. I'm here to help.

May I propose the article on Regan (where he is given all the credit for everything) and the FDR article (where he's the devil)? Personally, I find Conservipedia to be a wonderful source of entertainment

**Karon**

http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia

MY BRAIN!

**LoneLictor**

Karon wrote:http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia

MY BRAIN!

Oh my god. It says that Nazis are left wing and that wikipedia is lying when it states they are extremist right wing people. Because nothing says extreme leftists like low taxes and a small national government.

**LordofHats**

Karon wrote:http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia

MY BRAIN!

Though I would agree there is a lot of bias in what gets presented on Wikipedia, the idea that the bias is perpetuated by any single political perspective is absurd.

The weirdest thing about Conservepedia, is that there actually isn't that much factual inaccuracy per se. The user just seem to have a very... interesting... take on the facts XD And boy is it hilarious

**Melissia**

I find it more brainhurt than amusing...

**LordofHats**

Melissia wrote:I find it more brainhurt than amusing...

I don't know. I love the Regan article just because he gets the credit for everything awesome that happened in the 70's to the 90's in it (including the collapse of the USSR). Likewise, they refer to Bush as the 'Liberator' of Iraq and Afghanistan. It's just what they say that I find so amusing because their interpretation of the world is so patently false that I can't help but laugh at it.

That's not even getting started on the Conservative Bible project, which is just so many levels of sweet delicious fail

They removed "Forgive them father for they know not what they do" because it is a Liberal conspiracy and only appears in Mark. If I went though the Gospels alone and removed everything that only exists in one of them as a 'liberal conspiracy' there'd barely be any Gospel left and I'd pretty much delete all of John

Its just... too... stupid *begins laughing*

EDIT: You think no one is this dumb and then you go to Conservapedia and realize there really are people that dumb. Likewise Liberapedia. Not as funny but still golden! Less funny cause I think they get things wrong on purpose just to spoof Conservapedia.

**Goliath**

That Conservapedia website molested my brain, and pretty much everything in it.

**Jihadin**

We're not even in election and Fox with other news center are saying its going to be vicious. Something similiar to this viciousness "Offers Haterade to everyone"

EDIT
Yes I watch Fox news since they are fair and balance...and the NUMBA WUN news sourse

**Phanatik**

LoneLictor wrote:
"Lefties" are wrong about everything? Are you on crack or something? (No, that is not an actual question. I am just saying that to convey my opinion that you are acting like a drug addled lunatic.) Were Bill Clinton's economic policies wrong despite the fact that under his presidency our economy only went up and up? Was Franklin Roosevelt wrong when he started building up the US's armory prior to WW2? I don't expect a good answer from you considering you're going to tell me I got the facts wrong or something (despite the fact that I checked them on Wikipedia and additional websites) but I felt like stating that anyways.

Bill Clinton benefited from the boom created by Ronald Reagan. If a bonobo were sitting in the Oval Office from 92-00, would you continue to think fondly of yesteryear? Because it would not have mattered. Plus, the republicans took control of congress and forced good policies on the bonobo, er, First Philanderer, er, Clinton.

FDR prolonged/created the Great Depression by all of his policies. It would have only been a recession otherwise. Obama is following in FDR's footsteps, in more ways than one. Also, FDR was a liar and his family used the White House to benefit personally. They made millions. His one bright light was that he was a Navy man.

Regards,

**dogma**

Phanatik wrote:
I know that the Vietnam War was won, and then the democrats cut off funding to our allies, the North attacked again and overran the country, and then millions of vietnamese died.

Is that trying?

Well, its trying to do something, I believe there's a term for it: revisionism.

Though, quite honestly, given that revisionism generally at least involves some attempt to generate agreement with indisputable fact, I think the emphasis here should be placed on "trying" rather than "revisionism".

The Tet offensive didn't end the Vietnam War, nor was it even a military victory for the Vietnamese. It was, however, a public relations nightmare and it was ultimately the domestic opinion of the war that ended it; along with the Nixon Administration's emphasis on detente over containment.

**LordofHats**

dogma wrote:Well, its trying to do something, I believe there's a term for it: revisionism.

Revisionism (despite it's negative implications in common usage) is a standard part of the process of history. History is 'revised' almost constantly.

I believe Phanatik has possibly read Mark Moyar's book Triumph Forsaken (or at least read something from someone who has), which actually does present a very interesting case that the US had won the war in Vietnam before several policy changes cost us the war in the political success of the Tet Offensive. I don't necessarily agree with that position but he does argue it well. However "Vietnam was bad and we should all feel bad" is the best response I've seen given to his work and there's been hardly any serious analysis from half of academia concerning the validity of what Moyar has to say which is unfortunate.

It probably doesn't help that Moyar believes in the credibility of the Domino Theory.

**dogma**

LordofHats wrote:
Revisionism (despite it's negative implications in common usage) is a standard part of the process of history. History is 'revised' almost constantly.

Of course. That was only meant as a lead in to the following sentence.

LordofHats wrote:
I believe Phanatik has possibly read Mark Moyar's book Triumph Forsaken (or at least read something from someone who has), which actually does present a very interesting case that the US had won the war in Vietnam before several policy changes cost us the war in the political success of the Tet Offensive. I don't necessarily agree with that position but he does argue it well. However "Vietnam was bad and we should all feel bad" is the best response I've seen given to his work and there's been hardly any serious analysis from half of academia concerning the validity of what Moyar has to say which is unfortunate.

I've read Moyar's book, and I actually agree with his conclusions, for the most part. Vietnam was a military victory, and a political failure. I simply disagree with the notion that the war was somehow lost by Johnson given the presence of exacerbating domestic political and economic factors. Well, that, and a Republican successor who had never been an advocate of the crusading brand of containment.

LordofHats wrote:
It probably doesn't help that Moyar believes in the credibility of the Domino Theory.

When someone says they believe in the domino theory, I tend to raise at least one eyebrow. Particularly as it applies in Southeast Asia, where there is little evidence to suggest that a stable, capitalist Vietnam would have been able to prevent the spread of communism in Cambodia and Laos. Particularly given the role that the active use of US military force in Cambodia had on the rise of Khmer Rouge.

That being said, the US military presence in Vietnam certainly inhibited the spread of communism in Southeast Asia while it was extant. The issue, as correctly identified by the Nixon Administration (and to some extent Johnson, towards the end) was that it simply wasn't worth it.

**LordofHats**

Oh dogma, just when I think you can't surprise me again

**dogma**

Phanatik wrote:Charles Krauthammer is a well respected individual; when he talks, people listen.

Well, sure, everyone loves to hear a good joke from time to time.

**BrassScorpion**

Democrats lose another won war.

Utter Right Wing propaganda and nonsense. The George W. Bush administration in their final months made a legally binding agreement with the Iraq Government about when the US would withdraw it's troops and the current administration is merely adhering to that agreement. Not bad since it was a pointless, illegal, founded-on-lies conflict to begin with. At least someone is finally sticking to the rules even if they are rules agreed upon by Bush.

And guess which party insisted, absolutely insisted that President Bill Clinton should pull our troops out of Somalia after the Black Hawk Down incident? It was Congressional Republicans, including some of the most famous ones at the time. So whether we stay or go in a war according to Republicans is purely dependent on who is president at the time or which party's president started the war in the first place.

Interestingly, the topic of this thread is trying to blame Democrats for Bush's war and withdrawal plan. I've seen other Right Wing posts online claiming Obama is trying to take credit for Bush's withdrawal plans. No matter what President Obama does the Right Wingers will whine about it just to demonize him. Facts simply don't matter for that crowd.

Here's just one of numerous online sources with some of the details of the troop withdrawal agreement under Bush. This one is from 2008.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/us_and_iraq_agree_to_withdrawal_timetable/

U.S. and Iraq Agree to Withdrawal Timetable (Updated)
Alex Knapp · Thursday, August 21, 2008

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government have agreed on a timetable for troop withdrawal.

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators reached agreement on a security deal that calls for American military forces to leave Iraq’s cities by next summer as a prelude to a full withdrawal from the country, according to senior American officials.

The draft agreement sets 2011 as the date by which all remaining U.S. troops will leave Iraq, according to Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammed al-Haj Humood and other people familiar with the matter.

Teams of American and Iraqi negotiators spent months haggling over the deal, which represents a remarkable turnaround from just a few months ago, when talk of timetables and deadlines was routinely dismissed by the Bush administration and other Republicans in Washington.

Senior officials in Washington said the talks have concluded. The deal will be presented to the Bush administration and the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for formal approval or rejection.

“The talking is done,” one U.S. official said late Wednesday night. “Now the decision makers choose whether to give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down.”

The article goes on to mention that President Bush is expected to endorse this agreement. Also of interest is the fact that the Administration appears to have given up their previous stance and will now allow military contractors to be tried under Iraqi law if they are accused of a crime.

Obviously, if this deal goes through, it would be a very, very good thing. But without more detail I can’t make too much of a judgment.

**AustonT**

LoneLictor wrote:
Karon wrote:http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia

MY BRAIN!

Oh my god. It says that Nazis are left wing and that wikipedia is lying when it states they are extremist right wing people. Because nothing says extreme leftists like low taxes and a small national government.

You might want to try again. Nazi Germany had high taxes and an expansive national government; it helped fund the massive welfare program they instituted.
No one wants to be associated with the Nazi's but at best they land in the center left. Neither the far right or far left can lay claim, or be blamed for them.

The fething conservapedia is one step from fiction. So difficult to find useful inboard sources anymore.

**dogma**

AustonT wrote:
No one wants to be associated with the Nazi's but at best they land in the center left. Neither the far right or far left can lay claim, or be blamed for them.

They don't really land anywhere on the traditional spectrum, which makes sense given the schizophrenic nature of Nazism.

Hell, its possible to argue that it wasn't even really a form of fascism, just sort of its own thing.

**youbedead**

dogma wrote:
AustonT wrote:
No one wants to be associated with the Nazi's but at best they land in the center left. Neither the far right or far left can lay claim, or be blamed for them.

They don't really land anywhere on the traditional spectrum, which makes sense given the schizophrenic nature of Nazism.

Hell, its possible to argue that it wasn't even really a form of fascism, just sort of its own thing.

I think it's fair to say that NAZI's fall on the bad part of the spectrum.