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.

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The Palin hatred is often times quite irrational. Very similar with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).

Whereas the complaints about Obama have always been so level headed and reasonable.

Sigh... as I've pointed out a million times before, there are fringes on both sides that believe ridiculous things about the major figures of the other side. The only real difference is that no-one in the Democratic leadership ever played seriously with the idea that, for instance, Bush actually did plan 9/11... whereas plenty of figures in the Republican leadership happily played with the idea that Obama wasn't really a US citizen.

Did you go off-grid during the 2004 election?
Howard Dean and John F'n Kerry both asserted that Bush lied... wanna go there?

Harry Ried or Nancy Pelosi?

Don't get me started on the Left/Liberal Pundits Seb.

You're right there are whackos on BOTH sides of the political spectrum.... but really labeling "Republicans" are crazier is just dumb.

Both sides do stupid gak.

 whembly wrote:
And we're going to arm these guys?

You're still making the mistake of thinking the Syrian rebels are a homogenous, organised group. They aren't. There's all kinds of groups in there, and the alliances between them only make the whole set up even more complicated.

Part of the point of giving support is to provide it to rebel groups that aren't complete nutters, and make them more powerful, and therefore make it more likely that the crazies don't end up in complete control when (if) the government falls.

Still... I think it's a mistake. If we were going to intervene, the time was a long time ago when that "red line" was crossed... not months later. Even then, I wouldn't intervene.

It's easily verifiable that the more prominent rebel faction has pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda.

It's rather cringeworthy that people are claiming otherwise, or equivocating on the subject.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The Palin hatred is often times quite irrational. Very similar with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).

Whereas the complaints about Obama have always been so level headed and reasonable.

Sigh... as I've pointed out a million times before, there are fringes on both sides that believe ridiculous things about the major figures of the other side. The only real difference is that no-one in the Democratic leadership ever played seriously with the idea that, for instance, Bush actually did plan 9/11... whereas plenty of figures in the Republican leadership happily played with the idea that Obama wasn't really a US citizen.

Did you go off-grid during the 2004 election?
Howard Dean and John F'n Kerry both asserted that Bush lied... wanna go there?

Harry Ried or Nancy Pelosi?

None of those are people saying that Bush planned 911. Do you even read? Saying we lied and/or exaggerated about Saddam having WoMD as a justification for war isn't a conspiracy theory, it is what happened. Even the debatable points still aren't near the lunacy of Loose Change or the Birther movement.

 Ahtman wrote:

None of those are people saying that Bush planned 911. Do you even read? Saying we lied and/or exaggerated about Saddam having WoMD as a justification for war isn't a conspiracy theory, it is what happened. Even the debatable points still aren't near the lunacy of Loose Change or the Birther movement.

Right... you must have been de-linked from the matrix during that time too...

Hey... did you know at one point More than half of Democrats, according to a neutral survey, said they believed Bush was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks.

Politics make some people nutty on both sides of the spectrum... that's my point.

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

None of those are people saying that Bush planned 911. Do you even read? Saying we lied and/or exaggerated about Saddam having WoMD as a justification for war isn't a conspiracy theory, it is what happened. Even the debatable points still aren't near the lunacy of Loose Change or the Birther movement.

Right... you must have been de-linked from the matrix during that time too...

Hey... did you know at one point More than half of Democrats, according to a neutral survey, said they believed Bush was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks.

Politics make some people nutty on both sides of the spectrum... that's my point.

Again, you aren't reading. Those are just Joe and Jane Schmoe Democrat, which is just as idiotic and ill informed as any body made up of regular folks. He specifically was talking about politicians, not the general population. If you can find a national Democratic politician (meaning member of Congress) that said they believed that Bush was complicit in 9/11 then you will actually have refuted the statement. As it is you dance around it and show other semi-related things that don't actually address the argument that was put forth: national Democratic politicians never bought into Bush being behind 9/11, but national Republicans were willing to buy into the Birther movement.

 Ahtman wrote:


Again, you aren't reading. Those are just Joe and Jane Schmoe Democrat, which is just as idiotic and ill informed as any body made up of regular folks. He specifically was talking about politicians, not the general population. If you can find a national Democratic politician (meaning member of Congress) that said they believed that Bush was complicit in 9/11 then you will actually have refuted the statement. As it is you dance around it and show other semi-related things that don't actually address the argument that was put forth: national Democratic politicians never bought into Bush being behind 9/11, but national Republicans were willing to buy into the Birther movement.

I don't want to derail the thread anymore... I believe we now live in a political culture where people are likely to believe the absolute worst about their political opponents. I’m not sure if people actually believe these things, or if it’s just a reflection of the fact that they hate the other guys so much that they’re willing to ascribe the worst possible motives to them. Isn't that what we're seeing? Every Presidency has this sort of antagonistic opposition that seems to get worst and worst.

Fine, you want examples? Lookup Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean.

Again, I was just countering the perception that Republicans are all the crazies now... just you watch, when there's a Republican president, the Democrat crazies would come out. It happens EVERY.TIME. o.O

 whembly wrote:
Fine, you want examples? Lookup Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean.

Neither have claimed Bush was behind 9/11.

 whembly wrote:
Again, I was just countering the perception that Republicans are all the crazies now...

No, what you are doing is refuting an argument that wasn't made. He didn't say all Republicans are crazies, but that they have let some slip through the net and on the national stage, which they have. Democrats do have their crazies, but they they tend to be of the untenable policy variety, which is alright for a politician, and even the Republicans have them as well. The entire Libertarian and Green Parties are based on untenable policy tracts! Being idealistic is ok, and is nowhere near the same as believing and espousing conspiracy theory non-sense on the national stage. It is no big secret that the Republican Party has been having an identity crisis for some time now.