Moore, Nugent & Wilson Sound off about Detroit

[cheddar bob]

Quote: "Faced with undeniable proof of your hypocrisy,"

Translated: Since I made up a bunch of bullshit, I'd like to see you refute it anyway.

I didn't make anything up. It's all your words, copy and pasted. You quoted someone and I left it in the paste, but it's got nothing to do with my point. I'll remove it if it'll make you feel better and make you stay to the point, and that point is that you're a hypocrite. Let's narrow it down. You said,

This country is due for a renaissance to patriotism. Long over due. Our country and IT's interests need to be put first always. Love it or get the f*ck out.

Then you said,

You want blind allegiance to this sort of government? Forget it.

So which one is it?

[Lloyd]

Maybe Iraq was only a threat when a Democrat was in the White House? When a Republican does something about it, it's a bad thing. OK to talk about the threat, bad to do something about it. Got it.

This is so far off base it isn't even funny. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

[BShea]

Quote: "In the case of dodging the draft in wartime, I'm of the belief that it's treason and you should be executed. In public."

First we have not been involved in a "War" since World War II. Everything since has been labeled a "conflict" or "operation". Anyone who thinks we are involved in a "war" now, is pretty clueless to any sort of reality.

We also have a duty to the constitution to not allow an oppressive government to seize absolute power and surrender our liberty and freedoms. Or do you just do what you're told?

Quotes: "Well, then that happens, we'll talk about it."
"You have no fewer rights now than you did on Sept. 10, 2001"

Total nonsense, the suspension of Habeus Corpus, the Patriot Act allowing unbridled invasion into our privacy by the government, wire taps, video surveillance, etc.


"This is a democracy "by the people". As much as some would like this to be a socialist country, it isn't."

Quote: "And "the people" of the United States consent to laws enacted by our represtatives in Congress. Those reps set the laws and punishment for failure of "the people" to obey them. All part of the social contract, etc.""

"Social Contract" is a theory, not law. I think you're confusing our democracy with a dictatorship. And freedom is a gift depending on one's political beliefs.

Quote: "I'm well aware there are plenty of people that value their individual freedom far more than any obligation to serve when the nation calls, or they want to pick and choose when they obey that obligation, and they allow better men to go to war. "

By that logic, WORSE men refuse to involve themselves with travesties of diplomacy like Iraq and VietNam?

I'm not a gambler, but I would have loaded up on the outcome if Bush and Rumsfeld would have started a draft. It would have been an all-out revolt, Guaranteed.

Feel free to lecture me on war. Been there, done that. And I'm uninterested in semantic debates on "war" versus military conflicts authorized by Congress. Bullets and death aren't interested in such debates, either.

You don't have the right to habeaus corpus? You do. Maybe not if you're rounded up trying to kill American troops out the mountains of Afghanistan. But I can live with that. Don't fight U.S. forces overseas. Simple, no? And the government has "unbridled" ability to spy? Pffffft. Your tin-foil hat is too tight, son.

No one wants or needs a draft, lease of all the military. But you sprinted away from your point about compulsory military service, which is as common in Western nations as not.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "So which one is it?"

Which argument? The topic we are debating now. You're taking things out of context and trying to assemble them into some sort of point, which you still haven't made. The two quotes that you dug up in an attempt to make a point, are based on two totally different subjects.

It's looking as though reading comprehension is not on your A list of qualifications.

My quote: "This country is due for a renaissance to patriotism."

Was in regard to people that hate the USA, but choose to live here anyway.

And

My quote: "You want blind allegiance to this sort of government?"

Was in regard to the "Bush regime" type of Government.

I can draw you pictures if it will help.

I would say "Nice try", but it really wasn't.

[cheddar bob]

So, "Our country and IT's interests need to be put first always" is a true statement or it isn't? Our country's interests need to be put first always, or always except when you don't want to go to war? You're a hypocrite and I have proven it.

You've said that our laws need to be followed, but then you say that sometimes you can break them. I guess you can break them if you're trying to dodge a patriotic duty, but not if you're brown and trying to feed a family. There's a whole archive of you ranting about how people need to obey the law, but now you say there's times when you don't need to obey them. Should we delve into the archives and pull out more quotes from you ranting on about obeying laws?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "So, "Our country and IT's interests need to be put first always" is a true statement or it isn't? Our country's interests need to be put first always, or always except when you don't want to go to war? You're a hypocrite and I have proven it."

Our Country and our Government are two different entities. You sound like BShea here, no matter who is in charge or their agenda, be ready to sacrifice your life if they so desire it for whatever reason. March off a cliff? Sure, no problem.

Quote: "You've said that our laws need to be followed, but then you say that sometimes you can break them."

No, BShea asked "Can I choose which laws to obey?" and my response was "Sure can", of course be ready to take responsibility for your actions. And we all break laws and probably every day. Do you go over the speed limit? Thats breaking the law. Of course he immediately in O'reillian fashion alluded that I was somehow an enemy of the state.

Quote: "I guess you can break them if you're trying to dodge a patriotic duty, but not if you're brown and trying to feed a family. There's a whole archive of you ranting about how people need to obey the law, but now you say there's times when you don't need to obey them. Should we delve into the archives and pull out more quotes from you ranting on about obeying laws?"

You're talking about illegal aliens and trying to apply something I said in regard to US citizens. It wouldn't apply. Another bizarre straw argument from you.

[cheddar bob]

Of course everybody breaks laws. When I tried to tell you that, you just ignored that fact, but are now using it to divert attention from the fact you're a hypocrite.

You're talking about illegal aliens and trying to apply something I said in regard to US citizens. It wouldn't apply. Another bizarre straw argument from you.

Yes, it would apply. Laws apply to everybody regardless of immigration status. In fact, everyone has rights in this country, not just citizens. Are you trying to say that it's okay for US citizens to break US laws, but it's not okay for non-citizens to break US laws?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "you're a hypocrite"

That would be classified as name calling, wouldn't it? Weren't you, in teachers pet fashion just a few days ago, admonishing someone for starting a thread with a derogatory label for others in it? Now who is the "hypocrite"?

[cheddar bob]

Here's some more instances of sstashmoo denouncing breaking laws...

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 1377
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2008 - 2:24 pm:

Yeah thats just what Detroit needs. A huge demonstration of lawlessness. That'll help our image..not.

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 1379
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2008 - 3:40 pm:

I wasn't addressing the legalize weed issue. Rather the "let's all get together and break the law" crowd.

Mortking, I strongly disagree. Further, I'd bet 80% of the people that were there, don't live in Detroit.

How about we all get together and break the law by dodging the draft?

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 1380
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2008 - 6:40 pm:


Sure take your son or daughter and explain to them that this activity against the law, but it's ok because you think it should be legal. And then when they break the law, what will you say?

[[Message edited by Sstashmoo on May 04, 2008)

This is pretty hypocritical. Maybe you should tell your kids that it's okay to dodge the draft.

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 1392
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 - 12:48 am:


Is it against the law or not? Just because it was peaceful doesn't mean it was legal. Illegal Pot-party's will never rebuild Detroit.

I could care less about the drugs, I'm challenging the notion that it's a positive thing in regards to a city's image for people to amass and engage in an illegal activity.

Umm, like illegally refusing to serve when required?

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 2435
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Friday, September 12, 2008 - 9:57 pm:


Cheddar Bob, I know common sense is not at the top of your abilities either. You think it's perfectly fine for people to trespass illegaly. Sounds to me that your loyalty is elsewhere.

21 million, 10 million? 500? Who cares the number, the fact is we cannot have people with total disregard for our laws treating our borders as though they do not even exist. As citizens we must abide by the laws of our land. I have little compassion for anyone that would enter here unlawfully and knowingly break our laws and refuse to leave.

"As citizens, we must abide by the laws of our land", huh? Except the draft. We, as citizens, don't have to abide by that.

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 834
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Thursday, January 03, 2008 - 11:57 am:


Thankfully, the sarcasm of people like barnes and Cheddar have put forth a bit of a challenge to the American people. They tout trespassing and reply with "nothing you can do about it". I don't know if you have noticed, but the issue is being talked about much in the upcoming presidential race. Americans are p'd off about it, Politicians are making it an key election issue and I think we can all expect some major changes in the way the US handles it's borders.

Good luck thinking the American people or Government doesn't care. Hope it pans out for you.

The very fact these two advocate trespassers into our country proves they have not assimilated and have zero respect for our nation's laws.
[[Message edited by sstashmoo on January 03, 2008)

In addition to being wrong about immigration being a key election issue [[we now know it wasn't-that's some pretty shitty foresight), I wonder who has "zero respect for our nation's laws" now?

[cheddar bob]

When asked what he would do to feed his family he says he would "Obey the law of the land",

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 2193
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Friday, August 15, 2008 - 8:47 am:
Obey the law of that land, plus get a strong feeling that maybe my family doesn't care if they see me or not. Work on making my own country a better place so people [[family included) want to stay. Thats what I'd do.

I guess the draft doesn't apply to obeying "the law of the land".

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 2430
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Friday, September 12, 2008 - 7:01 pm: Why worry about eligibility when it can be had by simply breaking our meaningless laws. Go to the hospital, stiff them for the bill. Get in a car accident and simply go back home. etc etc

Meaningless laws like the draft? Oh, I think I get it now...It's only a bad thing when other people break the law.




There's a difference between arbitrarily calling someone a name and using an adjective to describe proven facts. You have been proven to be a hypocrite and the truth is an absolute defense.

[cheddar bob]

Quote: "you're a hypocrite"

That would be classified as name calling, wouldn't it? Weren't you, in teachers pet fashion just a few days ago, admonishing someone for starting a thread with a derogatory label for others in it? Now who is the "hypocrite"?

More deflection away from the subject. Notice that sstashmoo has done nothing to deny the fact that he's a hypocrite. It's not name calling if it's a demonstrated truth.

[BShea]

Of course he immediately in O'reillian fashion alluded that I was somehow an enemy of the state.

If you avoid the draft, then you are an enemy of the state. That's why there are laws against it, and punishment. Are you really that stupid? It's a crime. And during wartime, I think it's worthy of execution. To me, it's moral and physical cowardice. I'm uninterested in sophist arguments about your moral beliefs about war, etc., and am unmoved by catcalls that willing draftees are witless cannon fodder for the evil war machine police state or whatever limp-dick straw-bogeyman who wish to construct. I'm familiar with the impotent sneers of the eunuchs on this subject.

You want to treat our laws like a buffet from which you pick and choose, and will serve only when it fits your own guidelines, fine. There are punishments for that, and the ire of those of us willing to serve the United States. And that's not a might-is-right, my country-right-or-wrong allegiance. I'm not going to serve in some obviously illegal effort, such as a coup or mass murder. But I don't have to like or be gung-ho about a conflict to serve my nation when it calls. It's served me, so I'm willing [[and have) served it. And not every conflict is cut/dry in terms of righteousness.

Those who argue in favor of draft dodging and the like are typically those who belittle the military as the last refuge of the otherwise unemployable, and have never served their nation. First to criticize, last to fight.

Of course, this is an academic argument. There is no draft and the all-volunteer military serves us just fine. And there won't be a draft short of a land war with China.

And FYI: Why was Vietnam a travesty? My belief it was akin to saving a prostitute from rape. Just because of what she does, is she less worthy of help? South Vietnam was no prize partner, but the overall conflict had value in showing the Soviets and Chinese that the West was willing to fight against the spread of communism rather than let it flow willy-nilly. The conflict in South Vietnam was mismanaged, but that's not surprising since we'd never experienced that before. Our limited counter insurgency experience in the Philippines had been somewhat successful, but that was different circumstances.

The real shame is that the bungled political response to Tet in 1968 wasted the slow gains we had made. After Tet, the conflict was steadily a conventional war. The insurgency was, for all intents and purposes, defeated in 1968-69. Saigon fell in 1975 not to agrarian guerrillas, but the tanks and uniformed troops of North Vietnam.

[Sstashmoo]

Cheddar,

You're wasting webspace.

The original point was, many dodged the draft in the 60's and I understand. Many went AWOL during that same period and I understand. Now go away.

Let me ask you this BShea. According to you, anyone that evades the draft is guilty of treason and should be publicly hung. All the guys that went AWOL during that period were given discharges and amnesty. Why do you think our Government did that?

[Pam]

If you avoid the draft, then you are an enemy of the state. That's why there are laws against it, and punishment. Are you really that stupid? It's a crime. And during wartime, I think it's worthy of execution

Would you support alternative service for conscientious objectors? Or should people like those "limp dick" Quakers and Mennonites be executed too?

[lilpup]

I think a distinction needs to be made between supporting those who serve and those who initiate conflict. It is possible, imho, to support those who serve and treat them with respect while at the same time protesting the political decisions causing the conflict.

Personally, I wish service was mandatory for all - not a random draft, not full of loopholes for people to jump through. Many countries require it. Perhaps if more of our politicians served they would govern differently.

[lilpup]

Would you support alternative service for conscientious objectors? Or should people like those "limp dick" Quakers and Mennonites be executed too?

There is conscientious objector status available for those who truly live that way and don't use the status merely to avoid duty. It's amazing how many c.o.s pop up out of the blue when things get hot.

Devout Quakers, Mennonites, and the Amish are some of the strongest people around.

[Tripper]

While Michael Moore's documentaries present a clear point of view they are always well researched and the facts are documented. To compare them to the lies presented on Fox News is ridiculous.

[cheddar bob]

"Cheddar, You're wasting webspace....Now go away"
Translation: Please stop using my own words to make me look foolish.

The original point was, many dodged the draft in the 60's and I understand. Many went AWOL during that same period and I understand.

You understand when someone willingly abandons their duty, commits potential treason, and basically flips off their own American flag, but you don't understand and have no sympathy for when a Mexican crosses the border to be with or feed their family. And that is what makes you a hypocrite.

[BShea]

Would you support alternative service for conscientious objectors? Or should people like those "limp dick" Quakers and Mennonites be executed too?

People who's entire lives are lived by a certain position such as the Society of Friends and others -- there are specific laws for them. Many of them chose to serve in official alternatives. But when the lead flies, there seem to be an awful lot of people who suddenly have deep, life-long religious convictions about serving.

They don't even rise to the level of the "sunshine soldiers and summer patriots" that Thomas Paine belittled. They simply cowards who have to be protected by better men and women, in war and peace. And I'm not talking about fear of war, but moral, spiritual and physical cowardice. There's plenty of 'em now, and they took their cue from the Boomers who said it was OK to run away.

Let me ask you this BShea. According to you, anyone that evades the draft is guilty of treason and should be publicly hung. All the guys that went AWOL during that period were given discharges and amnesty. Why do you think our Government did that?

Because our government is not infallible [[not even today, with The Anointed One in charge). Not every case of AWOL is someone shirking duty. But if it's cowardice in combat [[and I don't mean shell shock and other combat stress cases), then punish to the full extent, which can be death. But AWOL covers members of the military. This nation also forgave those who left the U.S. to avoid the draft. They should have been stripped of their citizenship and never allowed back. Canada and others should have kept 'em. We're too forgiving of a nation sometimes, and it sends the messages you can spend a couple years in Windsor if you prefer to serve your nation du jour.

Christ, we'd never have won our independence with the attitudes I see around here. The Continental Army managed to stay together despite fighting over what amounted to middle and upper-class dissatisfaction over excise fees. If Washington had to put together an army from today's populace, he would have given up.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "have no sympathy for when a Mexican crosses the border to be with or feed their family."

You have some sort of weird obsession with this topic. Might want to get it checked out.

[Sstashmoo]

BShea,

Your glowing, albeit skewed view on the matter of patriotic duty is somewhat laughable. You have how you thought it was, what you're missing is how it really was.

I remember vividly the latter part of the 60's during the VietNam era. I remember the way we left, you and your ilk to this day, thought there was someway to win that over there. There was no winning it. Just like there is no winning Iraq. We will leave there the same way we left VietNam. And the very same thing is going to happen, only a more unstable situation will evolve. Your spin about good men objecting to our government involved in conflict we had no business being involved in is unfair to say the least. You want to wave your flag when our government sends our sons and daughters to some god forsaken locale on some ill-concieved corporatist scheme, go for it. The rest of us that can think past our nose will question it. Like our constitution says we should.

Your last bit about assembling a military force is based on apples and oranges correlation. If someone were to attack our shores, the turnout for service would be immense, I believe that.

You know what is really sad? We've been in this Iraq debacle for seven years, 100 thousand people have lost their lives, over 4000 of our own fine fighting men and women, spent a Trillion dollars we had to borrow and our government has not provided us ONE legitimate reason for us being there. Lies, that's all they have offered.

Lie #1 Saddam had WMD's - hardcore debunked
Lie #2 Saddam had the means for producing nuclear weapons and possesed yellow cake uranium - Not true
Lie #3 Saddam had ties to Osama bin Laden- Not true

All debunked and proven false over and over by every credible source the world over.

[BShea]

BShea,

Your glowing, albeit skewed view on the matter of patriotic duty is somewhat laughable. You have how you thought it was, what you're missing is how it really was.

I remember vividly the latter part of the 60's during the VietNam era. I remember the way we left, you and your ilk to this day, thought there was someway to win that over there. There was no winning it. Just like there is no winning Iraq. We will leave there the same way we left VietNam. And the very same thing is going to happen, only a more unstable situation will evolve. Your spin about good men objecting to our government involved in conflict we had no business being involved in is unfair to say the least. You want to wave your flag when our government sends our sons and daughters to some god forsaken locale on some ill-concieved corporatist scheme, go for it. The rest of us that can think past our nose will question it. Like our constitution says we should.

Your last bit about assembling a military force is based on apples and oranges correlation. If someone were to attack our shores, the turnout for service would be immense, I believe that.

You know what is really sad? We've been in this Iraq debacle for seven years, 100 thousand people have lost their lives, over 4000 of our own fine fighting men and women, spent a Trillion dollars we had to borrow and our government has not provided us ONE legitimate reason for us being there. Lies, that's all they have offered.

Lie #1 Saddam had WMD's - hardcore debunked
Lie #2 Saddam had the means for producing nuclear weapons and possesed yellow cake uranium - Not true
Lie #3 Saddam had ties to Osama bin Laden- Not true

All debunked and proven false over and over by every credible source the world over.

Ah, the usual Leftist lies and distortions. Do you get all your talking points from Daily Kos?

Here's a little reading for you: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...=f:publ243.107

That's the authorization from Congress for the war. Plenty of other stuff besides WMD in there. For me, violation of the 1991 ceasefire was more than enough to finish the job, but the WMD evidence built up by the Clinton administration and handed over to the Bush folks formed the backbone of the public argument.

If there were lies, they were bipartisan lies that originated in the 1990s.

The Duelfer Report also clearly states that the Baathist regime sought to end sanctions so that it could restart its WMD program ... and prior to 9/11 there was growing consensus driven by the Left and nations such as France, Germany and Russia and China to end the sanctions.

In the end, if you believe WMD was the sole reason for taking out what amounted to a second-rate Nazi party of the Mideast, you're a simpleton.

And you also believe we'll be abandoning Iraq from the Baghdad embassy by helocopter, which illustates a vivid misunderstand of the situation. The Vietnam comparison is the refuge of the intellectually lazy. An agrarian peasant civil war in Southeast Asia that was funded and supplied by the communist super powers as a proxy war against the West isn't quite the same thing as Iraq, which is its own set of difficult circumstances.

Your defeatist belief that every ragtag with a rifle and cause can best the United States is noted. And it's good to know those in charge ignore such nonsense. We've faced far longer odds in our history, and there's always the doomstruck chorus -- in which you appear to sing soprano -- that says we can't possibly win against [[insert enemy here). We did it in 1783, 1815, 1865, 1918, 1945 and are doing it now.

Native political and religious insurrections can be put down. History is literred with examples. The only thing more difficult to win than a counter-insurgency war is an insurgency. But obviously you think the conventional army of some other power is going to topple the Iraqi government and force us to leave from the embassy rooftop. Um ... riiiight. The Iraqis have no interest in becoming a theocratic nation of the anti-Western Iran mold, and they're not Persians. They know on which side their bread is buttered, and it ain't by the Iranians. Iraq has almost always had a pro-Western bent, especially since it's a Western construct.

Corporatist scheme ... do you have a Smedley Butler tattoo on your ass, too?

I can only imagine what you think of Obama's new Afghan war ... he's going to enter a hornet's nest that makes Iraq look like a kid's war game.

Open your eyes. War is a geopolitical chess match. Bush's people knew that, even if they hamfisted the presentation and implementation of much of it until the past couple years. I think Obama's people know it, too. And in Afghanistan they might be willing to make the tough decisions on waging a full regional religious was that Bush wasn't.

Just know in doing so it could end up sparking car bombs and more attacks here. We're about to enter the heart of the problem [[aside from the brain of it in Saudi, which is another complex problem that will require a different approach).

[Lloyd]

I have been lurking on this site for years, mostly for the fabulous ruins pictures, and have paid very little attention to these forums. Now I know why. Can anyone answer me why forums like this seem to always digress into flame fests?

Oh, I understand about the differing opinions and stuff like that, what I'm talking about is the name calling and petty bickering. The truth about differing opinions is that it is not the result of differing intelligience or anything like that, but only that we look at things in different ways. The reason we look at things in different ways is that each of us comes for our own unique set of circumstances, experiences and background. It is, therefore, very uncool to attack someone <like has been going on here> based solely on said difference of opinion.

This thread has been very illuminating in that regard. It started with a conversation about three Michiganders asked their opinion of Detroit and it's troubles, and has digressed into a wild and varied nonproductive argument between forum members. Come on guys, get a grip. If there's a solution, it's not tearing others down to build yourself up, it's finding common ground to work toward a common goal.

Unless, of course, the only reason you are here is to act tough while hiding behind your keyboard.

[BShea]

I have been lurking on this site for years, mostly for the fabulous ruins pictures, and have paid very little attention to these forums. Now I know why. Can anyone answer me why forums like this seem to always digress into flame fests?

Oh, I understand about the differing opinions and stuff like that, what I'm talking about is the name calling and petty bickering. The truth about differing opinions is that it is not the result of differing intelligience or anything like that, but only that we look at things in different ways. The reason we look at things in different ways is that each of us comes for our own unique set of circumstances, experiences and background. It is, therefore, very uncool to attack someone <like has been going on here> based solely on said difference of opinion.

This thread has been very illuminating in that regard. It started with a conversation about three Michiganders asked their opinion of Detroit and it's troubles, and has digressed into a wild and varied nonproductive argument between forum members. Come on guys, get a grip. If there's a solution, it's not tearing others down to build yourself up, it's finding common ground to work toward a common goal.

Unless, of course, the only reason you are here is to act tough while hiding behind your keyboard.

"Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Oh lord, kumbaya"

Thanks for the lecture. And welcome to the Internet, where flame wars are about as old as online porn. Maybe older. Some people enjoy debates, even if they're mud-slinging fests sometimes. Do you rent the supposed moral high ground by the hour or by the thread?

I also prefer to debate and hold opinions based on facts, not talking points issued to me by bomb-throwers on any portion of the ideological spectrum. And I'll chose to respond to petty forum tyrants and their witless sneers in the manner I choose. Lazy and intellectually bankrupt rhetoric gets my blood boiling on certain subjects.

And who's hiding? My screen ID is my real name. My profile is me. I've nothing to hide, and I'll back up what I have to say in person, too.

[Lloyd]

Whatever. It's not productive is all I'm saying. It is, however, instructive that even a post like mine can draw a flame from you. I hope at some point in your life you will be able to come to grips with your anger and move past it.