Right or wrong, societies settle their differences by fighting wars and they always have. Some countries are protected by stronger allies and they mostly avoid war, but they still have to fight when the shit hits the fan. If you refuse to participate there is a very good chance that eventually you will be subjugated by someone who will. America did not start the tradition and they don't like it, but most Americans understand that sadly, it is the way of the world.

False. You've bought the BIG LIE. You believe the lies about war, and know little about peace.

Generally the Right are racist, they're just a little coy about it. (Some are).

Racist abuse would get you banned fairly quickly here which tends to get people doing it in a round about way and then denying it.

If you want to say something that you truly believe in, be upfront and say it and take the consequences. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Sorry, but no one here is "right-wing" to start with - the people on here are mostly middle of the road posters who object to extreme left-wing views - and that is nothing but the kind of false stereotype that you should be fighting against.

I know that I would not have supported Obama's run for President if I didn't think that he was a lot better man than me.

Afghanistan.

You are for peace and non-violence = LOVING YOUR ENEMIES. Or you hate and kill enemies.

I'm on the side of the Jewish pacifist. Is anybody else?

I am on the side of lets get together and make this world a better place for everyone.

It's not that hard.

False. You've bought the BIG LIE. You believe the lies about war, and know little about peace.

Please forgive me for being blunt, but no one wants to argue with you because you are a moderator and we like you and you are not in good health, but frankly my guess is that almost no one really agrees with you on either side - if they were honest. Most of the people that post on "your side" are as full of anger and hatred as any right-winger - I do not see how you can miss that.

However, I'm getting weary of the personal - you don't know what I know - criticism no matter how you justify it to yourself. There is no way to answer what you have to say without getting personal and no one really wants to do that and besides, it is against the rules.

Please realize that it is not in our best interest to respond to your incessant, holier than thou, Christian, "love your enemies" rhetoric, but that does not mean that we buy it.

If someone had not put up all the Bush as a monkey pictures, it would be offensive, but it was a most appropriate response. Som nom na.

Do you think that the mugshot of Martin Luther King was relevant to the discussion?

Do you think that the choice behind posting that image was rational?

More importantly, do you think that ridiculing Bush is unjustified?

It was a response to the Oliver North mugshot, so, yes it was relevant and rational and called for.

Ridiculing Bush is mostly just pointless and boring.

False. You've bought the BIG LIE. You believe the lies about war, and know little about peace.

Please forgive me for being blunt, but no one wants to argue with you because you are a moderator and we like you and you are not in good health, but frankly my guess is that almost no one really agrees with you on either side - if they were honest. Most of the people that post on "your side" are as full of anger and hatred as any right-winger - I do not see how you can miss that.

However, I'm getting weary of the personal - you don't know what I know - criticism no matter how you justify it to yourself. There is no way to answer what you have to say without getting personal and no one really wants to do that and besides, it is against the rules.

Please realize that it is not in our best interest to respond to your incessant, holier than thou, Christian, "love your enemies" rhetoric, but that does not mean that we buy it.

Who posts on my side, other than ultra-conservative Christians who love their their enemies? I'm ultra-conservative, and you appear to be for war. Which you're free to express. It's my honest opinion based on 35 years of study. I may be wrong. I have lots of opinions. I think the love of enemy beats hating and killing them. Hate if you think you must.

Your offering is not nearly as convincing as the first montage.....and an obvious take-off of the original premise in a feeble riposte.

Of course it's a take-off of the Bush-chimp pics. Duh. But it's only been one year, give 'em time & photos and they'll improve on it.

Generally the Right are racist, they're just a little coy about it. (Some are).

Racist abuse would get you banned fairly quickly here which tends to get people doing it in a round about way and then denying it.

If you want to say something that you truly believe in, be upfront and say it and take the consequences. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Sorry, but no one here is "right-wing" to start with - the people on here are mostly middle of the road posters who object to extreme left-wing views

Depends on where you're viewing from. Speaking as a Brit I find that most Americans on here express what I would consider to be right-wing views. On the other hand I don't recall having seen any 'extreme' left-wing views.

I would guess that is because, to some extent, you agree with those left-wing views. That is how it usually works. Such judgements might even be used as justification to limit free speech on some other less-enlightened forums.

There's nothing new in the idea that the Afghan invasion was/is all about oil and oil transportation.

9/11 conspiracy theorists cited the pipeline as the reason for the Twin Towers "attack"; it gave Bush an excuse to invade.

Bush declared war on drugs but it wasn't enough to allow the US into Afghanistan so he needed something else. 9/11.

In the same way non-existant WOMD were the excuse to get into Iraq and capture Iraq's oil.

It took me two seconds to find this and I could find 1,000 more wacky theories stated as facts. No "extreme left-wing views"?

I suspect that it's more likely that the political spectrum is wider in the UK and Europe than it is in the USA. In the UK we have had members of the Communist Party elected as Members of Parliament - not many and a fair while ago but I suspect it would never happen in the USA. Over here the words 'socialist' and 'liberal' are descriptions of political affiliation rather than insults.

Edited to insert a missing ' .

For the record I was replying to UG's original post which read:

"I would guess that is because, to some extent, you agree with those left-wing views. That is how it usually works."

I would guess that is because, to some extent, you agree with those left-wing views. That is how it usually works. Such judgements might even be used as justification to limit free speech on some other less-enlightened forums.

I suspect that the less enlightened forums are those where some of the posters are unable to differentiate between differences of opinion and personal insults

If someone had not put up all the Bush as a monkey pictures, it would be offensive, but it was a most appropriate response. Som nom na.

Do you think that the mugshot of Martin Luther King was relevant to the discussion?

Do you think that the choice behind posting that image was rational?

More importantly, do you think that ridiculing Bush is unjustified?

It was a response to the Oliver North mugshot, so, yes it was relevant and rational and called for.

Ridiculing Bush is mostly just pointless and boring.

What did King have to do with any of this? Nevermind.

Ridiculing Bush is not pointless.....the ridicule serves to remind everyone that "The most powerful nation" elected a moron.....America is not infallible and should not be so arrogant.

I would guess that is because, to some extent, you agree with those left-wing views. That is how it usually works. Such judgements might even be used as justification to limit free speech on some other less-enlightened forums.

I suspect that the less enlightened forums are those where some of the posters are unable to differentiate between differences of opinion and personal insults

I did not take what you said as an insult. I know that you are open minded enough to allow ideas that you disagree with to be discussed. However, the fact that you claim to see right-wing views, but no extreme left-wing ones says a lot to someone who considers himself to be middle-of-the-road with some sympathies towards conservative ideas.

I would guess that is because, to some extent, you agree with those left-wing views. That is how it usually works. Such judgements might even be used as justification to limit free speech on some other less-enlightened forums.

There's nothing new in the idea that the Afghan invasion was/is all about oil and oil transportation.

9/11 conspiracy theorists cited the pipeline as the reason for the Twin Towers "attack"; it gave Bush an excuse to invade.

Bush declared war on drugs but it wasn't enough to allow the US into Afghanistan so he needed something else. 9/11.

In the same way non-existant WOMD were the excuse to get into Iraq and capture Iraq's oil.

It took me two seconds to find this and I could find 1,000 more wacky theories stated as facts. No "extreme left-wing views"?

If you read what you quoted me as saying carefully, you will see that I the only thing I state is that there are conspiracy theories around.....I did not claim the theories as my own.

The two statements that I highlighted are stated as facts. I'm sure that you think of them that way, but there are plenty of people who do not agree.

Yes, you were careful not to claim the conspiracy theories as facts, but you did present them to support what you were saying. That is called "spin" where I come from.

If someone had not put up all the Bush as a monkey pictures, it would be offensive, but it was a most appropriate response. Som nom na.

Do you think that the mugshot of Martin Luther King was relevant to the discussion?

Do you think that the choice behind posting that image was rational?

More importantly, do you think that ridiculing Bush is unjustified?

It was a response to the Oliver North mugshot, so, yes it was relevant and rational and called for.

Ridiculing Bush is mostly just pointless and boring.

What did King have to do with any of this? Nevermind.

Ridiculing Bush is not pointless.....the ridicule serves to remind everyone that "The most powerful nation" elected a moron.....America is not infallible and should not be so arrogant.

whenever i read crap like this i have to ask, could you have done better? if not then shut tfu, and without question bush will be considered in history far better than obama and his presidential card does not read impeached the way the liberals poster boy bubba's does. imo america is arrogant not because it does not make mistakes but because america is willing to walk it's talk and take action rather than ponder away time like the paper tiger UN. If we raised our children the same way the UN makes policy the whole world would be screwed.

It was wrong to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and wrong to stay there. IMNSHO.

Some people think that it is wrong to defend yourself against anybody, but not too many people are willing to turn the other other cheek so that someone can cut your head off and put it on the internet.

....

whenever i read crap like this i have to ask, could you have done better? if not then shut tfu, and without question bush will be considered in history far better than obama and his presidential card does not read impeached the way the liberals poster boy bubba's does. imo america is arrogant not because it does not make mistakes but because america is willing to walk it's talk and take action rather than ponder away time like the paper tiger UN. If we raised our children the same way the UN makes policy the whole world would be screwed.

I don't know what was crap about it.

Maybe YOU could not have done better than Bush.....birds of a feather....but I'd wager many on this forum, including myself, could have......just by dint of having some common sense and intelligence.

If you want to tell me to "shut tfu"..... all I can say to you is, "No!"

Why doesn't your spelling police buddy tell you off for your atrocious punctuation?

The two statements that I highlighted are stated as facts. I'm sure that you think of them that way, but there are plenty of people who do not agree.

Yes, you were careful not to claim the conspiracy theories as facts, but you did present them to support what you were saying. That is called "spin" where I come from.

No, the two highlighted paragraphs are stated as part of the conspiracy theorist's ideas.....Theories, not facts.

As you highlighted those conspiracy theories as part of your argument that this forum has "extreme leftists with wacko ideas", and in fact no member of this forum has put forward those particular theories as his own, you had better spend another 2 seconds finding something that shows any member here as "extreme left".

There are definitely extreme right wingers here (racist, bigotted, hawkish etc), but I have not seen anything extreme left.

I would guess that is because, to some extent, you agree with those left-wing views. That is how it usually works. Such judgements might even be used as justification to limit free speech on some other less-enlightened forums.

There's nothing new in the idea that the Afghan invasion was/is all about oil and oil transportation.

In the same way non-existant WOMD were the excuse to get into Iraq and capture Iraq's oil.

It took me two seconds to find this and I could find 1,000 more wacky theories stated as facts. No "extreme left-wing views"?

If you read what you quoted me as saying carefully, you will see that I the only thing I state is that there are conspiracy theories around.....I did not claim the theories as my own.

You refered to 9/11 as a theory, but there is nothing that qualifies "In the same way non-existant WOMD were the excuse to get into Iraq and capture Iraq's oil" as being a theory.

I will admit that "There's nothing new in the idea that the Afghan invasion was/is all about oil and oil transportation" could be either one as you used the word "idea", but it certainly sounds as if you it is something that you agree with.

As you highlighted those conspiracy theories as part of your argument that this forum has "extreme leftists with wacko ideas", and in fact no member of this forum has put forward those particular theories as his own, you had better spend another 2 seconds finding something that shows any member here as "extreme left".

Since you seem to want yet another example, this took another 2 seconds. It could be considered either left-wing or from outer space.

Why is it that nobody ask what it is that has to be finished? Obama sending more cannon fodder to finish "The Job"

Will there be any prosecution against those criminals like Bush and Blair lying about the reason to go to war? False reasons that have been officially exposed recently due to FOIA requests but mentioned on Blog's for a long time.

It will be again wiped under the carpet and a new swing will be fed to the mass that has been brainwashed for the last century.

Anyone that is asking for some real answers will be labeled a conspiracy nut case or truther and will be laughed at by the indoctrinated mass.

There are definitely extreme right wingers here (racist, bigotted, hawkish etc), but I have not seen anything extreme left.

How about providing some examples of posts that prove your point.

There are definitely extreme right wingers here (racist, bigotted, hawkish etc), but I have not seen anything extreme left.

How about providing some examples of posts that prove your point.

Hehe.... prove your point instead.

Do you honestly believe that if I researched a little bit, I wouldn't come up with a few koheesti posts?

I think my main point to you is your use of the word "extreme" as relates to the "leftists" here, and your apparent defense of plainly bigotted individuals that certainly sit on the "right".

Afghanistan related, hence the post and link. Provided for informational purposes only.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100216_me...46c03fadcf9f67f

There are definitely extreme right wingers here (racist, bigotted, hawkish etc), but I have not seen anything extreme left.

How about providing some examples of posts that prove your point.

Hehe.... prove your point instead.

Do you honestly believe that if I researched a little bit, I wouldn't come up with a few koheesti posts?

I think my main point to you is your use of the word "extreme" as relates to the "leftists" here, and your apparent defense of plainly bigotted individuals that certainly sit on the "right".

I honestly have not seen any posts that I thought were by bigots. In fact, I have seen several in which the writer was accused of being a racist when it was very obvious that the the person that was complaining about it was either mistaken or just trying to stir the s___.