# Democrat Talking Points Cost Lives



## Big Don (Jun 14, 2008)

Print Story ​ *US aid cannot be trusted: Myanmar junta:* 

Agencies       
_Posted online: Friday, June 13, 2008 at 1321 hrs IST _ 
Yangon, June 13: 

Excerpt:
As individuals and aid agencies around the world dig into their pockets for funds to help Myanmar's cyclone victims, the country's ruling junta on Friday said that such assistance from the United States could not be trusted. 
In a clear reference to the United States, a media mouthpiece for the regime warned that the goodwill of a big Western nation that wants to help Myanmar with its warships was not genuine. 
Myanmar turned down humanitarian aid aboard naval vessels from the United States, as well as Great Britain and France, which had sailed toward the Southeast Asian nation after Cyclone Nargis struck May 2-3. 
State media has previously said that Myanmar feared Washington was using the cover of humanitarian aid to invade the country and steal its oil reserves.
(((END EXCERPT)))
No blood for oil? No food for Burmese...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2008)

Big Don said:


> No blood for oil? No food for Burmese...


 
huh?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 14, 2008)

elder999 said:


> huh?


It is pretty simple, even you, should be able to get it.
Democrats and liberals have screamed, wailed and whined since 91 that the US goes to war solely for oil.
The Junta running Myanmar (Burma) believes it, and refuses the aid we sent, causing the people of Burma (Burmese) to die, i.e. costing lives.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 14, 2008)

Big Don said:


> It is pretty simple, even you, should be able to get it.
> Democrats and liberals have screamed, wailed and whined since 91 that the US goes to war solely for oil.
> The Junta running Myanmar (Burma) believes it, and refuses the aid we sent, causing the people of Burma (Burmese) to die, i.e. costing lives.


 

A lot of other countries who have said nothing about Myanmar sent aid and had it refused. The military dictatorship doesn't want any 'interferance' from any other country. You can't pin this on anyone other than the Junta.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/17/world/fg-myanmar18
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/...le-foreign-aid-myanmar-cyclone-victims.html-0


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Democrats and liberals have screamed, wailed and whined since 91 that the US goes to war solely for oil.
> The Junta running Myanmar (Burma) believes it, and refuses the aid we sent, causing the people of Burma (Burmese) to die, i.e. costing lives.


 

Which Democrats and liberals did the screaming, whining and wailing since '91?

More importantly, why would _you_ believe anything that the government of Myanmar says? Isn't it more likely that they simply fear a takeover by foreign govenrments under the guise of aid, whatever the reason-that they simply don't want a foreign military presence in their country, and are willing to let their own people die to keep it from happening?

Burma's oil and natural gas are extracted, refined and shipped , in part, by the French oil company Total SA, and Chevron-which got its interests in Burmese oil and gas production from its acquisition of Unocal-in fact, Chevron has about a 28% interest in Burmese oil and gas-so it's not like some of  those Burmese oil dollars aren't going to the U.S. already, is it? Of course, petroleum production is a smaller part of their economy anyway....



Big Don said:


> It is pretty simple, even you, should be able to get it.



Simple like the Ptolemaic view of the universe? Simple as in uneducated, uninformed, naive, imbecilic, idiotic, monomaniacal, fatuous, absurd or just plain _simple_, as in dunderheaded?

Simply *wrong*, once again?  :lol:


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 14, 2008)

Thank you for the neg rep for my post on here whoever sent it, er..what does 'shill' mean? That's all it was, one word, give us a clue then! Rofl. love it!


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Thank you for the neg rep for my post on here whoever sent it, er..what does 'shill' mean? That's all it was, one word, give us a clue then! Rofl. love it!


 

It wasn't me! It was the one-armed man! :lol:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 14, 2008)

Big Don said:


> It is pretty simple, even you, should be able to get it.
> Democrats and liberals have screamed, wailed and whined since 91 that the US goes to war solely for oil.
> The Junta running Myanmar (Burma) believes it, and refuses the aid we sent, causing the people of Burma (Burmese) to die, i.e. costing lives.




Don,

I must be having a problem myself as I did not get it until you presented your argument here in the above quoted post. Before that it was a non sequitur on Democrats in relationship to this article and your post. 

Thanks for the additional information on what your were thinking. 

(* Goes back to notes when I was married on how to read another person's mind. And wonder's why people just do not say or write what they mean and not try to infer or assume that everyone agrees with them or knows what they are talking about. *)


----------



## Brian Johns (Jun 14, 2008)

Big Don said:


> It is pretty simple, even you, should be able to get it.
> Democrats and liberals have screamed, wailed and whined since 91 that the US goes to war solely for oil.
> The Junta running Myanmar (Burma) believes it, and refuses the aid we sent, causing the people of Burma (Burmese) to die, i.e. costing lives.



Just an absolutely brilliant argument.:roflmao:


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 14, 2008)

I wonder if we can now have an equally insightful proof that 1 + 1 does not equal 2 and that it's the fault of the American Democratic Party?  

I only ask as that seems to be the level of incredulity that some members are generating at present; I don't necessarily mean right here, to be clear.  

Credability is based upon having a viable position on a subject and being able to present cogent arguments to support that position.  Blaming your pet hate for anything that happens in the world (that is generally perceived to be bad) does not foster credability.  All it does is stir up the more calm or rational minded to no good effect.

I have only one further question before returning this thread to it's previous course - why?  

Why persist in this course of action which only serves to sour the board?  Peoples opinions are not going to be swayed by such action; if anything they will be strengthened in their current form.  

Such entrenchment does not lead to debate and the exchange of ideas.  It leads to bi-polar divisions that are all too popular on other internet fora and are thankfully absent from MT.

I would urge very strongly for those who may feel incited to respond, thus feeding these destructive fires, to remember that their own words will have no impact on the course of threads based on such premiss'.  As with bindweed, the more you hack at it, the more it grows.  Deny the root nourishment and it diminishes.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I would urge very strongly for those who may feel incited to respond, thus feeding these destructive fires, to remember that their own words will have no impact on the course of threads based on such premiss'. As with bindweed, the more you hack at it, the more it grows. Deny the root nourishment and it diminishes.



Yeah, you're right...

.....sometimes, though, when _idiocy_ parades about as genius, or even just tries to present itself as quasi-intelligent, it's fun to say-and I just can't resist the compulsion-it's fun to say, in so many words, "Geez, _that's_ idiotic...." :lol:

Of course, the idiot on question-whomever "he" might be -will only prate on with _I know you are, but what am I?_ or some such inane, imbecilic, juvenile response, as has been amply demonstrated, again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again.........:lol:

Sometimes, in the words of Jack Nicholson, you have to tell them to "stop selling crazy, because we're full up here." :lol:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 14, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I wonder if we can now have an equally insightful proof that 1 + 1 does not equal 2 and that it's the fault of the American Democratic Party?




In jest please read.

Where 1 represents any real number greater than 0.5 and less than or equal to 1.5. 

So if we keep track of the significant digits behind the scenes and only display the whole number.

One could say 1 + 1 = 3.

Although the actual data is 1.5 + 1.5 which would equal 3.

And as I am doing this on the internet, and Al Gore invented the internet, it is Al's and The democratic parties fault.  

I am not happy with either party, so this is not an attack on either. Only just following up to a request.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> In jest please read.
> 
> Where 1 represents any real number greater than 0.5 and less than or equal to 1.5.
> 
> ...


 
Hell man, I can do a little better than that, and prove that 1=2.

*1st Proof* 

X=1                             set X equal to 1
X(X)=x(1)                     multiply both sides by x
X(X)-1=x(1)-1               subtract 1 from both sides
(x-1)(x+1)=x-1              separate left side into factors
x+1=1                          divide both sides by x-1
1+1=1                          substitute 1 for x
2=1

*2nd Proof* 


(-1)(-1) = 1​​​the square of -1 is 1
-1 = 1/-1​​​divide both sides by -1
-1/1 = 1/-1​​​identity operation; for all real (or complex) x, x = x/1
i/1 = 1/i​​​take the square root of both sides (i=sqrt(-1))
i/2 = 1/2i​​​divide both sides by two
i2/2 = i/2i​​​multiply both sides by i
-1/2 = 1/2​​​substitute -1 for i2 and 1 for i/i
-1/2 + 3/2 = 1/2 + 3/2​​​add 1 1/2 (3/2) to both sides
1 = 2​​​



*3rd Proof* 


x2 = x+x+x+...+x (x times)
definition of x2; x not equal to zero
2x = 1+1+1+...+1 (x times)
take derivative of both sides; derivative of xn = nxn-1
2x = x 
x = 1+1+1+...+1 (x times)
2 = 1
divide both sides by x (x not equal to zero)




Rich Parsons said:


> And as I am doing this on the internet, and Al Gore invented the internet, it is Al's and The democratic parties faultI am not happy with either party, so this is not an attack on either. Only just following up to a request.



SO, 1+1 doesn't equal 2 or 3, it obviously equals 4...

And as I did this on the Internet three times, and three times 2 is 6, and three times 1 is 3, then six is nine, because 3 times 1 is six; Al Gore invented the Internet, and the  March hare has no ears, and up is down, and sideways is back and forth, and a cow can't whinny, and a fish can't fly, and you can't step on the same piece of water twice.....and all of THAT is most certainly the Democrat's fault, as much as it's anyone's, anyway......

*ten bucks paypalled to the first person to show the obvious errors in all three proofs, btw*


----------



## Big Don (Jun 14, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Which Democrats and liberals did the screaming, whining and wailing since '91?


Jack Cafferty Paul Begala Chris Matthews  Bill Maher  George Carlin Friend of Obama, Terrorist William Ayers Arianna Huffington Alec Baldwin Dennis Kucinich
Gore Vidal  Murdering scum Mumia Abu-Jamal 
Yeah, none of those are democrats...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 15, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Jack Cafferty Paul Begala Chris Matthews Bill Maher George Carlin Friend of Obama, Terrorist William Ayers Arianna Huffington Alec Baldwin Dennis Kucinich
> Gore Vidal Murdering scum Mumia Abu-Jamal
> Yeah, none of those are democrats...


 

Jack Cafferty on Democrats:

*



			"It seems the Democrats are the greatest thing the Republicans have going for them sometimes."
		
Click to expand...

 
When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that Republicans were using fillibuster tactics to block measures to withdraw American troops from Iraq, Cafferty declared:




			"Baloney, Madam Speaker. Appropriations bills for the war must pass the House of Representatives by a simple majority. It is completely within your power to stop the funding of the war in Iraq. You have simply chosen not to do so. In fact, I did a little homework. The Speaker of the House of Representatives decides which pieces of legislation even come to the floor of the House debate and/or a vote."
		
Click to expand...

 
Cafferty repeatedly criticizes what he calls the Democrats' lack of action to honor their campaign promises to end the Iraq War: 




			"The Democrats were handed a golden opportunity to challenge President Bush on the war when they were given control of Congress in the midterm elections last year. So far they have done absolutely nothing."
		
Click to expand...

 
Should I go on, or are you enjoying that nice warm cup of STFU?

(That's Sizzling Toxic Fatuity Unction, for those of you who might think otherwise) :lol:
*


----------



## Big Don (Jun 15, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Jack Cafferty on Democrats:
> 
> *
> 
> ...


Yeah, democrats never criticize other democrats, just like republicans never criticize republicans...right. Does the name Harriet Myers ring a bell?


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 15, 2008)

elder999 said:


> *ten bucks paypalled to the first person to show the obvious errors in all three proofs, btw*


 
I cann't find any obvious problems with them, they just don't make sense. But, that's probably because X+1= 2, not one.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 15, 2008)

Big Don said:


> . Does the name Harriet Myers ring a bell?


 
Well, no, Don, it doesn't.

Of course, Mr. Bush did try to name a woman with a strikingly similar name to the Supreme Court;it was his former White House counsel-_her_ name is Harriet _Miers_-kind of hard knowing that if you get all your information from Rush Limbaugh on the radio and all.....:lol:

Is *that* who you meant? Hmmmmm...

Okay, show me where she's a "democratic liberal" who has been whining about how we "only go to war for oil since '91."

In fact, show me a quote on the war in Iraq from her at all....

In fact, show me how any of the people you've listed-some with links- have been whining about how we "only go to war for oil since '91."

On second thought-please don't bother. It's all obvious to me now-it's Ariana Huffington's fault that a typhoon hit Myanmar-that _witch_!She huffed, and she puffed, and she *blew* the country down! It's Jack Cafferty and Chris Matthews  fault because they supported the junta takeover back in 1989 and Myanmar denied their own people aid because of Harriet Miers....what clear and lucid logic you've used here-I'm stunned.

_Really_ 

Hey, here'a a little ditty for ya:

_
'Who's willing to draw water for George Bush and carry it?
Harriet.
Who worked to take his DWI rap and bury it?
Harriet.
Who thinks that anyone critical of him is Judas Iscariot?
Still Harriet.
Rah! Rah! Rah!_-*Calvin Trillin*, liberal Bush-basher, extraordinaire....


----------



## Big Don (Jun 15, 2008)

Do you try to miss the point? If so, you do an admirable job of it.
You quoted Cafferty bitching about democrats, as if no democrat could ever complain about another, I asked if Miers name rang a bell, because, the greatest objections to her nominated came, not from democrats, but, from (GASP) republicans. Leading conservatives were livid that the president, whose every other QUALIFIED nominee was stymied by the democrat controlled Senate, that he'd nominate some woman who was CLEARLY unqualified.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 15, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Do you try to miss the point? If so, you do an admirable job of it.


 

Well, no, Don, I don't _try_ to miss the point....I thought that this:



elder999 said:


> And as I did this on the Internet three times, and three times 2 is 6, and three times 1 is 3, then six is nine, because 3 times 1 is six; Al Gore invented the Internet, and the March hare has no ears, and up is down, and sideways is back and forth, and a cow can't whinny, and a fish can't fly, and you can't step on the same piece of water twice.....and all of THAT is most certainly the Democrat's fault, as much as it's anyone's, anyway......


 
and this:



elder999 said:


> On second thought-please don't bother. It's all obvious to me now-it's Ariana Huffington's fault that a typhoon hit Myanmar-that _witch_!She huffed, and she puffed, and she *blew* the country down! It's Jack Cafferty and Chris Matthews fault because they supported the junta takeover back in 1989 and Myanmar denied their own people aid because of Harriet Miers....what clear and lucid logic you've used here-I'm stunned.


 
....made it pretty clear that there *is no point* here worth even missing....

or, if you prefer, _I know you are, but what am I?_ :lol:


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 15, 2008)

elder999 said:


> It's all obvious to me now-it's Ariana Huffington's fault that a typhoon hit Myanmar-that _witch_!She huffed, and she puffed, and she *blew* the country down!



Oh. My. God.  IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!


----------



## elder999 (Jun 15, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Oh. My. God. IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!


 

How's this for making sense?




> " "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil*."-**Alan Greenspan, *_The Age of Turbulence_


[


> "By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?... While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."*Dick Cheney, Halliburton Chairman, 1999*


 


> "By any estimation, Middle East oil producers will remain central to world oil security. The Gulf will be a primary focus of US international energy policy." *Dick Cheney,Vice -President of United States, 2001*


 



> "





> "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." *Deputy Secretary of Defense,Paul Wolfowitz, June 4, 2003*



 


> "Iraq is estimated to have 10% of the world&#8217;s oil, in fact it&#8217;s more like 20%. That&#8217;s a huge amount of oil to let an unfriendly country (Iran) take. *Rep. Chris Shays-R, Connecticut, C-Span, Sept 12, 2007*


 


> "Why don&#8217;t we just take his oil?Why buy it? Take it!" * Senator Bob Smith -R, New Hampshire, campainging for reelection, April, 2002.*


 



> "My friends, I will have an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."-*John McCain, May 2, 2008 at a town hall meeting.*




McCain, Greenspan, Wolfowitz, Cheney-all in on the _Ariana Huff 'n Puff_ big wind for oil scenario, as well as _*asserting that the war in Iraq is about oil....*._


----------



## elder999 (Jun 15, 2008)

BTW, Big Don-I'm still waiting for you to prove that 1 doesn't equal 2....:lol:


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 15, 2008)

elder999 said:


> BTW, Big Don-I'm still waiting for you to prove that 1 doesn't equal 2....:lol:


 
I'm still waiting for Don to explain to me how what the Democrats say (which is basicly admitted by the GOP) cost lives in Mynmar. You'd think that the Burmese Gov. would be smart enough to figure it out for themselves. Or that they're just using it as an excuse.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 15, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> I'm still waiting for Don to explain to me how what the Democrats say (which is basicly admitted by the GOP) cost lives in Mynmar. You'd think that the Burmese Gov. would be smart enough to figure it out for themselves. Or that they're just using it as an excuse.


I hope you pay better attention in basic training, Pyle...
It is pretty simple, even you, should be able to get it.
Democrats and liberals have screamed, wailed and whined since 91 that the US goes to war solely for oil.
The Junta running Myanmar (Burma) believes it, and refuses the aid we sent, causing the people of Burma (Burmese) to die, i.e. costing lives.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 15, 2008)

Big Don said:


> I hope you pay better attention in basic training, Pyle...
> It is pretty simple, even you, should be able to get it.
> Democrats and liberals have screamed, wailed and whined since 91 that the US goes to war solely for oil.
> The Junta running Myanmar (Burma) believes it, and refuses the aid we sent, causing the people of Burma (Burmese) to die, i.e. costing lives.


 

or, _*1=2*_ :lol:  :lfao:


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 15, 2008)

Are you familiar with the phrase "A losing wicket", Don?  

I strongly suggest that you let this one (amongst many others) go as you are not going to win and the pointless cycle will go on ad infinitum without resolution.

As I've asked before - why?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 15, 2008)

because it's the right thing to do?

because it's the truth?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 15, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> because it's the right thing to do?
> 
> because it's the truth?


Honesty and truth are, like honor and courage, foreign concepts to some, pity.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 15, 2008)

Big Don said:


> I hope you pay better attention in basic training, Pyle...


 
OK, this is getting irritating. I get you, I'm 18, you're as old as conservativism. Because I'm 18, you think I'm stupid, don't pay attention, have no idea whats going on in the world around me. I get it. It's irritating, it's insulting, and I want you stop it. Treat me like a person who has his own legitimate views, or bite me.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 15, 2008)

Now I've got two of you at it - just how is it the right thing to do?  Just what do you expect to change?  Also, if your last is directed at me, Don, I'd appreciate some substantiation.

I keep trying to rephrase it in the hope that one particular way will get through.  The stance you take on the issue of Holy Republican vs Evil Democrat is not sufficient to change anyones views.

The four or five members that share the same extremity of the political spectrum have remained the same for all the hundreds of posts you've made.  The only thing that has changed is the number of individuals who are sick of hearing the same diatribe.  It's not progress to increase the level of disagreement with your point.  I'm English with no interest at all in American politics and you've even convinced me that I'd never vote Republican (given the proviso that the example you've given is representative of that party) !

There comes a stage in such a cycle where it's simple impoliteness to keep foisting the same 'sales pitch'.  Others are telling you this by the way the returning posts are getting more prickly.

So I'm asking you in all gentleness and sincerity to please stop.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 15, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> OK, this is getting irritating. I get you, I'm 18, you're as old as conservativism. Because I'm 18, you think I'm stupid, don't pay attention, have no idea whats going on in the world around me. I get it. It's irritating, it's insulting, and I want you stop it. Treat me like a person who has his own legitimate views, or bite me.


You have your own views, you just don't understand what they really are yet.
I never said I thought you were stupid, so, I guess you get the prize for guessing that correctly.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 15, 2008)

Kids, can't we all play nice?  If not, the mods will come and take our balls away and make us go home.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 15, 2008)

I just realized how that sounds... I meant like footballs, not like, you know, testicles.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 15, 2008)

:lol:  Don't be so sure ... I am reasonably proficient with a katana ... :EG:


----------



## Big Don (Jun 15, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Now I've got two of you at it - just how is it the right thing to do?  Just what do you expect to change?  Also, if your last is directed at me, Don, I'd appreciate some substantiation.
> 
> I keep trying to rephrase it in the hope that one particular way will get through.  The stance you take on the issue of Holy Republican vs Evil Democrat is not sufficient to change anyones views.
> 
> ...


The plain and simple fact is, democrats and other liberals pound the "no war for oil" idiocy so long and so loud that you would have to be stupid to think the Junta's leaders wouldn't hear it.
Several different terrorist leaders in Iraq have echoed the talking points of many democrat lawmakers. If that doesn't disturb you a little, something is wrong. Global communications is great, but, just like Kerry claiming our troops are stupid, or Murtha calling our troops terrorists, reduced morale of our troops overseas,  terrorists, dictators and others can and do hear what the  left says in this country, and it does affect things outside our borders.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 15, 2008)

But how does irritating most of the members of Martial Talk change that?

Regardless, my previous post was not directly concerned with the issue espoused solely in this thread.  Consider what I asked; it'll make everyone much less stressed.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 15, 2008)

Big Don said:


> You have your own views, you just don't understand what they really are yet.
> I never said I thought you were stupid, so, I guess you get the prize for guessing that correctly.


 
See, that's it EXACTLY!! You are saying that I don't understand my own views. You just said EXACTLY what I'm talking about!! So, BITE ME!!


----------



## Big Don (Jun 15, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> But how does irritating most of the members of Martial Talk change that?
> 
> Regardless, my previous post was not directly concerned with the issue espoused solely in this thread.  Consider what I asked; it'll make everyone much less stressed.


Gee, I am heartily ashamed. I had no idea honesty would distress so many.


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 15, 2008)

*Moderator Note. 
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

Terry Stoker
Senior Moderator*


----------



## elder999 (Jun 15, 2008)

Big Don said:


> The plain and simple fact is, democrats and other liberals pound the "no war for oil" idiocy so long and so loud that you would have to be stupid to think the Junta's leaders wouldn't hear it.
> Several different terrorist leaders in Iraq have echoed the talking points of many democrat lawmakers. If that doesn't disturb you a little, something is wrong. Global communications is great, but, just like Kerry claiming our troops are stupid, or Murtha calling our troops terrorists, reduced morale of our troops overseas, terrorists, dictators and others can and do hear what the left says in this country, and it does affect things outside our borders.


 
and *1 still=2*, apparently.... :lol:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 15, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> :lol: Don't be so sure ... I am reasonably proficient with a katana ... :EG:


 
Well I was going to jump in on this thread, but now that you put it that way....

*finds a metal pan to guard his jewels*


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 15, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Print Story ​
> *US aid cannot be trusted: Myanmar junta:*
> 
> Agencies
> ...


 
Actually, I will jump in.  Attempting to blame the _ruling military junta's choice_ to refuse aid on Democrats is about as disingenuous, not to mention simplistic, as claiming that negative_media_emboldens_insurgents.  Frankly, the insurgent and ruling forces don't give a camel's squat about the domestic political disagreements in the US...they care more about threats to their territory and power.  I think you're giving the junta in question too much credit, Don, in saying that they're refusing aid because of the U.S.'s alleged selfish intentions.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 15, 2008)

:lol:  It's okay, *Random*, feel free to jump in.  

I'm here in my capacity as a private member (now *that* sounds rude ) being more Mentor-y rather than Moderator-y so the katana's in the cupboard with the Mod-hat .

EDIT: Too slow - you already did :tup:.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 15, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> But how does irritating most of the members of Martial Talk change that?
> 
> Regardless, my previous post was not directly concerned with the issue espoused solely in this thread.  Consider what I asked; it'll make everyone much less stressed.



wait, are you saying that since most the posters in the study are liberal that people like Don and myself shouldnt post opposing viewpoints because it might "irritate most of martial talk"

are you seriously saying that minority opposing views should censor themselves?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 15, 2008)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Actually, I will jump in.  Attempting to blame the _ruling military junta's choice_ to refuse aid on Democrats is about as disingenuous, not to mention simplistic, as claiming that negative_media_emboldens_insurgents.



The dems say it, no one else did until they did. It gets on the Bush hating news, and that gets seen around the world.

Sooner or later, someone out there will believe it. Because they saw an american say it.

it is niether disingenuous or simplistic

it is however quite simple. If something gets repeted enough times, someone will start to believe it.


Suk,
if i may ask, did you ask Elder to not post HIS views? even when we get on a tizzy and created 10 topics in as many minutes?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 15, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> :lol:  Don't be so sure ... I am reasonably proficient with a katana ... :EG:




YIKES!!


----------



## elder999 (Jun 15, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> The dems say it, no one else did until they did. It gets on the Bush hating news, and that gets seen around the world.
> 
> Sooner or later, someone out there will believe it. Because they saw an american say it.
> 
> ...


 
Especially if it gets repeated by McCain, Greenspan, Cheney and Wolfowitz, huh?  :lol:


----------



## Big Don (Jun 15, 2008)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Actually, I will jump in.  Attempting to blame the _ruling military junta's choice_ to refuse aid on Democrats is about as disingenuous, not to mention simplistic, as claiming that negative_media_emboldens_insurgents.  Frankly, the insurgent and ruling forces don't give a camel's squat about the domestic political disagreements in the US...they care more about threats to their territory and power.  I think you're giving the junta in question too much credit, Don, in saying that they're refusing aid because of the U.S.'s alleged selfish intentions.


Going by your line of "reasoning" The negative things said by, John Kerry about our troops shouldn't bother our troops because they are all the way in Iraq. 

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/irak.jpg

Gee, I think his comments may have bothered these troopers...
Selfish intentions which are alleged by... Democrats, liberals and other malcontents.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 15, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Democrats, liberals and other malcontents.


 
Malcontents?  You have dreams every night about the Rapture burning away every non-white non-conservative, don't you?

Regardless, please tell me you're not associating US troops with foreign military juntas?  Because my assertion, which had nothing to do with the distance from the US, was in reference to foreign factions such as the junta which refused aid, not our own troops.  I find it easier to believe you were just looking for an excuse to post that picture.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 15, 2008)

It's like a train wreck, this thread, you don't want to look but can't quite look away.............


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 15, 2008)

As I have been one who tends to defend BD, I have to say this:

BD, for me, it is not your political stance that I have a problem with, obviously.  What I do "take issue with", is that you seem to have a simplistic cause and effect paradigm.  Even I don't see who you come to the conclusion in this thread, that it is the Democrats fault that Myanmar will not except U.S. aid due to their position against the war in Iraq.  You have offered no proof of that.  

Now, given that in politics, one must read between the lines, I understand that some leeway should be given in drawing conclusions.  But, in this case, you have seemed to have been given an inch (the article) and taken ten inches (your conclusion).


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 16, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Suk,
> if i may ask, did you ask Elder to not post HIS views? even when we get on a tizzy and created 10 topics in as many minutes?


 
I remember the day and the order in which events unfolded.  

That 'shotgun blast' of posts was reactive rather than proactive and it's very torrent-like nature showed (to my twisted English mind anyhow) that it was done wryly.  *Elder* himself has councilled more than once that he views this whole cycle with humour but if anyone feels that a post by anyone requires it, the RTM button is always there just for that purpose.

Further, we've touched on it a few times now - the 'backlash' is just that.  It doesn't make it right, less regrettable or necessarily free from 'oversight' (admonishments and guidance are not necessarily public) but it is understandable.

Also, it has to be borne in mind that when a Moderator takes part in a thread, they do so as 'private citizens' and whilst we are expected to uphold the 'law' and guide errant threads/posters, what we say in thread is not 'official' under those circumstances.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 16, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> wait, are you saying that since most the posters in the study are liberal that people like Don and myself shouldnt post opposing viewpoints because it might "irritate most of martial talk"
> 
> are you seriously saying that minority opposing views should censor themselves?


 
Opposing viewpoints examined in reasonable discourse is what the Internet fora communities are for.

That is not the pattern that has been established here.  The very responses that are being drawn from otherwise quite reasonable members shows that "all is not well in the state of Denmark".


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2008)

Big Don said:


> ... Democrats, liberals and other malcontents.



Oh, never mind.....I've gotta get back to work. Bye everyone, and stay safe!


----------



## MT Admin Team (Jun 16, 2008)

_*ADMIN NOTE:

THE CONVERSATION IN THIS THREAD HAS REACHED UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS.  SNIPING, HARASSING AND RUDE BEHAVIOR WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

REVIEW THE RULES BEFORE POSTING.

THE ADMIN TEAM AT
MARTIALTALK.COM*_


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2008)

Back on track, then..



Twin Fist said:


> The dems say it, no one else did until they did. It gets on the Bush hating news, and that gets seen around the world.
> 
> Sooner or later, someone out there will believe it. Because they saw an american say it.


 

A more complete quote of the article fromthe OP reveals:



> In a clear reference to the United States, a media mouthpiece for the regime warned that the goodwill of a big Western nation that wants to help Myanmar with its warships was not genuine.
> Myanmar turned down humanitarian aid aboard naval vessels from the United States, as well as Great Britain and France, which had sailed toward the Southeast Asian nation after Cyclone Nargis struck May 2-3.
> State media has previously said that Myanmar feared Washington was using the cover of humanitarian aid to invade the country and steal its oil reserves. _The New Light of Myanmar_ newspaper said on Fiday that aid from nations who impose economic sanctions against Myanmar and push the UN Security Council to take actions against it comes with strings attached.


 
So, it becomes pretty clear that they "fear" the US would invade them under cover of humanitarian aid, and that they don't trust us because we've imposed economic sanctions against them and pushed the Security Council to take action-both of which are true. The "oil reserve" thing is speculation, and supported more by the fact that they have oil, and by our actions elsewhere-we've invaded and placed troops in countries with oil, regardless of our stated intentions. It is not attributable to any "Democratic talking points," it's entirely attributable to circumstance.

As I posted earlier, while we don't import any oil from Burma, AFAIK, we do get dollars from Burmese oil via the corporations responsible for extracting, refining and exporting it-so, in that sense, we already have 28% of the oil, anyway....and, as I posted earlier, there are quite a few prominent Republicans who have made statements that support the idea that we've gone to war for oil. Are they to blame as well??


----------



## Big Don (Jun 16, 2008)

That the idea that the US is out to steal their oil could have come from anywhere EXCEPT, the democrat and liberal activists who have been spouting it since we went into Kuwait, is laughable to say the least.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 16, 2008)

hey Brother, as long as you stay awy from me with the sword, we will get along just fine.................:uhoh:




Sukerkin said:


> Opposing viewpoints examined in reasonable discourse is what the Internet fora communities are for.
> 
> That is not the pattern that has been established here.  The very responses that are being drawn from otherwise quite reasonable members shows that "all is not well in the state of Denmark".



Even otherwise reasonable people can be un-reasonable about politics, religion and sports.

I find the English, for example, to be, in my experience, quite reasonable folks. Then there are the soccer hooligans...............


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 16, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> hey Brother, as long as you stay awy from me with the sword, we will get along just fine.................:uhoh:


 
Fear not, good sir.  The vorpal blade goes snicker-snack only where necessary 




Twin Fist said:


> Even otherwise reasonable people can be un-reasonable about politics, religion and sports.


 
That is a truism, no doubt.



Twin Fist said:


> I find the English, for example, to be, in my experience, quite reasonable folks. Then there are the soccer hooligans...............


 
I beg you, don't include me in the same nation as those .  They are not referenced as our countries "shame" for nothing.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 16, 2008)

Big Don said:


> That the idea that the US is out to steal their oil could have come from anywhere EXCEPT, the democrat and liberal activists who have been spouting it since we went into Kuwait, is laughable to say the least.


 
Well, Don,let's try to be reasonable. You're the dictator of a military junta which  has oppressed the  people for more than 20 years- acountry that has basically been under military rule for more than 40 years. You have a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions, and aid coming under the guise of the U.S. military. In addition to the rather recent history of the disastrous aftermath of U.S. military humane intervention in Somalia, you have the current situation in Iraq-which was for what? First we said it was for WMD, then we said it was to topple a _dictator who oppressed his own people, that we did it to free the Iraqi people_-never mind the oil. 

Naturally, they can't say that _"Gee, we're afraid your coming to restore democratic rule,"_ so they say "*You're coming to steal our oil, like you're doing in Iraq."*-as for where the idea came from, there are statements of people on both sides of the aisle-Republican and Democratic-that lend some weight to the notion. Of course, the CIC of the military is a Republican, and an oil man, his VP is a Republican, and an oil man, and for most of their regime, the majority in Congress has also been Republican. In light of all that, the idea that they could have gotten the idea from anywhere other than our actions on the international stage, as well as where they happen to have taken place, is laughable. 

The notion that they got the idea from "Democrats" is, to say the least, a bit of a stretch-sort of like saying "1=2"; you have to go the long way around to get there, and it just doesn't make sense when you do.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 16, 2008)

Two people have come to the same conclusion independent of each other. This is actually an example of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc falacy ("after this, therefor because of this")


----------



## Big Don (Jun 16, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Fear not, good sir.  The vorpal blade goes snicker-snack only where necessary


Oooh! How did you know I love the word of the day?
*Main Entry:*  vorpal
*Part of Speech:* 
_adj_
*Definition:*  deadly
*Etymology:*  created by Lewis Carroll to describe a sword
I like it. It's a good word.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 17, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> :lol: Don't be so sure ... I am reasonably proficient with a katana ... :EG:


 
Japanese Emperor is looking for a new Samurai.

3 swordsmen come to display their skills. 

The Chinese swordsman approaches, the Emperor releases a fly. The blade flashes twice, the fly falls to the ground, both wings cut off. 

The Japanese swordsman comes forth, the Emporor releases the fly. There is a flury of cuts, the fly falls to the ground, wings, legs, head all neatly severed.

The Jewish swordman comes in. The Emperor releases the fly. The blade flashes once. The Emperor looks perplexed, and says to the swordman 'It appears you have failed, the fly is still flying'. The Jweish swrodsman puts away his sword, looks at the Emperor and replies 'circumsion not supposed to kill'.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 17, 2008)

Maybe the fact that the area most devasted by the disaster happens to be the power base of the oppostion to the Junta has nothing to do with the Junta slowing down the flow of aid.


----------

