RE (3X)--Why the Hell am I Getting Flagged? (BOOBSVILLE) (2X)

What's good for one is good for the other

No matter how you try to twist words around, political posts and boobs posts have similar standing. If you post boobs posts as "raves," then you have to have the integrity to accept that political rants are rants. If you dismiss the political posts as arguments that really shouldn't be here, then you should have the integrity to realize that pictures of boobs don't belong here as they're not raves.

They also violate Craigslist's terms of use, which prohibits posting of both pornography, and pornography depicting sexual interaction.

I'm not arguing against your posting them here. But if you're going to argue against politics related posts, then you need to stop applying double standards.

As for rants and raves not being a place for arguments. Rants and Raves isn't a place for discussions either.

Jumping into a political debate? You need to get your facts straight before claiming that these posts consists of inaccurate statements. You have to prove that by responding to the posts, and presenting your argument as to why you think they're inaccurate statements.

Speaking of thinking.

You claim that political posts are plain old stupid thinking. What do you call the "thinking" involved in posting breast pictures? Doesn't require much thought doesn't it? It takes lots of thinking to keep an argument going. It takes smart thinking to continue to present a reasoned argument each time one comes back to respond.

Having said that, I don't oppose your posting of women's breasts on this forum. I don't oppose Buttlicker's posting of women's asses here either.

You said:

You have a point, (BTW I did NOT say they did not have a right to post here so please don't put words in my mouth, boobs yes words no.)but if you look at most of the political post they are neither rants or raves they are on going "arguments" most are filled with inaccurate statements, racism, and just plain old stupid thinking.

Where as Buttlicker and others truly are RAVING about the female form, we are not debating over which part of the human body is better just raving about what we like. Nor are we generally attacking others for their views although Buttlicker does some times takes offence to comments made by others, although he does have more than his share of imposters trying to degrade him and his views. I for one don't care if someone likes or dislikes my views. Why? Because they are MY views and opinions and I don't know you and you don't know me and I only come here to blow off a little steam and have some fun.

Peace and have a great day.

RE (3X)--WHATEVER (Wolf's Den) (Not Fooled (Wolf's Den)

Your writing gives your true intentions away

Again, your attempts to dismiss my factual, logical, and reasoned based arguments as "opinion" attempts to put us on equal footing. It doesn't.

One of us is right, and one of us is wrong. I've used logic to prove you wrong. Your rejecting my argument's validity doesn't make it "invalid." You have to do that with a reasoned, logical argument. You failed to do that.

I bring a valid point up.

You missed the point behind my quoting the Marine's wife. You're using a selective subset of the entire universe of military wives. You subsequently used that to support your assumption that "some" troops support the war. There are spouses that don't support the war. But then again, there are spouses that do support the war.

I quoted the Marine wife to show one area your opinion was lacking. She hit the nail right on the head.

It's a no brainer that you believe that my logic is "faulty," and "tainted." You admitted that we were on opposite sides of the political isle. However, you have to PROVE that it's faulty and tainted, not just say that that it's so.

You failed to do that.

I support the war for many reasons. I've explained my other reasons for supporting the war. They have nothing to do with war mongering, they have nothing to do with being a "neo con." They have everything to do with my experience, research, and with what the facts tell me.

Anybody that's listened to our enemies, anybody that's seen our enemy's mindset at work, couldn't, in good conscience, oppose what we're doing there.

When it comes to a deadly entity that doesn't believe in living and let living, I'm all for "killing" all the insurgents who have no intentions of letting the Kool Aid wear off.

Why not?

They believe that we should all be dead. We have two options. We could submit to their brand of radical Islam or get killed. We could also convert that region to something that'll couple with the free market economy.

There's no third or other option.

"Wrong they are there to die to pay in blood and agony to pay a check that the Bush Administation wrote but is unable to cash personally." - Wolfs Den

You don't support the troops. Not with THAT attitude.

Every person that I've talked to, who claimed they supported the troops, never spoke about them this way. This includes the people that identify themselves as liberal, and don't like the President. I didn't see these guys make statements like that about the troops. Simply put, you hate the troops.

The troops are dying for a cause they believe in. They understand that Bush can't be on the front lines fighting the war with them. That's not where our founding fathers intended our Commander in Chief to be... if it weren't practical.

For someone that likes to talk about how our founding fathers intended things to run, you'd understand this.

"You have half right. I do not have animosity towards the basic military grunt. I do have for the old men who sit in Washington and send these men to their deaths for no good reason." - Wolfs Den

The only "half" I see here is you giving me a half truth. You have so much animosity toward the troops that you have a hard time containing it.

After all, why call them grunts? By calling them "grunts," you're implying that they're "stupid," and that they "don't" know any better. To prove that, I'm going to show you something else you've said:

"They are also mostly children and I do not take their blind obedience seriously." - Wolfs den

Not something someone supporting the troops would say.

But, I disagree with you in terms of the reasons they're dying for. The Iraq War is part of a greater war. Our survival as a nation, our survival as western civilization, hinges on our success in Iraq. Many of the "old men" sitting in Washington, who blessed the President's Iraq Plan, were veterans.

For someone that likes to reference the founding fathers on how things should work:

"They think since this is a "democracy" that the government works for us, like the founding fathers actually intended to do." - Wolfs Den

Then you should appreciate why our founding fathers intended for the Commander in Chief to be a CIVILIAN... instead of someone that's in the military that's on the front lines with them... when it isn't practical for him to be there.

Like the rest of the fringe left, you have an animosity for the president.

You hate him for ideological reasons. The troops that you reference as having more balls than Bush? The majority of them have worlds of respect for him, both as a human and as a leader.

I didn't find it surprising that many people expressed interest in leaving the military if Kerry would've won. These are the same guys you claim you support.

As for the first Bush's "pulling" strings for him. Did you realize that people proved those claims wrong? This affected Dan Rather's career.

Yet, you still hold on to the false canard that Bush got into the Guard, thanks to his dad's influence, so that he could avoid Vietnam. Bush fulfilled his guard commitments, then he received an honorable discharge.

Let's see, on one hand, I have you saying that we're "not" going to win the war. On the other hand, we have thousands of troops that could verify that we're actually winning in Iraq.

Who should I believe? Some disgruntled guy going by second hand information, or most the people that have first hand experience of what's going on there?

We're winning in Iraq. We've been winning since we invaded. The surge has worked, and Iraq progress is forging full steam ahead. The Iraqi military is taking over more and more of Iraq's province. We've just turned al Anbar (sp) Province over to them. That was one of the bloodiest regions in Iraq. It's gotten to the point to where we're negotiating with Iraq on an issue that involves reducing our forces over there.

Our victory in Iraq plan is still going. We're winning in Iraq. I highly doubt that you'd disagree with that assessment if you went over there and saw for yourself what's going on. I've lost count of how many anti war democrats have came back from Iraq who've admitted that we're progressing in Iraq.

You speak of damage that Bush has done.

What damage? His foreign, domestic, and economic policies were PRECISELY what we needed to do. If you want to look at damage, and how long it'll take to correct that damage, look to the 8 years of the Clinton Administration. Their foreign policy decisions contributed to creating the conditions that we're trying to deal with now.

No, you DON'T support the troops.

First, if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops. I've argued that effectively, and you've failed to counter it. None of your "evidence" of troop support made sense. They didn't pass the logic test.

You don't support the troops if you don't support their victory. Suggesting that we just pull out and let Iraq sort it out? That's suggesting that we deny the troops a chance to finish the job.

Just as you'll continue to claim that you support the troops, but not the war, I'll continue to counter your claims and prove otherwise. I know that you're not trying to convince me of anything. You're just trying to convince yourself of something you intellectually know isn't true.

Logic is logic, regardless of what you hold in your heart and mind. For example, it doesn't make sense to see you as someone that supports the troops when you can't even withhold your animosity for them.

Updated to add:

Shortly under a year after we had this debate, I was in Iraq. We won the Iraq War with a straight cut victory. Democracy is well on its way to being stable, and they've made exponential progress since we had this debate.

You said:

Again, your opinion is stated as fact. I reject it and the validity of it. It is always possible to find someone who will support your statement regarding military wives supporting the wae. There are also those who feel the opposite.

I believe your logic to be faulty and tainted my the war-mongering mindset of a typical neo-con. If we can't get them to "obey" our rules. We simply kill them and hope the next group will be threatened into submission.

"So, if you support their safely coming home, then you have to support the war. That's what the troops are there for" Wrong they are there to die to pay in blood and agony to pay a check that the Bush Administation wrote but is unable to cash personally.

"I could tell by your post that you have an underlying animosity against the military, and against the Bush Administration" You have half right. I do not have animosity towards the basic military grunt. I do have for the old men who sit in Washington and send these men to their deaths for no good reason. I have a world of animosity towards Bush. I do not respect him as a man, a human being, for a "leader" and I use the term very loosely. Any of the boys serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have more balls then their Commander in Chief ever showed. His daddy pulled strings to get him in the National Guard instead of going to Nam and he still didn't fulfill his obligation. I do not agree with John McCain's politics, but I can respect him as a man. Something I could not go with "W"

As for the only way to get them home safely being to win the war. We are NOT going to win the war unless we nuke the damned place and start over. The other way to bring them home safe is just to do it and let Iraq fall on it's face. If Bush had have attacked North Korea, I might have agreed. If he attacted Iran, or if Carter had in 1979, I would have supported that.

It's going to take a decade or more to undo the damage that this adminisration has done.

I still say I support the troops and not the war and I will continue to say so and feel so in spite of your take on things. I am not trying to convince you because in reality your opinion means naught. I know what is in my heart and mind and your "logic" is just, again, your opinion.

Response to Wolf's Den, History as the Judge

It'll be judged favorably

Yes, history would be the only judge on this war. I predict that it'll be seen favorably, as an event that changed the course of this planet's history... for the better.

Let's take the Revolutionary War for instance. Contrary to common belief today, it wasn't a popular war.

The majority either didn't care about the outcome, or outright opposed it. The media the later controlled weren't friendly toward the Patriots. It got to the point to where our founding fathers approved laws that authorized the continental army to confiscate a farmer's cattle against his will.

I wouldn't be surprised if many of those that oppose the Iraq War would argue to the death about how the Revolutionary was the right war to fight. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those opposed to the war quoted the founding fathers on how this country should be ran.

You lambaste the links that I provided, but failed to challenge the facts that they contained. That's another liberal tactic, use the "attack the messenger" approach when confronted with the facts.

Wolf's Den said:

I would say that history would be the only judge on this war, but then history is subjective at best and full of lies at worse. It would not do you any good to send me links to conservative websites. The next step would be to quote the bible at me. Lol

RE--The World According to Not Fooled

Flagger becomes unhinged when she can't control me

You post as if a retarded ghost possesses you. If anybody should shut up, it's you. If someone could invent a car that's powered on stupidity, you'd prove to be an endless source of supply.

If you're so concerned about my "constantly" posting, why do something that'll cause me to make an additional post? How much I post depends on how many people reply to me, or attack me. How much I repost depends on how many posts get removed.

You complain that I post every time that I come here. One of two things is applicable. Either you come here at the same time I do, and only look at the section of your screen displaying my posts. Or you don't know what you're talking about.

You're just pulling crap out of your butt just to say something. You'd have to be awfully stupid to think that 20 posts fills a whole board... when it takes 100 post per page. My last set of posts had me making 7 posts. That's 7% of the total visible board.

I could tell that you don't know what you're talking about with regards to spam.

Craiglist "terms of use" describes spam as unsolicited commercial email. Big difference between "commercial/email" and "post," don't you think? Another justification for flagging is if someone posts duplicates of ACTIVE posts on other forums, or the same forums.

Neither my posts, nor my reposts, qualify as spam and duplicates of active posts.

So, anybody flagging my posts is doing it for abusive reasons. I'd say you're glad for one of two reasons.

You disagree with me and/or you're a clone of someone that abusive this board's flagging system. You're another poser that's pretending to be someone not involved with the "problem." The smarter thing to do would be to not read my posts and move on.

No reply, no counter reply. That concept isn't hard to grasp... unless you have problems shutting up.

I recommend that you go back and sue your school for dereliction and get your money back.

You spewed:

Good lord do you ever shut up? Exactly how many fucking times do you post in a day? Everytime I log on here the board is filled up with your stupid posts and that asshat buttlicker. Why don't you 2 jerkoffs go get a room somewhere and just bore each other. This r&r is a waste of time anymore between your pompous ass and his stupid porn. Glad to see people are finally flagging you for your endless spam.

Iraq War - my Take (Armchair QB)

The initial anger was against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. But there were a few in this country that knew the bigger picture. The reality is that Al-Qaeda declared war on the West in the 1990s. They were a part of an entity that most people still don't understand.

We were waging that in secret since then.

Your suggestion, about sitting back, collecting intel, and striking again, formed the military part of that secret war. We did have problems with incompetence from the Administration back in the 1990s. However, we've done what you suggested and it failed.

I agree that we won the moment we went in, but not for what you're implying. Most people knew what happened to the Soviet Union after they entered Afghanistan. Our going into Iraq ensured that we succeeded there where post powers failed.

Your claims, that democracy will never work there, is nonsense.

People made the same arguments about Japan after World War II. The Japanese had their own system of governing, and of doing things, for centuries. Back then, critics asked, "How could we just change that in a few years?"

People back in the late 1940s didn't think we'd successfully pull it off there.

Thanks to disregarding the nay sayers, we don't have to worry about Japanese kamikaze attacks.

The Iraqis are embracing democracy. If the media reported our success in that area, more people would know that. Many insurgents have stopped fighting against us. They've gone into politics instead to try to sell their ideas.

The Iraqis have demonstrated, they have voted, and now their Parliament is doing things that Parliaments do in other Democracies.

It'll work. We have to change the face of that region. If we don't, then radical elements will change the West's, and the World's face. And it won't be pretty.

The cold hard reality is this.

There's a mortal struggle going on. Two sides are fighting a fight to the death. When this is all over, one of two things is going to happen. One, the Middle East will be westernized. Or, two; the whole world would be practicing a brand of radical Islam that would make the Taliban look like liberal reformers.

There's no third, or other, option. It's either or.

Updated to add:

I combat deployed to Iraq a little under a year after I had this debate on craigslist. Democracy is progressing very well over there. I was there when they held the elections that finally placed their permanent government there.

The Iraqis want to westernize, and they're doing it rapidly.

You said:

The 9-11 anniversary is around the corner. After the initial shock, America was mad. We were going to strike. And that anger fell on to the government of Iraq and the Taliban of Afganistan. A lot has been said about the perception of winning or the losing this war. And it is this perception i have that is diffucult to explain:

We won. We won this war the day we launched. Yes. What other outcome can there be for America to go against another country?

However, why oh why did we ever set foot inside the countries confounds me. We never needed to put troops on the ground. Just sit back collect the intel and strike again and again the targets as presented. Screw the peace and screw Islam.

Iraq is enslaved by their Islamic culture; just as Iran, Syria, Suadi Arabia, etc. The democracy that we have sought to instill in that country of Iraq will FAIL. They will not know freedom nor liberty, nor do they care to.

Occam's Razor--Flagger's Actions Prove my Point About Her

In a nutshell, Occam's Razor suggests that you don't overlook the simplest solutions.

Those that want me to stop arguing here overlook the simplest, and ONLY effective, way to stop me. I've posted here for about two weeks. By now, people should already notice a cause and an effect.

Cause = rebuttals, attacks, and post removals.
Effect = Counter rebuttals, counter attacks, and reposts.

If the cause happens, then we have an effect. When dealing with me, the cause always leads to an effect.

If X = Cause, and Y = Effect.

If X, then Y. If not X, then not Y.
Cause leads to effect. Without the cause, there's no effect.

When dealing with me, understand that Cause always leads to effects. Want to stop the effects? Remove the cause.

If you do otherwise, then you're not really serious about wanting me to stop. You just want me to stop replying to you. You don't care about the board. Otherwise, you would've removed the cause rather than bitch about my replying.

RE RE RE WHATEVER (wolfs den)

By dismissing my posts as "opinion," you're protecting yourself from my argument's logic. Contrary to your opinion, my posts present a factual, logical and reason based argument.

You say that you want the troops home safely. By extension, your desire for this, is "proof," that you support the troops.

I disagree with Obama and Biden. I wish for their safety despite of that. Using your own reasoning, my wishing for their safety would be equivalent to my supporting Obama and Biden. Do you see the inductive fallacy behind that?

Again, how is it that these guys should come home safely?

Do you think they're just going to sit around and clean their riffles/carbines when they come under attack? Part of coming home safely is prevailing during the deployment. This includes fighting the enemy. If they fail to prevail over the enemy, they won't come home safely.

So, in order to come home safely, they have to prevail in the war. In order to do that, one of the things they have to do is fight. The airplane that they use to leave Iraq should be safe for the troops to fly out of that country safely. We have to be on the ball militarily to make sure that happens.

So, if you support their safely coming home, then you have to support the war. That's what the troops are there for.

"I am sure that there are some there that support the war. They volunteered so they obviously have the military mind set." - wolfs den

Some? Also, from the rest of your reply, they're children? Blind obedience?

You've GOT to be f***ken kidding me! The majority of the troops deployed to Iraq support the war. Yes, they volunteered to serve, but it has more than just having a military mindset.

They see a cause that many people I've debated with don't see, or understand. It's like what that Marine's wife said. They believe in what they're doing over there. I've explained some of this cause on Rants and Raves.

Their age ranges.

Most the new ones are in their late teens, early 20s. But you also have people in their mid to late 20s, their 30s, and 40s serving over there. The higher up you go in the age range, the higher up in rank you go, the stronger the support for the war becomes.

This isn't because of "blind" loyalty, or conditioning either. People in the military are free to think and believe what they want... there's a minority that opposes the war.

These guys may be in their early 20s, but they know a hell of a lot more about what's going on, big picture wise, than most people their age who aren't in the military. And they're not children either.

Basic Combat Training weeds the boys out. These guys served in combat.

They had to make decisions that non veteran civilians their age don't face on a daily basis. Many of these guys have responsibility most their counterparts won't have for years. These guys see the big picture, and have a better grasp of what's going on than non veterans older than them.

I have a hard time accepting your, "I support the troops" statements. Especially after you turn around and label them as kids. Blind obedience? Great, here, why don't you chew on this for a while:

"By supporting the troops, I mean I want them home safely." - wolfs den

"They are also mostly children and I do not take their blind obedience seriously." - wolfs den

Your words give your real standing on this away.

As for the military wives you met and their position on the war. I'll quote what a marine wife said here on R&R:

"I loved what you had to say! It's like you pretty much took the words right out of my mouth. My husband is a Marine serving in Iraq right now, and although I do miss him, I know what he's doing is important. When he or his friends are in between tours and are asked if they would ever go back, most say in a heartbeat! Why? Not because they are crazy, but because they know the importance of getting the job done. If we can finish what was started, this country will never move forward. And I find it funny that the people who oppose the war so much are the people with no ties to it. And the ones that don't exactly want the war, but are supporting it, are the ones with loved ones fighting for us. To all you in the military and those who support, thank you from the bottom of my heart!!" - Proud Marine Wife

There are a lot of reasons to why we don't have as much anti war activity now as we did in Vietnam. The draft is one. But they stopped that in 1973, the last year of US combat unit involvement in Vietnam.

I also credit alternative sources of information. Back then, as now, the media was opposed to the war. They basically had the monopoly on the news. Anchors didn't have to worry about online bloggers calling BS on their reporting. Nobody blogging from the "Green Zone" we'd set up over there giving us the real story of what's going on.

They didn't have talk show programs similar to Rush's, Bill's, and Sean's. They didn't have counter protest organizations like Protest Warrior.

Based on their different attitudes, I'd say that had congress been in Republican hands, with a Republican White House, and had these information counter balances been around during the Vietnam War, we would've won it completely, not just militarily.

Let's address your calls for Bush and Cheney's impeachment.

I debated with someone on a message board about this very topic. NONE of his "copy and paste from leftie site" amounted to justification for impeachment and removal. I've heard people argue that they should be impeached, but none of them offered any real facts to support that.

I could see that you have an underlying animosity against the military, and against the Bush Administration.

wolfs den said:

Again, your post states your opinion. But that does not make it valid. By supporting the troops, I mean I want them home safely. I am sure that there are some there that support the war. They volunteered so they obviously have the military mind set. They are also mostly children and I do not take their blind obedience seriously. I know I will get flamed for this but I really do not care. I work with many military wifes and some are for the war and many are not. I hope for their families sake that their husbands can get home safely. My generation faced a real animosity toward the returning military. I did not support that war, but I still did not spit on the returning vets either.

The only reason we dont have the same kind of rebellion about Iraq that we did with Viet Nam is that we don't have the draft active. People are of the opinion that since it doesn't effect them and the soldiers volunteered, that it is an non issue.

Now I will give you my opinion, not based on facts anymore than yours is. I think Bush and Cheney should be impeached and imprisoned and executed. If allowed to I would push the lethal cocktail myself.