Democrats: "FAILURE IS THE ONLY OPTION!"

Are we talking enriched electric Koolaid ?
I never have really understood what the koolaid drinking thing has really meant.
I know it is a slam, but not fully why it is a slam.
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
Are we talking enriched electric Koolaid ?
I never have really understood what the koolaid drinking thing has really meant.
I know it is a slam, but not fully why it is a slam.
Click to expand...


Do you remember that tragedy with Jim Jones down in Guyana? He had a cult, and when the authorities were moving in on him, he commanded all of his followers to drink poisoned kool-aid, which killed all of them.

Saying someone is "drinking the koolaid" is basically a euphemism for following someone blindly, without question or critical thought.

You know - what Dixie does with his hero in blue jeans...
 
Thanks Oncellor, strange that cons would use that line against liberals then ? Just more projection of their own faults I suppose.
 
FYI,
The current issue of Newsweek has a great summary of the Sunni/Shiite make up in the middle east.
 
Saying someone is "drinking the koolaid" is basically a euphemism for following someone blindly, without question or critical thought.

You know - what Dixie does with his hero in blue jeans...

I bet if we did a comparative study, there have been more Bush policies I was opposed to, than Democrat policies you've been opposed to, over the past 6 years. I don't know a lot of Republicans who "drank the koolaid" on Harriet Myers, Guest Worker, or government spending.

So, where is your list of things you walked away from the koolaid bowl on?
 
The people not able to use 'critical thought' here, are Liberals. Read through this thread, some very valid and legitimate points have been made, and can't be refuted by pinheads, in fact, the more you yammer on, the worse you box yourself in with contradiction of logic. You'll say that you want to 'stabilize Iraq' yet you want to withdraw all US forces! You say that you want us to prevail in Iraq, but then state that we can't possibly prevail. Iraq is in the midst of civil war between Sunni and Shiia Muslims, yet they are a "secular" country! Saddam was a evil and ruthless madman, but Iraq was doing just great before we came along! Radical nutjobs are taking over the governments of the middle east, yet Democracy is not a wise idea to counter the nuts!

You people are nothing more than walking, talking, contradictions! You don't bother 'critically thinking' about a damn thing, if Bush supports it, you oppose it, and it doesn't matter if the end results are exactly what you were after. That is blind koolaid-drinking loyalty.
 
Dixie...They WERE a secular country. Saddam and the baathists were notoriously secular. You can make a big deal about sunnis fighting shiites as some "proof" that Iraq was not nor is not "secular, but it is foolish. YOu can point out that Saddam favored sunnis, and discriminated against shiites, but Hitler discriminated against Jews and Nazi Germany was certainly a secular nation state.

And no one said that Iraq was doing great under Saddam...what has been said is that America was better off with Saddam in power than it is with the region in turmoil which is the direct result of our removing him from power. Thus, your war was profoundly counter-productive to our national interests.

If Catholics and Protestants started a sectarian war in Alabama, would that, all of a sudden, make Alabama or the US NOT secular?
 
and Dixie...don't you recall how, when I complained that the new constitution of Iraq effectively created a theocracy, you vehemently argued that Iraq was completely secular?

Why the flip flop?
 
maineman said:
Dixie...They WERE a secular country. Saddam and the baathists were notoriously secular. You can make a big deal about sunnis fighting shiites as some "proof" that Iraq was not nor is not "secular, but it is foolish. YOu can point out that Saddam favored sunnis, and discriminated against shiites, but Hitler discriminated against Jews and Nazi Germany was certainly a secular nation state.

And no one said that Iraq was doing great under Saddam...what has been said is that America was better off with Saddam in power than it is with the region in turmoil which is the direct result of our removing him from power. Thus, your war was profoundly counter-productive to our national interests.

If Catholics and Protestants started a sectarian war in Alabama, would that, all of a sudden, make Alabama or the US NOT secular?
Click to expand...


You keep saying they were a secular country, but the nation is comprised of mostly Muslims, and the Sunni Muslim leader was tormenting and persecuting Shiia Muslim people, while rewarding and favoring Sunni Muslims. He gave Sunnis the good jobs, while he gassed and murdered Christian Kurds. "Secular" means, not pertaining to religion, yet religion was the criteria for Saddam's discrimination and how he ruled his country. The region is in turmoil, precisely because of this favoritism toward Sunnis under Saddam, and the jealousy of the Sunnis over the lack of power they now have.

You and Saddam can continue to gulp the koolaid and pretend that Iraq was "secular" when it was anything BUT! You can even go so far as Saddam, and claim Iraq was a democracy! They voted for Saddam regularly! The fact that Iraq wasn't a radical theocracy, doesn't mean they were "secular".

IF we elected a Southern Baptist as our president, and gave him the power to override the Constitution and have full authority like a dictator, and he decided that only Southern Baptists could hold positions of power and authority, while he ordered the gassing of Methodists, and routinely discriminated against Catholics and Jews... this is not a "secular government" by any stretch of the imagination. I don't give a damn what it was called, or how people wanted to categorize it, if that is what was happening, it ain't "secular" at all. This is the case with Iraq. Supposedly, it was a secular dictatorship, but the dictator was Sunni and only Sunnis had power or authority in Iraq, so you essentially had a Sunni "theocracy" if you want to be honest.
 
maineman said:
and Dixie...don't you recall how, when I complained that the new constitution of Iraq effectively created a theocracy, you vehemently argued that Iraq was completely secular?

Why the flip flop?
Click to expand...

Because Saddam has been overthrown, there is no dictator. In place of the dictator, is a Constitution, and a functional parliamentary democracy, with fair and legitimate democratic elections for representatives of the people. These representatives will not rule with a single mind, like Saddam, and they will be far less likely to discriminate against ANY particular sect, since they are comprised of all the sects. This makes Iraq much closer to "secular" now, than it was under Saddam.
 
Dixie: you just got done saying that THIS was a liberal "contradiction"

Iraq is in the midst of civil war between Sunni and Shiia Muslims, yet they are a "secular" country!

what is it? Is Iraq secular or not? you can't have it both ways...that is a "contradiction"!
 
maineman said:
Dixie: you just got done saying that THIS was a liberal "contradiction"

Iraq is in the midst of civil war between Sunni and Shiia Muslims, yet they are a "secular" country!

what is it? Is Iraq secular or not? you can't have it both ways...that is a "contradiction"!
Click to expand...


Well, if you read my entire argument, you would understand, I am arguing that Iraq was not completely "secular" under Saddam Hussein. This doesn't mean that Iraq was completely "non-secular" or a theocratic government, just that they were not "secular" or at least not, from the perspective of how Saddam ruled. You are the pinheads who seem to want to have it black or white, and fail to see the nuance. You will idiotically argue that Iraq was totally secular, yet the country is in the midst of civil war between two religious sects, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, if Iraq were secular.

And yes, I think you can "have it both ways" here, from a purely geopolitical perspective, Iraq was a dictatorial government, not beholden to any particular religious institution, rather the will of the dictator. So, from this purely technical standpoint, one could say Iraq was a "secular" government, and not a theocratic government. I have not argued that point, I accept that you can consider Iraq a secular government, and from this perspective, that would be a correct statement. However, my point was to illustrate how Saddam operated a government in anything but "secular" fashion, and as a result, we are seeing the current turmoil. In a dictatorship, "the government" is whatever the fuck the dictator says it is, at any given time! Like I said, Saddam claimed Iraq was a "democracy" too! Do you believe that as well?
 
Harriet Myers...every time you ask a Bush supporter how they disagree with Bush, that's the 1st thing that comes up. Real bold opposition there; perhaps the most unqualified candidate that has ever come up for SCOTUS in modern history, and they took a brief, albeit reluctant, koolaid break for her.

Dix, you would get TROUNCED in a koolaid bowl with me. I have been a vocal critic of Democrats & the Democratic party, on a consistent basis. I started threads asking for Pelosi & Reid to be replaced in the Dem leadership, and criticizing Dems for not electing more centrist, visionary leaders (though Pelosi has impressed me much more since the election). I have railed Hillary & begged Dems not to nominate her in '08. I have railed Kerry on everything from the way he ran his campaign, to his wishy washiness on the Iraq War, to ignoring the envronment as an issue, to wanting to be all things to all people...the list goes on. I have begged Democrats to emphasize the idea of "smaller, smarter government" that Clinton & Gore worked so hard at in the '90's; I am a fiscal conservative and think our goals can be achieved without higher taxes, and with more gov't efficiency. I have railed against people like Rosie O'Donnell, who I think hurts the progressive cause.

And you haven't even seen me when the Dems are in power. I doubt there was a more vocal critic of Clinton & the Dems when they were in power in the '90's. I am cynical about politicians in general, and their motives. I would never...not in ONE MILLION YEARS, start a thread like your love letter to George Bush on FP.

You, on the other hand, have been one of the most shameless koolaid-guzzling simpletons that I have ever seen, on every big issue over the past 6 years. On Iraq, it has gone beyond koolaid; you have contradicted yourself, inverted arguments, made one blown prediction after another, and made every excuse in the book. You have been Bush's biggest apologist & cheerleader, every step of the way, and always in complete denial of the reality of the situation.

In a "koolaid bowl," Dixie, you lose, and lose really, really badly........
 
so the presence of governmental subjegation of a religious group makes that government, all of a sudden, not secular. Have I got that right?

and all of this is nothing more than obfuscation on your part in any case. At issue is not whether Iraq was or is secular as opposed to partially secular or some other hair-splitting, word parsing blather...... the point is: Iraq is in the midst of a bloody civil war. That sectarian violence that WE unleashed is now threatening to spread throughout the middle east. Regardless of how the Iraqi Professional Flautist's Association views the overthrow of Saddam, it is MY assertion that AMERICA would be better off today if we had not invaded Iraq. Sunnis and shiites would still be living together in Iraq without hundreds dying every day in a civil war. Al Qaeda would still not be roaming the streets of Baghdad, and Iran would still be held in check by a sunni dictatorship immediately on its western flank.... AND AMERICA WOULD NOT HAVE SUFFERED 25 THOUSAND DEAD AND WOUNDED AND WOULD NOT HAVE FLUSHED A HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS DOWN THE TOILET THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR A MYRIAD OF MORE APPROPRIATE THINGS THAT WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY HAD SOME MATERIAL POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE WAR ON TERROR AND ON OUR SAFETY.
 
Well Oncie, I don't know what you've "been vocal" or "railed about" because you're going by a new moniker these days. Maybe you are a Flip-flopper, like Kerry? That would make it easy to claim you were FOR something you were also AGAINST. I was talking about pinheads in general... those like Desh, who fervently believe Republicans stole the elections, and Dick Cheney is an alien extraterrestrial. Pinheads like AC, who have read some book by Chomsky or Lenin, and think they have all the answers, and any of the 90% opposing opinions are just ignorant stupidity, not worthy of discussion. Pinheads like Jarod, who think the Iraq war was about oil and Haliburton contracts, because that's what Michael Moore and Al Franken told them to believe. Pinheads who insist to this day, of saying things like "Impeached Clinton for a Blowjob!" when they know that was not the issue. Those are the koolaid drinking pinheads I am talking about, and they wrote the fucking book on it!

It's amazing, to hear the pinheads here, you'd assume I am representative of the most extreme right wing, but every one of those online political surveys put out by libertarians, I score somewhat in the center. My personal ideology often conflicts with my political ideology, and my political ideology is changeable. Many times, I have posted an "argument" from a 'devils advocate' standpoint, because I believe it is important to look at all aspects of an issue.

We are characters on a message board, and I separate who I am personally, with who I am here, this is a place for intellectual thought, debate, mental stimulation, an electronic soap-box, and I thoroughly enjoy it, or I wouldn't do it. One of the great misconceptions, though, is that Dixie is anything like you perceive him to be, in real life.
 
...and the war was something that YOU supported and STILL think was a fabulous idea.... you continue to act as Bush's publicist and apologist and continue to be unrepentant for your unflagging support for this terrible terrible mistake.

YOU are the one who will be on the wrong side of history. History will view this war as the single worst foreign policy blunder of the modern age. This ill advised idiotic war that YOU have waved pompoms for 24/7 since before the invasion has completely destabilized the region and may very well end up plunging all of the middle east into sectarian conflict.

But you STILL refuse to admit you were in error. You STILL refuse to admit that this war has been a mistake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top