Is recxjake for real?

[PunkinDrublic]

I mean I know this forum has it's share of conservatives and neoconservatives but I have yet to see someone who has his head so far up dubya's ass and I live in Texas!!! I'm really starting to think his shtick is a big rouse. He doesn't seem to argue so much as regurgitate common GOP talking points. I mean if I were feeling like a bastard I could come on this forum under another ID and argue with libs using strictly staying with the party line.

[patteeu]

Are you for real?

[PunkinDrublic]

Are you for real?

Uhh yeah because I can talk about political topics without using the same tired arguments and talking points. Plus I've been posting on this board for many years now.

[Fox River]

Patt,

Are you saying that you disagree with PD? Blaming the Left, Democrats, and Liberals for all that is wrong with a country and the world is old. It would be just as bad to come from the other side and do the same. Both sides have their good and bad. Both sides have the clowns who will sing and dance if a reporter, microphone, or camera is within a mile away from them. Both sides have their fanatics, fundamentalists, and extremists who end up doing more harm than good. Both have their moderates who can actually get things done. Having Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh come here everyday and read White House Administration Memos is boring. The same as it would be for Al Franken or Howard Dean to come here and read from the Communist Manifesto.

[Ugly Duck]

I'm really starting to think his shtick is a big rouse. ("ruse", not "rouse"). I hear ya on that, been suspecting it for a long time.

[Fox River]

So you guys think that he is just here to argue? He is just bored and trying to be the Devil's Advocate?

[patteeu]

Patt,

Are you saying that you disagree with PD? Blaming the Left, Democrats, and Liberals for all that is wrong with a country and the world is old. It would be just as bad to come from the other side and do the same. Both sides have their good and bad. Both sides have the clowns who will sing and dance if a reporter, microphone, or camera is within a mile away from them. Both sides have their fanatics, fundamentalists, and extremists who end up doing more harm than good. Both have their moderates who can actually get things done. Having Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh come here everyday and read White House Administration Memos is boring. The same as it would be for Al Franken or Howard Dean to come here and read from the Communist Manifesto.

Are the anti-Bush talking points underrepresented around here? Doesn't blaming the Bush administration for everything that is wrong with the country and the world get old too? Of course it does and we get plenty of that around here too. I don't like to see people pile on guys like recxjake when they haven't said a thing to people like Boyce who are just as bad if not worse. recxjake has started a lot more threads that have generated real discussion than Boyce has, AFAICS.

Stylisticly speaking, I think recxjake is a little rough around the edges, but I see constant progress on that front. I just hope young recxjake doesn't let the bashing from misguided liberals, like Punkin, make him go soft in order to get their approval.

[patteeu]

So you guys think that he is just here to argue? He is just bored and trying to be the Devil's Advocate?

I think he's real. I think he's a college kid like he claims and that he's fairly new to the internet message board game, or at least, new to our local style of the game.

[Fox River]

People have always blamed the President and His Administration for their problems. It does not make it right though. It is also why this country is in decline. People often blame the goverment for their own wrong decisions or luck. Blaiming the first Bush for raising taxes and the recession and because he was part of the previous administration that in the second term did what most do and forget about the future was one of the reasons that we had to deal with Clinton. The other was because Bill was a Baby Boomer and one of the largest blocks in this Country's History sided with him. I hope that Recx is just young and can grow. I hope if he answers the thread about personal politics he does not reply by just saying see the Republican Party Platform. Extremists, fanatics, and fundamentalists are more to blame for what is wrong in the United States and on Earth than one person or their ideaology. I am new to your style also. I had to take a step and try to adjust. I am so used to having to defend myself. I am sure that you came across this with me in other threads. This forum is somewhat more balanced than the ones I had mentioned earlier. The other ones were very conservative and many posters were far to the right. Most moderates and or liberals were chased off including myself. Two of the three boards banned politics completely. One before I posted at it. The other changed design and banned three conservatives for the problems that they had caused. They just went on to take over another BB Froum and now go unchecked.

[PunkinDrublic]

Are the anti-Bush talking points underrepresented around here? Doesn't blaming the Bush administration for everything that is wrong with the country and the world get old too? Of course it does and we get plenty of that around here too. I don't like to see people pile on guys like recxjake when they haven't said a thing to people like Boyce who are just as bad if not worse. recxjake has started a lot more threads that have generated real discussion than Boyce has, AFAICS.

Stylisticly speaking, I think recxjake is a little rough around the edges, but I see constant progress on that front. I just hope young recxjake doesn't let the bashing from misguided liberals, like Punkin, make him go soft in order to get their approval.

Hey I was one of the ones who voted to let recxjake stay on here. If he wants to cut and paste his arguments that's his perogative. All I'm saying is that in his posts it seems like parody. He's no different from everyone else. When you throw up a bunch of controversial threads people who disagree may tend to pile on.

[Nightwish]

I think he's real. I think he's a college kid like he claims and that he's fairly new to the internet message board game, or at least, new to our local style of the game.
I think he's probably fairly new to politics in general. People tend to take these really gung-ho, crusading with blinders on, attitudes when they first dive into a world that is as dynamic and intense as politics or religion. The longer they keep up with it, the more they tend to mellow out and see other sides. I've seen a few occasional glimpses of Rex seeing the other side in a few of his posts, but he's still got a lot of growing room. I don't think he's a whacko or a bad kid, I just think he is right now stuck in that black-and-white rut most newcomers to politics find themselves in, and his color sense just hasn't developed yet. With some people, it never develops. Let's just hope he's not one of those.

[Fox River]

I have to wonder if he was raised by one or both Republican Parents and is now attending a Liberal University. If he feels one way and only hears the other all day from students and professors, I can see it. I have gone through this myself. When I lived in Wisconsin I felt very conservative. Now with living in Missouri I feel very liberal. When I compare the two I know that I am pretty close to the center.

[PunkinDrublic]

I have to wonder if he was raised by one or both Republican Parents and is now attending a Liberal University. If he feels one way and only hears the other all day from students and professors, I can see it. I have gone through this myself. When I lived in Wisconsin I felt very conservative. Now with living in Missouri I feel very liberal. When I compare the two I know that I am pretty close to the center.

I hear you. Living in the land of mindless Bushbots (Texas) sometimes makes you feel like a commi leftist because you're not one of the Talibaptists.

[Fox River]

Yes the Taliban Wing of the Rethuglican Party.

[Pitt Gorilla]

I have to wonder if he was raised by one or both Republican Parents and is now attending a Liberal University. If he feels one way and only hears the other all day from students and professors, I can see it. I have gone through this myself. When I lived in Wisconsin I felt very conservative. Now with living in Missouri I feel very liberal. When I compare the two I know that I am pretty close to the center.Sounds a lot like me.

[Pitt Gorilla]

I think he's probably fairly new to politics in general. People tend to take these really gung-ho, crusading with blinders on, attitudes when they first dive into a world that is as dynamic and intense as politics or religion. The longer they keep up with it, the more they tend to mellow out and see other sides. I've seen a few occasional glimpses of Rex seeing the other side in a few of his posts, but he's still got a lot of growing room. I don't think he's a whacko or a bad kid, I just think he is right now stuck in that black-and-white rut most newcomers to politics find themselves in, and his color sense just hasn't developed yet. With some people, it never develops. Let's just hope he's not one of those.Could that be pat's problem as well?
:hmmm:

[patteeu]

Could that be pat's problem as well?
:hmmm:

Not likely. More likely is the possibility that I see through the black and white illusions that you've bought into, Pitt.

[Logical]

haha, I agree......I think that I am just very passionate about what I feel is right.... and that is winning the war on terrorIf you are passionate about winning the WOT you need to concentrate on our failure to make progress against Al Quada and Bin Laden, start criticizing the lack of efforts against places like Syrian and Saudi based terrorist, and lets not forget those in the south Pacific like in Indonesia.

[Cochise]

I haven't read a lot of his work but I have suspected a lot of posters here in DC of being caricature posters used by opposing posters to create strawman viewpoints.

[Cochise]

If you are passionate about winning the WOT you need to concentrate on our failure to make progress against Al Quada and Bin Laden, start criticizing the lack of efforts against places like Syrian and Saudi based terrorist, and lets not forget those in the south Pacific like in Indonesia.

Although anyone would agree it is important to follow them all over the world, I don't think it reasonable to assume that the government is not working on cells in other nations without broadcasting it to the press. It's long been known we're operating extensively in Pakistan although there is limited public acknowledgement of that.

[Logical]

Although anyone would agree it is important to follow them all over the world, I don't think it reasonable to assume that the government is not working on cells in other nations without broadcasting it to the press. It's long been known we're operating extensively in Pakistan although there is limited public acknowledgement of that.It is more that we are wasting valuable resources on a an endless swamp occupying Iraq while we could better pursue the real WOT suspects by using our assets as Murtha suggested to:
Immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. Create a quick reaction force in the region. Create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines. Diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

[Cochise]

It is more that we are wasting valuable resources on a an endless swamp occupying Iraq while we could better pursue the real WOT suspects by using our assets as Murtha suggested to:
Immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. Create a quick reaction force in the region. Create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines. Diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

I'm not sure what the first one even means.

I'm no military man or anything, but based on the recent deathstrike on the al queda #2 in Pakistan it seems like we have at least some quick-strike ability in the region outside Iraq. And there are many special forces units operating in the region as well. What is the meat of what he wants?

I'm not at all sure what the third means.

How are we going to diplomatically stop insurgency? And, who's ahead is always a matter of perspective, but I don't think anyone could reasonably say that we're <i>losing</i> to the insurgents. Certainly not in terms of attrition, and they haven't exactly driven us out either. If we're winning (albeit if progress against them is slower than expected) then why abandon what progress we have made thus far and leave the place to the wolves?

[Cochise]

retreat is another way to put it

I think you might catch more flies with honey.

[Nightwish]

well we killed # 3 today, and we haven't been attacked since 911 so i think that means we are doing ok
While I agree that killing #3 was a good thing, I would advise everyone to be cautious about resorting to rex's second point of argumentation here. I've encountered several times before, and it's very weak reasoning. It's been four year since we've had a terrorist attack on American soil. And it was eight years between that one and the one before it. There are a few ways to look at that:

1. Bush's tough stance on terror has kept them off our backs for four years, while Clinton's supposedly weak stance on terror kept them off our backs for twice that amount of time.

2. Bush deserves the credit for these four years, but Clinton doesn't deserve the credit for the previous eight.

3. Bush doesn't deserve the credit for these four, but Clinton does deserve credit for the previous eight.

4. Neither of them deserve the credit for their respective periods of terror-free activity.

5. Both of them deserve a minimal nod in their respective periods, but the vast bulk of the credit goes to those agencies who are actually responsible for rooting out and preventing such things.

I'm inclined to think it's probably #4 or #5.

[Cochise]

1. Bush's tough stance on terror has kept them off our backs for four years, while Clinton's supposedly weak stance on terror kept them off our backs for twice that amount of time.

If you ignore the first World Trade Center attack, their role in Somalia, bombings against US interests in Riyadh and the Khobar towers, the USS Cole, US embasies in Kenya and Tanzania.

As well as other attacks that were foiled which you can hardly attibute to Clinton such as the Millenium plot foiled by border patrol, and another attempted bombing on the USS Sullivans where their boat sank due to the weight of the explosives.

[Nightwish]

If you ignore the first World Trade Center attack, their role in Somalia, bombings against US interests in Riyadh and the Khobar towers, the USS Cole, US embasies in Kenya and Tanzania.

As well as other attacks that were foiled which you can hardly attibute to Clinton such as the Millenium plot foiled by border patrol, and another attempted bombing on the USS Sullivans where their boat sank due to the weight of the explosives.If you want to count terrorist attacks against Americans abroad or American interests abroad, and foiled terrorist plots against US soil, then Bush's track record is no better. As for the first WTC attack, that was the one that happened eight years before. It was in 1993, if I'm not mistaken. The only targets that have been catagorically free of terrorist attacks in either President's tenure have been attacks on American soil, with the exception of Clinton's WTC attack in 1993, and Bush's WTC attack in 2001.

[Mr. Kotter]

Okay, I admit.....it's just another of my usernames. Just to piss of TJ and jAZ and the other libs...












:p

[Logical]

...

How are we going to diplomatically stop insurgency? And, who's ahead is always a matter of perspective, but I don't think anyone could reasonably say that we're losing to the insurgents. Certainly not in terms of attrition, and they haven't exactly driven us out either. If we're winning (albeit if progress against them is slower than expected) then why abandon what progress we have made thus far and leave the place to the wolves?Because of the ethnic and religious splits in that country are such that Civil War is inevitable and all we are doing is delaying it at the cost of 100s of lives and to no benefit to the US.

[Logical]

retreat is another way to put itI tell you what, if you believe that what we are doing is so correct I guarantee there is an Army recruiting office in your town. Go down sign up for infantry and report back. Then I will give your nonsensical blather some credence as actually having foundation in your true beliefs.

[patteeu]

I'm not sure what the first one even means.

It's a deceptive way of saying "cut and run."

How are we going to diplomatically stop insurgency?

The same way we diplomatically stopped the North Vietnamese. By handing over the territory we controlled and letting them execute the people who worked at our side. John Murtha wants to force fit this war into the Vietnam mold whether it belongs there or not. What better way to do it than to declare defeat and leave. :shake:

[patteeu]

While I agree that killing #3 was a good thing, I would advise everyone to be cautious about resorting to rex's second point of argumentation here. I've encountered several times before, and it's very weak reasoning. It's been four year since we've had a terrorist attack on American soil. And it was eight years between that one and the one before it. There are a few ways to look at that:

1. Bush's tough stance on terror has kept them off our backs for four years, while Clinton's supposedly weak stance on terror kept them off our backs for twice that amount of time.

2. Bush deserves the credit for these four years, but Clinton doesn't deserve the credit for the previous eight.

3. Bush doesn't deserve the credit for these four, but Clinton does deserve credit for the previous eight.

4. Neither of them deserve the credit for their respective periods of terror-free activity.

5. Both of them deserve a minimal nod in their respective periods, but the vast bulk of the credit goes to those agencies who are actually responsible for rooting out and preventing such things.

I'm inclined to think it's probably #4 or #5.


Correction, it was just a little over a year between the attack on the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks.

[Braincase]

Alex P. Keaton here hasn't figured out that most of the stuff provided by the news outlet is pure, adulterated bullshit, with a facel residue twist. When he figures out that it's OK to ask questions of the authorities, he'll be much better off. Sometimes we're better off being disobedient and asking, "Why?".

[memyselfI]

Alex P. Keaton here hasn't figured out that most of the stuff provided by the news outlet is pure, adulterated bullshit, with a facel residue twist. When he figures out that it's OK to ask questions of the authorities, he'll be much better off. Sometimes we're better off being disobedient and asking, "Why?".

ROFL ROFL ROFL Classic. :clap:

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/photos/fox_michael_j_cp_1527767.jpg

[Nightwish]

Correction, it was just a little over a year between the attack on the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks.
Read again. I said "American soil." The USS Cole wasn't on American soil, or in American waters.

[Nightwish]

The same way we diplomatically stopped the North Vietnamese. By handing over the territory we controlled and letting them execute the people who worked at our side. John Murtha wants to force fit this war into the Vietnam mold whether it belongs there or not. What better way to do it than to declare defeat and leave. :shake:
Pat, you've already admitted that you don't understand what Murtha's proposal was about. You don't need to keep demonstrating that point with posts like this.

[patteeu]

Read again. I said "American soil." The USS Cole wasn't on American soil, or in American waters.

Ok, I missed that.

[patteeu]

Pat, you've already admitted that you don't understand what Murtha's proposal was about. You don't need to keep demonstrating that point with posts like this.

On the contrary, I haven't admitted any such thing. I'm certain what Murtha's proposal is about. What I've done is admitted that it's vague enough that people who want to give the guy the benefit of the unreasonable doubt could find a way to rationalize the idea that he isn't in favor of declaring surrender.

I wouldn't be talking about not understanding Murtha's proposal if I were you. You are the one who was sure he wanted to stay until the Iraqis were prepared to defend themselves which would have made his proposal nearly indistinguishable from the Bush plan.

[Nightwish]

On the contrary, I haven't admitted any such thing. I'm certain what Murtha's proposal is about. What I've done is admitted that it's vague enough that people who want to give the guy the benefit of the unreasonable doubt could find a way to rationalize the idea that he isn't in favor of declaring surrender.[/qote]
Then you can also understand that it's vague enough the people who don't want to give the guy the benefit of the doubt can find a way to rationalize the idea that he simply wants to cut and run. Of course, one would have to go out of one's way to ignore the "quick reactionary force" and "over the horizon presence" Murtha calls for in order to see it that way.[quote]I wouldn't be talking about not understanding Murtha's proposal if I were you. You are the one who was sure he wanted to stay until the Iraqis were prepared to defend themselves which would have made his proposal nearly indistinguishable from the Bush plan.No, I said that it could be read that way, but admitted it was vague enough that it could be read other ways as well. The only way that I don't think it can reasonably be read is as a cut and run. I think the Congressional Republicans might agree with me on that, as I doubt they would have apologized and retracted their representation of his plan thusly if they believed it was actually a cut and run. And actually I never said it was indistinguishable from the Bush plan, you said that. Where it would differ the most from the Bush plan is that it would call for our troops remaining in a position to be able to aid and train Iraqi troops, but that the bulk of our force would be out of the way, out of Iraq, but not necessarily out of the region.

[patteeu]

Then you can also understand that it's vague enough the people who don't want to give the guy the benefit of the doubt can find a way to rationalize the idea that he simply wants to cut and run.
Of course, one would have to go out of one's way to ignore the "quick reactionary force" and "over the horizon presence" Murtha calls for in order to see it that way.

Murtha's plan means nothing if it is so vague that it can be what you want it to be. It's unreasonable to believe that Murtha's plan is the same as the Bush plan (i.e. finish the job of getting the Iraqis prepared and then withdraw) and the only alternative is a form of "cut-and-run." There is no in-between here. You want to restrict the definition of "cut-and-run" to the most chaotic, undignified retreats imaginable and then pretend that a nice organized march out of the country is something different.

And, as you've since realized, I haven't gone out of my way to ignore what you mention above as they've been addressed in another thread:

If our troops redeploy outside the country, there is no way that they would re-enter to "clear an Iraqi city of insurgents" as Nancy Pelosi implausibly tried to argue today on the Fox News Sunday program.

Are you and Nancy Pelosi on some kind of talking points circulation list together? Retreat is retreat and if we leave that's how it will be seen even if we continue to fly over Iraq dropping bombs in support of the government we otherwise abandoned. It would take a monumental event, like an invasion by Iran, to get the US to recommit ground troops in any signficant way once they leave the country.

No, I said that it could be read that way, but admitted it was vague enough that it could be read other ways as well. The only way that I don't think it can reasonably be read is as a cut and run. I think the Congressional Republicans might agree with me on that, as I doubt they would have apologized and retracted their representation of his plan thusly if they believed it was actually a cut and run. And actually I never said it was indistinguishable from the Bush plan, you said that. Where it would differ the most from the Bush plan is that it would call for our troops remaining in a position to be able to aid and train Iraqi troops, but that the bulk of our force would be out of the way, out of Iraq, but not necessarily out of the region.

The Congressional Rebublicans didn't apologize for calling Murtha's plan a cut-and-run plan.

You're right. I'm the one who said that if you interpret Murtha's plan the way you were trying to, it would be indistinguishable from the Bush plan. That makes it an unreasonable interpretation of Murtha's plan, which was my point.

Bush's plan doesn't preclude redeployment within the region when withdrawal occurs, so it's not like Murtha's comments on that point are some kind of an improvement on (or difference from) Bush's plan.

[Duck Dog]

I mean I know this forum has it's share of conservatives and neoconservatives but I have yet to see someone who has his head so far up dubya's ass and I live in Texas!!! I'm really starting to think his shtick is a big rouse. He doesn't seem to argue so much as regurgitate common GOP talking points. I mean if I were feeling like a bastard I could come on this forum under another ID and argue with libs using strictly staying with the party line.

Change a few names and words and you just described jAz and meme.

[PunkinDrublic]

Change a few names and words and you just described jAz and meme.

Bullshit recxjake posts stuff he reads on newsmax and then cuts and runs when he runs out of cliched talking points.

[vailpass]

I'm for real, had two Republican parents, and attend a liberal University ...... . I guess you say I like the better of two evils

Do me a favor, will ya'? Quit worrying about all this political bullshit for a day and head downtown and knock off a few pints at Mickeys. Then knock off a few more. Roll outside, bar hop across the ped mall and find some fine young female Hawkeye who has also had a few.
Stumble out and grab a gyro from the street vendor, take her back to your place for music and conversation, and let it go from there...

(ahhh, memories of being a freshman at the U of I)

[Pittsie]

I get drunk 3 or 4 nights a week, have a beautiful girlfriend and will someday hopefully be a lawyer......

Don't try to apply to Regent University School of Law, or at least lie about your drinking.

[Duck Dog]

Bullshit recxjake posts stuff he reads on newsmax and then cuts and runs when he runs out of cliched talking points.

I didn't say they would be exactly alike. But they are in a sense that they spam the board with rhetoric every day. I'm not sure anyone has noticed (TIC) but he is the only righty currently keeping up with them on thread counts.

The only thing they have that he hasn't figured out is a source to rely on to keep their arguments alive. Read some of their stuff sometime then head over to DU, you will almost always see the same thread there with PLENTY of talking points.

[Chief Henry]

Jake,

Some board libs don't like it when its thrown right back in their face. Keep up the good work.

[Saggysack]

I hear you. Living in the land of mindless Bushbots (Texas) sometimes makes you feel like a commi leftist because you're not one of the Talibaptists.


Talibapists. ROFL

[Cochise]

If you want to count terrorist attacks against Americans abroad or American interests abroad, and foiled terrorist plots against US soil, then Bush's track record is no better.

"Clinton's supposedly weak stance on terror kept them off our backs for twice that amount of time" contains no qualification. Well, fine if you want to redraw the boundaries of your statement, but your premise was that Clinton's watch was scot free which is clearly not the case.