NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm about sick of the latest little moral superiority piece dreamed up by Moveon.org crowd. It fails to register with the dope smoking, long haired, anti-war crowd that many of the military are republicans. Why do you think the democrats tried to disenfranchise military absentee votes in the 2000 Florida recounts? To see those who dreamed up "yellow elephant" in action just download the video of "Liberty Rising" from protest warrior's site. It's got a piece near of the end of this completely insane Irish guy who was protesting the RNC convention. He didn't have a damn clue about anything, it's comical.

So it's about time to respond in terms that even leftists can understand. We need a milk carton with a silhouette of a donkey's head on the side with a big question mark in it. Above it would be the text: "Operation Missing Resolve". Below would be "When it came time to take it to the terrorists, where was your ass?"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v206/Reaper2k3/troll.jpg

oh, and: You don't have to listen to everything right-wing talking heads say.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

Think of how we responded — politically — to 9/11. First there was overwhelming non-partisanship. Years of deteriorating relations between the parties vanished; were even apologized for. And within three years the Republicans were insisting that a Democratic presidential victory would mean more terrorist attacks. This year our "leaders" started the Nazi references — Senator Byrd first, Senator Santorum next, most recently Senator Durbin.

And last night, Karl Rove slimed Durbin (and, of the Nazism invokers, only Durbin) and uttered the unforgettable line: "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

We need a milk carton with a silhouette of a donkey's head on the side with a big question mark in it. Above it would be the text: "Operation Missing Resolve". Below would be "When it came time to take it to the terrorists, where was your ass?"

Hee hee hee hee. If you thought that up on your own, may I say I appreciate your wit. :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v206/Reaper2k3/troll.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v206/Reaper2k3/troll.jpg

Caption:
"Unable to come up with a response both on-topic and witty while being destructive to the posted rant, Xanaz resorts to calling the original poster a troll using a fanart image of the ubiquitous "Trolls" doll series."

First draft:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1097/donkey6ao.png

Also I find it amusing that whenever the right presents an argument it is labeled as trolling and ignored. I guess if I didn’t have a counter argument I would do the same.

Also I find it amusing that whenever the right presents an argument it is labeled as trolling and ignored. I guess if I didn’t have a counter argument I would do the same.
I provided to the coutner-argument to the bullshit argument provided by the troll, err poster. That coutner being its bullshit he stole from rightwing talking heads, which like everything else from rightwing talknig heads, is crap they made up to villify democrats because people are stupid and will believe them

Ihatevacations'] That coutner being its bullshit he stole from rightwing talking heads, which like everything else from rightwing talknig heads, is crap they made up to villify democrats because people are stupid and will believe them


And the same for the party whose mascot is an ass. Insert your head into yours.

Ihatevacations']I provided to the coutner-argument to the bullshit argument provided by the troll, err poster. That coutner being its bullshit he stole from rightwing talking heads, which like everything else from rightwing talknig heads, is crap they made up to villify democrats because people are stupid and will believe them

Your counter being that he didn't think of it himself? and how, pray-tell, do you know this for fact?

As for vilifying Democrats, they do that job to themselves rather well, which is why they lost the Congress, and why the margine of the 2004 Republican victory was wider, rather than narrower, than it was in 2000.

Ihatevacations']I provided to the coutner-argument to the bullshit argument provided by the troll, err poster. That coutner being its bullshit he stole from rightwing talking heads, which like everything else from rightwing talknig heads, is crap they made up to villify democrats because people are stupid and will believe them
As opposed to bullshiit stolen from leftwing talking heads made up to villify Republicans?

As opposed to bullshiit stolen from leftwing talking heads made up to villify Republicans?
And where am I stealing things from leftwing talking heads? He asked where the democrats were because he heard karl rove say it so I replied and link and quote of some one who answered it. The demcorats were right there alnog side the republicans all gung ho about terrorist killin

Ihatevacations']And where am I stealing things from leftwing talking heads? He asked where the democrats were because he heard karl rove say it so I replied and link and quote of some one who answered it. The demcorats were right there alnog side the republicans all gung ho about terrorist killin

The difference being, that the Dems backed out as soon as it stopped being all-talk.

The difference being, that the Dems backed out as soon as it stopped being all-talk.
Irrelevant, thats not what all the talknig heads are saying

Oh okay, I feel like arguing for no reason too, so I will respond.

I'm about sick of the latest little moral superiority piece dreamed up by Moveon.org crowd.

Care to summarize in specific what it is you're on about or do I have to go visit that website and look for all the things in it that might possibly upset you?

It fails to register with the dope smoking, long haired, anti-war crowd that many of the military are republicans.

Does it? You know, I somehow doubt that. That's like me saying, "it fails to register with the goose stepping, skinheaded pro-war crowd that many of the democrats are anti-war."

He didn't have a damn clue about anything, it's comical.

Yeah, people who don't know what they're talking about and are just ranting crazily are funny.

So it's about time to respond in terms that even leftists can understand.

Define leftist? Look at my sig. Am I a leftist or what?

Or do you mean that synonymous with "democrats" and "hippies", ignoring facts just to make your generalizations easier?

We need a milk carton with a silhouette of a donkey's head on the side with a big question mark in it. Above it would be the text: "Operation Missing Resolve". Below would be "When it came time to take it to the terrorists, where was your ass?"

Out of curiosity, where is your ass right now? I could make this multiple choice, but I'll settle for your essay.

Ihatevacations]Irrelevant, thats not what all the talknig heads are saying

You do know that moveon.org did advocate setting up counseling for the terrorists, right?

Does it? You know, I somehow doubt that. That's like me saying, "it fails to register with the goose stepping, skinheaded pro-war crowd that many of the democrats are anti-war."

No it isn't. What he’s saying is Democrats fail to realize that the vast majority of the military support the war and voted for President Bush. They do not feel that they are being pushed into an unjust war, which is why when Democrats undermine the war effort they are insulting, not supporting, the troops.

No it doesn’t. What he’s saying is Democrats fail to realize that the vast majority of the military support the war and voted for President Bush. They do not feel that they are being pushed into an unjust war, which is why when Democrats undermine the war effort they are insulting, not supporting, the troops.

No, he was talking about "dope smoking, long haired anti war" people.

Unless he meant all democrats are dope smoking, long haired and anti war...?

I hate when people mean "Democrats" but say something like "leftists."

Ihatevacations']Irrelevant, thats not what all the talknig heads are saying

So??? do you believe Al Franken or Rush Limbaugh without checking for yourself? I don't. Democrats were whining about "Long term commitments" in Afghanistan before the Allies took Kabul, and the cave-jokes were already lame by then for being used so much.
The Iraq move was strategic-look at a map of the Middle East, and where Iraq is located. Easy access to most of the still-operational Terrorist havens in the world, plus, it would allow U.S. forces to withdraw from Saudi Arabia without going all the way back to Guam and Germany.
Forward-basing in an unstable region that happens to provide the bulk of a critical resource for ht world economy is generally good policy until the region stabilizes.
It also brought an end to the bottomless and sabotaged regime of sanctions-sanctions that were having no effect n the positive side of the ledger.
Status pre-war would have had American forces based in the KSA for the rest of history-or until a radical wahhabist regime took over-it was objection to that American presence that gave Usama his moral credibility in recruitment among arabs.

You do know that moveon.org did advocate setting up counseling for the terrorists, right?
Never been there, do all teh rightwing talknig heads use it as the sole source of their condemning bullshit whiel claiming it is a biased source? 8cough hypocrites cough*

I hate when people mean "Democrats" but say something like "leftists."

And I hate it when centrists can’t realize that the Democratic party is one of America’s biggest threats to national security, the biggest impediment to the advancement of minorities, and the biggest receiver of campaigns contributions by wealthy, out of touch, elitists.

Ihatevacations']Never been there, do all teh rightwing talknig heads use it as the sole source of their condemning bullshit whiel claiming it is a biased source? 8cough hypocrites cough*

It si hwere ew elarn hwo ot spell.

Ihatevacations]Never been there, do all teh rightwing talknig heads use it as the sole source of their condemning bullshit whiel claiming it is a biased source? 8cough hypocrites cough*

Don’t know why it makes them hypocrites. Democrats embrace moveon.org when it says something they approve of, but then reject it when it says something outrageous. More than likely they still approve but don’t want the American public to know that they do. Talk about Hypocrites.

It si hwere ew elarn hwo ot spell.
I can spell perfectly well, I can't type

No it isn't. What he’s saying is Democrats fail to realize that the vast majority of the military support the war and voted for President Bush. They do not feel that they are being pushed into an unjust war, which is why when Democrats undermine the war effort they are insulting, not supporting, the troops.

if they dont support the war, why should they support the troops? that doesnt make any sense. just because the troops want to "bag themselves an A-rab" doesnt mean everyone should get out the little flags and start cheering in support of something they dont believe. im sure the vast majority of trade union members support trade unionism,that doesnt mean you should get out little anarcho-syndicalist flags and cheer them on during strikes, offering buns to them, though im sure theyd appreciate it (man, that'd be sweet...)

oh, and when whoever it was described me, at the start, with the long hair, the anti war, the leftism and the smoking, you missed out my beard, the tie-dye shirts, the hippy-music-jam-fests and the other steroetypes you could have crammed in to the sentence. (that i actually am a leftist, smoke, am anti-war, have long hair, a beard and want a tie-dye shirt is, of course, irrelevant :) ) oh, and someone on the left wouldnt vote democrat, on account of them being republican lite, for the right winger in the closet.

toodle-oo

if they dont support the war, why should they support the troops? that doesnt make any sense. just because the troops want to "bag themselves an A-rab" doesnt mean everyone should get out the little flags and start cheering in support of something they dont believe. im sure the vast majority of trade union members support trade unionism,that doesnt mean you should get out little anarcho-syndicalist flags and cheer them on during strikes, offering buns to them, though im sure theyd appreciate it (man, that'd be sweet...)

oh, and when whoever it was described me, at the start, with the long hair, the anti war, the leftism and the smoking, you missed out my beard, the tie-dye shirts, the hippy-music-jam-fests and the other steroetypes you could have crammed in to the sentence. (that i actually am a leftist, smoke, am anti-war, have long hair, a beard and want a tie-dye shirt is, of course, irrelevant :) ) oh, and someone on the left wouldnt vote democrat, on account of them being republican lite, for the right winger in the closet.

toodle-oo


Damn, you smoke? Crap. I'll have to quit now... on second thought, no... (lights a Winston, blows smoke at the screen.)

You really don't know shit about Soldiers, do you?

And I hate it when centrists can’t realize that the Democratic party is one of America’s biggest threats to national security, the biggest impediment to the advancement of minorities, and the biggest receiver of campaigns contributions by wealthy, out of touch, elitists.

being an englishman and not knowing the ins and outs of american politics (other than everyone being to the right of the british national party being accused of being a leftist, liberal or communist, all seemingly interchangeable in the land of the "free"), id quite like to hear your reasoning behind this. i like a good right wing conspiracy theory.

if they dont support the war, why should they support the troops? that doesnt make any sense. just because the troops want to "bag themselves an A-rab" doesnt mean everyone should get out the little flags and start cheering in support of something they dont believe. im sure the vast majority of trade union members support trade unionism,that doesnt mean you should get out little anarcho-syndicalist flags and cheer them on during strikes, offering buns to them, though im sure theyd appreciate it (man, that'd be sweet...)

Soldiers rely on support from home. Please take not of Vietnam. Anyhow, in the US a politician could never openly denounce the actual US troops and remain in office. I’m sure they insult them behind closed doors, but to the public they simply maintain the stance of “against the war, for the troops.” All the while undermining the war effort by giving the Arab news networks sound bites to enrage their populace with.

Damn, you smoke? Crap. I'll have to quit now... on second thought, no... (lights a Winston, blows smoke at the screen.)

You really don't know shit about Soldiers, do you?

oh no. an american is blowing smoke at me. eek. fail to see why youd quit smoking on account of my mentioning i did, but hey, whatever.

and what do you mean by your cryptic remark about my lack of soldiering knowledge? are you refering to the need for homeland support to make the killing seem worthwhile? or are you going for the "plucky volunteer army protecting ma and pa and little billy bob from the foreign types" angle?

Soldiers rely on support from home. Please take not of Vietnam. Anyhow, in the US a politician could never openly denounce the actual US troops and remain in office. I’m sure they insult them behind closed doors, but to the public they simply maintain the stance of “against the war, for the troops.” All the while undermining the war effort by giving the Arab news networks sound bites to enrage their populace with.

im aware the soldiers need support form home, as do strikers. however, the point is, if the soldiers want the war, and the people dont, why should the people support the soldiers, and therefore the war? a thousand sorries to bring nazis into it, but here we go: the german people couldnt really say they are against the holocaust, but supported the deaths head units operating the camps anyway, as doubtless they needed support at home too. if you are against an action, you dont support people doing that action, as that is to support the action.

again, apologies for bringing nazis into a debate yet again.

EDIT: realised i didnt pick up on something. you say that democrats give soundbites to enrage the arab people. surely the american bombing, abu ghraib (cant remember spelling) and guantanamo, not to mention calling your enemy "satan", enrage the arab people more than an old man who didnt want to bomb them saying something?

being an englishman and not knowing the ins and outs of american politics (other than everyone being to the right of the british national party being accused of being a leftist, liberal or communist, all seemingly interchangeable in the land of the "free"), id quite like to hear your reasoning behind this. i like a good right wing conspiracy theory.

It’s not a theory. Some National Democrat politicians are a threat to National Security because they are treasonous. They are not content to merely ideologically oppose the War on Terror, but they undermine the president and insult the US in the most terrible ways. This is then played by Arab news networks and used to recruit more terrorists. The Democrats know it does this, and count on it. The more terrorists killing American soldiers, the more people will vote for them, they figure. That is treason under Article III of the constitution.

They keep minorities down by coming up with things like Affirmative Action, which essentially tells a Black man that they are not good enough to get a job without government intervention. They give welfare to minorities to reduce their incentive to work. They finish it off by reducing the quality of education in the inner cities by opposing vouchers. Thus, they have an ignorant, depressed voting block completely reliant on them.

It is also a fact that most of the funds for the Republican party comes from those donating less than two hundred dollars, while most of the funding for Democrats comes from those donating more than one million. So much for being the party of the people.

It’s not a theory. Some National Democrat politicians are a threat to National Security because they are treasonous. They are not content to merely ideologically oppose the War on Terror, but they undermine the president and insult the US in the most terrible ways. This is then played by Arab news networks and used to recruit more terrorists. The Democrats know it does this, and count on it. The more terrorists killing American soldiers, the more people will vote for them, they figure. That is treason under Article III of the constitution.

They keep minorities down by coming up with things like Affirmative Action, which essentially tells a Black man that they are not good enough to get a job without government intervention. They give welfare to minorities to reduce their incentive to work. They finish it off by reducing the quality of education in the inner cities by opposing vouchers. Thus, they have an ignorant, depressed voting block completely reliant on them.

It is also a fact that most of the funds for the Republican party comes from those donating less than two hundred dollars, while most of the funding for Democrats comes from those donating more than one million. So much for being the party of the people.

couple of questions/points:

1:you live in a democracy, yes? proud of your rights etc? after all, thats what the war on terror has been about, in one of the explainations given anyway. and yet you want people to never question the president? never to oppose wars? you wont even let them make fun of their own country. tell me, whats free speech for? say anything you want, so long as its what i tell you to? just what are you fighting for then?

and again, i think families being bombed, and arab nations having their innocents bullied (eg palestine) and so on by the west and its supporters, as well as other reasons, is a better tool for recruiting people willing to die for their cause than an old white american in a suit questioning whether blowing up arabs is a good idea. call me crazy, y'know...

2:were i a black man, id rather have affirmative action allegedly imply im not good enough for a job than a racist employer scream racist abuse at me, tell me to my face in hateful language im not good enough for the job and have me beaten up on the way out.

3:giving welfare doesnt really affect your willingness to work. it just, you know, stops you losing your home and starving if you happen to lose a job and not be able to get another one fast. here in britain we have welfare and !shock! people work. i dont know much about your voucher system, just assume ive tried to be funny and argue against you.

4:i doubt how much of a fact it is, myself. i doubt the big rich fellows would say "i need to pay more tax, not less, and i also need more safeguards for my workers against me". i expect its our good friend statistics, who can be used to demonstrate anything. either that or they will be dontating to both parties, to ensure they get their inevitably pro oil, pro gun, message drilled into government, and just giving it to the republicans more stealthily, and you will have got the donation thing just having looked at the surface of the donation pond, ignoring the murky depths beneath (so to speak).

i happen to think both your main parties are both corrupt anyhow.

also, in regards to your claiming that the democrats are trying to incite al quaida (i assume thats who you mean), why? what do they have to gain? what good thing could possibly happen for a rich, american possibly-fundamentalst christian when a poor, american hating fundamentalist-islamic man gets more power? that doesnt make too much sense. though, to its credit it makes more sense than some other crazy theories you hear. like the one with the 20ft tall half human half lizard genetically engineered aliens who secretly rule the world, or any religion youd care to name.

EDIT: to give the 20ft tall half human half lizard genetically engineered aliens who secretly rule the world theory some credit, at least their are humans, lizards and genetic engineering, which places it sigificantly higher on the ladder of possibility than religions, though it is still struggeling to find the first rung.

EDIT: realised i didnt pick up on something. you say that democrats give soundbites to enrage the arab people. surely the american bombing, abu ghraib (cant remember spelling) and guantanamo, not to mention calling your enemy "satan", enrage the arab people more than an old man who didnt want to bomb them saying something?

There was excessive bombing in WW2. The media just realized that, in the interest of the war effort, it didn’t need to be completely reported. Abu Graib was a disgrace, true, but those involved are being punished, and it is not comparable to what Saddam did. A Democrat was the one who said “Saddam’s torture chambers are re-opened for business under America.” The Arab media ate that up. All the Senators who have visited Guantanamo have said that conditions are fine. Frankly, we treat them better than we should. But we are the US, we’re good like that. The only people I have ever heard call their enemies “Satan” is the Islamic extremists.

1:you live in a democracy, yes? proud of your rights etc? after all, thats what the war on terror has been about, in one of the explainations given anyway. and yet you want people to never question the president? never to oppose wars? you wont even let them make fun of their own country. tell me, whats free speech for? say anything you want, so long as its what i tell you to? just what are you fighting for then?

It is generally excepted that Freedom of Speech does nor protect dangerous speech. Some of the things Democrats say actually do incite riots in the Middle East. Just look a t Newsweek’s fake Quran abuse story.

2:were i a black man, id rather have affirmative action allegedly imply im not good enough for a job than a racist employer scream racist abuse at me, tell me to my face in hateful language im not good enough for the job and have me beaten up on the way out.

Well that would be assault and would be punishable by law. Anyway, have you ever been to the US? Most employers could care less about your race or sex, they only care if you will make them or the company money.

3:giving welfare doesnt really affect your willingness to work. it just, you know, stops you losing your home and starving if you happen to lose a job and not be able to get another one fast. here in britain we have welfare and !shock! people work. i dont know much about your voucher system, just assume ive tried to be funny and argue against you.

Maybe it works in Britain but not in the US. Most of the urban poor in the US get enough welfare that they figure they don’t need a job and can supplement it with crime if need be.

4:i doubt how much of a fact it is, myself. i doubt the big rich fellows would say "i need to pay more tax, not less, and i also need more safeguards for my workers against me". i expect its our good friend statistics, who can be used to demonstrate anything. either that or they will be dontating to both parties, to ensure they get their inevitably pro oil, pro gun, message drilled into government, and just giving it to the republicans more stealthily, and you will have got the donation thing just having looked at the surface of the donation pond, ignoring the murky depths beneath (so to speak).

The super rich donate to the Democratic party because they get out of paying high taxes by exploiting the tax code. Those who pay the bulk of taxes in this country are the middle to upper-middle class. They don’t have access to tax lawyers. Anyway, here is a link:

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030707-090426-8917r.htm

EDIT: to give the 20ft tall half human half lizard genetically engineered aliens who secretly rule the world theory some credit, at least their are humans, lizards and genetic engineering, which places it sigificantly higher on the ladder of possibility than religions, though it is still struggeling to find the first rung.

Don’t know why you are insulating religion. Ever heard of a “South Park Republican”? Their breed is becoming increasingly more common.

There was excessive bombing in WW2. The media just realized that, in the interest of the war effort, it didn’t need to be completely reported. Abu Graib was a disgrace, true, but those involved are being punished, and it is not comparable to what Saddam did. A Democrat was the one who said “Saddam’s torture chambers are re-opened for business under America.” The Arab media ate that up. All the Senators who have visited Guantanamo have said that conditions are fine. Frankly, we treat them better than we should. But we are the US, we’re good like that. The only people I have ever heard call their enemies “Satan” is the Islamic extremists.

in regards to the satan comment, on the bbc their was a clip of an american officer type and he said something to the effect of "theres an enemy in fallujah. his name is satan". it was a while back though. i imagine that press censorship you freedom loving americans seem to want came into play to proterct you from the harshness of reality, cocooned in your nice bubble of lies. the senators who visited, ie the guys who essentially authorised it, say itys fine do they? oh good. (again apologies for what comes next)

"so, adolf, hows auschwitz? everyone got enough to eat? happy? enough leisure time?"
"oh, ja, ja, everything is hunky-dory"
"oh, ok then. good good."

and guantanamo is a hell hole that has no right to exist. and america is not nice like that. you shouldnt be torturing people, because you see, in your efforts to foil people who we all agree are Not Nice Men, you are turning into them. your soldiers shoot injured enemy combatants, you torture people, you hold them without charge, you hold them indefinetly until they talk, somehting thet\y might not even be able to do, as your intelligence may well be wrong (WMD! WMD!), you use religion and religious language to justify your actions, (i could go on) you are turning into that which you are attempting to destroy!

and the medias job is to report what happens, not what people would like to be happening. considering america prides itself on its freedoms, your remarkably fast in hurling them into a dock with concrete shoes on.

Don’t know why you are insulating religion. Ever heard of a “South Park Republican”? Their breed is becoming increasingly more common.

for personal amusement, largely. and no, i havent.

Wow, you guys can post the url of a gif. You win the internet.

Unless he meant all democrats are dope smoking, long haired and anti war...?
I hate when people mean "Democrats" but say something like "leftists."
Did the leader of the Democrat party mean it when he said:
"I hate republicans."
"They're monolithic. It's pretty much a white christian party."
"They all behave the same. They all look the same."
"haven't earned an honest days living in their lives."
"dark, depressing vision for America."

I did mean democrats, as in the far left reactionaries who now form the base of the party. You've driven the traditional democrats out. As for where I am, I'm a marine corps veteran who served before 9/11, before you could try and peg it on "blind patriotism". That's where I am.

"I support the troops but I don't support the war."
Translation: I hate Bush. I hate the troops too but can't say it without being exposed for the spineless appeaser I am.

Undelia, thanks for the image. I'm going to make a icon of that.

Ihatevacations']I provided to the coutner-argument to the bullshit argument provided by the troll, err poster. That coutner being its bullshit he stole from rightwing talking heads, which like everything else from rightwing talknig heads, is crap they made up to villify democrats because people are stupid and will believe them

Thanks troll, err responder. Believe it or not I thought that up myself using the left's crap as inspiration.

in regards to the satan comment, on the bbc their was a clip of an american officer type and he said something to the effect of "theres an enemy in fallujah. his name is satan". it was a while back though. i imagine that press censorship you freedom loving americans seem to want came into play to proterct you from the harshness of reality, cocooned in your nice bubble of lies. the senators who visited, ie the guys who essentially authorised it, say itys fine do they? oh good. (again apologies for what comes next)

What that guy meant is that Satan influences people to do evil things. If the press chooses not to report something it is their choice. You can’t force them to report something. That would also violate Freedom of Speech. Senators who were against Guntanamo visited and on their return said it was fine.

and the medias job is to report what happens, not what people would like to be happening. considering america prides itself on its freedoms, your remarkably fast in hurling them into a dock with concrete shoes on.

The US has a long history of recognizing that some freedoms can not practically exist in war time. In that, I am proud of our maturity.

It is generally excepted that Freedom of Speech does nor protect dangerous speech. Some of the things Democrats say actually do incite riots in the Middle East. Just look a t Newsweek’s fake Quran abuse story.

Well that would be assault and would be punishable by law. Anyway, have you ever been to the US? Most employers could care less about your race or sex, they only care if you will make them or the company money.

Maybe it works in Britain but not in the US. Most of the urban poor in the US get enough welfare that they figure they don’t need a job and can supplement it with crime if need be.

The super rich donate to the Democratic party because they get out of paying high taxes by exploiting the tax code. Those who pay the bulk of taxes in this country are the middle to upper-middle class. They don’t have access to tax lawyers.

yes, but still. i fail to see why democrats would have anythingto gain out of this, so they propbably arent deliberatly doing it. its most likely political incompetence, which strikes me as more of a democrat trait than being a devious plotter bent on ruining america (possibly for the 20ft tall half human half lizard genetically engineered aliens who secretly rule the world...).

you know what i mean. i over exaggerated, i do that from time to time. still, you only say most employers. you say most just want them to make money for them, that sounds like the america i know, but then, i have to wonder why the biggest unemployed ethnic group (i hear) is black americans (which you will no doubt blame on welfare, or on some sort of "racial work ethic" or somesuch nonsense).

i think welfare in britian is higher than in america. we take care of our poor, us europeans. :D or at least we attempt to, despite businesses aspirations... anyhow, point being welfare doesnt take away incentive to work, as the day is as boring as hell when youve nothing to do, which is what life tends tpo be like on the dole.

i suppose your point about the tax scamming makes sense, but even then, republicans are still more rich friendly, so it still dont make too much sense.

for personal amusement, largely. and no, i havent.

Well, it comes from the show “South Park” on Comedy Central. Essentially, they tend to be moderate to liberal on social issues, but a hatred of political correctness, a distaste for liberal buzzwords and revulsion at far-left ideology causes them to vote Republican. They are increasingly common among younger voters.

Thanks troll, err responder. Believe it or not I thought that up myself using the left's crap as inspiration.
sure you did

Wow, you guys can post the url of a gif. You win the internet.

wow, cheers. ill put it on my shelf, i think.

I did mean democrats, as in the far left reactionaries who now form the base of the party.

democrats and far left in the same sentence? is this some paralell universe where right is left and left right? :confused: the democrats are right wing, just not as much as your beloved republicans. i nevr understand why americanscall them left wing. their to the right of our right wing parties, for gods sake. can you just not admit your a nation of people who love inequality and fear change?

yes, but still. i fail to see why democrats would have anythingto gain out of this, so they propbably arent deliberatly doing it. its most likely political incompetence, which strikes me as more of a democrat trait than being a devious plotter bent on ruining america (possibly for the 20ft tall half human half lizard genetically engineered aliens who secretly rule the world...).

I didn’t say that they were smart to do it. They do it because they, wrongly, figure that the more American soldiers die, the less people will support Bush.\

you know what i mean. i over exaggerated, i do that from time to time. still, you only say most employers. you say most just want them to make money for them, that sounds like the america i know, but then, i have to wonder why the biggest unemployed ethnic group (i hear) is black americans (which you will no doubt blame on welfare, or on some sort of "racial work ethic" or somesuch nonsense).

They are unemployed because of the Gangsta culture, which glorifies drugs and violence and ridicules hard work. The Democrats refuse to criticize it, for fear of losing votes, and any Republican that does is labled a racist. By the way, Black women who are not as in to the Gansta culture are now more likely to be employed than a Black man. It is the only ethnic group in the US like it.

i suppose your point about the tax scamming makes sense, but even then, republicans are still more rich friendly, so it still dont make too much sense.

Ever hear about Hollywood? A lot of rich people are crazy, and they want others to accept their disorderly lifestyles without judgment. Thus, the voting Democrat thing.

democrats and far left in the same sentence? is this some paralell universe where right is left and left right? the democrats are right wing, just not as much as your beloved republicans. i nevr understand why americanscall them left wing. their to the right of our right wing parties, for gods sake. can you just not admit your a nation of people who love inequality and fear change

Right wing by your politics Brit, not ours. Which is far more sensible.

What that guy meant is that Satan influences people to do evil things. If the press chooses not to report something it is their choice. You can’t force them to report something. That would also violate Freedom of Speech. Senators who were against Guntanamo visited and on their return said it was fine.

The US has a long history of recognizing that some freedoms can not practically exist in war time. In that, I am proud of our maturity.


kinda hard for a non existent entity to influence people, dont ya think? yes, if the press chooses not to report something that is their choice, as wrong as it is for them to do that. you can force them not to report things though, cant you, ie censorship. which, coincidentally, violates freedom of speech.

people who dont have run the camps also have visited, like liberty, the human rights organisation, i think, and they didnt think it was ok. id trust an organisation dedicated to human rights to report human rights more than id trust a senator any day of the year. which senator was itr out of interest? one of georgies appointed ones? or another republican?

bah. you all it maturity, i call it abandoning freedom.

people who dont have run the camps also have visited, like liberty, the human rights organisation, i think, and they didnt think it was ok. id trust an organisation dedicated to human rights to report human rights more than id trust a senator any day of the year. which senator was itr out of interest? one of georgies appointed ones? or another republican?


First, I trust my countrymen before I would trust an anti-American international organization. Second, if you think the President appoints Senators you have absolutely no knowledge of American politics at all.

I didn’t say that they were smart to do it. They do it because they, wrongly, figure that the more American soldiers die, the less people will support Bush.\



They are unemployed because of the Gangsta culture, which glorifies drugs and violence and ridicules hard work. The Democrats refuse to criticize it, for fear of losing votes, and any Republican that does is labled a racist. By the way, Black women who are not as in to the Gansta culture are now more likely to be employed than a Black man. It is the only ethnic group in the US like it.



Ever hear about Hollywood? A lot of rich people are crazy, and they want others to accept their disorderly lifestyles without judgment. Thus, the voting Democrat thing.

as callous as they probably are, just like a man who would send a lot of men to fight and die for him but not actually take part himself, i doubt they are that smart.
and i think your making a rather rash generalisation claiming that they dont work becasue all of them live gangsta lifestyles.
and i would personally say all rich people are crazy. but i fail to see how your point stands up (possibly more to do with it being 4 in the morning than anything else, but hey)

First, I trust my countrymen before I would trust an anti-American international organization. Second, if you think the President appoints Senators you have absolutely no knowledge of American politics at all.

ah, the good old "its anti-american" arguement. i think they are more pro human rights, but whatver, if human rights clash with american-ism, then yes, they are anti-american.

and having said that bout the senate, i now remember its the supreme court thats appointed (isnt it?). hows the senate get in then? elected, presumably?

Right wing by your politics Brit, not ours. Which is far more sensible.

in what way? in our system on the left their is people who agree wiht trade unionism, are generally a bit socialist (actually socialist, not american definition of socialist, whcih is "man not robbing poor and spitting in their face twice"), believe in human rights, equality, nationalisation (or other forms of public ownership), higher taxes etc, people before profit kinda thing.

in the centre are the liberals, who go for a kid of third way ish thing, a toned down versionn of capitalism, the alleged best of both worlds.

on the right we have the fascists, people who want to start selling off our public owned stuff , people who want to keep the monarchy, who want to keep scotlanmd and wales as our slaves essentially, low taxes, thatcherism essentially. profit before people, "greed is good" types

in your country, on the "left" you have people who wantth same things as the people on the right, by and large. low taxes, big companies trampling on workers rights and so on. the only difference seems to be democrats actually want to spend a bit off money, maybe, if the re[puiblicans wont make too much of a fuss.

please explain why youyr version of left-right makes more sense than ours


EDIT: i like the way you use brit seemingly as an insult, btw.

and having said that bout the senate, i now remember its the supreme court thats appointed (isnt it?). hows the senate get in then? elected, presumably?

A person runs for one of the two Senate seats from their state. If they win the popular vote, then they become that state’s representative to the Senate. Supreme Court Justices are appointed upon the resignation, death or impeachment of a Justice. Justices carry over between administrations. The President can never unapoint a Justice. A majority of Senators must approve of his nomination.

in your country, on the "left" you have people who wantth same things as the people on the right, by and large. low taxes, big companies trampling on workers rights and so on. the only difference seems to be democrats actually want to spend a bit off money, maybe, if the re[puiblicans wont make too much of a fuss.

Ours is more sensible because neither sides denies the benefits of the proven capitalist system. Democrats are notably more socially liberal than Republicans. I like our system better, because the Socialists and Communists are where they belong, in the shadows.

A person runs for one of the two Senate seats from their state. If they win the popular vote, then they become that state’s representative to the Senate. Supreme Court Justices are appointed upon the resignation, death or impeachment of a Justice. Justices carry over between administrations. The President can never unapoint a Justice. A majority of Senators must approve of his nomination.

cheers

so i assume that the senator who visited was a republican or it wouldnt square with your "democrats are out to destroy america" theory, yes? so he would lose some votes, at least, if he came back and said "yeah, actually, its a hell hole their. i was physically sickened by what the bush administration is sanctioning their", as people might feel bad aout voting in people who like torture, the worst way to get information ever. he might even get thrown out of the party for his treachery, and lose his seat and comfy job for good. probably best he just says it was all rainbows and lollipops, eh?

but those damn people from liberty, well, all that non-profit they make, sure sign of corruption, that is, and... erm... hmm... well, its unamerican!

Ours is more sensible because neither sides denies the benefits of the proven capitalist system. Democrats are notably more socially liberal than Republicans. I like our system better, because the Socialists and Communists are where they belong, in the shadows.

neither mere noise nor words can contain my entertainment at your reply. mere "ha"s repeated over and over would still be as a drop if ink in the mighty ocean of my mirth if i were to even ATTEMPT to type them out. it was akin to an explosion of fiery amusement bursting out of of my mind, down my spine, that these mere shells of meaning could not possibly hope to give you a flicker of understanding of. but moving on...

our right loves capitalism, which is why it stole our public services and sold them, so we now have the joys of the capitaliost system: inefficient, expensive trains, owned by a man who would rather ravel by balloon than by train. buses that never turn up, as they have the monopoly so can do whatever the hell they like as if i complain they can just jabber onsense about their public service being answerable only to shareholders, i could go on for hours. in short, capitalisms failed us there. when we had the conservatives in power, we had massive unemployment, people losing homes, repossesions and so on. hurrah for capitalism!

our centre at least recognises that capitalism needs restraining (im off the opinion it needs putting down, but ill get their in a minute), which is where the majority, apparently, or british people lie.

our left, our socialists, our communists, our anarchists, our trade unionists, recognize that capitalism is a destructive, wasteful force, that concentrates power in the hands of the few to the detrement of the many. thats partially why we have workers cooperative businesses over here, no bosses, equal pay, ethics, democraticaly ran business, and you know what? their doing better than thousands of capitalist business have done! our socialists, communists and anarchists are proud of what they are, standing up for themselves in the face of capitalist opposition trying to take away their rights, such as george galloways defience (im personally undecided on him. ive heard hes an arse, but he did do that senate meetin rather well, i have to say), the G8 protestors who are up their as i type, and countless others.

its the capitalists who belong in the shadows as our "friend" michael howard demonstrates quite aptly.

Ours is more sensible because neither sides denies the benefits of the proven capitalist system. Democrats are notably more socially liberal than Republicans. I like our system better, because the Socialists and Communists are where they belong, in the shadows.


Really... Isn't this such wonderful right-wing censorship. "We don't like socialists so they have no place in politics!"

Honestly... This is why I hate the American-right. The whole lot of you have no respect for the importance of personal liberty. You claim to be "small government" and then create big-brother-esque systems.

Really... Isn't this such wonderful right-wing censorship. "We don't like socialists so they have no place in politics!"

Honestly... This is why I hate the American-right. The whole lot of you have no respect for the importance of personal liberty. You claim to be "small government" and then create big-brother-esque systems.

and of course they take away people rights to fight the scary boogymen, coming to take away their rights! shock! horror! panic!

and of course they take away people rights to fight the scary boogymen, coming to take away their rights! shock! horror! panic!

But the boogeymen are coming to take away their way of life! So it's fine to strangle other ones to protect the people from the loss of a single majority paradigm!

But the boogeymen are coming to take away their way of life! So it's fine to strangle other ones to protect the people from the loss of a single majority paradigm!

and naturally the best way to combat these peoples hatefull way of life of war, torturing, random kidknapping and using religion to excuse killing, is to, well, its to go to war with his country, torture his friends, kidknap people and hold them without trial and, if your populace feels down, give them an intoxicating hit of God, so they feel raring to go kill satan. that should stop them ruining our way of life and changing it into theirs!

and naturally the best way to combat these peoples hatefull way of life of war, torturing, random kidknapping and using religion to excuse killing, is to, well, its to go to war with his country, torture his friends, kidknap people and hold them without trial and, if your populace feels down, give them an intoxicating hit of God, so they feel raring to go kill satan. that should stop them ruining our way of life and changing it into theirs!

And if the "liberal" press tries to point out that we're doing everything we're "protecting" against we'll just call them liars, pretend they have a bias and let our friends at Faux News twist the facts to our benefit while pretending to be moderate.

And if the "liberal" press tries to point out that we're doing everything we're "protecting" against we'll just call them liars, pretend they have a bias and let our friends at Faux News twist the facts to our benefit while pretending to be moderate.

the best part being that after the accusation of liberalism which for some reason is seen as an insult (in the nation of economic liberalism!), they wont even try and refute it, but just try and show how unbiased they are by swinging wildly in favour for the wars etc and show very little experts against the war compared to a mass of people with graphs and charts, showing that they are winning, no matter what it might look like, ignore the flood of more and more fighters across the syrian border (some of them christians fighting alongside muslims), coming to avenge the poeple that have been killed by america, in favour of war (largely employed by men with lots of very fat fingers in lots of oil related economic pies).

btw, loved the faux news pun. im commiting that to memory.

where have you gone, my capitalist verbal fencing partner Umeria or whatver it is your called? (sorry, forgot) are you keeping to the shadows as suggested?

the best part being that after the accusation of liberalism which for some reason is seen as an insult (in the nation of economic liberalism!), they wont even try and refute it, but just try and show how unbiased they are by swinging wildly in favour for the wars etc and show very little experts against the war compared to a mass of people with graphs and charts, showing that they are winning, no matter what it might look like, ignore the flood of more and more fighters across the syrian border (some of them christians fighting alongside muslims), coming to avenge the poeple that have been killed by america, in favour of war (largely employed by men with lots of very fat fingers in lots of oil related economic pies).

You see, they aren't true christians! Everyone knows christians are only supposed to kill people who aren't christian! And the war wasn't for oil! See! We haven't taken any yet! <.< >.>. Nope! There is no Iraq/Afghanistan oil pipeline! Not at all!

btw, loved the faux news pun. im commiting that to memory.

It wasn't origional, but I love it. Faux News "We distort you deride!"

where have you gone, my capitalist verbal fencing partner Umeria or whatver it is your called? (sorry, forgot) are you keeping to the shadows as suggested?

No, I was watching Anime, which I will be doing for the next couple hours. Just checking in for a short bit.

Anyway, two Democrats went and two Republicans went. All four said it was fine. Even a Democrat can’t deny the truth when it is shoved in their faces.

You see, they aren't true christians! Everyone knows christians are only supposed to kill people who aren't christian! And the war wasn't for oil! See! We haven't taken any yet! <.< >.>. Nope! There is no Iraq/Afghanistan oil pipeline! Not at all!

certainly not! the reason blairs given for war has officially changed 3 times so far, 1st WMDs, 2nd Freedom, and i cant remember the latest "reason". how many official versions of the truth have occured your side f the pond?

It wasn't origional, but I love it. Faux News "We distort you deride!"

ah, its pretty good, still. i like the GTA san andreas "we distort, you cant retort" more though i think...

certainly not! the reason blairs given for war has officially changed 3 times so far, 1st WMDs, 2nd Freedom, and i cant remember the latest "reason". how many official versions of the truth have occured your side f the pond?

Latest count has 14, but that might be counting the times the chimp has stumbled over his reason or occasionally said something true and needed to correct himself.



ah, its pretty good, still. i like the GTA san andreas "we distort, you cant retort" more though i think...

Hadn't heard that yet.

No, I was watching Anime, which I will be doing for the next couple hours. Just checking in for a short bit.

Anyway, two Democrats went and two Republicans went. All four said it was fine. Even a Democrat can’t deny the truth when it is shoved in their faces.

sure they cant. after all, politicians, well known for telling the truth arent they? why, several have been fired for speaking their own mind too much in scandals. as ive said, normal people dedicated to finding human rights abuses i trust, politicians who, for all i know were in support of the war, werent allowed to see all the camp, or are just plain and simple bastards who love torture, i dont.

thing is, your denying something that is happening, you know it, i know it, the whole world knows it, so just admit it. its not like your torturing them, so your not at fault. and if you cant admit it yet, fair enough. it took the germans a while to come to terms too, and even then some of them still deny it ever happened today, and you dont want to be like those nutjobs do you?

I'm about sick of the latest little moral superiority piece dreamed up by Moveon.org crowd. It fails to register with the dope smoking, long haired, anti-war crowd that many of the military are republicans. Why do you think the democrats tried to disenfranchise military absentee votes in the 2000 Florida recounts? To see those who dreamed up "yellow elephant" in action just download the video of "Liberty Rising" from protest warrior's site. It's got a piece near of the end of this completely insane Irish guy who was protesting the RNC convention. He didn't have a damn clue about anything, it's comical.

So it's about time to respond in terms that even leftists can understand. We need a milk carton with a silhouette of a donkey's head on the side with a big question mark in it. Above it would be the text: "Operation Missing Resolve". Below would be "When it came time to take it to the terrorists, where was your ass?"
Two words for you--fuck you.

i suppose your point about the tax scamming makes sense, but even then, republicans are still more rich friendly, so it still dont make too much sense.

Hahaha!! Yeah, Clinton was such an enemy of the rich. Even though he rented the Lincoln Bedroom out for campaign cash. Oh and guess what? Enron gave more money to Clinton then Bush.

Latest count has 14, but that might be counting the times the chimp has stumbled over his reason or occasionally said something true and needed to correct himself.

the worrying thing is, theirs books called the right honourable chimpanzee, or prime minister chimp, or something (my brother has them) and they are actually doing a better job than bush. granted its fiction, but if bush cant do better than a ficitonal ape...

anyway, thats a fair few. though blair is university educated in law, so hes going to be a fairly consistent liar.

Hadn't heard that yet.

ah, theyve got some good 'uns on GTA. it is actually almost worth just sitting in a car by the road listenin to the radio on it. its on the public access radio station, with the wild traveller and the gardening with maurice, if you have a copy of the game. damn, i sound like an advert.

couple of questions/points:

1:you live in a democracy, yes?

No!

BTW all of your hippie, feel good posts are now down the drain.

Two words for you--fuck you.

That's about what I expected out of you.

Hahaha!! Yeah, Clinton was such an enemy of the rich. Even though he rented the Lincoln Bedroom out for campaign cash. Oh and guess what? Enron gave more money to Clinton then Bush.

i never said democrats were the riches enemy, far from it. the democrats are the rich peoples wife, but the republicans are their whore. anyway, i was speaking generally, as i never mentioned names.

oh, and i dont care about that, btw, both are pretty much as bad as the other, corrupt, right wing business whores that they are.

which senator was itr out of interest? one of georgies appointed ones? or another republican?

bah. you all it maturity, i call it abandoning freedom.

Out of interest, is there enough flouride in your water?

Seriously, we elect our Senators, not the President.

No!

BTW all of your hippie, feel good posts are now down the drain.

oh. well, youve beaten me. ill renounce socialism and common decency and go start my new life as a wage slave.

oh, wait a minute... screw you.
i am interested to know why you think they are firstly, hippy, seconldy feel good post.
also, you do live in something at least nominally a democracy, which is why you can vote once every four years and give someone implicit consent to whatever the hell they want to you. it was what we, in the business of being us, call a rhetorical question. thats todays magic word. R-H-E-T-O-R-I-C-A-L. write it down.

oh. well, youve beaten me. ill renounce socialism and common decency and go start my new life as a wage slave.


You can't quit, the government hasn't freed you from your tax slave status.

That's about what I expected out of you.
Yeah, well, sorry to disappoint you, but I don't take slanderous statements lightly.

the worrying thing is, theirs books called the right honourable chimpanzee, or prime minister chimp, or something (my brother has them) and they are actually doing a better job than bush. granted its fiction, but if bush cant do better than a ficitonal ape...

anyway, thats a fair few. though blair is university educated in law, so hes going to be a fairly consistent liar.



ah, theyve got some good 'uns on GTA. it is actually almost worth just sitting in a car by the road listenin to the radio on it. its on the public access radio station, with the wild traveller and the gardening with maurice, if you have a copy of the game. damn, i sound like an advert.

My dear Brit, the state of your grammar shows you to be of the intelligence of a toothless, Faulknerian Idiot Man-Child.

Out of interest, is there enough flouride in your water?

Seriously, we elect our Senators, not the President.

seriously, if you read my past posts, youll notice that i realised id mixed up the appointment of supreme court people and the election of senetors. and i know about the electoral college, the device put in by your founding fathers to safegaurd against people choosing the "wrong" candidate for president .

again, screw you.

and i dont know, because i dont pay attention to flouride in water. i have bigger concerns than people trying to force clean my teeth.

You can't quit, the government hasn't freed you from your tax slave status.

that would be the more authoritarian version of socialism to which i dont subscribe.

i never said democrats were the riches enemy, far from it. the democrats are the rich peoples wife, but the republicans are their whore. anyway, i was speaking generally, as i never mentioned names.

oh, and i dont care about that, btw, both are pretty much as bad as the other, corrupt, right wing business whores that they are.

Nice retort. :rolleyes:

Have you been smoking too much lately? Seriously, trying to follow your postings is rather like trying to push a car up a hill with a limp tallywhacker. Damn near impossible.

Yeah, well, sorry to disappoint you, but I don't take slanderous statements lightly.

Are you for fucking real?

seriously, if you read my past posts, youll notice that i realised id mixed up the appointment of supreme court people and the election of senetors. and i know about the electoral college, the device put in by your founding fathers to safegaurd against people choosing the "wrong" candidate for president .

again, screw you.

and i dont know, because i dont pay attention to flouride in water. i have bigger concerns than people trying to force clean my teeth.

Please help yourself before it's too late! (http://www.bda.org/images/area/about/postcard.jpg)

My dear Brit, the state of your grammar shows you to be of the intelligence of a toothless, Faulknerian Idiot Man-Child.

well, my dear american, when you type fast, y'see, it makes the grammar and spelling go off slightly. now, seeing as im not a pedant, unlike a certain fellow who i may or may not be talking to at the moment, that doesnt particularly matter, as so long as the basic meaning is their, a man, or even a plant, of reasonable intelligence (reasonable for a plant, that is) should be able to decipher the complex, illogical madness of my typing grammar.

again, in short, screw you. :)

Nice retort. :rolleyes:

Have you been smoking too much lately? Seriously, trying to follow your postings is rather like trying to push a car up a hill with a limp tallywhacker. Damn near impossible.

tried have you?
and its either quick retorts or good retorts im afraid. while my typing might not match the world acknowledged literary excellence of american writing, i find it suffices for posting on internet message boards, until the greatest expert on writing, david g hall, comes along and puts me in my place of course.

edit: i was saying i didnt care about the enron donation things, btw, because i think that both your main parties are whoring themselves to big business. on account of their taking money and doing whatever big business wants for a set period of time.

No!

BTW all of your hippie, feel good posts are now down the drain.

That’s right. We are a republic. :D

That’s right. We are a republic. :D

a republic is a nation with no monarch. you get democratic republics, eg the democratic republic of congo (presumably) and undemocratic republics, eg the USSR. you are a democratic republic, ergo you live in a democracy.

Are you for fucking real?
Let's see--my patriotism is challenged by a fuckwit who knows jack shit about me personally. He bases his assertions on his slanted interpretations of what he thinks my political opinions are, and all but accuses me and those who feel as I do of treason. Yeah--I'm for fucking real when I call those accusations slanderous. You got a problem with it?

seeing as how ive been arguing with you all for about 6 hours now, its now 6 in the morning. so im going. unless one of you has posted something particularly dumb, in which case, ill reply. ta ta then, capitalist peegs. :)