NationStates Jolt Archive

If this (http://newsbusters.org/node/2424)isn't the most ridiculous thing I've seen on TV, I don't know what is.

"And so basically, what it looks like is going to happen is that Libby and Karl Rove are going to be executed” because “outing a CIA agent is treason,” left-wing author and radio talk show host Al Franken asserted Friday night, to audience laughter, on CBS’s Late Show with David Letterman.

No one is even going to be indicted for naming Plame. The indictments, if there are any, will be the traditional, Washington types for perjury and obstruction of justice.

The title of this thread is pointless because Idiot spotting on CBS is like going tree spotting in Brazil, or nerd spotting at a Scifi Convention.
You, good sir, have failed at NS.
Have a Nice Day.

The title of this thread is pointless because Idiot spotting on CBS is like going tree spotting in Brazil, or nerd spotting at a Scifi Convention.
You, good sir, have failed at NS.
Have a Nice Day.
If I had a lick of humility, I'd hang my head in shame.

Al Franken wishes. 10 bucks says that Al is such a wuss he hires bodyguards.

When discussing Al Franken, you have to remember that, moreso than Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter or etc, Franken is a comedian. His background is Saturday Night Live, not partisan politics.

So when he says things like that, he says it trying to be funny, not to be literal. (Although conservatives do gravitate toward literal meanings of everything, so I'm not surprised his critics would be upset.) Whether or not it's funny is a whole different argument.

I think the description of "hard-edged satire" is a little too generous. Mindless drivel or verbal vomit suits Al's opinions a lot more.

I think the description of "hard-edged satire" is a little too generous. Mindless drivel or verbal vomit suits Al's opinions a lot more.

well I found it funny. Almost as funny as the response it's elicited from you. :p

I'm not sure Franken is trying to be funny -- I thought so for a while, but after reading and seeing enough of him I think he has a hard, violent edge.

here's an example: http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/27/94253.shtml

I never thought he was funny personally, and his clip on Amazon promoting his book is unfunny too.

BTW, the latest rumor from the NY Times is that it was the CIA who leaked Plame, probably George Tenet himself!

" The ultimate source of information identifying Leakgate accuser Valerie Plame as a CIA employee my turn out to be the CIA itself, the New York Times reported Tuesday.

Notes obtained by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald identify then-CIA Director George Tenet as the person who gave up Plame's secret to the White House, with the Times reporting that Tenet tipped Vice President Dick Cheney to her identity.

However the notes - taken by Cheney's chief of staff Lewis Libby - "contain no suggestion that either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of Ms. Wilson's undercover status or that her identity was classified."

So far, Tenet has neither confirmed nor denied that he was the original source of the Plamegate leak, with the Times reporting that he was "unavailable for comment.""

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/25/120424.shtml

If this (http://newsbusters.org/node/2424)isn't the most ridiculous thing I've seen on TV, I don't know what is.

No one is even going to be indicted for naming Plame. The indictments, if there are any, will be the traditional, Washington types for perjury and obstruction of justice.
Oh my. I see we all need to review the concept of "satire" yet again.

If this (http://newsbusters.org/node/2424)isn't the most ridiculous thing I've seen on TV, I don't know what is.

No one is even going to be indicted for naming Plame. The indictments, if there are any, will be the traditional, Washington types for perjury and obstruction of justice.

1. Learn to recognize a joke.

2. You have no idea what the indictments will be. There are several relevant statutes.

3. Perjury and obstruction of justice are "traditional" now -- as opposed to crimes of the highest order demanding impeachment of a President?

I'm not sure Franken is trying to be funny -- I thought so for a while, but after reading and seeing enough of him I think he has a hard, violent edge.

here's an example: http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/27/94253.shtml

I never thought he was funny personally, and his clip on Amazon promoting his book is unfunny too.

BTW, the latest rumor from the NY Times is that it was the CIA who leaked Plame, probably George Tenet himself!

" The ultimate source of information identifying Leakgate accuser Valerie Plame as a CIA employee my turn out to be the CIA itself, the New York Times reported Tuesday.

Notes obtained by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald identify then-CIA Director George Tenet as the person who gave up Plame's secret to the White House, with the Times reporting that Tenet tipped Vice President Dick Cheney to her identity.

However the notes - taken by Cheney's chief of staff Lewis Libby - "contain no suggestion that either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of Ms. Wilson's undercover status or that her identity was classified."

So far, Tenet has neither confirmed nor denied that he was the original source of the Plamegate leak, with the Times reporting that he was "unavailable for comment.""

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/25/120424.shtml

Keep up the denials. Maybe you can make indictments go away with voodoo dolls.

I see somebody needs to seriously consider investing in a sense of humor, or at the very least, a new brain.

1. Learn to recognize a joke.

2. You have no idea what the indictments will be. There are several relevant statutes.

3. Perjury and obstruction of justice are "traditional" now -- as opposed to crimes of the highest order demanding impeachment of a President?
I know a joke. I just don't have to think it's funny.

What can we bet on the indictments? And yes, I do think that the real purpose of DC Grand Juries is to fish until they can indict someone on either perjury or obstruction charges. Maybe it's not fishing, I hate to demean the sport that way. Maybe it's the consolation prize to the special prosecutor for not being able to indict on the 'big' charges that he was assigned to investigate.

1. Learn to recognize a joke.

2. You have no idea what the indictments will be. There are several relevant statutes.

3. Perjury and obstruction of justice are "traditional" now -- as opposed to crimes of the highest order demanding impeachment of a President?

If we were to have a TV show where a comedian beat, punched, kicked and abused a liberal character (as Franken does in another video), I'm sure the media would be up in arms. But, he can do it to a conservative character, and it's "a joke".

I'll make that 20 bucks that Franken is such a wuss that he has to hire bodyguards.

The site is called: News Busters: Exposing and combating Liberal Media Bias
Fox: Fair and Balanced
They've already lied to you.

[Walks in, sees all the Republican sperm on the floor, quickly walks out again.]

If we were to have a TV show where a comedian beat, punched, kicked and abused a liberal character (as Franken does in another video), I'm sure the media would be up in arms. But, he can do it to a conservative character, and it's "a joke".

I'll make that 20 bucks that Franken is such a wuss that he has to hire bodyguards.

It is so hard being in power. That mean ol' media.

I think it's hilariously funny that right-wingers get their panties into such a twist over anything Al Franken does. He is definitely at the height of his comedy career right now, and you guys are the joke. :D

I think it's hilariously funny that right-wingers get their panties into such a twist over anything Al Franken does. He is definitely at the height of his comedy career right now, and you guys are the joke. :D

Or anything Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan does. Notice that when the right-wingers are in complete control, they have to invent and exaggerate the crimes of their supposed enemies?

Oh my. I see we all need to review the concept of "satire" yet again.

Conservatives have no sense of humor. Comedy is an art completely lost on the entire Right. These, after all, are people who believe Blue Collar TV to be funny.

Conservatives have no sense of humor. Comedy is an art completely lost on the entire Right. These, after all, are people who believe Blue Collar TV to be funny.
See, there's the problem. The old liberal arrogance is driving the definition of what funny is.

It's not that anyone lacks a sense of humor, it's just that we don't share the same "superior" sense of humor that you leftists have. And because we'd rather see jokes about cousin Billy Bob than laugh over who's going to be executed, we just don't get it. And yes, I think Hee-Haw was hilarious.

No, you just don't like being the butt of the joke. When you run around decrying everything Sheehan or Moore or especially Al Franken says, you become the butt of their jokes by playing right into their hands.

No, you just don't like being the butt of the joke. When you run around decrying everything Sheehan or Moore or especially Al Franken says, you become the butt of their jokes by playing right into their hands.
Crazy Cindy is a comedian now? Was last summer one big performance art piece? I just knew that no one could come by that much stupidity naturally.

Crazy Cindy is a comedian now? Was last summer one big performance art piece? I just knew that no one could come by that much stupidity naturally.
I'm sure they could..

No, you just don't like being the butt of the joke. When you run around decrying everything Sheehan or Moore or especially Al Franken says, you become the butt of their jokes by playing right into their hands.
It's one thing to be the butt of a joke that's funny. It's another thing to be the butt of a joke that depends on the listener's acceptance of violence or crudity to make it funny. It's the latter kind of jokes that unfortunately seem to be the norm nowadays. I can see where you might be confused about what should be funny.

It's one thing to be the butt of a joke that's funny. It's another thing to be the butt of a joke that depends on the listener's acceptance of violence or crudity to make it funny. It's the latter kind of jokes that unfortunately seem to be the norm nowadays. I can see where you might be confused about what should be funny.

Here's an example of what Myrmidonisia and I don't find funny. If Ann Coulter had a skit where she beat a parody of Cindy Sheehan like this, I'm sure the media would be boiling with furor.

http://wm.amazon.usa.speedera.net/wm.amazon.usa/books/AMAZON_V6_crop_100k.wmv

Crazy Cindy is a comedian now? Was last summer one big performance art piece? I just knew that no one could come by that much stupidity naturally.
Actually, you'd be surprised.

See, there's the problem. The old liberal arrogance is driving the definition of what funny is.

No ... history and the arts have proven what is to be considered comedy. Tragedy is comedy. Toilet jokes and whatnot are merely diversion, not comedy.

It's not arrogance, it's called "education".

No ... history and the arts have proven what is to be considered comedy. Tragedy is comedy. Toilet jokes and whatnot are merely diversion, not comedy.

It's not arrogance, it's called "education".
Okay, if you can call Franken's schtick 'comedy', you have achieved a level of education that I just can't aspire to.

Okay, if you can call Franken's schtick 'comedy', you have achieved a level of education that I just can't aspire to.

Indeed. I thought his books were very funny, but I can't stand him in person.

Indeed. I thought his books were very funny, but I can't stand him in person.
Careful ... You're going to be labeled Conservative and Uneducated. What's the russian word? Nekulturny?

I remember Al Franken's career - when it began shortly after the original Not Ready For Primetime Players left Saturday Night Live.

In a word, he sucked.

He wasn't funny at all then, even before he started being "political". And it's clear from his comments on Air America that he is incredibly ignorant.

While it would be funny if we knew he actually had a real mental disability such as Alzheimer's or Down's Syndrome, and was encouraging us to laugh at his ignorance, it isn't remotely funny.

He still sucks as a comedian - so badly, in fact, that I am surprised that anyone would consider hiring him for that purpose.

Here's an example of what Myrmidonisia and I don't find funny. If Ann Coulter had a skit where she beat a parody of Cindy Sheehan like this, I'm sure the media would be boiling with furor.

http://wm.amazon.usa.speedera.net/wm.amazon.usa/books/AMAZON_V6_crop_100k.wmv
The indignation is just a touch hard to swallow coming from a cat who's named himself after a device designed to violently damage flesh.


Maybe it's just me.

The indignation is just a touch hard to swallow coming from a cat who's named himself after a device designed to violently damage flesh.
Maybe it's just me.

Maybe it's just your lack of knowledge about boat-tailed hollowpoints.

The "hollowpoint" in question is really an airspace inside an enclosed tip - not the hollowpoint you are thinking of.

Sierra designed this airspace inside the tip solely for the purpose of balance - the bullet flies better if the mass is centered more towards the rear.

On impact, the Sierra BTHP does not expand, as other hollowpoints do.

So maybe you need to remove your comment, "designed to violently damage flesh" as it is erroneous in the extreme.

Maybe it's just your lack of knowledge about boat-tailed hollowpoints.

The "hollowpoint" in question is really an airspace inside an enclosed tip - not the hollowpoint you are thinking of.

Sierra designed this airspace inside the tip solely for the purpose of balance - the bullet flies better if the mass is centered more towards the rear.

On impact, the Sierra BTHP does not expand, as other hollowpoints do.

So maybe you need to remove your comment, "designed to violently damage flesh" as it is erroneous in the extreme.
You're right-that makes all the difference. It's clear to me that it is a healing bullet meant for love.

I was just at a forum I frequent, and a guys said "next liberal I see I'm gonna kick him in the nuts, just so I feel better." Or maybe it was hippy, I forget.

Anybody approve of that statement?

See, maybe he didn't mean that literally... or did he?

probably just a joke...

But you know for sure how he feels about liberals, that he regards them as a lesser human being.

I'd prefer to disagree civilly on matters politic and not to punch anyone... how about you?

You're right-that makes all the difference. It's clear to me that it is a healing bullet meant for love.

now that's funny

You're right-that makes all the difference. It's clear to me that it is a healing bullet meant for love.

You obviously have no idea what the bullet in question was designed for.

Long range 1000 yard competition shooting - at paper

You obviously have no idea what the bullet in question was designed for.

Long range 1000 yard competition shooting - at paper

although it has been used for hunting (http://www.benchrest.com/forums/printthread.php?t=6187)

Here's an example of what Myrmidonisia and I don't find funny. If Ann Coulter had a skit where she beat a parody of Cindy Sheehan like this, I'm sure the media would be boiling with furor.

http://wm.amazon.usa.speedera.net/wm.amazon.usa/books/AMAZON_V6_crop_100k.wmv


That was hilarious. Thanks for sharing.

See, there's the problem. The old liberal arrogance is driving the definition of what funny is.

It's not that anyone lacks a sense of humor, it's just that we don't share the same "superior" sense of humor that you leftists have. And because we'd rather see jokes about cousin Billy Bob than laugh over who's going to be executed, we just don't get it. And yes, I think Hee-Haw was hilarious.
Point proven. And thanks for the acknowledgement that our sense of humor is superior. :p

That was hilarious. Thanks for sharing.

Would you find it equally hilarious if Ann Coulter were beating a parody of Cindy Sheehan?

Or a white supremacist were beating a black man who was asking for the right to speak?

The indignation is just a touch hard to swallow coming from a cat who's named himself after a device designed to violently damage flesh.


Maybe it's just me.
Irony is funny, too. Hell, everything right-wingers do is funny.

Would you find it equally hilarious if Ann Coulter were beating a parody of Cindy Sheehan?

Or a white supremacist were beating a black man who was asking for the right to speak?


the difference being that the right-winger actually deserved the beating :p

Would you find it equally hilarious if Ann Coulter were beating a parody of Cindy Sheehan?

Or a white supremacist were beating a black man who was asking for the right to speak?


Nice try, but neither is an apt analogy.

The second is a particularly offensive reach.

Nothing vaguely like that was done in the clip -- which is all clearly a joke.

You obviously have no idea what the bullet in question was designed for.

Long range 1000 yard competition shooting - at paper
Bullets designed to shoot at paper -- AHAHAHAHAHA!! OMG, this guy's a riot! Way funnier than Franken.

Nice try, but neither is an apt analogy.

The second is a particularly offensive reach.

Nothing vaguely like that was done in the clip -- which is all clearly a joke.

I found the video to be particularly offensive and I do not find the analogy a reach. And I find the abuse of a person based on their political beliefs to be absolutely offensive.

I found the video to be particularly offensive and I do not find the analogy a reach. And I find the abuse of a person based on their political beliefs to be absolutely offensive.

If you truly have your knickers in a knot over that, try reading something Ann Coulter has written. Like all liberals are traitors.

It is obvious in the "ad" that the guy is "beaten" for not liking Al Franken and his book -- NOT merely because of his political beliefs. You are deliberately twisting things to make them seem more offensive.

You don't have a right to never be offended. Particularly if you are going to be so absurd about it.

I found the video to be particularly offensive and I do not find the analogy a reach. And I find the abuse of a person based on their political beliefs to be absolutely offensive.


To me it was obvious that Franken attacked him for saying he wasnt funny and giving his book a bad rating.

If you truly have your knickers in a knot over that, try reading something Ann Coulter has written. Like all liberals are traitors.

It is obvious in the "ad" that the guy is "beaten" for not liking Al Franken and his book -- NOT merely because of his political beliefs. You are deliberately twisting things to make them seem more offensive.

You don't have a right to never be offended. Particularly if you are going to be so absurd about it.

I'm not saying I have a right not to be offended. I'm saying I have a right to be offended and to say I'm offended. And it's not twisting.

Why not have someone who is an obvious Democrat beatedn for not liking Al Franken and his books?

I've read all of Ann Coulter's books. And I haven't found them to be offensive. Maybe if you had actually read one (such as Slander) you might find it factual. So far, I haven't found ANY factual inaccuracies in that particular book.

And it's not presented as humor.

I found the video to be particularly offensive and I do not find the analogy a reach. And I find the abuse of a person based on their political beliefs to be absolutely offensive.

Not to mention unamerican.

Aren't we supposed to be a nation that upholds the right to free speech? Seems like people want to limit that and most of that voice is coming from the liberal side of the house!

Would you find it equally hilarious if Ann Coulter were beating a parody of Cindy Sheehan?

Or a white supremacist were beating a black man who was asking for the right to speak?
Typically of those who hold power but still want the privileges of victimhood, Sierra pretends that he doesn't know that the traditions of humor allow the underdog character to do terrible (fictional) things to the top cat character and get a laugh out of it, but not the other way around. Why? Because, clearly, the underdog is not able to oppress the top cat in real life, so the joke is about acknowledging injustice. If the top cat makes a joke about oppressing the underdog, then that's just bragging about real injustices.

But, if the rightwingers were to acknowledge that they have control of the government, the military, the high courts, the schools, and much of the law, then they wouldn't be able to keep crying about how "oppressed" they are and how they have to keep taking away our rights in order to "protect" theirs.

EDIT: Mel Brooks on the difference between tragedy and comedy: "I trip and stub my toe -- that's tragedy. You fall down a manhole and die -- that's comedy." Face it, we will always laugh at you. Deal with it.

Typically of those who hold power but still want the privileges of victimhood, Sierra pretends that he doesn't know that the traditions of humor allow the underdog character to do terrible (fictional) things to the top cat character and get a laugh out of it, but not the other way around. Why? Because, clearly, the underdog is not able to oppress the top cat in real life, so the joke is about acknowledging injustice. If the top cat makes a joke about oppressing the underdog, then that's just bragging about real injustices.

But, if the rightwingers were to acknowledge that they have control of the government, the military, the high courts, the schools, and much of the law, then they wouldn't be able to keep crying about how "oppressed" they are and how they have to keep taking away our rights in order to "protect" theirs.


marvelous point - beautifully made

But, if the rightwingers were to acknowledge that they have control of the government, the military, the high courts, the schools, and much of the law, then they wouldn't be able to keep crying about how "oppressed" they are and how they have to keep taking away our rights in order to "protect" theirs.

The people elected the government. Are you saying that is an injustice?

The people who enlist and serve in our government are nearly 80 percent Republicans. Are you saying that the mere act of them volunteering in those numbers (as opposed to Democrats who generally loathe military service) is somehow an injustice?

Last I remembered, the 9th Circuit wasn't a conservative court. Not even remotely.

And the schools in our area don't seem to be too Republican either. They have a level of political correctness that you would find eminently satisfying.

What rights am I taking away from you? My children are forbidden to pray aloud alone in school - if they were Muslims, this would be different, and they would be given a room to do it in, along with a teacher to supervise them. Did I just have my rights and the rights of my child taken away? I wouldn't mind if it was equally applied - no prayer for anyone - but it doesn't work that way. The local ACLU says they won't get involved - the local rep says that he's happy the school system is looking after Muslim sensibilities.

Last I remember, Democrats in Virginia wanted to take away the rights of people to carry concealed - even though it has demonstrably lowered crime rates here.

What right am I taking away from you?

I'm not saying I have a right not to be offended. I'm saying I have a right to be offended and to say I'm offended. And it's not twisting.

Why not have someone who is an obvious Democrat beatedn for not liking Al Franken and his books?

I've read all of Ann Coulter's books. And I haven't found them to be offensive. Maybe if you had actually read one (such as Slander) you might find it factual. So far, I haven't found ANY factual inaccuracies in that particular book.

And it's not presented as humor.

Then you didn't actually check the footnotes.

I've read Coulter also. She lies all the time.

The people elected the government. Are you saying that is an injustice?

The people who enlist and serve in our government are nearly 80 percent Republicans. Are you saying that the mere act of them volunteering in those numbers (as opposed to Democrats who generally loathe military service) is somehow an injustice?

Last I remembered, the 9th Circuit wasn't a conservative court. Not even remotely.

And the schools in our area don't seem to be too Republican either. They have a level of political correctness that you would find eminently satisfying.

What rights am I taking away from you? My children are forbidden to pray aloud alone in school - if they were Muslims, this would be different, and they would be given a room to do it in, along with a teacher to supervise them. Did I just have my rights and the rights of my child taken away? I wouldn't mind if it was equally applied - no prayer for anyone - but it doesn't work that way. The local ACLU says they won't get involved - the local rep says that he's happy the school system is looking after Muslim sensibilities.

Last I remember, Democrats in Virginia wanted to take away the rights of people to carry concealed - even though it has demonstrably lowered crime rates here.

What right am I taking away from you?
Wah-wah-wah, I don't have enough power yet, I can't do absolutely everything I want right this very minute.

What right of mine are you taking away? My right to live in ignorance of your existence, you yappy little sleeve-tugger. Quit making yourself(ves) the center of attention.

Then you didn't actually check the footnotes.

I've read Coulter also. She lies all the time.

I most certainly did. I went over Slander with a fine-toothed comb, because I had heard so many liberals in my office say it was full of lies.

Unfortunately, one of my fellow lawyers here (who hates Coulter) and I went over the book together.

Could not find ONE lie in the book.

Al Franken !!!!! <3<3<3<#<#<#!!! snl era!!!! rawr!!!

anywho..

I've heard worse things on fox news channel.

Al Franken !!!!! <3<3<3<#<#<#!!! snl era!!!! rawr!!!

anywho..

I've heard worse things on fox news channel.

The main difference is that they don't make light of killing the members of the political opposition.

The main difference is that they don't make light of killing the members of the political opposition.


Neither did Franken.

Quit stretching the facts.

[QUOTE=Sierra BTHP]The people elected the government. Are you saying that is an injustice?
QUOTE]
It is to the nearly half of the population who oppose the right wing and who are condemned as unpatriotic and pro-terrorist for it. More important, it is and injustice to me. I feel myself to be terribly oppressed -- by you -- personally -- but at least I can find a little humor in it.

The people elected the government. Are you saying that is an injustice?

It is to the nearly half of the population who oppose the right wing and who are condemned as unpatriotic and pro-terrorist for it. More important, it is and injustice to me. I feel myself to be terribly oppressed -- by you -- personally -- but at least I can find a little humor in it.

So you are saying that because Bush got the MAJORITY of the vote as well as the Electoral College, he shouldn't be president?

Neither did Franken.

Quit stretching the facts.
If he says that people will be "executed", he's making light of killing them. He's said that Karl Rove and Libby will be executed.

Are you saying he never said that on the Today Show? If you don't believe me, I'll send you a link to the video for that.

If he says that people will be "executed", he's making light of killing them. He's said that Karl Rove and Libby will be executed.

Even I wouldn't crack a joke like that.

Are you saying he never said that on the Today Show? If you don't believe me, I'll send you a link to the video for that.

Psst: He is misunderstanding the whole thing.

If he says that people will be "executed", he's making light of killing them. He's said that Karl Rove and Libby will be executed.

Are you saying he never said that on the Today Show? If you don't believe me, I'll send you a link to the video for that.

You are twisting what was said and taking it of context.

Moreoever, Ann Coulter has said that liberals are traitors and should be executed.

You appear to apply a double standard in your outrage.

You are twisting what was said and taking it of context.

Moreoever, Ann Coulter has said that liberals are traitors and should be executed.

You appear to apply a double standard in your outrage.

I'm not twisting what was said on the Today Show. Not at all.

Haven't read anything about executing liberals in an Ann Coulter book.

You are twisting what was said and taking it of context.

Moreoever, Ann Coulter has said that liberals are traitors and should be executed.

You appear to apply a double standard in your outrage.
Here's the exchange on "The Late Show". It doesn't look like there's any doubt about the context, here.

David Letterman: “The feeling was that this report made the administration's decision to go to war look bad-”

Al Franken: “Right. So they wanted to smear the guy who came back with the report, and so they out his wife and said she sent him there. This is essentially, you know, George H.W. Bush, the President's father, was the head of the CIA and he has said that outing a CIA agent is treason.”

Letterman: “It is treason, yes.”

Franken: “And so basically, what it looks like is going to happen is that Libby and Karl Rove are going to be executed."

[audience laughter over Letterman’s response]

Letterman, in mock indignation: “What? What! Really?”

Franken cautioned: “Yeah. And I don't know how I feel about it because I'm basically against the death penalty, but they are going to be executed it looks like.”

So you are saying that because Bush got the MAJORITY of the vote as well as the Electoral College, he shouldn't be president?
If that was what I was saying, then I would have said it. As anyone who has read my posts will tell you, I don't need to have words put in my mouth. There are already plenty in there.

What I was saying is that the (narrow) majority currently in charge are having their way and walking all over the (quite large) minority to do it, all the while whining about how their rights are being suppressed, at the same time as they censor my media, try to impose their religion on my education, try to silence my political statements, etc, etc.

Unlike right-wingers, I personally don't believe in telling other people how to live, so if you all want to send this country into the crapper, go right ahead, but one thing I cannot tolerate anymore is this incessant, right-wing whining.

at the same time as they censor my media, try to impose their religion on my education, try to silence my political statements, etc, etc.


Censor the media? Source please.

Silence your political statements? Have any government agents arrested and interrogated you, or searched your residence?

Impose their religion? From the Federal level? I think not.

In fact, it appears that from the Federal level, the opposite of imposing "their" religion is happenning - in our public schools in Maryland and Virginia, Muslims are getting a free ride with public group prayer during school hours while everyone else has to clam up.

If that was what I was saying, then I would have said it. As anyone who has read my posts will tell you, I don't need to have words put in my mouth. There are already plenty in there.

YOu were implying it when you stated yourself that it was an injustice that Bush got re-elected. Don't even try to wiggle yourself out of it. Your already on record so its no use.

What I was saying is that the (narrow) majority currently in charge are having their way and walking all over the (quite large) minority to do it, all the while whining about how their rights are being suppressed, at the same time as they censor my media, try to impose their religion on my education, try to silence my political statements, etc, etc.

I haven't seen none of that! Media getting censored? In what why? Trying to impose religious education? How? With intelligent design? Please.... Silencing your political Statements? Now I"m laughing to death.

Unlike right-wingers, I personally don't believe in telling other people how to live, so if you all want to send this country into the crapper, go right ahead, but one thing I cannot tolerate anymore is this incessant, right-wing whining.

Are a liberal democrat by chance? Be honest please.

The main difference is that they don't make light of killing the members of the political opposition.
WE HAVE A WINNER -- First prize to the bitterly ironic joke of the thread!!!

Sierra complaining about someone saying they want to kill someone. Takes my frigging breath away.

WE HAVE A WINNER -- First prize to the bitterly ironic joke of the thread!!!

Sierra complaining about someone saying they want to kill someone. Takes my frigging breath away.

Maybe that's because I'm one of those who never jokes about it.

Maybe that's because I'm one of those who never jokes about it.

You have openly advocated it when it comes to those we are fighting in Iraq and are captured or are imprisoned at Gitmo.

Censor the media? Source please.

Silence your political statements? Have any government agents arrested and interrogated you, or searched your residence?

Impose their religion? From the Federal level? I think not.

In fact, it appears that from the Federal level, the opposite of imposing "their" religion is happenning - in our public schools in Maryland and Virginia, Muslims are getting a free ride with public group prayer during school hours while everyone else has to clam up.
Are you being deliberately uncooperative or do you have reading problems? I said "try to." I said the narrow majority are trying to do these things. Not the government is succeeding in doing these things. My god, it's a chore to argue with you.

1. Unfair application of FCC censorship rules in the wake of the Janet Jackson nipple horror (1000s of sources).

2. You try to silence me and others with (clumsy) attempts at intimidation and accusation in these forums.

3. In a country with separation between church and state, the imposition of any religion is an oppression of my rights to be free of governmental establishment of religion.

(PS: We all know how you feel about Muslims, and it has nothing to do with school prayer or the rights of right-wingers. You're being as straightforward as Anne Coulter just now.)

You have openly advocated it when it comes to those we are fighting in Iraq and are captured or are imprisoned at Gitmo.

And those that are true illegal combatants can be legally sumarily executed.

I see somebody needs to seriously consider investing in a sense of humor, or at the very least, a new brain.

Exactly. Sheesh people, lighten up a little bit. It might have been in bad taste, but it was just a joke.

And those that are true illegal combatants can be legally sumarily executed.
Which has nothing to do with the argument here.

One poster who argued for the killing of people gets upset when someone else argues for the killing of people. Oh the irony!

Which has nothing to do with the argument here.

One poster who argued for the killing of people gets upset when someone else argues for the killing of people. Oh the irony!

Ahh but when you are argueing to execute those that deserve to be executed, it changes things.

However, Rove and Libby wont be indicted and won't be charged with treason so they won't be put to death so it is a moot point.

Are you being deliberately uncooperative or do you have reading problems? I said "try to." I said the narrow majority are trying to do these things. Not the government is succeeding in doing these things. My god, it's a chore to argue with you.

1. Unfair application of FCC censorship rules in the wake of the Janet Jackson nipple horror (1000s of sources).

If people complain, the government has to act. It's in the FCC regulations. You must ask yourself who started the FCC, and who voted to continue to fund an essentially useless organization. In my mind, there is no need for an FCC.

2. You try to silence me and others with (clumsy) attempts at intimidation and accusation in these forums.
Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm trying to intimidate or accuse you. This is a place for frank discussion - get used to people who don't agree with you or think differently than you do.

3. In a country with separation between church and state, the imposition of any religion is an oppression of my rights to be free of governmental establishment of religion.

(PS: We all know how you feel about Muslims, and it has nothing to do with school prayer or the rights of right-wingers. You're being as straightforward as Anne Coulter just now.)
As far as I'm concerned, no one should have the right to pray aloud in groups during school hours - and this is the way it's been for years - suddenly, we're making an exception for Muslims in the wake of 9-11.

I don't have anything against Muslims, except the ones who shot at me (and none of them survived the experience). I can't say that they shot at me because they were Muslims, either. But I do have a problem with anyone who says, "well, this religion can pray but yours can't".

And it does bother my daughter.

Maybe that's because I'm one of those who never jokes about it.


exactly - you are serious when you say you want people killed. thats way worse/scarier than making a joke about someone getting the death penalty.

oh and if you want an example of peoples right to free speech being taken away, just do a bit of research on anti-war activists being put on no-fly lists as if they are terrorists. I'm sure you will try to find a way to say that that isn't an attempt to suppress free speech though.

YOu were implying it when you stated yourself that it was an injustice that Bush got re-elected. Don't even try to wiggle yourself out of it. Your already on record so its no use.



I haven't seen none of that! Media getting censored? In what why? Trying to impose religious education? How? With intelligent design? Please.... Silencing your political Statements? Now I"m laughing to death.



Are a liberal democrat by chance? Be honest please.
1. Once again, I don't imply things, I say them. Bush is a lying, cheating, filthy whore and so are all his friends. Happy now? But in my earlier threads, I said precisely what I meant to say and nothing more.

2. As for your second set of objections, see my response to Sierra on the same topic.

3. Finally, yes, I believe in democracy. No, I am not a member of the Democratic party because political parties are not my bag. Yes, I am a social liberal, and anybody who doesn't like it can kiss my red white and blue ass. You can say it like it's an insult all day long; I'm not ashamed of anything I do because I don't do shameful things.

And those that are true illegal combatants can be legally sumarily executed.
Thanks for reminding me why I quit talking to you. I'll recommence now.

Ahh but when you are argueing to execute those that deserve to be executed, it changes things.

However, Rove and Libby wont be indicted and won't be charged with treason so they won't be put to death so it is a moot point.
Let's not go into that again... Suffice to say that some Gitmo prisoners were/are there under false pretense and are actually innocent.

Let's just say that Sierra gets upset because it was mentionned that Rove and Libby commited treason (about as credible as your claim on the Gitmo prisoners) and will therefore be executed (just like you did for the Gitmo prisoners).

Are you the only one who doesn't see the blatant similarities between the two events? Please, tell you just have woken up and are not up to your full mental sharpness. Because the two situations are almost identical.

1. Once again, I don't imply things, I say them. Bush is a lying, cheating, filthy whore and so are all his friends. Happy now? But in my earlier threads, I said precisely what I meant to say and nothing more.

However, you implied here. Don't bother trying to hide it. Its ok to imply things. I know you implied it.

2. As for your second set of objections, see my response to Sierra on the same topic.

See Sierra's response to those.

3. Finally, yes, I believe in democracy. No, I am not a member of the Democratic party because political parties are not my bag. Yes, I am a social liberal, and anybody who doesn't like it can kiss my red white and blue ass. You can say it like it's an insult all day long; I'm not ashamed of anything I do because I don't do shameful things.

At least your honest. However, liberals have been trying to force things on the American people for years. Alot longer than Congress has come to think of it.

exactly - you are serious when you say you want people killed. thats way worse/scarier than making a joke about someone getting the death penalty.

oh and if you want an example of peoples right to free speech being taken away, just do a bit of research on anti-war activists being put on no-fly lists as if they are terrorists. I'm sure you will try to find a way to say that that isn't an attempt to suppress free speech though.

You should be far more afraid of the people that joke about it.

Those are the people who are most likely to do it on a whim.

Repeated psychological testing by the Army indicates that of all the people who are around, I'm one of the people MOST UNLIKELY to kill out of hand or on the spur of the moment, or with a complete lack of judgment.

That, and having killed before, I know what it's like. It's not a joke.

Thanks for reminding me why I quit talking to you. I'll recommence now.

Actually, it is perfectly legal to do so under international law to execute illegal combatants sumarily.

<snip>
I don't have anything against Muslims, except the ones who shot at me (and none of them survived the experience). I can't say that they shot at me because they were Muslims, either. But I do have a problem with anyone who says, "well, this religion can pray but yours can't".

And it does bother my daughter.
big, hairy fib.

And those that are true illegal combatants can be legally sumarily executed.

oh? so they went ahead and put them on trial and found them guilty?

Let's not go into that again... Suffice to say that some Gitmo prisoners were/are there under false pretense and are actually innocent.

And most of those have been released.

Let's just say that Sierra gets upset because it was mentionned that Rove and Libby commited treason (about as credible as your claim on the Gitmo prisoners) and will therefore be executed (just like you did for the Gitmo prisoners).

If its been proven that they committed treason (so far no proof has been released to this and I doubt they did) then they should be executed.

Are you the only one who doesn't see the blatant similarities between the two events? Please, tell you just have woken up and are not up to your full mental sharpness. Because the two situations are almost identical.

I at least know the difference between the real world and a witch hunt. Do you?

oh? so they went ahead and put them on trial and found them guilty?

Sumarily executed means, NO TRIAL!!!!! You are just shot.

Is that simplistic enough?

big, hairy fib.
What evidence do you have?

I've got an idea - why don't you come to Herndon and spend the week at my house.

You'll find out how many Muslim friends I have - more than most people on this forum, I would bet.

My lifelong best friend is a cotton dealer in Cairo who routinely travels here. He was formerly a junior officer in the Egyptian Army. And a devout Muslim.

He's also skinned people alive. But we get along great, because both he and I understand the hard things in life.

All you can do is stand there and say "fib".

You should be far more afraid of the people that joke about it.

Those are the people who are most likely to do it on a whim.

Repeated psychological testing by the Army indicates that of all the people who are around, I'm one of the people MOST UNLIKELY to kill out of hand or on the spur of the moment, or with a complete lack of judgment.

That, and having killed before, I know what it's like. It's not a joke.

Really? Are you just pullign that out of your ass or are there some specific studies that you can point to that show that people who makes jokes about people getting the death penalty because of treason are far more likely to kill someone on a whim (lol) than someone like you who loves guns, has killed people and feels justified in having done so?

I'd like to see thsoe studies please.

And most of those have been released.
Besides the point like I said. It changes nothing to the analogy.

If its been proven that they committed treason (so far no proof has been released to this and I doubt they did) then they should be executed.
Besides the point.


I at least know the difference between the real world and a witch hunt. Do you?
Besides the point. And your condescending tone is totally uncalled for.

Let me reiterate the point:
It is ironic to see Sierra whine about the comment of Mr. Franken while making similar comments on another group of people.

That is all. Veracity and witch-hunt has nothing to with the fact that Sierra is being hypocritical.

Really? Are you just pullign that out of your ass or are there some specific studies that you can point to that show that people who makes jokes about people getting the death penalty because of treason are far more likely to kill someone on a whim (lol) than someone like you who loves guns, has killed people and feels justified in having done so?

I'd like to see thsoe studies please.

You go through those psychological examinations in the US Army in order to qualify to go to sniper school.

And they constantly re-test you.

They have the studies and the data. They have to absolutely know that you won't go off and do this on your own. And they have to know that you'll do it when they require it.

Notice that no one who went to the US Army Sniper School ever went out and did it on their own afterwards as a civilian. Not one.

Even the guy who did the "DC Sniper" was not someone trained by the US Army or Marine Corps Sniper School. He was a wannabe who couldn't pass selection.

However, you implied here. Don't bother trying to hide it. Its ok to imply things. I know you implied it.



See Sierra's response to those.



At least your honest. However, liberals have been trying to force things on the American people for years. Alot longer than Congress has come to think of it.
Either you don't know what the word "imply" means, or, like most right-wingers, you are merely assigning a meaning to my words and you intend to keep repeating it until people get tired of arguing with you.

You know what? I'm not really liberal enough to care if you feel like you were being oppressed by the abolition of segregation or applications of rules of evidence or the right of women and minorities to sue for workplace discrimination. I'm not liberal enough to want to make room in my immediate presence for people who wish to oppress me (since I put myself in the same camp as those whom those laws protect). If you're arguing that the right-wingers have the right to oppress the left-wingers because "the other guys started it," well, that's typical modern right-wing thinking. First, complaining that, if blacks, women, minorities have rights that, somehow, you don't, and second, using the same kind of justification as a bunch of 8 year olds in a schoolyard fight.

One last point, when you say liberals have been imposing on the country longer than Congress has, do you mean since before 1776?

Notice that I ask you what you mean, rather than try to tell you.

Really? Are you just pullign that out of your ass or are there some specific studies that you can point to that show that people who makes jokes about people getting the death penalty because of treason are far more likely to kill someone on a whim (lol) than someone like you who loves guns, has killed people and feels justified in having done so?

I'd like to see thsoe studies please.

You go through those psychological examinations in the US Army in order to qualify to go to sniper school.

And they constantly re-test you.

They have the studies and the data. They have to absolutely know that you won't go off and do this on your own. And they have to know that you'll do it when they require it.

Notice that no one who went to the US Army Sniper School ever went out and did it on their own afterwards as a civilian. Not one.

Even the guy who did the "DC Sniper" was not someone trained by the US Army or Marine Corps Sniper School. He was a wannabe who couldn't pass selection.

What evidence do you have?

I've got an idea - why don't you come to Herndon and spend the week at my house.

You'll find out how many Muslim friends I have - more than most people on this forum, I would bet.

My lifelong best friend is a cotton dealer in Cairo who routinely travels here. He was formerly a junior officer in the Egyptian Army. And a devout Muslim.

He's also skinned people alive. But we get along great, because both he and I understand the hard things in life.

All you can do is stand there and say "fib".
Fortunately, I don't know you personally, so I only base my "fib" remark on your previous posts in foreign policy/terrorism threads (except for one recent one in which we all knew we were talking to Arab Muslims). Your statements are numerous and on record. But I may have misinterpreted you. You may merely advocate genocide against Muslim populations because you like to kill people and they happen to be an approved target, but not because they're Muslims.

But once again, you're trying to force me to talk to you. This is the last post you'll get out of me. Say to or about me anything you like.

And that's it for Muravyets tonight. I am the hell out of this office, and I've got more important things to do tonight than defend Al Franken.

Try to keep up the vitriol so I'll have lots to respond to instead of doing my work tomorrow.

A domani.

Actually, it is perfectly legal to do so under international law to execute illegal combatants sumarily.
One quick additonal note as a point of order, and then I'm off: I didn't say it was illegal (though your point is arguable at the least). I said it was the reason I don't talk to Sierra. You know, if you like, for Christmas I'll buy you one those ventriloquist's dummies, so you can spend all day making your words come out of someone else's mouth, and nobody will give you an argument about it.

It's not that anyone lacks a sense of humor, it's just that we don't share the same "superior" sense of humor that you leftists have. And because we'd rather see jokes about cousin Billy Bob than laugh over who's going to be executed, we just don't get it. And yes, I think Hee-Haw was hilarious.
Since when is the intellectual sophistication of someone's sense of humour related to their politics? It looks to me like yet another Republican's attempt to paint US liberals as a group of elitist aristocrats, with the purpose of pretending that all normal people like Bush.

That said, I don't think that Al Franken is that funny. (Except for Operation Chickenhawk, which was hilarious.)

Here's an example of what Myrmidonisia and I don't find funny. If Ann Coulter had a skit where she beat a parody of Cindy Sheehan like this, I'm sure the media would be boiling with furor.

http://wm.amazon.usa.speedera.net/wm.amazon.usa/books/AMAZON_V6_crop_100k.wmv
People often try to 'prove' points, such as bias, by talking about what they are "sure would happen" under this and that circumstance. That's not arguing, it's just a meaningless, groundless assertion.

I've read all of Ann Coulter's books. And I haven't found them to be offensive. Maybe if you had actually read one (such as Slander) you might find it factual. So far, I haven't found ANY factual inaccuracies in that particular book.

And it's not presented as humor.
What? Coulter's writing is so angry and ranting that I assumed that it was meant to be humour.

And the schools in our area don't seem to be too Republican either. They have a level of political correctness that you would find eminently satisfying.
Republicans are also agenst of political correctness.

Aren't we supposed to be a nation that upholds the right to free speech? Seems like people want to limit that and most of that voice is coming from the liberal side of the house!
No, they are not. And if they are, then they are not liberal.

Why, in the supposedly free nation of the USA are people always pigeonholed into just two political groups?

When discussing Al Franken, you have to remember that, moreso than Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter or etc, Franken is a comedian. His background is Saturday Night Live, not partisan politics.

So when he says things like that, he says it trying to be funny, not to be literal. (Although conservatives do gravitate toward literal meanings of everything, so I'm not surprised his critics would be upset.) Whether or not it's funny is a whole different argument.
The reason conservatives react the way they do to his jokes is because they are so bad, you don't laugh. If you don't laugh, it's not a joke.

And those that are true illegal combatants can be legally sumarily executed.


Bullshit.

I challenge you to cite the exact provision of law that says that.

Bullshit.

I challenge you to cite the exact provision of law that says that.

Its always been like that. Its called CUSTOM!!!! As I have stated before, Custom is International Law. Combatants that don't wear uniforms or have a symbol on them, can be shot on site.

Its always been like that. Its called CUSTOM!!!! As I have stated before, Custom is International Law. Combatants that don't wear uniforms or have a symbol on them, can be shot on site.

Bullshit.

There are many provisions of international law to which the U.S. is a party that says you can't do this.

You are simply making things up.

Bullshit.

There are many provisions of international law to which the U.S. is a party that says you can't do this.

You are simply making things up.

Actually, I'm not making this up. Legally, they are irregulars. Irregulars can be shot without trial.

This is a fact wether you want to acknowledge it or not. I don't honestly care if you believe it or not.

Actually, I'm not making this up. Legally, they are irregulars. Irregulars can be shot without trial.

This is a fact wether you want to acknowledge it or not. I don't honestly care if you believe it or not.

I've proven this wrong in these forums before.

Moreoever, you refuse to meet my challenge of actual evidence.

That you believe it to be true does not make it so.

I've proven this wrong in these forums before.

Moreoever, you refuse to meet my challenge of actual evidence.

That you believe it to be true does not make it so.

Sorry but no. You haven't.

Have a nice day Cat-Tribe. I'll believe the military over you any day of the week.

I'll believe the military over you any day of the week.
A mark of some one already military.

Sorry but no. You haven't.

Have a nice day Cat-Tribe. I'll believe the military over you any day of the week.

Can you actually provide an example where the military said it was okay to do what you're saying they can?

A mark of some one already military.

I've been around the military my whole entire life.

I've been around the military my whole entire life.
Making you a very objective person of course.

Making you a very objective person of course.

Actually yes. Why? Because I learn from listening to the people who have gone overseas and lived overseas. They tell me the cultures of locations they've been too and what it was like. An interesting education everytime. I always learn something new.

It also gives me an insight into the rules of war as well.

U.S. ENEMY PRISONER OF WAR (EPW) AND CIVILIAN INTERNEE (CI) OPERATIONS INSTRUCTIONS

Basic U.S. policy underlying the treatment accorded EPW and all other enemy personnel captured, interned, or otherwise held in U.S. Army custody during the course of a conflict requires and directs that all such personnel be accorded humanitarian care and treatment from the moment of custody until final release or repatriation. The observance of this policy is fully and equally binding upon U.S. personnel, whether capturing troops, custodial personnel, or in whatever other capacity they may be serving. This policy is equally applicable for the protection of all detained or interned personnel, whether their status is that of prisoner of war, civilian internee, or any other category. It is applicable whether they are known to have, or are suspected of having, committed serious offenses which could be characterized as a war crime. The punishment of such persons is administered by due process of law and under the legally constituted authority. The administration of inhumane treatment, even if committed under stress of combat and with deep provocation, is a serious and punishable violation under national law, international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Violations of this policy, and the laws and regulations may result in an individual being prosecuted as a war criminal. Anyone observing a violation of law, or suspecting one has happened, has a positive legal obligation to report it to appropriate authorities. Failure to do so is a violation in itself. Continued (https://hosta.atsc.eustis.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/accp/mp1032/toc.htm)
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/ar190-8.pdf

Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949. (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/fe20c3d903ce27e3c125641e004a92f3?OpenDocument)

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/375?OpenDocument)

*snip*

First off, I know the rules regarding Prisoners of War.

Second, there is a major difference between an illegal combatant/irregular forces and civilians.

First off, I know the rules regarding Prisoners of War.

Second, there is a major difference between an illegal combatant/irregular forces and civilians.

Good God Cornie, can you not read? The rule of law that Cat-Tribe posted makes no such distinction. You really make yourself look like a fool when you fail to even read or address what has just been brought to your attention. Your method of argument involves ignoring key facts and shifting the discussion away from specifics that would deflate your argument completely.

There's no f-ing way you could ever qualify to be in my be in my anti-idiot party so long as you argue with the intellectual dishonesty you commonly display.

Basic U.S. policy underlying the treatment accorded EPW and all other enemy personnel captured, interned, or otherwise held in U.S. Army custody during the course of a conflict requires and directs that all such personnel be accorded humanitarian care and treatment from the moment of custody until final release or repatriation.

Is or is that not clear enough for you?

Good God Cornie, can you not read? The rule of law that Cat-Tribe posted makes no such distinction. You really make yourself look like a fool when you fail to even read or address what has just been brought to your attention. Your method of argument involves ignoring key facts and shifting the discussion away from specifics that would deflate your argument completely.

There's no f-ing way you could ever qualify to be in my be in my anti-idiot party so long as you utterly fail to argue with the intellectual dishonesty you commonly display.



Is or is that not clear enough for you?
http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/6086/forgetitjake7bp.jpg

Good God Cornie, can you not read? The rule of law that Cat-Tribe posted makes no such distinction.

In war, it doesn't matter. If someone shoots at me and I catch him, I'll put a bullet through the guy's skull. In war, there are no absolutes. Rules change in war and the rules of war (especially in a total war) go flying out the window.

Irregulars aren't civilians and are not protected by the Geneva Conventions.

http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/6086/forgetitjake7bp.jpg
Second.

I'm not sure Franken is trying to be funny -- I thought so for a while, but after reading and seeing enough of him I think he has a hard, violent edge.

here's an example: http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/27/94253.shtml

I never thought he was funny personally, and his clip on Amazon promoting his book is unfunny too.

While I have no opinion on the humor of his clip, the fact that there were over a hundred reviews on a book that had only been out for one day, and so many of them were by people who'd never read the book, is absolutely hilarious. As is the thought that you're trying to criticize someone as hard edged and violent by providing a link to Newsmax.

As for the most rediculous thing on TV. That's a tough call. It's either Bill O'Reilly referring to his show as the "No Spin Zone," when it spins like a centrifuge in a tornado, and Bill O'Reilly having a segment called "rediculous item of the week," and it not being about him. Although, once he did name himself as the rediculous item of the week, so I guess that tilts it in favor of the "No Spin Zone" comment which is present in every show and universally absurd.

Good God Cornie, can you not read? The rule of law that Cat-Tribe posted makes no such distinction. You really make yourself look like a fool when you fail to even read or address what has just been brought to your attention. Your method of argument involves ignoring key facts and shifting the discussion away from specifics that would deflate your argument completely.

That's how neo-conservative politics are built. You can't believe anything that the Neo-cons say unless that's exactly how you argue. Even to yourself. Just look at Bush's own words.

"We will not have an all volunteer army... What? We will have an all volunteer army." Bush's followers, listening to what he has to say, just assume that he misspoke if they don't like what he had to say. This time they actually corrected him because it was so obvious that no one in the room agreed with him. But how many other things he has to say are the exact opposite of what he intends, or worse yet, the same.

In war, it doesn't matter. If someone shoots at me and I catch him, I'll put a bullet through the guy's skull. In war, there are no absolutes. Rules change in war and the rules of war (especially in a total war) go flying out the window.

Irregulars aren't civilians and are not protected by the Geneva Conventions.

Tell me something. If you're channeling Bill O'Reilly does that mean that he's dead or that you and he share the exact same wavelength of stupidity that his thoughts find their way through your fingers? Have you ever confided in a woman that you'd like to rub sandwiches from mediteranean cuisine on their breasts? Criticized a rapper for their work being slightly more laced with obscenity than your own work?

Sorry for the absurdism, but the fact that you've actually been brainwashed by Bill O'Reilly is a little to sad to make fun of directly.

Can you actually provide an example where the military said it was okay to do what you're saying they can?

Corni and I have had this argument before. He thinks that "I know a guy who knows a guy" passes for a source. He also thinks that ignoring evidence counts as a refutation.

Actually yes. Why? Because I learn from listening to the people who have gone overseas and lived overseas. They tell me the cultures of locations they've been too and what it was like. An interesting education everytime. I always learn something new.

It also gives me an insight into the rules of war as well.

hahaha. This sounds exactly like Bush explaining why he doesn't read the newspapers. "I get my news from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are the people in my administration..." So if there's a news story that says that Rummy's fucking up then why would I believe some reporter when I can ask Rummy, 'hey, Rummy, you fuckin' up?' And when he suffles his feet, stares at the floor, and mumbles mmmmm, no sir," well then, I'm gettin' it from the source.

Hasn't it ever occured to you that when you talk to people who've seen combat in Iraq that you're talking to people who literally cannot believe that they've been sent to risk death and have seen their friends die for the sake of a lie and some old rich guy's oil company stock prices?

I've proven this wrong in these forums before.

Moreoever, you refuse to meet my challenge of actual evidence.

That you believe it to be true does not make it so.

Actually, Cat-Tribe, when I was in the US Army infantry, I was taught the following:

1. If you are part of a group that cannot support taking prisoners (i.e., you have five men on a particular mission and you capture someone, and the mission was given a higher priority over taking prisoners) you may refuse to accept surrender. This may mean tying someone to a tree and taking all their equipment, or it may mean shooting them. Everything is up in the air until you "accept" surrender. Historically, even in combat amongst Geneva signatories, surrenders of units smaller than battalion size are not commonly "accepted".

2. You do not have to "accept" the surrender of any non-uniformed combatant. That is, if he's under arms, has been shooting up until this moment, and suddenly throws his hands up and is not in uniform, you do not have to "accept" his surrender. Thus, you can do the options in number 1 above.

3. Once you "accept" surrender, though, you can't shoot them. Technically, they could be tried by a field court-martial - this is a legal option that could lead to execution. It's been done by both the US Army and the UK Army during WW II (as well as a few other armies).

4. There are also many examples of summary execution of combatants, both uniformed and non-uniformed, with no repercussions. The UK and US Army in WW II were famous for executing German soldiers in 1944 who were captured wearing "Tiger" camouflage - it was not recognized as a legitimate uniform by either army, and UK soldiers in particular believed that such men were snipers, even though they most often were not. Many such men were executed on the spot - with no trial and no repercussions and no subsequent investigations.

See, there's the problem. The old liberal arrogance is driving the definition of what funny is.

It's not that anyone lacks a sense of humor, it's just that we don't share the same "superior" sense of humor that you leftists have. And because we'd rather see jokes about cousin Billy Bob than laugh over who's going to be executed, we just don't get it. And yes, I think Hee-Haw was hilarious.
No, it's more that we're able to recognise when someone's using hyperbole for effect. Regardless of whether we personally find it funny or not. However said ability (which seems to be inherent in 'liberals' but totally missing in republicans) allows us to either enjoy the satire or shrug and go 'whatever'. NOT get our little panties all in a twist like our esteemed repubs do whenever someone says something contrary to what they like/want to hear.

hahaha. This sounds exactly like Bush explaining why he doesn't read the newspapers. "I get my news from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are the people in my administration..." So if there's a news story that says that Rummy's fucking up then why would I believe some reporter when I can ask Rummy, 'hey, Rummy, you fuckin' up?' And when he suffles his feet, stares at the floor, and mumbles mmmmm, no sir," well then, I'm gettin' it from the source.

Domici, you know jack shit and it is quite obvious. I probably know more about different cultures (including asia and africa) than you do. My family and family friends have been everywhere including getting their asses shot at. Don't start to tell me what I do and don't know.

And FYI, I don't pay that much attention to the government anyway. Why? Because they are politicians.

Hasn't it ever occured to you that when you talk to people who've seen combat in Iraq that you're talking to people who literally cannot believe that they've been sent to risk death and have seen their friends die for the sake of a lie and some old rich guy's oil company stock prices?

Funny. My father had mortars come falling on his airfield and he could feel the cucession under his aircraft and had to leave the aircraft to seek shelter. And as for you last line... its not worth responding to since you are obviously closed minded to such things.

Actually, Cat-Tribe, when I was in the US Army infantry, I was taught the following:

1. If you are part of a group that cannot support taking prisoners (i.e., you have five men on a particular mission and you capture someone, and the mission was given a higher priority over taking prisoners) you may refuse to accept surrender. This may mean tying someone to a tree and taking all their equipment, or it may mean shooting them. Everything is up in the air until you "accept" surrender. Historically, even in combat amongst Geneva signatories, surrenders of units smaller than battalion size are not commonly "accepted".

2. You do not have to "accept" the surrender of any non-uniformed combatant. That is, if he's under arms, has been shooting up until this moment, and suddenly throws his hands up and is not in uniform, you do not have to "accept" his surrender. Thus, you can do the options in number 1 above.

3. Once you "accept" surrender, though, you can't shoot them. Technically, they could be tried by a field court-martial - this is a legal option that could lead to execution. It's been done by both the US Army and the UK Army during WW II (as well as a few other armies).

4. There are also many examples of summary execution of combatants, both uniformed and non-uniformed, with no repercussions. The UK and US Army in WW II were famous for executing German soldiers in 1944 who were captured wearing "Tiger" camouflage - it was not recognized as a legitimate uniform by either army, and UK soldiers in particular believed that such men were snipers, even though they most often were not. Many such men were executed on the spot - with no trial and no repercussions and no subsequent investigations.

Thank you for proving me right Sierra. However, Cat-Tribe won't believe it.

Thank you for proving me right Sierra. However, Cat-Tribe won't believe it.
The problem, I believe, is the difference between what is "legal", what people are "told", and what people "get away with".

In modern combat, many people are shot dead. There aren't many independent observers who go around evaluating whether each killing is legal.

These things have always happened in war, even among so-called "civilized" nations. The difference today is that every soldier seems to have a digital camera, or feels compelled to tell their friends about the goings on through email. If we were in the same sort of information society that we had in WW II, virtually none of the abuses to date would have been either investigated, and most would have come to light decades after the war.

That doesn't make all of the abuses "right". One may indeed wonder what lapse of judgment was going through some soldiers' minds. But, as far as shooting prisoners goes, or refusing to accept surrender, there are guidelines that soldiers are taught. And I was taught them.

Here's a good example. Let's say I and about 40 US soldiers have 10 or so Taliban surrounded - they are in a set of stone houses. We can call on them to surrender. But we are not required to do so. They can call out that they want to surrender - they can even wave a white flag - but we are not required to accept their surrender. We could, at our whim, even while they are yelling that they want to give up, call for an airstrike to destroy the buildings. Perfectly legal.

The militarists among the right-wingers seem to base their entire view (of comedy, in this thread) on the following assumptions:

1. If you don't get caught doing something illegal that makes it legal, regardless of what the law says.

2. Laws don't apply to people who own bullets.

3. It's only acceptable to talk about killing people if you actually intend to do it.

They are, of course, wrong on all three, as evidenced by the large number of prison inmates who think the same way they do.

The militarists among the right-wingers seem to base their entire view (of comedy, in this thread) on the following assumptions:

1. If you don't get caught doing something illegal that makes it legal, regardless of what the law says.

No, that's not what I said.

2. Laws don't apply to people who own bullets.
Having been in combat, I would say that's close. I would say that when the bullets are flying, laws are the last thing running through your mind.

3. It's only acceptable to talk about killing people if you actually intend to do it.
Yes. I take such talk very seriously.

They are, of course, wrong on all three, as evidenced by the large number of prison inmates who think the same way they do.

Nice non sequitur.

Funny. My father had mortars come falling on his airfield and he could feel the cucession under his aircraft and had to leave the aircraft to seek shelter. And as for you last line... its not worth responding to since you are obviously closed minded to such things.
Was your dad an Air Force pilot? Hope you'll upgrade to the USMC when you get a chance :).

Was your dad an Air Force pilot? Hope you'll upgrade to the USMC when you get a chance :).
Oh, so you DO have brains below 1000 feet.

And here I thought you were some Navy guy...

The militarists among the right-wingers seem to base their entire view (of comedy, in this thread) on the following assumptions:

1. If you don't get caught doing something illegal that makes it legal, regardless of what the law says.

2. Laws don't apply to people who own bullets.

3. It's only acceptable to talk about killing people if you actually intend to do it.

They are, of course, wrong on all three, as evidenced by the large number of prison inmates who think the same way they do.
This is clearly the divide between the people that want to fight Islamic terrorists with subpoenas and the people that realize that war requires force. Coincidentally, this divide also separates those who think that joking about executions is satire and those who think that it's inappropriate.

This seems like an odd juxtaposition of ideas for liberals and Democrats.

Oh, so you DO have brains below 1000 feet.

And here I thought you were some Navy guy...
No, I was doing an exchange tour when the raids on Libya were flown. I got to fly out of Bahrain with the rest of the Second MAW during Desert Storm/Shield.

And Navy guys that fly A6's are still better than any USAF close air support you'll ever get. At least the VacuumPak(COMMATVAQWINGPAC) guys are because I trained them.

No, I was doing an exchange tour when the raids on Libya were flown. I got to fly out of Bahrain with the rest of the Second MAW during Desert Storm/Shield.

And Navy guys that fly A6's are still better than any USAF close air support you'll ever get. At least the VacuumPak(COMMATVAQWINGPAC) guys are because I trained them.

I trust any ground attack aircraft with two crewmen more than I do an aircraft with one crewman.

Was your dad an Air Force pilot? Hope you'll upgrade to the USMC when you get a chance :).

No actually, he tells the pilots where to go. He's more important than a pilot :D

No actually, he tells the pilots where to go. He's more important than a pilot :D
*Chuckles* That's how I saw myself. Easy in A6s, but harder in planes like F-4s and A-4s, where a pilot could fly solo.

*Chuckles* That's how I saw myself. Easy in A6s, but harder in planes like F-4s and A-4s, where a pilot could fly solo.

Well my father actually delivers the troops as well as equipment and supplies. Alot of people on my dad's base won't go near a combat zone unless he's on board. He is that good.

Damn that USAFR for not promoting him to full bird :(

Well my father actually delivers the troops as well as equipment and supplies. Alot of people on my dad's base won't go near a combat zone unless he's on board. He is that good.

Damn that USAFR for not promoting him to full bird :(
Sounds like he's been at it for a while. Promotion boards seem to have agendas that don't always seem to square with what's best for the service. Give him my best regards.

Domici, you know jack shit and it is quite obvious. I probably know more about different cultures (including asia and africa) than you do. My family and family friends have been everywhere including getting their asses shot at. Don't start to tell me what I do and don't know.

And FYI, I don't pay that much attention to the government anyway. Why? Because they are politicians.



Funny. My father had mortars come falling on his airfield and he could feel the cucession under his aircraft and had to leave the aircraft to seek shelter. And as for you last line... its not worth responding to since you are obviously closed minded to such things.
If your idea of culture is "Asian Culture" and "African Culture", then I am certain you feel you have been everywhere. I suppose your lumped a great many and different cultures together for the sake of convenience.

Otherwise, I'll be sure not to listen to your advice on cultures :p

Sounds like he's been at it for a while. Promotion boards seem to have agendas that don't always seem to square with what's best for the service. Give him my best regards.

I will do just that :)

And yes, he's been at it awhile. Nearly 33 years now.

If your idea of culture is "Asian Culture" and "African Culture", then I am certain you feel you have been everywhere. I suppose your lumped a great many and different cultures together for the sake of convenience.

Otherwise, I'll be sure not to listen to your advice on cultures :p

E.C. I will be the first to admit that I don't know everything about their cultures but my parents were stationed in Far East Asia (Kadina on Okinowa) and my father has been to nearly ever continent on this planet (except Antartica but he really wanted to do that run).

One thing I've learned is to listen to what he has to say. He's even spent alot of time in the Middle East and I listen to him regarding muslim culture.

This is clearly the divide between the people that want to fight Islamic terrorists with subpoenas and the people that realize that war requires force. Coincidentally, this divide also separates those who think that joking about executions is satire and those who think that it's inappropriate.

This seems like an odd juxtaposition of ideas for liberals and Democrats.
I said I was a social liberal. I never said I was a compassionate person. There is no greater laugh than the suffering of my enemies. :D (Note that I didn't say *death* of my enemy. When he's dead, the fun's over.)

The real divide is between those who think terrorism is the action of a discrete bunch of guys who can be killed and then the problem is over vs. those who think terrorism is a socio-political mindset that can and has broken out in any society, any group, for any reason, at any time, under various circumstances.

If the first is right, then war is, unfortunately, the answer.

If the second is right, then the problem is long term and requires a civilian-society-oriented approach within which normal life can proceed. This is what is meant by those who say terrorism is properly a law-enforcement issue, not a military one – because there is a difference between dealing with threats and dealing with enemies. Enemies are specific and can be eliminated. Kill the enemy facing you, and you’ll never hear from that enemy again. Threats are unspecific and can be repeated by anyone. If one guy threatens you and you kill him, that in no way stops others from making the same threat the very next day. History proves that military responses are not a deterrent to terrorism.

While war may be necessary under certain circumstances, I favor the long term law enforcement approach because I believe that terrorism can come at us from any direction and, therefore, it is foolish to focus all our energies on one method against one target at a time. We need a broad system that will allow us to head-off and respond to threats without interfering with regular life, business, travel, etc. Law can give you that. War does not and is not designed to.

E.C. I will be the first to admit that I don't know everything about their cultures but my parents were stationed in Far East Asia (Kadina on Okinowa) and my father has been to nearly ever continent on this planet (except Antartica but he really wanted to do that run).

One thing I've learned is to listen to what he has to say. He's even spent alot of time in the Middle East and I listen to him regarding muslim culture.
Well, I'll say you have a lot of listening to do because culture is not a global geographical thing such as "Asian Culture". Chinese and Japan cultures are vastly different and they both are asian. Even in China, there are various cultures and cultural quirks.

So when you say such things as Asian and African cultures, you look like someone who's making stuff up on the spot.

You just happened to stumble on a pet peeve of mine. I had to post something about Africa being far more than one culture...

You just happened to stumble on a pet peeve of mine. I had to post something about Africa being far more than one culture...

Heck, even Alberta has more than one culture...

Well, I'll say you have a lot of listening to do because culture is not a global geographical thing such as "Asian Culture". Chinese and Japan cultures are vastly different and they both are asian. Even in China, there are various cultures and cultural quirks.

So when you say such things as Asian and African cultures, you look like someone who's making stuff up on the spot.

You just happened to stumble on a pet peeve of mine. I had to post something about Africa being far more than one culture...
Some one get the China Town picture..