NationStates Jolt Archive

But no clue...
In a recent development, guaranteed to turn the tide of recent elections, the DNC has developed a plan for anti-terror activities. The plans is as follows:

WAR ON TERROR
To Defeat Terrorists and Stop the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction, we will:

Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban.

Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.

Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.

Secure by 2010 loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or "dirty bombs."

Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.

I'm not kidding. This is it. All of it. I'm just glad they didn't burden us with specifics.

Again, I wonder what makes Democrats different than Republicans?

I do not know but it is already to late to do anything about North Korea short of taking them out since they already have the weapons we believe.

Bush is already doing something about Iran through the UN. Hopefully the UN actually does something about it.

As to the rest. I want to hear specifics if they expect to get my vote in November.

Again, I wonder what makes Democrats different than Republicans?

less openly evil?

<snip>

Again, I wonder what makes Democrats different than Republicans?
They lie about blowjobs instead of WMD?

*shrug*

Bush's plan seems to be :

1] Send wave after wave of unprepared troops and pray.
2] Lie about it.
3] Find next country to storm.
4] Lie about it.
5] Have man sex with Rumsfeild.
6] Lie about it.
7] Tell everyone everything's going awesome.
8] Deny it.

Let's give the Dems a shot. They surely can't do worse.

less openly evil?
I prefer open evil to subtle, to the subtle "we kill you because we love you"-type.

Let's give the Dems a shot. They surely can't do worse.

don't say that, the liebermans of the party might take it as a challenge

They lie about blowjobs instead of WMD?
And, you know, sexual harrassment allegations that were independent of the blowjobs. But why realize that the Monica blowjob was just being used to prove a pattern (as opposed to being actual crime) when you can belabor the same goddamn spin for almost a decade?

*shrug*

Bush's plan seems to be :

1] Send wave after wave of unprepared troops and pray.
2] Lie about it.
3] Find next country to storm.
4] Lie about it.
5] Have man sex with Rumsfeild.
6] Lie about it.
7] Tell everyone everything's going awesome.
8] Deny it.

Let's give the Dems a shot. They surely can't do worse.

Those in favour of Keruvalia's suggestion please raises hands...

*right hand of Bogmarsh goes up*



*spots Corneliu*

NO! Not with a gun. Twit...

I'm not kidding. This is it. All of it. I'm just glad they didn't burden us with specifics.

If they released the specifics, al Queda would know what was coming and would be able to beat us. You know that government cannot let us know what it is really doing, because then our enemies would know too.

I'm not kidding. This is it. All of it. I'm just glad they didn't burden us with specifics.

It still is WAY too much. No matter how sad the existence of global terrorism is, it still is a relatively insignificant problem which really does not have the potential to ever become truly serious.

In other words: spend money on something useful first. If you can combat terriorism in the proces, do so. But making it a specific high priority goal is moronic.

What's unreasonable about that plan? Gee what next? Criticism that their plan to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony by buying them all a coke wont actually work? You people have no faith!:p

I'm not kidding. This is it. All of it. I'm just glad they didn't burden us with specifics.

If they told us the specifics, then the terrorists would find out. It's in our best interests for us to have no idea what our government is doing, ever. It's for our protection.

Again, I wonder what makes Democrats different than Republicans?
The name?

Again, I wonder what makes Democrats different than Republicans?

Why would they be different? The only reason there are two parties is to make it look like citizens have a choice in how their country is run.

I prefer open evil to subtle, to the subtle "we kill you because we love you"-type.

so mussolini over blair and franco over clinton?

Why would they be different? The only reason there are two parties is to make it look like citizens have a choice in how their country is run.
And so that they can feel in control when they vote for the lesser of the two evils... blinders are a wonderful thing.

so mussolini over blair and franco over clinton?
Yeah, Franco and Mussolini got theirs in the end (and in the annals of history). Clinton will get idolized, rich and fat until he dies of old age or cardiac arrest, never having to pay for being a corrupt, sexually harrassing terrorist.

And so that they can feel in control when they vote for the lesser of the two evils... blinders are a wonderful thing.

I'm not so sure it's being blind as being lazy (mentally).

Yeah, Franco and Mussolini got theirs in the end (and in the annals of history). Clinton will get idolized, rich and fat until he dies of old age or cardiac arrest, never having to pay for being a corrupt, sexually harrassing terrorist.

so it's more of an abstract preference then?

Again, I wonder what makes Democrats different than Republicans?
They hurt America, the war on terror would be over by now if the dems hadnt gotten it the way.

I'm not so sure it's being blind as being lazy (mentally).
Three cheers for voter apathy!

so it's more of an abstract preference then?
It is a preference toward honesty and culpability. Blatant evil gets both, subtle evil gets neither.

They hurt America, the war on terror would be over by now if the dems hadnt gotten it the way.

damn those obstructionists! how dare they, um, uh, not get their way on anything except when they vote with the republicans?

It is a preference toward honesty and culpability. Blatant evil gets both, subtle evil gets neither.

and the open use of murder as a political tool comes in where?

Three cheers for voter apathy!

Relying on voting is lazy, regardless of who is voted for. People are still saying "I want this, so I'll give power to someone who says they'll do it".

As far as I can see, the Democrats want to do this:

WAR ON TERROR
To Defeat Terrorists and Stop the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction, we will:

Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban.

Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.

Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.

Secure by 2010 loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or "dirty bombs."

Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.

And the current US administration are doing this

WAR ON TERROR
To Defeat Terrorists and Stop the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction, we will:

Ignore Osama Bin Laden, appear to fight terrorist networks like al Qaeda, slow down the job in Afghanistan, and disregard the threat posed by the Taliban.

Decrease the equipmeny provided to our Special Forces, ignore our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is showing us what we want to see.

Create terrorist breeding grounds by exacerbating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; do nothing about international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and distance our longstanding allies that have advanced our national security objectives.

Provide loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or "dirty bombs" togivernments that are friendly to our interests, regardless of their human rights record.

Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea, but help India achieve nuclear weapons.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

and the open use of murder as a political tool comes in where?
Around the point Clinton started an "intervention" and bombed an aspirin factory to draw attention away from his sexual appetites, I should think.

damn those obstructionists! how dare they, um, uh, not get their way on anything except when they vote with the republicans?
may be that will teach them a lesson

3 Questions towards Gift of God - while approving of his general cant.

1. What makes you think that terrorism is a result of the pressures you cite? Seems more like a cultural problem to me. 'Specially when one of the biggest breeding grounds is the ueber-rich Kingdom of Saud.

2. I may have missed the story of the US admin playing fast and loose with nuc-mat. May have missed something - but what made you come to that conclusion?

3. What's wrong with the decent state of India having sufficient nukes so as to deal with scumbag states like Pakistan, Iran, or even North Korea?

Again, I wonder what makes Democrats different than Republicans?

The Dems want to screw us towards the left. The Repubs want to screw us towards the right. Either way, we're screwed!

3 Questions towards Gift of God - while approving of his general cant.

1. What makes you think that terrorism is a result of the pressures you cite? Seems more like a cultural problem to me. 'Specially when one of the biggest breeding grounds is the ueber-rich Kingdom of Saud.

2. I may have missed the story of the US admin playing fast and loose with nuc-mat. May have missed something - but what made you come to that conclusion?

3. What's wrong with the decent state of India having sufficient nukes so as to deal with scumbag states like Pakistan, Iran, or even North Korea?
most of S. Arabia lives in abject poverty, which is always a breeding ground for crime and radicalism. The argument could be made that India isnt any better than the other countries, and therefore should not be in posession of said nukes. sorry, continue

3 Questions towards Gift of God - while approving of his general cant.

1. What makes you think that terrorism is a result of the pressures you cite? Seems more like a cultural problem to me. 'Specially when one of the biggest breeding grounds is the ueber-rich Kingdom of Saud.

2. I may have missed the story of the US admin playing fast and loose with nuc-mat. May have missed something - but what made you come to that conclusion?

3. What's wrong with the decent state of India having sufficient nukes so as to deal with scumbag states like Pakistan, Iran, or even North Korea?

I was being more rhetorical than anything else. But those are good questions, so I'm off to Google for a while.

But first:
1. I just can't imagine people resorting to such desperate measures unless they feel that their civil liberties are completely oppressed, and their actual livelihood and life is in danger.

2. I don't think the US has played fast and lose with nuc-mat, at least I hope not. It was more of a reference to US military support of the Taliban and Saddam that later bit them in the ass than an actual point.

3. Because of something called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, mostly. Also, you are assuming that India will always be friendly to the US. The current mideast situation is a good example of how such thinking can put you in a bad position.

3. Because of something called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, mostly. Also, you are assuming that India will always be friendly to the US. The current mideast situation is a good example of how such thinking can put you in a bad position.

Not to mention India's appalling record on human rights.

It is a preference toward honesty and culpability. Blatant evil gets both, subtle evil gets neither.

You can beat a subtle evil with his own tricks if you're smart enough, but you have to kill a blatant evil or else he'll kill you first - he doesn't have to give an explanation, not even an "aspirin factory" explanation, just "... What, I'm evil. You know this, why the hell would you ask? You're lucky I'm not stabbing you right now."

I prefer the subtle, especially since the blatant evil would most likely not leave his position until he died, warping the elections, fixing ballots. Bush is almost there, but the only thing keeping him from being blatant is a bill to congress asking for an amendment to where there's no limit to how many times a president can be in office - I wouldn't put that past him, either.

Around the point Clinton started an "intervention" and bombed an aspirin factory to draw attention away from his sexual appetites, I should think.

true. let me rephrase. does this preference extend to you prefering to live in a country under mussolini rather than clinton?

Ok here is my 2 cents.

I'm a Republican and from Florida (yes I know we suck at voting)

I've voted for Jeb and George Bush.

But as of now I'm so pissed at George (not about the war and that shit) but about the spending! I mean the US Government is not a ATM machine.

So as of now, I'm open for anyone to offer a solution to the problem (not point the finger at the creater of the problem) but offer a real solution.

So as of now, I'm open for anyone to offer a solution to the problem (not point the finger at the creater of the problem) but offer a real solution.

rebuild from the ground up as a set of freely federated local communities with as little power as possible being placed in the hands of distant and unaccountable lifer politicians. oh, and get a new system of selecting such delegates or representatives as become absolutely necessary - might i suggest drawing them by lottery and making recall rather easy, and moving away from systems that automatically create political winners and political losers all the time.

Around the point Clinton started an "intervention" and bombed an aspirin factory to draw attention away from his sexual appetites, I should think.

Lol. What else do you get directly from Sean Hannity's mouth?




....but Clinton!!!!



Talk about getting something directly from someone's mouth.

But as of now I'm so pissed at George (not about the war and that shit) but about the spending! I mean the US Government is not a ATM machine.


I invite all members of the Republican Party who are pissed at George to stand up and be counted and join the Libertarian Party.

http://www.lp.org/

If you have no candidates for the various offices in your area, become one.

Don't be a blind loyalist. Jump ship today!

But no clue...
In a recent development, guaranteed to turn the tide of recent elections, the DNC has developed a plan for anti-terror activities. The plans is as follows:

I'm not kidding. This is it. All of it. I'm just glad they didn't burden us with specifics.

Again, I wonder what makes Democrats different than Republicans?This is March. The elections are in November. You want details now? Please.

In 1994, when the Republicans ran on the Contract on America, they didn't introduce any details of their "plans" until 45-60 days before the election. We're six months out. This is the big idea time. Details come later.

The Dems want to screw us towards the left. The Repubs want to screw us towards the right. Either way, we're screwed!


Hahahahaha. First of all, neither the Repubs or the Dems (with exceptions) are actively trying to screw us. Us getting screwed is a side-effect of their greed. Since personal fortune at all costs is an inherintly right-wing attribute, and both Repubs and Dems are more than happy going to bed with corporations in order to consolodate their personal and party powers, they are both, in practice, right-wing with the Dems (the ones in power, at least,) only being somewhat less right-wing than the Repubs.

It's amazing how few people actually look at what the parties do and instead listen only to the ad campaigns, both negative and positive, to get an idea of what a particular party is all about.

Once again, both major parties are establishment, pro corporate, entities. How anyone can think of that as "left" is beyond me.

I mean, it's like someone saying "I drink Pepsi because Coke will rot your teeth!"

Lol. What else do you get directly from Sean Hannity's mouth?

to be fair, this was said by people on the left too (though we tended to not hold it up as a diversion from teh sexorz, but rather as an act of callous imperialism and a demonstration of military dick size in case anyone forgot)

to be fair, this was said by people on the left too (though we tended to not hold it up as a diversion from teh sexorz, but rather as an act of callous imperialism and a demonstration of military dick size in case anyone forgot)

You don't have to be a historian or political scientist to see the Bigger Dick Foreign Policy Theory in action. It goes like this: "What? They have bigger dicks than us? BOMB THEM." And you'll notice that all the bullets, rockets and bombs are shaped like dicks.

Lol. What else do you get directly from Sean Hannity's mouth?
So it was just a coincidence that we started firing missiles at random non-offensive buildings on the day a certain personage was going to be testifying against the CiC? Please, if it were Republicans you'd have conspiracy theorists crawling out of the wood works.
However, even if you disagree with my take on the motives, the events are undeniable, we started attacking innocents for no reason, not a good thing.

*shrug*

Bush's plan seems to be :

1] Send wave after wave of unprepared troops and pray.
2] Lie about it.
3] Find next country to storm.
4] Lie about it.
5] Have man sex with Rumsfeild.
6] Lie about it.
7] Tell everyone everything's going awesome.
8] Deny it.

Let's give the Dems a shot. They surely can't do worse.
Wow a whole litany of what we with a military background would characterize with the highly specialized term of “Male Bovine Fecal Matter” but which we provide a shortened acronym of BS for the non-technical types such as Keruvalia here. Take item 1] for instance. The current soldier, sailor, marine and airman is the highest trained, best equipped, most tactically proficient warrior that this great country has ever fielded. This war is one of the best conducted, most strategically brilliant campaigns ever fought. Fewer of our fighting personnel have become casualties and a greater percentage of those who have are alive to tell about it. We lost more personnel in the initial hours of the major WWII landings than we have lost during the entire war on terrorism on all fronts combined. Examine the KIA statistics for yourself;

4,435 - Revolutionary War
2,260 - War of 1812
13,283 - Mexican War
623,026 - Civil War
2,446 - Spanish American War
116,708 - World War I
407,316 - World War II
36,914 - Korean War
58,169 - Vietnam War
269 - Persian Gulf War
3,021 - 9-11

Keruvalia’s items 2-8] are more of the same; just piled higher and deeper. The Dems had a shot and they did do worse. Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laden on a platter and he turned the offer down. They basically let al Qaeda get away with bombing the USS Cole and several US Embassies. And Keruvalia wants more of the same. The Dems probably think this so-called “plan” of theirs is the equivalent of being defiladed. I doubt that they realize that their stench gives them away.

You don't have to be a historian or political scientist to see the Bigger Dick Foreign Policy Theory in action. It goes like this: "What? They have bigger dicks than us? BOMB THEM." And you'll notice that all the bullets, rockets and bombs are shaped like dicks.


For once, I can't really agree with Carlin. If vaginas could fly, we would still kill each other with weapons shaped like them. The shape of the weapon is merely incidental.

So it was just a coincidence that we started firing missiles at random non-offensive buildings on the day a certain personage was going to be testifying against the CiC? Please, if it were Republicans you'd have conspiracy theorists crawling out of the wood works.

So...then Bush's war with Iraq must be covering up something much bigger than a blowjob.

However, even if you disagree with my take on the motives, the events are undeniable, we started attacking innocents for no reason, not a good thing.

So, it wasn't faulty intel in Clinton's case? Good thing he ordered an extremely limited missile strike rather than doing something foolish like a full-scale invasion and a several-years long operation.

Meanwhile, the Repubs were doing everything they could to stop Clinton from intervening in Kosovo (gee, what were the casualties again from that disaster of an operation???) because they were saying that one can criticise the President and his warplan without disrespecting the troops and that it's not America's job to spread Democracy.

Wow a whole litany of what we with a military background would characterize with the highly specialized term of “Male Bovine Fecal Matter” but which we provide a shortened acronym of BS for the non-technical types such as Keruvalia here. Take item 1] for instance. The current soldier, sailor, marine and airman is the highest trained, best equipped, most tactically proficient warrior that this great country has ever fielded. This war is one of the best conducted, most strategically brilliant campaigns ever fought. Fewer of our fighting personnel have become casualties and a greater percentage of those who have are alive to tell about it. We lost more personnel in the initial hours of the major WWII landings than we have lost during the entire war on terrorism on all fronts combined. Examine the KIA statistics for yourself;

4,435 - Revolutionary War
2,260 - War of 1812
13,283 - Mexican War
623,026 - Civil War
2,446 - Spanish American War
116,708 - World War I
407,316 - World War II
36,914 - Korean War
58,169 - Vietnam War
269 - Persian Gulf War
3,021 - 9-11

Keruvalia’s items 2-8] are more of the same; just piled higher and deeper. The Dems had a shot and they did do worse. Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laden on a platter and he turned the offer down. They basically let al Qaeda get away with bombing the USS Cole and several US Embassies. And Keruvalia wants more of the same. The Dems probably think this so-called “plan” of theirs is the equivalent of being defiladed. I doubt that they realize that their stench gives them away.


Hey, you don't happen to have the KIA stats from the operation in Kosovo do ya?

Wow, Clinton must have been the best Pres EVAR! And gee, what wewre the Repubs saying while troops were in Kosovo?

Wow, Clinton must have been the best Pres EVAR! And gee, what were the Repubs saying while troops were in Kosovo?
Oooh oooh, I know (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/reminder-of-gop-attacks-on-clintons.html)

Rep. Dick Armey, GOP Majority Leader
"The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."

Rep. Gerald Solomon (R - NY)
"It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it," Solomon said in an interview with CNN. Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for political expediency, Solomon said, "Whether he knows it or not, that's exactly what he's doing."

Sen. Dan Coats
Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on Osama bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."

Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
The foregoing review of the Clinton Administration's prevarications on Kosovo would not be complete without a brief look at one other possible factor in the deepening morass. Consider the following fictional situation: A president embroiled in a sex scandal that threatens to bring down his administration. He sees the only way out in distracting the nation and the world with a foreign military adventure. So, he orders his spin-doctors and media wizards to get to work. They survey the options, push a few buttons, and decide upon a suitable locale: Albania.

The foregoing, the premise of the recent film Wag the Dog, might once have seemed farfetched. Yet it can hardly escape comment that on the very day, August 17, that President Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury to explain his possibly criminal behavior, Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton has ordered U.S. Marines and air crews to commence several days of ground and air exercises in, yes, Albania as a warning of possible NATO intervention in next-door Kosovo. . . .

Not too many years ago, it would not have entered the mind of even the worst of cynics to speculate whether any American president, whatever his political difficulties, would even consider sending U.S. military personnel into harm's way to serve his own, personal needs. But in an era when pundits openly weigh the question of whether President Clinton will (or should) tell the truth under oath not because he has a simple obligation to do so but because of the possible impact on his political "viability" -- is it self-evident that military decisions are not affected by similar considerations? Under the circumstances, it is fair to ask to what extent the Clinton Administration has forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to the motives behind its actions.

GOP Activist Paul Weyrich
Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote "is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress."

Wall St. Journal Editorial Board
"It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment"

Sen. Trent Lott, GOP Majority Leader
"I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-NY)
"Never underestimate a desperate president," said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). "What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?"

Rep. Tillie Folwer (R-Fla)
"It [the bombing of Iraq] is certainly rather suspicious timing," said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). "I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office."

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum
First, it [intervention in Kosovo] is a "wag the dog" public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the "life is truer than fiction" movie Wag the Dog. The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to "move on" from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command.

Jim Hoagland, Washington Post
"President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response ... with his own wrongdoing. ... Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa"

Byron York, National Review
Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action [launching cruise missles at bin Laden] set off a howling debate about Clinton's motives. The president ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Clinton's critics accused him of using military action to change the subject from the sex-and-perjury scandal — the so-called "wag the dog" strategy.

Wall St. Journal editorial
"Perceptions that the American president is less interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power [are] a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached"

Again, I wonder what makes Democrats different than Republicans?
Nothing.

As to the rest. I want to hear specifics if they expect to get my vote in November.
Rest assured they won't. Remember, they're the "surrender-gay-abortion-communism" party.

The Dems want to screw us towards the left. The Repubs want to screw us towards the right. Either way, we're screwed!
No, that's not true. They're both right-wing.

Oooh oooh, I know (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/reminder-of-gop-attacks-on-clintons.html)
Congratulations for having a firm grasp of the obvious -- hypocrites sit on both sides of the aisle.

Wow a whole litany of what we with a military background would characterize with the highly specialized term of “Male Bovine Fecal Matter”


What is it with you government sheep and scat fetishes? Yeesh.

The current soldier, sailor, marine and airman is the highest trained, best equipped, most tactically proficient warrior that this great country has ever fielded.

Buhahahahahaha .... man you're delusional. Awesome. This one's goin' into the scrapbook along with this picture of this highly trained and tactically proficient warrior:

http://www.bush2004.com/images/abu_ghraib.jpg

Torture, baby! It's the shizzle my nizzle!

No, that's not true. They're both right-wing.

In my day, the "right-wing" wanted smaller government. By that standard, both parties are left.

Why was it okay to intervene in Kosovo but not in Iraq? While the international community was clueless as to whether Saddam did or didn't possess material he wasn't supposed to have, the international community was fully well aware that Milosevic had no WMD, had never sponsored terrorism against any Western nation nor had any intention of doing so, and sure as hell wasn't a threat to the United States. What makes one okay but the other wrong?

Why was it okay to intervene in Kosovo but not in Iraq? While the international community was clueless as to whether Saddam did or didn't possess material he wasn't supposed to have, the international community was fully well aware that Milosevic had no WMD, had never sponsored terrorism against any Western nation nor had any intention of doing so, and sure as hell wasn't a threat to the United States. What makes one okay but the other wrong?

And another thing about Kosovo was that it never had a UN Mandate.

In my day, the "right-wing" wanted smaller government. By that standard, both parties are left.

size of government has never been a defining feature of left and right.

besides, the right never wanted smaller government. they just opposed the welfare state.

Buhahahahahaha .... man you're delusional. Awesome. This one's goin' into the scrapbook along with this picture of this highly trained and tactically proficient warrior:

http://www.bush2004.com/images/abu_ghraib.jpg

Torture, baby! It's the shizzle my nizzle!

Are you trying to state that a few incidents and individuals are representative of the whole?

size of government has never been a defining feature of left and right.

besides, the right never wanted smaller government. they just opposed the welfare state.

No, excluding the military, the right always wanted smaller government - at least until they became the majority.

No, excluding the military, the right always wanted smaller government - at least until they became the majority.

You're confusing "fiscally conservative" with "right-wing," which today's dumbed-down politics and media is helping to obscure.

Right-wingers LOVE the whole military-industrial complex which inevitably leads to bigger government. Right-wingers believe in trickle-down economics. Trickle down economics means more money is concentrated at the top, which means even more money for the administrators and less for the actual workers in the field. This also results in bloated government bureaucracy.

The fiscally conservative believe in streamlining wherever possible, both at the top and bottom.

Basically, if one dedicates one's live to getting oneself elected in this day and age, one wants as much government as possible because therein lies job security. Greed motivates all these bastards (with some exceptions.)

Just a quiick question: In general, who focuses on money more, a right-winger or a left-winger?

Buhahahahahaha .... man you're delusional. Awesome. This one's goin' into the scrapbook along with this picture of this highly trained and tactically proficient warrior:

http://www.bush2004.com/images/abu_ghraib.jpg

Torture, baby! It's the shizzle my nizzle!

So, by that arguement. probably.. 20 bad soldiers counts for all 499000 active soldiers and 700000 reserves.

I guess that means because i have darker skin, i have to have gold teeth, drive a "low rider" and shoot people because they are wearing the wrong color hat. Right?

No, excluding the military, the right always wanted smaller government

ignoring that elephant, you'll see that this room is entirely free of pachyderms



of course, it isn't just the military that rightwingers idolize (though it does capture the mindset quite well). more cops, more prisons, more surveillance, more hierarchy, more power, more control - that is the right and always has been.

Are you trying to state that a few incidents and individuals are representative of the whole?

Mmmm yeah ... they did it allll on their own without any orders from anyone.

Riiight.

But, then, I'm very anti-military ... so ... *shrug*.

Just a quiick question: In general, who focuses on money more, a right-winger or a left-winger?
That's a trick question. They both spend every dollar of public money, that they can spend, for the sole purpose of being re-elected. Otherwise, there would be a huge faction from one side or another that strongly opposed the 'earmarks' in highway bill, even before it was vetoed by a fiscally responsible President.

Mmmm yeah ... they did it allll on their own without any orders from anyone.

Riiight.

And how many made those orders? Was it a few? A dozen? A thousand?

Are they representative of the military as a whole? Yes or No.

But, then, I'm very anti-military ... so ... *shrug*.

I seem to recall an individual who pretended to be a former US special forces member. When he was called out he apologized to all the real servicemembers stating he respected what they did.

And how many made those orders? Was it a few? A dozen? A thousand?

Are they representative of the military as a whole? Yes or No.



I seem to recall an individual who pretended to be a former US special forces member. When he was called out he apologized to all the real servicemembers stating he respected what they did.

Hey - Who was that? I heard all about it, but never found out. Just wondering, that's all - piece of forum history an' all.

As to Keruvalia - those soldiers are disgusting, as are the superiors who may have ordered them to do it. I'm hardly a pro-military guy, but I can tell that they should not be seen as representative of the entire military.

That's a trick question. They both spend every dollar of public money, that they can spend, for the sole purpose of being re-elected. Otherwise, there would be a huge faction from one side or another that strongly opposed the 'earmarks' in highway bill, even before it was vetoed by a fiscally responsible President.

Yes, because they're both right-wing...

A pox on both their houses!

And how many made those orders? Was it a few? A dozen? A thousand?

Don't know. Don't care. 1 is too many.

Are they representative of the military as a whole? Yes or No.

History shall decide.

I seem to recall an individual who pretended to be a former US special forces member.

Aye. Briefly. If you want to dwell on it, knock yourself out. I'm over it.

When he was called out he apologized to all the real servicemembers stating he respected what they did.

That was before a lot more things have come into the public eye. My respect has dwindled dramatically. Unlike some, I am able to change when new information is brought to light.

But, then, I'm very anti-military ... so ... *shrug*.
Isn't a military necessary to protect a country from external threats?

Isn't a military necessary to protect a country from external threats?

Not really. Canada and Singapore seem to be doing just fine.

Don't know. Don't care. 1 is too many.



History shall decide.



Aye. Briefly. If you want to dwell on it, knock yourself out. I'm over it.



That was before a lot more things have come into the public eye. My respect has dwindled dramatically. Unlike some, I am able to change when new information is brought to light.

Translation: Yes, you're going to judge the entire military by the actions of a few. I guess that applies to other things as well then.

Translation: Yes, you're going to judge the entire military by the actions of a few.

Strange how you feel the need to translate perfectly written English. I never said anything of the sort.

I guess that applies to other things as well then.

I take these things on a case by case basis.

Strange how you feel the need to translate perfectly written English. I never said anything of the sort.

Then fine. Answer my question. Do you judge the entire military by the actions of a few? Yes or no.





I take these things on a case by case basis.

Of course you do. Of course the thousands of Muslims who protested against freedom of speech(many violently) were not representative of the whole nor the hundreds that are blowing up civilians and beheading people. But a few dozen soldiers follow illegal orders( and most punished) and you start crapping on the military.

Case by case my ass.

of course, it isn't just the military that rightwingers idolize (though it does capture the mindset quite well). more cops, more prisons, more surveillance, more hierarchy, more power, more control - that is the right and always has been.

Military, cops, and prisons? Perhaps, but the left also wants surveilance, hierarchy, power and control. Allegedly to protect us from ourselves.

Wow a whole litany of what we with a military background would characterize with the highly specialized term of “Male Bovine Fecal Matter” but which we provide a shortened acronym of BS for the non-technical types such as Keruvalia here. Take item 1] for instance. The current soldier, sailor, marine and airman is the highest trained, best equipped, most tactically proficient warrior that this great country has ever fielded. This war is one of the best conducted, most strategically brilliant campaigns ever fought. Fewer of our fighting personnel have become casualties and a greater percentage of those who have are alive to tell about it. We lost more personnel in the initial hours of the major WWII landings than we have lost during the entire war on terrorism on all fronts combined. Examine the KIA statistics for yourself;

4,435 - Revolutionary War
2,260 - War of 1812
13,283 - Mexican War
623,026 - Civil War
2,446 - Spanish American War
116,708 - World War I
407,316 - World War II
36,914 - Korean War
58,169 - Vietnam War
269 - Persian Gulf War
3,021 - 9-11

Keruvalia’s items 2-8] are more of the same; just piled higher and deeper. The Dems had a shot and they did do worse. Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laden on a platter and he turned the offer down. They basically let al Qaeda get away with bombing the USS Cole and several US Embassies. And Keruvalia wants more of the same. The Dems probably think this so-called “plan” of theirs is the equivalent of being defiladed. I doubt that they realize that their stench gives them away.

Wow. Talk about disingenuousity. Artfully dodge the actual issue at hand an present irrelevant, obscuring data. Not only that, with a skill unmatched for obfuscation of the actual issue, you leave the casualty numbers for the Iraq war out, and throw in the number of deaths from a terrorist attack just to bring back the good ol' demagogical "look at what they've done" angle. Perhaps you should throw in the casualties from the burning of the Reichstag? That made a good excuse to do some very bad things as well.

But while we're talking about "Giving the dems a chance", maybe you can tell me when a Democrat:

- Entered a war on false pretenses, resulting in a hundred thousand civilian casualties

- Carried out a massive campaign of unconstitutional eavesdropping on Americans, and when caught, announced that he would change the law to suit his needs.

- Allowed a major terrorist attack to occur on US soil on HIS watch.

- Succeded only in making things worse by invading two nations and turning both into hotbeds of terrorist activites?

- Failed to clean up huge amounts of nuclear waste.

- Allowed not one, but two foreign dictatorships to aquire nuclear weapns.

- And had the audacity to claim that everything was fine and dandy?

That's what I thought...

Not really. Canada and Singapore seem to be doing just fine.
So are dozens of countries that do have militaries. Canada has a military.

They're also fortunate enough not to have been attacked. If the country is attacked, a military is necessary, is it not?

Military, cops, and prisons? Perhaps, but the left also wants surveilance, hierarchy, power and control. Allegedly to protect us from ourselves.

Name one person in government who you would consider "left" who advocates greater surveilance.

Then fine. Answer my question. Do you judge the entire military by the actions of a few? Yes or no.

Not yet.


Of course you do. Of course the thousands of Muslims who protested against freedom of speech(many violently) were not representative of the whole nor the hundreds that are blowing up civilians and beheading people. But a few dozen soldiers follow illegal orders( and most punished) and you start crapping on the military.

The military is a different case than the Muslim protests. Hence, case by case. You may keep your ass.

They're also fortunate enough not to have been attacked. If the country is attacked, a military is necessary, is it not?

Depends on why the country was attacked.

All in all, I'd say no.

Not yet.

So why did you make the post generalizing the military in response to it's stated qualifications?




The military is a different case than the Muslim protests. Hence, case by case. You may keep your ass.

Yet there was no general condemnation of them as you presented of the military.

Shock.

So...then Bush's war with Iraq must be covering up something much bigger than a blowjob.
No, Iraq was about the voices in Bush's head. There is no real evidence to a conspiracy in Iraq. I'd like to think that evil masterminds might be better at keeping nastiness under the rug.
More importantly, I'd like to kick both Bush and Clinton in the nuts, so your words speak of your own foolishness by the flowering of their irrelevancy. I have no idea what that meant either.
QUOTE=Gymoor II The Return]So, it wasn't faulty intel in Clinton's case? Good thing he ordered an extremely limited missile strike rather than doing something foolish like a full-scale invasion and a several-years long operation.[/quote]
In both cases, the President wanted a war and wasn't about to let little things like "caution" or "reality" to get in their way. Bush, however, is less slippery and forgot the golden rule of American foriegn policy:
"It doesn't matter if a bunch of filthy foriegners get the axe, provided that we don't have to think about it."
Now, don't get me wrong, I like isolationism as much as the next libertarian. However, when you start messing about, you have to at least make an effort to care what you're messing about with.
QUOTE=Gymoor II The Return]Meanwhile, the Repubs were doing everything they could to stop Clinton from intervening in Kosovo (gee, what were the casualties again from that disaster of an operation???) because they were saying that one can criticise the President and his warplan without disrespecting the troops and that it's not America's job to spread Democracy.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, which goes to show that both parties are practically identical. Hmm, that was the point of this thread, wasn't it? Masterful way to bring us back on topic, if I do say so myself. And I do, so (therefore) the logical conclusion to make is that that was a "masterful way to bring us back on topic."

So why did you make the post generalizing the military in response to it's stated qualifications?

Just to piss you off.

No, not really. It's because I find the stated qualifications laughable.


Yet there was no general condemnation of them as you presented of the military.


Oh really? Well, if you can't use the search function, the terrorists win.

I vocally condemn all violence. Constantly. Regardless of the source. Be it a Muslim extremist or a US Army grunt. I find it all deplorable.

Depends on why the country was attacked.

All in all, I'd say no.
Why?

I vocally condemn all violence. Constantly. Regardless of the source. Be it a Muslim extremist or a US Army grunt. I find it all deplorable.
I hate violence too, but pacifism is not pragmatic. If pacifist ideologues ran the show in 1930s Britain (for example), there would not have been a 1940s Britain.

The military is a different case than the Muslim protests. Hence, case by case. You may keep your ass.
You're not consistent. You judge one group by a minority of its members, yet rebuke those who do the same to another group.

Canada has a military and is a member of NATO and NORAD. One reason why Canada has a substantially smaller military than other first world countries is that Canada's only land neighbour is the USA. There's never been any indication, since 1812, that the US has any interest in invading Canada.

Singapore has mandatory military service for all males over 18.
Here's the website of their military: http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/home.html

Democrats Have a Plan
that's like saying the Republicans have a soul.

that's like saying the Republicans have a soul.
or a brain... ;)

You're not consistent. You judge one group by a minority of its members, yet rebuke those who do the same to another group.

The jury is still out on the military. My answer to the question was "not yet". I've got judgement in reservation until all the facts are in.

So far, the defense has not been presenting a very good case.

Why?

Because it isn't. I am not free because of anything anyone in the current military is doing. I am not free because there are 30,000+ dead Iraqi civilians. I am not free because Saddam is no longer in power.

I do not support nor appreciate anything the military is currently doing.

I hate violence too, but pacifism is not pragmatic.

If I concerned myself with pragmatism, I would not have become a musician, or a teacher, or a father.

You shouldn't be suprised by this at all, my good man. You are right, when you truely look at it, there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. This is exactly the reason why James Madison warned people about factionalism (political parties). They take on the identity of their canidate (when it should be vice versa) and they just sit there and bash one another.

The War on Terrorism is just one of the many issues that the Republicans and the Democrats are EXACTLY the same. Go to their websites and look up their platforms:

"We want to help children."

"We want to protect our nation form threats."

"We believe everyone should have a chance in America"

The list could go on and on. The reason why is simple. No one with political ambitions is going to say their "against helping children" or "against protecting the United States from hostiles". The politican who says those things shouldn't quit his day job, because he's not getting elected to the House, the Senate, much less the Presidency or even a Governership. THAT is why the Republicans and the Democrats mirror each other so much. The only real differences are how exactly they take care of these "issues".

Military, cops, and prisons? Perhaps, but the left also wants surveilance, hierarchy, power and control. Allegedly to protect us from ourselves.

not as a defining feature, no.

Congratulations for having a firm grasp of the obvious -- hypocrites sit on both sides of the aisle.
Here's the difference--Kosovo was justified. Iraq wasn't. Clinton didn't lie to get us into Kosovo. Bush lied to get us into Iraq (here's the latest story) (http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm). Republican criticism of Kosovo was bullshit personal attacks on the President. Democratic criticism of Iraq is accurate attacks on the President's competence.

But no clue...
In a recent development, guaranteed to turn the tide of recent elections, the DNC has developed a plan for anti-terror activities. The plans is as follows:

I'm not kidding. This is it. All of it. I'm just glad they didn't burden us with specifics.

Again, I wonder what makes Democrats different than Republicans?
LOL! For a moment there, I thought you had yer Democrats and yer Republicans all mixed up. Uh ... wait. :D

Name one person in government who you would consider "left" who advocates greater surveilance.

David Blunkett, Ken Livingstone...there are plenty of others.

Here's the difference--Kosovo was justified. Iraq wasn't. Clinton didn't lie to get us into Kosovo. Bush lied to get us into Iraq (here's the latest story) (http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm). Republican criticism of Kosovo was bullshit personal attacks on the President. Democratic criticism of Iraq is accurate attacks on the President's competence.

Though to be fair, a Yugoslavian court under UN supervision ended up ruling that there never was a genocide in Kosovo. And certainly the 100,000 deaths figure that Bill Cohen bandied about was patently false.

I believe that Robin Cook (MP) ended up being called upon this in 1999 by an all party comitee of MPs.

Not to mention that Kosovo never had the backing of the UN. It was a pure NATO operation.

Though to be fair, a Yugoslavian court under UN supervision ended up ruling that there never was a genocide in Kosovo. And certainly the 100,000 deaths figure that Bill Cohen bandied about was patently false.

I believe that Robin Cook (MP) ended up being called upon this in 1999 by an all party commitee of MPs.
True, but when he died, Slobodan Milosevic was on trial for atrocities committed during that period, and other people are cooling their heels in prison for similar crimes if I recall correctly. Iraq had nothing comparable happening at the time of the invasion, and what's more important, Bush never made that case to the public--his cause was WMD, which we now know, thanks to the article I linked above, that he knew was bullshit before he even asked the UN for the last resolution.

Not to mention that Kosovo never had the backing of the UN. It was a pure NATO operation.
Which has jack fuck-all to do with this discussion, Corny.

Which has jack fuck-all to do with this discussion, Corny.

What does Kosovo have to do with this thread?

What does Kosovo have to do with this thread?
Trace back and find the comment I was replying to--it's a few pages back. It's called thread drift--happens all the time.

Trace back and find the comment I was replying to--it's a few pages back. It's called thread drift--happens all the time.

Yea I know it happens all the time.

less openly evil?

But, naive idealism disguised as stupidity is evil.

But, naive idealism disguised as stupidity is evil.
The Christian conservative wing of the republican party in a nutshell.

The Christian conservative wing of the republican party in a nutshell.

Would you knock it off.

The Christian conservative wing of the republican party in a nutshell.

I am going to give you the credit for being deliberately obtuse here.

I am going to give you the credit for being deliberately obtuse here.
Who's being obtuse? Just because that's not the way you meant it doesn't mean that my characterization of your sentence isn't accurate. It's perfectly accurate. Don't like it? Tough shit.

Who's being obtuse? Just because that's not the way you meant it doesn't mean that my characterization of your sentence isn't accurate. It's perfectly accurate. Don't like it? Tough shit.

Nice mouth. You kiss your mother with that mouth? You actually eat with that mouth? Ewwww.

Only problem is...... you're wrong.

Nice mouth. You kiss your mother with that mouth? You actually eat with that mouth? Ewwww.

Only problem is...... you're wrong.
No, I kiss your mother with this mouth, and she loves it too. And you've got more than one problem, the most recent of which is that I'm right and you can't bring yourself to admit it.

No, I kiss your mother with this mouth, and she loves it too. And you've got more than one problem, the most recent of which is that I'm right and you can't bring yourself to admit it.

Liberals do so like to sling mud, don't they? It's the last refuge of a weak argument, put them on their defensive by making a lot of baseless personal attacks.

Yer still wrong bucko.

Liberals do so like to sling mud, don't they? It's the last refuge of a weak argument, put them on their defensive by making a lot of baseless personal attacks.

Yer still wrong bucko.
Wait wait wait, this started with a baseless attack that he turned around on you. Not really grounds for your high road routine, champ...

Wait wait wait, this started with a baseless attack that he turned around on you. Not really grounds for your high road routine, champ...

I, have attacked no-one. Yet. Do you always characterize a comment about a political party as being a personal attack? Now, a comment about someone's mother, now you have something there. Oh wait. That wasn't me. That was him. My bad.

Liberals do so like to sling mud, don't they? It's the last refuge of a weak argument, put them on their defensive by making a lot of baseless personal attacks.

Yer still wrong bucko.
Not all liberals--some would take offense at my tone. Others would say that I haven't been harsh enough with you, child. You see, despite what you've been trained to believe, there's a wide range of people who call themselves liberal, just as there's a wide range of people who call themselves conservative. I have a number of conservative friends--they're intelligent people who think that the christian conservative wing of the republican party is made up of mouth breathers who deny basic tenets of science because they don't fit in with their precious world view. Instead of basing their belief systems on the observable world, that wing chooses to eschew fact in favor of mysticism and the unexplainable. In short, they are stupid, naive idealists, and are evil, since they would destroy this world in favor of the one they believe--with no reasonable basis--will come in the future.

Now go run along and play with the other little kiddies.

I, have attacked no-one. Yet.
You did this-
But, naive idealism disguised as stupidity is evil.
and he turned it around on you and you got butt-hurt. What's worse is you did that "Oh you liberals..." nonsense as if conservatives haven't been calling liberals godless heathen traitorous terrorist lovers just for having the audacity to ask a fucking question. Sorry Bob, no sale.

I, have attacked no-one. Yet. Do you always characterize a comment about a political party as being a personal attack? Now, a comment about someone's mother, now you have something there. Oh wait. That wasn't me. That was him. My bad.
Read carefully, you'll not find the word 'personal' in my post.

Not all liberals--some would take offense at my tone. Others would say that I haven't been harsh enough with you, child. You see, despite what you've been trained to believe, there's a wide range of people who call themselves liberal, just as there's a wide range of people who call themselves conservative. I have a number of conservative friends--they're intelligent people who think that the christian conservative wing of the republican party is made up of mouth breathers who deny basic tenets of science because they don't fit in with their precious world view. Instead of basing their belief systems on the observable world, that wing chooses to eschew fact in favor of mysticism and the unexplainable. In short, they are stupid, naive idealists, and are evil, since they would destroy this world in favor of the one they believe--with no reasonable basis--will come in the future.

Now go run along and play with the other little kiddies.

Condescension looks good on you. Aren't you even going to ask whether or not your one size fits all argument, if I may call it such, even remotely has anything whatsoever to do with me?

Read carefully, you'll not find the word 'personal' in my post.

The inference is there. Deny that.

I, have attacked no-one. Yet. Do you always characterize a comment about a political party as being a personal attack? Now, a comment about someone's mother, now you have something there. Oh wait. That wasn't me. That was him. My bad.
You were the first one to bring mothers into it, and you were the first to attack me personally. Don't go crying like a kid with a skinned knee when you get slapped back.

Condescension looks good on you. Aren't you even going to ask whether or not your one size fits all argument, if I may call it such, even remotely has anything whatsoever to do with me?
I know who you are. I pay attention on the boards here. You took offense at my accurate characterization of a subset of the Republican party. I could give a shit if you're part of that group or not.

The inference is there. Deny that.
I chose my words carefully, I knew what you did and I called it. If I had meant to say personal, I would have.

You did this-

and he turned it around on you and you got butt-hurt. What's worse is you did that "Oh you liberals..." nonsense as if conservatives haven't been calling liberals godless heathen traitorous terrorist lovers just for having the audacity to ask a fucking question. Sorry Bob, no sale.

So explain to me how Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy coming out with this grand shopping list of what the Democrats are going to do to make the world right again (capture Osama - like that hasn't been tried....., puhleeze) is any different than what Dub stated he was going to do before the Iraq invasion?

You were the first one to bring mothers into it, and you were the first to attack me personally. Don't go crying like a kid with a skinned knee when you get slapped back.

Show me that post. I'd love to see it. Never said that. Prove it.

So explain to me how Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy coming out with this grand shopping list of what the Democrats are going to do to make the world right again (capture Osama - like that hasn't been tried....., puhleeze) is any different than what Dub stated he was going to do before the Iraq invasion?
Well, I think a major difference would have been the Iraq invasion.

Or that they are still focused on bin Laden where Bush 'doesn't think about him that much,' to paraphrase...

I chose my words carefully, I knew what you did and I called it. If I had meant to say personal, I would have.

I notice you did not attempt to rebut that, Game. Set. And match.

I notice you did not attempt to rebut that, Game. Set. And match.
Are you high?

Show me that post. I'd love to see it. Never said that. Prove it.
There's the personal attack (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10671358&postcount=105) and two posts later in post 107, you bring mothers into the discussion.

There's the personal attack (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10671358&postcount=105) and two posts later in post 107, you bring mothers into the discussion.

Read #109, the one I quoted from that started this all. I read yours before I posted mine.

Or are you going to be disingenous enough to deny you said that as well?

Read #109, the one I quoted from that no longer appears on the list that started this all. I read yours before I posted mine.

Or are you going to be disingenous enough to deny you said that as well?
I've deleted nothing, you lying sack of crap.

I've deleted nothing, you lying sack of crap.

Re-read the post before yours. Now, you don't mind if I ignore you for awhile, do ya, chum? Screaming infantile male aggression jus' wears me out. Have a nice day.

Jesus loves you.

Re-read the post before yours. Now, you don't mind if I ignore you for awhile, do ya, chum? Screaming infantle male aggression jus' wears me out. Have a nice day.

Jesus loves you.
Jesus thinks you're an...

Never mind.

Here's a link to the Democrats "plan" for America. Read it and make up your own mind.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/31/sotu-text

Or if you prefer a source where you won't possibly be exposed to any poisonous swill by hate-filled bloggers posting at the end of the article.......

http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/rushlimb/pdf/DemocratPlan.pdf

Like I said. Make up your own mind.

Here's a link to the Democrats "plan" for America. Read it and make up your own mind.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/31/sotu-text

How is posting Bush's SOTU address the Democrats' plan for America?

Or if you prefer a source where you won't possibly be exposed to any poisonous swill by hate-filled bloggers posting at the end of the article.......
:rolleyes:

http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/rushlimb/pdf/DemocratPlan.pdf

Like I said. Make up your own mind.
One out of three ain't bad.

As far as I can see, the Democrats want to do this:



And the current US administration are doing this



Correct me if I'm wrong.
Ka-POW! :sniper:

Nice shot.

I've deleted nothing, you lying sack of crap.
Damn! Why do i always come in late on these things? ;)

Oooh oooh, I know (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/reminder-of-gop-attacks-on-clintons.html)
Mmmm, quote evidence goodness. *bows*
:D

Would you knock it off.
He's right, though.

Explained here well ...:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10671490&postcount=112

Mmmm, quote evidence goodness. *bows*
:D

Since when has posting a link from a blog ever constituted "evidence"?
*bows*

Damn! Why do i always come in late on these things? ;)

Post Traumatic Post Disorder, I guess. ;o) Or perhaps postmature ejaculation. Oooh, I see your nostrils beginning to flare. But in case you were wondering what usage I was employing, read the bold faced type.

e·jac·u·la·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-jky-lshn)
n.

1) The act of ejaculating.
2) An abrupt discharge of fluid.
3) The expulsion of seminal fluid from the urethra of the penis during orgasm.
4) A sudden short exclamation, especially a brief pious utterance or prayer.

The jury is still out on the military. My answer to the question was "not yet". I've got judgement in reservation until all the facts are in.

So far, the defense has not been presenting a very good case.
Are you judging them by some factor other than the tiny minority that abused prisoners in Abu Ghraib?

Because it isn't. I am not free because of anything anyone in the current military is doing. I am not free because there are 30,000+ dead Iraqi civilians. I am not free because Saddam is no longer in power.

I do not support nor appreciate anything the military is currently doing.
You think that I am defending imperialist wars just because I say that a military is necessary for a nation? (I'm not just talking about the USA.)

I think you should blame the politicians, not the military, for the current war.

You're free because of some of the things your military did in the past.

Are you also against the existence of a military purely for defensive purposes?

If I concerned myself with pragmatism, I would not have become a musician, or a teacher, or a father.
Idealism is nice. Pragmatic people created the conditions that allow idealists to thrive.

Are you judging them by some factor other than the tiny minority that abused prisoners in Abu Ghraib?

Not solely, no. There are many other factors. Abu Ghraib is one out of many. 30,000+ dead Iraqi civilians while not a single soldier stands up and says, "Hey ... this is wrong" and puts down his gun and goes home is another.

Would you like a complete list?

You think that I am defending imperialist wars just because I say that a military is necessary for a nation? (I'm not just talking about the USA.)

Nope! Just expressing my views.

Are you also against the existence of a military purely for defensive purposes?

Not as much, but somewhat. The best defense is not to offend.

Idealism is nice. Pragmatic people created the conditions that allow idealists to thrive.

I don't believe that.

But no clue...
In a recent development, guaranteed to turn the tide of recent elections, the DNC has developed a plan for anti-terror activities. The plans is as follows:

I'm not kidding. This is it. All of it. I'm just glad they didn't burden us with specifics.

Again, I wonder what makes Democrats different than Republicans?

It would be nice for the democrats to explain how they're going to eliminate terrorism by spending zip on the causes of terrorism.

Here is a good tip for the Democrats and US; stop propping up corrupt and repressive regimes in the middle east, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

The War on Terrorism is just one of the many issues that the Republicans and the Democrats are EXACTLY the same. Go to their websites and look up their platforms:

"We want to help children."

"We want to protect our nation form threats."

"We believe everyone should have a chance in America"

The only real differences are how exactly they take care of these "issues".
And each one of them is a lie, especially the last one, considering how the two parties exist to reinforce the current power structure.

Not as much, but somewhat. The best defense is not to offend.
Good, so you believe in a military.

I don't believe that.
I'll bring up WWII again. Hitler would have invaded Britain if the British government had not been pragmatic and opted for defense. Assuming that Hitler's policies for Britain would have been similar to those he executed on continental Europe, idealism, dissent and creativity would not have thrived.

How about my own life? If my government had not decided that it was in the best future interests of the nation that university education be free, I would not be able to attend art college. If they had not also decided to subsidise the arts, I might find it damn near impossible to make a living from it in the future. Pragmatists in the government created the conditions to allow my idealism and creativity to thrive.

So explain to me how Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy coming out with this grand shopping list of what the Democrats are going to do to make the world right again (capture Osama - like that hasn't been tried....., puhleeze) is any different than what Dub stated he was going to do before the Iraq invasion?

Becuase Dub has already proven to be incapbale of delivering on his promises? Hmmmm?

Becuase Dub has already proven to be incapbale of delivering on his promises? Hmmmm?

I'm actually really happy that the Democrats are finally saying something meaningful; if they just extend it to a few other big issues like Medicare and SS, and offer something good, they might have a really strong platform for November...one that wins on its own merits rather than from an en masse rejection of Republican incumbents.

I know who you are. I pay attention on the boards here. You took offense at my accurate characterization of a subset of the Republican party. I could give a shit if you're part of that group or not.

Again, it is not accurate. I'm a Christian Nazz! I suggest that you stop generalizing everything please.

Again, it is not accurate. I'm a Christian Nazz! I suggest that you stop generalizing everything please.

Yes, but you're not a mover and a shaker in the conservative Christian subset of the Republican party. You might as well take personal offense at a poke aimed at Tom Delay.

Just give Nazz credit for making a pithy comeback to a jibe aimed at Dem politicians and move on.

Again, it is not accurate. I'm a Christian Nazz! I suggest that you stop generalizing everything please.Are you a part of that subset of the Republican party? If you aren't, then relax--I wasn't talking about you.

Since when has posting a link from a blog ever constituted "evidence"?
*bows*
If you'd actually followed the link, you'd have seen that every one of those quotes was linked to its original source. That is what constitutes evidence. :rolleyes:

Since when has posting a link from a blog ever constituted "evidence"?
*bows*
Actually, i owed him that from a different setting involving Corneliu and his "manner of arguing".
He knows what i'm talking about ... i could direct you if you like, but, meh.

Post Traumatic Post Disorder, I guess. ;o) Or perhaps postmature ejaculation. Oooh, I see your nostrils beginning to flare. But in case you were wondering what usage I was employing, read the bold faced type.

e·jac·u·la·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-jky-lshn)
n.

1) The act of ejaculating.
2) An abrupt discharge of fluid.
3) The expulsion of seminal fluid from the urethra of the penis during orgasm.
4) A sudden short exclamation, especially a brief pious utterance or prayer.
Well, it's good to know what you think ... and think and think ... of me ... :eek:
Maybe i shouldn't have offered up that camping trip. I'm under the impression you're gonna make it personal. :D