NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090304/pl_politico/19596

So, yeah. Limbaugh is screwed. He can't stop talking now or it'll look like cowardice. What he says WILL come back to haunt the GOP and the apology a GOPer made to him plays right into the hands of Democrats.

So, yes! Cut Rush Limbaugh a check!

the republicans continue to languish in the ultraconservative pit they dug for themselves. it ruined any chance they had to win in the last election; it continues to poison their hopes for the future.

they cant afford to alienate one of their last few strongholds--the idiot dittoheads--and they cant reach to the center with rush's dick in their mouths.

poor things.

until a person with considerable charisma and actual thoughts of his/her own comes along who can wrest the party away from the radio talk show hosts they are doomed.

the republicans continue to languish in the ultraconservative pit they dug for themselves. it ruined any chance they had to win in the last election; it continues to poison their hopes for the future.

they cant afford to alienate one of their last few strongholds--the idiot dittoheads--and they cant reach to the center with rush's dick in their mouths.

poor things.

until a person with considerable charisma and actual thoughts of his/her own comes along who can wrest the party away from the radio talk show hosts they are doomed.

So, let's hope they drift further and further right. Right into oblivion.

It's amazing how the right is falling over the fellate Limbaugh. Michael Steele, the goddamned RNC chairman, the leader of the party, publically apologized for how he spoke about him.

It's like Obama apologizing to Jon Stewart. The fact is, republicans have let someone who is, despite his claims, deeply unpopular with mainstream american public, be their face.

And all the democrats have to do is constantly air soundbites of all the shit he's spewed.

So, let's hope they drift further and further right. Right into oblivion.
id rather have them smarten up and move strongly to the center. the democratic party needs a strong rational opposition to keep them from doing their own stupid things.

Celebratory tactics are wildly premature.

It's amazing how the right is falling over the fellate Limbaugh. Michael Steele, the goddamned RNC chairman, the leader of the party, publically apologized for how he spoke about him.

It's like Obama apologizing to Jon Stewart. The fact is, republicans have let someone who is, despite his claims, deeply unpopular with mainstream american public, be their face.

And all the democrats have to do is constantly air soundbites of all the shit he's spewed.

Splendid, innit?

id rather have them smarten up and move strongly to the center. the democratic party needs a strong rational opposition to keep them from doing their own stupid things.

Then, let a new, further left party be born.

Celebratory tactics are wildly premature.

...because I may help or hinder my cause in using them? This is an Internet forum.

A cynic would begin to wonder how much longer Rush will survive.

Then, let a new, further left party be born.
this is still the united states. we wont go any further left.

So, let's hope they drift further and further right. Right into oblivion.

Think for a moment about the implications of a one-party system for American democracy.

Also, you might want to think about some of the other implications of having the GOP become a fanatical fringe that cannot maintain any power through legitimate politics, but believes itself the sole hope for America. Like the possibility of Civil War mk 2.

So, let's hope they drift further and further right. Right into oblivion.

The United States has a history regarding the marginalization of one side of the political spectrum. It happened about 150 years ago, and I think most of us would rather avoid it happening again.

hey, anybody remember what terrible and stupid decision it was for obama to publicly mention limbaugh, and how that would only give rush more exposure and more power, thus being good for republicans?

What's hilarious is that the administration is blatantly helping this whole shitstorm along, and whenever a Republican comes out and says "hey we're gonna tear ourselves apart" they get denounced and attacked.

Think for a moment about the implications of a one-party system for American democracy.

Also, you might want to think about some of the other implications of having the GOP become a fanatical fringe that cannot maintain any power through legitimate politics, but believes itself the sole hope for America. Like the possibility of Civil War mk 2.

1- Good enough for me if that party's name doesn't begin with an R.

2- They're fewer, and such a move would drive the US further left by making them seen as psychotics. Such a civil war wouldn't last a week with the ACTUAL Military under control of the President.

The United States has a history regarding the marginalization of one side of the political spectrum. It happened about 150 years ago, and I think most of us would rather avoid it happening again.

It's not arresting them, it's reducing them to due insignificance.

hey, anybody remember what terrible and stupid decision it was for obama to publicly mention limbaugh, and how that would only give rush more exposure and more power, thus being good for republicans?
that obama guy is wicked smart. he should be president or something.

Think for a moment about the implications of a one-party system for American democracy.

we'd get a couple cycles of utter domination by the obama party, and then some new opposition faction would come into being that at least had some hope of winning. just like the last couple times it happened.

1- Good enough for me if that party's name doesn't begin with an R.

So essentially, you don't care if one ideology has a complete monopoly on power, as long as its your guys? You disgust me.

Some of us actually believe in concepts like "democracy," and "political debate."

2- They're fewer, and such a move would drive the US further left by making them seen as psychotics. Such a civil war wouldn't last a week with the ACTUAL Military under control of the President.

I'd say it would more likely be a short and bloody war, followed by a further loss of personal liberties and a perpetual low grade insurgency. But hey, as long as our guys won...

It's not arresting them, it's reducing them to due insignificance.

Perhaps you didn't read my post, so I'll reprint it here:

The United States has a history regarding the marginalization of one side of the political spectrum. It happened about 150 years ago, and I think most of us would rather avoid it happening again.

This has happened in the past. One side of a debate felt so ignored and marginalized that they felt their only recourse was to leave the country. People with rational minds (read: not you) would like to avoid another civil war. I know you're not from the US, so your concern over a civil war here would be mostly academic, but for those of us that would be personally involved, avoiding a civil war is a good goal.

I think the Republican Party should just move to another nation, if they get forced out of US Politics. Maybe they can take over Brazil?

























J/K :p

This has happened in the past. One side of a debate felt so ignored and marginalized that they felt their only recourse was to leave the country.

yeah, only now they don't have anywhere near the ability to do so in a hostile way, so it'll instead look like the times where a party collapsed rather than where a party was very very powerful. federalists and whigs rather than slavers.

yeah, only now they don't have anywhere near the ability to do so in a hostile way, so it'll instead look like the times where a party collapsed rather than where a party was very very powerful. federalists and whigs rather than slavers.

Of course they have the ability. If things ever got so bad in this country that the Limbaugh disciples felt there was no recourse other than armed rebellion, it wouldn't matter if the US military remained loyal to the government or not. The kind of armed insurgency that would take place in the United States would make Iraq look like a Sunday brunch. All the other parties that have collapsed have been fringe parties at best. The evangelical right represents 23% of the voting population. That's almost 30 million people. That's not a fringe party.

This has happened in the past. One side of a debate felt so ignored and marginalized that they felt their only recourse was to leave the country.

That sounds like a nice bit of apologetics for the slave holders. They bitched because they couldn't get a free pass to treat people like animals, and bolted. If the South was marginalized, it bloody deserved to be.

Frankly, so does the GOP in its current state. I'm not happy about it, and the whole situation may lead to the fall of America. But any solution will have to come largely from within the GOP. The Democrats can't make them change except by force, which somewhat defeats the purpose of avoiding a civil war. They need to reform, and they need to be encouraged to do so, but they must make that choice in the end for themselves.

I think the Republican Party should just move to another nation, if they get forced out of US Politics. Maybe they can take over Brazil?




J/K :p

They seem to like Iraq....

So essentially, you don't care if one ideology has a complete monopoly on power, as long as its your guys? You disgust me.

Some of us actually believe in concepts like "democracy," and "political debate."



I'd say it would more likely be a short and bloody war, followed by a further loss of personal liberties and a perpetual low grade insurgency. But hey, as long as our guys won...

1- I would like to see a multi-party US. The Republican ideology, however, is plain dangerous, so, if the choice is between them being able to get to power and them not being able to get to power, an easy choice it is.

2- It's not about democracy. I'm not talking of taking away people's right to vote Republican, I'm giddy about the fact that fewer and fewer will want to.

3- Your internal struggles are none of my concern. Republicans are the one talking about insurgency. Go ahead and talk to them.

1- I would like to see a multi-party US. The Republican ideology, however, is plain dangerous, so, if the choice is between them being able to get to power and them not being able to get to power, an easy choice it is.

Obviously the Republicans as they are cannot effectively govern. But I have great doubts about the ability of a one-party state to do so in the long term either. Neither is the solution.

2- It's not about democracy. I'm not talking of taking away people's right to vote Republican, I'm giddy about the fact that fewer and fewer will want to.

The problem is, you need an opposition, to act as a check on the ruling party's power.

3- Your internal struggles are none of my concern. Republicans are the one talking about insurgency. Go ahead and talk to them.

Right, because anarchy in the most powerful nation in the world would have no global consequences whatsoever...:rolleyes:

3- Your internal struggles are none of my concern. Republicans are the one talking about insurgency. Go ahead and talk to them.

I'll keep this post in mind the next time you start going on one of your rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth rants at TAI for supporting Pinochet.

Obviously the Republicans as they are cannot effectively govern. But I have great doubts about the ability of a one-party state to do so in the long term either. Neither is the solution.



The problem is, you need an opposition, to act as a check on the ruling party's power.



Right, because anarchy in the most powerful nation in the world would have no global consequences whatsoever...:rolleyes:

1- There CAN still be an opposition. But Republicans don't need to be able, in practice, to grasp the reins of power.

2- Well, at least Iraq wouldn't be re-re-invaded.

I'll keep this post in mind the next time you start going on one of your rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth rants at TAI for supporting Pinochet.

Am I supporting Brazilian intervention to cause anarchy in the US? No. Am I even supporting anarchy in the US? No. I'm saying it's none of my concern.

TAI supports American interventions and supports coups here.

Obviously the Republicans as they are cannot effectively govern. But I have great doubts about the ability of a one-party state to do so in the long term either. Neither is the solution.



The problem is, you need an opposition, to act as a check on the ruling party's power.



Right, because anarchy in the most powerful nation in the world would have no global consequences whatsoever...:rolleyes:

There's another option you know: Fracturing and the formation of Three or more major parties.

What America needs is a real opposition: something that is neither the Democrats, nor the Theocratic Fascist Party, but a party that can offer a genuine alternative approach.

Personally I still entertain some hopes that the Libertarian wing of the American Right will finally wake up to just how much contempt the rest of the GOP has for them and break off. Ron Paul nearly took some states in the primary. Their's potential third party material their, if he had chosen to run as such instead of as a Republican. This would basically give us three parties: the Christian Neo-cons, the pro-business and civil liberties Libertarians (hate that first bit, but the second is potentially a valid and nessissary counterpoint to both existing parties), and the good old Democrats.

There's another option you know: Fracturing and the formation of Three or more major parties.

Read what I just posted.;)

The die hard fundimentalist nuts and so on are not going to shift. The only hope for GOP "reform" is likely a GOP split.

I agree with Rush on many points and listen to him often.

Am I supporting Brazilian intervention to cause anarchy in the US? No. Am I even supporting anarchy in the US? No. I'm saying it's none of my concern.

TAI supports American interventions and supports coups here.

No, you're rooting for a series of political events that could be the cause of millions of deaths in the US, then saying that you don't care if those millions died because you won't be personally affected, all in the name of seeing your personal political objectives realized.

No difference.

I agree with Rush on many points and listen to him often.

So you want the Obama Administration to completely fail then? Why do you hate freedom?

It's amazing how the right is falling over the fellate Limbaugh. Michael Steele, the goddamned RNC chairman, the leader of the party, publically apologized for how he spoke about him.

It's like Obama apologizing to Jon Stewart. The fact is, republicans have let someone who is, despite his claims, deeply unpopular with mainstream american public, be their face.

And all the democrats have to do is constantly air soundbites of all the shit he's spewed.

soundbites: partial sentences taken out of context for the purpose of spinning the intent and meaning of the speaker. also called lying.

in other words: all the liberals have to do is stuff their heads up their butts and only listen to what they want to hear, take everything out of context, and spin the intent and full meaning of his words to make him look like an idiot. that's always a MORE honorable way to evaluate what a person is saying, eh?

in other words, all liberals have to do is same-old same-old, self-righteous manipulation of the facts. Conservatives call that "boldfaced lying, manipulation and abuse of power." but god forbid that a liberal should actually ever LISTEN to what's being said, and determine whether there is any truth in it.


keep up the "good work" you mighty libs. btw - how long do you think you'll be able to uphold any moral decency in the country w/ the lying abuse of power and intentional manipulation of freedoms you are going to HAVE to manifest in order to keep control of all things political?

cuz, if there was any truth in what Limbaugh says, the stock market would be falling, there'd be discontent in the democratic party, and there would be some significant revisions of Obama's campaign promises.

oh, wait, the stock market IS falling, there ARE conflicts in the democratic party, and Obama IS failing to fulfill some of his campaign promises.

oops - the evidence strongly suggests Rush is Right.

why don't you stop your self-righteous posturing, take about 3 weeks of listening to ALL of what he says, instead of carefully selected soundbites (read: lies) and figure out for yourself if what he's talking about is accurate? (it takes about 3 weeks to see the pattern of lies the democrats are creating and that people like Rush are uncovering. Long-term examination of facts leads to truth, not sound bites). Or, is that too much thinking for y'all?

I agree with Rush on many points and listen to him often.

Ah, I see, so you're an anti-American.

soundbites: partial sentences taken out of context for the purpose of spinning the intent and meaning of the speaker. also called lying.

in other words: all the liberals have to do is stuff their heads up their butts and only listen to what they want to hear, take everything out of context, and spin the intent and full meaning of his words to make him look like an idiot. that's always a MORE honorable way to evaluate what a person is saying, eh?

in other words, all liberals have to do is same-old same-old, self-righteous manipulation of the facts. Conservatives call that "boldfaced lying, manipulation and abuse of power." but god forbid that a liberal should actually ever LISTEN to what's being said, and determine whether there is any truth in it.


keep up the "good work" you mighty libs. btw - how long do you think you'll be able to uphold any moral decency in the country w/ the lying abuse of power and intentional manipulation of freedoms you are going to HAVE to manifest in order to keep control of all things political?

cuz, if there was any truth in what Limbaugh says, the stock market would be falling, there'd be discontent in the democratic party, and there would be some significant revisions of Obama's campaign promises.

oh, wait, the stock market IS falling, there ARE conflicts in the democratic party, and Obama IS failing to fulfill some of his campaign promises.

oops - the evidence strongly suggests Rush is Right.

why don't you stop your self-righteous posturing, take about 3 weeks of listening to ALL of what he says, instead of carefully selected soundbites (read: lies) and figure out for yourself if what he's talking about is accurate? (it takes about 3 weeks to see the pattern of lies the democrats are creating and that people like Rush are uncovering. Long-term examination of facts leads to truth, not sound bites). Or, is that too much thinking for y'all?

Limbaugh supported the war in Iraq. That alone makes him a demon.

He's from the party that nearly destroyed the American economy, he roots for Obama to fail, he wanted to cause RIOTING among his political opponents.

RIOTING.

DEAD PEOPLE.

No, I won't listen to anything he has to say. He does not deserve status as a human being.

No, you're rooting for a series of political events that could be the cause of millions of deaths in the US, then saying that you don't care if those millions died because you won't be personally affected, all in the name of seeing your personal political objectives realized.

No difference.

The US GOVERNMENT wouldn't cause such events. "Could cause" is all very pretty, but it doesn't work that way in real life, mainly because anything "could cause" anything.

Of course they have the ability. If things ever got so bad in this country that the Limbaugh disciples felt there was no recourse other than armed rebellion, it wouldn't matter if the US military remained loyal to the government or not. The kind of armed insurgency that would take place in the United States would make Iraq look like a Sunday brunch. All the other parties that have collapsed have been fringe parties at best. The evangelical right represents 23% of the voting population. That's almost 30 million people. That's not a fringe party.

ah, so we are assuming that the crazies have gone completely psychotic and joined the white supremacists and militias. i just don't see it happening in the affluent suburbs which are the republican party's major base of raw numbers. they aren't even well armed out there. and since they ran out there to get away from the perceived scariness of the cities, they are not going to bring it down on their own neighborhoods a hundred-fold.

also, that actually is just as much a fringe as the whigs and federalists had immediately prior to their collapses.

It doesn't matter if you have 3, 7 or 15 parties in the end you have two blocks, the ruling one and the opposition. The only thing of concern is that the opposition is a good one that can serve as an alternative when there is an election. It is never a good idea to have one to strong party, no matter where there are on the political scale.

Trust me, Sweden has been ruled by one party for most of the last 50 years, and it has not been good for the political situation (and that comes from one that agree with a lot of the ideas of that party).

ah, so we are assuming that the crazies have gone completely psychotic and joined the white supremacists and militias. i just don't see it happening in the affluent suburbs which are the republican party's major base of raw numbers. they aren't even well armed out there. and since they ran out there to get away from the perceived scariness of the cities, they are not going to bring it down on their own neighborhoods a hundred-fold.

also, that actually is just as much a fringe as the whigs and federalists had immediately prior to their collapses.

I'm saying that, if the marginalization and ostracization continues to the point where people of a conservative mind feel that there is no other recourse than to leave the country, then they will try to leave the country. And if the US military attempts to prevent them from leaving the country, and we know they will, then it would easily escalate into a violent uprising. I don't imagine that they would initiate the violence, but I am certain that, if the government tried to use force to keep them in the country, they would respond with violence. Even if an active rebellion were squashed quickly, and it would be, an insurgency could carry on for years. I don't know why you don't think that the affluent suburbs would be immune, especially in an economic climate where they are becoming less and less affluent daily.

He does not deserve status as a human being. Let us not forget that this comment is coming from you, "All soldiers should stay in Iraq until they can resurrect the dead" Heikoku. Your comments are just as biased.

Read what I just posted.;)

The die hard fundimentalist nuts and so on are not going to shift. The only hope for GOP "reform" is likely a GOP split.

Yep. I think a lot of moderate Democrats would be attracted to a fiscally conservative and socially liberal party unshackled from the religious wackos.

Let us not forget that this comment is coming from you, "All soldiers should stay in Iraq until they can resurrect the dead" Heikoku. Your comments are just as biased.

Well, the Iraq War was wrong.

Well, the Iraq War was wrong.Thank you for proving my point.

Thank you for proving my point.

It killed people for no reason. That's seen as wrong by most unbiased sources.

It killed people for no reason. That's seen as wrong by most unbiased sources.Impossible statement is impossible. :rolleyes:

You means "less biased", not "unbiased". Which is still being biased.

You know, I even agree with you. We had no business in Iraq, but I don't feel the need to constantly proclaim it. Why do you?

You know, I even agree with you. We had no business in Iraq, but I don't feel the need to constantly proclaim it. Why do you?

People forced me away from a debate about it by calling me "anti-American". I want to rub it in.

People forced me away from a debate about it by calling me "anti-American".So? What does "The Iraq War is wrong!" do to rectify that?

I want to rub it in.Who's face? The people here that agree with you on it? Why on earth would you want to do that?

So? What does "The Iraq War is wrong!" do to rectify that?

It makes me feel better.

At any rate, given the kind of thing Limbaugh says and favors, why should I treat him as a human being?

Who's face? The people here that agree with you on it? Why on earth would you want to do that?

There are some people here that don't. :p

Limbaugh supported the war in Iraq. That alone makes him a demon.

He's from the party that nearly destroyed the American economy, he roots for Obama to fail, he wanted to cause RIOTING among his political opponents.

RIOTING.

DEAD PEOPLE.

No, I won't listen to anything he has to say. He does not deserve status as a human being.

so - make sure you have some k-y jelly for that "head up your butt" implant.

cuz (a) Obama has tripled the deficit in 3 weeks - it took Bush 8 years, and the dems were screaming about how it would wreck the country.

if it would wreck the country when Bush did it, why is it now the country's salvation when Obama does it?

who established the rules on banking that created the foundation by which the banking system crashed??? Barney Frank was a huge protagonist for that. what political party is he in?

so - make sure you have some k-y jelly for that "head up your butt" implant.

cuz (a) Obama has tripled the deficit in 3 weeks - it took Bush 8 years, and the dems were screaming about how it would wreck the country.

if it would wreck the country when Bush did it, why is it now the country's salvation when Obama does it?

who established the rules on banking that created the foundation by which the banking system crashed??? Barney Frank was a huge protagonist for that. what political party is he in?

You have yet to tell me why should I listen to Limbaugh. Besides, Bush was the one that started the war in Iraq.

It makes me feel better. Fair enough.

At any rate, given the kind of thing Limbaugh says favors, why should I treat him as a human being?Because he is one, whether you agree with what he says or not. People's opinions don't strip them of their status of being human, no matter how much you, I or anyone else disagrees with them.

Because he is one, whether you agree with what he says or not. People's opinions don't strip them of their status of being human, no matter how much you, I or anyone else disagrees with them.

Then why is it that Limbaugh doesn't give Democrats the same treatment, instead of openly trying to cause rioting that would lead to loss of life, limb and property among them with Operation Chaos?

Then why is it that Limbaugh doesn't give Democrats the same treatment, instead of openly trying to cause rioting that would lead to loss of life, limb and property among them with Operation Chaos?Because he doesn't think the same way that you do, apparently. Still doesn't equate to Limbaugh being "not human".

Because he doesn't think the same way that you do, apparently. Still doesn't equate to Limbaugh being "not human".

Fair enough, but I do hope it frees me not to consider anything he says and to hope that one day I might have his face under my boot.

(Note to self: Buy pair of boots. Or one boot.)

Then why is it that Limbaugh doesn't give Democrats the same treatment, instead of openly trying to cause rioting that would lead to loss of life, limb and property among them with Operation Chaos?

Because he is an idiot? It doesn't matter that he is an assh*le and an idiot, you still shouldn't treat him by being an assh*le yourself.

If you want to show what and idiot he is, treat him like a normal human being. If you lower yourself to his level you will pretty much be the same thing as him, just with other political opinions.

So you want the Obama Administration to completely fail then? Why do you hate freedom?

It is inevitable that the Obama administration will fail if it wants to encourage investment in the USA by raising taxes including the capital gains tax. I do not hate freedom, in fact I love freedom. Every tax increase means that the taxpayer is a little less free to spend as money as he sees fit.

Fair enough, but I do hope it frees me not to consider anything he says and to hope that one day I might have his face under my boot.

(Note to self: Buy pair of boots. Or one boot.)Of course you can think what you want. That's the point.

Because he is an idiot? It doesn't matter that he is an assh*le and an idiot, you still shouldn't treat him by being an assh*le yourself.

If you want to show what and idiot he is, treat him like a normal human being. If you lower yourself to his level you will pretty much be the same thing as him, just with other political opinions.

...fine.

But moral high ground sucks. :p

It is inevitable that the Obama administration will fail if it wants to encourage investment in the USA by raising taxes including the capital gains tax. I do not hate freedom, in fact I love freedom. Every tax increase means that the taxpayer is a little less free to spend as money as he sees fit.

No, you don't. You're anti-American by disagreeing with the President currently in charge, remember?

Of course you can think what you want. That's the point.

Okay... *Sighs*

Moral high ground still sucks.

Do you have a spare boot?

Limbaugh supported the war in Iraq. That alone makes him a demon.

He's from the party that nearly destroyed the American economy, he roots for Obama to fail, he wanted to cause RIOTING among his political opponents.

RIOTING.

DEAD PEOPLE.

No, I won't listen to anything he has to say. He does not deserve status as a human being.

Limbaugh and I and many fine folks the world over supported and continue to support the war in Iraq. We overthrew an awful regime and are supporting a new democracy. It is wonderful.

The Democrats caused the economic mess. They were the ones who put in the laws that let the banks give loans to folks that could not afford it. You would know this if you listened to Limbaugh.

I never heard Limbaugh call for people to riot. Al Sharpton did that and killed Jews. Maybe you have him confused with Sharpton?

So what next? Attach O'Railly (sp?) to lumpy so the GOP has two anchors dragging it down?

No, you don't. You're anti-American by disagreeing with the President currently in charge, remember?

No. You are anti-American if you are anti-freedom. Obama is anti-freedom and therefore he is the anti-American.

Okay... *Sighs*

Moral high ground still sucks. It wouldn't be the moral high ground if it didn't suck.

Do you have a spare boot?Not if your feet are smaller than a size fifteen.

No. You are anti-American if you are anti-freedom. Obama is anti-freedom and therefore he is the anti-American.

No, you're anti-freedom and anti-American.

This:

in other words: all the liberals have to do is stuff their heads up their butts and only listen to what they want to hear, take everything out of context, and spin the intent and full meaning of his words to make him look like an idiot. that's always a MORE honorable way to evaluate what a person is saying, eh?

Makes the rest of this funny.

in other words, all liberals have to do is same-old same-old, self-righteous manipulation of the facts. Conservatives call that "boldfaced lying, manipulation and abuse of power." but god forbid that a liberal should actually ever LISTEN to what's being said, and determine whether there is any truth in it.


keep up the "good work" you mighty libs. btw - how long do you think you'll be able to uphold any moral decency in the country w/ the lying abuse of power and intentional manipulation of freedoms you are going to HAVE to manifest in order to keep control of all things political?

cuz, if there was any truth in what Limbaugh says, the stock market would be falling, there'd be discontent in the democratic party, and there would be some significant revisions of Obama's campaign promises.

oh, wait, the stock market IS falling, there ARE conflicts in the democratic party, and Obama IS failing to fulfill some of his campaign promises.

oops - the evidence strongly suggests Rush is Right.

why don't you stop your self-righteous posturing, take about 3 weeks of listening to ALL of what he says, instead of carefully selected soundbites (read: lies) and figure out for yourself if what he's talking about is accurate? (it takes about 3 weeks to see the pattern of lies the democrats are creating and that people like Rush are uncovering. Long-term examination of facts leads to truth, not sound bites). Or, is that too much thinking for y'all?

When you come back down to earth, we'll talk.

It wouldn't be the moral high ground if it didn't suck.

Not if your feet are smaller than a size fifteen.

1- :p

2- I have no idea how to convert shoe measures...

No, you're anti-freedom and anti-American.

How am I against freedom how am I anti-American?

No. You are anti-American if you are anti-freedom. Obama is anti-freedom and therefore he is the anti-American.

Way the shift the goal posts. Bush was big on anti-freedom yet if you criticize him the right deemed you traitorous and unpatriotic.

Limbaugh and I and many fine folks the world over supported and continue to support the war in Iraq. We overthrew an awful regime and are supporting a new democracy. It is wonderful.

The Democrats caused the economic mess. They were the ones who put in the laws that let the banks give loans to folks that could not afford it. You would know this if you listened to Limbaugh.

I never heard Limbaugh call for people to riot. Al Sharpton did that and killed Jews. Maybe you have him confused with Sharpton?

1- You're calling an useless mass-murder "wonderful".

2- Bush had 8 years to cause it. Bush caused it. Bush wanted a war and started it, which accelerated it.

3- Wiki "Operation Chaos".

How am I against freedom how am I anti-American?

You and your ilk tried to tack "anti-American" on whoever disagreed with you.

That's anti-freedom.

By YOUR definition, that makes YOU anti-American.

Besides, the Right defined anti-American as "disagreeing with current leadership".

So, here's my revenge: You're anti-American.

Limbaugh and I and many fine folks the world over supported and continue to support the war in Iraq. We overthrew an awful regime and are supporting a new democracy. It is wonderful....I wonder what kind of situation you were raised in that you could call Iraq "wonderful". What is it there, like the Thirty Years' War, or something?

The Democrats caused the economic mess. They were the ones who put in the laws that let the banks give loans to folks that could not afford it. You would know this if you listened to Limbaugh....Right, none of the politicians in the intervening years had anything to do with it. Nope, not a thing. I agree completely.

No. You are anti-American if you are anti-freedom. Obama is anti-freedom and therefore he is the anti-American.That's funny. If I recall, Bush was the one that instigated this mess of privacy violations. You know, wire-tapping and all that? That's anti-freedom, so Bush is anti-American, too. *shrug*

Way the shift the goal posts. Bush was big on anti-freedom yet if you criticize him the right deemed you traitorous and unpatriotic.

I do not understand what you are writing. There were plenty of lousy things about Bush but taking out Saddam Hussein and the Taliban was without any doubt by anyone a good thing.

That's funny. If I recall, Bush was the one that instigated this mess of privacy violations. You know, wire-tapping and all that? That's anti-freedom, so Bush is anti-American, too. *shrug*

And he supported Bush. Ergo, he's anti-American.

I do not understand what you are writing. There were plenty of lousy things about Bush but taking out Saddam Hussein and the Taliban was without any doubt by anyone a good thing.

No, the Iraq War was without a doubt the single worst act of the decade, and Bush deserves to suffer eternally for it.

How am I against freedom how am I anti-American?Do you support the USA PATRIOT Act?

There's another option you know: Fracturing and the formation of Three or more major parties.

What America possibly needs is a political system much like that of Canada or the United Kingdom. They have about five major parties. The more parties that you have in a nation-state the more chances there are for an active voter to find something to rally behind.

In the current system that we find ourselves in we have only two choices: to rally behind the flaming, red-hot neo-cons, or join the bleeding heart liberals. Moderates like myself are stuck! Most of the time you choose one or the other simply because one better suits your desires more so than the other but does not fully satisfy you. A multi-party system (of 3 to 5 parties) could give you a better shot at finding more like-minded people to vote for.

We need a third party to become stronger, in order to stand up to both the Democrats and Republicans and say that enough is enough, that two parties should not dominate American politics for as long as they have. Just look at our voter turn-out! A disgrace if you ask me! Maybe we should take this as a sign that people are upset with the way things are.

I'm not saying that we should go to a parliamentary system because I do not think that it could work in America as of now. It might have worked years ago, but not today. We're too entrenched in our ways to suddenly pull up the stakes and reform our entire political system and way of doing things. Some of the people I've talked to at college are even of the opinion that people here are not informed enough, or just simply too dumb, to handle a parliamentary system.

...I wonder what kind of situation you were raised in that you could call Iraq "wonderful". What is it there, like the Thirty Years' War, or something?

That's funny. If I recall, Bush was the one that instigated this mess of privacy violations. You know, wire-tapping and all that? That's anti-freedom, so Bush is anti-American, too. *shrug*

Nobody ever said that Sarajevo was a good place to live during that war but it means that the Serbs were bad not that the Bosnians were bad. You should be upset at the enemy for whatt hey are doing to Iraq not us we are the good guys.

And on wiretapping and all that. This business started way before Bush. ECHELON was pretty old when Bush took office.

Do you support the USA PATRIOT Act?

No. I have not read it since law school about 5 to 7 years ago but I did not like it then. I do not know if it has changed since then.

Nobody ever said that Sarajevo was a good place to live during that war but it means that the Serbs were bad not that the Bosnians were bad. You should be upset at the enemy for whatt hey are doing to Iraq not us we are the good guys.

Good guys don't attack other countries for no reason other than sadistic pleasure and money.

No, the Iraq War was without a doubt the single worst act of the decade, and Bush deserves to suffer eternally for it.

OK Mr. Al Quaeda. Whatever.

No. I have not read it since law school about 5 to 7 years ago but I did not like it then. I do not know if it has changed since then.

And you supported Bush, who supported it. Ergo, you're anti-freedom and therefore anti-American.

Good guys don't attack other countries for no reason other than sadistic pleasure and money.


Good guys liberate oppressed people.

OK Mr. Al Quaeda. Whatever.

Splendid. Thank you.

Nobody ever said that Sarajevo was a good place to live during that war but it means that the Serbs were bad not that the Bosnians were bad. You should be upset at the enemy for whatt hey are doing to Iraq not us we are the good guys. Enemy? What enemy? Some unimportant, Middle-Eastern resident who says he dislikes America? OHWOW. It's not like there aren't people in America itself that say they don't like America as is.

And on wiretapping and all that. This business started way before Bush. ECHELON was pretty old when Bush took office.Doesn't make it any less "anti-freedom".

Good guys liberate oppressed people.

That was not a liberation, that was mass murder.

OK Mr. Al Quaeda. Whatever.At least he got his plane ticket.

At least he got his plane ticket.

I'm pretty sure that thing he posted is against the rules. :)

Obvious Bushevik Troll is Obvious. Why must people feed Obvious Bushevik Troll?

Good guys liberate oppressed people.

so why have we not gone into N.Korea, Many nations in Africa, ect?

Obvious Bushevik Troll is Obvious. Why must people feed Obvious Bushevik Troll?

OK Mr. Al Quaeda. Whatever.

Because sooner or later he makes a mistake.

Obvious Bushevik Troll is Obvious. Why must people feed Obvious Bushevik Troll?Because I'd like to understand what makes people think the way they do. I know it's probably stupid, not to mention impossible, but I'm bored out of my mind here. Give me a break, dammit. :p

I'm pretty sure that thing he posted is against the rules. :)...You missed the reference. :(

...You missed the reference. :(

To 9/11? o_O

And you supported Bush, who supported it. Ergo, you're anti-freedom and therefore anti-American.

C'mon now that is not how it works. I supported Bush in the second election because Kerry was against the war. Kerry was a Somalia Retreat Democrat. My vote for Bush in the second election does not mean I agree with Bush on everything it just means that he was the lesser of two evils.

so why have we not gone into N.Korea, Many nations in Africa, ect?

Simply for these reasons:

If we go into North Korea then the People's Republic of China will cry foul and we'll end up with a shit storm the likes of which we have never seen before. We're afraid of China and what it could do to us.

As for Africa, they do not have oil or they have no strategic position that we need in order to counter our enemies.

OK Mr. Al Quaeda. Whatever.

This is what we call "flamebaiting". There is no reason for it. It detracts from an otherwise civil thread.

C'mon now that is not how it works. I supported Bush in the second election because Kerry was against the war. Kerry was a Somalia Retreat Democrat. My vote for Bush in the second election does not mean I agree with Bush on everything it just means that he was the lesser of two evils.

I seem to remember you calling me anti-American, repeatedly, for less.

You dished it out. This is me testing your ability to take it.

Besides, the Right argued that disagreeing with current leadership makes one anti-American.

You disagree with Obama.

This is what we call "flamebaiting". There is no reason for it. It detracts from an otherwise civil thread.

I'm surprised that Godwin's Law hasn't come into effect yet... =P

Simply for these reasons:

If we go into North Korea then the People's Republic of China will cry foul and we'll end up with a shit storm the likes of which we have never seen before. We're afraid of China and what it could do to us.

China is sick of Kimmy too.

As for Africa, they do not have oil or they have no strategic position that we need in order to counter our enemies.

They also dont have any sort of infastructure, making deployment tricky. You cant land a 747 in the jungle.

To 9/11? o_O...Uh...no.

To "What Does It Take To Be Controversial In Australia". :p

Simply for these reasons:

If we go into North Korea then the People's Republic of China will cry foul and we'll end up with a shit storm the likes of which we have never seen before. We're afraid of China and what it could do to us.

As for Africa, they do not have oil or they have no strategic position that we need in order to counter our enemies.

Ah, so, the war was mass murder for oil. Thanks for proving my point.

...Uh...no.

To "What Does It Take To Be Controversial In Australia". :p

Should I feel flattered that you assume me to have that much culture?

The Democrats caused the economic mess. They were the ones who put in the laws that let the banks give loans to folks that could not afford it. You would know this if you listened to Limbaugh.


Yeah, you'd know that, if you listened to Limbaugh. You'd also be completely, totally wrong.

Which is why you should never listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Should I feel flattered that you assume me to have that much culture?Yes.

Yeah, you'd know that, if you listened to Limbaugh. You'd also be completely, totally wrong.

Which is why you should never listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Now, now - I WOULD love to listen to Limbaugh if what he said was "aaaah, my entire body is in pain as I die slowly and agonizing!" - and it was true.

Yes.

*Rehearsed voice* I feel flattered!

China is sick of Kimmy too.

Yes, but does China want a U.S. military presence on its doorstep? I wouldn't when you consider how we've behaved recently with regards to foreign affairs. We see problems as nails to be beaten down. Remember that whole "you're either with us or against us" bullcrap?

They also dont have any sort of infastructure, making deployment tricky. You cant land a 747 in the jungle.

Correct. Thus we do not move in against what is blatant human-rights violations and outright genocide. Oh, shit, did I just use that "g" word that the U.S. government doesn't want to say?

so why have we not gone into N.Korea, Many nations in Africa, ect?

Good question on N. Korea. I wish we had taken on all of the Axis of Evil countries when we went into Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe that we are in many African countries as part of the UN. I also know that our special forces have performed alot of work there over the years. At the same time that we went into Iraq and Afghanistan we went into one of the African countries (I think it was Liberia) to help out there.

I think that the main reason that we do not do a ton of military activity in Africa is that we see that area of the world as the backyard of our other NATO allies. Much of that continent was former colonies of European powers.

African countries like Togo have recently develloped very close ties to the USA and I suspect that if Togo ever had serious trouble we would have more involvement there.

*Rehearsed voice* I feel flattered!Good, I don't do this whole complimenting people thing often.
>.>
<.<

:p

Ah, so, the war was mass murder for oil. Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks for missing my comment about "No strategic position."

Yes, but does China want a U.S. military presence on its doorstep? I wouldn't when you consider how we've behaved recently with regards to foreign affairs. We see problems as nails to be beaten down. Remember that whole "you're either with us or against us" bullcrap?

Yep, I was just throwing that out there.

Correct. Thus we do not move in against what is blatant human-rights violations and outright genocide. Oh, shit, did I just use that "g" word that the U.S. government doesn't want to say?
Yeah, combine a lack of national interest with huge expense and a lack of infasructure and you have a plan for state inaction.

Good question on N. Korea. I wish we had taken on all of the Axis of Evil countries when we went into Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe that we are in many African countries as part of the UN. I also know that our special forces have performed alot of work there over the years. At the same time that we went into Iraq and Afghanistan we went into one of the African countries (I think it was Liberia) to help out there.

I think that the main reason that we do not do a ton of military activity in Africa is that we see that area of the world as the backyard of our other NATO allies. Much of that continent was former colonies of European powers.

African countries like Togo have recently develloped very close ties to the USA and I suspect that if Togo ever had serious trouble we would have more involvement there.

You wish for more and more unwarranted mass-murder.

And then call ME a demon.

Laudari a bonis et vituperari a malis unum atque idem est.

You wish for more and more unwarranted mass-murder.

And then call ME a demon.

Laudari a bonis et vituperari a malis unum atque idem est.

http://k43.pbase.com/o5/42/267742/1/68416045.wGDPMlLK.popcorn.gif

You wish for more and more unwarranted mass-murder.

And then call ME a demon.

Laudari a bonis et vituperari a malis unum atque idem est.


For the sake your blood pressure, not getting another perma-ban, and all of our sanity, just ignore him. Hes trolling you. Successfully.

http://k43.pbase.com/o5/42/267742/1/68416045.wGDPMlLK.popcorn.gif

Oye, chica, sabes latin?

For the sake your blood pressure, not getting another perma-ban, and all of our sanity, just ignore him. Hes trolling you. Successfully.

I'm not insulting him back, am I?

Civil, not nice. ;)

Oye, chica, sabes latin?

Un poco.

Un poco.

Quieres traducir al inglés lo que yó dice? :)

No, the Iraq War was without a doubt the single worst act of the decade, and Bush deserves to suffer eternally for it.

OK Mr. Al Quaeda. Whatever.

This is what we call "flamebaiting". There is no reason for it. It detracts from an otherwise civil thread.

Kryozerkia, did you see that I responded to that comment? H2 claims that 9/11 was a morally superior act than the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein. H2 is pretty much calling our former president and our military war criminals.

If what I wrote was worded improperly I am sorry. But H2's comments were nothing less than fighting words.

Queres traducir al inglés lo que yó dice?

Ok, I'll try.

Laudari a bonis et vituperari a malis unum atque idem est.

To praise is good and to critisize evil... and the rest eludes me.

Kryozerkia, did you see that I responded to that comment? H2 claims that 9/11 was a morally superior act than the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein. H2 is pretty much calling our former president and our military war criminals.

If what I wrote was worded improperly I am sorry. But H2's comments were nothing less than fighting words.

1- Your former President IS a war criminal. And so are parts of your Military, yes. Both of those things, I have every right to say. Both of those things, I will keep on saying. Both of those things, you can't make me stop saying. You can't do a thing about it. How does that make you feel?

2- Nearly a hundred thousand civilians killed > 3,000 civilians killed. So, yeah.

Your former President is a war criminal.

Your former President is a war criminal.

Your former President is a war criminal.

Your former President is a war criminal.

Your former President is a war criminal.

I repeat, and will keep on repeating:

Your former President is a war criminal.

See? Said it again. What are you going to do about it?

Ok, I'll try.

Laudari a bonis et vituperari a malis unum atque idem est.

To praise is good and to critisize evil... and the rest eludes me.

Casi. Que yó sepa, "To be praised by the good and criticized by the evil are one and the same." ;)

They also dont have any sort of infastructure, making deployment tricky. You cant land a 747 in the jungle.

Correct. Thus we do not move in against what is blatant human-rights violations and outright genocide. Oh, shit, did I just use that "g" word that the U.S. government doesn't want to say?

Oh, we do care about Africa and get involved, at least in the horn. We just make absolutely idiotic policy decisions that betray a complete ignorance of the situation and sentiment on the ground. See all US policy as regards Somalia.

And don't be ridiculous. We all know that, officially, genocide doesn't happen in Africa. Geez.

Casi. Que yó sepa, "To be praised by the good and criticized by the evil are one and the same." ;)

Tengo el cerebro quedo, macho. Se me cierran los ojos...

I am so sleepy...

Tengo el cerebro quedo, macho. Se me cierran los ojos...

I am so sleepy...

Y por que no duerme? o_O

Y por que no duerme? o_O

Because I am at the Spanish Consulate and, although the sofas are very comfy, it's a violation of protocol to fall asleep here. *yawn*

Because I am at the Spanish Consulate and, although the sofas are very comfy, it's a violation of protocol to fall asleep here. *yawn*

Why are you at the Spanish Consulate, and how come you're on NSG there? o_o

Why are you at the Spanish Consulate, and how come you're on NSG there? o_o

Because I am with my mother on official business and I am sitting at the desk of a person I know.

1- Your former President IS a war criminal. And so are parts of your Military, yes. Both of those things, I have every right to say. Both of those things, I will keep on saying. Both of those things, you can't make me stop saying. You can't do a thing about it. How does that make you feel?

2- Nearly a hundred thousand civilians killed > 3,000 civilians killed. So, yeah.

Your former President is a war criminal.

Your former President is a war criminal.

Your former President is a war criminal.

Your former President is a war criminal.

Your former President is a war criminal.

I repeat, and will keep on repeating:

Your former President is a war criminal.

See? Said it again. What are you going to do about it?

And now you're flamebaiting as well.

Because I am with my mother on official business and I am sitting at the desk of a person I know.

Ahhh...

Well, take your original neko form and no one will give it much thought. ;)

And now you're flamebaiting as well.

No, I'm not. It's a legitimate statement, and one anyone has the right to make. And yes, I also do think I have a right to chastising him for questioning my right to free speech that isn't flaming or flamebaiting. Calling Bush a war criminal can't be construed as against the rules.

All the other parties that have collapsed have been fringe parties at best.
Sigh... they just don't teach any history in schools at all anymore, do they?
No, the Federalists and Whigs were not "fringe" parties, they were the main opposition parties and had frequently taken the Presidency. When they went off the deep end, a new main opposition party formed: one-party rule is not going to happen in the US. We do need a rational opposition party, and it cannot form until the Republicans get out of the way, either by dissolution or by extreme marginalization.

And now you're flamebaiting as well.

actually . . .no

That was not a liberation, that was mass murder.

It all fairness, if we are going to speak of deaths, let us remember that though the amount of innocents killed in Iraq since the United States involved itself is atrocious, far more innocents died (and continued to die) before the Iraq War. Now, if you want to attack a conservative, remind him that it was Ronald Reagan who put the "oppressor" in power.

Ahhh...

Well, take your original neko form and no one will give it much thought. ;)

You think, nya? *yawns* -0-

And on wiretapping and all that. This business started way before Bush. ECHELON was pretty old when Bush took office.

ECHELON isn't wiretapping . . . . Never was

1- Your former President IS a war criminal. And so are parts of your Military, yes. Both of those things, I have every right to say. Both of those things, I will keep on saying. Both of those things, you can't make me stop saying. You can't do a thing about it. How does that make you feel?

2- Nearly a hundred thousand civilians killed > 3,000 civilians killed. So, yeah.

Your former President is a war criminal.

Your former President is a war criminal.

Your former President is a war criminal.

Your former President is a war criminal.

Your former President is a war criminal.

I repeat, and will keep on repeating:

Your former President is a war criminal.

See? Said it again. What are you going to do about it?

I am not going to do anything about it because I do not go running to the mods whenever someone disagrees with me. I am not going to lose any respect for you because I have none because you always pull these antics. I see that you reported me to the mods. At first I thought the mod merely read my post and did not approve. Now I see that once again you ran to a mod when you found someone who disagreed with your vile statements. You also lied to the mods in your post. I stood up to your bullying then when I called you anti-American for supporting the Saddam Hussein regime and I was warned by the mods. I am not going to say anything more about this topic because I would probably get into trouble for disagreeing with you because this has become a liberal forum. Apparently, if you believe in freedom, want democracy around the world, and oppose totalitarianism and communism you get into trouble with the mods here.

No, I'm not. It's a legitimate statement, and one anyone has the right to make. And yes, I also do think I have a right to chastising him for questioning my right to free speech that isn't flaming or flamebaiting. Calling Bush a war criminal can't be construed as against the rules.

Goading someone is against the rules:

See? Said it again. What are you going to do about it?

I am not going to do anything about it because I do not go running to the mods whenever someone disagrees with me. I am not going to lose any respect for you because I have none because you always pull these antics. I see that you reported me to the mods. At first I thought the mod merely read my post and did not approve. Now I see that once again you ran to a mod when you found someone who disagreed with your vile statements. You also lied to the mods in your post. I stood up to your bullying then when I called you anti-American for supporting the Saddam Hussein regime and I was warned by the mods. I am not going to say anything more about this topic because I would probably get into trouble for disagreeing with you because this has become a liberal forum. Apparently, if you believe in freedom, want democracy around the world, and oppose totalitarianism and communism you get into trouble with the mods here.

Intra-lingual translation:

"Waaah! Waaah! Waaah! I can't call people terrorists without being modded! Waaah! Waaah! Waaah! Liberal forum! Waaaaaaaaah!"

The bully here is you. Yes, I reported you to the mods. For calling me essentially a terrorist-sympathizer. That you disagree with me only makes you wrong, not moddable.

My statements are not vile, yours are.

I never supported the Saddam Hussein regime.

Reagan, on the other hand... (Thanks, TPE)

Oh, and seeing as I support the current administration, that makes me not anti-American, by the definition of the Right itself. Funny, innit?

Ahh. This thread is hilarious.

Goading someone is against the rules:

Even after the person called into question my free speech? THAT'S defined as goading? Telling a person I can speak my mind? Wow.

I am not going to do anything about it because I do not go running to the mods whenever someone disagrees with me. I am not going to lose any respect for you because I have none because you always pull these antics. I see that you reported me to the mods. At first I thought the mod merely read my post and did not approve. Now I see that once again you ran to a mod when you found someone who disagreed with your vile statements. You also lied to the mods in your post. I stood up to your bullying then when I called you anti-American for supporting the Saddam Hussein regime and I was warned by the mods. I am not going to say anything more about this topic because I would probably get into trouble for disagreeing with you because this has become a liberal forum. Apparently, if you believe in freedom, want democracy around the world, and oppose totalitarianism and communism you get into trouble with the mods here.
lol and how, exactly do you want to support the claim that H2 is capable of bullying MODs?

More importantly you weren't arguing for the "believe in freedom, want democracy around the world, and oppose totalitarianism and communism" you were arguing that the war in Iraq was a good thing. You were also arguing for millitary intervention elsewhere. Frankly that surprises me a little. Your nation is in a mess and has dumped the rest of the world into that mess as well at least partially due to its war in Iraq which was not only un-justified but, frankly, idiotic. Removing Sadam from power was not worth the lives of so many innocent civilians alone (also he was pretty much docile . . .had been since bush senior kicked him out of kuwait).

Goading someone is against the rules:

I say we leave rules based decisions up to the mods.

lol and how, exactly do you want to support the claim that H2 is capable of bullying MODs?

Actually, I AM curious as well... :tongue:

Actually, I AM curious as well... :tongue:

lmao your blackmailing them! thats it! . . .. or wait! your max in disguise aren't you!

*continues to spout meaningless conspiracy theories while collapsing into a heap on the floor*
*random gibberish*

lol and how, exactly do you want to support the claim that H2 is capable of bullying MODs?

More importantly you weren't arguing for the "believe in freedom, want democracy around the world, and oppose totalitarianism and communism" you were arguing that the war in Iraq was a good thing. You were also arguing for millitary intervention elsewhere. Frankly that surprises me a little. Your nation is in a mess and has dumped the rest of the world into that mess as well at least partially due to its war in Iraq which was not only un-justified but, frankly, idiotic. Removing Sadam from power was not worth the lives of so many innocent civilians alone (also he was pretty much docile . . .had been since bush senior kicked him out of kuwait).

Tell that to the Kurds. Tell that to the people he terrorized and put into casket prisons. A free society cannot in good conscience allow other people to be oppressed. People have to die in the fight against evil. I would rather have a free world with lots of graves than an oppressed world populated by cowards.

lol and how, exactly do you want to support the claim that H2 is capable of bullying MODs?

More importantly you weren't arguing for the "believe in freedom, want democracy around the world, and oppose totalitarianism and communism" you were arguing that the war in Iraq was a good thing. You were also arguing for millitary intervention elsewhere. Frankly that surprises me a little. Your nation is in a mess and has dumped the rest of the world into that mess as well at least partially due to its war in Iraq which was not only un-justified but, frankly, idiotic. Removing Sadam from power was not worth the lives of so many innocent civilians alone (also he was pretty much docile . . .had been since bush senior kicked him out of kuwait).

H2 does not bully the mods. H2 bullies me.

H2 claims that 9/11 was a morally superior act than the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein. H2 is pretty much calling our former president and our military war criminals.


Both of which are fair. You don't have to agree.

There is some debate at the moment about whether action is going to be taken against Bush - quite a lot of Americans feel he should be held responsible for certain activities in his terms - not just H2.

And now you're flamebaiting as well.

How is that flamebait?

H2 was told his words were 'fighting words' in the post in which GF 'excused' his earlier infraction.

It seems to me that H2 is simply promoting (perhaps heavy handedly) his 'right' to do explicitly, what GF was claiming was the 'implicit' excuse for his infraction.

H2 does not bully the mods. H2 bullies me.

Lol.

I am not going to do anything about it because I do not go running to the mods whenever someone disagrees with me. I am not going to lose any respect for you because I have none because you always pull these antics. I see that you reported me to the mods. At first I thought the mod merely read my post and did not approve. Now I see that once again you ran to a mod when you found someone who disagreed with your vile statements.


If you'd have said "I disagree with your vile statements", I doubt you'd have been reported to moderation.


You also lied to the mods in your post. I stood up to your bullying then when I called you anti-American for supporting the Saddam Hussein regime and I was warned by the mods. I am not going to say anything more about this topic because I would probably get into trouble for disagreeing with you because this has become a liberal forum.


Accuse the mods of bias - always a surefire winner.


Apparently, if you believe in freedom, want democracy around the world, and oppose totalitarianism and communism you get into trouble with the mods here.

If you do those things coherently, rationally, and with reasonable regard, I doubt you'd get into any trouble with anyone.

Accuse the mods of bias - always a surefire winner.

http://www.sherylfranklin.com/images/trek/women/tng/troi1.jpg

I sense... Sarcasm.

Yep. I think a lot of moderate Democrats would be attracted to a fiscally conservative and socially liberal party unshackled from the religious wackos.

Are... Are you saying there's hope for us? :tongue:

Tell that to the Kurds. Tell that to the people he terrorized and put into casket prisons. A free society cannot in good conscience allow other people to be oppressed.


So, are you saying we're not 'free'? Or that we have no conscience?

Because there are far worse regimes out there, right now, in terms of oppression, and we're generally pretty buddy-buddy with them.


People have to die in the fight against evil. I would rather have a free world with lots of graves than an oppressed world populated by cowards.

That's your choice. The problem is when someone makes that choice FOR those other people, and you end up with a 'free world with lots of graves' of people that paid the price for THAT person's vision.

H2 does not bully the mods. H2 bullies me.

GF moves goalposts . . .unfortunately to an even more ludicrous location . . . .I didn't think that was physically possible.

http://www.sherylfranklin.com/images/trek/women/tng/troi1.jpg

I sense... Sarcasm.

Show me more of this human thing you call... sarcasm?

GF moves goalposts . . .unfortunately to an even more ludicrous location . . . .I didn't think that was physically possible.

DaWoad...

*Sniffle... Sniffle*

I feel bullied by him.

Hold me?

Lol.

You do. You know how to push my buttons. As a patritoic American who values human rights I cannot stay silent when you talk about how the US is somehow the bad guys and therefore our enemies the terrorists and the Baathists are somehow the good guys. You never say that the terrorists and the bad guys are but you imply it and it drives me nuts and then you tattle on me to the mods and then I get into trouble. I feel that if this was a mostly conservative forum you would have been banned long ago. Since it is predominantly liberal I am the one that gets into trouble because I get angry at your trolling statements that you place like traps in NSG discussions.

You do. You know how to push my buttons. As a patritoic American who values human rights I cannot stay silent when you talk about how the US is somehow the bad guys and therefore our enemies the terrorists and the Baathists are somehow the good guys. You never say that the terrorists and the bad guys are but you imply it and it drives me nuts and then you tattle on me to the mods and then I get into trouble. I feel that if this was a mostly conservative forum you would have been banned long ago. Since it is predominantly liberal I am the one that gets into trouble because I get angry at your trolling statements that you place like traps in NSG discussions.

Thank you for your kind words.

I mean, you DID, after all, just imply that I'm either pretty bright or at least smarter than you.

GF moves goalposts . . .unfortunately to an even more ludicrous location . . . .I didn't think that was physically possible.

What is with all of this talk about goalposts?

Tell that to the Kurds. Tell that to the people he terrorized and put into casket prisons. A free society cannot in good conscience allow other people to be oppressed. People have to die in the fight against evil. I would rather have a free world with lots of graves than an oppressed world populated by cowards.
Lol for one anyone attempting to "terrorize" the Kurds would be in for a run for their money second, check your history almost all of Sadam's Terrorizing happened BEFORE he got reamed by the US of A. A free society cannot in good conscience allow other people to be oppressed? Really . . .so the bay of pigs, the war in Vietnam and the US of A's invasion of Iraq . . .what would those be? Anyway if your looking for "oppression" there are many better places to start than Iraq.

What is with all of this talk about goalposts?

its when you deflect from one argument by pretending that you've been arguing something else all along . . .

Thank you for your kind words.

I mean, you DID, after all, just imply that I'm either pretty bright or at least smarter than you.

No. I pretty much implied that you are a disingenuous weasel who counts coup every time he gets a conservative modded instead of just discussing the issues.

DaWoad...

*Sniffle... Sniffle*

I feel bullied by him.

Hold me?

Pure Win :D lmfao

No. I pretty much implied that you are a disingenuous weasel who counts coup every time he gets a conservative modded instead of just discussing the issues.

*cough* FLAMES *cough*
see H2 really doesn't need to Mod you . . .you pretty much Handle it yourself.

Thank you for your kind words.

I mean, you DID, after all, just imply that I'm either pretty bright or at least smarter than you.

No, he didn't. Christ, get over yourself already.

Lol for one anyone attempting to "terrorize" the Kurds would be in for a run for their money second, check your history almost all of Sadam's Terrorizing happened BEFORE he got reamed by the US of A. A free society cannot in good conscience allow other people to be oppressed? Really . . .so the bay of pigs, the war in Vietnam and the US of A's invasion of Iraq . . .what would those be? Anyway if your looking for "oppression" there are many better places to start than Iraq.

There might be better places to start an international struggle against oppression than Iraq but at least we did something somewhere. I would like to see us do more throughout the world. Other than North Korea, I do not know who was any worse than Saddam but I get really sad when I read about evil regimes and I am glad I do not know the specifics of how people could be worse than Saddam was.

You do. You know how to push my buttons. As a patritoic American who values human rights I cannot stay silent when you talk about how the US is somehow the bad guys


How can you keep a straight-face when you say that? A 'patriotic American who values human rights'... and yet objects to people attacking Bush over some pretty horrendous human rights actions? Not to mention his flagrant abuses of the protections offered by our own Constitution?

If you 'respect human rights', what's wrong with saying that Bush allowing torture DESPITE us being signatory to Geneva Conventions and Protocols, is 'war crime'? It IS a war crime - the only question is whether he'll ever be tried for it.


...and therefore our enemies the terrorists and the Baathists are somehow the good guys.


In the real world, it's not all black and white.


You never say that the terrorists and the bad guys are but you imply it and it drives me nuts and then you tattle on me to the mods and then I get into trouble.


...when you get into trouble for infringing the rules.


I feel that if this was a mostly conservative forum you would have been banned long ago. Since it is predominantly liberal I am the one that gets into trouble because I get angry at your trolling statements that you place like traps in NSG discussions.

You seem to be repeatedly trying to excuse rulebreaking in your own regard, by blaming H2's views.

its when you deflect from one argument by pretending that you've been arguing something else all along . . .

What? How did I do that?

There might be better places to start an international struggle against oppression than Iraq but at least we did something somewhere. I would like to see us do more throughout the world. Other than North Korea, I do not know who was any worse than Saddam but I get really sad when I read about evil regimes and I am glad I do not know the specifics of how people could be worse than Saddam was.

You ignored his real question, though. What do you have to say in defense of the acknowledged, documented examples of the USA keeping maniacal, oppressive regimes in charges around the world? How do you defend the USA's actions in places like Chile or Nicaragua or, prior to the Gulf War, Iraq? How can you with a straight face say that the US is a liberator of the oppressed when they've made sure that evil dictatorships that would have otherwise crumbled stayed in power?

How can you keep a straight-face when you say that? A 'patriotic American who values human rights'... and yet objects to people attacking Bush over some pretty horrendous human rights actions? Not to mention his flagrant abuses of the protections offered by our own Constitution?

If you 'respect human rights', what's wrong with saying that Bush allowing torture DESPITE us being signatory to Geneva Conventions and Protocols, is 'war crime'? It IS a war crime - the only question is whether he'll ever be tried for it.



In the real world, it's not all black and white.



...when you get into trouble for infringing the rules.



You seem to be repeatedly trying to excuse rulebreaking in your own regard, by blaming H2's views.

In the real world it does not get much blacker than Saddam Hussein. I never said that the USA or anybody should torture anybody. The liberation of Iraq was a great thing. Torture is always a bad thing. This is another example of black and white. Liberating the oppressed is always good. Torturing is always evil.

There might be better places to start an international struggle against oppression than Iraq but at least we did something somewhere. I would like to see us do more throughout the world. Other than North Korea, I do not know who was any worse than Saddam but I get really sad when I read about evil regimes and I am glad I do not know the specifics of how people could be worse than Saddam was.

no . . .no you didn't do something. . .what you did was kill a whole bunch of innocent civilians in exchange for the removal of one relatively harmless dictator who would have died all on his own relatively soon. Ah and now what you have resembles Anarchy remarkably well. And how about all those genocides that you sat aside on simply because the nations involved had nothing of value for you personally . . .or the fact that the US of A was the Largest trading partner of china . . . potentially one of the worlds worst places to be a "peasant" for quite some time (china has improved. . . slightly). The fact that you get "Sad" about Sadam in no way justifies your statements.

There might be better places to start an international struggle against oppression than Iraq but at least we did something somewhere. I would like to see us do more throughout the world. Other than North Korea, I do not know who was any worse than Saddam but I get really sad when I read about evil regimes and I am glad I do not know the specifics of how people could be worse than Saddam was.

The worst thing about it is - Saddam was a monster we created. Look at his early political career, and plot his politics against the treatment he received from outside (especially the US).

And that's the problem with US foreign policy, in a nutshell. It's a clusterfuck of heavy handed mismanagement, and a catalogue of unforeseen consequence. The liberation of Iraq has been just one later chapter of this story, in a long and colourful book.

What? How did I do that?

claiming that H2 was somehow bullying mods then changing that claim to the idea that he was bullying you.

In the real world it does not get much blacker than Saddam Hussein. I never said that the USA or anybody should torture anybody. The liberation of Iraq was a great thing. Torture is always a bad thing. This is another example of black and white. Liberating the oppressed is always good. Torturing is always evil.

Then justify the United States helping keep Saddam in power.

Famous picture time:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg

No, he didn't. Christ, get over yourself already.

woh, relax man.

The worst thing about it is - Saddam was a monster we created. Look at his early political career, and plot his politics against the treatment he received from outside (especially the US).

And that's the problem with US foreign policy, in a nutshell. It's a clusterfuck of heavy handed mismanagement, and a catalogue of unforeseen consequence. The liberation of Iraq has been just one later chapter of this story, in a long and colourful book.
^
this

You ignored his real question, though. What do you have to say in defense of the acknowledged, documented examples of the USA keeping maniacal, oppressive regimes in charges around the world? How do you defend the USA's actions in places like Chile or Nicaragua or, prior to the Gulf War, Iraq? How can you with a straight face say that the US is a liberator of the oppressed when they've made sure that evil dictatorships that would have otherwise crumbled stayed in power?

In order to respond to this we need to divide the propping up of evil regimes into two historical categories. These are the cold war period and the port-cold war period. The USSR and its communist agents were a force that had to be opposed. A lot of nasty dictatorships played the game of getting our help in order to be on our side and against the USSR. I am not proud of our cold war involvement with dictators but for better or worse it was sorta justified kinda in that we were able to build a massive international alliance against the evil communist forces.

If the USA is supporting evil regimes after the Cold War, this is inexcusable. I am sure that it happens in order to get assistance with certain goals like anti-terrorism but I do not support it. I would rather liberate the entirety of the oppressed world than cooperate with one totalitarian regime in order to rid the world of another one. Maybe it makes more sense strategically to play the dictatorships against each other but this needs to be part of a long term strategy for ultimate victory for human rights.

In the real world it does not get much blacker than Saddam Hussein.


Based on what? Wasn't one of Saddam's brothers or cousins the one who had the 'rape rooms'? Where they would take people and hang them from hooks in the ceiling, to be raped repeatedly?

What did Saddam do, personally, that compares even with other people in his own regime?


I never said that the USA or anybody should torture anybody.


You said you support human rights, and you blamed the implication that Bush might be a war criminal for your rule infractions. Why do you excuse the US for their human right violations?


The liberation of Iraq was a great thing.


No, it wasn't. It was stupid, thuggish, and ultimately destructive. We'd have been better served doing what we have done for years - sponsoring a coup.


Torture is always a bad thing.


On this we agree. But on this, you apparently agree with the US military and the Bush regime.


This is another example of black and white. Liberating the oppressed is always good. Torturing is always evil.

'Liberating the oppressed' is not always good. Taking someone from a bad situation, only to put them into a waorse one - not good.

Your 'black and white' view is making a mess of your ability to view the world objectively, I'm afraid.

In the real world it does not get much blacker than Saddam Hussein. I never said that the USA or anybody should torture anybody. The liberation of Iraq was a great thing. Torture is always a bad thing. This is another example of black and white. Liberating the oppressed is always good. Torturing is always evil.
*double Facepalms*
someone . . .please . . . ok

here's the thing. . .what if torturing a single truly evil person could have stopped 9/11 from ever happening saving thousands (millions? if you take into account everything that has happened as a direct result of 9/11) of lives. Would torturing that person be illegal? And, on the other hand, what exactly would happen if you stopped "oppressing" criminals cause by your definition that would be a good act right? so lets go let all those mass murderers outa jail

Then justify the United States helping keep Saddam in power.

Famous picture time:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg

If there were less peaceniks we would not have had to help the Iraqis fight a proxy war against Iran. If Carter had gone apeshit on Iran we would not have needed to help Iraq against Iran. It was a different age back then. the Cold War was a pretty tense time. Now we can go and unilatterally attack dictatorships to our hearts' content. Back then you had to worry about very complicated cold war foreign relations.

No, it wasn't. It was stupid, thuggish, and ultimately destructive. We'd have been better served doing what we have done for years - sponsoring a coup.



or just have someone from delta take him out. . . hell give the kurds some weaponry and leave it to them . . .all would have been preferable.

In order to respond to this we need to divide the propping up of evil regimes into two historical categories. These are the cold war period and the port-cold war period. The USSR and its communist agents were a force that had to be opposed. A lot of nasty dictatorships played the game of getting our help in order to be on our side and against the USSR. I am not proud of our cold war involvement with dictators but for better or worse it was sorta justified kinda in that we were able to build a massive international alliance against the evil communist forces.

If the USA is supporting evil regimes after the Cold War, this is inexcusable. I am sure that it happens in order to get assistance with certain goals like anti-terrorism but I do not support it. I would rather liberate the entirety of the oppressed world than cooperate with one totalitarian regime in order to rid the world of another one. Maybe it makes more sense strategically to play the dictatorships against each other but this needs to be part of a long term strategy for ultimate victory for human rights.

Woah, suddenly there are shades of gray? I thought there was nothing blacker than Saddam Hussein?

You just excused the United States of propping up brutal dictatorships for a game of global chess. How would whatever dictator the Soviets installed in Iraq have been worse than Saddam, who apparently is as black as it gets?

No. I pretty much implied that you are a disingenuous weasel who counts coup every time he gets a conservative modded instead of just discussing the issues.

And... Flame.

*double Facepalms*
someone . . .please . . . ok

here's the thing. . .what if torturing a single truly evil person could have stopped 9/11 from ever happening saving thousands (millions? if you take into account everything that has happened as a direct result of 9/11) of lives. Would torturing that person be illegal? And, on the other hand, what exactly would happen if you stopped "oppressing" criminals cause by your definition that would be a good act right? so lets go let all those mass murderers outa jail

Torture is always wrong even if it saves lives. The sin is only upon the hands of the sinner. Criminals are not oppressed simply because they are in jail.

If there were less peaceniks we would not have had to help the Iraqis fight a proxy war against Iran. If Carter had gone apeshit on Iran we would not have needed to help Iraq against Iran. It was a different age back then. the Cold War was a pretty tense time. Now we can go and unilatterally attack dictatorships to our hearts' content. Back then you had to worry about very complicated cold war foreign relations.

Iran was backed by the SOVIET UNION. Attempting to "go apeshit" on Iran would have been like the USSR going to war with canada. The results would have been clean, thermonuclear clean.

If there were less peaceniks we would not have had to help the Iraqis fight a proxy war against Iran. If Carter had gone apeshit on Iran we would not have needed to help Iraq against Iran. It was a different age back then. the Cold War was a pretty tense time. Now we can go and unilatterally attack dictatorships to our hearts' content. Back then you had to worry about very complicated cold war foreign relations.

In other words, not everything, even toppling Saddam from power, is black and white. Thank you for defeating your own argument.

And... Flame.

Here we go again H2. How many points do you have now. You do a great job of proving my points for me.

If there were less peaceniks we would not have had to help the Iraqis fight a proxy war against Iran. If Carter had gone apeshit on Iran we would not have needed to help Iraq against Iran. It was a different age back then. the Cold War was a pretty tense time. Now we can go and unilatterally attack dictatorships to our hearts' content. Back then you had to worry about very complicated cold war foreign relations.

Peacenik = People with more than a iota of common sense.

I see.

Here we go again H2. How many points do you have now. You do a great job of proving my points for me.

You're flaming me, and you have no points.

In other words, not everything, even toppling Saddam from power, is black and white. Thank you for defeating your own argument.

Toppling Iraq in a a post Cold War age is a white action. I do not see your point.

Toppling Iraq in a a post Cold War age is a white action. I do not see your point.

Indeed you do not.

You're flaming me, and you have no points.
My point is that you seem to count coup.

Torture is always wrong even if it saves lives. The sin is only upon the hands of the sinner. Criminals are not oppressed simply because they are in jail.

so being put under observation 24 hours/ day is not oppression? . . .you must have an awesome definition of oppression.

Torture is always wrong huh? . . .interesting . . .very interesting, so solitary confinement or interrogation (could be defined as emotional torture) are wrong?

My point is that you seem to count coup.

Gee, you flame me, flamebait me, troll my thread, call into question my right to disagree with you, and I'm the one counting coup.

DaWoad...

He's bullying me again...

*Sniffle*

Can I get a hug?

Toppling Iraq in a a post Cold War age is a white action. I do not see your point.

My point? You justified keeping Saddam in power due to extenuating circumstances during the Cold War. Others were able to justify keeping Saddam in power due to extenuating circumstances since. If you're going to take an absurd Bluth-Corporationesque attitude that there is objective right and wrong, then let me know so I can put you on ignore now.

In order to respond to this we need to divide the propping up of evil regimes into two historical categories. These are the cold war period and the port-cold war period. The USSR and its communist agents were a force that had to be opposed.


No, they weren't. At least - not according to the constant protestations of free-marketeers. We're supposed to believe that communism was intrinsically doomed... in which case, 'opposing it' is a waste of time and resources.


A lot of nasty dictatorships played the game of getting our help in order to be on our side and against the USSR.


Exactly the opposite, actually - a lot of dictatorships played the game of being 'on our side' to get our help.


I am not proud of our cold war involvement with dictators but for better or worse it was sorta justified kinda in that we were able to build a massive international alliance against the evil communist forces.


Including sponsoring terrorism. Our anti-soviet foreign policy created Osama.


If the USA is supporting evil regimes after the Cold War, this is inexcusable.


I thought you said the world was black and white? That freeing the oppressed was ALWAYS good, and torture was ALWAYS bad?


I am sure that it happens in order to get assistance with certain goals like anti-terrorism but I do not support it.


Yes - now we side with the communists against the terrorists (that we created to fight the communists, etc).

Gee, you flame me, flamebait me, troll my thread, call into question my right to disagree with you, and I'm the one counting coup.

DaWoad...

He's bullying me again...

*Sniffle*

Can I get a hug?

*hugs*
"there there, it'll be ok "

:D

*hugs*
"there there, it'll be ok "

:D

Thank you. :tongue:

My point? You justified keeping Saddam in power due to extenuating circumstances during the Cold War. Others were able to justify keeping Saddam in power due to extenuating circumstances since. If you're going to take an absurd Bluth-Corporationesque attitude that there is objective right and wrong, then let me know so I can put you on ignore now.

The thing is that I am not proud of ever propping up a dictatorship but at least I can understand why it was done (ie. because of the cold war). Once the cold war ended there is no excuse for propping up a dictatorship.

Sdaeriji, Do you believe in good and evil? If you do not believe in the concepts of good and evil, we might talk past each other.

The thing is that I am not proud of ever propping up a dictatorship but at least I can understand why it was done (ie. because of the cold war). Once the cold war ended there is no excuse for propping up a dictatorship.

So, the world has only been black and white since 1991? Before that, there were shades of gray?

Sdaeriji, Do you believe in good and evil? If you do not believe in the concepts of good and evil, we might talk past each other.

So you ARE going to pull some Bluthesque objective morality horseshit into this conversation? Yeah, if you're going to be deliberately obtuse, then we might talk past each other.

So, the world has only been black and white since 1991? Before that, there were shades of gray?

Nice move!

So you ARE going to pull some Bluthesque objective morality horseshit into this conversation? Yeah, if you're going to be deliberately obtuse, then we might talk past each other.

Look, I am not deliberately obtuse. I beleive that there is such a thing as human rights and that it is wicked to violate human rights. It is a strict moral stand that I have. I also do not hit children on the head with baseball bats. It is not obtuse to have clearly dilineated moral lines.

So, the world has only been black and white since 1991? Before that, there were shades of gray?

Yes. When there is the potential for nuclear war it tends to twist morality a bit and create ethical twilight zones that are neither black or white.

Yes. When there is the potential for nuclear war it tends to twist morality a bit and create ethical twilight zones that are neither black or white.

:rolleyes:

Watch out, Sdaeriji, he's serious.

Look, I am not deliberately obtuse. I beleive that there is such a thing as human rights and that it is wicked to violate human rights. It is a strict moral stand that I have. I also do not hit children on the head with baseball bats. It is not obtuse to have clearly dilineated moral lines.

We weren't talking about hitting children with baseball bats, though. We were talking about Saddam Hussein, and your argument that he went from white to black in 1991. Saddam violated human rights while the United States supported him, from his rise to power until his invasion of Kuwait. He didn't suddenly become an evil dictator that needed to be removed from power; he always was one, but you attempt to justify NOT removing him from power as a necessary evil. You can't have this both ways, GF. The world didn't become black and white in 1991. Either it was black and white all the time, and the United States was immoral in not removing Saddam from power immediately, or there are shades of gray, and your argument that we HAD to remove him from power is bunk. Pick your poison.

Yes. When there is the potential for nuclear war it tends to twist morality a bit and create ethical twilight zones that are neither black or white.

No it doesn't. You said yourself you'd rather live in a free world populated by graves than in an oppressed world populated by cowards. If we were really these moral crusaders of justice, we would have risked nuclear annihilation to do the Right Thing.

:rolleyes:

Watch out, Sdaeriji, he's serious.

What is that supposed to mean?

We weren't talking about hitting children with baseball bats, though. We were talking about Saddam Hussein, and your argument that he went from white to black in 1991. Saddam violated human rights while the United States supported him, from his rise to power until his invasion of Kuwait. He didn't suddenly become an evil dictator that needed to be removed from power; he always was one, but you attempt to justify NOT removing him from power as a necessary evil. You can't have this both ways, GF. The world didn't become black and white in 1991. Either it was black and white all the time, and the United States was immoral in not removing Saddam from power immediately, or there are shades of gray, and your argument that we HAD to remove him from power is bunk. Pick your poison.

http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Jobs_and_People/Vendors/Popcorn_vendor.gif

What is that supposed to mean?

. . .that your serious . . . . . .

. . .

:rolleyes:

Watch out, Sdaeriji, he's serious.

I'm sorry, did you have something to say, or were you just going to snipe from the sidelines while I do the actual debating?

What is that supposed to mean?

You have been interpreting my words as you see fit for several pages. What's to stop you from doing so now?

Limbaugh supported the war in Iraq. That alone makes him a demon.

A lot of people supported the war for well-intentioned reasons. Many were mislead by lies and fear after 911. I don't think you can condemn someone soley for supporting the war.

He's from the party that nearly destroyed the American economy, he roots for Obama to fail, he wanted to cause RIOTING among his political opponents.

RIOTING.

DEAD PEOPLE.

No arguing that he's a nasty piece of work.

No, I won't listen to anything he has to say. He does not deserve status as a human being.

This I must disagree with on principle. We must accord our worst enemies status as human beings, partly because we don't want to be like them.

I'm sorry, did you have something to say, or were you just going to snipe from the sidelines while I do the actual debating?

I'm eating. :p

No it doesn't. You said yourself you'd rather live in a free world populated by graves than in an oppressed world populated by cowards. If we were really these moral crusaders of justice, we would have risked nuclear annihilation to do the Right Thing.

But what about the endangered species that would be killed in a nuclear war? The only thing worse than totalitarianism from my perspective is causing a species to become extinct. Human rights is a great thing but we cannot allow our own species' problem to intrude upon the right of another species to survive.

A lot of people supported the war for well-intentioned reasons. Many were mislead by lies and fear after 911. I don't think you can condemn someone soley for supporting the war.


This I must disagree with on principle. We must accord our worst enemies status as human beings, partly because we don't want to be like them.

1- The way he did and still does...

2- Yeah, we already established that moral high ground sucks. :p

I'm sorry, did you have something to say, or were you just going to snipe from the sidelines while I do the actual debating?

*snipes*

oh . . .wait I think I missed your point.


um still waiting for a response and thus have devolved to watching with commentary

We weren't talking about hitting children with baseball bats, though. We were talking about Saddam Hussein, and your argument that he went from white to black in 1991. Saddam violated human rights while the United States supported him, from his rise to power until his invasion of Kuwait. He didn't suddenly become an evil dictator that needed to be removed from power; he always was one, but you attempt to justify NOT removing him from power as a necessary evil. You can't have this both ways, GF. The world didn't become black and white in 1991. Either it was black and white all the time, and the United States was immoral in not removing Saddam from power immediately, or there are shades of gray, and your argument that we HAD to remove him from power is bunk. Pick your poison.

Regardless of whether Saddam was always black or went from white to black or from gray to black, once nukes are off the table Saddam was as black as the field of a quarantine flag.

But what about the endangered species that would be killed in a nuclear war? The only thing worse than totalitarianism from my perspective is causing a species to become extinct. Human rights is a great thing but we cannot allow our own species' problem to intrude upon the right of another species to survive.

SO the issue isn't that billions of innocent people would die . . .its the fact that some animals might go extinct. Really? Are you serious? Good Gods millions of babies killed because "everything is black and white" and the issue is the polar bears. . . .

SO the issue isn't that billions of innocent people would die . . .its the fact that some animals might go extinct. Really? Are you serious? Good Gods millions of babies killed because "everything is black and white" and the issue is the polar bears. . . .

I am serious. There is nothing sadder than extinction.

Regardless of whether Saddam was always black or went from white to black or from gray to black, once nukes are off the table Saddam was as black as the field of a quarantine flag.

no you didn't answer the question. Either your a hypocrite or your argument is null . . .which would it be?

1- The way he did and still does...

I still think its possible to support the war in principle for noble reasons (regardless of the shitstorm of incompetance it turned into in practice). You may think such people are misguided, but you have to be able to condemn a policy without dehumanizing everyone who supports it.

Limbau may be scum, but their are plenty of better ways to prove that than this line of argument.

2- Yeah, we already established that moral high ground sucks. :p

I respectfully disagree.

I am serious. There is nothing sadder than extinction.

Can someone else field this one for me? Please?

I am serious. There is nothing sadder than extinction.

The extinction of the GOP brand Limbaugh is helping along will be pretty sweet. :D

1- You may think such people are misguided, but you have to be able to condemn a policy without dehumanizing everyone who supports it.

2- I respectfully disagree.

1- But didn't they dehumanize me and those against the war in its run-up?

2- I didn't say it's bad, I said it sucks. :p

As in, it's a bother.

The extinction of the GOP brand Limbaugh is helping along will be pretty sweet. :D

lol now there's an endangered species.

lol now there's an endangered species.

Whose extinction I'll celebrate.

no you didn't answer the question. Either your a hypocrite or your argument is null . . .which would it be?

I answered your question. There is no good or evil when nuclear war is an option. The avoidance of a nuclear war that would destroy the world trumps any discussion of good and evil and therefoe twists moral questions. Once the nuclear war factor is removed, morality can often have black and white answers.

However, if I am put on the spot and have to answer the question, "Should the USA have liberated the Iraqis earlier, even during the cold war? We should have.

I answered your question. There is no good or evil when nuclear war is an option. The avoidance of a nuclear war that would destroy the world trumps any discussion of good and evil and therefoe twists moral questions. Once the nuclear war factor is removed, morality can often have black and white answers.

so there are shades of grey then? but only when nuclear war is on the table . . .I see. What about other factors that endanger species (from your world view) for example torture to Stop a nuclear weapon from detonating in a national park or oppression of a peoples in order to curtail their environmental damage?

However, if I am put on the spot and have to answer the question, "Should the USA have liberated the Iraqis earlier, even during the cold war? We should have.

SO the US of A should never have put Sadam in power then? or should have removed him right after the Iran-Iraq war or what? And what about the effects that consistent US backed regime changes would have had on the middle east.

1- But didn't they dehumanize me and those against the war in its run-up?

I would hope you would do better than to use the GOP as your role model. Revenge is petty and pointless.

2- I didn't say it's bad, I said it sucks. :p

As in, it's a bother.

Perhaps, but it can give you the stronger position, and in any case, any victory is meaningless if you're no better than the people you beat. I'd like to think politics can be more than a couple of rabid dogs tearing eachother's throats out.

Which is not to say that I believe in the kind of "bi-partisanship" the Democrats apparently practiced for several years after 911 (keep caving in the hopes that people will support you if you're a weaker version of the GOP). I just think we should beat them while still being better than them.

so there are shades of grey then? but only when nuclear war is on the table . . .I see. What about other factors that endanger species (from your world view) for example torture to Stop a nuclear weapon from detonating in a national park or oppression of a peoples in order to curtail their environmental damage?

Wow. This really challenges my belief that torture is always bad. As much as I hate to admit it, even torture (and I am really against torture!!!) is justified if it interferes with biodiversity. I feel rather tortured myself by admitting this. But what is the suffering of a man compared to the extinction of a species?

SO the US of A should never have put Sadam in power then? or should have removed him right after the Iran-Iraq war or what? And what about the effects that consistent US backed regime changes would have had on the middle east.

SH put himself into power. We helped him fight the Iranians. I am not sure what you are getting at with your last sentence?

Wow. This really challenges my belief that torture is always bad. As much as I hate to admit it, even torture (and I am really against torture!!!) is justified if it interferes with biodiversity. I feel rather tortured myself by admitting this. But what is the suffering of a man compared to the extinction of a species?

see thats the thing there really are no Black and white absolutes some things come close (and I'd agree torture is one of them) but regardless of your worldview there will always be shades of Grey.

see thats the thing there really are no Black and white absolutes some things come close (and I'd agree torture is one of them) but regardless of your worldview there will always be shades of Grey.

Jean Grey?

see thats the thing there really are no Black and white absolutes some things come close (and I'd agree torture is one of them) but regardless of your worldview there will always be shades of Grey.

There are shades of gray in moral dilemnas however most of the time things are pretty black and white because most decisions that we face do not involve nukes and extinction.

Jean Grey?
lmao
now why didn't i see that coming?

SH put himself into power. We helped him fight the Iranians. I am not sure what you are getting at with your last sentence?

um . . . . actually ya kinda organized the coup that put him in power . . . and I was getting at the fact that massive US-backed regime changes have a tendency to go bad, quickly (see Iran or bolivia or . . .well there are a bunch of examples)

lmao
now why didn't i see that coming?

Because your mind reading skills are weak.

(actually ya kinda organized the coup that put him in power . . . and I was getting at the fact that massive US-backed regime changes have a tendency to go bad, quickly (see Iran or bolivia or . . .well there are a bunch of examples)

It depends. Every time we used our military for a regime change it worked well. I do not know the success rates for clandestine CIA stuff because it is secret.

We did a good job with our military in Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, Vichy France, Germany, Grenada, Panama, and others I am sure.

But what about the endangered species that would be killed in a nuclear war? The only thing worse than totalitarianism from my perspective is causing a species to become extinct. Human rights is a great thing but we cannot allow our own species' problem to intrude upon the right of another species to survive.

What about the environmental devastation wrought by conventional war? What about the pollution caused by weapons like white phosphorus?

See, when DaWoad accuses you of moving the goalposts, this is what he means. You say things like there is only black and white when it comes to Saddam, and that you'd rather be dead and free than alive and oppressed, but when you're confronted on your claims, you asterisk them. Own your arguments, man.

What about the environmental devastation wrought by conventional war? What about the pollution caused by weapons like white phosphorus?

See, when DaWoad accuses you of moving the goalposts, this is what he means. You say things like there is only black and white when it comes to Saddam, and that you'd rather be dead and free than alive and oppressed, but when you're confronted on your claims, you asterisk them. Own your arguments, man.

Human life is not as precious as human freedom. We all know this. However, in our efforts to free ourselves from our fellows we have no right to make species become extinct. Conventional war does not typically make wildlife extinct. Nuclear war definitely does.