I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
I like the ornament.
If I had a baby or knew another center-lefty/lefty with one, I'd buy that creeper (one-piece baby outfit) or the bib.
Unfortunately, only babies I know belong to some very conservative friends of mine.
nice ornament. would this really work on a t-shirt?
OT and previously offered but
Anyway, how long before Cheney decides Bush would be a more effective prop of symbolic leverage as a martyr than as a substandard motivational speaker? Imagine (this is on a purely speculative basis) Dick kicking himself for letting the President's plane "get away"...President Cheney kicking Powell out of the House...invading Iraq back in that September and, without consolidating his hold there, invading Syria that fall and Iran the next Spring...the whole time Dubya's popularity "sealed" in stony Kennedy-esque terms...
Will Bush see the 2004 Election, or will Commander in Chief Cheney, now Emergency Dictator, declare the Election an unnecessary threat to public safety in a time when we should be thinking about new troop movements to the Sudan or Korea?
Now that our incompetent violence has guaranteed a second Major Event, will Imperial Spokesperson Bush, who ironically is himself outside of the Cabal, survive it?
It's funny how you criticize the President for flying around the world to a hostile area to rally the troops and serve Thanksgiving dinner to them.
And yet, Hillary Clinton, the hero of the Democratic party flew halfway around the world to demoralize the troops and jump ahead of them in the food line and make them wait an extra hour to eat. Troops where brought to tears by Bush's visit, and yet Hillary had to be ASSIGNED troops to listen to her, because no one wanted to hear her propoganda. She told the troops all about how Bush was doing the wrong thing, and that they could never win there, etc, ad nauseum. People that provide 'aid and comfort' to the enemy by demoralizing our troops used to be put in Prison, remember Axis Sally? Hillary Clinton sounds more like Axis Sally or Tokyo Rose than a 'prominent' American politician. Although, I think her level of patriotism is indicative of the left as a whole.
smarter more honest monkeys please
KY: Sweet Jesus, could you be more alarmist and sensationalistic? Am I reading a political forum or listening to CBS news?
I didn't know I was listening to Conan O'Brien's "In the year 2000" bit, what are you Nostradamus or something? Stop trying to predict the future. Or at least predict something more reasonable, like "Virtus will win the lottery tomorrow."
How about a "preznit giv me turkee" thong?
virtyboy, do you have record of her propaganda? the house & senate dems have been pretty pro-war all along.
Your lies about Clinton's "demoralizing" comments are criminal, by the way. As a soldier (retarded response: but I'm not a soldier, I'm a marine...) you can't tell lies about your leaders like this.
[tin foil hat] Providing aid and comfort to the Arab enemy? She's representing which state again?
[/tfh]
"troops were brought to tears by Bush's visit": Virteris, this site has a lot of vets who had to sit through bullshit photo-ops. We know that you know better. Fact is, there is a standard protocol and Clinton did it right: you're supposed to eat with the troops. That's how it's normally done, part of the symbolism of sharing the common "meal". About troops being assigned to Clinton, are you really in the military? Not only is that how it works, not only was I for example "assigned" to provide an audience-body for a number of people including Rumsfeld (at Pendleton), ARE YOU ADMITTING THIS THING WAS STAGED?
Think slowly, virty-boy. You're saying troops were not forced/commanded/herded to see the President...at a surprise Presidential visit...did their enthusiasm for Mr. Bush give them psychic powers? Why would they know he was going to be there, why wouldn't they need to be assigned like at any other photo-op?
the "sensationalistic" speculation was for those who believe Cheney to be the functional leader, those aware of previous administrations like those of Grant and Harding, which were crawling with corruption but which presidents claimed not to be aware. In Harding's case, he was killed by his partners in crime (you run with wolves, or in this case carrion-maggots). Thus we already have precedent for corrupt incompetents actually murdering their President.
only alamist if believable and intended to try to cause mass panic, like, say, duct tape, iraqi balsa wood gliders, so forth
if was true, how would you go about panicking about it? tipping off the Secret Service that you're crazy? what on earth would you do? as opposed to established alarmist lies like saying abortionists are evil (thus vigilante killings of those) or Arabs are evil (thus anti-arab threats and violence)
is there a reason to seriously think that kenny uri really believes this or is she just speculating?
KY: At least you are right about House & Sen Dems being pro war all along...except of course when it comes time to attack Bush for going to war; then you see that 180 degree switch. (Esp. Sen Kerry, blah!)
I don't understand your thought process between [tfh] and [/tfh], please clarify what you are talking about, as my comment has no relation to 'arab enemies' (quite literally she was referencing the Taliban, Iraq, and Terrorists, and there was no generalized 'arab enemies').
I know about 'BS photo-ops' as well, but from what I have heard about Bush's visit almost no one knew he was coming (vise most of those volun-told visits where you know exactly what boring General/Secretary/etc... you are going to hear from)
As far as Hillary, they asked for volunteers to go hear her speak, and finally they had to assign people.
And as far as the meal itself, sure, you are supposed to eat with the troops, but I think the precedent of cutting in front of them is pretty indicative of the type of person she is, whereas Bush was manning the mashed potatoes station, serving the troops.
rorschach:
Alarmist: A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.
Saying "Will Bush see the 2004 Election, or will Commander in Chief Cheney, now Emergency Dictator, declare the Election an unnecessary threat to public safety" or "President Cheney kicking Powell out of the House...invading Iraq back in that September and, without consolidating his hold there, invading Syria that fall and Iran the next Spring..."
That seems like it is a needless attempt to alarm others.
As always, your few ineffectual and oft ill informed comments continue to make you persona non grata in the big book of intelligent debate.
Check this out,
http://www.tnr.com/primary/
I guess this means Dean is not so honest that everyone claims.
Joe D.
By "terrorists" Americans always mean "dirty Arabs", just like they still can't tell the difference between Russians, Poles, Tajiks, Socialists, Anarchists, Communists, Stalinists, etc.
By state represented, meant that there is a lot of a certain constituency there, folks not exactly pro-Arab, or tolerant of anyone who is either. [tfh]="tin foil hat," as in, this sounds crazy, but...
"what I have heard about Bush's visit almost no one knew he was coming"
right, so what exactly did they not need to be ASSIGNED for? You do realize you're contradicting yourself, right?
"as for hillary" bullshit. volunteer as in volunteer to [get] throw[n] yourself on a grenade [by a stronger comrade] to save the platoon, my friend. They "asked for volunteers" for Rumksfeld, and then, with that perfect military dry humor, almost like they don't get the joke, they told people who would be volunteering.
"precedent of cutting in front of them is pretty indicative of the type of person"
What would Carson of the Fab Five say? You are so fucking wrong here, my friend. What, do you think a toilet-cleaning piece of shit like you or me eats before a VIP (except on the Birthday)? In fact, even on the Birthday, the Japanese Self Defense Force-not even Americans!-go in front (personally observed, twice, at Camp Kinser, Oki). Because that's not a "precedent" of the Clinton's, that's how you do it, unless of course you're a coward who wants out in hours.
"manning the potatoes"
We've already established that nobody cares about the stupid symbolic serving. We'd rather Bush served his country by manning a Vietnam firebase. If Bush cares about vets why does he-potatoes aside-constantly attack their benefits?
first of all, how many intelligent debates open with warning that what follows is pure speculation? Second of all, have you answered any of the tough economic questions we asked twice in previous threads, or any other questions? Didn't think so. So intelligent debate a la Rove consists of ignoring questions and shifting to another topic. On the subject of hiding, answer the question, if you were to "panic" about a Cheney coup (other than in 2000) how exactly would you do this? Run out into the middle of the street screaming? Really, irrumator, what are you alarmed by?
Ignore the brownshirt.
By "terrorists" Americans always mean "dirty Arabs", just like they still can't tell the difference between Russians, Poles, Tajiks, Socialists, Anarchists, Communists, Stalinists, etc.
*sigh* The utter idiotic hypocrisy of it all. You just stereotyped Americans as stereotyping other races? Stereotypically, that is something a Democrat would do though...
How is that contradictory? As far as I know, no one was assigned to have dinner that night, they just where. And Bush showed up. Maybe that is not how it happened, but I haven't read otherwise.
You're volunteering statement: That would be what I meant when I said Volun-Told (I assumed since you had eluded to prior military service yourself you would understand what I was saying, or perhaps they had other euphamisms when you where in).
As far as your cutting in front of comment, I don't know what branch of the services you where in, but in all the ones I know of, the Junior ALWAYS eats before the senior. Privates eat before Sergeants, who eat before Master Sergeants, etc...
The only exception is that an officer can cut in line when it is a matter of urgency.
Blah, I guess having a President "for the people" who is willing to "serve" the little man (He does work for us you know) isn't as good as having a dictatorial senator from NY insist she eat first, because she is obviously more important than everyone else there. Public SERVANT my ass!
As a Dean supporter, there's nothing I'd like to see more than this latest blockbuster hit the airwaves. Then we can hear it repeated over and over...
Enron
Enron
ENRON!!!
I get the feeling that repubs think the general population is as dumb as they are. Joe, what do you think the population is going to internalize when they hear the word 'Enron' repeated endlessly for a couple of weeks?
Bring it on! 
Saying "Will Bush see the 2004 Election, or will Commander in Chief Cheney, now Emergency Dictator, declare the Election an unnecessary threat to public safety" or "President Cheney kicking Powell out of the House...invading Iraq back in that September and, without consolidating his hold there, invading Syria that fall and Iran the next Spring..."
That seems like it is a needless attempt to alarm others. - Vitrus
Sounds like educated speculation to me. A real possiblity.
Overpriced crap.
Atrios version of Old Navy.
KY: More lies eh? I have never ignored a hard economic question willfully. Obviously if 10 people are talking to me I can't answer everyones questions (nor do I see them all) and oviously if I am no longer on the thread I can't answer questions. But I have always stuck around for awhile to answer all the toughies 
Also, it works both ways. I asked someone to find a war in history that was not fought for economic gain, they called me a troll and never answered...outstanding.
Or just this morning (Yesterday for you in the states) I was talking to 'pie' about all the Democrats who have obstensively supported an invasion of Iraq and who have VERIFIED that Saddam had WMD are now turning the opposite way now that it's campaign time. I even presented a list of damning quotes and his reply was "The Dems where not in power [which they where in congress at that time] and so it didn't matter"
Does that mean that if you are not in power you can do and say anything without suffering the repercussions?
Blah! Propaganda at it's finest.
Snip: So what you are saying is that Cheney getting rid of the 4 year term limit is a viable possibility in the future? I have never heard ANYONE EVER make any predictions EVEN close to that, it doesn't have ANY basis in fact whatsoever.
Note to Virtus: Newsmax is not a reliable source.
I especially liked the unnamed soldiers and others quoted in the Newsmax fiction.
They juxtapose quite nicely against the actual soldiers who wrote into Stars & Stripes with criticisms of the Turkey in Iraq stunt. Those soldiers signed their actual real names to their letters.
Or just this morning (Yesterday for you in the states) I was talking to 'pie' about all the Democrats who have obstensively supported an invasion of Iraq and who have VERIFIED that Saddam had WMD are now turning the opposite way now that it's campaign time. I even presented a list of damning quotes and his reply was "The Dems where not in power [which they where in congress at that time] and so it didn't matter"
Does that mean that if you are not in power you can do and say anything without suffering the repercussions?
Blah! Propaganda at it's finest.
Virtus
I agree. Pie is a Democrat/DLC party hack type. When asked the hard questions she avoids a real answer.
Another example is the Sryia bill, proposed and supported by Democrats recently signed by Bush.
Or the fact that the WMD lies existed in the Clinton administration as well. Could the real reason for the near daily bombings of Iraq be that Arms Dealers donated money to the Democrats through out the ninties, and Clinton asked ambasadors to be sales people for the industry?
Both parties have been subverted by their corporate masters. The Green/Nader people are right when claiming the only difference between the two parties is how fast they will drop to their knees.
Jennifer: I read Stars & Stripes 'lite' almost everyday that I work. Can you tell me what issue that was in?
And the FAKE "cosmic grappler" is in the house this morning. . . .
the Junior ALWAYS eats before the senior.
No. Dead wrong. A little over four years in the Marines we've never fucking seen it happen once. Thing is, you're on kushy embassy duty, right? Knowing what the little fork's for, right? Probably a lot of ceremony where you are. Also grunts sometimes get real serious about that. But with the grunts and the pogues we've lived with, you get in line where you get in line, and on photo-op holidays, guest of honor goes first, followed by the colonel. Interesting that you think our not using "voluntold" in a sentence where we didn't find it to be appropriate was proof of something...perhaps your lack of responses to our many questions means something!
"dictatorial senator"
Please explain. She's a dictator because, in defiance of republican tradition, she has one vote in the Senate? What power...
"work for us"
keep telling yourself that. Know where Bush ate that night, or any other? any fucking restaurant anywhere in the world he fucking wants. Hillary braved preprocessed twice recycled unfrozen "chow". Good for her. Have you been over there, incidentally? Lines were long as fuck, bad enough to be security threats, but because of incompetant planning, not because of one woman.
To add to what kei said upthread:
We don't elect someone president so we'll have a symbolic figurehead to read to children or serve food to soldiers. If that fulfilled the requirements for leadership, almost everyone would qualify.
We elect presidents to formulate and implement good policy. An example: A plan to get us out of Iraq, which no doubt would be of far far more value to the troops serving there than a photo-op stunt where their "leader" serves them food.
As a Dean supporter, there's nothing I'd like to see more than this latest blockbuster hit the airwaves. Then we can hear it repeated over and over...
Enron
Enron
ENRON!!!
I get the feeling that repubs think the general population is as dumb as they are. Joe, what do you think the population is going to internalize when they hear the word 'Enron' repeated endlessly for a couple of weeks?
Bring it on!
pixie
I've been leaning toward Dean but worried about a possible undercutting by the DLC/Clintonites.
Any opinions?
Thanks
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not...
But I do agree that neither party is correct. My personal ethos is much more conservative (Kind of a Locke-ian philosophy vice Hobbes), which is why I tend to align myself with the Republican party. But I think it is a huge fallacy to think that either party is infallible, or even not-corrupt. They are both pretty terrible. It would be nice if we could have credibility in some 3rd or 4th parties and see a little more 'free market competition' in the political realm. Would Republicans be as corrupt if Liberatarians where there to calm them on it? Or maybe Demos with the Greens doing the same thing.
[standard "clothing-change" shot with uniform "falling" background]
mandatory warning
kei & yuri now prepare the Zionist's Corollary to Godwin's Law
commence countdown
Virtus - Atrios posted the letter sometime in the last 3 or 4 days. Do an archive search.
And thanks for confirming, by way of omission, that Newsmax is your "source" for the Hillary Clinton fiction.
Hillary braved preprocessed twice recycled unfrozen "chow". Good for her. Have you been over there, incidentally? Lines were long as fuck, bad enough to be security threats, but because of incompetant planning, not because of one woman.
kei & yuri
For basically another photo op.
Have you read her glowing praise about Afghanistan and how well things are going there?
Very different from the news stories. Hell the UN is saying they will pull out of there as well.
She lost ALL credibility when she voted for the IWR, and then her "silent" vote on the 87.5 billion proved she was nothing but a do anything for yourself political hack.
Even Republicans love her because she will work with them. Well they should she is one.
virtus- you never answered the question of how's life in the Green Zone with the other RNC folks
As the current administration continues to chop away the Bill of Rights in the name of Homeland Security, what is preventing them from attacking other constitutional amendments?
Term limits, why would you want to limit our stay in office when we are the only ones who can "protect" you from "them"?
Remember questioning us is treasonous
KY: Hmm...this seems like a rather silly argument, if you would like tomorrow I can quote directly from the Handbook for Marine NCO's that Junior always eats before Senior. The reason being that part of being in command is being able to endure more hardships. (Such as running out of chow)
As far as dictator senator, perhaps she isn't a 'dictator' but I thought I'd use a librul tactic of throwing in random damning adjectives to get my point across? (I'm still use to using reasonable thought and logic, sorry, I will practice. You fascist racist! [Was that better?])
Jennifer: Blah, I am talking to more than just you here. I got that (like most of my news) from WAPO.
Snip: I guess if you honestly believe that is going to happen maybe it's not alarmist, but for the rational 95% of us, saying things like that are gross over-exaggerations that by all rights can be classified as alarmist and sensationalistic.
Shita yra Viskas
But I do agree that neither party is correct. My personal ethos is much more conservative (Kind of a Locke-ian philosophy vice Hobbes), which is why I tend to align myself with the Republican party. But I think it is a huge fallacy to think that either party is infallible, or even not-corrupt. They are both pretty terrible. It would be nice if we could have credibility in some 3rd or 4th parties and see a little more 'free market competition' in the political realm. Would Republicans be as corrupt if Liberatarians where there to calm them on it? Or maybe Demos with the Greens doing the same thing.
Virtus
The real problem is not third parties holding the two responsible, it is party members ignoring the facts of their parties.
Post anything here negative about Clinton even though it is factual and correct even though Liberal Icons like Ted Rall, Gregg Palast or Michael Moore state the exact same thing andwatch the shitstorm.
These people want a myth, they don't want the reality.
Partisanship should really be defined as consistent ignorance and blind support.
The exact same problem exists for Republicans.
grappler: yeah, clintons are shit, dlc=gop(=, incidentally, a certain Joe). But clinton is not Bush. Also virtus is right that having a parliamentary or a multi-party system would make us honest (say, Constitutionalists, Greens and Republicans-plus-DLC-Dems)
but it is too late! Behold, like [Jewish] Wraiths out of the Ark of the Covenant, the dybbuk of debate,
THE ZIONIST COROLLARY TO GODWIN'S LAW
Virtus is an Anti-Semite. In a previous thread he said the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto only revolted because of da Geld. Part of his "economy is all" idea.
feels lousy further rendering meaningless the accusation, but hey, he thinks self-defence or preservation wasn't a reason for the Warsaw Uprising. Had to be da Geld. Fucker.
Fa King: Good point. I alternate between this site and rightwingnews.com and they both have a tendency to ditto the good of their party and ignore the bad of the other party. (I go here to read about how f*cked up the Repubs are, then I kick it over to rightwingnews and read about how terrible the Dems are)
"Handbook for Marine NCO's"
Normally I don't argue with ANTI-SEMITES, but
kid.
grow up.
over four years.
personal
experience.
against "the rules"? Now I know you're not a real Marine, or at best, you're some kind of promotion-hungry boot. "But it's in the Rules...No fair...waaah..."
Joe Dalchi, thanks for the opportunity to link to some comments over at dkos .
Sounds like a positive story about Dean.
What I actually said was that this administration has shown little/if any concern with removing the civil liberties of its citizens, so why would this be any different to them?
I don't believe that the American people would allow it to happen. I do believe that the thought of doing it has crossed Chaney's mind.
The more and more civil liberties are taken away the more "alarmed" I believe we have the right to feel.
I want the "I supported Howard Dean and all I got was my hat handed to me in 2004" T-Shirt. That and the boxers with "I am Atrios" printed on the seat.
KY: I didn't say that at all. I said that yes, obviously, the Jews weren't fighting for money, they where fighting for their lives and their liberties.
I then went on to say that the NAZI's where fighting for 'die geld' as you say and that is why the started their war on Jews and Europe.
My final point was that "The antagonist may not (and in most cases isn't) be fighting for economic gain, but the protagonist invariably is"
As for "the rules". In practice I know it doesn't happen, but it is still how it is SUPPOSED to happen. I have been in for 3 years, not long in the scheme of things, but hardly a boot, especially when I have no plans to re-enlist.
Snip: No what you actually said was "Sounds like educated speculation to me. A real possiblity." His comment was in fact neither educated nor could it even be grounded as speculative because it has no basis whatsoever.
you know what else is in the "rules"? Whatever Quantico thought made us look better. And at the end of the day, it ain't "Marines never tell a lie" or "Toys fer Tots" that makes our cor-frams shine, it's the island-hopping campaigns in the Pacific.
Nothing, but nothing, after that, was as honorable, as brutal or as glorious, in the American public's eyes or those of our enemies. Frozen Chosen and Hue were mere slaughters with no occupation to celebrate any victory. Granada? Lebanon? Panama? Don't make us laugh. We are just boys in pretty uniforms on the shoulders of the gods of the Just War. Ever read Eugene Sledge's With the Old Breed?
Lasses and Fellas: I am hurt. I think Dean is the nominee. This does not mean we have to give him a blank check. I am no cheerleader. I am also not a deanophile. I am a straight-shootter. You make a mistaken, you acknowledge. I do not buy the leftist crap (all Democrats are inherently angels and all GOPs are inherently evil-doers).
Joe D.
What I actually said was that this administration has shown little/if any concern with removing the civil liberties of its citizens, so why would this be any different to them?
Yes, it's terrible!!! You have completely lost your civil right to criticize the Bush Administration.
The more and more civil liberties are taken away the more "alarmed" I believe we have the right to feel.
OK, I'll bite. What are these "more and more civil liberties" that have been taken away. Specific examples would help, such as Atrios being sent to Gitmo for marketing items mocking the current Administration.
Fair. I should have elborated my thought process further instead of typing a gut response.
Blah, don't disrespect my fucking Corps, or those that died protecting our values and our American way of life.
"they where fighting for their lives and their liberties, Nazis were but not Jews etc"
You are now admitting your previous "economy is all" theory is wrong? Only way out, Virty-boy.
Also, possible antisemitism confirmed in your choice of words "antagonist" (which means bad guy to most Engish-speakers) and "protagonist" (good guy, though you clearly mean to say "initiator of" and "reactor to hostilities")
boot=junior, while has it certain connotations, it has no inherent meaninhg re: re-upping. Also: why on earth not? Don't we have a crusade to fight?
I forgot to say that my favorite coluumnists tend to be progressives, such as Bill Keller and David Brooks (both from NYT), Mark Shields (CNN Cross Fire) and Mara Liaison (Fox News and NPR).
A spade is a spade is a spade. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
A hypocrisy is a hypocrisy is a hypocrisy.
Joe D.
LoL, that anonymous viewer tackling the hard issues that I just dismissed as idiotic outright. Get em!!
Jesus Fucking Christ, what is wrong with you people? Why are you trying to honestly debate a fucking troll like Virtus? He's exactly the fucking same as Philly G, the dancing egg, or any other random brownshirt retard that staggers over here with their "ME LIKEY PREZNIT! HIM GIVE TURKEE TO TROOPS! HILARY AM BAD! GRRR!" bullshit.
Virtus, if you're really in the army, do us all a favor and go for a nice skip in a minefield, you fucking hack. You're as ignorant as your hero Bush and nearly as mendacious. Keep it up, you fucking twit.
"Blah, don't disrespect my fucking Corps, or those that died protecting our values and our American way of life."
dying to hear you prove. Both "disrespectful" (called them gods! disrespectful?) and "way of life", thus, if we had not destroyed Panama City, America would be...conquered by Panamanians? Also, that sentiment wasn't originally mone. Belonged to a grunt vet with more medals for more reasons than you.
KY: Alright, you are most definitely mis-representing my words purposefully. If that's the case I will just ignore you outright.
The "initiator" of combat hostilities is always attempting economic gain.
The "reactor" of combat hostilities may or may not be attempting economic gain, however they are always defending themselves.
For example, WWII. The japanese attacked us due to our continued Oil Embargoes shattering their economy. They "initiated" an attack us for economic reasons. We also had economic reasons independent of our defense of ourselves.
Senator Clinton's fact-finding tour to Iraq and Afghanistan included extensive meetings, with both our troops and with local Iraqi and Afghani officials. She was there to see what the situation on the ground looked like.
Bush, OTOH, brought a plastic turkey prop and showed up just long enough for FOX News to get some useful visuals (and of course to crowd Senator Clinton's lengthier trip out of the news).
By the way:
Here is Ralph Nader's very own Online Survey, asking us if he should run in 2004:
Gag.
I not only said 'no', I also enclosed the Guardian URL for Jacob Weisberg's famous 'Ralph the Leninist' piece. I know Ralph will never see it, but one of his web workers might, and maybe it might shake something loose in said web worker's brain.
Joe Dalachi, you're on the shitlist now too. Your momma's gonna get a boot in the cunt for having birthed such a dipshit.
Yeah, that David Brooks is REAAAAL progressive. Why he's Upton Sinclair reborn, he is.
Go take a walk through the Gaza Strip with various and sundry anti-semitic slogans painted on your ass, you dumbfuck.
What issues is Anonymous "tackling"? He tacitly granted that our illegal torture camps in X-Ray are a violation of civil liberties (lawyers? seeing evidence, etc?)
So what do you trolls think of Yee, Chinaman of Mystery, having TREACHEROUSLY possibly cheated on his wife? We were kinda expecting more espionagy charges, but instead, looks like Yee has something of Slick Willy in 'im.
Bill Hicks: are you saying we should surrender the thread?
Hi, I'm a complete fucking retard with no semblance of integrity whatsoever. I let Newsmax, Rush, and Fox do my thinking for me. I'm a disgrace to this country and the principles upon which it was founded.
I would have made not just a good German, but a GREAT one.
YAY BUSH!
KY: You said "gods of war" typically a derogatory statement from a leftist. And as far as our reasoning wherever we go that is not up to the Marines to decide. But overall, big picture, we have fought for America's way of life and civil liberties. I don't understand what "mone" means or what "belonged to a grunt vet" You belong to a vet?
Ghost of Bill Hicks: Isn't it ironic that you accuse me of being a troll who just 'stumbles' over here to make random statements, when I am the one arguing with facts and you are the one making random rash statements? Also as far as 'stumbled' I may have, but now I follow this site fairly closely. I don't just randomly disagree with everything said.
ROFL. People like my little clone there are living proof that simple logic and a little factual backing will beat most liberals into submission, causing them to resort to petty mimicry and 'name calling'. Haha Your post = "I have nothing to say against your statements, so you are a doody head"
(With a few definite exceptions, KY, pie, and others for example)
K&Y: I'm saying cede nothing, just don't waste your time trying to out-debate them. A wet sack of mice could outdate these fucking hacks.
What I'm saying is, troll them back. Do not for a second take them seriously, because all that you'll get is a spiraling landfill of bullshit from them in return.
'The "initiator" of combat hostilities is [almost] always attempting economic gain.
The "reactor" of [he meant to] combat hostilities may or may not be attempting economic gain, however they are [almost] always defending themselves.'
There you go. Was that so hard? Also read some Chris Hedges-the victim usually uses victimhood to foster the nation-myth and create their own attacks, like in Yugoslavia.
Of course there's also the thing about you granting that the Japanese were not the true drawers of first blood, so to speak...does this mean America's government only wanted it to get out of its isolationism and fight Nazis for money? Is it so impossible to think FDR wanted to defeat Hitler because he wanted to defeat Hitler?
Facts? From Newsmax? Jesus Christ, you are one dishonest motherfucker Virtus. A fucking hack hit-site for the Repubs would NEVER lead anyone astray on the merits of Hilary's visit vs. Dear Leader's, would it?
Once again, go do your best Kurt Cobain impression, you fucking Cro-Mag.
537 votes - thanks for the link to your Kos post. Better retort than I was planning.
KY: Why did we break the monroe doctrine to fight Hitler after having done nothing for so long? Economic gain. The war is what pulled us out of the depression (not that farce of the New Deal).
Also, do not edit my statements, it stands as is. The initiator ALWAYS is attempting economic gain (I charge you, as I charged pie earlier, to find a dissimilar case), and the Reactor is ALWAYS defending themselves, they have no other choice. Even the Jews and the Kuwaitis did what they could to defend themselves.
Bill Hicks: Again you spew out nonsensical trash. If a 'wet sack of mice' could outdebate these 'hacks' then perhaps you should offer a point of view instead of randomly flaming those with an opinion that differs from your apparent infallible one. Also, feel free to take me seriously, if I am beaten I have always conceded when someone makes a good point that I cannot refute, and I will continue to do so (unlike many of the people here, who just ignore it), I am not neccessarily always pro-right or pro-left and I am always open to a difference of opinion from my point of view. Apparently you just want to shut us up...sounds like you are trying to deny us our civil liberties.
lol, my little clone thinks I am going to debate his worthless point of view. Learn to talk (and by inference think) like an adult first maybe
I wonder if Virtus would enjoy my take on the subject
Right wing blogs are as fun to argue with.
I also find it hilarious that a guy who's peppered his inane bullshit with crap like "TYPICAL LIBERAL RESPONSE ROOFLES" and "HILARY IS A DICTATOR BUT I ONLY SAID THAT BECAUSE YOU GUYS DO LOL" is complaining about me trolling him, and offering me up as some sort of avatar for all liberals everywhere and their evilness.
OMG YOU LIBERALS ARE SO MEAN I AM SO MUCH SMARTER BECUZ I LOVE BUSH HE IS SO 1337!!!1111
sorry *aren't as fun to argue with.
Hicks: I am starting to think you don't have any capabilities for independent or intelligent thought. Your last post, besides editing my words and including them in quotes (shady) and including such key phrases as 'inane bullshit', is the exact reason why I am going to ignore you on your own left wing forum.
Viso Gero, tu eti Durnas.
Viskas
k&y in grammarical error? witness:
"Also, that sentiment wasn't originally mone. {it}Belonged to a grunt vet with more medals for more reasons than you."
Clearly, we should have said "ours" where you see "mone". (mone?!) Nevertheless Virtyboy doesn't get it, (even when we hand him a prize he isn't capable of comprehending it, compare the "gods" thing)
seeing the skipping of the word "it" as reason to not read, "that sentiment...belonged to, etc."
We are down to stupid distractions on points of Virty-boy's second language. Wait, he speaks pig-latin, so English is #3.
Bill is right, it was never really our intention to try to convert a poor kid like ourselves a few years ago only trying to prop up the ego. In keeping with our recent legal moves, we withdraw, as guerillas or similar ghostlike hicks, leaving Virtus to recite his Party Lines ignorant of rebuttals as always. Leaving behind a record onlookers will judge for themselves. Leaving scattered numerous victories amid the proclamations of an enemy who, Rumsfeldian, has no metrics to determine if he's winning or losing, he having mistaken this for a stamina-testing shouting-match.
Virtus is a "bait and bitch" troll. Says uncivil and full of crap things then whines when others are uncivil back.
ignore him.
Why did we break the monroe doctrine to fight Hitler after having done nothing for so long?
I take it you're referring to the Doctrine's assertion that we wouldn't interfere in European wars. I would submit that having war declared upon us changed things dramatically. Remember, we declared war on Japan (12/
, and Hitler declared war on us in support of its Axis partner (12/11). Only then was there a state of war between us.
KY: Uhm, WTF are you talking about? Unlike you, I didn't want to misrepresent your post, so I asked you to clarify, don't get mad because what YOU wrote doesn't make sense/isn't real words.
What party lines have I recited? I don't follow any parties, I follow the news.
(Also, grammarical isn't a word...I hope you meant grammatical, as I don't want to take what you said out of context by possibly replacing your misspellings with the wrong word)
Atrios didn't see that flowery, acidentally italicized speech about timely withdrawal (we admit Papist influence). We weep hysterically.
Virtus: When you start your comments on this thread by arguing that Hilary's trip was just an evil photo-op and she's a commie and all that bullshit about Tokyo Rose, and then then contrast it with Dear Leader's selfless visit, wherein he anointed them all with holy water, washed their feet, and healed the lepers, and then dished out the best damn mashed taters you ever tasted, why would you expect anyone to take you seriously, you propanda swallowing whore?
Please, do me a favor and go become cannon fodder for your precious master's bullshit ideological war. You're wasting all our air.
NTodd: You are aruging my case for me. I hope Kei & Yuri is sure to read that post. (Also the Doctrine did not just include european powers, but also the eastern hemisphere as a whole, and fringes of the western hemisphere).
The end of that statement you quoted "...after having done nothing for so long? Economic gain and in defense of ourselves"
Hicks: I never said anything about a photo-op. Reread the statement. Also, I found the comparison to Axis Sally to be fairly accurate (and humorous as well).
And I just said that the difference was pretty clear between them. One 'leader' goes and demands to be served first before she goes on to demoralize the troops. The other goes (flies halfway across the world, motivates the Soldiers in Iraq and serves them dinner, just to fly halfway around the world AGAIN to carry out his business in DC)
"You're wasting all our air." Sounds pretty elitist to me? I thought democrats where for the people, but now I just feel trod upon by 'the man'. Why does Bill Hicks hate America?
The end of that statement you quoted "...after having done nothing for so long? Economic gain and in defense of ourselves"
I only see "Economic gain" at the end of that statement.
Virtus's claim that the Holocaust was caused by German economic greed is seriously off base.
Looked at in economic and military terms (putting aside for a minute legitimate moral questions about this exercise) the Holocaust was extraordinarily costly in many ways. It diverted resources that could have been used either to boost the German economy, or improve the war effort. It removed millions of potentially productive workers from the economy. Historians who study the slave labor system that the Nazis created in both the camps and, more generally in the East point out that the goal was always humiliation and human destruction first, productivity second.
Indeed, those who analyzed Nazism in the 1930s and early 1940s from a strictly economic perspective, such as Franz Neumann (author of BEHEMOTH), tended to conclude that Hitler could not be serious about eliminating the Jews from German life as it would be far too harmful to the German economy.
The only way to understand Nazi antisemitism is as an end in itself.
BTW Hicks; I was going to ignore you, but you're comments are so easily snuffed, I just can't help myself but reply.
Virtus, when was the last time you spoke to a woman without dialing 1-900 first?
BenA -
Virtus is too close to Naziism to be able to analyze it intelligently.
NTodd: It was on an earlier post, sorry, forgot to include it in my repeat the 2nd time. Here it is:
"For example, WWII. The japanese attacked us due to our continued Oil Embargoes shattering their economy. They "initiated" an attack us for economic reasons. We also had economic reasons independent of our defense of ourselves."
Sorry for confusion
BenA: What caused the Germans to strike out against the Jews (scapegoats) and the rest of Europe?
After the Treaty of Versailles ended WWI the German economy was seriously crippled, people where literally starving in the streets. You thought our depression was bad? Their depression was 10x worse. Hitler understood that only by unifying the German people in their way of thinking (ie: Scapegoating a minority...jews) and gearing up industry for a new war would he be able to institute his "Turkey in every Pot, Car in every Garage". Wagen fur diese volks!! (Volkswagon)
Two points:
1.) I'm not a Democrat, I just hate braindead, lying retards like you. And if you represent America as a whole, then yep, I guess I hate America. What a horrible crime. I should be executed immediately.
2.) This is not World War II, no matter how much you and your dumbfuck friends want it to be, so your Axis Sally bullshit is not only inaccurate, but reflects just how historically ignorant you people are. The War On Terror =/= World War II. Get that through your thick fucking skull. Our entire way of life is not at stake, because guess what? Terrorists can't win, you retard. Of course, if you suspend Constitutional rights, and then give into every demand they make (like, say, removing troops from Saudi Arabia) you help them "win", but it's not as if they did it themselves.
This whole clash of cultures thing sounds great in the abstract, but it just doesn't work out in reality. They're hopelessly overmatched, and if the Republicans ever conceded that point instead of acting like they were actually a fucking threat to us, they'd lose their main weapon in keeping dipshits like you in line: fear.
Terrorism will never destroy America. Incompetent fucks like Bush and his cronies, however, have a shot, and are doing a bang-up job so far.
But I suppose I'm the terrorist sympathizer, or objectively pro-Saddam, or whatever idiotic buzzword you want to employ to make yourself feel secure.
Don't worry Virtus, you're right, I'm wrong, and Bush is TEH BESTEST PREZNIT EVER!
Shorter Virtus: preznit give me turkee.
Atrios I have noticed when you are unable to refute what others say, you start to whip out the insults and ad hominem attacks. You can always tell when "troll" or "monkey" is in your replies. Does this make you feel better about yourself when you are not able stand on your position?
Then again, this could be someone else using your anonymous nom de plume. However, I tend to think it is you after witnessing your barrage of jealous attacks on Glen Reynolds on Eschaton. You do seem to get nasty when flummoxed.
Caulfield: It's not really any of your business. I don't have any problem meeting people.
Also, before you claim I am a 'Nazi' can you offer valid proof? I would submit that because Nazi's where closer related to the left wing than the right that you are much closer than I am.
Anonymous = Virtus
Holden Caulfield, wasn't that the call he made to your mom?
Grow up...
Nope. I am not Virtus. I am the original Anonymous.
Virtus -
Mom's gettin tired of having to wipe your mess off of the keyboard everyday. It's bad enough that you spend all day in the basement with the lights off, but really.
Wait - I think she's coming back from the grocery store!
Virtus - I addressed your assertion that we fought Hitler for economic gain, somehow "breaking" the Monroe Doctrine. If you want to amend that statement to be the same as your comment about Japan, fine.
Regardless, the Doctrine was specific to Europe. From Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress, December 2, 1823:
Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none...It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course...
No, I'm the original Anonymous! NYAH! ME SO SMARTEE!
Hicks: Even when you try and present a reasonable cogent argument (which I assume you did with those snazzy billets you used).
Not once have I compared WWII with the war on terror. Not at all.
As far as terrorism not destroying America, maybe it won't, but do you honestly support a position of doing nothing? Should we have just turned the other cheek after 9/11? Screw it. What am I fighting for? Terrorists can't destroy America, lets all go back to the states and sing christmas carols instead.
Yeah, Atrios sure is "jealous" of Glenn. Isn't everyone? I wish I could be an incredibly stupid, future-blind asshole like Glenn. And a law professor to boot! What a great American that Instahack is.
God, if you really think anything Reynolds says has any intellectual merit whatsoever, you don't deserve to live, let alone use the Internet. Go fix yourself a nice peanut butter and rat poison sandwich, you pathetic waste of sperm and egg.
Anyone see the Guardian article about a speech given by the CEO of Glaxo/Smith/Klien?
He stated that 90% of medications do not work on 30%-50% of the people using them.
Of course this sin't covered by US corporate press.
Also, why no thread about Israeli's training US soldiers for assassination squads in Iraq?
ooh, that prezit giv me turkee T-shirt is tempting.
I think the September 11 terrorists should be in jail or dead, like the original WTC bombers. President Clinton took care of that business, as I recall. WTF does our Iraq "business" have to do with this?
NTodd: Outstanding. You caught me, I have read the doctrine before (albeit a couple of years ago) and I could have sworn it included more than just the European powers, I guess it must have morphed in my head over time to include the rest of the eastern hemisphere somehow. Good point and thanks for the correction.
Holden: I have never posted under anonymous (or any other name) on this blog or on any other blog.
Misnomer: No President Clinton's failure to nip terrorism in the bud is why we are dealing with this TODAY.
And while we are discussing that, Carters failure to have ANY kind of foreign presence is what allowed the USSR to attack Afghanistan and turn that it into an old-west like country devoid of any higher authorities to regulate the rampant lawlessness there.
ICB: Interesting point. Did you catch that article that fark posted today by the Retired Doctor's compaign to rid the world of this hyped up ADHD BS? Pretty interesting stuff, I have suspected ADHD was a scapegoat for poor parenting and schooling for years.
Blah, it's almost 8:00PM here and it's time to go have dinner and hit the clubs (Man, you just don't know what you are missing in America until you go out on Saturday night in Europe...).
As always, thanks for the discussion. And for giving me the opportunity to hear from the left. I hope you all enjoy the rest of your saturday.
christ I can't believe the bandwidth wasted on replying to Virtus. One, two, three replies, OK... but a running back-and-forth? Not worth it.
Phoenix Woman, the Guardian link to the Ratfuck Ralph story didn't work, can you supply a working link via tinyurl? thanks
Love the bib. If they came in adult size I'd consider a set of them. They'd be the perfect Thanksgiving accessory.
Virtus, this is the problem with you. No one can disagree with you without you assuming that their opinion is "do nothing".
Are you really that dumb, or are you just using the same debate tactics that all your freeper brethren use, wherein there's only two solutions to every problem:
1.) Bomb the shit out of it.
2.) Leave everything alone, sing songs about peace, and allow terrorists to bomb you.
Unfortunately for retards like you, some of us are capable of thinking of solutions between those two extremes, like, say, FINISHING THE FUCKING JOB IN AFGHANISTAN, YOU SHITSTAIN.
Where's Osama, Virtus? Remember him, the guy who started all this bullshit in the first place? Why is he not being paraded through the streets of New York RIGHT FUCKING NOW on his way to the gallows?
Oh, I know: Because George W. Bush and his entire administration are a bunch of lying, stupid, incompetent jackasses. My bad.
Or, here's another idea: WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T WE BOMB SAUDI ARABIA, YOU ASSHOLE? 19 of the hijackers were Saudis. The Saudi royal family SUPPORTS AL QAEDA MONETARILY.
So what do we do? Pull our troops out, just like Osama wanted us too.
Yep, that Bush sure is tough on terror. Why he's practically John Fucking Wayne.*
*in that John Wayne was a fucking phony actor who was about as tough as milk-fed veal, and is an idol of all those who talk tough and do jack fucking shit to back it up.
How is it that the greatest country in the world can't catch a fucking guy dragging a dialysis machine around the mountains?
And if we're so fucking great, why didn't we attack a country that might ACTUALLY BE A THREAT TO US, LIKE NORTH KOREA?
Probably because the country is run by a bunch of pussies who would rather invade a third world country with an anemic army, no air force, and NO WMDS, than, you know, actually FIGHT TERROR.
You're fucking pathetic. You're a sychophantic asswiper for a bunch of ignorant elitists who have no idea how to lead, let alone prosecute a worldwide campaign against terror. How do you sleep at night, you retard?
NTodd...Good point and thanks for the correction.
No worries. Thanks for being gracious.
"Ghost of Bill Hicks" wipes floor with "Virtus"!
LOL!
Oh Christ, the "CLINTON WASN'T TOUGH ENOUGH ON TERROR!" bullshit. The pinnacle of freeper retardation.
Yeah, it's all Clinton's fault. I dare you to go tell Sandy Berger that, you fucking cretin. If I were him I'd kick the ever loving shit out of you.
Yep, IGNORING SANDY BERGER'S WARNINGS FOR CLOSE TO A YEAR = TOUGH ON TERRA! That Condoleeza Rice is the best NSA we've ever had! Rah rah, sis boom bah! GO TEAM LYING RAT-FUCK PUSSIES!
Ok, one more post before I turn off this damned computer.
I agree with alot of what you said Hicks. I think we should finish the job in Afghanistan, then leave those people alone. I think we should definitely look into dealing with Saudi Arabia, and also we should definitely look into N. Korea.
And I don't neccessarily agree with our attack on Iraq. But I do think that now that we are there we need to finish the job, not just pull our troops out like many of the Demo's seem to think we should.
Again, I don't think George Bush is a holier than thou perfect candidate, but I support him much more than all the Democratic Candidates, and as a member of the armed services I am bound to follow his orders, so I can't really argue against him.
Do you honestly think that Coward Dean or John Kerry could orchestrate the war on terror any better?
And I definitely agree with parading Osama Bin Laden through the streets on the way to the gallows.
But alot of Demo's (go check out www.democraticunderground.com [The coolest thing is that they don't allow anyone with a different opinion to post there, haha, unchecked insanity]) think of Bush as being worse than OBL...wtf is that nonsense?
Anyway, finally you present a compelling argument, but you dumb it down with inane curse words and wild accusations. You are learning though.
Good night.
Oh, did my eyes deceive me or did Virtus just mention Locke up thread. Hahaha - funny that. America's Memory is a big Locke fan - has thrown that one around quite a bit.
Ignore the fucking brownshirt - it is the same old brownshirt - no matter what ya'll think.
"Also, before you claim I am a 'Nazi' can you offer valid proof? I would submit that because Nazi's where closer related to the left wing than the right that you are much closer than I am."
- Virtus
What the hell does this mean? My Political Science degree was 20 years ago, but still- Nazi= centralized power, persecution and scapegoating of selected groups (Jews, gays, Gypsys, etc), secret police, encourage people to inform on neighbors, etc. I dont see anything here advocated by left wing or liberal people. Sounds more like things that the Ashcroft/Rove/Cheney/Chimpy group want. Are you saying that they are left wing? Why cant we get honest conservative posters like Erik the C anymore?
Or just this morning (Yesterday for you in the states) I was talking to 'pie' about all the Democrats who have obstensively supported an invasion of Iraq and who have VERIFIED that Saddam had WMD are now turning the opposite way now that it's campaign time. I even presented a list of damning quotes and his reply was "The Dems where not in power [which they where in congress at that time] and so it didn't matter"
Does that mean that if you are not in power you can do and say anything without suffering the repercussions?
No, Virtus, the Dems are not turning the opposite way now that it's campaign time. The fact that there are no WMDs probably has something to do with it, don't you think? As for saying the Dems couldn't stop the war, I challenge you or anyone else to tell me how they could have done this. Stand on principle? Yes, and then we would have seen them get butchered for it.
I'm not making excuses for the Dems. I am merely pointing out the reality. We were all deceived.
But Bush was and is the President. He took us to war. If he hadn't wanted it, we wouldn't have gone. Period. He bears the ultimate responsibility. Bush is a lousy president. If he's the Repub choice next year, then I'll take the alternative, thank you.
*sigh* I want to quit posting, but I am compelled to defend myself!!
Tena: I have never posted under any other name, on any other blog. Always Virtus. Look it up, pretty cool name in Latin.
Roy:
Dictionary definition of Nazism:
"The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy."
National Expansion and State Control of the Economy sound like Left Wing ideas to me.
Do you honestly think I sit around thinking about what Ashcroft/Rove/Cheney/Bush would want me to say before I post? LOL, that is the height of madness. I don't give a crap about any political party (I am conservative, but I am probably more Liberatarian [from what I understand] than Republican).
Also did you get your Pol/Sci degree from UofO? I intend to study either there or OSU when I get of the military (I am from Portland myself [Go Techmen])
Don't fucking condescend to me, you god damned pussy. You roll over and accept whatever Bush tells you, no matter how stupid it is, and then offer up the example of DU, as if it was the arbiter of all that which is anti-Bush?
Read this very carefully, you god damned moron: WE ARE LOSING THE WAR ON TERROR BECAUSE GEORGE BUSH IS A MORON. IRAQ ONLY MADE THINGS WORSE. IRAQ IS NOW THE WORLD'S LARGEST TERRORIST TRAINING CAMP.
But yeah, pithy nicknames like "Coward" Dean are certainly a great rebuttal. And the ONLY Democratic candidate who's suggesting we pull out altogether is KUCINICH, YOU PUTZ. Kucinich has no chance of winning. Hell, I have a better chance of winning, AND I'M DEAD.
You know NOTHING about what real Democrats stand for, you just accept whatever caricature is drawn for you by places like NewsMax or junkie fucks like Rush. You're a pathetic, sniveling coward who is afraid to face the reality that the rest of us have to every day: Our country is being run by duplicitous morons who are destroying everything we hold dear, and adding to the ranks of Al Qaeda with his stupid fucking excursion into Iraq.
And you know what? When North Korea starts a nuclear war, IT WILL BE YOUR FAULT. When the Saudi Royal Family is overthrown by Al Qaeda, and most of the Arab world is taken over by militant fucks who gained power because Bush had to go avenge an alleged plot against his daddy, IT WILL BE YOUR FAULT. When the EU and the Asian markets band together in a huge global trade bloc in an effort to check our power, IT WILL BE YOUR FAULT.
You don't deserve this country, you cowardly cocksucker. All you do is enable the people who are robbing it blind and sending it down the path to decline.
Start reading up on what the UK was after the British Empire started crumbling, fucko. You'll soon be living that history on a much larger scale.
Anon: So if standing on a principle would get you butchered you shouldn't do it right? I guess all the Demos back then really didn't believe there where WMD's or that we should invade Iraq, they just SAID they did so they didn't get 'butchered' right?
So I guess following your logic, it is now YOUR fault (assuming you voted Democrat) that you have these talking heads in congress that refuse to stand up for their points of view and instead just lie about an issue one day, then change their point of view later when it's popular.
My comment at 1:08.
Virtus, did you read my whole post?
And did the October resolution specifically authorize war?
Me, again.
after reading this thread, i am convinced that a new psychological phenomenom in occuring with the walls of the blogoshpere compound. i think "trolls" (defined as folks who purposefully breach the threads of sites they are in idealogical opposition with) probably have some sort of sadomasochistic tendencies (they like to give it and take it) along with some developemental retardation (namely the inability to recognize ones own idealogical blinders and influences). i have seen some "trolls" here who engage in honest debate (then the question of whether they're defined as a "troll" arises), but mostly it's just lonely dudes who get off sticking their hands into hornets nests. "trolls" are dependent on your infuriation, they literally feed off of your indignation. it's like birthday cake for them. think about it this way, when you don't feed them you are actually helping this person, saving them from their own compulsions. do them a favor, don't feed them. as soon a post strikes you as relating severe cognitive dissonance (or just dishonest posturing) slowly back away and thank the "troll" for "increasing your awareness of reality and truly demonstrating the validity of an argument you never really considered" that seems to pacify them.
Totally OT, but I thought these were awesome.
(•)(•)
And elections were coming up. Too bad many thought voting against the resolution might hurt their chances.
Turned out it did anyway. But I can understand why they acted as they did.
How do you justify us losing the war on terror? I said "Coward Dean" one time, unlike the constant hate mongering by the left of President Bush.
I have never read, or watched, or listened to, NewsMax, whatever the hell that is.
And I could flip your argument by saying you don't understand Republicans at all and have your news handfed to you by CNN and the NY Times and all the rest of the extremely left-biased media out there. You get mad at Bill O'Reilly for having a conservative attitude, and yet you don't get equally mad at CNN and NY Times for have a liberal attitude...Time to raise the bullshit flag on the hypocrisy there.
The rest of your post is random hate-mongering that I refuse to address.
As for my 'deserving this country' I am standing front line defending what has historically been the #1 terrorist target for attacks. What are YOU doing to deserve this country? (You are falling under the freedom that myself and other veterans provided you, that is what) So to use your style of argument: SHUT THE FUCK UP and don't judge me based on how you PERCEIVE the Right wing to be.
And again, because you ignored the comment:
The Dems are changing their points of view because THERE WERE NO WMDS!!!
Saddam was not a threat.
Bush is the Prez. He made the FINAL decision to go to war. He is responsible.
Bush.
Get it?
Virtus- we can go by dictonary definition or we can go by reality- which do you prefer? For example, do you think that the Soviet Union was anything like the definition of Communism (hint- no- actual better description of them was state capitalism). No I dont think that you let A/R/C/B control your statements but still- I dont see state control of the economy as a liberal idea - but state regulation of it may be (in other words dont completely trust everyone, or you get things like the Savings and Loan scandal, Enron, Worldcom, etc). In other words a true free market can be supported by liberals, but when corporate power influences govt decision making, as you know damn well that Enron did with Bush (I wont deny that both parties are involved with this, but we deal with the current situation), liberals will want some control of it, to prevent this. Do you really believe that the fiscal irresponsiblity of the current administration is in your best interests as a conservative? By the way- yes I went to the UofO, and still live in Eugene
Anon: Yes I read it, and would Bush have taken us to war if no one in Congress supported it? Hell no. That would be political suicide. So ask yourself where his support came from?
Cereal: I think you are referring to me, and I would say that I am the former than the latter. I don't try and stir up indignation, I don't generally curse or say anything derogatory to anyone (unlike many of the responders). I genuinely enjoy honest debate, and I have always admitted when I am wrong, and I have always tried to include as much proof of my point of view as possible. So I don't see how I fit your description.
virtus- so by this "The "initiator" of combat hostilities is always attempting economic gain." you are agreeing that the reason the US attacked Iraq was for economic gain? I guess the second largest known oil reserves being under US control at minimal cost to US oil corps could be considered economic gain.
Virtus - no, you just do the typically troll-like behavoirs of offering up "facts" without sourcing, changing the subject when you're proven wrong, and failing to even attempt to answer the questions raised by your dubious "logic" which you cannot answer...because they prove your "logic" dubious and free of content.
Other than that, you're very convincing.
If you're a soldier, I'm Mickey Mouse.
Tell me another lie, you pissant. They make me giggle.
And as for CNN and the NYTimes being "liberally biased"? Thanks again for proving my point re: you being a sheep who lets the right cram their talking points into your empty head.
If CNN has a "liberal" bias, why am I yelling at my TV everytime I see that fucking hag Judy Woodroof or Paula Zahn LYING THROUGH THEIR FUCKING TEETH IN FAVOR OF THE PRESIDENT, YOU ASS?
Hate-mongering of Bush? Whatever, you fucking tard. If I'm wrong to hate a man who's gotten us into an unwinnnable war that we had no business being in in the first place, and who will ultimately be known as history's worst president, then yeah, I guess I'm a hatemonger.
But I'd rather hate an idiot than be played for a sucker by one like you.
The fact that you buy into this whole left vs. right bullshit is proof enough that you're a rube: The only struggle in this country is haves vs. have nots, the left vs. right thing is a smokescreen, a foodfight in order to distract us to the fact that THEY'RE ROBBING YOU AND ME BLIND, YOU DOPE.
There is NOTHING conservative about this administration, and if you think there is, you've been woefully misinformed as to the meaning of that word. They are radical kleptocrats of the highest order, and they are LAUGHING at you for being a willing footsoldier to line their pockets, whether it be in the literal sense or the ideological.
You're only a pawn in their game, and you're so ignorant and arrogant that you can't even see it. I'd almost feel sorry for you if you weren't part of a massive army of deluded morons who are helping them RAPE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Fuck you, fuck your masters, and fuck the American education system for producing thousands upon thousands of you short-sighted losers. No Morons Left Behind.
And in closing: Eat an M-16 after you're finished shoveling all that bullshit the administration gave you into your mouth. The bullets should wash it down nicely.
Roy: I definitely don't agree with Bushs fiscal irresponsibility. I think the effects of the defecit are overrated by the left (just as they are probably underrated by the right...and if we had a Demo president that did the same thing, it would be the exact opposite!). When compared with the GDP the defecit is nowhere in as bad a shape as it is made out to be. And our Debt is less than 50% (I think closer to 40% now) of our yearly GDP, as compared to almost all of the other worlds prominent countries who are debted up to 120% of their GDP in some cases.
Realistically I think that Hitlers Nazi party had a few right wing components, but had more socialistic left wing components. Realistically I agree with your analysis of the former Soviet Union's Communist system, keeping in mind that a country can NEVER have a true communism. Being in a formerly soviet controlled country I am asking people who lived here in those times how some people had nicer things than others if everything was supposed to be equal, and they never can answer (I dunno if it's the language barrier or if they don't know, or what).
State Control of the Economy (The Fed) is a government in general idea (ie not left or right), but just as you said Regulation is a left wing concept (one that Hitler did in fact employ).
How was the pol/sci program at UofO? I am trying to decide which University to get that degree from.
Ask him where his support came from?
It came from a republican-controlled House and a Senate barely controlled by Dems. A show of solidarity. Most hoped that Bush would get authorization from the UN. Even the American people didn't support war unless there was a UN resolution. But the Bushies made sure that didn't happen, constantly criiticized and vilified our allies, and then kept the fear factor up so that, supposedly, a majority eventually supported war even without the UN.
It's all fallen apart. He's ruined everything and hasn't succeeded at all in making us safer.
In fact, Virtus, your dear leader has made us less safe. He's been a great recruiter for the terrorists.
Well, at least he's accomplished something.
Preznit: NO argument there. Just like France Germany and Russia didn't want to go to war because the bulk of their oil comes from dealings with Saddam. Especially Lukoil here in eastern europe which is looking to go bankrupt soon.
Jennifer: I almost always include sources to my facts, and have always reminded people that if they want to see the sources for any of my facts (If I have a link available) I will provide it. As far as changing the topic, usually I am arguing with multiple people on the forum. I don't change the topic, but when 3 people are throwing out 3 random arguments in the time that I am answering someone else about the original topic, it is hard to not change the subject.
I originally posted about the Bush visit to Iraq vs. the Hillary visit to Afghanistan. Read through the forum history and see all the craziness that has been brought up (Enron has alot to do with that right? WTF)
Hicks: Your post is crap, but I will respond to one thing: Your argument about it being between the HAVE'S and the HAVE NOT'S. True, that may be a huge crack seperating our country, but that does not make the difference between Conservatives and Liberals any greater or less...
Also, no one is robbing me blind because I don't let them. I grew up in a home that made $500 a month and paid $550 in rent. (Read: HAVE NOT) I studied dilligently in school, while working to pay for food for my family (because my mother had too much pride to take welfare) and got a scholarship to Oregon State University, I declined it and decided to give something back to this country I loved (and see the world), and now I have saved up enough money through being frugal with my monthly paycheck that I can afford to go to college almost without any support at all. And the same time paying fully into my roth IRA every year.
Don't fucking lecture me about HAVE's and HAVE NOT's. It's WORK's and WORKS NOT's.
I originally posted about the Bush visit to Iraq vs. the Hillary visit to Afghanistan. Read through the forum history and see all the craziness that has been brought up (Enron has alot to do with that right? WTF)
Virtus | Email | Homepage | 12.13.03 - 1:37 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
And the correct answer to that little quandry was:
They were BOTH bullshit photo-ops that accomplished nothing of substance, and helped morale exactly ZILCH, ZERO, NADA.
Instead, you came in here, guns a blazing, looking to start some ridiculous partisan pissing match over who REALLY cares about the troops.
The most likely response to that question: Neither of them do. But I'm willing to give Hilary more of a benefit of the doubt since she isn't, you know, DIRECTLY responsible for having sent them there, nor is she the one cutting their benefits while wrapping herself in the flag and pretending to give a shit about them.
They're BOTH lying sacks of shit, you twit. But your blinders have been welded on, so of course you don't see that.
And keep whining about people "attacking" you. You reap what you sow, you little bitch.
pie: SO you are driven to MAKING up facts to disprove me eh? Or perhaps you just took the lefties word for it w/out researching it for yourself.
The UN resolution to go into Iraq was there. It got approved. The United States only went in after the resolution was approved because the rest of Europe was dragging their feet about committing troops!!
virtus- since I dont have a degree in economics (I think it was among the most boring classes I took, along with History of Ancient Philosophy), I wont argue or agree with a comparison of GDP and debt. What I do see is a government that is more concerned with tax cuts as it's only fiscal solution, despite a crumbling infrastucture in roads, schools etc. Despite all the rhetoric about tax cuts benefiting all, and the average tax cut being $1000, etc it just isnt true. My federal income tax savings on an income of $40K was about $300. Big deal. The favorite right wing claim is that Reagan's "tax cuts doubled revenue" so it must be a good thing are just not true. (Do you really want to hear the arguements? A friend at work believes it and sent an article from an organization that he said was non-partisan - he didnt mention that looking them up found the majority of support coming from the Scaife foundations)
I couldnt tell you how the current Poly Sci program is at UofO, 20 years is a long time. Eugene is a nice place to live (we may be too liberal, at least according to some letters I have seen in the local paper, but what the hell)
Is Bush cutting our benefits Hicks? I charge you to find evidence of that.
Military families where literally on WELFARE to survive during the Clinton administration. Seeing young Lance Corporals and PFC's work 15 hours a day for the military, then go to a 2nd job at an all night gas station or convenience store was not uncommon at all.
How has Bush cut our benefits? Also, most military men (at least in the Marines) WANTED to go to Iraq, so sending us against our will? I hardly think so.
virtus- you ever consider the fact that France, Germany and Russia didn't want to go to war was because the sanctions were working, and since Hussein had allowed inspecors back in and they were coming up with absolutely no sign of WMD that maybe it was a bad idea to invade a sovereign country to try to take over their assets? maybe they just read the Geneva Accords first and realized it would be illegal.
The UN resolution to go into Iraq was there. It got approved.
1441 was NOT an authorization to go to war, was it?
What a lovely story. It truly brings a tear to my eye, Virtus, it really does.
Of course, much like everything else you've spewed, it's bullshit, but I won't let that ruin the Kodak moment for me.
Yeah, and nothing says smart like letting the people who kept your imaginary family in that imaginary poverty continue to lie to you and make you think it's some dirty nigger's fault that you were poor, because they didn't work. Yep, it couldn't be because they won't let you be paid a livable wage, or because they keep wasting your tax dollars on shit like Star Wars and tax cuts for their inbred supporters who fell ass backwards into their considerable fortunes.
Nah, don't support the party who supports unions, raising the minimum wage, and social security, let's let those "adult" Republicans squander all our money on the Contras of the world. That's much better than giving your money to some lazy spics and negroes, ain't it?
I said it before, and I'll say it again:
YOU'RE A FUCKING RUBE.
maybe they just read the Geneva Accords first and realized it would be illegal.
And Richard Perle has admitted that this war was illegal.
Roy: Yeah, in Portland we considered Eugene to be synonyms with hippies lol.
As far as the infrastructure crumbling, living in Oregon you should know yourself that it's not about the taxes, but about what is done with the taxes! Oregon is one of the most wasteful states there is. Look at the Portland school system, continually they are given an increase in budget, and yet, they are still firing teachers and shutting down schools at a record rate. (No administrators have been fired yet incidentally) Look at OHP, there are little towns that have NO police protection on some days of the week!! WTF is up with that? Well, everyone saw that and voted to increase taxes and spending on the police force, and yet that hasn't solved the probelem at all.
The government is in many cases a giant black hole for middle level "do-nothings" to extort tax money in return for doing nothing to help the situation they are tasked to help.
Virtus, what's the matter? Can't stand to not have the last word? I thought you had to go clubbing in "Europe"?
Yeah, I can see you right now, on the bridge of the Danube. Another fucking lie.
Oh, and military families were on welfare under Clinton? Bullshit. You either cite some unbiased reports of that, or you cop to that being a fucking lie, because among the myriad of lies I've heard about Clinton, that one suspiciously never came up. Funny.
And you know what? Even if it was true, who gives a fuck? Bill Clinton is no longer President, George Bush is, and he's CUTTING YOUR FUCKING BENEFITS, YOU RUBE. Of course you're on a cushy post in "Europe", so you wouldn't know about any of these hardships the grunts in Afghanistan and Iraq are having to deal with, do you?
Tell me another fairy tale, you fucking liar.
*sigh* it is an hour after i said i was going to log off. I am reading no more. Write down all your questions, look back at todays thread and figure out all the questions you think I have answered accurately enough. Tomorrow you can give me an itemized list of my discrepancies or something if you want.
Anyway, 9:00PM here, time to go teach these guys how to 'step American style' in the club lol. Good Night. Again, thanks for the debate and for all the cogent arguments. You can resume your left wing ditto discourse on preznit or whatever it is you talk about when I'm not here...
This is like the "to do list" I found in my 7 yr old's room. (Sisterly love is a wonderful thing).
Not funny enough to merchandise, but still kind of amusing.
Virtus - Well now you're just out and out lying.
As was reported nationwide, the Oregon schools shut down a month early last year due to budget cuts brought on by Bush starving the states for revenue (the effect of his lack of any real economic plan and his tax cuts - most states tie their tax provisions to the federal code). They didn't close early because they got an increase in their budget, you twit.
Me eat poop.
Hicks: Grrrr...I gotta go and you are pissing me off. Remind me tomorrow and I will find the link for the committee they had in Congress concerning the myriad of service members who lived well below poverty during his administration. Again, Bush has RAISED our benefits (I am getting a raise in Jan. as a matter of fact). As far as my post being cushy, Lithuania is a nice country, but far from Cushy, and as far as going to Iraq I JUMPED at the opportunity to go. I was literally one day away from getting on the plane when my orders to I-MEF (Marine Expeditionary Force) where cancelled. Don't attack my patriotism you fucking douche. I'm not answering anymore.
The UN resolution to go into Iraq was there. It got approved. The United States only went in after the resolution was approved because the rest of Europe was dragging their feet about committing troops!!
Incorrect. S/RES 1441 states:
12. [The UNSC decides] to convene immediately...to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure
international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequence as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
In other words, the action authorized by 1441 was the UNSC would get together and agree on next steps. There was no "trigger" for war, and that was admitted by Powell and Negroponte after passage.
Contrast to S/RES 678, which authorized:
Member States...to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660.
The phrase "all necessary means" is standard language essentially meaning "war". 1441 uses "serious consequences", which allows for a wider variety of sanctions that could include war, but generally involves things like embargos and other economic means.
Regardless, the UNSC explicitly stated that it "remains seized of the matter", which means the Council gets to decide how to enforce 1441, not the US.
Jennifer: If schools weren't funded by State Spending then your argument would make sense...goodnight!
This article about veteran's benefits being cut is from the Rocky Mountain Telegram (4/1/03):
U.S. Rep. Bob Etheridge on Monday denounced those members of the House who voted last week to pass the federal budget.
Etheridge, D-2nd District, criticized passage of the budget because it eliminates $28 billion in funding for veterans' benefits over the next 10 years.
"It's absolutely outrageous that the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives pushed through a budget that severely cuts funding for our veterans," Etheridge said in a written statement.
Reps. Frank Ballance, D-1st District, and Walter Jones, R-3rd District, voted against the proposal, but it passed by three votes.
The House budget would cut mandatory veterans' benefits such as disability and pension payments and the GI bill, Etheridge said.
The cuts include $14.2 billion in the Veterans Administration's discretionary budget, Etheridge said, leaving the decision of where to make those cuts in the hands of the Veterans Administration.
The cuts could mean burial benefits for veterans are discontinued or that the cost-of-living adjustment for disability benefits are delayed, Etheridge said, but 96 percent of discretionary spending is applied to health care, meaning that some cuts likely would come from that area.
Ah, crap. Forgot my close tag. Last 2 grafs are mine as well.
Re: "welfare" for military families: welfare overwhelmingly goes to women with young children. Virtually no men, or women without children, receive welfare. And the military is what, 90% male? So give me the names of the 2 military men who are potentially "on welfare".
What actually IS true is that low-level military pay was so poor that many families qualified for food stamps. The Bush "raises" raised these families up over the minimum threshold for qualifying for food stamps. But the value of the food stamps they could previously qualify for was greater than the "pay raise" they received, so when everything is factored in, it's a net loss of financial resources for the family. Just one more example of how Bush and the Republican Congress (and Virtus) "support the troops."
The House budget would cut mandatory veterans' benefits such as disability and pension payments and the GI bill, Etheridge said.
Does the GI bill help pay for college?
Hicks: Grrrr...I gotta go and you are pissing me off. Remind me tomorrow and I will find the link for the committee they had in Congress concerning the myriad of service members who lived well below poverty during his administration. Again, Bush has RAISED our benefits (I am getting a raise in Jan. as a matter of fact). As far as my post being cushy, Lithuania is a nice country, but far from Cushy, and as far as going to Iraq I JUMPED at the opportunity to go. I was literally one day away from getting on the plane when my orders to I-MEF (Marine Expeditionary Force) where cancelled. Don't attack my patriotism you fucking douche. I'm not answering anymore.
Virtus | Email | Homepage | 12.13.03 - 1:59 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Sure you're not, skippy. Sure you're not.
And do you understand the difference between "benefits" and "wages"?
Apparently not. What I was referring to was benefits for combat veterans, which Bush has DEFINITELY cut. Look it up, funding was cut for VA hospitals, and for disabled vets. But in keeping with your Darwinist social theorys, I'm sure you think them damn cripples don't deserve it, right? I mean, they might have lost limbs in a bullshit war, whether it was Vietnam or Iraq, but what makes them think they're entitled to YOUR MONEY? You work hard defending Lithuania and teaching them silly Europeans how to dance like the superior Americans, why should some asshole who got blown up by haijis get your hard earned dough?
What Clinton did or did not do is irrelevant, jizz bag. What is relevant is what the President NOW, who is part of the party who is trying to corner the market on patriotism and "Supporting The Troops!" is doing to veterans.
But why should you care about them? They're probably liberals, right? Didn't have the heart to fight like a manly conservative would have, so that's why they became amputees. Fuck them, and fuck the poor.
God, it must be great being a Republican. Everything is someone else's fault.
Virtus - trollboy, caught in a lie, you try to dodge yet again. You said Oregon schools were getting budget increases. I pointed out they were getting budget cuts, as anyone who ever reads a paper knows.
And this proves that you're right because the money that was cut from their budgets (which you referred to as "budget increases) was from state revenues?
It's a lie, buddy. Fess up. You said they got "budget increases", then in your reply post, tacitly admit that what they got were budget cuts, but claim that because schools are funded by state revenues you're still correct?
What the fuck have you been smoking, boy?
Tomorrow you can give me an itemized list of my discrepancies or something if you want.
Where do we start? It amazes me to hear him spout all this stuff. He doesn't have a clue. And even when it's proven to him (like the story about vet's benefits, the school budget crisis, or the UN Iraq resolution), he ignores it.
Virtus is typical of the Bush supporter. Lower income level citizen who thinks Bush's policies are going to benefit him.
Brother, is he in for a surprise.
virtus gets hard turkee when he think of preznit.
Virtus wasted so much of this thread with nonsense, yet I have to say that the responses to him were superb!
Pansypoo's blog predicted on 4 December:
who wants to bet that the soldiers at Bushit's turkey day photo op were vetted just like all of george's audiences?
looks like pansypoo was right, according to the Rotting Turkee link...
Stars and Stripes is blowing the whistle on President Bush's Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad, saying the cheering soldiers who met him were pre-screened and others showing up for a turkey dinner were turned away.
The newspaper, quoting two officials with the Army's 1st Armored Division in an article last week, reported that "for security reasons, only those preselected got into the facility during Bush's visit. . . . The soldiers who dined while the president visited were selected by their chain of command, and were notified a short time before the visit."
congrats pansypoo and RF for the link.
A quick google search finds that the Bush Admin cuts vet benefits in a multitude of sources- so saying it isn't so doesn't really work for me.
Oregon school's funding is being cut- and it is the Republicans in the state legislature that are doing it- it seems that they hate education.
A poor person voting for Bush is about as smart as a chicken voting for Col Sanders (anyone remember a similar saying about Reagan?)
Virtus, when you come back tomorrow, also read this editorial from Army Times to see how Bush *supports the troops*:
Nothing but lip service
In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.
http://www.armytimes.com/story.p...PER-
1954515.php
Hicks: Grrrr...I gotta go and you are pissing me off. - Virtus
Good job, Ghost of Hicks. You must be doing something right.
Don't attack my patriotism you fucking douche.
Hey Virtus - how does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot?
I'm not answering anymore.
Virtus
yeah right.
is it really over? i've been cowering in the corner, shaking for the last hour or so. watching the ghost, et al., chew up poor vitrus was more than i could bear. now i really should get some sunlight...is there a shade whiter than "pasty"?
Predictions:
1) Virtus is not in the military
2) Virtus has barely undergone puberty
3) Virtus probably is a Hobbesian-leaning Repub, and is therefore likely a 15 year old who just finished reading Hobbes for a class
4) Bush will lose in 2004
My son is in the military, and I've been compiling links of abuses by this administration or the Pentagon--from parents having to hold fundraisers to buy bulletproof vests to the high number of brain injuries to the injured being warehoused in WWII barracks to stop loss to court martialing of 2 who married Iraqi women to poor morale. I have 10 pages of links.
Still there, Virtus?
is there a shade whiter than "pasty"?
I believe that there is a whiter shade of pale ... or so Annie Lennox would have us believe.
Military families where literally on WELFARE to survive during the Clinton administration. Seeing young Lance Corporals and PFC's work 15 hours a day for the military, then go to a 2nd job at an all night gas station or convenience store was not uncommon at all.
Speaking as someone who was in an enlisted military family for the last 21 years, I would note:
1. Yes, many of us were eligible for WIC and food stamps if that is what you mean by welfare, but I don't recall our low wages being an issue solely during the Clinton years.
2. It is hardly true that any of us were on welfare TO SURVIVE. As I said, many of us were eligible, but for various reasons, many people didn't claim. My family never claimed welfare, but we certainly would have done if it was a question of survival.
3. It is true that many enlisted took a second job. My three immediate neighbors did at my last posting for example. But it is not true that they did it to survive: they did it to sustain a slightly higher standard of living than they could otherwise had done on military wages. There is nothing wrong with aspiring to be part of the two-car-family minivan-plus-new-pickup-truck lifestyle, but that is a question of choice, not survival.
4. The fact that the military provides or subsidizes accomodation and, often, meals, means that although wages are low, military personnel are shielded from some of the very real survival issues that equally low paid civilians would face. By which I mean, you don't get much money in the military, but while you're in the service you're never going to be threatened with homelessness or hunger, as the civilian poor are.
5. My overall impression? Yes, you'd better be able to budget if you're on a military wage, but that isn't unique to people in the military, it wasn't unique to the Clinton years, and it certianly wasn't a question of survival.
6. Sorry if my recollection of military life doesn't make me sound hard done by, Virtus, but it never occurred to me that I was. There are so many people working important jobs and struggling to get by, it didn't occur to me that I should expect to be treated better just because my family was military. We live in a society that glorifies military service; but my experience was that most people were just there to have a job and do it the best we could, not to be put on a pedestal.
Really - just ignore the brownshirt. There's no fucking point. You're just increasing his masturbatory frenzy.
If you must respond, try this: "That's the smallest dick I ever saw!"
I know this is OT, and of less immediate import than most of this argument, but as a historian, I gotta disagree with...
Virtus writes:
What caused the Germans to strike out against the Jews (scapegoats) and the rest of Europe?
After the Treaty of Versailles ended WWI the German economy was seriously crippled, people where literally starving in the streets. You thought our depression was bad? Their depression was 10x worse. Hitler understood that only by unifying the German people in their way of thinking (ie: Scapegoating a minority...jews) and gearing up industry for a new war would he be able to institute his "Turkey in every Pot, Car in every Garage". Wagen fur diese volks!! (Volkswagon)
First, the Nazis came to power having won approximately 1/4 of the vote in Germany's last open election, hardly an example of unifying the people behind their vision. Secondly, German antisemitism was a lot older than the post-WWI economic crisis (though it had never previously been very politically successful in its most virulent forms).
Secondly, I didn't ask what caused the German people to be antisemitic, nor why the Nazis got support from a large chunk of the German people (about this latter question you are more or less right). Instead, I was questioning your explanation of why the Nazis, some eight years after coming to power, attempted to kill off all the Jews in Europe. You claimed that they did so for economic reasons. But doing so simply made no economic sense (except perhaps very narrowly for the firms receiving government contracts for various aspects of the killing operation).
STILL gets the reflex laugh. Hi-freakin-larious. : ) : ) : ) Got the Damfacratic nomination for MOST HUMOROUS.
Blah, I guess having a President "for the people" who is willing to "serve" the little man (He does work for us you know)...
I know that was hours ago, but Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!
That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while. Virtus, keep telling yourself how smart you are. HA HA HA HA HA. Any 15 year old debater could kick your ass.
As for all the soldiers that want to be in Iraq? I suggest you go ask the 3rd ID- just be sure you're wearing body armor when you do. Idiot.
Sorry Atrios, I the new stuff is cool. I especially like the baby thing but I think my cat might balk.
Ghost O' Hicks- Whomever the eventual democrat nominee is, they MUST hire you as their debate coach.
All others- Remember Father Merrin's simple rules about trolls
A)They lie to confuse us, but they mix lies with the truth.
B)The attack is psychological, do not listen.
C) There is only "one".
C) There is only "one".
Don't you mean: "There can be only one, MacLeod!"
Whoa.. did you read that Virtus said he literally jumped at the chance to go to Iraq? I guess he wanted to go do some killing. He must have been one of those deluded souls that thinks 911 was perpetrated by the Iraqis. I really don't think that killing Iraqis as revenge for 911 (when they had nothing to do with it) has anything to do with patriotism...
Don't implicate maliciousness where stupidity is a more likely reason, oldwhitelady. My cousin-in-law also jumped at the chance to go to Iraq, but his reasoning was because it'd give him actual combat-based leadership experience.
Pity he never considered how much that "experience" would cost *other* people... But what do you expect in this day and age...
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
