450 posts IS a worse crime than wanting to kill us . by AURaptor

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Remember Saddam started as a torturer (kinda like Obama was a community organizer).

Kinda like Dubya was a draft dodger and a drunk, and Reagan was just a horrible actor who was usually cast as dumber than a monkey.

Right?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 11:12 AM

Quote:
We can trust ourselves with such power...

Several hundred thousand Japanese might disagree with you on that one...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Several hundred thousand Japanese might disagree with you on that one...

You don't understand the Jananese at all.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Kinda like Dubya was a draft dodger and a drunk, and Reagan was just a horrible actor who was usually cast as dumber than a monkey.

Right?

Actually, I don't think comparing Saddam's early career as a torturer to being an actor or a figter pilot is a good comparison. I guess you don't consider torture to be that big of a deal.

I disagree with your characterization of Reagan and Bush. I've enjoyed every Ronald Reagan film I've ever seen. He was no Clint Eastwood (Space Cowboys) or John Wayne (The Conqueror...ie the one where I played Ghengis Khan), but his movies are all pretty good. Maybe they're not for you...but I've seen a lot of them and they're ok. He made some fine westerns and 'Hellcats of the Navy' is a damn good submarine movie.

As for President Bush...there is no evidence he was a drunk...only that he drank...and that's true of almost everybody.

Imagine...a fighter pilot who drinks...and he was a college student who liked beer...AND he was a Texan...what are the odds that someone with THAT background would drink a little now and then? Shocking.

Since Bush was in the service he could not and did not dodge the draft. One might take issue with the quality and quantity of his service, but much of those allegations are without evidence (at least without evidence that was manufactured prior to 2004 and the invention of the word processor).

Looking back...Eisenhower (Supreme Allied Commander), Kennedy (PT-109), LBJ (won a Silver Star in the Pacific), Nixon (naval logistical officer), Ford (gunnery and navigation officer on USS Monterey, a US carrier in the Pacific), Carter (engineer on subs), Reagan (rode horses, made movies), Bush (torpedo bomber pilot off the USS San Jacinto), and Bush (fighter pilot 147th Fighter Intercepter Group, Texas Air National Guard) ALL served in one form or another...

Obama and Clinton did NOT serve. I didn't serve either...Clinton dodged the draft...or at least edged his way to the side so as to not get hit. As for Obama and myself...the draft was not an issue.

I note for the record that many people think Reagan joined the service or was drafted to make movies during WW2. He was actually a commissioned Cavalry reserve office in 1937 and was activated in 1942. He did a lot of staff work...and made movies for the Army (there's a real compelling feature on the danger of VD I recommend to all of you).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:40 AM

ELVISCHRIST

Quote:

Actually, I don't think comparing Saddam's early career as a torturer to being an actor or a figter pilot is a good comparison. I guess you don't consider torture to be that big of a deal.

Didn't you compare him to being a "community organizer"?

And aren't you the one who called torture nothing more than a little water and discomfort?

Kwicko was right - you ARE amazingly bad at arguing your point, considering that you call yourself a lawyer.

E

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 7, 2009 3:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
There is a difference between the use of waterboarding...which simulates drowing...on three individuals and the systematic physical torture practiced in Iraq. Remember Saddam started as a torturer (kinda like Obama was a community organizer). It was his career path, he went to school for it. He did it well and it was his entry into govt service.

As for waterboarding...I suspect that we use harsher methods on our own soldiers undergoing their escape and capture training then we used on the enemy.

Waterboarding is one of the methods approved by the Bush government. There is no evidence it was used on three individuals only. There is plenty of evidence that torture was widely sanctioned, given also that rendition was a policy.

Whether you can get your head around this or not, the main component of torture is psychological, and includes inducing fear of physical harm, death, harm to loved ones, humiliation etc. The whole act of torture aims to dehumanise the person being tortured, and a side effect is to dehumanise those who do it. Research has shown clearly that psychological torture alone such as isolation and sleep deprivation has significant long term affects on those who have had that inflicted upon them. Regardless of whether you think waterboarding is no big deal, its physical and psychological torture, as you would clearly understand if it happened to you.

Those countries that endorse torture always justify it as being in the best interest of the citizens, which is just a big of pile of bullshit when it happens in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the US.

Quote:

The weapons are not evil by nature. We have them, they don't...that gives us the right and responsibility to keep it that way.

Why does it give you that right?

Quote:
We can trust ourselves with such power...we cannot trust them.

Why are you to be trusted and they are not? Are you intrinsically good and they intrinsically evil? Are you immune from corruption, from hubris, from acting in an inhumane manner by your very nature of being American?

Quote:
We have them, they don't is hardly fair...but its in the best interests of the United States, its allies, its enemies (whom we could wipe out if they had such weapons and used them), and the whole fracking world.

Yeah your really selling the whole 'US has the right no one else does' NOT. Maybe other countries consider its in their best national interests to possess WMD. Maybe other nations see the US as evil and themselves as good, maybe they need to see the need to protect themselves from YOU. They'd probably argue the same points from the opposing view to determine that they DO need WMD. The argument sucks both ways.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 11, 2009 5:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Yeah your really selling the whole 'US has the right no one else does' NOT. Maybe other countries consider its in their best national interests to possess WMD. Maybe other nations see the US as evil and themselves as good, maybe they need to see the need to protect themselves from YOU. They'd probably argue the same points from the opposing view to determine that they DO need WMD. The argument sucks both ways.

The difference is that we have the weapons and they don't. So all their arguments don't amount to much.

WMDs are so destructive that we cannot trust them in the hands of those who would use them irresponsibly. Since we cannot uninvent them, the only way to be certain they will not be used against us or our interests and allies is to strictly control them.

I agree, other nations see this from a different perspective. But we got there first, we have them, they don't. They can either join us in consensus and agree not to develop the weapons...or they must submit to our will and determination that they will not be allowed to develop the weapons.

On this issue they are not our equals with the soveriegn power to act as they will...they must bow to our leadership and respect our power.

This power we have is the very reason we must have it and not allow them to share, its a lot of power. We have it and choose not to use it...we never used our might to conquer the world...never even tried, not even on Canada. Would Iran be so...restrained? We can't risk it.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 11, 2009 7:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Its funny, but the peeps who believe so strongly in the right to bear arms are often the one most worried about that paradigm extended internationally.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 11, 2009 8:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Its funny, but the peeps who believe so strongly in the right to bear arms are often the one most worried about that paradigm extended internationally.

I have no problem with folks bearing all the arms they want. Iran wants tanks, fighter, rifles, bombs, sabres, elephants, etc...its all good.

Weapons of Mass Destruction are a different catagory.

I note for the record that all of a person's civil rights...even those expressly protected by the Constitution, can be limited under reasonable circustances given a "compelling national interest".

You can talk during the movie and you can carry a gun into the theater (given a permit and assuming the owner did not post a sign saying you can't) but you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater...you also can't carry a nuclear bomb into one. Thats a pretty reasonable position, even for a card carrying gun nut...like myself.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The difference is that we have the weapons and they don't. So all their arguments don't amount to much.

WMDs are so destructive that we cannot trust them in the hands of those who would use them irresponsibly. Since we cannot uninvent them, the only way to be certain they will not be used against us or our interests and allies is to strictly control them.

I agree, other nations see this from a different perspective. But we got there first, we have them, they don't. They can either join us in consensus and agree not to develop the weapons...or they must submit to our will and determination that they will not be allowed to develop the weapons.

On this issue they are not our equals with the soveriegn power to act as they will...they must bow to our leadership and respect our power.

Thanks for your honesty that it's not about fairness or what is right and wrong, but simply about having the power to do what you want. That statement is so often lacking in the discourse used by the Right, when it really is at the basis of their beliefs.

Quote:
This power we have is the very reason we must have it and not allow them to share, its a lot of power. We have it and choose not to use it...we never used our might to conquer the world...never even tried, not even on Canada. Would Iran be so...restrained? We can't risk it.

Except that the US has used nuclear weapons and does use its power for its own gain, is currently involved in a number of wars and proxy wars that can pretty much be viewed as being about power and control, and that culturally and economically has dominated (conquered?) the world for the past sixty years.

In that regards, I'm not sure I would describe the US as having restraint.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:40 AM

Restraint is the fact that the U.S. has nuclear capability and yet does not use it. We could have easily dropped a bomb in the mountains between Afganistan and Pakistan where it's beleived Bin Laden is hiding. But we don't.

I don't trust the likes of Ahmedinejad (sp?) to have nuclear capability and NOT use it against Isreal or Iraq or whomever. Those people have NO restraint and go into hysterics whenever Mohamed is sullied in the slightest way or if someone accidentally steps on a Koran.

If anyone would have used a nuclear bomb without remorse or forethought it would have been the devil's spawn of Bush and Cheney . . . according to the Left anyway.

It's all apples and oranges.

Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:27 AM

Except again, the US has used it, and possibly would again if it were considered to be a viable solution to any given conflict or scenario. It's not restraint that stops the bombs from being dropped, it's just not a strategy that will have a desired outcome. Hence the reason that nuclear capacity is not as big a deal as it was in the cold war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:32 AM

Against one nation that attacked us aggressively for no reason and only as the last resort to get them to surrender after years of fighting. If I have my history right, that is.

Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 5:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Except again, the US has used it, and possibly would again if it were considered to be a viable solution to any given conflict or scenario.

Just curious, do you think slavery will make a comeback in the U.S.?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 5:25 AM

Quote:
Posted by RipWash:

Those people have NO restraint...

Which "those people" are you referring to?

I'll note for the record - AGAIN - that in the entire history of the world, there exists only one single nation to ever use nuclear weapons against another in anger.

And somehow that nation is the one who's supposed to be the final arbiter of who's responsible enough to have the infernal things?

Does not compute...does not compute...error...error...errorerrorerror

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 5:27 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Its funny, but the peeps who believe so strongly in the right to bear arms are often the one most worried about that paradigm extended internationally.

Actually believing that nuclear weapons should be controlled is for obvious reason something very different from believing individuals have a right to bear arms. I don’t see anything funny about that at all. One can easily and quite reasonable draw a line between a gun and a nuclear weapon. What is really quite odd is that peeps who believe so strongly in the controlling weapons like handguns often don’t seem to be as concerned with controlling nuclear weapons internationally. Now that is really very strange.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What lines would YOU draw between handguns and nuclear weapons? If all nations had two nuclear bombs each, wouldn't that be the same as everyone owning a handgun except on an international setting? Wouldn't that make potential aggressors far more careful about not pissing off others, since they would never know which direction retaliation might come from? Wouldn't that make all nations equally powerful? It seems to me, on that basis, to be a perfect logical equivalent.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:04 AM

So you're saying you WOULD trust Ahmedinejad with a nuclear weaon? You would have trusted Hussein with a nuclear weapon? How about Qadaffi (or however the heck you spell his name) in Lybia? The Taliban?

I'm talking about the radical muslims (I know you guys hate that term) who go ballistic whenever Mohamed is besmirched in any way whatsoever and send death threats to all involved in the besmirching. Dutch newspaper prints cartoons of Mohamed in a less than flattering manner and there are riots in the streets. So many death threats to the newspaper that they back down and redact and apologize.

Yeah. I wanna give a volatile group of people like THAT access to a nuclear weapon.

Here's the thing. You want the US to give up our nuclear weapons. Fine, but then we can't realistically STOP a rogue nation from developing it's own nuclear weapon and then . . . Ooops! They're holding the royal flush and we've gotta do as they say. Not particularly a position I wanna be in.

OR! OR! Let's have EVERYONE be able to access a nuclear weapon. That makes things fair, right? Okay. But then don't think that everyone is on an even playing field and NO ONE will ever, EVER use it.

Yeah. Right.

Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well it's very much the same as handguns, except on a grander scale. Don't you think there are criminals "out there" willing to use handguns to commit crimes, or... even worse... just plain nut-jobs who hear voices and see colors? Isn't the best way to protect ourselves from these whack-jobs for everyone to own a gun?

Let's say that Immadinnerjacket takes out Paris... and then Iran gets slagged because everyone from the EU unloads their weapons on Iran. Again- isn't that the perfect logical equivalent? And if not, how is it different?

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:16 AM

Because if Iran did it, they would have a firm beleif that their religion and Mohamed would protect them. If he would not protect them, they would be martyrs and would all get 72 virgins when they die. It's a win/win situation for them. Not so much for the rest of the world in their eyes.

Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:21 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What lines would YOU draw between handguns and nuclear weapons? If all nations had two nuclear bombs each, wouldn't that be the same as everyone owning a handgun except on an international setting? Wouldn't that make potential aggressors far more careful about not pissing off others, since they would never know which direction retaliation might come from? Wouldn't that make all nations equally powerful? It seems to me, on that basis, to be a perfect logical equivalent.

Really? A perfect logical equivalent huh?

Gun ownership reduces crime because it keeps honest people honest, or puts the fear of god in the eyes of criminals. Criminals prey on the weak, and are less likely to prey on someone they believe to be armed. This actually does work the same on the international scale.

The problem is the lunatics. Nothing will stop the crazy guy who comes into McDonalds to shoots it up. But in an armed society someone can shoot him first or before he does too much damage.

The same thing does not work on an international scale. First of all, if you do shoot the nutcases before they shoot up the proverbial international McDonalds, as we did in Iraq, you get accused of invading a peaceful nation (**snicker**), and in any event there’s a huge difference between shooting a nutcase and waging a war to hang a nutcase. They are not “perfect logical equivalents,” as you seem to think. If you wait for this peaceful nation to lob a nuclear weapon at, say Jerusalem, so that you have a pretext for invasion, then you’re talking about potentially millions dead, not exactly a fair comparison to shooting up a McDonalds. If you respond by shooting nuclear weapons at the nutcase, then even if you manage to stop the nutcase, you’ve potentially killed more millions of people. Again, not exactly a fair comparison to shooting a single nutcase.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Because if Iran did it, they would have a firm beleif that their religion and Mohamed would protect them. If he would not protect them, they would be martyrs and would all get 72 virgins when they die. It's a win/win situation for them. Not so much for the rest of the world in their eyes.

I think Finn's arguments are more persuasive. Because nut-jobs around the world are all equivalent... as long as they don't hold your life in regard, it doesn't matter whether the reason is schizophrenia or religious mania.

Quote:
The problem is the lunatics. Nothing will stop the crazy guy who comes into McDonalds to shoots it up. But in an armed society someone can shoot him first or before he does too much damage.

So in your opinion the difference is the amount of damage that can be done.

Quote:
The same thing does not work on an international scale. First of all, if you do shoot the nutcases before they shoot up the proverbial international McDonalds, as we did in Iraq, you get accused of invading a peaceful nation (**snicker**)

Except in this case there was no indication that Saddam was about to invade anyone... or indeed, no solid evidence that he had WMD. When he invaded Kuwait, or even when Israel bombed Iran's nuclear facilities there wasn't too much of an outcry because the evidence was clear. Saddam may have been a nutcase, but all he was doing was standing on the streetcorner yelling.

Quote:
and in any event there’s a huge difference between shooting a nutcase and waging a war to hang a nutcase. They are not “perfect logical equivalents,” as you seem to think. If you wait for this peaceful nation to lob a nuclear weapon at, say Jerusalem, so that you have a pretext for invasion, then you’re talking about potentially millions dead, not exactly a fair comparison to shooting up a McDonalds. If you respond by shooting nuclear weapons at the nutcase, then even if you manage to stop the nutcase, you’ve potentially killed more millions of people. Again, not exactly a fair comparison to shooting a single nutcase.

So, to reiterate your point, its the amount of damage and more specifically the number of innocent people at risk which makes the difference. Right?

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Because if Iran did it, they would have a firm beleif that their religion and Mohamed would protect them. If he would not protect them, they would be martyrs and would all get 72 virgins when they die. It's a win/win situation for them. Not so much for the rest of the world in their eyes.
I think Finn's arguments are more persuasive. Because nut-jobs around the world are all equivalent... as long as they don't hold your life in regard, it doesn't matter whether the reason is schizophrenia or religious mania.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

Well said, Finn.

Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Because if Iran did it, they would have a firm beleif that their religion and Mohamed would protect them. If he would not protect them, they would be martyrs and would all get 72 virgins when they die. It's a win/win situation for them. Not so much for the rest of the world in their eyes.
I think Finn's arguments are more persuasive. Because nut-jobs around the world are all equivalent... as long as they don't hold your life in regard, it doesn't matter whether the reason is schizophrenia or religious mania.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

That is correct, but both arguments hold true, nonetheless.

Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 7:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Because if Iran did it, they would have a firm beleif that their religion and Mohamed would protect them. If he would not protect them, they would be martyrs and would all get 72 virgins when they die. It's a win/win situation for them.

Do you really believe this is true? Seriously?

You don't think that most Muslims, like most Christians, simply want to go about their daily life, love their children, and want to live? You seem to think they're some kind of death-cult race of automotons bent of destroying everything that isn't them.

I can show you instances of Christianity behaving in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. And the Bible says you should be happy to die for your lord, so aren't you really exactly like these "radical Muslims"? If you aren't, then how can you call yourself any kind of Christian?

You seem to have this idea that every Muslim is in a rush to martyrdom, that they're all living on some kind of death-high. Tell me, what would YOU do if you had a nuclear weapon? What's the VERY FIRST THING YOU'D DO? Would it be to utterly ensure that your nation, your people, your culture, and any speck of your existence were wiped from the face of the Earth forevermore? Because that's what you're saying others will do, simply because their god is addressed by a different name (even though he's the exact same god in every other respect).

It's a logical fallacy.

And I'm not saying we should "trust" anyone with nuclear weapons. What I'm saying is that we should automatically trust OURSELVES with them, either. We don't have a great track record with the things, ya know what I'm sayin'?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 8:10 AM

I'm talkin' about the radicals of today's Muslim faith (of which there are far many more that can be pointed to directly than of any "radical Christian" of the same bent, I can tell ya that right now - don't go all Rosie O'Donnell on me

).

Face it. Radical extremists take over the Muslim countries at an alarming rate. If you don't think Ahmadeenajad (phoenetic spelling) is a radical, you're fooling yourself. The Taliban, who ran Afghanistan for quite a while . . . same thing.

As a Christian I should be happy to defend my faith, yes. Absolutely. But to say that all who don't share my faith and are worthy of death? Absolutely not. I'll admit that I'm no Biblical scholar, but I have a faith in what the Bible says, why it says it and in the order it says it. In the Old Testament, God did order the death on non-beleivers. I won't contest that. It was so that His people could have the land He promised them and He didn't want them influenced by any other cultures. There are a whole lot of other things in the Bible in which all sorts of prophecies are made of the Messiah who is to save everyone who beleives in Him and finally bridge the gap between God and Man. When this Messiah came, his message was NOT to wipe out everyone who didn't beleive in Him, but to spread the Good News OF the Messiah so that they may come to a saving faith in Him and thus rebuild that relationship with God.

Now if Christ said literally to go kill non-beleivers, you'd have a case, but he doesn't so you don't. It is my understanding that the Koran explicitly tells people that they are justified in killing "infidels". Two radically different messages.

Christian = Die for my faith - YES.
Christian = Kill for my faith - NO.

Muslim - Die for my faith - YES.
Muslim - Kill for my faith - YES and even can be done at the same time.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 8:24 AM

Quote:

I'm talkin' about the radicals of today's Muslim faith (of which there are far many more that can be pointed to directly than of any "radical Christian" of the same bent, I can tell ya that right now - don't go all Rosie O'Donnell on me ).

Sorry, but disagreeing isn't "going all Rosie O'Donnell" on anyone. Not any more than you're "going all Rush Limbaugh" on me.

You speak of radical Muslims as if there are inordinately more of them than there are radical Christians. I disagree. I think you SEE more radical Muslims, because you're attuned to look out for what you disagree with, and you don't tend to pay as much attention to what you DO agree with. There have been terrorist attacks right here in this country by people calling themselves "Christians", and they're carrying out these attacks for religious reasons, and for no other reasons whatsoever.

Quote:

Face it. Radical extremists take over the Muslim countries at an alarming rate. If you don't think Ahmadeenajad (phoenetic spelling) is a radical, you're fooling yourself. The Taliban, who ran Afghanistan for quite a while . . . same thing.

Face it. Radical "Christian" extremists have taken over countries at a rather alarming rate, too. Or do you not believe that Dubya is a Christian? How about Hitler? Mussolini? They SAID they were Christians; shouldn't we take them at their word on thier religious beliefs?

And if you don't think Dubya and Cheney are radicals, you're fooling yourself.

See how easy it is to distort the view, depending on which side of the mirror you're looking through?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 8:58 AM

Distorting things does, indeed, seem to be your strong suit, my friend. LOL

"I think you SEE more radical Muslims, because you're attuned to look out for what you disagree with, and you don't tend to pay as much attention to what you DO agree with."

You point things out of me that are just as true of yourself and others on this board and I hope you see that.

Radicals, IMO, are the kind that say "You will do as I say and beleive as I do or you will suffer the consequences (i.e. death)." You're right that I don't see Christians doing that as much as I see Muslims doing that.

The problem with some of this stuff is that people will say/do anything to gain power. If it's to say they're a Christian to initially gain control then so be it. They'll lie and say they're devout Christians even though they don't really beleive it. Hitler and Mousilini are probably in that camp. Take the movie "V for Vendetta" for example. It was supposedly a "Neocon" government that V wanted to overthrow, but there was NOTHING Christian about that government's actions. They probably used that platform to gain power and then distorted it to the extreme.

You can't tell me that Dubya was an extremist who "took over" the U.S. That's preposterous. There was an election, he won. Twice. Plain and simple. You don't agree with his actions and think he's BSing about being a Christian, I don't begrudge your right to say that. You have every right to. He won the first election and every single recount in FL ended up in his favor. I remember that quite clearly. Just because the Supreme Court had to step in because Gore wouldn't accept that reality does not mean Bush took over the country.

Yes, this goes for every world leader - You have to judge people by their actions, NOT just their words. If someone says they're a Christian but acts in a way that doesn't seem very Christian to you, you kinda have to question it. You can press them for an answer and they may tell you without a doubt they ARE Christian. But in the end they have only ONE being to answer to for that. And it's not you or me.

Look. We're having a nice discussion on this and I do appreciate you not calling Christianity a "BS" religion like you did in another thread. But you're not going to see it my way, I'm not going to see it yours. I make no excuses for those that DO misinterpret the Bible or call themselves Christians while doing things FAR from Christian. I admit the faults others may find in my faith and that I'm not knowlegable enough to explain some things, but I also have a feeling that you'd dismiss out of hand the sources I would point you to that DO explain things far better than I ever could. I may be wrong here, so please tell me if I am.

I'm curious, though. You say there are terrorist attacks happening right now by "radical Christians". Where? When? How many? What did they base their Christianity on? Did they riot in the streets and mail death threats to anyone who maligned Jesus Christ? Did they videotape themselves cutting someone's head off?

There are a LOT of people out there who say they're Christian only because they know they're not Jewish or Muslim, but they know they celebrate Christmas and Santy Claus. If that's your basis for calling them radical Christians, I'm sorry to say that's a false pretense.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 9:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The problem with some of this stuff is that people will say/do anything to gain power. If it's to say they're a Christian to initially gain control then so be it. They'll lie and say they're devout Christians even though they don't really beleive it. Hitler and Mousilini are probably in that camp.

I could say the same for ObL, most of the Ayatollahs and pretty much any political/ military leader who claims religion on his (or her) side.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 9:40 AM

If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, sounds like a duck . . . .

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:13 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

I just realized something

" So, interrogating those who want to kill us is a worse crime than wanting to kill us ?
:AURAPTOR "

We are not debating whether or not a crime has been committed, Rap already admitted so in the title of the thread...

We are just debating the severity of the crime.

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, sounds like a duck . . . .

...and says it's a christian...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:26 AM

But if the duck kills a goose just because it's not a duck, then it probably ain't a duck.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:41 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I see Mikey has beaten me to the argument I was gonna make.

Quote:
There have been terrorist attacks right here in this country by people calling themselves "Christians", and they're carrying out these attacks for religious reasons, and for no other reasons whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_poison_gas_plot

And believe me, how desperately they buried and soft-peddled that cause the politics and beliefs of the perp were so similar to their own (once you rip the mask off, they ARE) has always disgusted me.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1229/p02s01-usju.html

Now just imagine the howling fit that would have occured if the perp was a muslim and arabic ?

Anyhows, the REASON the folks over in the middle east support those bastards isn't cause they like em, isn't cause they want to - it's because they're the ONLY folks over there with a track record of successfully sandbagging our destructive and rapacious interventions, which if we removed the threat thereof, those assholes would wind up lynched by their own people when those people got sick of em.
(EDIT: And the irony of the fact that we trained and armed many of em in the first place to piss on the Soviets parade isn't lost on me, any more than the likelyhood that the Russians are helping finance and arm them now as payback, while laughing up their sleeve about it.)

But no, we keep that threat pressed against them, so they go with the devil they know, and what they feel is the lesser of two evils - hell, to be blunt about it, it was OUR actions and interference which gave rise to Castro and kept him in power so long.

And given just how FAST we pissed a puddle and started being all diplomatic and such when the North Koreans held up the bomb, versus what we did to Afghanistan and Iraq, which didn't have one, and then *admitted* part of the reason was our fear of Iraq eventually building one - doesn't that constitute an outright admission that the one thing that will keep the US Corpo-Military exploitation machine out of your face is a nuke, and maybe you damn well BETTER get one, and quick, if you wanna protect yourself ?

See, from THEIR viewpoint, WE are the threat, and they have a historically legitimate gripe.

That's not meant as an excuse for these radical fuckwads, mind you, but our very own actions (OPERATION: AJAX) are what put them in power in the first place, and keep them there.

If I was a non-US Country watching the insanity of the past six years, you're damn right I'd want a fucking nuke, if for no other reason than pointing it at Washington would force them to negotiate instead of steamrollering my country on false pretenses and turning it into a fucking corpse filled wasteland.

Most folk just wanna go about their lives unmolested - but if you put them in a position where they can't DO that, they *will* fight you, and if you put them in a position where they think that is NEVER, EVER going to happen thanks to you (See Also: Palestine) that's when they start strapping bombs to themselves to take a few of yours with em when they leave the miserable hell of existence that is all your actions have left to them - and it saddens me that even as they do that, most of the folk they wind up killing have no more influence or input on those decisions than they did.

In short, all you have to do to remove these kinds of threats from the playfield is one tiny little thing...
STOP FUCKING OTHER PEOPLE AND THEIR COUNTRIES OVER!

Is that really too goddamn much to ask, especially when we got our own damn internal problems we could be using those resources on instead ?

You DO shit to people, eventually some of them people or their descendants are gonna DO some shit TO YOU!

We can't bring Mossedeigh back from the dead, can't make The Shah and SAVAK have never happened, but what we CAN do is just stop feeding the fucking horrors, and quit making up bullshit excuses to demonise people who have a VERY legit gripe against us.

I'm sick of this bullshit phony logic which amounts to "Why do they have to keep pounding their face into our fist, it's not OUR fault..." when very clearly, we DO have some fault in the matter.

Seriously, would YOU call a truce with a home invader in your house, trashing your place, and refusing to stop ?

Cause that's how they see us, and whatever justifications we wanna shovel, we're still in their house, trashing their stuff.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
we're still in their house, trashing their stuff.

Exactly.

And then we get all paranoid when they "attack" us. (Because we're in their country)

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I just realized something. " So, interrogating those who want to kill us is a worse crime than wanting to kill us ?" We are not debating whether or not a crime has been committed, Rap already admitted so in the title of the thread...

Actually, we are. Wanting to kill someone is not a crime. Threatening is a crime. Conspiring is a crime. Getting the materials together is a crime. But "wanting" isn't a even crime!

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Against one nation that attacked us aggressively for no reason and only as the last resort to get them to surrender after years of fighting. If I have my history right, that is.

Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

Right. And if a similar scenario presented ie it was considered there might be cause enough, they might be used again. As I'd said.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Except again, the US has used it, and possibly would again if it were considered to be a viable solution to any given conflict or scenario.

Just curious, do you think slavery will make a comeback in the U.S.?

No idea. Are you trying to say that dropping bombs on Japan was like owning slaves?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
So you're saying you WOULD trust Ahmedinejad with a nuclear weaon? You would have trusted Hussein with a nuclear weapon? How about Qadaffi (or however the heck you spell his name) in Lybia? The Taliban?

I'm talking about the radical muslims (I know you guys hate that term) who go ballistic whenever Mohamed is besmirched in any way whatsoever and send death threats to all involved in the besmirching. Dutch newspaper prints cartoons of Mohamed in a less than flattering manner and there are riots in the streets. So many death threats to the newspaper that they back down and redact and apologize.

Yeah. I wanna give a volatile group of people like THAT access to a nuclear weapon.

Here's the thing. You want the US to give up our nuclear weapons. Fine, but then we can't realistically STOP a rogue nation from developing it's own nuclear weapon and then . . . Ooops! They're holding the royal flush and we've gotta do as they say. Not particularly a position I wanna be in.

OR! OR! Let's have EVERYONE be able to access a nuclear weapon. That makes things fair, right? Okay. But then don't think that everyone is on an even playing field and NO ONE will ever, EVER use it.

Actually I don't want any of those people to own nuclear weapons. I just question the ethics of a nation that owns WMD that invades another country to prevent them from owning WMD, because by their very nature they are considered evil (a bit like how they are evil because they torture). I'd much rather that there was some honesty in it all, like Hero's post. Admit that the US invaded because it wanted to bring down the regime, wanted to have easier access to oil, wants to remain on top of the pecking order. I'd still hate those reasons, but I wouldn't have to live through the BS of the War on Terror.

Interestingly, since the main threat to the US has come from disparate factions rather than a country, the large nuclear arsenal is all but useless. You could wipe out Pakistan and Afghansistan and it probably wouldn't make an iota of difference.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:27 PM

Quote:
Posted by Fremdfirma:

If I was a non-US Country watching the insanity of the past six years, you're damn right I'd want a fucking nuke, if for no other reason than pointing it at Washington would force them to negotiate instead of steamrollering my country on false pretenses and turning it into a fucking corpse filled wasteland.

Yup, been sayin' it for years - if you WANT a nuke, we'll invade you; if you've GOT a nuke... let's talk.

And then we wonder why all these "rogue" nations go rogue and start chasing after nukes in the first place! We've already told them they don't get a seat at the adult table 'til they've got the goodies.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Distorting things does, indeed, seem to be your strong suit, my friend. LOL

I think there's a lot of that going around... What I was trying to say was that you can see things pretty much any way you want, depending on how you look at them, and from WHERE you're looking. And any of those vantage points can change your perception of the event.

Quote:

"I think you SEE more radical Muslims, because you're attuned to look out for what you disagree with, and you don't tend to pay as much attention to what you DO agree with."

You point things out of me that are just as true of yourself and others on this board and I hope you see that.

Apologies. That was NOT aimed at "you". I worded it poorly if you took it that way. What I meant is that ONE will see what ONE is more attuned to see. That includes me, too, of course. I lean left (ya think?), so I tend to see FoxNews as hard-right. Other's lean right, and see Fox as "the only REAL" news source out there, and see literally every other news source as far-left leaning.

Quote:

Radicals, IMO, are the kind that say "You will do as I say and beleive as I do or you will suffer the consequences (i.e. death)." You're right that I don't see Christians doing that as much as I see Muslims doing that.

I am pretty sure that Dubya did indeed tell Saddam that "you will do as I say or you will suffer the consequences (i.e., death)." He seems to believe that this was his mission from god.

Quote:

The problem with some of this stuff is that people will say/do anything to gain power. If it's to say they're a Christian to initially gain control then so be it. They'll lie and say they're devout Christians even though they don't really beleive it. Hitler and Mousilini are probably in that camp. Take the movie "V for Vendetta" for example. It was supposedly a "Neocon" government that V wanted to overthrow, but there was NOTHING Christian about that government's actions. They probably used that platform to gain power and then distorted it to the extreme.

True. And with some of this stuff, there are - ahem - certain people who will also say and do anything to try to KEEP someone from gaining power. "Obama's a Muslim!" comes to mind as one such example...

Quote:

You can't tell me that Dubya was an extremist who "took over" the U.S. That's preposterous. There was an election, he won. Twice. Plain and simple. You don't agree with his actions and think he's BSing about being a Christian, I don't begrudge your right to say that. You have every right to. He won the first election and every single recount in FL ended up in his favor. I remember that quite clearly. Just because the Supreme Court had to step in because Gore wouldn't accept that reality does not mean Bush took over the country.

I don't recall saying that Bush "took over" in the literal sense, although his brand of neoconservativism did indeed hijack the country and its agenda, just as surely as those Muslims hijacked those airliners. And more Americans have died as a result of Bush's actions than died in the 9/11 attacks.

Quote:

Yes, this goes for every world leader - You have to judge people by their actions, NOT just their words. If someone says they're a Christian but acts in a way that doesn't seem very Christian to you, you kinda have to question it. You can press them for an answer and they may tell you without a doubt they ARE Christian. But in the end they have only ONE being to answer to for that. And it's not you or me.

But then, if someone acts like a terrorist and then claims to be Muslim, don't you have to question THAT, too? It seems to me like you're more than willing to accept the "Muslim-ness" of terrorists, but rather less likely to accept the "Christian-ness" of our very own home-grown varieties.

Quote:

Look. We're having a nice discussion on this and I do appreciate you not calling Christianity a "BS" religion like you did in another thread. But you're not going to see it my way, I'm not going to see it yours. I make no excuses for those that DO misinterpret the Bible or call themselves Christians while doing things FAR from Christian. I admit the faults others may find in my faith and that I'm not knowlegable enough to explain some things, but I also have a feeling that you'd dismiss out of hand the sources I would point you to that DO explain things far better than I ever could. I may be wrong here, so please tell me if I am.

I called Christianity a BS religion because the poster I was addressing referred to Islam as a "bullshit religion". I have no religious beliefs whatsoever; all of them are equally BS in my world, and all are equally valid. Odin walks from Valhalla through the Garden of Eden and on into Babylon through the Gates of Hell, across the river Styx, where he dines with Vishnu, Satan, Pan, Christ, Mohammed, and the Buddha. And none of them are any more valid than any of the others.

Quote:

I'm curious, though. You say there are terrorist attacks happening right now by "radical Christians". Where? When? How many? What did they base their Christianity on? Did they riot in the streets and mail death threats to anyone who maligned Jesus Christ? Did they videotape themselves cutting someone's head off?

Does the reverend Donald Wildmon ring any bells? How 'bout li'l' Timmy McVeigh? Eric Rudolph? David Koresh? Although in fairness, Koresh didn't attack anyone - he WAS attacked, but only because he was stockpiling automatic weapons. And maybe because he was doing a better job as a fortune-teller than Bill Clinton was... ;)

Quote:

There are a LOT of people out there who say they're Christian only because they know they're not Jewish or Muslim, but they know they celebrate Christmas and Santy Claus. If that's your basis for calling them radical Christians, I'm sorry to say that's a false pretense.

Yup, just as there are a lot of people who say they're Muslim only because they know they hate the Jews and the Christians, but know nothing more of their religion than that. If that's your basis for calling them radical Muslims, I'm sorry to say that's a false pretense as well.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Except again, the US has used it, and possibly would again if it were considered to be a viable solution to any given conflict or scenario.

Just curious, do you think slavery will make a comeback in the U.S.?

No idea. Are you trying to say that dropping bombs on Japan was like owning slaves?

Not at all.
You postulated that because the U.S. used atomic weapons before, they could use them again if it was deemed necessary by the 'powers that be'. The U.S. has a history of slavery, and segregation was still occuring at the same time as WW2. If deemed necessary by the 'powers that be' do you think the U.S. would revert back to segregation or even slavery? Because the precedent was set does that mean the option is always on the table?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Yup, just as there are a lot of people who say they're Muslim only because they know they hate the Jews and the Christians, but know nothing more of their religion than that. If that's your basis for calling them radical Muslims, I'm sorry to say that's a false pretense as well.

Did not know you were Muslim.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Yup, just as there are a lot of people who say they're Muslim only because they know they hate the Jews and the Christians, but know nothing more of their religion than that. If that's your basis for calling them radical Muslims, I'm sorry to say that's a false pretense as well.

Did not know you were Muslim.

Did not know you were illiterate.

yourself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 4:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Did not know you were illiterate. yourself.

I'm sorry, what was that?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 4:59 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

W - O - R - D - S

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 5:00 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BIGDAMNNOBODY

I truly don't know why you post. Every time you do, you em-BARE-ASS yourself.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 5:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
BIGDAMNNOBODY

I truly don't know why you post. Every time you do, you em-BARE-ASS yourself.

I guess I didn't want you to be the only one.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 5:24 PM