Bush reveals source of intel on WMDs by deadlockvictim

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

"It also allows the Security Council to authorize member states to use force to enforce resolutions."

An authorization the US failed to get.

"I backed it up with citations, precedent, historical notes, and discussion. You seem incapable of defending your position with a reasoned argument."
No, what you did was post a lot of irrelevent stuff in place of a single relevant piece of information on the lack of said authorization. Also, I can't help it if your memory is failing on this simple historical fact.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Friday, February 22, 2008 12:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

I don't understand how you can argue that it was not under UN Authority. We've cited the relevant portions of both the Charter and Resolutions. You just say "no it wasn't" with no explanation.

Look, I'm able to stretch and see that there's an argument to be made that the war was based on UN sanctions that Saddam flaunted...I'm even able to say that it may have not been an entirely illegal campaign...but given THAT, don't you see that it was just plain stupid to take him down the way we did? There were other more cost-effective ways to do it- certainly not as immediately dramatic, though.
Plus, I have to take back what I said about you being at the opposite pole from PN, you certainly come up with an argument for your position, as much as I might disagree with it- AU actually should have been my target for that particular attack with all his 'because it's a fact's, and absolutely no facts to back up anything, save what a fanatic he is on the subject.
Apologies.

The calm Chrisisall

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

Friday, February 22, 2008 12:36 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
W T F are you talking about??
Any seditious Jew-nazi aliens you'd like to throw in there?
McCain is an evil robot, you know...
And Hilary eats the babies supplied to her by Obama.

Biped...such a biped.

Chrisisall

First there was Gore and his capitulation to the Kyoto ( SCREW AMERICA EVERY WAY POSSIBLE ) Protocall, and then there was Kerry's " Global Test" which essentially means we must 1st get U.N. approval before we defend ourselves from anyone , ever again. Then there's the whole 'World Court' superceeding our own U.S. Constitution, our regular military forces being made to serve and take orders from U.N. officers, and oh yeah, I've about had it w/ your Jewel Stait-less Stargate Atlantis poster. Why do you hate the BDH's ? You BDH hater!

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Friday, February 22, 2008 12:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

First there was Gore and his capitulation to the Kyoto ( SCREW AMERICA EVERY WAY POSSIBLE ) Protocall, and then there was Kerry's " Global Test" which essentially means we must 1st get U.N. approval before we defend ourselves from anyone , ever again. Then there's the whole 'World Court' superceeding our own U.S. Constitution, our regular military forces being made to serve and take orders from U.N. officers,

Whoah...paranoid much?
So, all that is a worse threat than throwing us into the jaws of a recession to further this ridiculous "Saving Of The Iraqi People"??
Click your heels together, Dorothy....

Quote:
and oh yeah, I've about had it w/ your Jewel Stait-less Stargate Atlantis poster. Why do you hate the BDH's ? You BDH hater!

Oh, HERE!!!

Better? Chrisisall

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

Friday, February 22, 2008 12:57 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh, HERE!!!

Better? Chrisisall

You need to ask ?

Ooooohyeah

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Friday, February 22, 2008 2:50 PM

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

'Hero'

I don't know how much more clear I can be, short of teaching you how to read english.

"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat ..."
UN inspectors were in Iraq doing inspections to determine the level of compliance or threat that existed. The SC hadn't made any determination as to threat, as required by the UN Charter.

"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary ..."
The Security Council hadn't voted to take action, as required by the UN Charter.

"The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine."
The Security Council gets to determine who takes action, and when, to maintain international peace (not individual countries like the US) as required by the UN Charter.

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations ..."
The US attack on Iraq wasn't self defence, nor was it a response to an imminent threat, as required by the UN Charter.

If that's not clear enough, perhaps I can direct you to a remedial english class in your area.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Friday, February 22, 2008 5:44 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If that's not clear enough, perhaps I can direct you to a remedial english class in your area.

What is required is that you examine the Charter, the Resolutions, including the ones from 1990, and historical precedents.

I think your problem is that you fixate on a single topic and ignor how all the pieces fit together.

I note for the record that in 2002 the UN Security Council determined that enough was enough and did authorize the attack. It was really touch and go and I believed that France or Russia would veto military action. However they quibled and the US was able to secure a blanket authorization for just about any action we felt was appropriate. I think it was ultimately decided that we were going under the 1990 Resolutions...supported by ongoing use of force under those resolutions throughout the '90s (ie precedent) so anything more the token opposition was ultimately pointless.

H

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

Friday, February 22, 2008 6:09 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Look, I'm able to stretch and see that there's an argument to be made that the war was based on UN sanctions that Saddam flaunted...I'm even able to say that it may have not been an entirely illegal campaign...but given THAT, don't you see that it was just plain stupid to take him down the way we did?

Actually I'm wondering if its my perspective as a Prosecutor that lets me see the distinction between the legality of the war and its reasoning.

Most often I see crimes after the fact. The crime has been committed, the investigation gathers the evidence, the defendent has been arrested.

The first thing I look at in EVERY case is the procedure. For example in DUI's its not 'what did he blow', first its 'was there reasonable suspicion for the stop' then 'was there reasonable suspicion to continue the investigation by removing the subject from the car for sobriety tests' then 'was there probable cause for the arrest' then 'was the rights read' and lastly 'was the breath machine working properly'. The answers to each of those questions affect the merits of the case as much as the actual facts do. Thus, I could have the drunkest fella in the world...but if he broke no traffic laws then there was no reason for the stop and the case is over before it begins. I've had it happen and it pisses me off, but not too much cause we've got some great cops whose pure instinct has probably saved lives but lost cases. (I've also had bad cops who have just plain lost cases...)

Anyway Iraq looks like this to me as a Prosecutor:

Cops get info from a Confidential Informant about a drug lab in a house. The CI has a good reputation and is often used by us and other jurisdictions as well. The subject has a history of known drug use and manufacturing as well as a history of violence (including a home invasion of a neighbor). They take it to a judge and they get a warrant. Any judge would give a warrant on these facts. They go in and they search the house and find no drug lab and only some left over paraphenalia (minor misdemeanor stuff...like rolling paper or residue). They also find evidence of a previously unknown murder. The subject is charged and convicted of the murder. The search is valid even though the underlying information turned out to be bad. The murder conviction stands. Execution. Job well done by everybody.

The problems caused by subsequent rival gangs scabbling over the subjects former territory are seperate issues. Perhaps a special task force can deal with them (ie a surge). But regardless its not relevant to the initial case.

H

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

Friday, February 22, 2008 6:32 PM

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

YOU MEAN THIS DECISION ?

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

Holding Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it (Iraq) a “final opportunity to comply” with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).

So, 'Hero', any more crap to spew ?

Did the UN find Iraq to be an imminent threat ? Decide to advance to an invasion ? Authorize the US to carry out its decisions ?

PLEASE, find it for me.

***************************************************************
Otherwise just go away.

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

Friday, February 22, 2008 6:48 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, Hero is such a load of turds.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

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

Friday, February 22, 2008 6:52 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, Hero is such a load of turds.

Hero showed up to kick ass and chew bubble gum and it turns out he was all out of bubble gum.

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

Friday, February 22, 2008 7:12 PM

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

And you wonder why it's 'fly-over' country rather than the light of the nation.

***************************************************************
Or do you prefer to ignore facts and join PN and Rap in la-la land.

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

Friday, February 22, 2008 7:26 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

First there was Gore and his capitulation to the Kyoto ( SCREW AMERICA EVERY WAY POSSIBLE ) Protocall, and then there was Kerry's " Global Test" which essentially means we must 1st get U.N. approval before we defend ourselves from anyone , ever again. Then there's the whole 'World Court' superceeding our own U.S. Constitution, our regular military forces being made to serve and take orders from U.N. officers,

Whoah...paranoid much?

So, all that is a worse threat than throwing us into the jaws of a recession to further this ridiculous "Saving Of The Iraqi People"??
Click your heels together, Dorothy....

Much as I dont' agree with Hero or Rap in here at all, this is very important to me too.

In fact, all of that is a worse threat to America than throwing us into the jaws of recession. (period)

Saving the Iraqi people or anything else of that sort is none of my or any of our business.

Problem is, Bush hasn't done anything to save us from that fate. When his globalist administration has been starting wars everywhere and selling us out left and right he was pissing off everybody in the world off at the same time. Now everybody is so fed up with Republicans that we're willing to elect a Muslim in office because we're so desperate for change. One day in 2009 we're going to wake up in a Socialist nation who is just another seat at the UN table, who takes orders from a new master.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

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

Saturday, February 23, 2008 6:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Now everybody is so fed up with Republicans that we're willing to elect a Muslim in office because we're so desperate for change. One day in 2009 we're going to wake up in a Socialist nation who is just another seat at the UN table, who takes orders from a new master.

I like ya Jack, but that's a little far in the OTHER direction, doncha think?

'Sides, that won't happen 'till 2019, anyway...

Chrisisall

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

Saturday, February 23, 2008 6:51 AM

THATWEIRDGIRL

Wow. Way to go widely off topic. Here there was a nice discussion

about whether there were or were not wmds or evidence thereof and you have to bring a person's faith into the thread. Sick.

That's bs. There's nothing wrong with electing a Muslim. However, Obama is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. Doesn't he go to Chicago's Trinity Christian or something like that? I do not support Obama, but I will defend his right to be our president to ignorant fools that vote on religious and racial lines.

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown

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

Saturday, February 23, 2008 7:13 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
One day in 2009 we're going to wake up in a Socialist nation who is just another seat at the UN table, who takes orders from a new master.

As opposed to being The Master, perhaps?

Beginning 1945 the United States was in an enviable position as the most productive and technically advanced nation in the world. Europe, the Soviet Union and Japan had been destroyed by WWII (my SO, who was born in Hungary in 1947, tells me there was one working truck in Hungary at the time), China had not yet started development, South and Central America were nice, compliant backwater oligarchs... just the way we wanted, Africa was .... well, Africa. And for years the only threat that we took notice of was "communism".

Since then, a lot of nations/ economic blocs have grown up to be our near-economic equals, and some like China or the EU look to surpass us, soon. It's a hard transition to make and even harder to accept that we ARE just one nation among many. But that is the truth of it. And that is what we should always have been, not some power-mad imperialist who tried to take over the whole world. And although we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined our real undoing will be economic, not military, cultural, political, or religious.

What you're missing 6ix is that we're already "taking orders" but it has nothing to do with the UN and everything to do with NAFTA. The UN, for the most part, leaves nations to do whatever they do within their borders. NAFTA OTOH tell us what our internal labor, environmental, and tax policies will be. I've heard of NAFTA taking municipalities to court because they (the city) imposed an "unfair trade practice" on a competitor. And this isn't backed by an army, but by an army of lawyers and accountants, all with the power of wealth behind them. So if you're gonna get all twitchy about internationalism you're looking in the wrong direction.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

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

Monday, February 25, 2008 7:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
Wow. Way to go widely off topic. Here there was a nice discussion about whether there were or were not wmds or evidence thereof and you have to bring a person's faith into the thread. Sick.

That's bs. There's nothing wrong with electing a Muslim. However, Obama is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. Doesn't he go to Chicago's Trinity Christian or something like that? I do not support Obama, but I will defend his right to be our president to ignorant fools that vote on religious and racial lines.

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown

Thank you, WeirdGirl - that's a separate point I've been *TRYING* to make in a different post for quite some time now. The same people who argue the most vehemently about how we must fight in the Middle East to keep those nations from descending into theocracies then turn around and, in the same breath, preach about how we could not POSSIBLY, EVER, EVEN CONSIDER electing a Muslim to any office in this country. So, apparently, that whole "freedom of religion" thing in the Constitution really means that you're free to be any brand of Christian you choose, so long as you're Christian and nothing else. Again, I must say: How very fucking patriotic of you... Fighting against theocracies elsewhere, while insisting on them here at home.

I know that people who say these kinds of things also tend to preface them with "...Now I don't wanna sound racist, but..." Note for the record that, when you have to preface a statement that way, you already sound racist. Usually because you're racist.

Try this little exercise: Say, out loud, all your thoughts about Muslims. "All Muslims are ___________" Now, take those exact same statements and replace the word "Muslims" with "blacks" or "Jews" or "Hispanics", because that's EXACTLY how racist you sound, and are. Let's face it - you've been told, repeatedly, that Obama is not a Muslim; why don't you just go ahead and use the word; say you could never vote for him because he's black. It's closer to the truth, I'd wager. Or at least it certainly appears that way...

Any time you start thinking at ALL of a certain race or religion are one way, you've succumbed to the most virulent kind of hate - the kind that led the Nazis to embrace the Holocaust. What if I were to claim that I could never, EVER vote for any kind of Christian - after all, Truman was a Christian, and he is the only person in the world to ever use atomic weapons on another nation, so by association, all Christians must want to nuke the entire world, right?

What if I were to claim that I could never vote for a Catholic because all Catholics like to fondle little boys? What if I were to claim that I could never vote for a Mormon because all Mormons like to screw underage girls by the dozen? Wouldn't that make me sound just a *little* backwards and close-minded?

Let's see... Mike Huckabee has said, on record, that he thinks we need to re-write or amend the Constitution of the United States of America to include the ten commandments - thereby making it *officially* a "christian" document. Yet you're worried about the influence a Muslim-who's-not-even-a-Muslim might have on the country?

Sounds to me like you'll vote for anybody who's a paler shade of white before you'll ever support a black man running for the Presidency. As I've said before, I don't have any problem at all with you not liking Barack Obama, but at least hate him for the RIGHT REASONS, and quit maligning the guy for something that he doesn't even believe!

Mike

Sweeping generalizations are always wrong!

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

Monday, February 25, 2008 7:54 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Now everybody is so fed up with Republicans that we're willing to elect a Muslim in office because we're so desperate for change.

First of all, none of the candidates are Muslim. But even if they were, so what?

Since when should we discriminate by religion? Would you think really think less of a candidate who supports most of your values, just because he or she is Muslim?

--------------------------
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session."
-- Judge Gideon J. Tucker, 1866.

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

Monday, February 25, 2008 8:21 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Better bring a bigger hammer if you wanna try getting THAT point across, Kwicko.

While I judge people as people, individually and by their own actions, I am less than fond of Christians as a whole or group, simply due to the acceptance and inclusion of folk who think nonbelievers should be abused or killed.

Long as they leave me alone, they can believe that all they want, but when some rowdy pack of shitheels tries to ACT on it, resulting in violence and injury to the intended victim and several of the perps...

Or when they drive a little girl* to suicide by constant harrassment overlooked by school officials who hold the same beliefs...

And yet, in spite of these horrors, taken as a whole, religion more often than not is the basis for moral, rather than immoral, actions on a universal scale.

It's not the religion, it's the PEOPLE, as simple as that.

What you BELIEVE matters not a whit, it is what you DO that defines you as a person, to yourself and others.

If someone does ill unto you or others, it's because they did it, maybe using religion as an excuse - but in the end, THEY did so.

If you're drowning and someone throws you a rope, they make claim religion inspired them, but it wasn't religion that made the toss, it was THEM.

We're all just folk, in the end, and I wish folks would "get" that... but they mostly don't, too busy coming up with stupid, arbitrary reasons to hate each other, I guess.

-F
*(See: Tempest Smith)

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

Monday, February 25, 2008 8:28 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM

hey, three in a row...

thanks for speaking the truth

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

Monday, February 25, 2008 8:40 AM

Quote:
Better bring a bigger hammer if you wanna try getting THAT point across, Kwicko.

Yeah... I'm not sure the world HAS a big enough hammer for some folk...

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

Monday, February 25, 2008 8:50 AM

Actually, I kinda wish that the "Obama's a MUSLIM" crowd would just come right out and use the N-word. It's clear they really, REALLY want to; they already say "Muslim" as if it were a turd in their mouth. They'll be the ones at the Inauguration who are trying to re-enact that scene from "Blazing Saddles", hollering like Gabby Johnson, "The President is a nii-" BONG! goes the bell. "What'd he say?" "He said the President is NEAR..." "NOOO, dad-blame-it, con-sarn-it - I said the President is a NII-" BONG! goes the bell again.

And so on.

Maybe if he changed it to something more... "American"... like O'Bama... Yeah, that's it. It's American, like O'Malley or O'Shaughnessy, and it makes you think of the Old South, in down-home 'Bama.

Honestly, these people are so caught up in the guy's name - the name his father gave him before he disappeared from his life - that they're certainly not going to let pesky little things like *FACTS* get in the way of a good old-fashioned cross-burning.

Mike

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

Monday, February 25, 2008 8:51 AM

i watched an interesting interview recently on FOX with Michael Schauer, head of the CIA Bin-Laden unit. its his opinion that our interventionist foreign policy directly attributes to terrorism. he went as far as to say none of the current politicians, including McCain, understands this, except Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich

according to the constitution, we are not interventionists. we had no legal or just authority to attack them, Iraq never directly threatened us, so this was a pre-emptive war of aggression. it even violates something called the 'just war theory' of christianity(the libertarian view), which is protection only in self defense. pre-emptive war is a sign of fascism...

the Arab world would have dealt with Saddam WITHOUT the UN or American envolvement; but then Saddam wouldnt even exist if not for us! its rediculous. so nevermind the past CIA coups and various elected governments overthrown at our behest, this war can only create resentment among young Muslims. we're helping alqaeda recruit, and fullfilling propaganda in the meantime!

wake up guys and realize you cant stop a suicide murderer, not in AMerica, not in Iraq. if someone wants to die, there are a million ways they can do it, and take others along with them. you can only remove their incentive and motivation, just the opposite of what we're doing.

something on the scale of 9.11 would have been prevented, had the airlines not been neutered, and the federal agencies asleep at the wheel. we dont need homeland security or the patriot act or military commissions acts. i doubt you or me or anyone here will die in the next terror attack, or any terror attack, the odds are very slim. so in the event of the next suicide attack, itll be the aftermath, and the response of the government, that will destroy the liberties the 'terrorists' hate. am i wrong?

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

Monday, February 25, 2008 8:51 AM

dbl post

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

Monday, February 25, 2008 10:40 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I may not agree with you on a lot, Antimason, but yer preachin to the choir here with that one.

Kwicko... what pisses me off all the more is how they use the word "Liberal" in *EXACTLY* the same fashion and intonation as a racial slur, like a replacement word for something uglier...

I mean, shit, imma Anarchist, which is about as "Liberal" as you can get, and yet here I am bitching about Constitutional Compliance whilst the so-called 'Conservatives' use the damn thing for toilet paper.

I'm a bit more snappish about that than usual since a slightly drunken friend got a little "wall to wall counselling" for flaming "liberal gun grabbers" when all of the recent and most grevious insults to the second amendment were from dickheads he supported.

The way I have seen it in use (cause you KNOW they refuse to define it, or can't..) it means not white enough, not racist enough, not intolerant enough, and if they wanna use THAT as an insult against me...

PLEASE, insult me more!

-Frem

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

Monday, February 25, 2008 11:37 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
what pisses me off all the more is how they use the word "Liberal" in *EXACTLY* the same fashion and intonation as a racial slur, like a replacement word for something uglier...

Commie?

Quote:

PLEASE, insult me more!

And you smell bad.

H

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

Monday, February 25, 2008 11:45 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Kwicko... what pisses me off all the more is how they use the word "Liberal" in *EXACTLY* the same fashion and intonation as a racial slur, like a replacement word for something uglier...

Good thing you have never tried to denigrate the right by using such terms as 'right wing-nut' or 'jack-booted neo-con'

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I mean, shit, imma Anarchist, which is about as "Liberal" as you can get, and yet here I am bitching about Constitutional Compliance whilst the so-called 'Conservatives' use the damn thing for toilet paper.

As an Anarchist, I think you would be closer to the right than the left, no?

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

Monday, February 25, 2008 11:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
what pisses me off all the more is how they use the word "Liberal" in *EXACTLY* the same fashion and intonation as a racial slur, like a replacement word for something uglier...

Commie?

Quote:

PLEASE, insult me more!

And you smell bad.

H

Yup, the way "conservative" has become just another word for "Nazi".

And you spell bad. ;)

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

Monday, February 25, 2008 11:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

As an Anarchist, I think you would be closer to the right than the left, no?

Linear-thinking biped.

Chrisisall

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

Monday, February 25, 2008 12:02 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
As an Anarchist, I think you would be closer to the right than the left, no?

Linear-thinking biped.

Please enlighten me regarding your take on the issue. And remember not to use too many big boy words so I can follow along.

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

Monday, February 25, 2008 12:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Please enlighten me regarding your take on the issue. And remember not to use too many big boy words so I can follow along.

Anarchists, I believe, are interested in what gets the job done, and done correctly- therefore they have no use for right/left ideology as such.
(Frem, please correct me if I'm wrong...)
BDN, the left or right is simply what you feel like assigning to the Anarchist label- it's like calling what Bruce Lee did Kung-Fu; it's limiting.

Chrisisall

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

Monday, February 25, 2008 1:01 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Yeah, that's prettymuch it - whatever does the job with a minimum of waste, stupidity and disruption, and stay out of our business and personal space unless invited.

And while I am indeed intentionally insulting to rightwingnuts, jackboots, and rethuglicans, I make specific distinction in the how and why I am insulting them rather than smearing an entire political spectrum with a single label.

To me a Rethuglican is a jerk using a false front conservatism to put on a moral image when they are in fact an immoral creep - there's been a few of those around, as a Dimocract is a dumbass who's short sighted quickfix policy is more likely to do eventual harm than good.

Jackboots are proto-fascists, and rightwingnuts are folks who rabidly support a political spectrum even when members thereof are acting directly counter to their interests, see also: leftwingnuts.

When I level insult, it's specific, directed and fully intentional at that person to specific group, for their actions, or by their actions.

But I sure ain't gonna claim altruism there, I am specific and directed cause smearing a whole political spectrum isn't.. yanno... *personal* enough a slap for my liking, I want em to have no doubt who I mean when I do it.

-F

Edit: BTW, Communism is a form of Government.

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

Monday, February 25, 2008 2:38 PM

Quote:
Kwicko- Mike Huckabee has said, on record, that he thinks we need to re-write or amend the Constitution of the United States of America to include the ten commandments - thereby making it *officially* a "christian" document. Yet you're worried about the influence a Muslim-who's-not-even-a-Muslim might have on the country?

im suprised Huckabee doesnt know better, but this is something people should know: our constitution is based on the laws of Moses and the ten commandments; in fact libertarianism draws a lot from christian theology. the concept of individual liberty is impossible without morality and responsibility. thou shalt not murder, steal, thou shalt not bear false witness and thou shalt not covet thy neighbors belongings. we are entitled to keep the fruits of our labor, and we are commanded to work for our own sustenance, that someone who will not work does not deserve charity.

contrast that with communism and socialism, where welfarism is encouraged, and people are neglected the rights to property and the products of their labor. this should be obvious....

according to the OT, this was how Gods people functioned, without a king or ruler, but by his commands. it was the rejection of God that necessitated government, and because man is imperfect and sinful, so to is government. that is why our constitution includes the word 'Creator', and our rights are self evident and inalienable, without which you lose the basis for liberty

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

Monday, March 10, 2008 12:19 PM

AwwwCrapper:

A while back, I asked you a direct question. Remember?

Quote:
Answer this: How many tours of duty did you do in Iraq?

You never answered. You sidestepped, hoping no one would notice. I noticed, and I've waited patiently for you to regale us with your tales of the glory days of your military service.

Now, I'm sure you served in the military, because only America-haters HAVEN'T served. And I'm sure you could always re-up (military slang for reenlistment), because now, more than ever in recent memory, America NEEDS loyal, dedicated soldiers. And only someone who hates America or is a coward or hypocrite WOULDN'T join the military right now, right?

So, answer the question: what's your military service history?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

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

Monday, March 10, 2008 2:10 PM