Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I thought this would be a great read for some of our kool-aid drinkers:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

And for a more intelligent read for those who actually care to be informed and don't beleive what ever supports their view:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html & http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

Funny you mention all this.

I was just asking where we could post impotent threads........


http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=34768.new#new

Now I know, thanks!

Couldn't find a picture to post this time SLC?? I didn't think you'd be interested in antyhing that points out the glaring mistakes in your much touted video.? For someone who claims to be an intellectual and take the "harder road" by researching their opinion, you sure don't seem to follow that claim very much.? Your biggest problem is that you come to a conclusion or idea based on your own ideology and then work backwards to support said claim.? You never let fact or reality get in the way.? Then again, that's how all conspiracy theories work.

1) I never have referred to myself as an intellectual or have traveled the "harder road" (insert gay military joke here.)

2) I have already commented on the PM article , not only here, but also on your forum. Both times you failed to respond. So I'm not sure what you are talking about; I made myself very clear. (? My biggest problem with the PM article (which not many people know) is the editor of the PM articles was Ben Chertoff,a cousin of Micheal Chertoff who is the current secretary of homeland security. This is a bit more than a conflict of interest, even before the PM strawman is picked apart.? http://www.rosesofvelvet.com/forum/index.php?topic=1791.30)

3) You seem very angry lately..........I can assure you that impotence occurs in many men, and there is nothing to be upset about.



I hate to disappoint you......


Here is a picture of one of my dogs, she is half lab and half Australian Sheppard. Her name is swea pea, she is 100 percent liberal, and probably a lesbian (she licks her sister a lot, so I'm just guessing.) Being a liberal I absolutely support her "alternative lifestyle."

(http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9649/727200601cb6.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)


Here is a picture of the wrong cabinet sent to me from Texas. You see, (this is a great story, you are going to love this one) I was installing a kitchen and was opening the last cabinet to put together. It was around two in the morning and I realize that this last base cabinet, is wrong......dead wrong. So I call the guy in Texas, who happens to be Thai (I think, I could never figure out what the hell he was speaking) and tried to explain to him that he fucked up. He may have understood, but.......I would not have known, since I could not understand a word he was saying. Two weeks later, I got it sorted out.

(http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3161/727200607yw0.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)


Here is a picture of the base cabinets, they are really pretty. I still have to install the granite this week.

(http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/6648/727200625wy0.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)


Here are the french doors I installed, nice huh? They open perfectly! I laid spanish tile on that floor and wow does it look amazing now........


(http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/9591/727200615ge0.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

Maybe you have ,e confused with someone (I've heard that there are several Gunslingers) but I'm not a member of roses of velvet.  And a conflic of interest only exists because you says it does.  The PM article is just one of many that debunk Loose Change, but is often cited because it is a credible source.  How can the information he provide be viewed as biased?  It's physics and common knowledge.  If you're concerned about conflict of interests, then maybe you should stay away from sources who desire to portray the united states in a negative light.  Afterall, no credible academic, politican or pundint buys into this crap.  Shouldn't that merit some concern on your part?

Congrats on the home design, pretty dog by the way.

Must be another one?

http://www.rosesofvelvet.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=96

I already posted on the 9-11 thread that was locked. I don't feel like repeating myself. If you would like to read what I wrote, feel free to look at that thread.

Edit: LOL, you posted in that thread, so why are you acting like I did not address you on this already...........Are you drunk tonight or what?

hey your kitchen story was very interesting !
maybe one day i'll have  a place for myself and we'll talk about installing  kitchens !

I should post before and after pics of this house. The transformation has been amazing really. I actually found the cabinets on ebay and had great ratings. The language barrier was very frustrating though. His emails were in perfect English (translation program I'm sure.)

but what about the colors ?
dark brown ... that's not very comtemporary ....

i'm into concrete lately.
i want concrete table
concrete kitchen
concrete bathroom
i wanna be surrounded by concrete


and mmm i'll be comfortable.

(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/076156375X.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V1057194336_.jpg)

Dark wood cabinets with granite sells 'em down here.

Stamped concrete is popular in more upscale homes.

I kind of like the concrete look, but it is too industrial for me on a daily basis. I'll do before and afters on my forum next week when it goes for sale. I have about 5 days left.


***

Jim, you have exposed me once again for my hatred of freedom and concrete kitchens...........is there any stone you leave unturned?

I came across the book at work. The title alone had me sold. It sure was one way of passing the time, you know me, I'm always game for a good chuckle.

In the same book order, the same batch to the same guy (... or girl, of course), was another gem, a book written, something along the lines of, 'On if the Nazi's had won'. Maybe it was all in good faith, but I couldn't help but think that a more apt title, given the circumstance, would have been 'If Only.' But, as I say, it may just have been coincidence...

Why the Left Hates America is an excellent book.? I think it's important to denote that Flynn distinguishes between liberals and leftists.? He has no problems with liberals, but takes great issue with leftist.  What was that old saying about never judging a book by its cover?

Yea, it didn't sell too many copies...........not enough pictures.

I love the way 'liberal' is 'bad' word in America

Maybe people should check what the word means - those kind of ideas are 'bad'?

IS that why Al Franken's book sold so well, because of the pictures? ?Nice to know you don't want to discuss the issue at hand. ?I read the previous thread SLC, and its argument against the PM article is no different than the one here. ?You simply say ?conflict of interest and write it off. ?Must be nice to be able to do that when anything questions your views. ?I'm an open conservative, but at least I read the NY Times, listen to Bill Maher and seek alternative sources. ?I read a hell of alot more "liberal" news than "conservative." ?

Liberal is no more a bad word than 'conservative' is.? I've been called conservative many a times as if it were a negative label. Most conservatives are "classical liberals".? If I call someone a liberal, I'm not using the word as insulting, it simply is the term used for those who possess emotionally based beliefs filled with double standards and logical fallacies.  You also forget that liberals don't own the market on egalitarian beliefs.  When someone calls someone a liberal, they're not attacking their belief in anti-discriminatory practices (remember it was the Democrats in America who opposed civil rights legislation) but someting else, like welfare or abortion.  The common uses of conservative and liberal in America differ greatly from their textbook definitions, then again you already knew that Izzy.

teh word "conservative" does hold some negative inputs.
especially for a young person.

all the "conservatives" guys i met in college were the type of guys that were beaten up in school.

doesn't that seem counter-intuitive to the misheld beliefs that liberals are peaceful and conservatives are heartless war hawks?

that is a great site. they do a good job of pointing out how loose change MISLEADS viewers. obviously, if they truly were on to something, they'd have no reason to mislead on any facts.

thanks for posting.

Well seeing as how the exact same topic was just locked about a week ago ( And........I just told you that too) , I'm not sure what you would like to discuss. Perhaps that was the "other" gunslinger that was posting on that one ? It also seems you guys all have convenient memory loss when you do not like the answers, or when you get owned (see: GnRNightrain.)

I have seen many true conservatives pointing out that they are much different then the lawbreakers and mass murderers that inhabit the White House these days. They make it very clear that they do not want to be lumped in with the NeoCons of today that have run up our deficit like drunken sailors, walked on the Constitution (it is ?only a piece of  God damn paper? after all),  and slaughtered thousands and thousands of innocent civilians while reaping record profits for Cheney's pals at Halliburton.

True Conservatives are doing everything they can to distance themselves from this ugly group lately, and not being shy about it.

Your strategy is boring and predictable. It reeks of dishonesty and dances on the edge of delusional. Repeat, ignore the answers and repeat again. Doesn?t it ever get old?




Show me a Bush supporter that did not beat the war drum and refer to innocent civilian deaths as " collateral damage." They were (and still are) about as fucking heartless as you can get.

Bombs away.............

 - Nice home mr Punk.:p
 
 - Maddox' Best page in universe is imo just about that. Topic suggesting that it is a "site for 9/11 Kool-Aid drinkers" is an insult towards the inegrity of one fun as hell site:p

- When you keep in mind what mr Maddox mentioned, that Loose Change is "just" an amateur film made with very limited resources, you have to admit they did brilliant work.It manages to sound much more credible and convincing  than most other a lot more "valid"  conspiracy documentaries. Fortunatelly you don't have to buy the agenda of an entire document in order to be able to find it very entertaining to watch.

People trying very hard to write some alternative history always deserve some credit and atleast a benefit of doubt:p

Thanks.

I was looking at those Freedumb doors again............I am pretty sure I see the Virgin Mary.

If this is true, then I will tear them back out and auction them on ebay................

 

I thought politics were prohibited on this board, and they probably are, but while this thread is open Ill address this spin line since I hear it so often.

First, you changed the subject of your premise in mid-sentence, from liberals to Democrats, without even knowing it apparently.  Of course the two labels are hardly synonymous, but it seems that you dont know that.

Second, youre wrong, unless youre referring to the civil rights legislation of the 1800s, which would still be wrong since Republicans were the liberals on civil rights, particularly the Radical Republican faction that has long since been dead.  But I suspect you were really referring to the modern parties and the legislation of the 1950s and 1960s.  Democrat Paul Douglas was a leading congressional civil rights advocate.  Democrats Mike Mansfield and Lyndon Johnson put through the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Republican Barry Goldwater voted against it before being nominated for president by the party the same year.  The truth is that Democrats overwhelmingly supported the legislation, moreso than Republicans, except for conservative Dixiecrats, some of whom subsequently found refuge in the Republican Party (Willis Robertson, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond).  Leading senate Democrats had to work on courting conservative Republicans in order to invoke cloture and secure the laws passage.  The Civil Rights Act of 1968 had similar support.

i'm a bush supporter and never referred to innocent deaths as "collateral damage".

i referred to them the same way i did under the clinton, or any administration. i'm not blinded by partisan support for one side or the other.

so it's really unfair to lump all bush supporters together. and it makes no sense to call ALL bush supporters "fucking heartless".

Heartless?? You want to talk about heartless?? How about morons who advocate that 9/11 was an inside job?? How about morons who equate US servicemen with terrorists?? Heartless, how about people that would rather see America be hit again rather than George Bush be right?? That's heartless; to spin everything with contempt for anyone that believes in what we're doing.

(http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~cw282101/moore.jpg)

Maybe not in those words exactly, but you have downplayed the violence on these boards. Same thing.


Clown shoes...........

(http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/351/clownshoesfs9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

not true.

you're making false claims about people, AND THEN criticizing them for something they never said.

which is exactly what you always accuse others of doing to you and the other liberals. what's your term for that again???


interesting how many are not willing to discuss the informative links posted in the beginning of this thread. seems like some posters went out of their way to change the topic as soon as possible. i wonder why.  ::)

I already have discussed this at great length and the thread was locked. So why do I want to do the same thing AGAIN only to have it locked again? What is the point? You do understand that political threads are against the rules, so why are you guys bringing this stuff up other than to muster up some petty fight?

You compared the violence in Iraq to crime in everyday American cities. Downplaying the relevance of the unnecessary deaths of innocent children in the middle east. You can turn it into a little game if you like, but you can not hide from your previous posts.

As far as my post is concerned, do you concede your point?

Hmmm....and to think, I actually clicked on this topic because I thought it was a funny site about Kool Aid....now I'm dissapointed.

Oh Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you sit there and make shit up about me. talk about petty....that's so ridiculous. i never said anything even close to that.

you try to categorize people that disagree with you. you play the same games that you criticize others for playing.

i have no idea what possesses a grown man to make shit up about other posters. it's quite sad actually. it's one thing to make a mistake, but to then continue to post lies after lies. unbelievable.


but back on topic, i found this quote interesting....


"The Loiseaux family, owners of Controlled Demolitions, Inc., which is widely considered to be the worlds top explosive-demolition firm, calls the idea that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives "Ludicrous.""

Well its obvious that they are covering up the fact that both planes were loaded up with their explosives as well as the secret stash of explosives that were strategically hidden on the exact floors that both planes hit.

I don't have to make anything up.

You compared the violence in Iraq to everyday violence in USA cities. You were trying to find a way to condone what we have created over there. Just as many of your buddies here call civilian deaths "Collateral damage." You were justifying civilian deaths  in that region by downplaying the significance of the deaths themselves. Which is indeed: heartless.

You are a lying liar that drinks Kool Aid with Cheney on hunting trips..............

I stopped those, I kept waking up 2 days later with a killer headache

(http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/A/l/cheney_hunting_hell.jpg)

If anyone is wearing the clown shoes, SLC, it's you with giving credence to all these 9/11 conspiracy theories.?

I'm actually glad that everyone has a chance to see how out of touch you've become.? You crossed the line from being simply misguided to borderline lunacy a long time ago.

Honestly, I don't think even those who sympathize with your opinions actually take you seriously anymore....

That is the point.

I don't give credence to these theories as you (or the other poster who does the same thing, hence "Clown shoes") claim.

I do think some of the questions asked are good ones and should be discussed/addressed. I also think the story we are given about 9-11 does not add up. That is about it.



My "opinions" have all turned out to be dead on, and in particular time has proven me correct on Iraq.

Ten to one you are another angry right wing poster who ran away and is now back to try it all over again. Why do you guys always quit and then change your user names? I had to laugh at the one user who, instead of admitting he was wrong and changed his mind, actually changed his user name to provide his new opinion/outlook. CLOWN SHOES!

What questions?  What doesn't add up?

Seems to me that the only difference between you and the conspiracy theorists is the latter is at least willing to spell out their accusations of what they believe did or did not happen.? Just offering some vague opinion of "there being questions that need addressing" or "the official story doesn't add up" doesn't mean you haven't put on the clown shoes.

For instance, anyone who believes the planes didn't bring down the WTC towers has to do more than just make that claim.? They have to offer what they believe actually did instead.? And whether it be the towers, the Pentegon, or Flight 93 in PA, few are willing to go that far because anything and everything they come up with eventually proves ridiculous and even more unbelievable than the "official story."

But I guess anyone who wants there to be a conspiracy will find one.? Even if everything surrounding 9/11 is cut and dry and as plain as can be....

No, I don't.  The Democrats ran congress up untill 1994.  So while you had some who supported civil rights, you had a substantial margin who didn't.  You were quick to point to Strom Thurmond, but he was a racist while he was a Democrat.  Only later in life when he was no longer a segregationist did he become a republican.  Rovbert Byrd was in the KKK.  It was southern democrats who opposed civil rights.  It was Republicans who freed the slaves and led the civil rights movement.  Only in the past 25 years have the Democrats taken a change on the race issue. 
   I do use liberal and Democrat as interchangable because in contemporary America they are.  The radical left has hi-jacked the Democratic party just as like the neo-cons have high-jacked the republican party.  I think Kennedy was a great President, but think Carter was a fool.  So I concede nothing, in as much as we're debating the usage of such terms in common speech.  I dare not go into their greater and true meanings or those who still read books with pictures would be lost.

Again, I have already posted in detail in the other thread that was locked. How hard is it for you to understand that?

You guys have the audacity  to run around calling people conspiracy nuts after you  backed Bush?s claim about pretend  WMD and that Saddam was a threat to the world? After you told us all that we would be greeted as liberators and flowers would grow out of the streets? Hahaha?.you are calling me a conspiracy nut? Talk about CLOWN SHOES!

What did you post SLC?? Nothing, you posted nothing of any value.? You said a thing about cell phones and one architect.? Both accounts have been proven wrong, or at the very minimum, probable by other experts. I myself have used a cell phone while on an aircraft.? You keep saying you won't repeat yourself, but you never said anything of any substance anyway.? You drop one liners with 4 picturs to follow, then refer back to these post as if they were a doctorate thesis on quantum mechanics.? I mean for fucks sakes, you got your information from a fucking movie; a movie of all places.? Where I come from, people don't expect to be taken seriously when they quote shit from movies.

I posted these links in hopes that people would read them to form their own opinion based on what they may have observed in Loose Change and what they may have gathered from those sources.  Unfortunately, you were quick to avoid the subject at hand and wonder off.  Then you claim that "right wingers" run away only to come back later after they were defeated.  This issue has shit to do with politics, it has everything to do with claims based on hearsay and sketchy information at best.  This thought occured to me after you were quick to bash the PM article.  Did you even ever read the PM article and discover that the author had a "conflict of interest"?  Or did you read an article on some biased website that brought the PM article to your attention, and the author of said article claimed their was a conflict of interest?  Cause if it's the latter, and you're just echoing the thoughts of someone else cause they happen to agree with your pre-conceived notion, well let's just say that's pretty sad.

This is not what I recently posted.........



Wrong again.


I may believe you if the title of this thread were different. But it seems you came more to stir the pot than anything.

I can't do anything but joke after a while. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem paired with accute memory loss. Your posts (and your buddies in arms) make me laugh out loud most times. The other times I am left simply shaking my head.

Say what you will, but I am not here to babysit and point out my previous posts for you all. Here is a hint: KEEP THE FUCK UP. It's that simple. If you are unable to keep up with me, and remember something I posted just last week, then maybe you should get off the porch.

 ???

Now youre just too dishonest to admit that you were wrong.

Yes, Democrats held Congress until 1994.  That civil rights legislation was enacted in the 50s and 60s, the most significant ones being signed by Lyndon Johnson.


Again, youre being dishonest.  It wasnt "some," it was the majority of Democrats, especially the liberal members.


Wrong again.  Thurmond switched in 1964 as a result of the national partys support for civil rights legislation.  He, along with much of the segregationist South, supported Barry Goldwater.  It was Goldwaters positioning against the legislation that brought the Republican partys first South Carolina victory in a presidential contest since the mid 1800s, and its part of the reason the South remains solidly Republican.  It was followed by Nixons Southern Strategy and Reagans endorsement of "states rights" in Philadelphia, Mississippi.  Republican strategist (and mentor to Karl Rove) Lee Atwater said this in 1981 as a member of Reagans administration:

"As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn?t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he?s campaigned on since 1964? and that?s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster?"

"You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.  And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger."


This is a really fatuous parcing of partisanship.  Robert Byrd was, and is, a conservative Democrat.  Every Dixiecrat was unquestionably conservative.  Thats why many left the party. 


Again...Republicans were the liberals during the days of slavery, it was quite a different party - thats been addressed.  As for leading the civil rights movement, back it up.  Ive already referred to Democrats that led on the issue:

"My fellow Americans, this is a problem which faces us all--in every city of the North as well as the South. Today there are Negroes unemployed, two or three times as many compared to whites, inadequate in education, moving into the large cities, unable to find work, young people particularly out of work without hope, denied equal rights, denied the opportunity to eat at a restaurant or lunch counter or go to a movie theater, denied the right to a decent education, denied almost today the right to attend a State university even though qualified. It seems to me that these are matters which concern us all, not merely Presidents or Congressmen or Governors, but every citizen of the United States." - John F. Kennedy, 1963

It was Democrat Paul Douglas that Martin Luther King Jr. described as "the greatest of all the senators."

It was Democrat Mike Mansfield that introduced the 1964 Act.

It was Democrat Lyndon Johnson that signed it into law.  He, Mansfield and Hubert Humphrey championed the bill and appealed to Minority Leader Everett Dirkson to follow in support.

It was Lyndon Johnson that sent the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Congress and signed it into law.

These are the two greatest pieces of civil rights legislation in the countrys history and they were largely creations.  They were enacted over 40 years ago, not 25.  That they were disputed by a band of conservative southern Democrats does not negate the fact that Democrats led on the legislation. 

It was the Republican Party, with the support of the South, that ran the anti-civil rights candidate at the height of the movement.  These are the facts.  Most Republicans supported the legislation as well, but they were not the leaders. 


1.) Thats untrue. 

2.) The Democrats you referred to were staunch conservatives.


Youre free to believe this I suppose, but youre wrong again and it contradicts youre point that liberals (which you insist is interchangable with Democrats) were in charge of the party in the 1950s and 1960s when they supposedly rejected civil rights.  However, its easy to see that youre just clumsily using semantics to bolster a point thats been disproved. 


Someone so misinformed, reliant on simplistic generalizations and incapable of accepting facts need not deign to others on comprehension.

i never said any of these things. nor do i believe these things. 

you continue to lie. posting the same thing over and over is not gonna make it true.

it's actually hilarious how you just type the same thing over and over. it seems like you are brainwashed and are just programmed to type the "i hate republicans" tag lines. 

you assume all bush supporters fit into one category. you try to paint us all in a negative way. and then you criticize us for beliefs that we don't even have.

unbelievable.

you provide constant reminders of why we are not allowed to have political threads.  ::)

sandman, we're just trying to understand how you can be a bush supporter ....

i mean .... GEORGE W BUSH !!! do you realize !!!??? have you seen the Will Ferrel Clips about George mending his fences ?!!!

come on ... george double u bush ..... COME on :)

good question. and i'm always up for a friendly debate.

first off, let me clarify and say that i do not blindly support any politician. i hate them all. and i hate the political game that is played.

i like some of the things bush has done. and i dislike some things bush has done.

- i agree with his proactive approach to fighting terrorism. he invaded afghanistan which i strongly supported. that war showed the world that we were now active participants in the global war vs. terrorism. that war had been going on for years, and we finally began fighting. i believe he has done a great job in fighting terrorism. 

- i agreed with the decision to invade iraq (as did many politicians on both sides).
- i'm a HUGE supporter of Sarbanes-Oxley.
- i believe his tax cuts have helped the economy.
- i'm a fan of the patriot act
- NCLB

on the other side....
- MANY mistakes have been made in iraq, and he needs to be held accountable.
- he spends too much.
- he should have handled Katrina better.
- he seems a little too close to the religious nut jobs.   

i can see that. ok.

so you agree on proactive actions against terrorism, so do you agree with the proactive approach of terrorists against the evil power of western civilization ?

iraq ? i thought everybody agreed on how the usa fooled you and lied to the world?


tax cuts good / spends too much bad : well you need to pick your side.

i'll assume your first question is a joke.

"everyone agreed"??? again, i'll assume you're kidding. but just check hillary clinton's comments on iraq. nobody fooled me. personally, i wanted saddam removed long before we invaded.

your third comment is the only one that appears serious, but it makes no sense whatsoever....

i'm in favor of tax cuts, which means less of MY money goes to the government. therefore, the government needs to spend less. 

Reply #234 on: September 21, 2004, 06:32:21 PM ?

"
as bad as everyone tries to make things seem in iraq, there are more murders in detroit on a daily basis than there is in all of iraq."

- Sandman



FUCKING CLOWN SHOES!

Now a real man would apologize. But I don't expect that from you. What are you going to do now? Claim that is something completely different? You are the liar, and so are all your buddies on the right, case closed.

There you go confusing people with facts again ::)

(http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/8492/cspandebatezi9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

Love what you've done with your hair

Markusa helped me with it.............

Booker, although this initial reply will be brief, please don't take it as me ignoring or avoiding your reply.  I simply have to get to work and will edit this post later.

Some simple stats on how each patry voted for the civil rights act of 1964:

The Original House Version:

[House]
Democratic Party: 153-96   (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34   (80%-20%)
[Senate]
Democratic Party: 46-22   (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6   (82%-18%)

The Senate Version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91   (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35   (80%-20%)

Booker, you seem to want to ignore the cold hard facts here.  Further, if a democrat was against civil rights, you call them conservative which you equate with racist.  So if a democrat doesn't toe the line, he's just a conservative.  This is bullshit and since each party has unique views that define them as liberal or conservative, you're avoiding the issue.  It's fair to say that Lieberman is more conservative than Kennedy, but it wouldn't be fair to call Lieberman a conservative.  It's fair to call McCain more liberal than Cheney, but not fair to call him a liberal.  What you're trying to do is paint a picture that liberals (common usage of the word) were behind all advances in our society when that's simply not true.

Damn, dude that was brief?  ;)

Well I was hoping to see sandmans response before I left work, but I have a hurricane to out run on I-95. :peace:

He is out shopping for some credibility............


(http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/8513/ronaldai1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

i did compare the STATS (which was not your original argument).

but i did not, am not, and never will try to condone OR undermine the killing of innocent civilians (which is what i really take exception to).

that was not the meaning of my statement. the context had to do with the media's reporting of the war. ?

and i'll say it now so there's no confusion, innocent civilian deaths are horrible (and major) events that cannot be taken lightly. very sad.

I am not sure how either of you can make broad generalizations about "liberals" and "conservatives" in regards to specific events in history.? The meaning of these two terms has changed tremendously.? What is considered a modern liberal is completely different from what is considered a classical liberal.? Similarly, the term conservative has changed as well.?

To say that Republicans were liberal in those days is misleading.? You are taking today's meaning of the word liberal and applying to it to a different era to imply that today's liberals would have been for the civil rights movement, where as today's conservatives would have been against it.? I don't think that you can possible compare any of the political parties of today to events that occurred in a different era.? I often see this mistake made when people try to place certain founding fathers as democrats, republicans, liberals or conservatives.? ?

I think this is mistaken as well.? Robert Byrd is liberal, in the modern sense, on almost every issue that comes before him.? The only way that he is characterized as a conservative is on race issues.? Does that make him a conservative because he is racist?? What makes him a conservative?? Race issues certainly cannot be the factor that determines if one is a liberal or conservative.? He is simply a racist democrat.? You can't take every racist and characterize them as conservatives, that is just not accurate.

As I explained above, I don't think you can make the modern liberal/conservative comparison to these times.?

Notice that he did say "contemporary america."? As to point two, It is much more accurate to describe them as southern democrats than to describe them as conservatives.

[

 ???

Those stats support my points exactly.

Fact: Democrats proposed and fought for the legislation.  Therefore they were the leaders on it.  Are you going to dispute that?

Fact: A majority of Democrats supported the legislation.

With these facts in mind, youre original argument of "Democrats fought civil rights legislation" is dishonest.  Its even more dishonest when you equate Democrats with liberals in the same sentence.


Ill address this in my reply to BerkeleyRiot.


Untrue.  Byrd voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment with most Republicans, alligned himself with Republicans on other issues involving gays and has supported both of George W. Bushs Supreme Court nominees (one of only four Democrats to vote for Samuel Alito).  No liberal would support Samuel Alitos nomination.  Hes supported Bushs most conservative federal judges.  He supports making English Americas "official language" and votes with Republicans on most immigration issues.  He supported the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.  Although I think its presumptuous to label him a racist in the present tense.  Theres no question he was a racist, but Im doubtful you can know he is now.  His voting record, receiving near-perfect to perfect scores from the NAACP, doesnt suggest it. 

Im not necessarily saying that racism is a conservative trait, but liberalism both denotes and connotes the favoring of political and social reform while conservatism is based on tradition and aversion to such reforms.  With those definitions in mind, its not difficult to apply them to political figures from the past.  Of course theres many differences in the overall stigmas of both terms, but on the slavery issue, the position favoring unprecedented equality and tolerance is surely the progressive, or liberal, one.  In the debate over the 1960s legislation, the conservative position was the support of states rights.  That was the position championed by the Dixiecrats, as well as some conservative Republicans, such as Goldwater (and was later featured in Reagans rhetoric).  That Goldwater was chosen as the Republican presidential candidate has to be factored in the partys overall view on civil rights at the time.  Even if most Republicans supported it (again, with Mansfield and Johnson leading the way), their nomination of Goldwater suggested it wasnt of great importance to them.  And Im not saying that Goldwater was a racist either, but his position was unquestionably the conservative one and it facilitated racial discrimination.  Its not just about racism, its about supporting or opposing the legislation.

Also, I never said that Byrd or those Democrats were conservatives solely because of their stance on civil rights.  Any student of history/politics would agree that the Dixiecrats were no liberals.  Democrat Richard Russell, who opposed the legislation, founded the Conservative Coalition.  Howard Smith, another Democrtic opponent of civil rights, led the Conservative Coalition.  These were not liberal Democrats, these were conservative Democrats and thats why I refer to them as such.  Democrat and liberal were not interchangable then, as Gunslinger contends, and theyre not today.   


1.) Im aware of what he said, and I think hes wrong.

2.) Not necessarily.  They were both southern and conservative, but Gunslinger insisted on relating his points to liberals. 

Would you agree that his original point:


...was incorrect and dishonest?  In making his point, he assumes Democrats and liberals were synonymous and implies that they shouldnt be credited with supporting anti-discriminatory practices, only for opposing them. 

Yes, I will....

Booker, I think you're misreading the votes there. The Republicans were more supportive than the Democrats, by 20% in some areas.? That's a significant margin, one you seem to ignore.? Was it not Eisenhower who used the National Guard to force the democratc governor of Alabama to open doors to blacks?? ? It was Byrd who fillibustered the CRA of 64.? It was the Republicans who were able to join will Democrats in order to override the fillibuster.? I could go back further to proove my point and note that every Democrat in Congress voted against the 14th Amendment.? But let's keep it to current times.? Obviously, the Democratic party stands for certain principles that have stood the test of time or they would have gone the way of the dodo like other American parties.? Currently, they value social programs the define them as socialist which is a leftist or liberal ideology.?
? My original statement was the Democrats opposed the civil rights act.? That is accurate, because if you were to take all those who opposed the CRA, and randomly chose one, they'd probbaly be a democrat.? I can say that Democrats support the Patriot Act and Republicans opposed it because there were members of each party who voted either way.? BUt that would be misleading.? Obviously Democrats supported the CRA because they were the majority of congress from the 1920s untill 1994.? But the majority of those who opposed the CRA were democrats.? But, since the Democrats fillibustered the CRA for 74 days, I think it's fair to say that Democrats opposed the bill.
? Of course you neglect to mention that prior to Kennedy's CRA, the Republican minority in congress had submitted multiple Civil Rights bills that were blocked by Democrats. The Republicans had CR bills in 57 and 60 that were defeated by democrats.
 In fact, up until 1935 every single black congressman was Republican.? Hell, Ida Wells and Mary Terrell, both Republicans, were co-founders of the NAACP.? I could keep providing more facts, but you'd ignore them or spin them elsewhere.? The Democrats were not the leaders behind the CR movement, it was teh Republicans.? Only after Kennedy died, did Johson garner support for the CRA, before he led us into the quagmire that was Vietnam (Golf of Tonkin anyone?) that resulted in the death of 50,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands more inhured.? That's your democratic party.



I'm not claiming that they should not be credited for aiding in the civil rights movement.? I'm stating that they should equally be credited for opposing it and Republicans should be given equal or more credit for the movement since they proposed legislation long before Kennedy did.


? ?

Four pages and still no Kool-Aid Man busting through a wall picture? 

(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/chimpinator/OHYEAH.gif)

And the Dirt delivers............fuckin' A.

Haha I remember that episode of Family Guy!  ;D

SLC, you can never have an abundance of Kool-Aid Man through wall pictures!  ;)

I would say that youre misinformed, but youve been informed enough in this thread to know better, so now youre just plain dishonest and too stubborn to admit that you are wrong.


 :hihi:

Is this really all you have?  The percentages youre obsessing over are meaningless.  100% of the southern Republicans in the Senate opposed it.  There was one southern Republican in the Senate.  98% of northern Democrats supported it, 14% more than northern Republicans...who cares?  Percentages are meaningless and to use them as a basis for your argument in this discussion is laughable and wholly lame.  Democrats had many more seats and the conservative Dixiecrat minority that was largely broken after the legisilation skewed those percentages. 

And really you didnt dispute my point.  You fail to address Johnson and Mansfields leadership on the legislation, of which theres no question (or the Republicans nomination of Goldwater in 1964).  Instead, you brought up this silly percentage non-point. 


First, this is a weak comparison.  The more logical comparison would be to compare Eisenhowers leadership on the issue to Johnsons since they were each partys respective leaders at the time.  Johnsons legislation was unquestionably the most exapansive civil rights legislation of the century.

Second, it was Arkansas that Eisenhower sent the troops to.  Attorney General Robert Kennedy sent troops into Alabama in 1963.

I wont denigrate the civil rights contributions of Republicans, particularly Eisenhower.  The main issue is your disingenuous refusal to recognize Democrats undeniable leadership on civil rights in order to focus on the minoritys opposition, as well your even more disingenuous effort to lump liberals into that opposition.


I acknowledge that a majority of Republicans supported it, thats not the issue.  The bill was strongly bipartisan. 
 

If you were to take those opposed to the CRA and randomly choose one...youd be indulging in a numbingly stupid exercise that means nothing.

Its also inaccurate.  When you say "the Democrats," youre implying a majority, if not all.  Youre also conveniently negating the fact that they in fact proposed the legislation and led negotiations on its passage.     



 ???

Thats exactly what you did - youre admitting that youre original point is misleading.  Therefore you should give up this game of weaseling around facts and just be honest about the subject.

By the way, only 3 of 211 voting House Republicans and 0 Senate Republicans voted against the Patriot Act.


Now that youve changed the phrasing and provided better context, it would be fair to say.  Better context, of course, means acknowledgement of Democratic leadership and majority support. 


No, they both passed (albeit amended due to Dixiecrat obstruction). 


Yes, Johnson garnered support for the Civil Rights Act as he led on the legislation - youre finally catching on.  Part of Johnsons political effectiveness was recognizing that successfully passing major legislation, such as the 1964 Act, meant passing smaller, less effective legislation like the 1957 Act (of which he helped secure passage).  And Ill state again - I have absolutely no interest in denigrating the Republicans vital role in supporting civil rights.  No one party has a monopoly on civil rights, but your assessment on this legislation is dishonest and misleading because its legislation that Democrats did indeed lead on.

The Vietnam stuff is way off-topic.  But speaking of strong bipartisanship, every Republican that voted on the GOT Resolution supported it.  The only senate opposition was Ernest Gruening and Wayne Morse, Democrats.  That would make the opposition precentage 100% Democratic!  Thats 100% higher than Republican opposition (specious percentage arguments are pretty easy).

I agree on the gay marriage and official language issues.? Although these two issues hardly make him a conservative.? I would hardly characterize supporting partial birth abortion as conservative.? Many on the left agree with a partial birth abortion ban.? Furthermore, as you define liberal below, a ban on partial birth abortion would be considered a liberal position.? I would also not necessarily characterize his support for Bush's Supreme Court nominations as dictating his ideology.? People support nominees for various reasons.? Many conservatives voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg, that doesn't make them liberals.? I would have voted for her as well even though I disagree with her on almost every legal issue.

I agree.? I was referring to him based on his past actions as you guys were in your posts.? I agree that he has evolved.? I will note that the NAACP is about as liberal of an organization as it comes, which bolsters the position that Byrd is more of a liberal than a conservative.

I agree with you 100% on this point.? My only point is that you can't take people that are modern day conservatives and say that they would have been conservatives in the past in regards to civil rights or other issues, just as you may not be able to say that liberals, in the modern sense, would have been liberals at the time of the revolution.  Let me also say, while these it is not necessarily too difficult to apply these terms to political figures in the past, many issues aren't as easily characterized as race is.

I agree.? At that time the Republicans, along with the Northern Democrats, were the progressives.

Although you always have to look at these things closer.? I would guess that the real question is whether Goldwater and many conservatives support state rights because it is what they actually believed in, or did they support it because it suited their agenda.? For example, I am relatively progressive when it comes to gay marriage.? However, I believe it is a states rights issue and not a national issue.? At that time I think conservatives are better grouped as state's rights advocates than anti-civil rights.? Although many southern democrats jumped on this position because it suited their agenda.?

I actually agree with you on this point.? I don't think many of the people that were conservatives were racist; I think many of them were simply state rights advocates, which legally is a pretty sound position.? Being a states rights advocate and a liberal, as you defined it, are not mutually exclusive.? It is unfortunate that that position allowed for slower change.? However, just as the President now must follow the Fourth Amendment despite the difficulty that comes with it, the politicians at that time had to follow the law and the Constitution.?

As you define liberal above, I would agree with you 100%.? You, however, are smart enough to understand the definition of liberal as you defined it and its application today; where others might miss that point.? Based on your definition, you could characterize W as a liberal with his policy in the middle east of actively pursuing change.?

 Again, i think it comes down to how you define a liberal.?

As you defined the terms, I would agree at least as to race issues.

I think he made the mistake that many make in that he is applying a term whose meaning has changed over time.

I'll give you some STATS: You are full of CRAP and LIE through your teeth, just like all the other right wing kool aid drinkers.

(http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9880/ronaldcrimespreethumbhf6.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

I've read several articles which disprove the PM article......I can't give you links right now....but lemme get a hold of this dude, I can keep you reading for years on Sept 11 stuff.

what a well thought out and intelligent response.  The funny thing is that picture you posted is probably of some left-wing nutjob protesting McDonalds.

What do you want me to do? Give an "intelligent" response to a poster who not only denied making a statement, but had the audacity to call me a liar for it? It took me two clicks to put his remarks right back in front of him (proving him a liar by his own words), and he can't even be man enough to offer a half hearted apology for calling me a fabricator? Then I've got you putting words in my mouth (fibbing also) right along side him. Never mind that he is a story teller, never mind all that??.lets focus on SLCPUNK posting a picture of a clown.  ::)

You underdeveloped dolts are two thirds of the three stooges, and now that I think about it, posting a picture of a clown, is a fucking insult to clowns everywhere!

why not cut and paste my entire post and show the context in which it was said???

i was NOT DOWNPLAYING INNOCENT CIVILIAN DEATHS.

that was your point. in fact your first statement was that all bush supporters refer to innocent civilian deaths as "collateral damage". but you were wrong.

can you say "strawman". you say it enough in these threads. what a hypocrite.  :rofl:

then you changed your argument to say that i compared deaths over there to deaths in the U.S. yes, i did do that on a statistical basis to compare the media's coverage of the war. NOT TO DOWNPLAY civilian deaths.

and your accusation of me downplaying innocent civilian deaths is what i was disputing.

now, i'll say it again. innocent civilian deaths are horrible. they are a major tragedy. very sad.

and i am a bush supporter. and there are plenty of bush supporters who feel the same way i do.

and i know that's tough for some lefty's to believe and accept. it destroys their stereo type of bush supporters. and makes it more difficult to hate us.   

but it's true.

glad i cleared that up.  :hihi:

now back on topic....i'm really interested in seeing those links that disprove the PM article.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/indexg.html

The third article was compiled out of the first two, so it will be a tad repetitive if you read the first two first.

Somehow you are always involved when these threads deteriorate into namecalling.

It looks as though the moderators are giving a little lattitude on these political threads, and some of these discussions are relatively interesting.? Please don't destroy these threads and ruin them for all of us - not just SLC, but everyone.? SLC, if you don't like their responses quit discussing stuff with them instead of calling them names.? That is what I do to many posts and posters on this board that aren't worth my time.

Of course you were.......liar.

i know you are but what am i.

You are a hypocrite if there ever was one.

Look at the title of the thread for Chrisake.

The entire thing started out as an insult ("Kool Aid drinkers".) Don't get all upset if I catch one of your buddies lying and another name caller building strawmen and call them clowns. Nobody here likes them or wants to hear their crap anymore. This thing started off ugly by the poster who lied from the start, so tough shit. You don't like it both ways do you? I actually took this thread as a joke and started off lightly with it, trying to lighten it up. But you pushed for ugly, and you got ugly.

If the CLOWN SHOES fit..........



(http://img422.imageshack.us/img422/8387/liarliarsmallov9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)


Faux news network.........


(http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8845/clownnews2801x1bs2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

wow. slcpunk is a tough guy.? :rofl:

and are you serious....no one likes us anymore??? :'(
 

I'm heartbroken sandman.? A guy who spits on the graves of innocents and possesses about as much reason and rational thought as my dog dislikes me.? How will I survive.? Hey SLC, go fuck yourself.? On thi issue, you have provided nothing of any substance.? The best you have ever provided in any topic releated to this one is links and ideas to the thoughts of others. [Refer here to my ideas that were provided and written by someone else].? Then because you know you have your head up your ass, you post pictures and insult people to have the thread closed to take the attention away from your moronic claims.? When the next hurrican hits Florida, be a real man and don't rely on the Bush's to save your sorry ass.? Call up Chomsky and all your kool-aid drinker pals.

You've forgotten the face of your father  :no:, and you probably should have negative karma slapped on yourself.

... Seriously though. I don't want to lock this thread, I assumed that somebody else would a while back but it's stayed open for some reason, and I'm glad that it has.

There are only four of you debating!, and while that sets up a tantilizing tag team match you've all resorted to back and forth, and if you are to be believed none of you have answered anything. Question and Answer back and forth would be a lot more productive, and much healthier in the way of sustaining this thread, than this shambles.

Try not to get this thread locked, though I really am suprised that it is still open . . .

Yah, I have never you use the term "Kool-Aid Drinker."? You are always in the right.

This thread is the perfect example of how you are as culpable as any of the conservatives in leading the political threads to being locked.? Go ahead, call me a hypocrite and deny that you are engaging in the same tactics of those that you criticize.? Furthermore, these guys are not my buddies.? However, I don't dislike these guys nor anyone that posts here just because their views may be contrary to my own.? I didn't make one comment in their defense in this thread.? You are the one that turned to name calling specific individuals, not them.? I they are so bad, why post in this thread?? Why stoop to their level??


I continue to hold my belief that you are probably the person that causes these threads to spiral down more than anyone.

Sometimes I wonder why I don't take the same advice that I gave you in my last post.[

I had addressed all these point in a prior thread, which they ignored.

I'm not sure what the point is of bringing it up again, and I also asked that question (no answer of course.)


I also see the thread started off (in the title no less) with name calling. How can anybody really think they are starting an intelligent and amicable thread like that?


Imagine that, the guy who started this thread reduced down to  "fuck you". I never would have guessed it in a million years............

The level given back is all they are worth..........

How dare someone respond to your insults. ?I am sure this thread will either get locked now or he will get criticized. ?As soon as the next thread comes, you will turn it into the same.

Hey dude, read the thread.

I have been very patient, but after being called a liar, all bets are off. Act like a fawkin clown and I will tell you that you are a fawkin clown..........

I think you are kidding yourself if you think you are on a different level.

I think you are kidding yourself if you think you are on a different level.

I'm not a liar, they are............

Well according to Jarmo he is a Legend, while Gunslinger is only a VIP

I stand corrected. :hihi:

This isn't very Christian of you, now is it?




If it was anything like what he did for New Orleans.............or the way he is rebuilding Iraq..........I'll pass.

You are one fawkin funny clown!!!


(http://img327.imageshack.us/img327/7971/clownpotty7zzop0.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

No wonder political threads get locked. Its better that way anyways, no one can control themselfs, and too often the excuse is "He did it first" or "He crossed the line so now I can do whatever I want."

Since everyone is talking about clowns I figure I might as well say those are lame ass clown excuses.

If you can't control yourself in all circumstances then don't post, please. Theres no excuses. This is for both "sides"

Anyways, not all "right-wingers" want death in Iraq and not all "leftys" are communist bastards. It's important to take things from both sides and be balanced. By splitting yourself from one side you lose important perspective and make yourself ignorant to important facts.

Well let the fighting continue and the eventual locking commence.

     -jack

Hey, dont be bringing logic into a political discussion. It has no place here.

Did I ever claim to be a christian here? ?All I wanted was for some of the people who are die hard 9/11 conspiracy theorist to actually read something on the issue rather than repeat standard rhetoric based on their hatred of Bush. ?I called you Kool-Aid drinkers as a small poke in the ribs. ?That's nothing compared to being call heartless, racist, terrorist or liars. ?If you don't want to discuss the issue at hand fine, but why do you destory every thread with inane pictures that provide nothing. ?I feel like I'm in a pokemon contest but instead of animals they use pictures. ?I apologize for the personal attack, all I want is for people to read the issue at hand. ?I read Duffman's articles, how many of you read the ones I posted?

Heh. Seriously huh?  :P

Oh well

Remember the good old days when we had a strong UN, supported by the United States, instead of nowadays, where Bush and his bosses over at Fox News have declared the UN the enemy? Remember how we could put armies together to invade Korea? Or garrison Kosovo, or invade Bosnia? You know, the ones that all happened under Democrat presidents, who were not strapped by Christian Fundamentalist ideaolgy about dat bad ole debil coming from the UN? Or even Bush's daddy, who hated the fundies, even he could put together an Army down at the UN to invade Kuwait. man, it sure would be easier if we were not international pariahs, wouldn't it?

Bud Fox thinks you are askew.

Bud Fox is looking for the silver lining of that sad disaster that is Katrina, after seeing the errors that they made, our Government, and this proud Administration stepped up, rolled up their sleeves and started making things right. Now, a year later we can see that they have learned from their mistakes and have shown the people of Louisiana just how fast they could rebuild their troubled city. Bud Fox thinks New Orleans is a shining example of how well a responsive, dedicated and caring government can work and a true example of the outstanding principles of Compassionate Conservatism at its finest. Right Wing Christians, President Bush, Secretary Chertoff and all of our government leaders surely have this fitting monument of which to be most proud.

(http://i1.tinypic.com/2641cn5.jpg)

So you're saying George W. arranged the whole Katrina disaster in order to make the entire I-10 corridor resemble Central/Northern Florida?

hahaha!

I bet it was Jeb's idea really...........

Edit: Ever been to pasco county?

Keep watching the deteriorating situation with Iran.  After the U.N. has played all of its political and economic cards, just watch WHO ends up with the job of actually confronting Iran with force.....

The World Health Organization?

I think that was his point....we have no flexability with our armed forces anymore.  They are all caught up in Iraq.  So much so that the military is relaxing its standars by which it allows new troops.  We might be getting the numbers, but the quality of troop is certainly going to decline under these new standards.

Like you did in Iraq?

Bud Fox watched you pinheads bringing democracy to Iraq and we now find out that 90% of them voted for religious parties, most of them Iranian-backed Hezbollah clones.

hahaha!

Best post today........maybe this week!

We never invaded Bosnia.  Furthermore, that was not the UN anyway.

I like this one...


...it makes me giggle.

Seriously, it made me laugh. A perfect placement of the word, Pokemon. And that's it.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're right, actually.?

The "international community" will go back and forth with Iran over the next 5 or 10 years, with a lot of talk? that goes nowhere and resolutions that mean nothing.? Up to that point, it sounds a lot like how the Iraq situation went.

But this time, unlike in Iraq, Iran will have WMD's.? And ya know what?? Just like before, the United States and a few other countries will be the only ones willing to do anything about it.

Keep joking SLC.  That (or a belligerent remark) is usually the first thing you do when you're confronted with inconvenient facts that don't fit in with your particular agenda.

My point was that even if our armed forces are strained to the max, America (along with England, Israel, and a few others) will still be willing to confront a nuclear Iran long before anyone else will. 

Hide and watch.

Nobody can't force them which way to vote.  Only give them the option.

All the above says to me is that, contrary to the political correct view of "it's only the extremists," the problem is with the general population as well. 

The Palestinians want to elect Hamas?  The Lebanese allow Hezbollah to take over their country?  Fine, they'll reap the rewards for their choices....

Bud Fox thinks the war against Bin Laden should have consisted of a nuclear strike against Tora Bora and anywhere else in Afghanistan Al Queda operated. The US should have also mobilized for war, instituting a draft and oil rationing in anticipation of loss of Mid East oil supplies. The attack on Afghanistan should have been followed with a demand that Iran cease trying to acquire WMDs and that Pakistan disarm until it could develop a stable governmental system. We should also have invaded Somalia and Yemen, and given Hussien free reign and aid to continue his suppression of the Jihadists in Iraq.

But your fucking murderering greedy cunt president wanted to steal Iraq's oil instead, and hijacked the whole thing for his own greedy bullshit. The real cut and runners in the war on terrorism has always been you Republicans, a bunch of pussy bullies who beat their chests picking on some third rate basket case like Iraq, while totally pussing out at Tora Bora and tripping over their panties at the Pakistan border.

Bud Fox also thinks the West should do nothing, as the Israelis will nuke them. After that happens, this entire planet is going to go absolutely apeshit.

-Jack- thinks that Bud Fox should stop referring to himself in the 3rd person.

-Jack- also thinks that Bud Fox may take this seriously so -Jack- is going to say "Hey man im jk so don't worry about it"  :hihi: :peace:

Bud Fox knows you are kidding.

Bud Fox is a non-Koolaid drinking realist, who detests the yellow-ribbon waving shitheads who have hijacked this country.

MCT thinks Fud Box uses too much hackneyed jargon. But eye all sow think it's fun knee. The end.

SLCPUNK finds your humor at an all time high this evening.............

Kujo thinks SLCPunk wouldn't recognise humor if it was served up to him on a platter of calamari along with a map of the hidden location of all the WMD's

MCT appreciates the accolade. He also wishes that his penis would magically increase in girth overnight. There is a hole in MCT's life that needs to be filled. And that's the skinny.


MCT thinks kujo is only funny 26% 30% of the time.

MCT also took the liberty of adding a period to kujo's post.

MCT did the math and the proofreading.

MCT says, "you're welcome."

Kujo appreciates the proofread.

Kujo thinks you are so nice, he hopes you get your hole filled this evening :hihi:

Duffman changed his name to Mal Brossard.

Duffman thinks the bickering from both sides (two names in particular, will not mention them) needs to stop now.

Duffman can't see through the bullshit!

Duffman is being overcome by the bullshit!

Duffman is being suffocated by the bullshit!!!

DUFFMAN!!  CAN'T BREATHE!!!!!  OHHH NOOOOOO!!!!!!!

MCT finds the thought of Duffman suffering respiratory failure to be a funny one.

Obligatory second line.

OK dude.....take a deep breath....let it out.....

Well, at least you have some opinions on what we should have done and not just what we shouldn't have done.? There's too many people around here who are very quick to blame, yet don't really have any answers themselves.

First off, I'm not a Republican (nor a Democrat for that matter.)  However, whatever shortcomings the Republicans have on the "war on terror" are quite small compared to the absolutely non-existent will to even confront the problem among the Democrats.  And as for W, whatever you think of the man, having this seething hatred for George W. Bush will only hurt your objectivity.?

Second, for all the talk about it all being for oil, I have yet to see any evidence of it.  It just hasn't proved to be the case.? All of us in the U.S. would probably be paying a lot less for gas if it were.

You're right about Tora Bora.? Huge opportunity lost there.? You're also right about the Pakistan border.? If Pakistan is our "ally," I've never understood why we don't have more freedom crossing their border.

I do agree with the broader picture of more military action in the surrounding regions.? But that's the very reason I agree with the Iraq invasion (WMD's or no WMD's).? Iraq and Afghanistan are strategically good points to launch attacks against Iran, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and anywhere else we need to.

I don't know about Mr Fox, but I will say that the "war for oil" is for FUTURE oil reserves, and stand by it. The Bush apologists always lie and pretend the left's claim is "oil now" which is false. Just like you, they always back it up with the"Gas would be cheaper now" line.

Iraq is one of the largest untapped oil reserves in the world. A post sanction Iraq wasn't going to do us much good in the long haul in regards to oil. That is why Cheney's energy task force was looking at Iraq well before 9-11. (It was a CONSERVATIVE watch dog group that used the freedom of information act to get Cheney and his pals to cough this info up I might add.) With the USA using 25 percent of the world's crude, and demand increasing, while production is decreasing........it's gotta come from somewhere. Add into the mix emerging markets like China and India whose oil demand is skyrocketing and it doesn't take much to figure it all out.

-Jack- is happy he started the "everyone talk in 3rd person" train.

-Jack- thinks that everyone should talk like this. Forever.

SLCPUNK thinks Kujo couldn't catch his own dick in his...........ah nevermind!

(I'd bet Bud Fox could say it better anyway............)

 :hihi:

"Bud Fox thinks you are a sniveling moppet that is incapable of catching his own dick in his zipper; much less the sarcasm that is thrown around here.

You ignorant half wit from Utah: Bud fox will become merciless in smiting you relentlessly until further notice.

You imbecile! "

Still my favorite post of all time on any board :rofl:

I have to give him props for that one.........I don't think I could match it.

Bud Fox thanks you.

Bud Fox remains delighted that you are still fooled by SLCPUNK?s bruiser character sketch that she provides here daily.

Yeah, she's a pushy dike

Bud Fox apologizes for his Freudian slip, but not really.

Itd be nice to see political threads permitted in this section, so everyone should drop the name-calling.

Yea, it'd be nice to actually talk about issues like this with 20 post with people goofing off ruining the thread.

Yeah it would be nice to be able to talk to people who all think the same way without other people with the wrong opinions butting in all the time. This is the internet damn it, lets be serious here. Al Gore didn't spend all that time inventing this so we could make juvenile comments and post silly pictures :rant:

Yea, and all that joking around...............

Bud Fox hasn?t seen any evidence of WMD either, but you wanted Bud Fox to believe that.

The unglued President of Iran has made it clear he wishes Israel to be exterminated. They have also done it before, although not with nukes, when they wiped out Iraq's nuclear program in the 80's. This time they will have to use nukes due to Iran hardening their targets. I think it is only a matter of time. I don't see how anyone can worry about Iran retaliating later, they will be back in the stone age for some time, Israel would hit their economic base with conventional weapons at the same time. Our problem will be the loss of Iran's oil on the world market.

As far as the US goes, my position has always been that we invaded the wrong country. We should have given Iran and Pakistan both nuclear tipped ultimatums. Instead Bush went into Iraq and turned it upside down. Because of that we have lost most of Iraq to Iran, which is impossible to change at this point. Bud Fox wonders how the right can still say ?things are going well?, when it is so obviously a lie.

America?s direct action has not hampered the terrorists it has consolidated them, which is far worse than when they were busy killing each other for the use of different brands of shoe polish. In reality Bush's Hitler-style foreign policy is what is causing these nations to seek nuclear arms. Now there is even talk that Venezuela is considering building a nuke. Why not? It's the only way to keep that neo con murderous fucker from doing his Nazi style invasions.

The wild card has always been Pakistan. Pakistan could easily become an Islamic Republic controlled by Al Queda, it is the one huge Bush fuck up that can possibly destroy us. We should have demanded Pakistan surrender all its nuclear weapons on 9-12-01. Our actions in Pakistan may be our greatest regret. Letting Osama have five years to build political networks in Pakistan has been na?ve at best. Nukes held in ship holds floated into Los Angles, San Francisco, New York, and Houston harbors would require about four boats and four old fashioned Hiroshima style nukes, low tech enough to work, and Pakistan could provide it all to Al Queda. It would bankrupt the US economy and put us into Third World status, and kill 80 million people, one of whom would be Bud Fox.

Never happen. Jack Bauer stopped that plot two seasons ago.

Well, since political discussion is "off limits" (unless the rules changed?), SLC might not want to discuss the issue HERE because, well, it's against the rules. 

Just guessing....

SLCPUNK has said this a few times now.........

actually, your guess would be wrong (despite what 'punk may say).

he has taken part in political discussions in this thread and others in recent days.

he also insults posters on a fairly regular basis, which is also against the rules. (at least it used to be  :()


not that i'm complaining about any of this...reading the crap on politics in these threads passes time at work and gives me a good laugh.