| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: Illegal Immigrants: The Case For Deportation |
 |
|
On May 4, 4:31 pm, modicacarm...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
Consuetudo pro lege servatur. Or, "custom is kept above the law". This
sentence is centuries old. We can't ignore it. Let's examine what it
means for people who have crossed the Mexican border illegally.
|
Your consueto crap might be acceptable in third-world mexistan.. but
is not acceptable in an advanced lawful nation where existing Law
states that illegal immigrants have to be deported. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Patriot Games
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: Catholic Democrats Risk Excommunication - Pope |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:g9tg43933ic42qg943fbt54900cbj0u66h@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:p0fe43h502u6jthcis8hu0rjfu3q7ak9ln@4ax.com...
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:4qhc43lkmebo823r795bnfp42d9gia4glp@4ax.com...
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote:
If a Catholic runs for office on non-Catholic positions he/she
isn't
really
a Catholic.
A Catholic, or anyone else, should run on the positions that he
believes that his constituency wants him to promote.
That's the stupidest thing I've heard in days.
A candidate should have THEIR OWN positions, and should test them
with
the
constituency. If there exists a likeminded constituency then that
candidate
gets elected and NOBODY is surprised. A candidate who merely adopts
whatever positions a constituency presently has is a WHORE.
No. He is a public servant. He knows who is his boss, and it isn't
the Pope.
He is an ELECTED public servant.
Which means that he works for the electors, not the Pope.
Sure. But you seem to be saying that 'politician' should be much more
like
a career.
For some it is, for others it is even less than a career.
You realize that people die, people move in and out of a district.
So?
So the political views of a constituency change.
Of course. And the wise politician had better change his voting with
his constituencies views, or risk being turned out of office.
|
Again, you're recommending that a politician be a whore.
| Quote: |
Whichs means if you want you politician to follow the people he
CAN'T POSSIBLY follow his/her OWN feelings and beliefs.
He shouldn't, except where the people have expressed no strong
political preference. He CAN attempt to lead the people into
accepting his personal beliefs as a basis of policy, but that rarely
works on controversial topics.
Now you're contradicting yourself, which is okay since you're now more
reasonable.
A politician should assess him/herself. Establish positions. Present
them
to the people. If they reject you then shut up and go home.
That is one style of leadership. A poor one, but one that works for
some. Another style is to determine what positions your constituents
want by listening to them, taking a stance that reflects what they
want, but colored by your own leadership goals. Of course all of
this will be further modified on the legislative floor, when
compromise is required with other legislators who have their own
constituencies to represent. Then one may be required to trade based
on priorities.
|
I'd rather know exactly where my candidate stands, expect him/her to do
exactly that, NO compromise.
| Quote: |
And this is why the Vatican is weak.
And yet it is stronger than most other central authorities of church
organizations.
|
And losing to Muslims worldwide.
| Quote: |
And this is why they are politically weak.
That is a good thing. Churches belong in the spiritual realm, and not
in the political realm.
|
You might be correct but it hasn't been that way for decades.
| Quote: |
And its why they are all weak. Except for Muslims.
Then weakness is good.
|
Weakness is never good.
| Quote: |
You should ask the Muslims about that.... ;)
It isn't winning.
|
They are the largest and fastest growing religion on the planet. Is there
another definition of winning?
| Quote: |
For example, I suspect that the next generation
will see a liberalization of the House of Saud, or it will lose its
power. Authoritarianism works only until the people are educated.
Once they are educated, they start to think for themselves.
|
None of which has happenned yet.
| Quote: |
All issues, not just one. All they are is a dues-collecting fan club if
they don't establish and enforce rules.
If the people find enough benefit in these "fan clubs" to keep "paying
dues", who are you to complain?
|
Its a personal complaint, they don't appeal to me.
| Quote: |
I'm not female so I don't have a personal crusade regarding abortion, just
a
personal opinion. Of the many things I might have to answer for in the
next
life abortion isn't going to be one of them.
But you think that male politicians will have to answer for it?
|
Probably so but you'd have to ask God to be sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John McKay
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: Liberal Democrat John Edwards, Quintessential Leftist Hy |
|
|
Thunderbird wrote:
| Quote: |
On May 14, 5:31 am, Clint Hunter <cicer...@rogers.com> wrote:
Multi-millionaire Democrat presidential candidate Edwards has
complained about the
existence of "two Americas" one for the rich, and the other for the
poor and
their champions, like him. Never mind his $400 haircuts, or his multi-
million dollar
net worth made as an ambulance- chasing, tort lawyer.
But now Edwards has been caught up in another scandal, this one in
opportunistic sub-prime mortgage lending exploiting the poor.
Ironically the story first appeared in the "liberal" Bush-basing
Washington Post.
Edwards may not be a faggot, as Ann Coulter joked. But he certainly is
a phony.
Read more about him below:
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,271677,00.html
Thunderbird:
I've got news for you Clint.
Stop posting in a Canadian Politics group.
We don't give a rat's ass about your politics!
Christ, do you ever stop electioneering down there?
Thunderbird: |
I've got news for you.
"Clint" is Ross John Lambourn.
He is Canadian -- an elderly retired school teacher who lives in
southern Ontario.
He justs wants people to believe his is a conservative intellectual. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Patriot Games
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: Can Muslims be trusted? |
|
|
"Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:134h0c07c2l48d4@corp.supernews.com...
No, not at all.
But its nice to hear that you do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
M_P
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: Fetal life (was: Could your candidate do this?) |
|
|
On May 12, 9:59 am, Gene <W...@Me.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote innews:1178904361.690292.24760@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
On May 10, 5:43 pm, Gene <W...@Me.com> wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote
innews:1178820222.072923.267220@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On May 9, 3:19 pm, Gene <W...@Me.com> wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote
innews:1178645593.518360.200670@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
Gene wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote in
news:1178310736.256259.249660@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
On May 3, 4:17 pm, Gene <W...@Me.com> wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote
innews:1178229313.421927.177070@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On May 3, 1:08 pm, Gene <W...@Me.com> wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote
innews:1178213788.805524.141880@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.co
m:
On May 2, 4:45 pm, Gene <W...@Me.com> wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote
innews:1178126215.735631.269440@n59g2000hsh.googlegroup
s.c om:
On May 1, 12:46 pm, Gene <W...@Me.com> wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote
innews:1178044297.274284.326430@q75g2000hsh.googlegr
oup s.c om:
On Apr 24, 12:39 pm, Gene <W...@Me.com> wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote
innews:1177435818.760137.316880@o40g2000prh.googl
egr oup s.c om:
On Apr 23, 5:54 pm, Gene <W...@Me.com> wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote
innews:1177354326.928690.291920@e65g2000hsc.go
ogl egr oup s.c om:
The laws direct that the first trimester is not a
person.
They do this based on medical science.
Wrong as usual. The first trimester mattered because
of maternal risk not fetal personhood:
"Appellants and various amici refer to medical data
indicating that abortion in early pregnancy, that
is, prior to the end of the first trimester,
although not without its risk, is now relatively
safe. Mortality rates for women undergoing early
abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to
be as low as or lower than the rates for normal
childbirth. Consequently, any interest of the State
in protecting the woman from an
inherently hazardous procedure, except when it would
be equally dangerous for her to forgo it, has
largely disappeared." - Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113
(1973) (http://
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vo
l=4 10& inv ol= 113 )
Or do you think they pulled the number from thin
air.
I'm not going to look up [...]
You should ... it might keep you from sticking your
foot in your mouth like you just did.
Roe V Wade
the opinion stated that the word "person," as
described in the 14th Amendment's due process clause
guaranteeing life and liberty, "does not include the
unborn."
But only as used in the 14th Amendment. On the broader
meaning of personhood they were pointedly silent: "We
need not resolve the difficult question of when life
begins."
What a laugh - it's 'only' in the US constitution.
Roe v Wade itself acknowledges the narrowness of the
point: 'the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth
Amendment, does not include the unborn.' The quotation
marks around "person" are theirs. Also note this from the
decision: 'The Constitution does not define "person" in so
many words.'
They were only asked to define it for the purposes of
aborting a fetus.
And even in that narrow context they said, 'The Constitution
does not define "person" in so many words.' Glad you see my
point.
The constitution is a document written over 200 years ago. The
Supreme Court was envisioned and created inorder to intrepret
current questions within the confines of the constitution. That
is what they did and they came to the opinion that a fetus is
not allowed the rights of life or liberty. I'd say if you were
denied those rights, as some at one time were, you'd not see
the decision as narrow
I didn't say the decision was narrow; I said this statement was:
'the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does
not include the unborn.'
That was part of the decision and all of the decision has to be in
the framework of the constitution. They decided that for the
purposes of life and liberty a fetus doesn't qualify.
No, they decide that 'the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth
Amendment, does not include the unborn.' On the broader meaning of
personhood they decided this: "We need not resolve the difficult
question of when life begins."
And what does the 14th amendment say?
.... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Since a fetus is not a person it has no right to life or liberty.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not require that fetuses be treated as
having a right to life or liberty ... but the Court didn't say that
the Fourteenth Amendment require that fetuses NOT be treated as having
a right to life or liberty. On the contrary, they said, "We need not
resolve the difficult question of when life begins."
They basically decided that the fetus has no rights at conception [...]
|
No, they basically decided that they didn't know whether the fetus has
rights but they do know that the mother does:
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. [...]
we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may
override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake."
| Quote: |
And life is not a person.
My blood is alive even when I donate it.
If that were what they meant by 'life' they wouldn't have
said the question is 'difficult.'
Right?
That it was difficult goes without saying
It's difficult to say blood is alive even when it is donated?
Was it difficult for you to say it?
Blood is as capable of reason and thought as a first trimester
fetus is. [...]
But only the latter has the potential for reason and thought.
Cloning may potentially allow a single cell to potentially become a
person.
In a a vastly different sense of "potential" than applies to zygotes,
cloning being much more complex and externally-driven than gestation.
Different meanings of 'potential' based on the faith of the reader.
|
No, based on the factors I just stated. Your intellectual cowardice is
glaringly obvious.
| Quote: |
- your opinion of what they
meant is simply an opinion not worth spending any time on since
it doesn't bear on the outcome of the decision.
The outcome was that abortion may be restricted only to protect
women's health and viable fetuses. Along the way they stated
that the unborn are not included in the term "person" *as used
in the Fourteenth Amendment*, but that they would not "resolve
the difficult question of when life begins.
Life is not a person life is
all living matter regardless of what it becomes. [...]
The context of the Court's statement shows that they meant "life" as
individual life:
"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at
conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore,
the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and
after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when
life begins."
Over and over again
Life at conception is not an individual in anyone's opinion except the
religious.
|
Since you've changed the subject from what the Court meant by "life" I
assume you have not even the pretense of an argument that they didn't
mean "life" as individual life.
As for this other claim you make above: You have yet to post a
substantive rebuttal of my nonreligious argument for personhood at
conception ... you post only red herrings, distortions, and the like.
| Quote: |
Again that is because it is not in their mandate to solve
questions of that matter. [...]
So you've dropped your claim that their personhood decision was
"based on medical science," which is clearly not in their mandate?
About time.
The law says
killing a doctor that performs legal abortions is
murder.
More red herrings from you; I support that law and
the punishment of those who violate it.
Funny how the preachers never say that.
Funny how I'm not a preacher. Funny how you keep
dragging in these red herrings.
What a laugh - you are most certainly basing your beliefs
on nonsecular reasoning
Still lying about me, I see.
So you are an agnostic? or a non believer? or are you a
protestant?
I'm guessing you will see the ends more important than the
means and lie.
So you've judged my answer a lie before I've even given it.
Just show the depths to which pro-abortion-'choice'rs will
readily sink.
Well, your lack of an answer points out my correnctness. Just
Answer the question.
Why, when you've declared your readiness to claim (with no
evidence) that my answer is a lie?
What a laugh - 'the depths to which...' what a hoot - you
weirdo kill doctors, throw acid at nurses, blow up buildings.
[...]
More reeking red herrings ... I've done none of those things.
You are guilty by association
LOL! Either you are ignorant of the fact that "guilt by
association" is a logical fallacy ... or you know it and embrace
logical fallacies. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html)
There are a lot of folks in jail that wished that being an accessory
to a crime was a fallacy.
An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being, or
will be committed. A person with such knowledge may become an
accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way, or
simply by failing to report the crime to proper authority. The
assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or
financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.
You religious nitwits are accessories by your silence and your
emotional assistance.
Beat that straw man somewhere else. I have never had knowledge that a
particular crime is being, or will be, or has been committed, nor have
I provided assistance, emotional or otherwise, to anyone committing a
crime.
Sure you do - you do it by your silence.
|
Provide a single example of a person being charged as an accessory
simply for failing to condemn a crime.
| Quote: |
Last I checked, surveys showed that women were, if
anything, more pro- life than men.
Cite the survey - There is no survey that says that.
Too bad, you're wrong yet again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_State
s#B y_gender.2C_party.2C_and_region
I can live with that. [...]
It's good you can live with being wrong, since you so
often are.
I have no problem admitting when I am mistaken unlike Bush
and his minion.
Red herring ... Bush is not the subject under discussion.
He is the center piece of this decussion. Without Bush this
would not be
a discussion. He is the Turkey on the antiChoice table.
His appointing Roberts and Alito doesn't make his inability to
admit a mistake relevant to this thread.
Sure it does. The conservative mind has been studied and found to
be fearful of ambiguity. Bush when posited with a problem freezes
or resorts to past answers even though they proved wrong. You are
repeating the same arguement over and over and it doesn't hold
water the first time [...]
You keep claiming over and over that my argument doesn't hold
water, but you keep not posting a valid rebuttal ... just red
herrings, distortions, and the like.
What a laugh. 99% of this entire arguement has no right or
wrong just legal and illegal and opinion [...]
We the people decide what's legal based on our ideas of right
and wrong ... and when I offer arguments on what's right and
you offer only falsehoods and bluster, I'm likelier to sway
those ideas than you are.
'We the people' have decided that abortion is legal [...]
No, only the nine of us who sit on the Supreme Court decided
that.
And the 70 odd percent that want it to remain a woman's choice
regardless of their own beliefs.
Evidence?
No evidence? Why am I not surprised?
You are the one who posted the polls - go find it. If I remember it was
37% for abortion and 37% for only some restrictions.
That would be 74% in mathatical terms.
|
If they support restrictions, they don't want it to remain solely a
woman's choice.
| Quote: |
I respect your opinion and your right to worship
anyway you want but in America you must accord
me the same rights. [...]
Red herring; my pro-life argument is a
nonreligious one.
What a laugh - Tell me what is your non-religious
prolife arguement.
I'm glad you asked:
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights
such as the right to life---the only reasonable
alternative to blatant species-ism is to START WITH
the position that reasoning free-willed
individuality (such as is possessed by adult humans)
is unique in its ethical significance, and thus that
all who possess reasoning free-willed individuality
are persons. But we can't stop there, because this
group does not include infants, who have almost
without exception in Western history been regarded
as persons. The extension of "all
who possess reasoning free-willed individuality" to
include infants seems clear: they have the potential
to develop reasoning free-willed individuality. So
all who possess, or have the potential to get,
reasoning free-willed individuality are persons.
This definition of "person" clearly includes all
unborn humans, from conception till birth.
What a laugh - the same crap the church has been
teaching as their answer to abortion for a years.
Where is your evidence for the claim that any church
teaches this?
The church - not any church. That would be the catholic
church. Go read their talking points.
YOU made the claim so the burden is on YOU to quote or
link to their "talking points." I'm not doing your
homework for you.
The only difference is that the Church says the soul is
there at conception which is hand and hand with your
'potential person' crap.
100% wrong ... the Church's statement is about actuality (of
the alleged possession of a soul) whereas mine is about
potentiality. It's pathetic how eager you are to change my
argument into some completely different argument because you
can't rebut mine.
Your's is neither fact nor theory backed by science instead it
is your opinion.
I don't need to disprove what hasn't been proved. I only need
to disagree.
I made a reasoned argument, so the burden is on you to show why
I haven't proved my conclusion. And while you are free to settle
for disagreeing, you are certainly not free to pretend that my
argument is actually some completely different argument ... for
you to do so is just plain dishonest.
'Potential people'
Straw man. I have not used that term or concept.
is not 'reasoned' [...]
The potential of unborn humans is well established in reason by the
simple observation that every reasoning free-willed individual was
once unborn.
And does any statement made by a church thereby become
"religious"? If a pastor says that the sun rises in the
east, does that become a "religious" position?
Keep hiding behind that beanpole.
Your clumsy evasion is duly noted.
(I could stop right there, except that "potential"
needs to be more sharply specified. One could argue
that a human gamete---sperm or egg---has the
potential to develop reasoning free-willed
individuality by first fusing with a complementary
gamete. This is true in a certain sense of
"potential"---but that is a vastly
different sense than applies to zygotes. A zygote
has the DNA of one particular human individual; a
gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of
possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse
with any one of the incomprehensibly large number of
possible complementary gametes---and thus has a
vastly different potential to achieve any one of
those possibilities.)
Potentially, given enough time, enough typewriters and
enough monkeys the y will eventually type out the
complete works of William Shakespeare.
If zygotes becoming newborns was as rare as that,
there'd be no human race. Try saying something
relevant.
What a laugh - you first. Bush has potential WMD's, you
have potential persons and I have a potential million
dollar lottery ticket. I'll sell that potential fortune
to you for a hunderd bucks now.
If zygotes becoming newborns was as rare as that, there'd
be no human race. You're STILL not saying anything
relevant.
It doesn't matter that an acorn will be an oak 100% of the
time. It's an Acorn until it becomes an Oak.
I never said nor implied otherwise. When I note that a
newborn has the potential for reasoning free-willed
individuality, I am obviously NOT claiming that she has
reasoning free-willed individuality.
What a laugh - of course you can't and that is why your
'potential person' is laughable.
My argument has nothing to do with "potential persons." Go
re-read it ... or ask a grownup to help you.
Instead you are arguing the Terry Shivo case all over again
only this time your 'client' has never been a person and never
had a thought.
Unlike Terri Schiavo, tens of billions of entities just like my
'client' have gone on to become reasoning free-willed
individuals.
And tens of millions have died and tens of millions have killed
tens of millions.
How is that in any way relevant to my argument?
"Che Sara, Sara" is not a philosophy it is a faith.
"Que sera, sera" (whatever will be, will be) is a tautology and
thus guaranteed to be true. Your babbling is becoming more pathetic
than comical.
Abortion is not dangerous to another person because the
law says it's not a person or a potential person.
It's ethically a person, as I have shown.
No you have supposed. You have opined. You have not come
close to fact or even theory.
I have presented a logical argument, in rebuttal of which
you've presented only bluster.
No you assume and based on that assumption you argue. [...]
Now you're getting within spitting distance of an actual
rebuttal. What is it I've supposedly assumed?
The word potential alone is an assumption.
No, it's a word. Are you saying that there is no such thing as
potential? Or that unborn humans have no potential? Are you saying
anything at all or just continuing to babble?
You could just as well argued for 'assumed persons'.
That answers my question. Babble on, loon ... I'll check in from
time to time and throw a peanut at you.
Oops, the court just said no.
Don't make me laugh. You are just another religious
busibody
Liar.
Perfect fanatical response.
Weak defense of your lie.
You offer no proof at all of your views on religion
What would you accept as "proof"? You've already said you're
prepared to label my posted answer as a lie.
Preponderance of medical science says it's a person at conception.
[...]
Personhood is not in the mandate of medical science ... it's
intrinsically a matter for ethical philosophy.
trying to
make a secular argument for banning abortion and it
mirrors every web site that tries to do the same
thing.
BS. Post a URL.
No URL, ergo another BS claim from you.
You really do think you've come up with an original thought
- wow - that is really seriously funny. You're the author -
finding out if it is indeed original would be the authors
responsibility.
LOL! So before your every post you Google your words to make
sure your ideas (to use the term loosely) are original?
As I said, YOU made the claim so the burden is on YOU to
support it.
There is no reason for me to prove what has not been proven -
[...]
Yet another red herring from you. There *is* a reason for you to
support *your* claims ... and for you to fail to do so will
expose you as an ignorant blowhard.
What a laugh - full circle. You can't offer proof
I made no claims about my argument vis-a-vis the church's argument
... YOU did that.
yet you want me to rebut your opinion.
Pay attention for once. The claim under discussion here is your
claim that my "secular argument for banning abortion [...] mirrors
every web site that tries to do the same thing." Have any evidence
for your claim?
Potential people? That is a good one.
The whole abortion, evolution, birth control and stem cell
debates are
all about education and science V ignorance and religion.
[...]
No, that's the straw man you're cravenly flailing away at
because you can't rebut what I've actually posted. Let that
sink in.
Posting doesn't make fact, opinion doesn't make fact,
arguements based on faithbased assumptions [...]
What assumptions are those?
Already addressed above - again.
Yes, single words are "assumptions." Loon.
What is your faith?
Already addressed above.
Already dodged above.
No, YOU dodged this: "Why [should I answer your question], when
you've declared your readiness to claim (with no evidence) that my
answer is a lie?" Will you answer this time or dodge it again?
Looks like yet another dodge by Gene.
I'm Catholic by birth
|
That doesn't answer my question: Why should I answer your question,
when you've declared your readiness to claim (with no evidence) that
my answer is a lie? Will you answer this time or dodge it again?
| Quote: |
- where is my dodge?
|
Your dodge is in repeatedly failing to answer my question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: I'm still waiting! Anyone got an example of GOOD NEWS in |
|
|
On May 14, 1:10 pm, Tag Heuer <tagheuerb...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 14 May 2007 08:26:52 -0700, firelock...@hotmail.com wrote:
Tag, you've already used "I know you are but what am I". That,
and you've already spewed your canned rant about what I must
believe, what I must intend, and all the other ways I must cleave
to the cartoon caricature cabal you've created in your head and
deluded yourself into seeing as the real Bush, Cheney & Co. You
howl and scream, and I point and laugh - which is exactly as
it should be.
I see you can't bring yourself to accept the fact that you are
delusional in failing time and again to address the points that I've
raised -
|
The only "delusion" is your expectation that I'd bother to read
your canned rants, Tag. The only "failure" here is your inability
to raise yourself to a level above that of a screaming monkey.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Captain America
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: Republicans: Are our troops less important than your pri |
|
|
KODIAK wrote:
| Quote: |
"Captain America" <america.captain@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:CY-dnbwiiKFNDNXbnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@comcast.com...
KODIAK wrote:
"Captain America" <america.captain@gmail.com> wrote in message
2. I didn't invest in them
Yeah, what was I thinkin'. That $140 handout can only go so far.
3. "give it all back?" should be "get it all back?" and we should.
Should I have some understanding and compassion for the poor widdle
private contractors?
No. That would require at least a passing score in 4th grade social studies.
|
Got straight A+, and I choose to back our military over private
contractors. Thanks dipshit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
animatormike
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: Never forget: There was no evidence that Iraq had WMD |
|
|
On May 12, 12:33 pm, Patrick1...@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On May 12, 1:23?pm, "zzzpe...@yahoo.com" <zzzpe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
David Halberstam made all the relevant points about the war in Iraq:
http://surftofind.com/war
If Mr Halberstam was such a know it all, and was the only one who
understood Vietnam and Iraq, maybe he should have run for President.
Oh.. I forgot, he was just a pompous blowhard hiding behind a
typewriter. RIP
|
First you call them traitors - then a few years later they are "Know-
it-alls". How do you look at your pathetic little self in the mirror? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: How will this play over at FNN? |
|
|
On May 14, 10:58 am, omareno...@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On May 14, 7:55 am, stonej <sto...@mail.lib.msu.edu> wrote:
On May 14, 10:48 am, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
How will this play over at the Faux News Network? I can't wait to see what
the right wing nut cases over there have to say about it or how they will
implement it. It's going to be fun to watch
Murdoch: I'm proud to be green
News Corp boss orders his entire empire to convert and become a worldwide
enthusiast for the environment
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 13 May 2007
In one of the most unexpected conversions since Saul of Tarsus hit the road
to Damascus, Rupert Murdoch is turning into a green campaigner. He is making
the whole of his worldwide operations carbon neutral and setting out to
"educate and engage" his readers and viewers about global warming.
He believes his companies' "global reach" presents "an unprecedented
opportunity to raise awareness and to stimulate action around the world". A
former sceptic who confesses to having been "somewhat wary of the warming
debate", he laid on his first global webcast for all his employees on
Wednesday to tell them that he was "changing the DNA of our business". He
added that he had started with himself, buying a hybrid car.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2536869.ece
How is Bill O'Reily going to deal with it? Probably ignore the
subject for the time
being until he can get a grip on it. :)
O'Reilly is a staunch environmentalist, liar. Better luck next time :)
You're right: he is a staunch environmentalist liar.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sid9
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: Democrats will deliver bush,jr a new war funding bill th |
|
|
Dream on!
"Jack Granade" <jgranade@pioneernet.net> wrote in message
news:134h5c64bo3ha33@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: |
Another pathetic bill by a do nothing congress. The polls are all done by
liberals and for liberals and do not reflect the disgust the American
people are staring to have for the defeatist Democrat cowards.
jack g
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4648940E.F3DB98A8@hotmMOVEail.com...
Charlie Wolf wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:09:20 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Three cheers for Congress!
1. Short term funding (2 mo only)
2. Then another vote on the balance.
54% of American disagree with bush,jr's arrogant veto
Sure Sid. And when you ask the same question by saying "Are you in
favor of surrender and defeat in Iraq for our military?" an
overwhelming majority say they are not in favor of Democrat sponsored
surrender.
You can back that claim up, can'tcha Chuckie? Hmmm?
RT
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
CB
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: Islamic Facts |
|
|
"chaser48" <c.carlos.ramos@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179128289.785589.90510@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On May 11, 8:31 am, "simple_langu...@yahoo.com"
simple_langu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
source:http://allaboutmuhammad.com/page15.html
Islam has the world's record of genocide. Its victims, over more than
1,350 years, number in the hundreds of millions, many more than the
victims of the Holocaust and World Communism combined. Muslim genocide
is still ongoing in the Sudan, Ivory Cost. Mauritania, Somalia, the
Philippines, Indonesia, and, to a lesser extent in other Muslim
countries.
Slavery is still alive in the Sudan, Ivory Coast, Somalia,
Afghanistan, Mauritania, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia but to a lesser
extent in other countries even partially controlled by Islam.
Estimates vary widely, but there can be no less than 750,000 slaves,
of which around 250,000 are considered to be held in Saudi Arabia!
Of the 53 countries of the Muslim world, none (except secular Turkey)
is a democracy, and human rights, is an abstract concept. Under
Muslim law, the Shari'a, women and children have few rights and
infidels have none at all!
The Crusades, cited by Muslims as their mistreatment by Christians,
were only belated attempts to reclaim predominantly Christian and
Jewish lands previously conquered by Islam. Facts: The Dome of the
Rock Mosque was built on the ruins of the second Jewish temple and
Constantinople, the previous seat of Christianity is now called
Istanbul.
Muslim countries, mostly Saudi Arabia, have invested more than 50
billion dollars towards the destruction of our society, more than
World Communism spent in over 75 years! This has resulted in the
construction of more than 100 multi-million dollar mosques, with
Muslim clerics preaching jihad from the pulpit, and over 125
universities teaching a sanitized version of Islam, as well as
thousands of public schools, at all levels. This investment has
already produced several "home grown" terrorists. Some have been
captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban
and others have done their bit for Allah on the home front.
Holy Jihad is the responsibility of all able-bodied adult male
Muslims. But it is also the duty of all others of the society,
including older persons and even women and children, when called upon
to assist.
It is a sad but hard fact that most of the American public, including
most of our media, political leaders and the general public, are
abysmally ignorant concerning Islam. The silly phrase "War on Terror"
used by President Bush and now echoed daily in the media, is both
misleading and dangerous. It is misleading because it labels a tactic
of war, "terror" as the enemy and dangerous because it does not
identify our real enemy, Islam. All Muslims are active or potentially
active terrorists if following the fundamental doctrine of their
religion.
We have two real enemies - The first is the Federal Reserve which must
first be squashed and rendered inoperable. The chief designer of the
Federal Reserve saw that a privately owned National Bank ( which is
all the Fed is - it has nothing to do with our government truly) could
then lead to World Banks and Global control of people and money --
slavery again?? Not for me!! Second, is Islam, but the Jihad is
being funded to lead the Middle east into this same World or Global
System that they feel themselves to be so seperate from. We are all
being suckered by a few very wealthy people who get rich off of our
labor -- And that is another story - The 16th Amendment was not ever
ratified properly and is a complete sham - NO ONE OWES THE IRS ONE
PENNY! Income Tax is illegal and if we are going to have to fight and
die for something, I'd like to get the priorities straight -- Fuck the
ragheads! My sights are on the Federal Reserve and taking back the
Constitutionally assigned duty of printing and regulating money to an
American Congress - to hell with Republicans and Democrats! I am an
American and want to live and see my family live their lives right.
We have all been lied to in so huge of a way. I hate to finish this
way but I do hope we can all stop arguing long enough to take our
country back -- and I am sorry but Thomas Jefferson stated this
himself - "the roots of the tree of Freedom must recieve the blood of
patriots and tyrants from time to time - this is the natural
manure" (sic) regarding the things I speak of here. Gods grace and
good luck to all of us. We need lots of ammo before it cannot be
purchased.
Charlie
|
"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his
country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his
country"
--George S. Patton |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bob LeChevalier
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: Catholic Democrats Risk Excommunication - Pope |
|
|
Some further thoughts:
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Religions are NOT defined by their "rules". And their role is NOT to
punish those who break them.
Okay. If you say so. Personally I just don't see the point.
|
....
| Quote: |
I don't think that is in fact what the church teaches.
I'm not a Catholic. They can believe whatever they want...
But you think they are a "farce" if they aren't totalitarian about one
particular issue.
All issues, not just one. All they are is a dues-collecting fan club if
they don't establish and enforce rules.
|
I've decided that I think it is sad that you can see no other reasons
for organizations to exist other than to be "dues-collecting fan
clubs" or authoritarian rules imposers. Certainly I cannot imagine
joining an organization either to have someone to pay dues to, OR to
have someone to tell me what to do and kick me out if I don't. I
doubt if many people join organizations for either of those reasons,
religious or otherwise.
Perhaps if you considered some reasons why people might join
organizations (and why they might want to stay in them enough to defy
someone in the organization who is powerful but distant, and who is
trying to tell them what to do), you might gain some new insights.
| Quote: |
I'm not female so I don't have a personal crusade regarding abortion, just a
personal opinion.
|
It has occurred to me that most of the people who have crusades
*against* abortion are male. The Pope of course is male. Thus your
statement is not an effective denial that you are personally crusading
against abortion, especially in the face of your persistent posting on
the topic while saying that it isn't anyone's business who isn't a
Catholic (and also saying that you aren't a Catholic). Sounds like
hypocrisy to me, a common error of wannabe evangelical authoritarians.
lojbab |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Tag Heuer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: I'm still waiting! Anyone got an example of GOOD NEWS in |
|
|
On 14 May 2007 08:26:52 -0700, firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 14 May 2007 07:44:51 -0700, Tag Heuer <tagheuerblog@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 May 2007 06:05:20 -0700, firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007 21:34:59 GMT, Tag Heuer <tagheuerblog@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11 May 2007 14:06:31 -0700, firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007 16:06:08 GMT, Tag Heuer <tagheuerblog@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11 May 2007 08:20:57 -0700, firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:24:01 -0700, Tag Heuer <tagheuerblog@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 May 2007 12:51:43 -0700, firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 18:45:58 GMT, Tag Heuer <tagheuerblog@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 May 2007 11:00:06 -0700, firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 16:10:49 GMT, Tag Heuer <tagheuerblog@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 May 2007 08:05:46 -0700, firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:41:44 GMT, Tag Heuer <tagheuerblog@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 May 2007 23:44:09 -0700, firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2007 14:20:51 -0700, Tag Heuer <tagheuerblog@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 May 2007 13:24:04 -0700, firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2007 17:00:59 GMT, Tag Heuer <tagheuerblog@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 May 2007 09:07:02 -0700, firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2007 15:18:12 GMT, Tag Heuer <tagheuerblog@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 May 2007 06:33:47 -0700, firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 14:51:49 -0700, Tag Heuer <tagheuerblog@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 May 2007 13:25:03 -0700, firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
On May 8, 2:23 pm, "XTS" <x...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
Let's say even if they do build a new school. The school kids have to walk
through pools of blood, step over dead bodies and risk being blown to shreds
just to try to make it to the school.
The last one, certainly - as for the rest, I think you exaggerate overmuch. Do you
realize the size of Baghdad, and Iraq in general?
If I may, you are generalizing. And since we are, imagine the war in
Iraq occuring in a state about the same size, of say Texas. Imagine a
"Green Zone" right smack dab in the middle of say, Dallas with armed
militias and religious wackos warring with one another and placing and
detonating IEDs everywhere in a full blown sectarian war. . . A
horrifying thought isn't it?
His idea that every street in Baghdad is littered with
pools of blood and corpses - you think that's accurate?
I'm in no position to reply in agreement or to the contrary and I
cannot speak for XTS. And besides, from following the thread, XTS
doesn't "give a F&%K what you think," however the level of destruction
and violence and death in Iraq cannot be denied and that is my point.
It cannot be denied, no. However, it can be exaggerated,
and both you and XTS are quite willing to do so to the
terrorists' delight.
Apparently it is you who intends to "exaggerate" the "good news" from
Iraq, and to spin it in a manner that comes out appearing nothing
short of delusional. The "reality" of this Iraq war, based on fixed
intel and propaganda, is an urgent matter and something that you are
unwilling to accept. Instead, you come off with this "you are either
with us, or you are with the terrorist" Bush administration knee-jerk
propaganda, which has long since been debunked as nothing more than
fear-mongering and divisive means (targeting the American people) by
which to garner support for a war and justification which was built on
one lie after another.
You write this while leaping to the defense of someone
who thinks every street in Baghdad is continually strewn
with blood and body parts. Were you able to keep a
straight face while doing so? I suppose I could suck on the
teat of propaganda spin you've chosen instead. Nice canned
spiel. I'll bet you actually believe it describes someone in the
real world, too.
It is apparent that you haven't the capacity to rationally digest or
even comprehend the facts presented to you, as you desperately
back-pedal to a previous point which was already address, and where
YOU were left to respond with some intelligible off-the-wall kneejerk.
Again, I cannot speak for XTS however my point stands - The level of
violence and destruction and death and mayhem and lawlessness and
terror in Iraq cannot be easily swept-under-the-rug and minimized, and
or to the point trivialization by the "propaganda" that you and the
rest of the conservative chimps in the MSM howl in unison -
Furthermore, welcome to the real world and stop smoking . . . Err,
'keep of the grass.'
In that case, aren't you wasting your time presenting them?
Or is it actually the case that your only reason for typing these
"facts" is that you're addicted to your own spew? I love the way
you descend into incoherency when your venom spew is ineffectual.
Interesting that you view any attempt to present Iraq as anything
less than a 24/7 bloodbath as "trivializing" what they're going
through. You demand that the world exist as the extremes
your propaganda porrige has fed you, and scream at anyone
who doesn't suck the same slop you feed upon. I disgree with
you, so I must be on drugs? That was the best you could do?
Considering the rest of your post, apparently that *was* the best
you could do. Your mother must be so proud.
Now, now. I'll accept the the fact, that points that I've raised are
of no consequence to you since you haven't the gumption to accept
them; and out of sheer ignorance of the "facts" it is clear that these
are beyond your deranged level of comprehension which is without doubt
a component of being an absolute Chimp-hugger. The immoral state of
what this Bush administration stands for is to date supported by
hard-core mental masturbation cretins such as yourself, whose minds
are filled with "mush" from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, and the
rest of the howin' chimps in the MSM, and who delude themselves to the
point of "incoherency," since "reality" in these days of corruption,
treason, lies, and downright criminal behavior are factors which are
far too overwhelming to grasp, or even to accept, with the limited
capacity to understand - Another reason for this will be illustrated
shortly. Furthermore, it is YOUR "trivializing" of the war, as well
as the fabrication, or illusion that you and that monkey in the
Whitehouse are trying to create in that "great PROGRESS is being made"
in this war when all indications from independent sources, witnesses,
and the international community of humanitarian efforts say otherwise,
is what should be addressed here. Apparently, YOU applaud the
atrocities of Abu Graib; You applaud the manner in which this war came
to be; You applaud each "mistake" made in this war, and you support
and cheer when our troops sent into this "terror" that Bush created in
this country, and celebrate each and every Iraqi civilian death as
though it was some sort of "benchmark" towards progress.
Tag, you're far too drowned in propaganda to even know what a fact is,
much less raise one. Yes, you went on to spew a long diatribe about
Chimp-hugging and who I *must* be listening to on the radio, all the nice
comfortable stereotypes you've fed yourself about what people who disagree
with you *must* be like - and while seeing the world in such childishly simplistic
terms, congratulating yourself on what you see as your depths of insight and
perception. How absolutely, positively perfect. ;-)
Come now ;-) You know as well as I do that you never had a point to
begin with - Or at least one you could 'coherently' support, with the
limited cranial capacity you possess. And you know as well as I do
that it was your intention to fabricate some rosey picture of Iraq,
and of which John McCain tried to do some weeks back as well when he
suggested that the streets of Baghdad were safe to "stroll" through.
But to this point, I have no qualms with your lack of understanding,
or even ignorance in all of this. I do however take exception to your
intent to decieve and "catapult" the "propaganda" in the context of
our exchange and when our troops are dying for a "mission" and a war
that was built on lies and deceit to begin with - Besides IMHO it is
the moral thing to do with immorality running roughshod over my
country's government, and when it is time to can the bullsh%t and to
bring forth the certain facts. Your 'spin' OTOH is revealing and I
look forward to dissecting it for what it is worth.
Certainly not a point that mattered to your life of
obsessive venom-spew. I questioned XTC's
description of Baghdad with every street
continually strewn with body parts, and you're
inane enough to think I'm painting a "rosy
picture" - and you went downhill from there,
all the while certain of your own intellectual
superiority.
On the contrary. It was you . . . Please scroll up . . . Who tossed
out that red-herring of a reply, and in rhetoric, in trying to get me
to speak on behalf of XTS, (with your obvious drug inference duly
noted and hence what appears to consume you, and not so much the other
way around). Furthermore, it is indeed "downhill" from here in
continuing this exchange with you since to this point you have little
to nothing to support your baseless claims regarding the situation in
Iraq and in and of this war, and the hilarious manner in which you are
attempting to spin it. It certainly isn't a very good tact at all . .
. In fact, as we shall see in continuing this, as 'hope springs
eternal,' you will provide something that is worth declaring, and that
which shall without any reasonable doubt capture the essense of your
ignorance and idiocy on this subject.
After your repeated floods of venom spew,
the height of your intellectual capability boils
down to "I know you are but what am I".
How delightfully droll.
Do you actually know what a Usenet, Internet or even an e-mail "flood"
is? Or are you misleading yourself into believing in something that
you've concocted in that warped skull of yours that fits whatever
limited understanding you have of what is being transcribed on this
thread? - No strike that. It is certainly clear to me you have no
clue whatsoever of what you are trying to communicate. Instead I've
limited you to 2 or 3 sentence replies which is far beyond the pale of
coherence to anyone above the kindergarten level of education. In
fact it's is nothing but gibberish, and presumably the language of
Chimps . . . The very same dialect and tone that the Commander and
Chimp in the Whitehouse employs when he tries to express even a simple
thought. Get the idea? Furthermore, and again this is remeneiscent
of when you suggested that Prescott Bush (George W. Bush's grandpappy)
was on dictator Adolph Hitler's "hit-list," in "the late 30's" for
either assassination, or conversely, Herr Fueher's favorite
business-fiddles song and or dance. Which of course certainly
underscores your own propensity to toss revisionist falsehoods, as you
are now so doing on this thread. Nevertheless, it's clear that you do
not possess one iota of clear thought, and that you are wrestling with
yourself to find some common ground with your acceptance and approval
of a Chimp who has led our military into disaster, and this country
into yet another - And for which YOU salute and take pride in doing in
deranged promotion of such immoral and corrupt decay of this
government's leadership - And at the same time suggesting that the bad
news out of Iraq is "exaggerated." Surely, and given all this, it is
you who is adept in hyperbole and even without having to think about
it.
I know that with a minor quip on my part, you can be
easily prompted to post page upon page of vitriol. That
amuses me - especially since you think you're actually
saying something important, somewhere in those
rambling paragraphs that flood from your fingers.
"Minor quip?" LOL That is quite an understatement. It's whatever it
is that you are "mainlining" that has you 'quipping' mindlessly and in
tangent throughout all this. And frankly, the 'amusement' is all mine
since what we have here is YOU . . . A Chimp-hugger of galactic
proportions who has gone to great lengths in brown-nosed support of
that miscreant knuckledragger in the Whitehouse, and without one point
to stand upon regarding the "good news in Iraq," which you have
completely failed to spin in hyperbole. Furthermore, it is clear that
certain neurons are seriously misfiring, and to the point of
experiencing a major malfunction with your own "fingers" pitifully
trying synch with that deranged and warped noodle of yours in offering
something, anything that is plausibly coherent or even comprehensible.
And again, it is definitely what you are abusing that has you going
from one incoherent and pointless reply to another. Now, please let's
have this "good news."
Oh, my writings here have certainly been minor - that's
all it takes to set you off, and I pride myself on efficiency.
You post and repost your own crap, imagining that
someone besides yourself actually read it. I write
five lines expressing my amusement, and you write
paragraph upon paragraph, unrelated to anything
anyone else has written, simply because you love
your own blather. You're the best Usenet street
theater I've seen in weeks, and considering the
whackadoodles you're competing with, that's
quite an accomplishment. Bravo!
But of course your limited grasp of points raised are as brief and
limited as your understanding of them - The narrowest of minds could
only hold in "shock and awe." And what you equate as "efficiency" is
nothing more than some self-deluded grandeur induced by some
controlled or even illegal "mainlined" substance which I have proven
time and again over the course of our exchange. And it is also
evident that what ever you personify as the most rabid Chimp-hugger
that I've met to date out here, cannot be compared to the sheer
ignorance of the facts, which you cannot accept. Furthermore, the
entertainment value alone is enough to continue with this. So go on
ahead, and try to construct something witty or even intelligible and
try not to go into some hideous cranial-rectal inversion as you've
done time and again throughout this thread - And apparently, and in
some degenerate and repugnant sense of anticipation, the mere thought
of such a contortion is of "good news" to you.
It's hilarious that you see your pointless rehashing of
tired old propaganda as "raising of points", Tag.
The only thing "raised" is your ire at the fact that your
venom spews are nothing more to me than the screams
of an incensed monkey. Want a peanut?
Have a quick glimpse in the mirror, for YOU are the Chimp licker who
like Dick "F&%k Urself Shoot 'em In The Face" Cheney and the rest of
the turd picking criminal Chickenhawk miscreants in this Bush
administration, including '08 Presidential candidate John McCain, have
continued without too much success with exception to deranged
individuals such as yourself, to paint some rosey picture of Iraq, and
that which it is not. And like these 'dick'heads, you are without
question continuing with the propaganda of deceiving the American
people of how some sort of "progress" is being made in this not-so
"Mission Accomplished," as it is clear that which is all based on
deceit and the very same crap that got us into Iraq to begin with.
Tag, you've already used "I know you are but what am I". That,
and you've already spewed your canned rant about what I must
believe, what I must intend, and all the other ways I must cleave
to the cartoon caricature cabal you've created in your head and
deluded yourself into seeing as the real Bush, Cheney & Co. You
howl and scream, and I point and laugh - which is exactly as
it should be.
|
I see you can't bring yourself to accept the fact that you are
delusional in failing time and again to address the points that I've
raised - And I guess things didn't go too well yesterday with your
"mother" on this special day? Not the 'way things oughta be,' huh?
How could it since for all your projections and self-loathing, it's
clear that you are without doubt miserable in you deranged station in
life. In fact, I find it quite entertaining that you certainly have
this affinity for a certain "character" in the way of Paul Reubens -
http://tinyurl.com/yp2hmh - Do you not? For in digesting all that
I've presented to this point, the imagry of THIS 'caricature' leaps
into this little warped mind mind of yours, and this all comes with
little surprise as to why.
Yes. "Laugh" it up. Presumably you and he have a much in common,
given your own presumed and evidently disturbed up bringing, for your
personification of this individual is not as uncanny, as it is
downright hilarious. However, it is quite clear just where your
confusion in this exchange or anything else of importance clashes with
your sad misperception of reality, and especially where the
unwarranted death and destruction of our troops and military are
concerned.
Again, and as I requested before you knee-jerked into some incoherent
reply in a clear back pedal of you tooting your little horn on your
clown-like festooned bicycle, please provide under no uncertain
terms, any if at all, of "GOOD NEWS in IRAQ"
| Quote: |
How you can go through life living and propagating this lie is beyond
anyone, but what I have 'accomplished' is nailing down a deranged Bush
huggin' sychopant whose delusion knows no bounds and that this
"rehashing" of each and every fallacy, lie, and misconception
regarding this war in error which is now seeing hundreds and thousands
of our troops being killed daily and for a lie which you have no
problem with. What I firmly suggest, and that which you need to do is
shed the pointless imbecilic replies, and to go on a number of Iraq
veterans blogs and websites, for and against the war, to even get a
clue. Because to this point you never had one and probably never will
given what ever it is you are intraveneously "mainlining,"
figuratively and from whom in the AM conservative hate talk radio, the
MSM and press, Fox News, and in reality - And it is beyond pathetic .
. . It's reprehensively, repulsively and repugnantly quite Republican
of you. Live with it because you and that monkey in the Whitehouse,
who is still looking for his own "nut" and a clue wear well.
Please return with whatever it is you can in terms of "GOOD NEWS in
IRAQ."
" . . . All right. You've covered your ass, now . . . " - George W.
Bush, telling an analyst after having received the PDB, Crawford,
Texas, August 6, 2001 - http://tinyurl.com/yttomj
" . . .I hope you leave here and walk out and say, 'What did he say?'"
—George W. Bush, with 2nd thoughts about what he actually told the
audience, Beaverton, Oregon, August 13, 2004
http://tinyurl.com/czrmd
In the meantime "I'm still waiting," to obtain what you do know
whatever it is YOU are talking about in the context of Iraq, the war
and that Chimp because to this point it is entertaining drivel which
of course offers a glimpse of the psychosis that has gripped those who
continue to support Bush in this matter that was based on PROPAGANDA,
deceit, plunder, and treason itself. Now please, provide the "good
news in Iraq," because to this point you come off simply soundling
like that Chimp with his head so far up his rectum, 'he needs to fart
in order to breathe.'
|
| Quote: |
" . . .See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over
and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult
the propaganda." — George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005 -
http://tinyurl.com/2e7s63
Yes, it is apparent that you've 'gone off the tracks' and aren't fit
for society, and should be committed. Also, in terms of 'drug abuse,'
please scroll down (if you've the ability) and accept the fact that
YOU raised this topic in reply first. Don't remember? Of course,
you don't . . . Point established. Furthermore, and in clear
projection of some disturbed or even abusive upbringing you really
need to keep your parent(s) out of this exchange - It only comes
across as a weak-ass rebut. Because, "yo' mama," is not a 'coherent'
thought, or even come-back, nor does it support whatever point you are
trying to make.
Yet, I have to this come to understand the delusions and the psychosis
which most of you Bush-huggers are experiencing these days, and in a
word it is certainly 'pathetic.' However, I look forward to your
return and reply when you sober up a bit, in order to continue with
this analysis.
Now in the "context" of 'Good News in Iraq,' there presumably
(objectively speaking) are instances of it:
- When an IED turns out to be a dud and doesn't go off and take out a
number of our troops on patrol
Or when Iraqi security forces catch the bombers in the
act of setting it, tipped off by civilians who hate the
terrorists more than you think they hate Bush. That's
happening, again and again - but cameras don't get
pointed at it, it doesn't fit the story the MSM thinks
should be told.
Actually, the potential of death of our troops presumably doesn't
settle well with whatever "good news" comes from the Whitehouse, Faux
News, or any of the "MSM" con | | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
