I realize this isn't the most politic thing to post, but it's so funny I couldn't resist. I'm not poking fun at Canada's political position in the world, or anything like that... Just appreciating a bit of humor given the somewhat strained relationship that Our Friend Dubya has created with just about EVERYONE lately.
(This is a message I got on e-mail this evening, so some of you may have already seen it.)
quote:It was announced today that Canada is now prepared to help the United States in its war against terrorism.
They have promised to commit 2 of their largest battleships, 6,000 armed troops and 60 fighter jets.
Unfortunately, after the exchange rate that comes down to one canoe, 2 Mounties and a flying squirrel.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
OMG. I've seen on TV what one Mountie can do. I don't dare to imagine what harm two could do.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
They should be arriving in about 2years and 90 days.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Also, due to lumber exporting regulations, the canoe's paddles will be held up at the border.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Actually I think I have seen that joke pretty much anytime there were world affairs that Canada was too sleepy to get out of bed for....
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
I'm Canadian... and we're passing that joke around here at the office!
By the way, we are (mostly) Hawks here. Our attitude can be defined as: - Screw Chretien! (our chicken-shit PM) - Go US Forces! - Get the job done - and then leave the governing of Iraq to the Iraqis
On a similar note - maybe the US should offer a discounted rate to the Iraqis on the after-the-war POW exchange. What is it now... 1000-to-1?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Hawks?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Shortened form of "war hawks", i.e. people who like blowing up other people.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by Treknophyle: By the way, we are (mostly) Hawks here. Our attitude can be defined as: - Screw Chretien! (our chicken-shit PM) - Go US Forces! - Get the job done - and then leave the governing of Iraq to the Iraqis
I may not support the war, nor am I an enthusiastic fan of Chretien myself. When he did mention that Canada would not join the war with the U.S. and Britain, I was thinking that for once in his political career, he made a decision that actually mattered.
Well, right now, I have no idea what he stands for. There ARE Canadian soldiers in Iraq, and I have no idea if he is standing by what he just said.
That being said, Chretien has to go. I may be Liberal, but I certainly don't like what he is doing.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Well, uh, he is going. Relatively shortly.
This whole business with not recalling those soldiers on exchange with British and American units comes off pretty stupidly, though.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
February 2004? Not quick enough.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Canada is, in fact, intimately involved in the current war, primarily logistically and in other support capacities. Who's watching the Afghani store right now? Canadians. Who's refueling U.S. planes, providing space for all sorts of training and testing exercises, escorting and defending U.S. naval forces? Canadians.
You almost get the impression that Canada realizes that relatively temporary policy conflicts, even severe ones like Gulf War II, are not worth throwing away deep and important friendships over. Meanwhile, in the United States, we get tariffs boosted on Evian. Way to go, guys.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Not to mention those American tarriffs, on, I dunno, Canadian Softwood Lumber, Canadian Wheat, and those illegal agricultural subsidies you guys just love tossing at big agribusiness.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Canada is silly and stupid.
I've yet to meet an ardent Canadian who wants to blow up shit, save Don Cherry, and I mean, I'd kick that guy in the nuts if I could.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I don't know, I've met a lot of Canadian asswipes here, trying to scam this hotel. They can get down right rude and near violent to save a buck I tell ya, they need to get invaded and given a good old fashion attitude adjustment....
Na, maybe given some classes in manners, although the woman from London is pretty, she doesn't need to be such a bitch....
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:They can get down right rude and near violent to save a buck I tell ya
That's only because they have so few of them left, after taxes...
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Most Americans have even fewer, before taxes.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
But it seems to be worth about twice as much, according to the exchange rates I see....
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
WE GOT HASBRO'S TRANSFORMERS COMMEMORATIVE SERIES III BEFORE THE AMERICA!
Up all y'alls!
Woo.
Sputter.
Thundercracker is a neat toy.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: But it seems to be worth about twice as much, according to the exchange rates I see....
Not as much as our currency, although that doesn't render this argument any less useful, since a lot of Canadians would rather pay taxes in order to get a better standard of health care and repaints of Starscream.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
With odd safety missiles.
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
Wack ass Americans
Saddam is hiding from the UN, Bush undermines the UN.
I love a country who drop 6 bombs from a AC10 to get one guy.
All 'cause George W. got choked that Saddam tried to kill pops. Yet couldn't hire an assasination team to get rid of Saddam, cause he had to go Alex Rodrigues for the Rangers. Obviously he waited to get into office so he can spend tax payers money on it.
So what, he did he gave the Iraq people there version of 9/11, thats why the people are fighting back, and getting reasonable points on the death chart.
At least we got our priorities straight, were still looking for Bin Laden, who is ten times more dangerous.
Well whatever, you guys suffered already you got rolled by a Fat guy from the 313, the one who pointed out that your kids in Columbine got torn apart by bullets from K-Mart
I would have voted for Al Gore.
Posted by Valles (Member # 925) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brown_supahero: I would have voted for Al Gore.
Oh, be just a -little- fair.
Most of us did exactly that.
Blessed be. -n
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, I'm convinced. Sign me up for your newsletter!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...he gave the Iraq people there version of 9/11..."
I'm not sure any other country is so isolated in its own little bubble as to be able to have an equivalent to that attack. The main reason it was a big deal was because people in the US were all "Hey, what? Someone doesn't like us?". In other countries, the people already know they aren't the epitome of everything that is good in the universe.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
No, I think that majority of the reactions were, Holy Fuck, that many people killed....
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Less than three-and-a-half thousand deaths in the New York and Washington attacks. As opposed to 1945 when 105 000 people died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks. 11. Sep. 2001 hardly set a record for number of deaths in two attacks.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: No, I think that majority of the reactions were, Holy Fuck, that many people killed....
Yes, but followed rapidly thereafter by "Oh, it's in the US. No real surprise then."
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
And then by "the fuck, they still don't get it".
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
and then, fuck the US, they should do what we tell them to, because nobody ever tries to blow us up.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Exactly. Gosh, finally lightening up, Firsty? Or did you just have a lot of new stickers to paste into books today, and the fumes went to your head? 8)
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Except that in most countries, the above isn't true (Ricin in your subways, bombings in your discos, grenades at your airports, hijacks of your planes, etc. etc.)
Now, it's true in Canada - at least, I don't recall anyone trying to blow Canadians up recently (deliberately, that is), but then again, you usually actually have to DO something before anybody's interested in blowing you up.
Except Al-Qaeda, who will blow you up just for not being Muslim. Or not being Muslim enough. Or being friends with non-muslims, or working with them, or letting them set foot in 'your' desert, or just being wherever they choose to hit.
Lighten up? Me? Bah! "I'll be mellow when I'm dead."
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
Don't forget being the wrong type of muslim.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I'm glad you boiled the whole anti-American argument down to "they hate us just becasue we're not Muslim."
I was worried for a second that the whole exploiting other countries for fun and profit might have something to do with it.
That or trying to impose your own squinty-eyed version of America onto the rest of the world.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: I'm glad you boiled the whole anti-American argument down to "they hate us just becasue we're not Muslim."
I was worried for a second that the whole exploiting other countries for fun and profit might have something to do with it.
That or trying to impose your own squinty-eyed version of America onto the rest of the world.
I did no such thing. Oh, I boiled Al-Qaeda's anti-american argument down to that, but only because it's completely and utterly true, and they've said so.
Unless you're going to try and tell me that they hate Hussein because he's pro-American...
But they don't have the only anti-american belief system out there, as you of all people should know.
"exploiting others for fun and profit?" Oh, yeah, like we got there first.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Yes, but like you said, they don't seem to be trying to blow up Canada, or Mexico, or....
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Mexico has its own, internal problems, what with exploiting it's OWN people. Plus, there's no powerhouse economy there for anyone to be envious of.
Canada.. is probably not even on their radar screens. I mean, you have to be known of before you can be hated.
Besides, the US is a much more impressive target, so we get a much higher priority on their list.
Over there, though, they won't give a damn. If a guy hijacks your plane, and you tell him you're a Canadian, not from the USA, will it make a difference? Not likely.
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
Well, when it's all said and done we'll have the ENTIRE WORLD against us...
We've been over there for weeks now and every day we hear stuff like "POISON GAS FOUND! er, no... it was really rancid veg-oil..."
Now we're firing tank-shells into hotels full of civilians because there are snipers....
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
True enough, but niether Canada, or Mexico, South Africa, or...., irregradless of their own internal problems, are Muslim per say, or even the wrong kind of Muslim.
Why shouldn't I expect Al Qaeda to be boming them as well.
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
When it comes right down to it, they don't control the same amount of oil that Iraq does.
Sure there is oil in Mexico... BUT! The current government is FRIENDLY to the USA. So we see no reason to manufacture reasons to go in and smash heads!
Yet!
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Ever heard anything of Venezuela or Hugo Chavez?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: True enough, but niether Canada, or Mexico, South Africa, or...., irregradless of their own internal problems, are Muslim per say, or even the wrong kind of Muslim.
Why shouldn't I expect Al Qaeda to be boming them as well.
Because they don't have a high-enough profile.
They won't get around to them until they're done with us.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Rob, they don't do anything in Canada and Mexico because they are good jump off points for them, having all the length of the border to get in to the US. Piss off either one of them and they may have to pull their heads out of the sand. On the plus side, I got to deck a Canadian today, and have him lodged at the Saint Clair County Bed and Breakfast. All because he couldn't wait an hour or so to get his shoes that he left in the room he checked out of earlier. $300.00 Canadian dlooars for a pair of Reboks, I bet China likes Canada too, buying that stuff from their sweat shops. My point is that Canada is on their radars, as an ally.....
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"'exploiting others for fun and profit?' Oh, yeah, like we got there first."
Well, first off, at least you're not denying it. But, your arguement is that anything is A-okay as long as someone else has done it before?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Yes
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
I just love how you can't comprehend that acting like a global predator would piss someone off. You're just miffed that they had the balls to fight back.
You're exploiting and manipulating them to help them, right?
Jesus, what loonies. Its so shocking that they can't see that. Must be that they are ignorant. Or biased. Or misunderstand your noble motives. Maybe everyone, the world over is just plain stupid?
Yes, that must be why they don't see you for the moral titans you are.
Silly, STUPID people.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Put it this way:
If we DIDN'T buy their oil, which is the ONLY thing they have to offer, they'd all be poorer and angrier.
Its our money which allows any of them to have any kind of standard of living AT ALL. I think if we followed your "advice," they wouldn't all happily make the transition back to subsistence-level bedouins.
Y'see that food? we paid for that. Those hotels? Us. Those desalinization plants? Those irrigation projects? Those roads and highways? That internet access? Ours, ours, ours.
Hey, I just remembered who you sound exactly like!
quote: Life of Brian: Scene 9
REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Y'see that food?
The food they were growing quite well until your tanks rolled over the fields, that food you mean?
Those hotels?
The ones you shot at with those self-same tanks?
Those desalinization plants? Those irrigation projects? Those roads and highways?
Bombed, strafed, napalmed, run over with tanks.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
The food they were growing quite well until your tanks rolled over the fields, that food you mean?
I don't think this happened, unless desert plants are the major crop...
Those hotels? The ones you shot at with those self-same tanks?
Including the ones they burned down, we only shot them, didn't burn them....
Those desalinization plants? Those irrigation projects? Those roads and highways?
Bombed, strafed, napalmed, run over with tanks.
That was the war before, this one we are careful about what we hit, and, I guess you are part of the we, thanks to Tony.... Also, tanks don't usually tear up the roads to badly, the rubber track pads do a nice job keeping the metal parts from digging in.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"That was the war before, this one we are careful about what we hit..."
Yes, we're being very careful to hit only military targets, civilian targets, and our own troops. As far as I know, we haven't yet accidentally hit nothing. That's what I call precision!
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
You know, I'd love to see the percentage of bombs dropped since this started that didn't hit their intended target...
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
When the SWAT team storms a daycare held hostage by a deranged gunman and in the ensuing hail of bullets a full 95% of them miss the toddlers, is it a success?
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
If I don't lose Ding Chavez, it's a success in Rainbow Six, at least.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Clancy would be proud.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Tom, that would depend on the percentage of fatal shots that did hit the tots. If 5% were one round that winged a kid, then, yes, it would be.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
And if the only alternative is that all the kids die, then what? You have to take into account not only what happens if you act, but what happens if you don't.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I'd prefer to know the percentage of deranged-gunman-in-daycare-centre-with-hostages-type situations that end peacefully with the perp giving himself up, before I judged one way or the other. Such things do happen, you shouldn't always have to plan a pincer movement between Hostage Rescue and the 2nd Armoured Brigade of the ATF.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:I'd prefer to know the percentage of deranged-gunman-in-daycare-centre-with-hostages-type situations that end peacefully with the perp giving himself up
I'll tell you that, if you tell me the percentage of kleptocratic dictatorships that end the same way.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
You might want to sign out one of those dictionary things before you start throwing around a word you have no idea how to correctly use, like "kleptocracy." Does your library have one of those nice big ones?
10 dictatorships off the top of my head that have toppled in the past thirty years without invasion by a foreign power: Indonesia Philippines Soviet Union (or count it as 15) East Germany Poland Czechoslovakia Romania Bulgaria Chile Bolivia
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I think the Soviet Union was invaded by capitalism, McDonald's and the such, just not a military one. Plus the Soviet Union did have several different leaders, not a single one, and with the changing leadership one finally came to office that changed things. The same can't be said for Iraq.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
The point was that nobody needed to roll tanks in there or elsewhere to cause change, thus disproving Rob's knee-jerk assertion that the only way dictatorships fall is when the good ol' U! S! A! decides to teach them a thang or two about dem-aw-crah-see from the barrel of a tank. (Indeed, a hefty chunk of the dicatorships created in the past fifty years were created by America, but that's another story.)
And Mikhail Gorbachev neither wanted to nor planned to end the Soviet Union.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
When referring to Chile, do you mean the rise or fall of Pinochet? If the former, bear in mind that it was the US that put him there. They just did that particular "regime change" surreptitiously.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Of course, I said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about hotels, or buying stuff, (or whatever it is you claim you do) but you seemed to create a theory based on that fact.
Shit. Thats exactly how you justified the war too.
Try this for a Monty Python theme: Armaments Chapter 2, verses 9-21. "Oh lord, bless this thy handgrenade, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy".
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
You guys are basing your arguments off of what? What the media tells you? Yeah, every bomb and missile we launch hits a 6 year old girl with an IQ of 567. All our helicopters crash in the middle of a desert. Marines always die. All our bombs hit civilian buildings. According to this media as well, apparently it's only B-52s, stealth bombers doing the bombing.
Media thinks it's bad when we loose two Marines, but think nothing of the 20,000 troops we killed through bombing and the invasion forces.
Yeah, let's keep watching the news, maybe we killed another inocent civilian somewhere. Maybe a 17 year old boy with intents of throwing over Saddam himself and making Iraq the best country to live in within ten years. Or what about the other children and adults?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Tim: the fall.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"Yeah, every bomb and missile we launch hits a 6 year old girl with an IQ of 567. All our helicopters crash in the middle of a desert. Marines always die. All our bombs hit civilian buildings. According to this media as well, apparently it's only B-52s, stealth bombers doing the bombing."
Funny, the American media must be depicting a different war.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Or at least the military is. In the past news all I have seen is the White House saying the regime is gone, and no one knows where Saddam is.
About the 6 year old girl with the 567 IQ, that was a joke.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I must see different news than other people. The news that I see glorifies the war and downplays civilian casualties. Where's this news that actually makes a point of letting us know about the bad bits (read: most) of the war?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
If you think most of the results of this war are bad (obviously as compared to the alternative), then yes, you've been watching a completely different war.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Minister Magoo can not be wrong....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I must see different news than other people. The news that I see glorifies the war and downplays civilian casualties. Where's this news that actually makes a point of letting us know about the bad bits (read: most) of the war?
On non-US news channels, mainly. The crazyness!
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I must admit, the US media is doing a remarkably good imitation of a state controlled media, pumping out pro-government propaganda.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The only difference is that, other places, the gov't controls the media. Here, the gov't and media are both controlled by corporations. It only gives the impression that the media are doing what the gov't wants. Really, they're just both doing what their corporate sponsors want.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Yes.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Well said.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Edited because bitterness is unbecoming, and it is unwise to say anything before flooding the system with caffeine anyway.
[ April 13, 2003, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Sol System ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
What cracks me up is the way the hawks (NOT the hawks here - generally) always say "Do you know that in Iraq under Saddam, you wouldn't be able to protest in the way that the anti-war protesters do? We're invading to enable them to have that freedom of speech, so you should support us."
In other words, because we have that right, we shouldn't exercise it. Wonderful.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Yeah, I've noticed that, too. Just about EVERY SINGLE pro-war letter in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel says "perhaps you should've gone to Iraq and lived under Saddam Hussein's rule, and see how you liked it." I recall last Sunday there were, maybe, 15 letters about the war in the editorial section, and maybe 7 sounded like that. Just about every pro-war person I've seen or heard has completely bashed anti-war protesters, calling them anti-American, anti-troop, pro-Saddam, etc. You know, that's exactly what happened under Hussein's regime--people who wanted peace were repressed.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
In the '04 election we are going to have a new ballot with the following question:
Should President G. W. Bush serve another term as President. ___ Yes!!! ____ no
Mind you, there will be an armed guard beside you if you either don't know the answer, or, would rather make a choice that is unacceptable.
Thank you for my time.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Your point, aside from underscoring Vogon's? I wouldn't want to mistake you for an unpatriotic, anti-USA Saddam sympathizer.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I would have thought the ballot would say:
Should George W. Bush be declared dictator for life? [ ] Yes [ ] Hell yes!
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
TSN made a better ballot....
No, I was implying the opposite, just look, it's there....
You did forget to add anti-bush, which, I would have to reply, I voted the populist way, not the presidential way....
No, freedom of speech is a great thing, as long as it's not an in-your-face thing, where one can not get away form it, so bash away, have fun, and all that, but remember, regardless of anything else, what price would you put on that freedom?
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Not this eternal vigilance crap again.
Newsflash: Everyone is NOT out to get you.
Unless you give them reason.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Ah, but just breathing gives SOMEONE reason, especially when you're high-profile.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: In the '04 election we are going to have a new ballot with the following question:
Should President G. W. Bush serve another term as President. ___ Yes!!! ____ no
Mind you, there will be an armed guard beside you if you either don't know the answer, or, would rather make a choice that is unacceptable.
And maybe Dubya will win the 2004 election with a perfect 100% of the vote, too... Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
The final deciding Bushvote by a Mr. "Don Ameche" (Fl).
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
And hundreds of dead people will vote Democratic again that year.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
quote:Yeah, I've noticed that, too. Just about EVERY SINGLE pro-war letter in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel says "perhaps you should've gone to Iraq and lived under Saddam Hussein's rule, and see how you liked it." I recall last Sunday there were, maybe, 15 letters about the war in the editorial section, and maybe 7 sounded like that. Just about every pro-war person I've seen or heard has completely bashed anti-war protesters, calling them anti-American, anti-troop, pro-Saddam, etc. You know, that's exactly what happened under Hussein's regime--people who wanted peace were repressed.
You also have to realize something, it's their form of speech. Most protestors you see, are the anti-war type, you don't see people protesting the protestors. You read or wtahc them show their general detest for the anti-war protestors. That is what the freedom of speech is. You do not see them getting shot at or thrown in jail for stating what they want to say about the war. That is totally against what Saddam and other regimes do against anti-whatever against their regimes protests do.
Keep in mind though that generally you cannot fully support the troops and be fully against the war. Because remember that the troops are fighting for, and when they get captured. They can be shown pictures and videos of epople not supporting the war. Making remarks that they are anti-Americans where they themselves are American. Can a POW fully fight against them, if their home don't want to be American anymore? No. Because when captured, that's all they got left. Read about some of the former POWs of Vietnam, when they were shown photos of American soliders being beaten by the anti-war protestors, that no one cared about the soliders overseas, and that no one supported the troops. How would one feel, that for they fought for did not want that?
I am a Sailor, and if I ever became a POW, I would like to know that what I was fighting for, was supported by my nation.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I agree with what you say. However, I think that you can be for the troops enough that you don't want to see them go into action. Are some causes worth fighting for? Yes. In some cases war is necessary and justified, such as World War II or Operation Enduring Freedom. And the liberation of Iraq is a noble cause. However, this administration had for months talked about the fact that Iraq had WMD...yet now that the war is almost over, we've had no evidence of that.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:Ah, but just breathing gives SOMEONE reason, especially when you're high-profile.
But not Clinton, that was completely different.
quote:And hundreds of dead people will vote Democratic again that year.
Well, if they continue with the trend established before the last election, that of removing the right to vote from members of minorities (who'd traditionally vote Democrat) convicted of felonies, then in Florida at least the dead will be the ONLY people who CAN vote Democrat. Especially when you take into account all the other members of those minorities voting for Buchanan. 8)
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Voting for Buchanan should be a felony Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
that of removing the right to vote from members of minorities (who'd traditionally vote Democrat) convicted of felonies
Funny, that we do also remove the right to vote of criminals who based on racial statistics would have been more likely to vote Republican...
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Like the entire Board of Enron?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Only if their stocks aren't taxed....
Back to protesters for a moment, why are anti-war protesters so violent? Not all, of course, but enough that it make me wonder if those that are stand for anything at all.
Oh, and every dollar we poorish folk make is taxed twice, look at your telephone bill, check your receipts form the stores, see what kind of taxes the employer pays on that money in your pay check, between Social Security and Medicare it is 7.85% for tax matching, so I don't care if stocks are taxed 'twice'.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Back to protesters for a moment, why are anti-war protesters so violent? Not all, of course, but enough that it make me wonder if those that are stand for anything at all."
Just because someone is against this war, that doesn't mean they necessarily find any and every kind of violence automatically abhorrent. There are some who go beyond the "accepted" protest forms (sitting out of the way somewhere and chanting to themselves) because they're pretty sure everyone just ignores that.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Well, we see how well these protests have worked too, oh, so well.
THen the ones that laid out across 5TH Ave in NYC. They were heard also, good news coverage, but they should have been heard screaming as the taxis ran them over.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I can't seem to uncover any law dealing with the "right to be heard."
You can speak. That doesn't mean you can compel other people to listen to you, or inconvenience or endanger them in order to be 'heard.'
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
quote: ATHENS (Reuters) - Greek police said they arrested 106 anti-Iraq war demonstrators after two hours of violence close to the scene of an EU summit in Athens on Wednesday.
Don't go to war, or we will protest violently and possibly kill people....
Okay....
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Because, for sure, there certainly cannot be any local issues in the Mediterranean.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
What, you're against killing people? Well, we can't have that, so we're gonna punish you and make sure you can't speak out against us again... See, it works both ways.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"You can speak. That doesn't mean you can compel other people to listen to you, or inconvenience or endanger them in order to be 'heard.'"
I'm pretty sure there isn't a law against "inconvenience", either.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Most places do though, Creating a Public Nuisence, Disturbing the Peace, Inciting a Riot....
So the 5th ave blockers are guilty of a crime, which I would imagine NYC has.
I like the second one, getting busted for Disturbing the Peace while in an anti-war protest.....
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The irony is rather lessened by the fact that they're two different definitions of "peace".
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Bah. You lose all points for believing that there are no laws against being a nuisance. That's like, major doltage, on a Barcalow level.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
quote:Ah, but just breathing gives SOMEONE reason, especially when you're high-profile.
Ah, but your high-profiling consists of exploiting other nations (oh, I forgot, doing them a FAVOR), and you couldn't possibly rethink your foreign policies, now could you?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Acutally, we did, and this is where it has led us.... Old foreign policy, aid Saddam New foreign policy, kill Saddam See we did....
Although, I don't see a problem of attpeting to help someone, and trying to benefit a bit from it, or are you that selfless tht you could do something for someone with even the slightist thought of even a tiny benefit, even doing something to make yourself feel better about ourself is benefiting from it. Like help an old lady across the street.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"You lose all points for believing that there are no laws against being a nuisance."
If being a nuisance were illegal, your three strikes would have been used up years ago.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Public being a word not to be important here....
What else can we re-write????
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Bah. You lose all points for believing that there are no laws against being a nuisance. That's like, major doltage, on a Barcalow level.
Well, since Barcalow was actually a really clever person to fool so many people for such a long time, doesn't that mean that Tim is actually, like, super intelligent dude?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)