Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
SDI and terrorism
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: [QB] [QUOTE]I suppose you could have passed a calc test on your first day at kindergarten?[/QUOTE] No, but if my parents said I could, then fed me the answers so I could, and I got an "A" on the test, it'd would [i]still[/i] be as jury-rigged as this. [QUOTE]and for someone of your obvious intelligence, I can only assume its deliberate[/QUOTE] ::blush:: Thank you -- ! [QUOTE]Nobody's talking about implementing this thing next year, or even within the next five years, or longer.[/QUOTE] Maybe they should come right out and say, "yes, we're putting GPS systems on our missiles ... we're only testing, and ways we're planning on tracking incoming ICBMs without GPS and avoiding decoys is ..." (and then, obviously, list them) [QUOTE]Oh. "Partisan bitching," that thing only WE do, eh? *smug smirk*[/QUOTE] Two points to this. There's a big difference between pointing out legitimate facts ($48 mill* to Taliban, government moving to Big Brother?**)and using a national tragedy to make fun of Al Gore, or spend several hours on the radio talking about Bill Clinton being in NYC.*** <small>* This is more of a wake-up call that America's Foreign Policy is mighty fucked up. We put men like Castro into power, we fund Saddam Hussein, and we trained bin Laden. Even after we're attacked by bin Laden (the first WTC bombing, the Embassies, the [i]Cole[/i]), and we presumeable know him to be residing in Afghanistan, we [i]still[/i] gave money to the Taliban. Why? This is not partisan-bashing. While I'm sure more paranoid left- or right- wingers might draw massive conspiracy theories about how Bush gave the money to bin Laden in order to boost his approval rating and push a Conservative agenda, I am not -- to the best of my knowledge -- doing that. If I was going to do that, I would've posted "George W. Bush Paid Bin Laden To Blow Up WTC and Attack Pentagon" and made out a much more detailed plan. I do not believe it to be true, and I would hope more people don't believe it to be true. It is certainly, however, very scary what we do with our foreign policy, and it's time to become more aware of it. I think everyone realizes that foreign policy has been fucked up for a very long time -- Vietnam, attacking the Sudan (is it any surprise our intelligence agencies didn't pick word up on this? They thought an aspirin factory was bin Laden's HQ!) That is my arguement for why [i]this[/i] is not partisan.</small> <small>** If anything, this is [i]bi-[/i]partisan bitching since the Democratic leadership in the Senate don't seem to be doing anything to make sure we don't go too far, and since only one Dem in the House had the courage to recognize the need to temper our response, I won't even mention them</small> <small>***And I'm not just talking about Republicans here, enough Democrats kept calling in just to defend (and in some cases, attack) Bill Clinton's appearance in NYC that I really just wanted to throw up. This was the Saturday after the attack, and all anyone wanted to do was bash Clinton some more. C'mon, people ... again, [i]bi[/i]-partisan bitching.</small> <small>**** Final Thought. I'm a registered member of the Green Party as of about a month ago. So I can't really do a lot of partisan bitching, since I'm not a partisan. This isn't the first time I've mentioned on these forums that I'm no longer a registered-Democrat, but the reason for my change is that I think the main-stream of the Democratic party is too mainstream for the left. End of speech. Sorry for all the small type. *****</small> [QUOTE]Well, a group of infiltrators intent on destruction (Since the evidence seems to be showing that the perpetrators of these acts had lived here for some time) could probably be seen as either of those two things, depending upon one's point of view. Either we've been 'invaded' by terrorists, or a segment (albeit a miniscule segment, so far, thankfully) of the population is rebelling. Probably the first definition would be more appropriate.[/QUOTE] Well, since the Founding Fathers probably didn't intend "invasion" to refer to a group of fanatical religious zealots willing to crash airplanes into buildings, either you're saying: a) Yes, you're quite right, we've not been invaded. Or ... b) Damn, dude, you're right ... the Founding Fathers could never know what we'd be facing hundreds of years after they died, so the "intent" of the Founding Fathers can't be used in Constitutional arguements!* <small>* Downside of agreeing with "b", is, of course, that you can pretty much ignore me whenever I take the "intent of the Founding Fathers" tack in gun debates to try and convince people that they didn't even have to deal with revolvers -- pretty sure on that, anyway -- and that their views on modern weaponry would be much different if they could see the present day and re-write the Constitution, but if you want to reply to this, let's start a new thread, eh?</small> [QUOTE]And nobody HAS suspended habeas corpus yet, HAVE they?[/QUOTE] I don't recall anyone saying that they had been. I do remember a call to point out to people, hey, folks! We've still got our rights, lets make sure they don't get infringed, eh? I would think that this simple task would be agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals. <small>***** NOT!</small> [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3