posted
Cartman, imnsho, you're wrong on most counts, but i won't bother explaining it to you. it is energy i would rather not expend. i'm a Jeffersonain Constitutionalist, and i will happily take up arms (both verbal and physical) against a corrupt and dictatorial government in a revolution if i think that it is in the best interest of the people and the revolution is being run in such a way that a victory against the government would mean that freedom and happiness would be restored to the US people. however, i don't see bogey men in the closet, and the current administration has more or less increased our security without seriously compromising liberty. sometimes the survival of the state and the security of the people is worth a temporary reduction is some things. you might not like it (and i surely don't), but it is better than dying in a terrorist attack. by the way, there is no longer a such thing as the Northern Alliance, so don't say anything pertaining to them. and also, a friend of my is an Afghan, with family in that country, and according to him the situation IS a lot better for the average Afghan. it's nice having food, water, some security and basic freedoms again. i believe him more than i believe you. and here is some more ad hominem. go to hell, shitbrain.
IP: Logged
quote: sometimes the survival of the state and the security of the people is worth a temporary reduction is some things
Yes, because god knows that the US was in danger of collapsing completely after Sept 11.
quote: yes, my mother was raped by an Argentinian named Jesus. does it make you fucking happy to gloat over that, you arsefaced pedophile?
Fairly. I mean, if I were raped by Jesus, I'd certainly brag about it.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Fortunately, I didn't say this. I said that both parties do it, just that the Democrats were better at it.
This makes you the teensiest bit of a liar, but hey, why let the truth stand in the way of a good rant?
And why let a conmpletely unprovable statement, one that allows you to advance your own agenda without any sort of justification whatsoever, stand in the way either? Why, to say one party does something 'better' than another is comnpletely unquantifiable.
quote:There are the UN Resolutions which could be interpreted to authorize just about any action against Iraq.
And we all know how important the UN and its resolutions is to the US the rest of the time.
Go back and read my statement again. Here is the relevant clause in its entirety:
quote:Both parties have been known to do this, although it appears that the Dems are more adept and skillful at it.
Now, I understand that, as a Londoner, your grasp of the English language may be not quite up to par, so I'll explain it in a simple (albeit extremely condescending) way:
Pay attention, class...
Appears is a word which indicates to the reader that the clause which contains it is the speaker's personal... what?
Class: OPINION.
And a statement of opinion is different from a statement of... what?
And a person who takes a clear statement of opinion and twists it to try to make everyone think the speaker was presenting a fact is a... what?
Class: Lobster-shagging nincompoop with delusions of sentience.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Lobster-shagging nincompoop with delusions of sentience.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Although I am loathe to throw more oil on the fire, I nevertheless feel compelled to issue a creative rebuttal to your (referring, of course, to my esteemed colleague, mr. EdipisReks) intelligent and charming argumentation.
The fact that you don't even bother reading what other people write before you respond shows your true colors. The fact that you lash out at my character, as opposed to my words, probably shows that you are uncomfortable with your own lack of factual argument and that you are uncomfortable with your own choices.
I do, however, have one question (and far be it from me to question, criticise, or even doubt the President of the United States in this jolly new Americanized, Amerocentric and patriotic World Order), which is the following:
Other than being the President, and Pretzel affectionado, who does President George Washington Bush (I assume that's what the "W" stands for. Or, quite appropriately, "We're No. 1!") think he is?
While not disagreeing that sir Hussein and company are not the kind of people we would like to invite over for tea and a Harry Potter discussion, and agreeing that they are Bad, Bad Anti-American Affectionados who must be disposed of no matter the cost, mercilessly and expediently.
So, Monsieur Bush wishes to oust Mr Hussein. Fine (though it's not, for various reasons).
But, taking a break from this conquest of domination of the Irakis, one wonders two things.
Where is the line, and who draws it?
And, perhaps in vein, two more things.
Why is it Bush, and is his nose really so big that it cannot help but get stuck elsewhere in the world (primarily in non-US countries that dislike such American activities as roller-skating, playing pinball, and dining at McDonalds)?
And a couple of other things, such as:
Who is the next threat, and the next? When will it stop? When all the "BAD EVIL ANTI-AMERICAN NATIONS THAT DO NOT IMPORT ANY TVS FROM US!" are disposed of and replaced with Burger Kings and Pretzel Stands (or, more relevantly, American Puppet Governments)?
This is the undesirable precedent I spoke of earlier. Revolution may now commence.
[ August 22, 2002, 13:22: Message edited by: Colorful Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
Robert, Robert, Robert. . . this really has gone far enough. The feelings of inadequacy you have, well, I'm not sure where they come from. I suspect that deep in your bones you really want to take the guns you're so proud of owning, and start paying back some of the wrongs (real and imagined) you feel you've suffered.
Do it, Rob. Do it. Kill them all.
The people who laugh at you for having a chickenshit woman's job - a librarian, for fuck's sake? - Kill them. Come on, gunboy, wipe them out. Mow the fuckers down.
Those people who abused your girlfriend and got away with it? I mean, what sort of a pussy are you to have let them live this long? Any real man would have done the right thing a long time ago.
But you won't, will you? Because you're a snivelling coward who prefers to hide away in an internet chatroom concocting clever little arguments that, sadly, have never done anything to alter a single person's point of view in the slightest.
No, maybe I'm being a bit harsh here. I wouldn't want you to cite me as your defense at the trial. Who do you really hate, Rob? Yourself. Kill yourself, before you bore the rest of us to death.
posted
Let's get a couple of things straight here and now.
Rob presented an opinion. He chose to single out the Democrats as being the party in Congress who attach riders and spends money on "pork" projects. That is an opinion that implies that Republicans would not stoop to such a political tatic.
(Sidenote: This is a maneuver that I've seen the present occupant of the White House and his handlers use over and over again with great skill and aplomb. It goes along the lines of: Mr. Bush is above politics and anything he says or does is only driven by his compassionate, altruistic nature, and as a result is as pure as lambs wool.
The other side of this has been to portray the Democrats as an unpatriotic bunch who act only on the basest power grabing motivations whithout a care about the "little people" Mr. Bush cares so much about.
The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle.)
I think what Rob wrote is silly and falls into the above politically puerile point of view.
I made fun of of this position.
I did so by posting my sarcastic and somewhat overdone opinion of his opinion. I even posted a quote from his article that also lays blame** at the feet "members of Congress" which includes members of the same political party to which the present occupant of the White House belongs. This other party is known as the Republicans.
As a result I got called a liar.
I think calling people liars crosses something of a boundry and I resent it very much. I would ask for an apology for being called such, but I'd sooner expect my cat to write a book before I'd get one.
Such is what has become of the flameboard.
What I'd like to see on the flameboard follows in my opinion of actual issues discussed in this thread.
I think we are in the midst of a very important time. This never-to-be-over war on terror has the potential to change the society and culture of the United States in ways that I don't think that Mr. Bush understands and, even worse, cares to try to understand.
A policy of declaring citizens of the United States "emeny combatants" and denying them Constitutional rights and holding them incommunicado in the course of an undefined never-to-be-over war on terror needs full and open debate. Such a policy begins a trip down a very dark road and represents important and seminal changes to the fabric of the United States. Such a decision should not be imposed on the will of Mr. Bush and a very small, select and secretive group in the Executive branch of government without discussion. Nor should the checks and balances of the Constitution be so cavalerly swept aside.
Further, If we attack Iraq on the will of this very small, select and secretive group in the Executive branch of government's concept of "unilaterally determined pre-emptive self-defense", I think that the very core of the American system will be shaken. Afterall, wasn't the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor an attack carried out in the name of "unilaterally determined pre-emptive self-defense"? Do we not revile such things?
Not to mention the fact that I am personally rather frightened of what might come out on the other side an attack carreid out on such a basis. Such an attack would be a watershed in the history of the United States.
It would polarize the Arab world and would draw untold more people into a violent anti-Americanism. The attacks were evil, the people who took part in them and plotted them were and are evil just as those who may be plotting similar actions are evil. But it is utterly foolish to think that United States policies and unlilateral attitute and actions in the world played no role in what happened. So far, Mr. Bush has done nothing publicly to address this.
I think history my well condem his simplistic point of view as missing the overall picture and loosing the opportunity at dialog. We're at a cross-roads in history and cultural where the western world as represented by American capitalism and materialism must take into account those left behind. Also, secular Islam must to come to grips with ultra-religious Islam.
You might disagree. Great. Respond. Present your opinion.
Be serious and don't call me names.
**Although I think the blame rests with the present occupant of the White House strangely engough playing politics.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
He chose to single out the Democrats as being the party in Congress who attach riders and spends money on "pork" projects. That is an opinion that implies that Republicans would not stoop to such a political tatic.
See, THAT's why he called you a liar. He said BOTH parties do that, but that the Democrats are better at it. Seeing as any moron could attach a rider, he probably meant the public relations end of it, which any observer will agree, the Democrats ARE better at, i.e. they're very good at deceiving the populace by leaving out vital information. Witness "The Republicans don't want to count black people in the census!"
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Irrespective of how of how may odd numbered words you can capitalize, you are wrong.
His accusation was nothing but simplistic, baseless nonsense. This is, for the reading impaired, what I made fun of.
Now we can add your baseless, unprovable nonsense to the list, which thankfully, you chose to post rather than dealing with any substantive issues.
Thank you very much for posting.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Jay, I'm FAR from being alone in my opinion on this issue:
Washington Post
quote:"Republicans tend to want to be seen as playing the game above board, while I don't think the Democrats have any compunctions about getting down and dirty," said public relations consultant Craig Shirley. He quickly added: "I say that as praise, not condemnation of the Democrats, because Republicans have to get better at the game, and I hope this is a step in the right direction."
newsargus.com
quote:The Republicans, although logic often is on their side, come across as cold and uncaring. Democrats are better at couching their arguments in human terms that are likely to win sympathy.
quote:Cheating has victims. Both the Republicans and the Democrats know that, but the Democrats are better at making hay over it. All these scandals, starting with Enron, came to light during the Bush administration, but most of the offenses occurred during Bill Clinton's presidency. That doesn't mean Clinton is at fault for them but, on the other hand, neither is Bush.
Gilbert Parker III (young black activist quoted in Independent Online)
quote:"The Democrats are better at bludgeoning and better at spinning and better at relations than Republicans are."
Rep. Gil Gutknecht
quote:Gutknecht discussed ways in which Democrats are better at communicating their views than are Republicans, saying that
Republicans think that if they say something once, its been said, whereas Democrats say things repetitively, and Republicans are good at explaining facts, but not so good at conveying emotion and empathy in their arguments
Worcester Phoenix
quote:Remember the impeachment struggle? The Democrats are better at these extra-normal political battles.
Michael Moore
quote:The job of all politicians is to lie and we just think the Democrats are better at it than you are
However, after some consideration, I WILL take back my statement. You are NOT a liar. You are an exagerrator, and by your own admission, overblown. But not a liar.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
