| Welcome to Exit Mundi Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Executive Privelege; The rights of the White House and Misuse | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 21 2007, 02:33 PM (1,268 Views) | |
| Killer Bee | Mar 30 2007, 04:58 PM Post #16 |
![]()
|
Right, and it worked so beautifully during the aftermath of Katrina. The "quickly act" part, that is. I can agree in theory with what you're saying here, but to put it into a real situitation I wouldn't want my life to depend on an official's executive decision. |
![]() |
|
| Falcon | Apr 1 2007, 04:58 AM Post #17 |
|
Apocalyptic Usher
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The point was that United Airlines was blameless in the attack, as was the government of Dubai. I don't mind conducting a robust investigation into who was responsible for the attack, but I also don't want to arbitrarily interfere with free trade just to grind a political axe based on unfounded bias. There's no harm in you spending your money as you see fit. There's also no implications against your liberty about me expressing my opinion on your choice of behavior. I can't infringe your liberty by disapproving of something you do, I'm not the government.
The point was that the money didn't come from Dubai, it probably came from us (oops) since we did fund Bin Laden during his war with the Soviets. Plus, terrorists are raising funds under the guise of charities in the US all the time.
And the US!
Of course, what else do you expect? It isn't like he has that good a grasp on his nation anyway. However, he's what we've got and if he goes we'll probably get someone worse to deal with.
What was insulting was not something you said, but what our government did; deny Dubia the right we extend to everyone else, the right to buy a port in our country. What I said (and meant) is that there is no reason to insult Dubai by denying them the ability to buy a port just because they have some hostiles in their population. The rest of your post is incomprehensible.
We're putting missles in Europe because we want to use their soil as a platform to shoot down ICBMs. It would be foolish to put missle defense systems in nations we were worried about hostility with. Clearly we're not worried about the disposition of those nations.
You seemed to imply that everyone who doesn't have a problem with the Dubai deal would have had a problem had a Democrat such as Kerry propsed the deal. If that isn't what you meant to say then nevermind.
The Nazis stored gold in Switzerland too, big deal. Any nation that has free trade and unrestricted monetary practices (you know, like the US too) will be a place for terrorists and other unsavory types to make money, transfer it, and launder it. As I mentioned earlier terrorists get money from false charities right here in the US. Also, in case you hadn't noticed, the US is pretty secretive about how we combat terror too (at least until a court forces disclosure <_< ) |
![]() |
|
| Killer Bee | Apr 1 2007, 09:36 AM Post #18 |
![]()
|
Living in a post 9/11 world, do you think selling a port to anyone right now would be a good idea? My concerns aren't about it being a middle-eastern country, it's about the fact that our ports are still sitting wide open for something bad to happen. Shouldn't we be the ones to operate such a vital resource for our own country? |
![]() |
|
| Falcon | Apr 1 2007, 07:37 PM Post #19 |
|
Apocalyptic Usher
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If someone wanted to smuggle a weapon into this country there are ten thousand points of weakness far more enticing than a port (the gulf coast, the entire mexican border, the entire canadian border, etc. Basically, any place where drugs are currently smuggled freely.). Port security would have remained under US government control regardless of who purchased it anyway. The deal was purely commercial and had no impact on security at all as near as I can tell. |
![]() |
|
| Killer Bee | Apr 2 2007, 02:54 PM Post #20 |
![]()
|
If someone wanted to smuggle a weapon into this country there are ten thousand points of weakness far more enticing than a port (the gulf coast, the entire mexican border, the entire canadian border, etc. Basically, any place where drugs are currently smuggled freely.) So, it wouldn't make sense to smuggle a weapon into an area that is less watched? Like a port.
From what I saw, and correct me if I'm wrong, of the deal, Dubai would have control of security of the ports they bought in the deal, using American companies for patrol. |
![]() |
|
| Mister Sinister | Apr 2 2007, 04:55 PM Post #21 |
![]()
Delusional Granduerist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh good God, Man! The Govt is blamed because of the freewheeling-look-the other-way-business banking and border laws.
The only reason you fail to comprehend my post is because you know absolutely NOTHING about the population of Dubai, otherwise you would not have made the sttement about hostile population. Sorry for denying the somewhat hostile population of Dubai, control of US port Security, here's Halliburton! Still "Friends"?
Oh, clearly...when have we ever been worried about the population of Europe? Incidentally, where would we be shooting down ICBM's from? What hostile threat are we concerned with then, that would call for placing a "defensive" missile system in Eastern Europe?
I implied nothing, I stated that the Republican propaganda machine would have routed any Democrat trying to make this port security decision with the utmost extremity and bias. It's not my fault you misconstrued the statement, but I have certainly paid the price after this (the third) attempt explaining it to you. So please...nevermind!
Oh right, BIG DEAL!! It's an attitude like that that has kept the Third Reich's principles alive and well in this the 21st Century. Swiss banks collude with Nazi's to store and invest and deposit Gold, even after 1943 and the Swiss Govt knew NOTHING about it. Sure, it's not a big deal to you Mr. Gekko, business as usual regardless, right? Gotta make that money. No reason to look into it, it's Gold who cares where it came from. The complicit nature of the Swiss govt allowed this to happen you nutcase, just like Dubai. To you it's "no big deal" to me it strikes at the very nature of that country during the 1940's. When referring to Switzerland, most Americans think of exquisite chocolates, fine timepieces, and visions of Heidi chasing goats across alpine meadows. But, it's more and more apparent that this idyllic view is a far cry from the truth. A truth of shadowy money laundering and greedy hoarding without regard for the means in which the money was being secured. But I'm sure you think the Swiss govt "knew absolutely nothing". That would be next to impossible considering that the Swiss were basically surrounded by the Third Reich after France "fell". Truly neutral. :rolleyes:
Something that the US has TAKEN STEPS TO TRY AND PREVENT!!! Unlike Dubai!! Hell, unlike Nazi Switzerland! The US secretive about combating terror? I don't think so. Invading two countries and threatening two more ain't exactly secretive. You must be reffering to all the evidence being held against the Gitmo "lowlifes", the secret torture sites in Saudi Arabia, and other "secretive" locations. Is that the secret you're referring to? Maybe the secret info being held on numerous US citizens. All things I'd argue against, in case you haven't noticed. Which apparently...you haven't.
I would'nt exactly call it freely, I know two people on Coast Guard duty on the Gulf, since 9/11 and from what they say, it's a helluva fight. One they are probably not winning, but it's really not a good idea to detract from what they are doing, as it IS serving the country for the better. Perhaps you'd like to call up Pakistan and see if any of their corporations would like to contract a security bid to patrol the Gulf? Would that make you feel safer? So then, let's insure there is ONE more place that can't be fully guarded, and have it run by people who are KNOWN to deal with Terrorists, or maybe a Nation KNOWN to contain corporations that have colluded with our nation's Enemies to develop Nuclear weapons. I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo and that's the stupidest thing I've ever read on a website. Good idea Mr. Gekko! Make that money at all costs. Wait, not a good idea, that's why it was stopped. Greed must be....bad? Impossible. |
![]() |
|
| Falcon | Apr 4 2007, 01:22 AM Post #22 |
|
Apocalyptic Usher
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It isn't the government's business, banking, or border laws that caused the attack, nor would any measures, no matter how draconian, make us impervious to future attacks.
You deny that there are any hostile people to the US in Dubai? The rest of your post is still incomprehensible. The US government doesn't control the actions of Haliburton. US port security is handled by customs\coast guard\whatever no matter which set of businessmen "own" the port itself.
I expect we'd be set to shoot them down mainly from N. Korea and Iran. Russian or Chinese missles would likely be too numerous for such a system to be at all effective. The point, which seems to have escaped you, is that we wouldn't put sensitive defense systems (or, for that matter, offensive weapons systems) in nations who we don't have great confidence in as allies.
You've never proffered any evidence beyond your own bias to explain why Republicans would flip sides on an issue like this just so that they could beat their opponents over the head with said issue. There's this thing called "principles" that a few of us still have that leads us to make judgments based on the issue not on whether a political opponent can be hurt by taking a stance against the position we would otherwise take.
If we refused to do business with any nation that made money unethically then we would have to freeze all trade to all nations, probably forever.
The Nazi's were the legitimate government of Germany. Sure, they were a tyrannical government, but then so is most of the governments we currently do business with. You promote change best by engaging, when possible. What alternative did Switzerland have? None. What harm would selling a port to Dubai have done? I can't see any and you haven't shown any, you've just poured out a bunch of unfounded suppositions.
Dubai has taken steps to try and prevent terrorists from using their systems, they just haven't told anyone what those steps are. The point was that we too, here in the US, resist revealing our terrorist prevention methods, especially when they come to financial methods.
We've been secretive about the means we use to combat terrorist money transactions. Indeed, we were quite peeved when some of those techniques were leaked a few months ago. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5112484.stm
Huh? I didn't detract from what they're doing, I accurately characterized it as an utter failure, the point being that we need to dump a lot of resources into crafting an effective border patrol that encompasses both land and water borders.
The ports are guarded exactly the same no matter who owns them. How is that so hard to understand? You can even view a breakdown of who is responsible for security. Here's a hint, it isn't the private owner. |
![]() |
|
| Mister Sinister | Apr 4 2007, 03:20 PM Post #23 |
![]()
Delusional Granduerist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sure it isn't. Good Call. Did I say caused? I said ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. Again, I pay the price for your total incomprehension of the discussion.
Great! You don't understand, I can't relate, but this is all very familiar.
heheheheheheheheheheh.
Damn, got me! Tow that line! Is there nothing from the Pentagon you WON'T regurgitate verbatim? This is classic!
I asked another member what they thought. You sir, bounced in and dragged the statement all to hell and back. I did not solicit your opinion, yet you came by, grabbed ahold and blindly started spouting off about insults and your love for free trade, and MY political bias. Think before you respond. Think about whether or not I'm even asking YOU (in particular) a question, or if I am in a conversation with another member that YOU are about to hijack. It'll help, I promise. So, again you fail to comprehend what happened...fourth time.
Umm, you don't have any principles, that aren't laid out for you. I believe that's somewhere in Deuteronomy. If you are accusing me of making decisions based on political points... I'd never pass an opportunity to score one against "the crazies". Any chance I get, save maiming and murder, I will strike against the crazies, because, THEY ARE FUCKING CRAZY. Anything they say in public is bullshit, I know because I've read their true agendas, and it don't jive, sah. However, YOU consistently "put aside" your "Good Christian Ways" when it comes to politics, war, and Bush. I have principles that I act on consistently regardless of the situation, you on the other hand either abandon or cling to yours based on whatever suits the scenario. So, don't take the moral high ground with me, pal. You don't have the dirt to stand on.
Got any more Nazi atrocities you want to justify?
I guess you do have some more... Buddy, they didn't have to hide Nazi Gold, then fight to keep it. That's the second time you've apologised for the Nazi's.
We won't have to find out, because folks like me stopped it. You are welcome.
Of course, there is no "point of no return" for you, Gekko. Shelve those Christian values, they have nothing to do with making money, nothing. So, what the Nazi's were doing wasn't SO bad you can't make some money off it? Brilliant! Shrewd as well.
Point made! GOAAAAAAAAAAAL!!!! You love replying so much, you forget what you are replying to, or you just never read it, or understood it, there has got to be a myriad of reasons, got to be.
Oh, okay, I'll take the terrorist hub (and you) at their word. Your christian values have rubbed off a little, mainly because you wear them on your sleeve and secondly because you have a history of removing your shirt.
Something (once again) I'd argue against. Do you get it? I don't trust the crazies, I'm certainly NOT going to trust a Midlle Eastern Government that looks the other way on terrorists money.
Boo Hoo! Everybody knows Cheney is tracking money, WAAAHH! I am so saddened! Wait, no I'm not, this is a victory for us against the crazies, and I'm all for that. You seriously want me to believe that just because CHENEY says it's helping the terrorists for this information to be disclosed, it actually IS. You are a total fucking nutcase. TOW! TOW! TOW! How does this public knowledge impede this programme? Terrorists, stop transfering money for fear of being tracked by Cheney? Score! Terror suspects won't transfer money, due to deterrence, making it harder for that network to operate. Win-win.
Huh? I didn't detract from what they are doing, I'll prove it by detracting from what they are doing.
And where should we dump those resources, Turkmenistan?
Then stop being so upset that we told Dubai to take a hike, or don't. I'll continue to fight the authority. you just lay there. In the end, it will have been MY fight that keeps you free to speak about your backwards ideals and hypocritical "beliefs", And I'm DAMN proud to do it. |
![]() |
|
| Falcon | Apr 4 2007, 08:34 PM Post #24 |
|
Apocalyptic Usher
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually you said "blamed" but it doesn't matter because government policy didn't "allow" the terrorist attacks to happen either.
You apparently can't even defend your position either.
" "
Do you think that we have a defense system that can stop Russian and Chinese full scale attacks? That would be great.
You posted in a public forum; I am not constrained to withhold my opinion, especially when your theory is completely bogus. If you want to hold a private discussion with someone use the private message function. Please, by all means, don't subject the rest of us to your rabid axe grinding.
Sure I do, religion is silent on many aspects of ordinary life, such as what stance you should take on who owns a port. Regardless, as I've said many times the principles I use to determine what public policy should contemplate are segmented away from religious principles. That you shape your public policy recommendations around positions you believe will "score one" against your opponents reveals that your positions are without intellectual consideration or depth. You don't want to do what is right, but rather what you perceive to be politically expedient.
Religion can't be coerced and as such should be separated from the political process which is inherently about coercion. That's a principle of governance which emphasizes individual liberty, including the liberty to disbelieve religion if you choose too. The point is that I don't adopt positions because a group I identify as generally being opposed to the things I believe in might suffer from my adopting that particular position.
It wasn't a justification, merely a recounting of reality.
So you expect Switzerland to suffer economically from some third party's actions? Have you paid reparations for all the Chinese goods you've ever purchased yet?
Thanks for stomping on liberty, free trade, and our relations with other nations.
I must have missed the part of the Bible that said "thou shalt not engage in commerce with any sinner." The Nazi's weren't doing anything worse than what China is still doing with forced abortions (from a religious point of view). http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abo...ab-prchina.html
The main reason is that your replies are so vague and incomprehensible I have to guess half the time what you're responding to. I usually assume you mean to make a point on topic, but I guess I gave you too much benefit of the doubt.
"Christian values" seems to have become some kind of talismanic phrase you think you can envoke to invalidate my argument whenever you fail to devise some kind of reasoned or evidenced response.
That's fine if you don't trust them, but if you want to convince everyone else not to trust them you're going to need more than black helicoptor theories. I too am distrustful of the government and the people in power, but I attempt to be reasonable in that distrust.
The terrorists will merely transfer funds through more difficult to track means to evade detection when they know that the detection exists. The point was that Dubai isn't doing anything by being secretive that our own government isn't attempting to do. I suppose you will find that argument unpersuasive since you seem to place "the crazies" on the same level as "the terrorist lovers" in Dubai.
A detraction implies construing someone's performance as less than it is unfairly, not accurately characterizing it despite its flaws.
The American border obviously. You don't have to respond if you can't think of anything to say, you know.
You're not "fighting the authority," you're getting in bed with one set of authority over another. In this case Democrats who wanted to hammer Bush on an issue vaguely resembling foreign policy and "the war on terror," in an attempt to make up for their dismal image in those areas. What's really sad here is that I think you're honestly out to defend the principles of liberty that has made America great, but you're misguided as to how to do so or what those principles actually were\are. |
![]() |
|
| Killer Bee | Apr 4 2007, 09:12 PM Post #25 |
![]()
|
Until you can prove your own theory or stance completley un-bogus I don't think you have the privelage to call someone elses theory "bogus".
Stomping on liberty? How?
Black helicopter theories? WTF? You have a president who is shoving making America "safer" down the world's throat and what does he do? Decides to make a deal, with no one elses say so on the matter, to sell ports to Dubai. Where's the "so called" logic in that decision. I'm GLAD this idiot was finally showed up, maybe he understand in his feeble little mind that there are those that won't let him run the whole country into the ground.
But you'll defend a president who hasn't shown one ounce of concern for America or the rest of the world, for that matter. What has he done for Americans since he stole the oval office?
Aren't they one in the same?
What's even more sad is the fact that you defend the regime that is destroying everything that USED to make America great. Selling American ports to foreign investors, starting an unjustified war, meanwhile back in the "real" world people right here in our own back yard are losing jobs and everything they own because of the big corporate machine running them over that you call "free trade". |
![]() |
|
| Mister Sinister | Apr 4 2007, 10:13 PM Post #26 |
![]()
Delusional Granduerist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Okay. *pats Falcons' head*
I. Have. You. Just. Can't. Seem. To. Grasp. Hold. Of. It.
It matters not, the crazies want war with China. Read about it.
Oh, this is classic. I completely expected this. There are "principles" that are used inside this public forum, unwritten and unspoken rules of conduct, as well as "principles" used in dealing with people (on or off the Internet), unwritten rules of conduct. You don't know shit about either. When I address a certain person directly, I.e. a response showing a quote from said person, it means that is an A-B conversation, don't C your way into it with your bullshit party stance, nobody solicited it. You don't agree, well this IS the US, just don't expect me to drink your kool-aid Jim Jones. I only offered opinion (never claimed anything but the facts to be facts) which I also solicited from one other member, Fifth time you've misconstrued what happened, you must be in a perpetual state of confusion. I wish your reading comprehension was good, I could talk you straight.
Score one against the crazies at all costs save violence. Nothing wrong with putting the powers that be in check, even if it is something trivial. BooYA!!!! Eat it George, you can't just walk in and do what you like. I'll stop checking the power, when the power stops taking at will. My moral compass? If the crazies say they want it, I have to fight against it. Ther is no greater evil in this world than the current US administration. Anyway, it sure beats swallowing the bullshit pill whole. You've never said How selling out our ports to terrorists would be beneficial....Because it's not, you just like the flavor of the Kool-aid.
Oh, I see. You put aside Christianity whenever it's evident that christianity won't help certain people. Yet, you portray Christianity as the end all be all. Sensible.
Funny, it's the same "reality account" the Swede's gave. Which happened to be a bleak attempt at justifying making money off of dead Jews. The better part of the Globe knows differently, even Germany at this point, but not the Swiss! TOW TOW TOW!
|
![]() |
|
| Falcon | Apr 5 2007, 03:32 AM Post #27 |
|
Apocalyptic Usher
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Killer Bee
My own theory that we don't know what they're doing because they're as secretive as our own government?
How? Denying a willing seller and a willing buyer the right to engage in commerce and you ask how liberty has been trampled? Freedom of contract, property, etc...
Bush didn't do it personally, it was a mechanism of the bureaucracy, much of which is subject to direct Congressional oversight. "It was approved by the federal Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which includes representatives of the FBI, Pentagon and Treasury, Commerce and Homeland Security departments." http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/21/port.security/
I have plenty of problems with the President's policies, but none with this port deal because no one has shown a shred of evidence or reasoning to support the notion that it would be harmful whilst I've seen plenty to suggest it isn't, some of which I've recounted here only to be met with deafening silence.
No.
The port was already owned by a foreign investor, the English. The war wasn't unjustified, not even in retrospect. Saddam defied us, the victors of war, and as such it was our discretion to put him in his place. Free trade makes everyone richer; just think about it for a second. Do we allow protectionist trade practices between the several states? No. Does this result in jobs fleeing, for example, from New York to Alabama? Yes. Does this make us all richer by maximizing efficiency without regard to regional interest? Yes. Does this principle generalize to the rest of the world? Yes. Minister Sinister
This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say black helicoptor theories. There's nothing to support the notion of a war with China. If indeed there are any such people they're certainly not in a position to carry such a policy out.
The great thing about unwritten rules are that you can make them up as you go along, right? You posted in a public forum, thus you de facto solicited responses from anyone who bothered to reply. If you wanted a private conversation it would have taken no extra effort on your part to send a private message.
The only one crazy here is you. The world is a dark place, far darker than the dishwater strength Bush administration and its well meaning incompetance.
Christianity is something to be exercised in one's personal character, not coerced onto the public at large via government policy.
A justification is when you say "X is okay because." A recounting of reality is when you say "X happened because of Y circumstances."
No, I'm not arguing for the Nazi's, the Nazi's are incidental to the point here, which is that commerce takes place with unsavory nations all the time and will inevitably continue.
All of them, China is a tyrannical nation that engages in unsavory activities all the time. You can send the reparations to a charity that fights for human rights around the globe.
Sure, Bush hasn't been good for liberty and the Constitution. That doesn't make the ports deal bad.
Jesus overturned the money changers table because they were acting inside the temple and cheating people as I recall. That isn't even remotedly a command to not engage in commerce with sinners. After all, Jesus ate with sinners, accepted gifts of expensive oils instead of selling them to give to the poor like his disciples wanted to, etc...
When did I say that they hadn't admitted it? I said that they did it, not that they didn't admit to it. The point, which was unaddressed by you, is that the Chinese do, via abortions (all abortions, not just the forced abortions) just as much killing or more than the Nazi's did from a religious point of view (since we seem to be freewheeling mixing religion into everything for some strange reason).
You don't get credit for a comeback that's stolen directly, without shame, from the person you're responding to.
You admitted up front that you don't decide issues based on principles, but rather your sole criteria is that you be on the opposite side of the Bush "greatest evil in the world" administration. I didn't just question your principles, I pointed out your wholesale lack of any principles whatsoever in favor of an extreme axe grinding agenda.
You argue a lot for someone who isn't interested in convincing people of things. "Black helicoptors" is a phrase meaning "dilusional paranoia bordering on mental illness," which is precisely what your increasingly rambling incoherent posts indicate.
It isn't doublespeak, in no way does a "detraction" resemble an "accurate characterization."
A rhetorical question was an illogical response to my statement and the general level of your replies are so unreasoned as to make your "rhetorical question" appear as a serious response.
I expect a copy of your receipt to a human rights charity of your choice to be posted any day now. |
![]() |
|
| Killer Bee | Apr 5 2007, 04:54 PM Post #28 |
![]()
|
Until you can give definite proof, what I said before still holds true. And no, I'm not calling your little theory "bogus", I just want you to back it up.
Maybe this "liberty of commerce" you claimed that's been trampled just wasn't as important as keeping our ports safer.
Whatever. He was the one that publicly supported this deal while force feeding the public on how "terrorism" is a threat to our borders.
It doesn't matter, does it? It still got snuffed, for all the right reasons.
I guess all the arguements in this topic you've conveniently ignored. I'm not going to quote them all, you're smart enough to read through it yourself. It's just the fact that everyone isn't as concerned about someone making a profit at America's expense as you are. And further more, you say you've got "problems" with Bush's policies, and yet you still defend all of his policies no matter how much of a mistake or bad they are. Like Iraq.
Such a good response. So I take it you don't have anything to back up your lengthy response?
Right.....all those WMD's we found was worth the cost alone. Maybe the documentation we found linking Hussein to Al-Queda, as your buddy Dubya swore they were there, makes it "justified". That's two strikes, you want to go for three? Maybe the fact that Hussein was a DIRECT threat to U.S. soil....oops, sorry, strike three.
Maybe in theory, but reality shows that corporate execs and stock brokers get the best share of the money free trade generates. |
![]() |
|
| Mister Sinister | Apr 5 2007, 05:53 PM Post #29 |
![]()
Delusional Granduerist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Bona Dea! You really don’t know, do you? I mean, you are really in the dark. I might have gone off the deep end, but at least I got in the pool. The PNAC runs this country. PNAC members on the Bush team include Vice-President Dick Cheney and his (former) top national security assistant, Scooter Libby; Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton; and former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Other PNAC members exerting influence on U.S. policy are the President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq Randy Scheunemann, Republican Party leader Bruce Jackson and current PNAC chairman William Kristol, conservative writer for the Weekly Standard. Jeb Bush, the president's brother and governor of Florida, is also a member. Most ominously, this PNAC described four "Core Missions" for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions." Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see. "Why is this important, Mister Sinister? I mean, wacky think tanks are a cottage industry in DC." You may say. Yes, that is true, they are a dime a dozen. In what way does PNAC stand above the other groups that would set American foreign policy if they could? Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy. http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf http://www.newamericancentury.org/ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=3932 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_t...merican_Century http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm http://cryptome.org/rad.htm A lot of this agenda is already in motion…Net Nuetrality, The Iraq war, trying to deploy global missile systems…more to come, read it and discover the nature of you leaders. Don’t be fooled by the harmless overtones of peace and prosperity, that will only be saved for an elite few. So keep towing that party line, then grab your rifle and ready for war. I maintain, that you are ill informed, ignorant actually. You don’t even know the agenda of the people you’re defending. Thanks for stomping on liberty, stealing two elections, erasing Habeas Corpus, Looking the other way on Pollution Laws, cranking up the Free trade from insanity to suicidal, and completely and frivolously wasting our credibility in less than 3 years by fomenting war and genocide in the Middle East. It’s quite an accomplishment for you and yours.
Um, no you can’t. You can break them, but only if you have a purpose. If your purpose is to praise the Swiss for making a killing off of, well, killing then overlay that ass-backwards morality onto the present day, then your purpose has been achieved.
Hey this is fun, I’m glad you came along, don’t get me wrong. There is nothing more entertaining. I’m mean you are defending the Nazis, you really can’t see THAT on cable, maybe in the Iranian president’s palace, but not on American TV! *Watches intently*
Umm…arrogance, the well-meaning incompetence is their cover. I am proud of my crazy it’s a badge of honor. (Especially if it means that I’m nothing like you, it’s a serious compliment and I’ll now strive even harder to achieve….crazier)
I see, something you wear when you are alone. Sure, abandon your principles in the face of mere politics. Grow a spine. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad you don’t bring that nutty shit in your politics, but what kind of man wears two different sets of principles based on the situation. You are a walking talking tank of double-think, a true Inner-party prodigy.
Oh, no! He didn’t take the semantical bait! Pulls Red hankerchief out of ass and waves it around profusely* I won't give up until I've dragged this debate through seven levels of BS! Well, in this case X+Y= Nazi murders that you are trying to excuse, as well as trying to justify making money off of those murders. You imply it’s okay by excusing it. I suppose Christopher Columbus wasn’t a vicious slave trader guilty of genocide, he was a brave explorer who was just looking for something to flavor his food when *POW* all these people show up and he becomes a victim of “circumstances” or “Y”. Anyway, it doesn’t matter, no harm done. You use variables without the slightest knowledge of the irony contained. I’ll address the comprehension thing now like I promised. Variables change from equation to equation and often come up negative. Hence, X+Y rarely equals justifiable, and never equals justifiable when the equation is applied to Nazi Germany and those in cahoots (Goes for the Vatican, too). I’m sure you find that argument unpersuasive considering you like to make money at all costs. Regardless of what your glorious party tells you, the end DOES NOT justify the means and that applies to the US government, as well. Would you like to continue your debate FOR the Nazis? Gee, I’m beginning to think you’re purposefully and knowingly arguing for Hitler.
Oh, yeah…incidental? Is that why you whipped them out and stood on their principles of business? I’ve heard of standing on giant’s shoulders, but not monsters. I suppose since it’s “commonplace” to deal with leaders who murder millions (I wouldn’t know how these people get away with killing as many people as Hitler, but oh well) that makes it…OK.
Ooooh, all of them? Well can you name like, at least five? It would give me a good idea of how much to give. If it’s more than what I already give (to Charity in time as well as money) I’ll see what I can do about “upping the ante”. If it’s less, you owe ME the difference. You can donate the amount, in my name Mister Sinister, to any one of these: http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php http://www.fisherhouse.org/ http://www.globalfundforwomen.org/cms/ http://www.bbbsa.org/site/pp.asp?c=iuJ3JgO2F&b=14576 http://www.compassionandchoices.org/ http://www.ipacademy.org/
It makes whatever comes out of his mouth bad. If he wants it, Imma ‘ginnit! The only thing I can do, is oppose the crazies plan. I’m sure as shit not going to just sit here and watch their machinations pave over everything I love about this country. Or better yet, I could SAY imma ginnit and then defend to the ends of the Earth every action of this administration...Will you teach me how?
Gave away instead of sold. Oh, you were saying that Jesus LIKES to make money from murder, yes, you’re right. Okay that’s too far, Jesus doesn’t mind taking money from murderers.
You’re the one that flew this argument from Dubai, to Germany (in the 1940’s), To Switzerland (circa same time frame), then to China, via the Gulf of Mexico, you mixed it up by attacking my principles, which following the Nazi justifications, I have found very amusing. I’m merely trying to reign you in by showing you would abandon your own principles, regardless. Something you’ve demonstrated by rejoicing in the monetary benefits of your free trade with the horrible red monster, good Christian soul.
Hey, YOU don’t get credit for not giving me credit…WTF are you a predatory lender? Shameful. Good comeback though! Here’s your sign…I mean credit. You do realize that responding is giving credit, don’t you?
Uh huh. *pedals grinder* Like I said, you lack the moral high ground, Simon ben Jonah. You also lack reading comprehension, as this is the third time I’ve told you this. Yet instead of moving on, you repeat ad nauseum. You never offer anything new for proof (aside from bleak attempts at justifying your position FOR Bush’s Privelege and the Nazi’s Gold that I would certainly argue against which completely escapes you, you repeat…ad nauseum. Here is an Example: I say; What the Swiss and Germans did in the ‘40’s was wrong. You say; No more wrong than what China is doing. That’s not even true but for the sake of argument, I played along. But, what you can’t understand is unlike you, I argue against trade with China, you apparently pile their blood stained goods as high as you can reach. As well as simultaneously trying to excuse the actions of what some people of your ilk can only describe as the Anti-Christ.
Oh, this isn't argueing for the sake of convincing you. I'm argueing with you to show everyone else how insane you are. You are helping tremendously! Trying for the semantic argument, again? You argue for the government a whole lot for someone who has no grasp on the controlling nature of those in the administration. You’re either as narrow as a Georgetown alley, or obtuse as an open barn door…Oh yeah, the reading comprehension thing with you….You are either shouting from the mountain tops about the pleasures and love Christ can bring humanity or your feeding from the bottom in an attempt to secure so much money it would make Solomon blush, through means that make Nixon, LBJ, and Reagan look like choir boys. Nice “principles”. *increase rambling and incoherency to level six*
No. It is. On a complete aside, Stalin was the real monster of WWII, the Russians should’ve listened, they’d all be better off today. We all would. War is Peace. Please join me in the Forum for the public executions at three.
So, everything rhetorical is illogical? Isn’t that interesting? Got any more commentary? Oh, yeah, comprehension. This is all rhetorical.
Well, I guess I gave you too much credit, again. This time I assumed you knew better than to take blood money. You even told me you weren’t above it and I still did not believe you. I don’t do Charity for the recognition; I do it because my fellow humans need help, thanks to “free trade”. I wouldn’t expect you to know anything about that. Don’t compare me to your capitalist over lords, you are the one reveling in blood soaked Chinese goods and free trade, and cheap socks or whatever it is that makes you hard. Not to mention how much you love the president’s right to do as he pleases, and how other countries should get to partake in the spoils of genocide, regardless. Nice platform, I see you’ve used actual human legs. I appreciate your interests in my charity work though. What’s funny is that while it may appear (to you) that my posts are incomprehensible, they are actually full of mocking innuendo, and subtle traps. After our last go round, someone (who doesn’t even partake in our little rodeos) PM’d me and told me that you would defend the Nazis if the circumstances were right. After a few chuckles, I replied: I know it seems his views are a tad extreme, but so are mine. Therefore I cannot take the high road with him, because I am a polar opposite and just as extreme in my views as he in his. Anyway, it’s preposterous to think he would defend the Nazis under any precept, but I appreciate the laugh. Looks like I was dead wrong, because here you are, justifying, apologizing and defending. It wasn’t even hard to get you to start defending the Nazis, you actually brought it up and when I protested the actions of the Swiss, you just fell right in like you’ve been on that position before. It’s actually a little frightening, but when thought about, not surprising. |
![]() |
|
| agafaba | Apr 5 2007, 09:48 PM Post #30 |
|
douchebagga
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't think you should be condemning a country due to VOLUNTARY abortions, if I did that I would be forced to loath myself and hide in Antarctica till the cold finished me off. Can someone give any recommendations on countries that are not evil due to there anti-abortion laws? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and Religion · Next Topic » |









![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)

You are welcome.
12:30 AM Jul 11