| 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 (1,266 Views) | |
| DirkNL | Apr 6 2007, 10:33 AM Post #31 |
|
Horrific poster
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Antarctica. There's no law there whatsoever, and there's an unclaimed part (EM nation?) -Dirk |
![]() Hail the wallflipping monochrome computer thingy 98% of the internet population has a Myspace. If you're part of the 2% that isn't an emo bastard, copy and paste this into your sig. | |
![]() |
|
| Falcon | Apr 7 2007, 09:13 PM Post #32 |
|
Apocalyptic Usher
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The definate proof that they are secretive is that we don't know what they're doing. Definite proof that we try to be that secretive has already been posted; Bush admin policies that were leaked unwillingly which had been secret up until that point.
Port safety is not changed one iota regardless of who owns the port because, as I already posted, security is run by US government agencies.
He supported it once he found out about it because it was a good deal that didn't threaten American security in the slightest. That doesn't mean that he instigated it; it was a function of bureaucracy. Also, Bush hasn't even been slightly helpful on enhancing border security, but indeed has been a part of the problem with his soft on immigration stance.
It matters as far as my proving that you were wrong about it being "Bush's policy" rather than a simple function of routine bureaucratic mechanics. The most you could say is that its an executive branch policy (which is also wrong, in reality, since Congressional oversight reaches into all those various departments).
All those poor arguments that aren't founded in a shred of fact or logic? Your broad sweeping generalizations of my positions make me wonder why I bother to type them up at all. Apparently if a person's position isn't *dur, Iraq bad, Bush terrorist* then you assume that the person must love Bush and all his policies exactly as they happened, etc... You fail.
Why should I back up my response to a response that wasn't backed up? If you want to claim that "the crazies" are on the same level as "the terrorist lovers" in Dubai then feel free to proffer up the proof.
None of those things detract from the fact that we were justified in taking Saddam out because he defied us, the war victors. I never hinged the justification on invading Iraq on WMD, Al-Queda links (as if Al-Queda were the only terrorist group in the world), or "direct threats" (which is a stupid test, no nation is a "direct threat" to the US, nor have we ever gone to war with a nation which was a "direct threat" to the US except maybe England; even in WWII Germany was not a "direct threat" to the US, just to US interests abroad, likewise Japan was not a "direct threat" merely a threat to its asian neighbors, etc...). The WMD\Al-Queda\"direct threat" tests for justification have only emerged after the war concluded as anti-US\anti-Bush talking points to delegitimize ongoing US efforts. Congrats on being a tool.
They also bear most of the risk and provide most of the critical capital investment. You ignored the rest of my post; US Constitution enforces free trade between the states, why not have free trade everywhere else? Mister Sinister
Good job on discovering who occupies what office. Too bad none of those people are burning for war with China or have the power to go to war with China.
There's nothing ominous about trying to develop and articulate broad mission statements for the armed forces. In the 1990's the military lost its way as a result of Cold War draw down and got mired in philosophies of peacekeeping, meals on wheels, "observing," etc... Iraq has shown that the military lacks coherent strategies for nation building and occupations. Theorizing strategies to enable the military to properly do its job when called upon isn't some dark evil plan, its what we need to avoid wasting money and lives.
Sure, Republicans are generally more "pro-military," "pro-defense," than Democrats and 911 demonstrated that we needed new military strategies to face a threat vastly different than the old Cold War era threats.
There will always be war, the only question is whether we're prepared to win it. Some policies I disagree with, either in substance or procedure, like Iraq and Net Neutrality, some of it I agree with, like SDI.
You wouldn't know what my positions are since you seem unable or unwilling to listen to them. No elections were stolen (oh, now you don't like an activist court, right? I agree that the court shouldn't have got involved, but then I'd like to see a lot less court involvement all around). Habeas Corpus isn't being mistreated anymore than it ever has been (check out the Civil War sometime; of course I don't agree with revoking citizens access to Habaes Corpus). Pollution laws are already excessive and unnecessary so I'm glad of the [in]action there. I'm pro-free trade to the max because its best for both liberty and prosperity. The left wing dividing our policy and thwarting our goals has done more to harm our credibility by making us look weak than Bush has done by waging unnecessary war. We haven't done anything approaching genocide in the Middle East (good grief, quit abusing the language). I'd ask you to stop making absurd generalizations between myself and Bush, but I know you won't listen.
A great example of an incomprehenible reply. You completely missed the point too, which was that if your rules are "unwritten," then they're worthlessly arbitrary.
No one wastes as many words on complaining that they were engaging in a "private conversation" as you have when they are "glad" that the other person came along.
Is it fun to attach whatever negative adjective you like to Bush and pretend its true because everyone else on the bandwagon slaps you a high five? First Bush was evil, now he's just arrogent? Oh no, here comes that arrogent guy, everyone run for cover. I'm glad no other politician past or present has ever been arrogent. Give me a break.
No, it isn't something to be worn "when you're alone," but rather something you wear without using the government to coerce others to wear it too. Really, can you go five minutes without mischaracterizing my statements? Additionally, how hard is it for you to understand that it would be counter productive, from a religious point of view, to attempt to use force to cram Christianty down other people's throats because true religion cannot be coerced, only choosen by free will. It isn't "double-think" to suggest that politics and religion be separated because both are harmful to the other.
What the Nazi's did wasn't okay in any shape, matter, or form. What the Swiss did was okay because that was the circumstances of the time, they had no control over Germany policy anymore than we have control over Chinese policy as we blithly trade with them.
That's of questionable historical accuracy and a terrible analogy.
We could twist in the moralizing winds all day long. We went to war with Germany so that we could save Stalin's communism which murdered far more people than the Nazi's did. Oops. Likewise with the Chinese we declined to go to war with them during the Korean conflict and they've been a tyranny murdering millions in the time since. Making money is incidental here, you've only decided to throw that in because everyone knows money = evil, right?
Get it straight, the Nazi's are incidental here, the point is that the Swiss had no way to influence German behavior and refusing to do business with them would have been pointless. Its illogical to condemn them for this because we currently do business with "immoral" actors all the time. Since when didn't the ends justify the means? As I recall this all arose because you were gung-ho for trampling on Dubai's right to own a port, depriving them of freedom of contract and opportunity, just because you've dreamed up some threat that exists. This whole country is run on the ends justifying the means; we steal from one class of citizen to bestow favors on anther class and call it poverty relief. We deprive people of property use and enjoyment and call it environmental protection.
I see no reason to impoverish our people by refusing to trade just to make some kind of statement that we "disapprove" of someone else.
Naming more charities wouldn't give you a good idea of what to give; going and adding up the value of all the "made in China" goods in your house will. If its more than what you already give then you can start working on the items bought from other tyrannical regimes. The point, which you appear to have dodged, is that we currently do business with unsavory types like the Nazi's so its pointless to condem others for similar behavior.
Which is why I said that your policy positions are intellectually bankrupt, they're all just knee-jerk opposition to Bush regardless of the merits of the policy in question.
Is that your way of dodging my point? Jesus wasn't concerned about this physical life, but about the spiritual kingdom to come. He still "rendered unto Caesar," but he didn't give away money to the poor all the time or some such.
I made an offhand statement that the Nazi's stored gold in switzerland just like the terrorists store money in Dubai banks (or german banks, or American banks, etc...) which you then went nuts over (apparently not realizing that I equated terrorists with Nazi's) because you thought you could lower the level of the debate to some kind of knee-jerk emotionalism (Falcon is defending Nazi's HYUCK; sorry, I'm not trying to justify Nazi behavior, but that of the people who had no choice but to do business with them, like Switzerland). An utter mischaracterization. My attack on your "principles" was narrowly articulated against your stated policy of opposing anything Bush does regardless of the merits of his action merely because it was a Bush action. That does display a lack of principle and an obcession with political axe grinding. I haven't "abandoned" my own principles; I continue to analyze each policy according to its individual merits regardless of who proposed the policy. Free trade maximizes prosperity for all people, thus it is the best system (and the most moral since it emphasizes non-coercive economics). There is no Christian command to engage in no commerce with sinners.
No, there is no basis to conclude that responding and pointing out the uncreativeness of your response is in fact giving some sort of credit.
If you're against trade with China then who are you for trading with? How "good" does someone have to be before Mister Sinister decides that they're worthy of his business? Also, how do you justify the starving children, loss of opportunity, and general economic hardship that results from your little moral statement against bad actors? How many people does your draconian trade policies have to kill in order to prove that you're not a Nazi too? Oh wait...
So you are interested in convincing people of things. Did you just make a crack about reading comprehension? Everytime I get percise you whine about semantics. You pile generalization on top of supposition assuming that I a) argue for the government a whole lot (no, I just argue against your fanciful conspiracy theories) and don't know anything about the controlling nature of the administration (when I rountinely complain that government has achieved an unconscionable level of influence over our daily lives). I don't go around shouting about the "pleasures and love Christ can bring humanity," rather I answer direct challenges regarding things I believe in. I can't recall ever initiating a religious conversation myself in the context of these forums. I don't "feed from the bottom...to secure money" either, but rather advocate a policy of economic freedom that allows people to engage in commerce without coercion and to keep the fruits of their labor. You've actually improved your coherency in this post, keep it up.
We agree on that much at least, bad Stalin.
No, everything rhetoical is not inherently illogical, but using a rhetorical question where you did was.
Like I said, if you want to shut down all trade with unsavory actors then get ready for depression. I hope your [ineffectual] moral statement is worth the starving children.
Then you would never metion that you engage in charitable works. Also, free trade doesn't cause poverty.
Meaningless empty babble. We can't effect Chinese policy by blocking trade, indeed it seems most likely that our trade is helping to liberalize and improve Chinese treatment of its own citizens.
Please, you call Bush arrogent and then you start slapping yourself on the back for your "subtle traps" and "mocking innuendo?" If you were half as clever as you think you are you'd just reply seriously instead of making a joke out of yourself.
Defending the Swiss is not the same as defending the Nazis. I should think that would be obvious... agafaba
We had started mixing in religion freely so I pointed out from a religious point of view China has killed more people than Nazi germany just in abortions alone. |
![]() |
|
| Killer Bee | Apr 8 2007, 07:39 AM Post #33 |
![]()
|
Simple solution for you then ,genius, don't respond.
This comming from a person who defends Bush's policies into a 4 or 5 page debate...
......keep hurting my feelings like that and maybe I'll go away.
I'm not trying to delegitimize ongoing US efforts, we shouldn't be there in the first place.
For some reason, I laughed my ass off at this. If I'm not breaking one of your Republican copyright infringement laws, I'm gonna sig it. I was wrong about you Falcon, you were programmed with a sense of humor...... |
![]() |
|
| Mister Sinister | Apr 11 2007, 10:19 PM Post #34 |
![]()
Delusional Granduerist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Except when those mission statements CALL for simultaneous major theater wars at all costs. Read, damn you!
9/11 sure did demonstrate that, too bad the PNAC strategy is simply Cold War strategy on crack and was written 4 years prior. Instead of trying to keep the wars small and isolated, the idea is to spread them out far and wide for the entire world to see our dominance. If we need a new strategy, why are we using the same old strategy with the same old military that “lost it’s way”? See you say one thing but you are actually supporting another.
I don’t understand what this has to do with the PNAC policy being discussed, that was written in 1997.
Avoid wasting money and lives are TOP priority in the neo-con agenda that’s plain as day. It’s clearly apparent in endevours such as Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as coming soon to Iran. Nice try.
Your lack of reading comprehension is really coming alive! I don’t have a problem with being prepared to win a war we are faced with, but the PNAC policy is to go fight and foment these wars at all costs, you can see the evidence in Iraq and Afghanistan and soon to be Iran, not to mention it being the main theme of Rebuilding America’s Defenses. “Whether or not we are prepared to win wars” That is simply NOT the question being asked by the PNAC, but rather stolidly claiming fighting these wars by whatever means is the only way to maintain dominance…a Pax Americana. Read it…wait a minute why am I wasting my time trying to get you to read a document that a) I know you’ll never read but continue to opine on, and You couldn’t grasp it if you did read it for lack of comprehensive reading skills.
Yeah sure, spending money on missile defense against an enemy that fights with box-cutters and civilian airlines. That’s not at all a waste of money, Neo-Connie! It’s good for your buddies in the MIC money wise. We will also raise our credibility on the world stage by forcing “friendly” nations to accommodate our “defense” mechanisms.
So. The President, Vice-President, his top national security assistant, Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, National Security Council member, Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security, and Chairman of the Defense Policy Board don’t have enough power to set the policy for who gets war? Funny how their little plan seems to be in motion, you’d realize that if you’d only read it. I know the damn thing is eighty pages long. It does however express a desire to knock on China AND Russia’s doors. I love when I offer up evidence (which you screech about like a three year old) then you ignore it and offer nothing to counter except “No they don’t.” Good job! Now, read the document. Read it and realize they aren’t simply “preparing for war”, They’re preparing to fight war at all costs.
It wasn’t stolen…By a courtroom full of GHWB appointees deciding the fate of the election. Listen to yourself.
The law is the law regardless of your opinion on the matter. They’re not enforced because it would be too embarrassing to punish his own friends who help line his pockets with blood money.
NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment and the movement of factories within the hemisphere, especially from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Furthermore, no protections were contained in the core of the agreement to maintain labor or environmental standards. As a result, NAFTA tilted the economic playing field in favor of investors, and against workers and the environment, resulting in a hemispheric "race to the bottom" in wages and environmental quality. Yay, free trade, boo environmental quality and labor standards. Hooray for the prosperity of the investors.
Oh, yeah, because unjust wars could never degrade our credibility as much as words from the inept left. What makes the grass grow?
Maybe, maybe not. If not yet, Charlie Brown…give us ten more years, or maybe by the time your grandchildren are of fighting age…Bush seems to think our grandchildren will be there.
I’d ask you to stop protecting the privalege of the dictator, attacking my principles, and utterly wasting your time trying to convince me that Bush=good businessman. But, you don’t have the self-control.
You just don’t get it. I gather your points entirely, I’m mocking you for bothering to reply to what you gather as incomprehensible. This will be a ping-pong match for as long as I will it because you simply cannot resist…I do this on the clock, I get paid to do this when work is slow. I’m just passing time, I don’t know if you have a purpose, other than butting in and trying desperately to be a part of something, while throwing in an even more desperate attempt to prove that Bush is a good businessman who should be listened to. You lack the ability to “let it go”, and I’m exploiting it, much like rich investors exploit the poor through free-trade.
They’re not complaints, merely factual representations. It’s just like you enjoying your factual representation of Swiss banking horrors.
I do enjoy the acceptance of intellectuals.
Please, huh? I knew the “evil” thing would set you off, so I pushed the button. I see a few more buttons lighting up right now.
Good defense. Nailed that point home. This one’s in office and the current point of the discussion, deflect much? I see, another attempt at defending the great GWB.
Once the pot the called the kettle black…both of them were extremely self-aware. If you were such a Christian, you’d use Christianity to reform the government (and world) for the better regardless of others religious affiliations or yours for that matter. But it’s truly revealing to see you flip my accusation that you abandon your faith in the face of mere politics. Especially after paddling me for mischaracterizations. Comprehension?
Err, about as hard as it is for you to understand that what you said is not what I’m accusing you of. No one’s telling you to coerce/force anyone, rather use your principles to guide your politics. But from what you say, doing that won’t make as much money, so you abandon your faith in hopes of getting some money made. It is rather telling what you gathered from my comment, on several different levels.
Nazi’s bad, money good? Nazi money good? Nazi’s good. Well they’re here, we might as well do business, mainly because they have heaps o’ cash. The Swiss could have easily sent the Germans packing. But, then the Swiss bankers (noble bunch that they are) wouldn’t have been able to reap the benefits of genocide and buy that summer home in the Alps…You know, the rest of the world has come to a consensus on this matter and the only people who are excusing it are well, you and the Swiss. Yeah I know, victim of circumstance. I guess I could say that about Jesus, as well, Or Pol Pot, or even Saddam Hussein. Great arguement this, “Victim of Circumstance”. I can excuse or justify any historical moment.
Questionable, eh? Let’s ask the Arawaks. Wait a minute, where did they all go? From Columbus’ log: As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first island which I found, I took some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts. What was he looking for? Gold. He needed money to pay the bills because he was broke and desperate. Finding no gold, the ships returning to Spain had to be filled with some sort of “dividend”. Learn the history of your country. An area discovered by a man who was victimized by circumstance. It’s only questionable in YOUR mind.
I’m not twisting in the wind. I’m creating it.
Yeah, that was Churchill’s/FDR’s plan…Save Stalin and his Bolshevik Camp! I may have to sig this.
Gods Damned right, oops!
What about all that tea?
Oh. My. GAWD!!! It’s where YOU took the debate…into money, because it was nice to try and make some money dealing our ports out to questionable parties, you said. You said the questionability doesn’t outweigh the monetary benefits, then you said look at the Swiss and all that jack they earned from stashing Nazi gold. Why don’t YOU give ME a fucking break? At least remember your basis for even argueing in the first place.
That makes it all okay. Excusable. Good Christian soul, when did your heart become complicit?
I dreamed it up? Sure I did, I dreamed up two embassy bombings and the defining moment of the 21st century, I dreamed it all up. Incidentally, my dreams have become increasingly violent and co-star the same countries. Hmm, depriving Middle easterners of freedoms and opportunity because of some dreamt up threat…that sounds eerily like my Gitmo arguement. That sounds like tit for tat. You squeeze my tits of freedom and I’m gonna pinch yours. Wallow in it.
Tea? In China? It doesn’t change the fact that you abandon one set of principles for another “more practical” set when it comes to government. It says a whole lot about your “faith”. It says that you faith can be easiliy coerced by corrupted government officials and policies.
Don’t make me laugh…How would letting our own people provide our own people with food and goods again be detrimental? We import more than we export with China, it’s logical to assume we LOSE jobs when we up and decide to buy goods from somewhere. The next job market up on the chopping block…Communications. Thank Jesus for free trade. My bosses have earned enough money to fire me and move to China.
You are such a nitwit. I never said counting charities will blah blah blah… How about just answering the question. Name some of the Chinese goods in my house.
Yeah again, the world came to a consensus on the fact that no one is as horrid as the Nazi’s. So again, name some of the shit from China in my house and let’s put this bitch to bed.
He’s not an intelligent man…His college career and business history proves that outright. Not to mention he wasn’t even elected. I’m all of a sudden going to listen to his advice on port dealings? Even after he started two unjust wars and subverted that law on a few occasions? I know all that sucked, but this ports thing with a middle-eastern country known to collude with terrorists sounds good. How can I lack intellect by denying a policy that lacks intellect, or even common sense? There is that Knee jerk.
No better way to cross the pearly threshold than business deals with the devil.
Is that your way of explaining your point that Jesus didn’t care whether his money had blood on it?
Well, sure I did! My reading comp. isn’t as bad as yours. You’re so focused on your point you’ve continually overlooked mine. You excuse Dubai and the Swiss, I don’t. In excusing Dubai and the Swiss, you’ve excused the actions of those they support. Offhand statement? Stop lying to yourself, it was your basis for excusing Dubai of terrorist dealings. Now puppet, waste your time trying to convince me otherwise.
Sure it is. I hope it helps you sleep. HYUCK! Knee-jerk again, huh? Is that YOUR new “talismanic” phrase?
And apparently approve of policies regardless of the track record of the policy maker. Something I don’t do easily is forgive or forget. GW fucked this country and as a result, he gets nothing from me. Not even when it “sounds” good, which is apparently what you’re basing this debate on. I’m of the opinion that the deal was an attempt to continue business as usual with shady countries, in the middle of constant rhetoric about it being a “different world”, to make a buck….well, NO. FUCKING. WAY. Not after the shit he’s pulled, not in one million fucking years, not while I still pull breath. Now, try to convince me otherwise.
*HEFTY GUFFAWS* However, in reality, power politics has meant that the WTO has been criticized by various groups and third world countries for numerous things, including: Being very opaque and not allowing enough public participation, while being very welcoming to large corporations. (That doesn’t help the claims of free, open and democratic!) That while importing nations cannot distinguish how something is made when trading, though it sounds good at first along the lines of equality and non-discrimination, the reality is that some national laws and decisions for safety and protection of people’s health, environment and national economies have been deemed as barriers to free trade. Take the following as a very small set of examples: Countries cannot say no to genetically engineered food: Non-coercive my asshole! or milk that contains genetically engineered growth hormones known to cause health problems, or trees that have been felled from pristine forests and so on. Guatemala took efforts to help reduce infant mortality, in accordance with the World Health Organization’s guidelines, and to counter aggressive marketing by baby food companies aimed at convincing mothers their products are superior to the more nutritious and disease-protecting breast milk for their babies. The result? The affected corporations managed to take this to GATT (the predecessor to the WTO) and get a reversal of the law amidst the threat of sanctions. Profits prevailed. The United States’ actually attempted to ban shrimp caught using apparatus that were harmful to endangered sea turtles has been ruled as WTO-illegal, forcing the US to reverse its decision. That instead of respecting the reasons why there has been special and differential treatment for developing countries, rich countries instead want to push poor countries to reciprocate equally, in what would therefore actually be an unequal result (as it would maintain the unequal terms of trade.) A number of countries have also spoken out against the WTO saying that there needs to be more co-operation between the North and South (a general term to refer to the Rich and Developing countries, respectively) with regards to international trade. Now, ignore all of this, because it might interfere with profits. During the week of May 20, 1998, celebrations marked 50 years of multilateral trade. However, the African nations did not feel that there was much to rejoice at and said that it was a party where only the rich nations have something to celebrate. Most of the people in the world have not benefited from the current form of “multilateral” trading systems.
Then by all means…ignore the overall moral tone of the book and deal as you see fit. Just keep it in your prayers that St. Peter doesn’t need a lengthy explanation.
Talk about incomprehensible…First off, anyone reading this knows you don’t give two shits what anyone else’s ideas are, so I won’t waste my time. Also, the white elephant here….Cuba. Wow, is that fair! We can do it with a rinky dink nation inside our SOI, but we can’t with a booming nation we stand to make some money off of. Truly fair and non-coercive, as well as lacking Draconian influence. Now, justify the Cuban trade policy or dismiss it as a terrible analogy.
You're damn right I did. Again, I’m not trying to convince YOU of anything. You would realize this if you did not LACK READING COMPREHENSION.
So in your view, “precise” means offering up definitions to words you feel I’ve misjudged. In other words you think I’ve got the definition wrong and you are trying to persuade my aspect of certain words that you are using….semantics. Now, deny it.
I’ve never seen this complaint. You do argue a lot on the side of big government/big business, namely Bush and his cronies. Also, name ONE “conspiracy theory” I’ve purported to be true in this debate (or any other for that matter).
Whatever you need to tell yourself, the fact of the matter is if it has to do with the neo-cons business dealings…it’s bottom feeding for the simple fact that GW and his cronies are low-lives. I absolutely LOVE the “non-coercive” argument for free trade you keep bringing up. You must believe everything that is portrayed as being for your safety and prosperity as 100% true. For me, every time either one of those words comes out of any politicians mouth in relation to the public, I cringe because I realize poverty and danger are on the horizon. On a lighter note, I’m glad you’re reading comprehension has improved. Dance!
I figured as much. Again, the whole world consensus that no one is as horrid as the Nazi’s or Falcon's viewpoint. Now, go into an in depth rebuttal.
I will now attempt your argument style here. No, it wasn’t. Now, I expect an in-depth review of said rhetorical question and at least two examples of improperly used rhetorical questions as well as a control subject to verify the proper use of rhetorical questions. This is expected because you have to make an attempt now, to save yourself from looking a fool, having just made up proper and improper rhetorical question usage.
Yeah, shut it all down and make no alternatives available ever for any reason.
Sure I would, and yes it does.
Well, it IS a synopsis of your platform. Need I say more?
Proof please. I’ve already offered my argument as opinion (or most of it) from the get go. If you’re so sure that I’m wrong it should be easy to provide proof. If it’s ineffectual, why are we still trying it with Cuba?
Yeah, no one can praise you like you praise yourself. I’m pretty proud of my lack of moral ambiguity. It’s something you should strive for. I don’t know why I’d waste my time being serious with the likes of you, you don’t even take your own religion seriously enough to NOT abandon it in the face of government coercion.
This is your finale? Kind of anti-climactic. Defending/excusing those who dealt with the Nazi’s is defending/excusing the Nazi’s themselves…that IS certainly obvious.[/SMALL] |
![]() |
|
| Falcon | Apr 14 2007, 05:11 AM Post #35 |
|
Apocalyptic Usher
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Killer Bee
I usually only defend Bush's policies incidental to attacking rediculous criticisms of those policies. I wouldn't have went to war with Iraq because I don't agree with an agenda of nation building and interventionism (dragon slaying). I think that terrorism can best be handled by covert ops and cooperation with host nations. Does that mean I'm going to sit around and let bone headed arguments like "Bush wants oil to fund Cheny's Iraqi baby eating orgy party" get by without protest? Of course not. As usual you can sig anything you like... Mister Sinister
I do not read that. Rather than me trying to find what the heck you're talking about why don't you quote specific passages with links if you want to support your argument.
I didn't say I supported their strategy, I said I didn't see a deep dark conspiracy in it.
The problems that the military has currently were detectable in 1997 so it isn't unusual that a plan might have been written to address them at that date.
The point of the plan is to avoid wasting money and lives during war. You can't disqualify those plans by arguing that any war will cost money and lives. Obviously wars cost money and lives, the plan isn't to address how to best avoid war, but rather how to fight wars that occur.
You keep saying this but you haven't shown it and I didn't get that interpretation from what I read. Again, quote the passages you think illustrate that the plan is to deliberately cause unnecessary wars and cite it. I can't be asked to go wade through a huge quanity of material to construct your argument for you. Good grief and you even have the gall to complain I'm wasting your time. You could have proven your point in the time it took to complain about my "reading comprehension."
You're mistaken if you think that America's enemies exclusively fight with low tech weapons and that American could never face a missle threat in the future. Its like an insurance plan, you have it in hopes that you never need it. Additionally, I've seen no evidence that we're forcing anyone to accept these defense systems.
Correct, only Congress can declare war. Add the Constitution to your 80 pages of reading some time. Again, I'm not going to wade through 80 pages. That's not how "proving you point" works since it merely invites one side to paper the other to death. If your point is proven in those pages then go cull it out and post it.
GWHB appointed Souter and Thomas. One voted for Bush, one against. Looks like a wash to me. If you want to suggest that they voted along partisan lines then you still lose, the liberals voted for Gore and the conservatives voted Bush with equal partisanship. I'd ask you to argue the merits of the case (since incidently I agree that the Supreme Court shouldn't have gotten involved) but that would clearly require a bothersome amount of higher level thought. Killer Bee, here's a good example of a retarded argument that I'm critical of even though I actually agree with the object the argument is trying to advance.
The law is the law? Oh gosh, you're right, let's get to enforcing those anti-adultry laws, Sunday closing laws, etc... http://www.dumblaws.com/ These are rather frivilous examples to be sure, but you get the point. The reason that these anti-pollution laws are not enforced is because they're economic suicide. That the executive would drag his heels on enforcing laws that he disagrees with isn't unusual, its completely routine and happens with all administrations of both parties. Bush isn't enforcing the immigration laws on the books either, let's form an angry mob now. You get the burning torches, I'll grab the pitch forks.
Yep, hooray! Artifical labor and environmental standards are making us all poorer. Get rid of that junk.
You're going to multiply the credibility loss of an unjust war by also ensuring that internal divisions make us lose it? It's like stabbing yourself in the foot and then amputating the leg as a remedy. Give your head a shake.
You know you don't have a leg to stand on. We haven't committed genocide and to suggest that we have is laughable.
I'll stop, just quit making absurd claims.
To summarize, you have no point, you're wasting employer time (its always nice to see some hypocrisy; you complain about poor labor standards and then freely admit to squandering employer time), and you're trying to read some suspect motivation into my actions. My ability to "let it go" appears to be on par with your own right now so you've got no room to level criticism there either.
When you mention the "fact" that you were involved in a private conversation as a reason that I should not have interjected myself then it takes on the character and purpose of a complaint.
Yes, clearly all the intellectuals have massed themselves to your side, especially the one's that frequent these forums.
Yes, blatent stupidity tends to annoy me.
The point is that your argument was rediculous not that Bush or any specific policy of his is wise or worthy of defense.
You're the authority on what a Christian should do now? Since when did my religion have to conform itself to your expectations or else it was illegitimate? As I've repeatedly explained Christianity has no business "reforming" government because Christianity cannot be coerced and the government inevitably coerces. Christianity's only mandate of "reform" is that the word be spread to all those who will hear. Anything beyond that exceeds Biblical mandate, regardless of what you think a good Christian should do.
How would my religious principles result in making less money? God says "thou shalt not steal" so that means no social state money transfers from one class to another. I'm not advocating coercion, theft, deception, or any other similar unethical means to make money. Thus, my religious principles wouldn't harm money making in the slightest. What my religious principles would do is infringe on personal liberty by banning immoral sexual conduct, and probably drug use, alcohol, etc... (at least, certainly to the extent that my secular policy would enable one to engage in those activities). As usual, I need to remember not to construct what you say in the most logical manner possible.
You can justify any historical moment only by making a complete parody of the analogy. There is a vast difference between dealing with an unsavory foreign government (Switzerland, France, Germany, all nations) which you have no control over and engaging in unsavory practices yourself, personally and directly (Saddam, Pol Pot, etc). The French and the Germans were selling Saddam WEAPONS not just taking his money to the bank. Get some perspective already.
Okay, thanks for (finally) backing something you've said up. It's still a horrible analogy though.
Please do, spread the word.
What's this I hear? The sound of your frantic dodging?
I remember the basis all too well, but apparently you don't. The point was that we deal with unsavory nation's all the time. Incidental to that point was that we make money. That I used another example of unsavory dealings that happened to include money was just coincidence. I could just have easily have pointed to military alliances with evil nations (USSR) or financial support of dictators (Pakistan), for example. You latched onto the money issue and started making it the focus of the debate so you could boil out all the thinking and get down to the root of your emotional knee jerk plea: money = evil.
That makes it reality. It is simply impossible to have dealings with only "good" people. Its just as impossible today for the individual as it is for the nation as it was for the Swiss. Therefore it is illegitimate to level criticism against the Swiss, or the US, for dealing with unsavory characters because such dealings are inevitable and inescapable. Additionally, there is no basis for you to invoke Christianity because there is no mandate to only engage in economic activity with other Christians and not with sinners.
The government of Dubai didn't bomb those embassies. Blame the right party. The people in Gitmo were by and large picked up as hostiles on a battlefield. Two utterly different scenarios, but then you're continually throwing out one broken analogy after another.
You're simply incorrect. Recognizing that one set of principles cannot be coerced, but rather have to be believed in freely is not abandoning them. Creating a nation of freedom where people have the opportunity to freely believe or not believe in the higher set of principles doesn't undercut those higher principles, it protects them. The Bible says that few there will be who follow the path of to life. Ergo, in a nation ruled by the majority those principles would be banned and trampled underfoot if the government were used to coerce personal belief. I lend my voice to freedom so that my principles can have a chance to flourish where they will rather than enabling a mechanism of coercion that I know will never foster and could never foster my principles.
It's illogical to assume that because we lose jobs in one area that new jobs aren't created in some other area and it goes against the weight of the evidence (low unemployment rate). Comparative advantage makes us all richer; everyone does what they're most efficient at doing. I'm not going to pay an American more to do the same job that a foreigner could do more efficiently. It would be a waste of my money and the American woker's time.
What kind of idiotic reply is this? I don't know what you have in your house and its beside the point. The point being that you're complaining about a "problem" you're most likely contributing to because its economically advantageous and that you are supporting tyranny by buying goods made in a despotic nation.
The world didn't come to any such concensus. The Soviets and the Chinese killed far more people than the Nazi's ever dreamed of.
Bush isn't responsible for the formulation of government policy, just the broad direction of it. Highly educated bureaucrats and political appointees do the actual formulating. I've already dealt with your election rant and "unjust" is purely subjective. You haven't shown Dubai colluding with terrorists. You haven't shown that the policy is a bad idea. You've knee jerked on the basis of bad assumptions and rabid anti-Bushism.
There are no devils here, only men. The Bible doesn't command us not to engage in commerce with sinners. Your argument continues to ring hollow.
Like when he accepted the food of the tax collector who had cheated his fellow man?
Offhand is my subjective determination to make; you don't know the level of craft that I put into the point. I don't "excuse" Dubai and the Swiss because they've done nothing that needs excusing.
It works like a charm when describing your activity here.
Convince you otherwise? I posted some articles with reasoned, rational analysis of the issue and you ignored them. They indicated that security considerations were unchanged regardless of who owns the port. Dubai isn't a terrorist nation and it doesn't knowingly support any terrorists or terrorism that I can discern. My position is based on those facts and subsequent reasoning. Your position is the one formed on the basis that it "sounds" bad; ie a middle eastern nation (must be shady) wants to buy a port.
WTO does not equate with free trade. When I say free trade I mean the kind of trade that exists between the states in the US. You just finished describing a whole bunch of practices that are wholly inconsistant with free trade.
Jesus is my judge, not Peter (just FYI). The Bible is not something from which you start to "infer" commands that aren't written down.
Right, because you've been so open minded to alternative points of view. I care about other people's ideas, but I do require that they be grounded in fact and constructed on some logical basis before I give them any credibility.
I don't justify the Cuban trade policy, there's no basis for it. We should just trade with them. Now, back to the question you dodged: "how do you justify the starving children, loss of opportunity, and general economic hardship that results from your little moral statement against bad actors? How many people does your draconian trade policies have to kill in order to prove that you're not a Nazi too?"
Obviously what you say and what your actions indicate are vastly different. You do care about convincing someone of something, regardless of what you say.
No, precise means just that, precise. I pay attention to detail, you whine about semantics because the detail hurts your position since its based off of sweeping generalizations with precious little supporting evidence or reasoning.
Big government is not synonymous with big business. Conspiracies include: [1]That the Republican "propaganda machine" would have plastered a Democrat for the port deal, but since its just Bush trying to do business as usual to make money for his cronies with a shady middle eastern terrorist supporting nation everyone looks the other way. [2]Dubai getting Haliburton.
So bottom feeding is an empty term when you use it, apparently. Obviously there are not many politicians arguing for true free trade right now. You are correct that politicians are setting us up for more poverty, but its not because they're free trade advocates...
I wasn't aware that you consisted of the whole world.
I don't need to do anything to save myself from looking like a fool, your reply here has done it for me (as if there were ever any danger to begin with).
The alternatives are so inferior as to result in severe depression.
We're trying it with Cuba because the politically influential Cuban immigrant population demands it, not because its effective.
You're the very definition of moral ambiguity. Someone who is convinced of their morally superiority whilst advocating for a morally reprehensible position of theft, coercion, and oppression. I'm also unsure as to why you think I've abandoned my religion. I suggest you still fail to comprehend both my religion and my policy positions if that is your conclusion.
If by finale you mean I've reached the end of your tedious meandering post of broken analogies and baseless claims then yes. Your position that defending dealings with the Nazi's is the same as defending the Nazi's themselves is illogical since it flies in the face of standard international policy that persists to this very day. What part of "it is impossible" not to deal with unsavory nations escapes you? The Swiss had no control over internal German policy. The Swiss didn't steal anything from anyone, the Germans did. Reparations should have come from Germany, especially with money, which is indistinguishable from itself. If its wrong to do business with unsavory nations then who would we do business with currently? If you applied that logic to your personal life who would you do business with? By what standard is unsavory behavior measured? When does the behavior become "too unsavory?" You have a position that has no standard, no means to measure that standard should one be found, and no method to enforce the standard. By any reasonable analysis your position is nonsensical. Why do you think that replying with the same tired line without even bothering to reconcile these gaping holes in your position is helping you? |
![]() |
|
| Killer Bee | Apr 14 2007, 08:44 AM Post #36 |
![]()
|
But, that's exactley what's happening. Honestly, how has this war made even Iraq itself any safer? Now, instead of living under a brute, they're on the verge of a long bloody civil war which will create more slaughtering than anything Saddam ever did. And we should have known all this before we went there......maybe we did, but it just didn't matter.
I do too. The problem is, we've burnt too many bridges by the way we went about things in Iraq.
I've never made this "bonehead arguement". I think it was more of a crusade of revenge to battle Dubya's own personal demons. I do think, however, there are a few tycoons close to the President who are making a huge profit.....
Already done. Seriously, it DID make me laugh..... |
![]() |
|
| Mister Sinister | Apr 17 2007, 09:55 PM Post #37 |
![]()
Delusional Granduerist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yet you think you can argue about a document you haven’t even read or a Washington think tank you don’t even know the members of? I have an idea…GET AN INFORMED OPINION!! ‘Till then phuck off!!! I posted RAD, the PNAC website, and THREE different synapses of RAD, you know cliff note type things for lazy assholes like you. I am well aware that you haven’t read any of it …this is why I continue to mock you… This is why I’m not trying to have a serious argument with you, because YOU ARE ILL-INFORMED!!!! Not only that, but when you screech for evidence, which I provided amply, you fucking ignore it then claim I never showed any or snivel that it was too long too read, nice form. So I will continue to Smurf! with you until you (or I) get tired. I’m banking on myself getting fed up with someone who doesn’t know anything about the topic, doesn’t WANT to know anything about the topic, but continues to opine endlessly.
You are supporting it in Iraq, Mr. Magoo you blind ignorant fucking asshole. I know you don’t see any kind of strategy because you haven’t read the strategy. Remember this?
How do you even know if you are supporting it or not when you haven’t even read it? What a shit berg.
Read the document for your own good. It will prevent you from making asinine assessments such as this.
How terribly stupid of YOU (the uninformed) to try and tell ME (the informed party) what the RAD plan calls for. Remember this, you fucking nitwit?
My God! The audacity of YOU, who just admitted to NOT reading the plan, to tell me, someone who has read it thrice the points of RAD. Congratulations Falcon, you have reached the absolute PEAKS of hypocrisy.
Nah, I’d rather make you look like a stupid-ass. What kind of fucking moron supports agendas they’ve never even looked at? You, that’s what kind of moron. You think this is about me? This is about the future of our country and the “general direction” that Bush is leading it. It’s all written down in black and white what this administration has planned for us. Subtle traps, dipshit. I set them and you completely blow your own argument out of the water.
Talk about gall, you have the gall to debate me on a topic you don’t hold ANY KNOWLEDGE ON? I never claimed you were wasting my time. It is I wasting my own time trying to get a big business/big government robot to exercise some free thought. Why don’t you tell me some more about the document you DID NOT read? You don’t want to read it? Then why the Smurf! are you arguing FOR it? You’ve taken a stance FOR a document that you have never even read and you dare question MY principles and opinions? Get informed you ass licking Bush-sucking pile of excretory filth. Better yet just support the plan because it was presented in “good faith” by the paleo-conservatives. Good people of Christian values, JUST. LIKE. YOU. Leave it to Christians to have faith in the government. You murderous wretch of a human being…if you like the Iraq War and American military dominance (hegemony) so much? Why don’t you rifle up, grab your cock (one’s your rifle and one is your gun) and go fight on the front lines. You don’t even have to join the military Bush-boy; I can direct you to a Private Security Firm (That’s a Mercenary in case your comprehension bug bites you again) right here in my own backyard….Blackwater.
Yeah, that sounds peachy!! Just like the nuclear arms race!!! This is going to be prosperous and safe all at the same time. It’s you who are mistaken…you’ve mistaken me for someone that might actually pay heed to your ill-informed opinions. Oh no someone could hit us with a missile sometime in the next twenty years…Feck diplomacy we’re going straight for the jugular. We will just point our weapons at them and nobody will Smurf! with us then, Win-win. That is by far the most paranoid, ridiculous, child-like, bastardly, hegemonic, stupid, wasteful and needless insurance policy I have ever heard of. No good citizen would ever spend money on such a thing. War should never be the first policy; neither should the ramblings of war, you fucking Neo-con war hawk.
Considering I used future tense, I don’t either. Reading comprehension, again? Yeah, we won’t ever have to force countries to accept these missile systems because they’ll be lining up to get them. “Oh please, Mr. America can I have some of your defense systems? I’d love to harbor your weapons of mass destruction. It would be great to piss off my neighbors as well as Mother Russia.”
Oh right…the neo-cons never doctored evidence or lied to fool congress or anything. You really think you are so smart, don’t you? Incidentally, where the fucking hells have you been since the end of WWII? Article I, Section 8 of the constitution says flatly that "The Congress shall have Power...To declare War," but no Congress has declared war for the past 60 years, numb nuts. They've passed resolutions, they've passed authorizations, and they've passed budget authorities, but they haven't declared war. The 108th Congress certainly never declared war on Iraq. There are several problems with this. For starters, it makes a mockery of the constitution. It's legitimate to draw a line beneath which the PRESIDENT can commit troops on his own authority, but there's little question (except by you I’m sure) that we've gone well over that line repeatedly in the past decade and a half. By anybody's definition, Gulf I was a war, Kosovo was a war, Afghanistan was a war, and Gulf II is a war. None of them required either secrecy or an instant response that couldn't wait on Congress. In other words, if a declaration of war wasn't required for these conflicts, then Congress's constitutional authority is meaningless. That clause of the constitution might as well not exist. It’s the Pentagon, dumbass…They’ll find a way to go to war with whomever whenever. If offering up evidence is NOT considered proving points then I guess you’ve proven yours. How would you attempt to prove a point if you haven’t even read the document in question? Remember this?
Looks like that now applies to Congress’ RESOLUTION on Iraq as well as nearly every incursion’s resolution/Authorization from the past 60 years. Get a clue. One that realizes the pentagon can strike whomever they want whenever they deem it necessary, regardless of the positions of American Citizens, and without a declaration of war by congress you fucking idiot. All that bullshit you spew about “being against the anti-constitutional government”, but you don’t pass the stress test, pal. The level of your idiocy has exceeded my greatest expectations…you really don’t know shit! You are so fundamentally retarded it’s giving me a rash.
Hey, nice insult, especially after the bullshit you’ve spewed forth about a PNAC document that you’ve never even fucking read, or Congress’ war declarations that don’t even exist. Scalia-Reaganite/Hamiltonian/Conservative Rhenquist-Conservative/Reaganite/Nixonite O’Connor-Conservative (history of Republican political career) Thomas-Conservative pubic hair cultivator/Long Dong Silver aficionado Kennedy-Swing vote So actually out of the five that voted 4 are considered conservative with the fifth, Kennedy being a fence sitter. They may not all be GHWB appointees (a small error on my part) but they damn sure aren’t liberals. The court case has no merits because it never belonged in the SC in the first place. It would be like trying to argue FOR the merits of the Iraq war considering there was never any merit for it in the first place.
Sure, I get the point. There is frivolity in sexual laws passed hundreds of years ago and you equate them to pollution laws that were passed MUCH more recently to help protect the environment. But, I personally can hardly see any frivolity in laws designed to cut pollution, passed in the past decade. Especially in the face of a global warming trend, that can only be characterized as globally disastrous. Yeah, sodomy’s not going to bring about the Earth’s End (no pun intended), but there is strong evidence pollution may. Since this Earthly realm isn’t important to you (seeking the afterlife paradise and all), I guess I now know what’s important to you and it has nothing to do with helping keep the Earth clean. I see that issue is about as important to you as keeping people from sodomizing each other, in other words you don’t care about the Earth because your crazy ass seems to think your reward comes after you’re a rotting corpse, because you’ve observed the ten rules of Invisa-Billy (God) in between political meetings. The point? Sex laws were a terrible analogy.
Sure they are, that is why several US states have chosen to live by Kyoto…Nice argument Cheney. Proof please. Incidentally, if we spoil the Earth completely and everyone dies from pollution, where will our economy stand then? You are saying you’d rather be dead than broke? Nice use of that precious gift of Life God so gave the world.
Executive privilege is something I do not agree with. If we had this argument ten years ago I’d be against Clinton’s Executive privilege to spy on thousands of Americans.
You form an angry mob and I’ll continue to petition congress through the proper channels, to do its job because I don’t believe in violence, unlike you Christian-boy. I like your enthusiasm though, feel free to join the minutemen, which is a torch/pitchfork-bearing angry mob that has already formed, or were you being sarcastic and in reality you really do not care whether immigration laws are enforced and you are damn sure way too scared to go and defend your country’s border yourself? *Rhetorical Question* I ‘m really not searching for an answer because I don’t care what you think about this. If you reply, and you will for you are a twit, I’m going to repost the last two sentences.
And you continue to ignore the facts I’ve put in front of you. The interests of powerful nations and corporations are shaping the terms of world trade. In democratic countries, they are shaping and affecting the ability of elected leaders to make decisions in the interests of their people. Elsewhere they are promoting narrow political discourse and even supporting dictatorships and the “stability” that it brings for their interests. This is to the detriment of most people in the world, while increasingly fewer people in proportion are prospering. Yay, artificially low labor standards, yay poor environmental quality that is also suspiciously low. Yay, corporate profits that are sky freakin high. Care to offer some proof or facts that may counter this argument, evidence screecher?
There is no winning that war…the sooner you freaks understand this the sooner we can withdraw and lick our wounds. It doesn’t matter if we stay there for twenty more years the only thing we will have accomplished is cultivating two more generations of terrorists who are willing to lay down their lives to fight the US. If the proper actions were taken from the get go (number of troops, amount of equipment, proper equipment, AN ACTUAL PLAN) there would be no political infighting about this, because we would have been able to accomplish whatever the hell it is we set out to do, be it remove Sadaam, sustain cease-fires, ensure civilian security, find WMD’s or Osama bin Laden or all of those put together. I’m not multiplying any credibility loss, I can’t. We’ve got no credibility to work with thanks to the political machinations of the Bush Regime, ask any foreign country. America’s virtue is its Constitution. An administration that attacks the Constitution attacks America’s virtue. The true dangers that Americans face come from George W. Bush and Richard Cheney and their neo-conservative Party.
Kind of like jumping into two wars in the Middle East without justification? Except in this scenario we’ve already cut off our leg and to remedy that problem we are going to shoot ourselves in the temple. If Bush wanted to or was smart enough he could use all the left wing rhetoric to his advantage and show the world we have a unified front, instead he uses those opportunities to score political points against the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi traveling to Syria is a perfect example. Unfortunately, we cannot spin unjust wars and murder of innocent civilians into gold no matter how hard you and Neil Cavuto try. Every time the Bush political machine turns on I shake my head, then I call my Congressmen and tell them not to support whatever smorgasbord of corruption, theft and murder the Bush regime laid out for their own prosperity this particular week.
You don’t have reading comprehension. I’m suggesting we cannot be certain. After all, the studies have shown an insane amount of people dying (be it 125,000 or 600,000) there is no real way to know exactly. I’m also suggesting we are going to be there long enough to accomplish Genocide if we don’t apologize to the world (Iraq first) and retrieve our soldiers from the third world hell hole we’ve dropped them in absent any real plan or means to protect them, and fast. Even with the defense budget being juiced by 26% we still cannot get the proper equipment/supplies or even data to the troops…I suppose that is the Democrats fault, though and mine because I’m not behind the hegemonic display of American power (or lack thereof).
No you won’t. This is only about ½ way through the post. If you were going to stop you would have done it by now.
Now you infer that you understand the dynamic of my company, or the dynamic of my relationship with my employer. This is awfully reminiscent of you inferring to know the PNAC/RAD plan without having read the document. Also very hypocritical considering how upset you were for all my mischaracterizations. I have plenty of points; I just don’t intend to share them with the likes of you. I’d rather string you along and paddle the shits (yes, plural) out of you for thinking you have an informed opinion.
I’m simply fueling your fire as a kind of “Falcon will power experiment”. My ultimate goal is for you to be the first one on this site that takes up an entire page with ONE SINGULAR POST of your pointless arguments.
Well, when a fact is a fact it can hardly be characterized as anything else, unless you are a free-wheeling Big business/Presidential privilege lover who believes staunchly in butting in and pissing on about insults to Dubai and how badly you don’t wanna read. I’m just trying to inform you on the conduct standards most of the rest of the Human race conform too so you won’t stumble around at parties (like you’d ever be invited) butting into peoples passing conversation with poor political points, looking like an ass. You shouldn’t have interjected yourself Falcon, it’s considered rude (the unwritten rules discussed earlier). Christians aren’t supposed to be rude. I have a lot to say about the race relations debate going on between Bee and Pierce in the Don Imus thread. I would not however interject myself into that conversation (just like no one else did or has with either of them). Not only that but I would never interject an insult to either of their viewpoints because it is plainly and simply RUDE, good Christian value holder. Now, school’s out little Falcon, go forth and be fruitful, but please don’t multiply your backwards ideals and morally corrupt values of politics.
Again, the simple act of being polite has kept anyone from interjecting, Sister Christian. And if you want to go down that road, I’d say that it was safe to say that NO ONE has come to your side of any credibility or at all, ever in any debate on this website. I’ll also take your statement as an insult to the overall intelligence of Mundi forum frequenters.
I can see that, is that why you misspelled blatant? Why don’t you let go and let God? Now, you think you can judge me as well, Christianity bitch-boy?
Okay then, continue on your ridiculous crusade in favor of the Bush machine, and against free thought and personal opinions. Also, feel free to judge my personal opinion as if you were the lord high executioner his-self…Massah Jesus Christ.
Well, I certainly seem to know more about the Christian lifestyle than you do.
Since you started this debate with me over a simple opinion, then attacked my principles. When you attack someone’s principles you better damn well make sure you have a solidified base of your own and you just don’t stack up, Johnny poo-poo pants.
Okay, the government tells you to lay down your religion at the door so you do so yet, the government cannot coerce your religion.
Well, what happens when a good Christian doesn’t “spread the word”? Like say, I don’t know, spreading it to corrupt politicians or using his network of Christian “word spreaders” to find us some asshole that won’t sell his soul to the devil for a dollar, to be our leader? Maybe, use their own values and run for office themselves, then actually do some good Christian work for the rest of Humanity, instead of keeping it to themselves in hopes it will let their own person prosper.
You advocate theft, deception and coercion every time you support the Iraq war, needle-dick, or spout off in favor of missile offense systems. Needless to say you’re supporting murder, genius. All in the name of…why are we there again? Oh yeah, God told GWB to invade Iraq and the 25% of the population that are rapture evangelicals who believe that war in the Middle East is the prelude to their being wafted up to heaven began to worship at his feet.
Your logic is skewed, so it wouldn’t matter if you were to start constructing yours or my statements thusly or not. What you are doing however, is constructing my statements in the most literal sense possible. This is the sole reason you are having comprehension trouble.
Okay, now you’ve given the perspective that Swiss bankers of the 1940’s weren’t individuals acting of their own accord. By the by, where are all those weapons those dirty bastards (France/Germany) were selling the dirty bastard (Sadaam)? Did it exceed the amount of weapons we sold to him? Talk about a perspective, why don’t you widen yours? So now you say it’s bad when the French or Germans deal with bad actors and it’s not illogical to criticize them? Why the double standard? Because of your moral hypocrisy?
Oh, yeah? You shoulda been here a few days back when some dipshit made a Nazi/Swiss analogy or when the same ass wipe compared pollution laws of the modern age to 200 year old sex laws…
Oh, now it’s a coincidence? How many times are you going to re-characterize your “points”? As many times as it takes to hit the bullseye on what you’re trying to argue? You say WE (as in the US) deal with unsavory characters all the time so you use a Swiss/German analogy…that just “happens” to deal directly with money? If that isn’t your argument then give me some good reason why we deal with unsavory characters and back it up with proof.
Glad you gathered that. I don’t support the US’s support of dictatorships or bad actors, you do. You find it illogical to question US dealings with unsavory characters yet you feel obliged to question France’s or Germany’s? Again, you brought up the money issue. I’m just trying to get to the bottom of why we deal with bad actors, you apparently think money has a great deal to do with it. You must think that because that is the only reason you’ve given that and “we might as well, it’s hard to avoid it”. Also, how about some proof that Russia is evil?
Okay, sure. Reality can’t be changed, new conservative agenda mover. TINA, Mrs. Thatcher?
Got some proof to back that up GITMO, boy?
Which principles did you want to flourish, the ones the government tells you to have or the ones the big black book tells you to have? You could not have misconstrued my point more. One of these days, you’ll learn to comprehend. Is it any wonder why I continue to Smurf! around?
Yeah it would be great if the majority of free trade operated by these principles…The fact of the matter is, they don’t. I’ve shown evidence to back this up, let’s see some from you, that says differently.
That’s right! You don’t have a clue! Yet you opine. I’m starting to see a pattern here. I could live in a damned hippie compound where we have no electronics and make our own furniture, food and clothes. If it is beside the point, why are you continuing to pursue it? Talk about idiotic…that characterizes the whole of your actions since you started this ridiculous badmitten match. Oh, I can’t comprehend what I’m reading so I’ll just label it as idiotic…way to judge your fellow humans, Jesus Christ superstar.
Most likely doesn’t mean definitively. If it were definitive that I was a contributor I could see a point to this part of the debate. Since you cannot prove that I spend any of my money on tyrannical regimes the point is moot. Since you’ve admitted to partaking in the economic advantage (which happens to be China’s) of trade with China, you have admitted to laying down your Christian principles (if you can call them that) in the face of government coercion (the govt tells you to trade with China, and you do so happily, despite being a “man” of Christian “faith”, because you see it as unavoidable) in lieu of an economic advantage (which doesn’t even exist for you or anyone else save China’s/US elite). But you don’t know where on Earth I would have come across a money argument? Now please re-read before you respond.
Okay, so shall it be written, so shall it be done. It’s fact because you say so. Brilliant. You completely ignored all the articles I’ve posted on Dubai’s terrorist haven laws, then you claim I never showed any evidence. The policy is a bad idea until you can show me it was a good one. This is your cross to bare, you challenged me, I showed evidence you ignored it then claimed it was not the case. I haven’t seen disinformation like that since Nixon. If the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are so justified show some evidence. Show me one reason why we are in Iraq. I don’t agree with Bush’s “broad direction” therefore I don’t agree with anything that comes out of his mouth. He’s done nothing good so far, so I won’t bother throwing any kind of support behind him because he hasn’t warranted it. If he wants me to listen to his “broad direction” he better damn well be heading in the same direction as me, if not then he can kiss my entire ass right along with you.
So does your head.
Food, eh? Whose arguments are ringing hollow (along with their principles)?
And you made it…remember? You are not seriously suggesting that I came up with that characterization myself are you?
How high of a craft level could you have possibly put into what you labeled as an “offhand statement”, that you now say is beside the point?
Oh, okay. You and I can go our separate ways now.
Well then Mr. Better-than-me-Christian, quit rolling around down here in the mud and do something productive w/ your time like save the homeless. Oh, that’s right you don’t do charity work because those too weak to work for themselves, aren’t deserving of your most gracious gazes.
I didn’t ignore them. They just don’t matter since the decision has been made already on the port issue. Those articles were merely a perspective on the topic and offered nothing in the way of showing it to be advantageous to sell the port to Dubai. Don’t expect me to wade through your information if you won’t even reciprocate you bag o’ hypocrisy. If you think your point is contained in the information you posted go and cull it out and post it.
Right that YOU can discern, because you’ve ignored all the facts in lieu of a GWB by-line. That must mean everything is kosher. Meanwhile…
What facts? Your perspective is opinion as much as mine is. You’ve never shown proof that selling the port to Dubai is advantageous (aside from the monetary benefit) which you’ve gone back and claimed to be incidental as well as being MY argument. That (the money) doesn’t sound very advantageous to ME or the American people. A fact that is clearly discernable through Dubai being shut out of the deal. But, you were offended and so I had to hear your side of the argument. A side that is nothing more than a politically charged opinion driven by profit seeking. But you think you can question MY principles?
Wow! What a solid argument. The World Trade Organization is the primary international body to help promote free trade, by drawing up the rules of international trade. You know something I don’t? Post it.
This is a far cry from the “free trade” that goes on in the rest of the world. Love the doe-eyed idealism though it's soo cute.
Not the free trade that is practiced in the MAJORITY of the world. This is also a whole bunch of practices that are wholly inconsistent with WTO principals. They are however several small examples (tip of the veritable Iceberg) of how free trade throughout the majority of the globe works against the poor in favor of profits.
Okay, so don’t interpret it. Just read it literally. Then all you’ll have to do is hide when the Whorish woman comes to town on the purple seven-headed beast, fire rains from the sky, the ground opens up, and the dead roam the Earth after hell becomes full of unrighteous souls. Oh, I forgot that you’ll be spared all that, because you are my better.
When they’ve been solicited, I’m as wide open as a virgin on prom night. I’m not open to YOUR point of view you and specifically, YOUR point of view. Anyone else here can approach me and expect themselves to be heard, but I won’t extend that same respect to you, for my own personal reasons.
Fine, you don’t give my argument credibility. It’s not my loss. Now continue on endlessly trying to disprove something that is so far beneath you, you won’t even give it credibility.
There is no basis for this question other than you believing that “TINA”. Since you are a TINA-nite there is no reason to even debate you on alternatives. Furthermore, you have offered NO evidence to justify that ending or changing the current forms of multi-lateral trading will CREATE poverty. I however have offered evidence showing how it does affect the poor. Your question is a futile exercise and moot since you have no room for alternatives in that concrete bird-brain of yours. Any alternative I offered you would simply be denied and ignored without you having shown any evidence whatsoever to counter. What would be the point?
Hey, hey!! Still wrestling with this one? Okay Imma gonna try it again…Convincing others is one thing, convincing You specifically You the person that I am addressing now Falcon you your person your perspective you and specifically you and only you yourself is something I am not interested in…especially on this issue. By the by, your reading comprehension is absolutely terrible as I have now lost count of how many times I've tried to explain this to you.
Precious little supporting evidence has been shown because you either ignore it or… ignore it. Since you are so evidence driven, offer some up yourself. Specifically evidence that plainly shows the port deal to Dubai to be advantageous outside of monetary benefits. If not, don’t expect me to change my OPINION. Also, you are trying to persuade my perspective of words…that is semantics no matter how often you deny it.
Poignant observation. Also, fully expected from your skewed version of reality. It doesn’t change the fact that you argue in favor of both on a consistent basis.
OUCH! That reading comp. coming up to bite you (Actually me as I’m the one to pay the price for your horrendous disability) on the ass? For the third time, this was offered up simply as my opinion. This opinion is held by at least 3 others on this website. Probably, no one that meets your incredibly high standards of higher thought process’ though. Since it’s my "baseless opinion" you’ve challenged it should be easy to offer up some proof that belies my "baseless opinions", right? So show it and then shut it. I was sharing my opinion with another member and you show up to insult the both of us. It was very Christian like behavior, by the way. Not to mention, this isn’t even a proper representation of what I said about the port deal. This does not surprise me in the least considering your history of showing out at a 4th grade reading level.
Er, this actually happened, retard. It’s not a “conspiracy”, or a black helicopter story it’s a factual occurrence. I may read more into it than is actually there but I have an untrusting nature when it comes to Neo-con business deals. As investigators from 60 Minutes discovered, Halliburton has used an offshore subsidiary incorporated in the Cayman Islands (where the company has no oil and gas construction or engineering operations) to trade with Iran, a country that the Bush administration has described as part of an "axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/...ain595214.shtml Again, it’s a matter of opinion based on facts like the previous sentence, that since you think is baseless should easily be discredited with some evidence to the contrary…where is it? Yep,as empty as your soul.
I offered up evidence that says differently. How about some of the same?
Get used to it. Also, this is not an in-depth rebuttal like I asked for, puppet jester!
Okay, Mr. improper rhetorical question usage-advocate. It’s not my fault you read everything literally. Grow some perspective. Where is my in-depth review? OR at least some evidence leading to proof that I used a rhetorical question improperly, you know, other than your claim. Otherwise, continue arguing about it until you are blue in the face. You will still look stupid after trying to answer a blatanly OBVIOUS rhetorical question with an air of arrogance.
Right, TINA!
Proof please. How about a little of that fucking proof you constantly whine about. Some facts, maybe? Something, otherwise my informed opinion stands. It stands because you have shown nothing to counter it. You don’t agree with my opinion you say it’s unfounded. I know what I know and I don’t feel the need to convince YOU (specifically you, now no one else) of what I believe. If you want me to believe you then you are the one that needs to proffer up some evidence. Otherwise I will hold my opinions, thank you very much.
Right, because I’m the one to lay my principles down when politicians tell me they will do no good. No wait, that's you. Corrupted politician says, “Mr. Falcon, your Christian values of how to treat your fellow human in all scenarios won’t do you any good here. Please lay them on the doorstep before you enter into a political debate.” Falcon replies, “Yes good public servant, since I understand you have my best interests at heart, I’ll lay my principles upon this doorstep in order that you may continue your corrupted practices without the auspices of my values.”
I never said I was superior to anything (except your {yes you and only you} moral scruples). If this is the case roll the comment on out here and let’s have a look see. I haven’t advocated anything either. I’ve simply disagreed with your opinion, and since you haven’t shown me facts, I will continue to disagree.
My conclusion is only what you stated, that your religion or values, cannot be coerced by the government because the government says so. The government said my religion won’t do any good here, so I need a vastly different set of principles to wear while I’m in here. How about some principles that would be complicit to murder theft and coercion? Does that suit your agenda Mr. Politician?
So tediously meandering and analogically broken you could hardly even respond. Not to mention they were so baseless you had to take the time to convince me otherwise, using baseless claims of your own!
No, I know it’s annoying you. Care to continue? Please keep in mind that I’m not trying to help myself against you, because I have no interest in justifying my opinions, to you in particularly. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and Religion · Next Topic » |





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





don't know anything about the controlling nature of the administration (when I rountinely complain that government has achieved an unconscionable level of influence over our daily lives). I don't go around shouting about the "pleasures and love Christ can bring humanity," rather I answer direct challenges regarding things I believe in. I can't recall ever initiating a religious conversation myself in the context of these forums. I don't "feed from the bottom...to secure money" either, but rather advocate a policy of economic freedom that allows people to engage in commerce without coercion and to keep the fruits of their labor. You've actually improved your coherency in this post, keep it up.


12:30 AM Jul 11