|
|
 |
Faygo |
+ |
Monday, August 2, 2004 at 1:52 PM I was just wondering what you guys think. —Faygo |
|
|
|
|
Aj |
+ |
Monday, August 2, 2004 at 2:04 PM Like Adam says...does it really make any difference anymore? Neither of them are very good. But since I HAVE to choose (and personally, I'd like Nader...but I know that isn't going to happen), I'd go with Kerry...only because I'm hoping he'll pull us out of Iraq. I have a friend over there, and I'd really like him home. —Aj |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Monday, August 2, 2004 at 2:07 PM Hey everybody! Kerry-Edwards in '04!  Most of all, I want to bang Alexandra Kerry.
—ZT |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Mason Jar |
+ |
Monday, August 2, 2004 at 2:34 PM She's definitely a butter-face, but let’s be honest, who wouldn't bang the bejesus out of her if given the chance. As for me, I am sticking with Bush in ‘04. Considering what the Muslims did on 9/11 and the status of the economy when he took office, I'm willing to give him another 4 years.
—Mr. Mason Jar |
|
|
|
|
Logo Lou |
+ |
Monday, August 2, 2004 at 3:00 PM
Edited Monday, August 2, 2004 at 3:12 PM Yeah, not much of a real choice really is there? I mean, this is a worse choice to have to decide on than Gore/Bush was... and that was pretty bad. I'm going Kerry, because NO ONE deserves 8 years in office anymore. NONE of them. Plus the liberals and conservatives would just start going batty if none of their guys ever lasted more than one term. They'd be like those random reinforcement chickens Drew talks about. —Logo Lou |
|
|
|
|
Aj |
+ |
Monday, August 2, 2004 at 3:09 PM You really shouldn't say "The Muslims" considering it was just a couple of them. If I couple of WASPs rape and murder a few women, would you blame the whole culture? —Aj |
|
|
|
|
Retta |
+ |
Monday, August 2, 2004 at 4:00 PM Aj is right, you're forgetting the most important thing: we can't judge. Just because a few radical Muslims blew up some buildings, that doesn't make them bad people. Everybody's the same. We can't judge. —Retta |
|
|
|
|
goodtimes3 |
+ |
Monday, August 2, 2004 at 4:32 PM way to photoshop fake nipples a curves on, id hit it but still, the photoshop is so cheesey, makes me want to call dateline —goodtimes3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nosuchsoul |
+ |
Monday, August 2, 2004 at 8:44 PM Yeah, tell Chonsky we'll pay him in tin-foil hats, he'll take the job. —Nosuchsoul |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Monday, August 2, 2004 at 8:47 PM Dr. Drew for surgeon general! —ZT |
|
|
|
|
lundy |
+ |
Monday, August 2, 2004 at 9:44 PM
Well, damn, man, it's pretty soon gonna be president
election time again, and that means we gotta start
thinkin' about who's gonna be the one we want to be
president. That's some important stuff, who's
president, because whoever's president will be in
charge of the whole dang shootin' match. And, if y'all
are like me, you know America's president needs to be
the kind of old boy who, in the first place, kicks him
some damn ass, and in the second place, don't listen
to all that bitchin' about how he shouldn't be kickin'
so much ass. And, if you ain't like me, guess what? My
vote cancels out y'all's!
Now, you probably waste a whole lotta good-fishin'
Saturdays readin' yourself the papers, watchin' all
the talk on the TV, and sittin' around thinkin' real
hard about which way you gonna vote. Well, it's a real
shame, then, ain't it, that all that time you spend in
real careful considerin' don't count for nothin', once
my vote runs y'all's right off the road. Shoot, neighbor, if there's one type'a guy you don't
want in charge, it's some damn weaklin' in the White
House what won't kick enough ass. Bush, that guy we
got now, he kicked him some ass in that old desert.
And Bush's daddy? He kicked him some ass, too. Reagan?
Kicked all the ass he could, and some they said he
shouldn't! But Clinton? Barely no ass-kickin' at all.
Just got his ol' joint tugged by a fat girl, and hell,
I could do that down by the Dew Drop Inn off I-78.
What's the damn use of bein' the Commander-Chief if
that's all you're gonna do? Face it, bein' president
is a job of work for ass-kickers, and if you say
otherwise, hell, I got a vote here what totally
negates yours. So maybe you ain't a patriot like I am. Now, when I
say patriot, I'm talkin' about most of our athletes,
country-music stars, and guys like me what agree with
them. So, say you ain't a patriot, and you're fixin'
to vote up a candidate what's some limpo what'll give
in to the crybaby liberals, the damn screechin' women,
the commies at the United Nations, and the other
America-haters. Fine by me! I got a vote here that
does just as much good as yours, and mine's marked "No
Limpos!" Or say you wanna take away the money we need for our
Army tanks and rifles and fightin' planes what let us
keep our eternal vigilance of freedom by invadin'
other countries. And say you want to give it to the
damn schoolteachers, which let me tell you never done
old me any damn good, and still, they most times
drive a newer car than I do. I learned all I got from
my daddy—another guy without any fancy book smarts, by
the way. If he didn't need them books, then why do
anybody else? Well, hey, I might not be educated, but
I do got me a big ol' flag, $300 from the government,
and a president that, like I told you before, kicked
him some ass. It's things like that what make me happy
my vote gonna meet y'all's toe-to-toe and take it
down! Plus, what's more, I got to see Saddam get his ass
throwed in jail. That's a big ol' switch-a-dilly from
a few years ago, when Saddam was runnin' around free
while I was in the tank, let me tell you. So maybe you think what we got here is one a them
Mexican pissin' matches, what with my vote and your
vote both bein' worth the exact same. But I tell you
what! There's all the guys workin' down here at the
budget-transmission shop with me, and the guys at the
body shop across the way, and the car-battery
dismantlin' yard. Plus, there's all our pals at the
Dew Drop off 78, and all our other pals at the County
Dragaway, and our big ol' families, and our wives, for
those what have 'em. Read me? In this next election,
whenever they set it to come around, we gonna go up
agin' all you guys at the coffee shop and the library.
Now, if you ain't noticed, we got a lot more parkin'
lot space down at the racetrack and the Farm & Fleet
store than y'all do out in front of your bookstores
and muffin shops. All of us add up real quick, and our
votes do a damn bunch more than just cancel out all
y'all's! Shit, somehow we do it ever' time we need to keep the
damn school board from gettin' uppity on us. So hey, man, have fun readin' up and debatin' and
thinkin' on what you gonna mark down on your votin'
papers this year. I ain't thought too much yet
about which way my vote's gonna go. But somethin'
tells me, friend, it ain't gonna be the same as
y'alls!
—lundy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coleman |
+ |
Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 4:31 AM
Edited Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 4:32 AM I get it: Sweet Juicy Cooze = Bush. Didn't Whoopi Goldberg do that joke a few days ago and get booed off the stage? If you want to know why the GOP will continue to dominate American politics, read Thomas Frank's brilliant new book What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America Basically, they won the rhetorical war and liberals are too clueless and spineless to do the right thing. Serves 'em right, if you ask me. —Coleman |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 7:27 AM She's not a Butter Face, she's got quite a cute face. That little overbite is endearing too. The problem comes when you remember her father's face and see it in hers. Shiver shiver shiver.
====================================================================================
Yesterday at 5:00 PM Aj is right, you're forgetting the most important thing: we can't judge. Just because a few radical Muslims blew up some buildings, that doesn't make them bad people. Everybody's the same. We can't judge. —Retta
====================================================================================
If you're gonna try humiliate someone by agreeing with them in a exaggerated hyper-detailed way, make sure you actually go hyper-detail.
Aj is right, you're forgetting the most important thing: we can't judge. Just because the news said a few radical Muslims blew up some buildings, that doesn't make them bad people. Everybody's the same. We can't judge.
Oh shit, when you do that YOU look like the clown! Oh shit!
But you're not a clown, we can't judge, everyone is the same. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
Aj |
+ |
Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 11:26 AM That's funny...because I don't remember saying that you couldn't judge the individuals that actually RAN PLANES INTO BUILDINGS (not "blew them up"). I remember saying you couldn't judge the entire race. You're really only making yourselves look like asses. And for the record, my buddy died in the Pentagon...trust me, I cared. —Aj |
|
|
|
|
Coleman |
+ |
Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 12:59 PM How about the ideology that motivated the terrorists? Can we judge that and worry about how widespread it is? If Saudi Arabia is pumping billions of dollars a year into Wahhabist indoctrination centers and "charitable" groups that divert the money to weapons and training camps for terrorists, do you think it might be a good idea to try to put a stop to that? How about a culture that is steeped in collective self-pity--the self-pity of a former superpower--and racial supremacist notions? Can we judge that, too? Can we judge a culture that considers women less than human and publicly beheads them for sexual infidelity? Sorry. I'm forgetting myself. We cannot judge. Love that female genital mutilation!
Atta-Zarqawi in 04!
—Coleman |
|
|
|
|
snuffy |
+ |
Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 1:56 PM Don't be so close-minded, you fucking racist! Judge not, lest ye be judged. Why can't we be more like Canada, which is seriously thinking about allowing Sharia law courts to operate in Ontario? After all, they allow Jewish law courts already in Toronto. Why shouldn't we set up religious courts in our own country, just like Canada? It's only fair. Seriously. If Canadian multi-culturalists can align themselves with Muslim fundamentalists who want to establish theocratic law within Canadian borders, why can't we? Remember: All viewpoints are equal, all cultures and ideologies are beautiful, and those who insist on pointing out the harmfulness of these colorful "subaltern" practices are just mean, bitter, close-minded people who need to go on Oprah for a session with Dr. Phil so they can learn how to let go of their negativity and grow their love and nurture others of different ideologies in a caring, sharing, non-judgmental environment.
—snuffy |
|
|
|
|
sneedo |
+ |
Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 2:45 PM gotta vote for Kerry, or that chick's dress :-$ —sneedo |
|
|
|
|
Ogm |
+ |
Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 3:04 PM I want to do horrible things to George Bush. Does that make me a terrorist? —Ogm |
|
|
|
|
ricockulous |
+ |
Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 3:18 PM I don't like either of the candidates. Being a liberal, I would still give Bush my vote though. Not because I like him- no no no. I just want him to finish the war that he started. —ricockulous |
|
|
|
|
Coleman |
+ |
Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 5:04 PM I just want him to finish the war that he started. Don't switch horses in mid-stream! I want to do horrible things to George Bush. Does that make me a terrorist? Only if you actually do them, or make a serious effort to do them. How do you feel about temptress devil women showing a bit of ankle, thereby destroying the fabric of a God-fearing society? Stone them? Or be merciful and only slice off their genitalia and stuff them into permanent ambulatory tents in 110-degree heat? —Coleman |
|
|
|
|
Perma Hardon |
+ |
Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 5:38 PM Who here has never beaten off to the imagined ankles of temptress devil women? I have, many many times. And don't knock bangin' burkah-wrapped pussy if you've never tried it. It's hotness, especially in 110-degree heat! —Perma Hardon |
|
|
|
|
goodtimes3 |
+ |
Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 6:04 PM fuck bush, fuck kerry, i think we all know we should vote for Adam adam for supreme dictator...has a nice ring doesnt it? —goodtimes3 |
|
|
|
|
Trainwreck jm |
+ |
Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 6:34 PM Bush here. Mainly because I want to watch Michael Moore's (and everyone else in Hollywood's) head explode when he wins. ...and the Kerry daughters are hideous. how can people with access to the endless porn on the internet be so mesmerized by a pair of tits??? —Trainwreck jm |
|
|
|
|
Puff |
+ |
Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 6:35 PM If the third party was Dave Chapelle, I'd vote for his crazy ass.
But as it is, Bush all the way, bitches! —Puff |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 8:15 PM Anyone who seriously votes for a man who cannot talk is stupid.
See, both George Bushs are so stupid that they cannot read a speech that someone else wrote for them without stumbling several times.
John Kerry like Bill Clinton before him, only stumbles once every two or three speeches, and sometimes even delivers like he wrote them himself.
The thing is, it is really, really hard to find a person with a southern USA accent who is also male, white, tallish, fully cranially hirsuit and old who can also read and think on their feet. To then have them do what they're told, that's like winning the lottery. The result is that the Republican party settles for people like George Bush.
The Democrats have little trouble in finding literate candidates, even after 1963.
Anyone who thinks that the President of the USA is anything more than a figurehead has very little intelligence. Therefore it should never be Bush or Kerry, it should be the parties that are talked about. It is certainly possible that the political parties of the United States do a great deal of decision making. Just not their figureheads. Remember? The guys who can't think up their own speeches, nor read them properly.
How fucking hard is it to read? How fucking hard is it to see that someone who can't read is sub-intelligent? What the hell is wrong with you people? Doesn't any logic creep into your skulls after the 40,000th joke from a stand-up about how George W. Bush can't even talk straight? How can you even think he runs anything?! The man can barely dress himself! People in England have it easier. They don't have to vote for the Queen of England. She's always there. It's hard to find many people over there who still think she runs things (like this actual Queen ever did) but some do. If the news constantly reported that she did, just about everyone would think she ran things. People trust the news. Why? I guess words printed on paper and people talking through a TV have this power that I don't understand. It's similar to how I miss the appeal of motor sports. Yes, the car's engine makes a BIG noise! Yes, it goes very fast! You're dribbling now, wipe your chin. Good baby! =========================================================================================
ricockulous
Today at 4:18 PM I don't like either of the candidates. Being a liberal, I would still give Bush my vote though. Not because I like him- no no no. I just want him to finish the war that he started. —ricockulous
-------------
Coleman
Today at 6:04 PM I just want him to finish the war that he started. Don't switch horses in mid-stream! I want to do horrible things to George Bush. Does that make me a terrorist? Only if you actually do them, or make a serious effort to do them. How do you feel about temptress devil women showing a bit of ankle, thereby destroying the fabric of a God-fearing society? Stone them? Or be merciful and only slice off their genitalia and stuff them into permanent ambulatory tents in 110-degree heat? —Coleman
=========================================================================================
How do you finish a war? Would that be by killing everyone who opposes you? Makes stoning some people seem civilised. Imagine if the stoning of one person accidentally killed all the people around the stonee, especially little kids catching a stray stone. Then it would be like a North American ghetto. Wait, placebo humanitarianism dissolves when you can see that the ghettos are still there. Better to focus on humans from the other side of the planet, that way only the news tells you whats going on and even if the news reports truthfully, the TV can just be switched off. I think. It reminds me of how people in my country always sponsor African children, sometimes several each! They do so much good, they're okay because they're helping those poor helpless negros. Meanwhile, dark-skinned native children starve to death around the corner. Can't help those though, not without giving up the big TV (for a medium TV) and such real sacrifices. =========================================================================================
Coleman
Today at 1:59 PM How about the ideology that motivated the terrorists? Can we judge that and worry about how widespread it is? If Saudi Arabia is pumping billions of dollars a year into Wahhabist indoctrination centers and "charitable" groups that divert the money to weapons and training camps for terrorists, do you think it might be a good idea to try to put a stop to that? How about a culture that is steeped in collective self-pity--the self-pity of a former superpower--and racial supremacist notions? Can we judge that, too? Can we judge a culture that considers women less than human and publicly beheads them for sexual infidelity? Sorry. I'm forgetting myself. We cannot judge. Love that female genital mutilation!
Atta-Zarqawi in 04!
—Coleman
-------------
snuffy
Today at 2:56 PM Don't be so close-minded, you fucking racist! Judge not, lest ye be judged. Why can't we be more like Canada, which is seriously thinking about allowing Sharia law courts to operate in Ontario? After all, they allow Jewish law courts already in Toronto. Why shouldn't we set up religious courts in our own country, just like Canada? It's only fair. Seriously. If Canadian multi-culturalists can align themselves with Muslim fundamentalists who want to establish theocratic law within Canadian borders, why can't we? Remember: All viewpoints are equal, all cultures and ideologies are beautiful, and those who insist on pointing out the harmfulness of these colorful "subaltern" practices are just mean, bitter, close-minded people who need to go on Oprah for a session with Dr. Phil so they can learn how to let go of their negativity and grow their love and nurture others of different ideologies in a caring, sharing, non-judgmental environment. * Life Under Sharia, in Canada?
—snuffy
=========================================================================================
How do you talk to people with blinkers on? Mixing metaphors isn't going to help. Oh well.
Doesn't anyone remember that the Middle East is the Cradle of Civilisation? That thousands of years ago the average Middle Easterner had the same attitude towards Europeans that Europeans now have towards Middle Easterners?
"Europe is full of savages, forget about them"
-paraphrasing a guy I've never heard and whose name I can't remember. He wrote a lot of books. He was killed in the end because he was a peaceful scholar with an eye towards helping the savage, brutal Europeans, among other causes.
Coleman"How about a culture that is steeped in collective self-pity--the self-pity of a former superpower--and racial supremacist notions? Can we judge that, too?"
You're talking about the USA right? No, you're still talking about Middle East people? Or France? Or Britain? Or Russia? Damn, I'm confused now. Ha ha ha no.
Coleman"Can we judge a culture that considers women less than human and publicly beheads them for sexual infidelity?"(Whose been reading a newspaper! Did you hear how they eat their own children?!)
Coleman"Sorry. I'm forgetting myself. We cannot judge. Love that female genital mutilation!" That's Africa isn't it? Wait, do mud people in the Middle East do that too?
The USA has an 80% circumcision rate, the highest on the planet.
Gotta love that male genital mutilation!
How can people be too stupid to think for themselves yet intelligent enought to operate keyboards and books and guns and cars? The answer to that is truly gut wrenching, it hurts so much...
What is the answer? Sshhh, it's a secret (!) —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
snuffy |
+ |
Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 8:16 PM I'm with Trainwreck. It would be hilarious to watch the Michael Moore-Noam Chomsky crowd go completely insane (not that they have very far to go to reach that destination). A Kerry presidency would be too damn boring. Four more years! —snuffy |
|
|
|
|
Coleman |
+ |
Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 8:53 PM MF is a fucking genius! Male circumcision is EXACTLY like cutting off the clitoris and inner labia of a 12-year-old girl and stitching up the outer labia, leaving only a one-inch hole for her to pee or menstruate through. Paying American women 75-cents to the dollar for doing the same job as men is EXACTLY like covering them at all times in a heavy full-length shroud and beating them if a lock of hair or glimpse of ankle gets exposed in public. No difference. We cannot judge. In fact, we are worse than other cultures because we aren't perfect. MajandraFan for President! Perma is right on! Nothing hotter than a woman (I guess it's a woman under there) in a burqa. I'm gonna make my girlfriend wear one all the time cuz it makes me feel manly and in control of that uppity bitch. It is hotness! Check it out, dudes:
—Coleman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Mason Jar |
+ |
Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 9:34 PM Aj, I said “Considering what the Muslims did on 9/11”. I did not say “Considering what ALL Muslims did” or “All Muslims support terrorism”. I simply stated the facts. Until we accept the fact that the one thing every 9/11 terrorist had in common, regardless or race, nationality, or political and economical situation, is that they were ALL MUSLIMS, we will not be able to target the real enemy of the United States. —Mr. Mason Jar |
|
|
|
|
Voltaire |
+ |
Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 10:11 PM The enemy is militant fundamentalist Islam. The smart strategy would be to support moderate secular Muslims, especially in the Arab world, where most of the terrorists hail from, and marginalize the fundamentalists. Lumping all Muslims together is wrong and foolish. Distinguish your real enemy from your potential friends. Hint: The Saudi government is NOT our friend. —Voltaire |
|
|
|
|
Coleman |
+ |
Wednesday, August 4, 2004 at 5:54 AM If you read only one book this summer, read the 9/11 Commission's report, which is out in bookstores now. (This, by the way, is a bi-partisan commission, made up of as many Democrats as Republicans, and is remarkably free of political ax-grinding.) Here's a key quotation: But the enemy is not just "terrorism," some generic evil. This vagueness blurs the strategy. The catastrophic threat at this moment in history is more specific. It is the threat posed by Islamic terrorism. ...[This] is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground--not even respect for life--on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated. The level of detail in this report is impressive. It also contains the most scrupulous history and analysis of al-Qaeda I've read, and I've read about two dozen books on Islamic terrorism so far. BTW, "Voltaire" is right: The most intelligent and effective strategy is to vigorously support moderate secular Muslims everywhere and isolate and discredit the fundamentalists by promoting stable democratic governments in a region that has never known them. It's a tricky, arduous task and, sad to say, I don't think either of the two main Presidential candidates is up to it. God help us all. —Coleman |
|
|
|
|
Erlog |
+ |
Wednesday, August 4, 2004 at 7:48 AM I'm going with Bush because of a few issues. Kerry's voting record is attrocious. He votes for and against things arbitrarily.
Kerry can't even do the god damn job he has now yet he's looking for a promotion. He's set the record for percentage of votes missed in the senate while campaigning. Most presidential candidates who were in the senate missed only 15-20% of the votes. Kerry is missing 80% of the votes and his own state is asking him to step down. You may not like what GW is doing, but at least he has a little credibility. Much like the people who are voting Kerry because they hate Bush, I am voting Bush because I hate Kerry. —Erlog |
|
|
|
|
snuffy |
+ |
Wednesday, August 4, 2004 at 6:34 PM Christopher Hitchens SLAMS John Kerry for a stupid, obnoxious remark he made during his convention speech. Needless to say, none of the conventioneers made any criticism of it at all. Go, Hitch!
—snuffy |
|
|
|
|
FartingJ |
+ |
Wednesday, August 4, 2004 at 8:19 PM Support democracy in Middle East, yes. That would be a good idea. Here's an idea how we could support democracy - invade countries, overthrow their governments, install new governments friendly to us, and then label all resisters "insurgents". Uh, I would resist if Russia or China did that to us, wouldn't you? If I weren't inclined to be an anti-Russian (or whatever) terrorist before then, that would pretty well drive me to it. I wish we would support democracy. Unfortunately we have seen over and over that the conservatives have little respect for democracy. They cheated in the 2000 election by, among other things, turning (mostly black) people away from the polls whose names - yes, just names - matched those of felons in other states. Now they're collecting 10's of thousands of petition signatures to get Ralph Nader on the ballot. I think they might have broken into Democratic headquarters back in the 70s, if anyone remembers. The liberals have their bad apples but for the conservatives it's systemic.
—FartingJ |
|
|
|
|
Nosuchsoul |
+ |
Wednesday, August 4, 2004 at 8:32 PM Well, what you call a person who kills thirty people outside of a police station who need a job to feed their family? What would call a movement who's primary motivation is to destabilize the government no matter the consequence? Who do you think puts more of a price on human life? A Joe Schmoe Marine or an insurgent? Well, I guess that is their culture and we shall not judge. I have not heard of a sympathetic leader or cause behind this insurgency. Is the western media hiding it, cause God knows they do love George Bush. Are you trying to say that the "one persons terrorist is another person's freedom fighter" rule applies here? How? —Nosuchsoul |
|
|
|
|
Coleman |
+ |
Wednesday, August 4, 2004 at 9:29 PM Farting J: If the dictator who ran your country came to power in an extraordinarily bloody putsch and hailed from a minority tribe and religion and then set about mass-murdering your own people--whether Kurds in the north or the majority Shia Arabs in the south--you'd certainly welcome foreign assistance in overthrowing someone like Saddam. Ask the Kurds if they favored the invasion. Are the Kurds not Iraqis? Ask the Shias in southern Iraq if they favored the U.S. overthrowing Saddam's regime. Don't their opinions count, too? The fact is, the large majority of Iraqis favored the overthrow of Saddam and the Baathists. The only ones objecting--and committing the atrocities against fellow Iraqis as well as against U.S. soldiers--are the minority Sunni Tikriti clan of the central region around Baghdad, Saddam's relations, who were the ones calling the shots, along with some infiltrating terrorist groups from Syria that are affiliated with al-Qaeda. Do you really think the U.S. is trying to set up a mere puppet government in Baghdad? For fuck's sake, we've got representatives from all regions, tribes, and religions (including Sunnis and Tikritis) on the governing council. —Coleman |
|
|
|
|
snuffy |
+ |
Wednesday, August 4, 2004 at 10:22 PM WTF? You idiots make it sound like the insurgents are freedom fighters. Actually, they're die-hard elements of the former Ba'athist regime and fundamentalist jihadist groups from the surrounding countries trying to destabilize the country and terrorize the Iraqi people. They are scum, pure and simple. What kind of government do you think they'd set up if they managed to drive out the U.S. and take over the country? Would it be any kind of government any sane person would want to live under? Are you so eager to see George Bush or the United States humbled that you'd whitewash the insurgents and be indifferent to the fate of Iraq if they actually won? —snuffy |
|
|
|
|
Voltaire |
+ |
Wednesday, August 4, 2004 at 10:57 PM Hmmmm...I detect a double standard at work. If we were discussing American Christian fundamentalists who were kidnapping and dismembering civilian hostages and deliberately targeting crowded public places with suicide bombers in order to kill as many civilians as possible, the would-be clever multiculturalists on this forum would quite rightly be denouncing these atrocities. But change the nationality and religion of these fascist maniacs, and put an unpopular Republican President in opposition to them, and all of a sudden you've got to make excuses for the fascist maniacs and maybe even hope they succeed. I wish I could be as hip as that. Unfortunately, I'm burdened by something called common sense. —Voltaire |
|
|
|
|
goodtimes3 |
+ |
Thursday, August 5, 2004 at 9:11 AM this thread is stupid. iraq is stupid. bush is stupid. kerry is stupid. theres no point in flaming everyone who has an opinion. jesus christ, you screwballs, it doesnt matter. vote and hope for the best. do you have half an idea of what you jackoffs are saying? or just regurgating what the liberal or conservative sources are telling you? get a fucking brain. saying that we shouldnt switch presidents in a war is like saying that the police shouldnt stop robbers in the middle of a heist. —goodtimes3 |
|
|
|
|
everybody has warts |
+ |
Thursday, August 5, 2004 at 12:59 PM you actually think bush is gonna finish the war he started? you think within the next 4 years, somebody's gonna say "we won! terrorism is extinct!" this shit's (our military presence in the middle east) gonna outlast every one of us, no matter who's president. —everybody has warts |
|
|
|
|
swifty |
+ |
Thursday, August 5, 2004 at 1:13 PM I have contempt for both. What do you Kerry supporters think of the increasing number of former solders who served with Kerry and feel he shouldn't command troups? Long Live the Libratarians. —swifty |
|
|
|
|
Aj |
+ |
Thursday, August 5, 2004 at 2:09 PM Hey Mason, Most serial killers are white males. —Aj |
|
|
|
|
snuffy |
+ |
Thursday, August 5, 2004 at 2:21 PM Yeah! What's the point in arguing about the most major issue of our time? That's just stupid. Let's talk about jacking off. That's something we can all agree on! BTW, I think the "Don't switch horses" slogan is a reference to Wag the Dog. It was the really lame campaign slogan used by the incumbent. —snuffy |
|
|
|
|
Coleman |
+ |
Thursday, August 5, 2004 at 3:36 PM Well spotted. "Don't switch horses" was a central joke in Wag the Dog, although it was also Lincoln's actual campaign slogan in 1864. Anyway, snuff, this thread is just a higher form of jacking off and I can shoot bigger wads than you! —Coleman |
|
|
|
|
Voltaire |
+ |
Thursday, August 5, 2004 at 11:09 PM There's no point in flaming everyone who has an opinion. --goodtimes3 Since when is reasoned argument about substantial matters a flame war? Surprisingly, there hasn't been much name-calling on this thread: For the most part, people are presenting reasons and arguments for their opinions--maybe not the best reasons or arguments, but it's a far cry from flaming. All of which is further evidence that this forum is a cut above most others. It's an oasis of intelligence and civility compared with Free Republic or Democratic Underground. [Are you] just regurgitating what the liberal or conservative sources are telling you? War supporters like snuffy and Coleman have cited such left-wing sources as The Guardian, The Globe and Mail, and Thomas Frank--none of which are usually sympathetic to their viewpoints, so apparently some people here are reading a wide variety of sources. Besides, does anyone really believe that the atrocity stories about the treatment of women under the Taliban or the terrorizing tactics of the jihadists are lies and propaganda by neo-conservative Republicans? —Voltaire |
|
|
|
|
Coleman |
+ |
Friday, August 6, 2004 at 2:11 AM Thanks for the defense, but I'm not really a war supporter, Voltaire. I don't think we can say right now whether the war was a bold move or a huge fiasco, at least not for another five or ten years. Also, I don't consider myself particularly conservative. I can't stand Bush and I'm actually pretty leftish on most domestic issues: I want universal health care, I distrust corporations, and I'm definitely an atheist--religious people give me the creeps. But when confronted with religious fundamentalist fascists like al Qaeda and the Taliban, I want to see them totally defeated. That's why I'm so disappointed by much of the left: they only worry about the familiar home-grown fascists, the ones with shaved heads who wear white sheets; they couldn't care less about the ones waving Korans and stoning women to death in remote countries. —Coleman |
|
|
|
|
Hemant |
+ |
Friday, August 6, 2004 at 5:03 AM No Coleman, I thank god for those liberals who show us what liberalism is truly all about today. When Michael Moore and all the other lefties cheer every defeat of America no matter who strikes against us, it shows everybody exactly what they stand for. They think it would be great if we lost in Iraq and Afghanistan and the terrorists hit us again in New York or Washington DC, then they would get to say haha and blame George Bush and have us run away. I bet they truly are hoping that we get hit again so they can gloat about it. Because they have nothing left of thier leftism except anti-Americanism. Yes, that is all the left has left. How ironic, how sad. That is why they will continue to lose. Thank god!!! —Hemant |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Friday, August 6, 2004 at 5:58 AM Any of you talking shit here should try saying whatever it is you say without using propaganda slang.
This would include: freedom fighter, insurgent, Taliban, al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Muslim, Islam, terrorism, war. Give it a go. See if any of you can describe the facts plainly. At least, the facts you're getting off the news, since none of you have seen any of the things you're talking about.
Niggas always talking that shit. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
Hemant |
+ |
Friday, August 6, 2004 at 6:13 AM That's very funny, telling people to talk about current events without mentioning Al Qaida or Taliban or Saddam. Gosh you are SO OBJECTIVE by doing that!!! Why not talk about world war two without mentioning Germany or Japan or Hitler or Hirohito? Please Please Please keep this up!!! Ha Ha Ha. Please go public on other websites! Four More Years!!! —Hemant |
|
|
|
|
Coleman |
+ |
Friday, August 6, 2004 at 7:14 AM Jesus, I can't believe I'm siding with a conservative ideologue like Hemant (wtf is that handle supposed to indicate, anyway?). As much as it pains me to say it, he/she is right. Does ZT/MajandraFan think that we can discuss the current war without naming the parties the U.S.A. is fighting? Does he really think al Qaeda and the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11? Does he think Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime wasn't the regime the U.S. military was attempting to depose? Does he think the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were motivated by racism and religious bigotry? If he does, then Hemant is right: That position, if publicized, will drive all moderates, centrists, and independents into the arms of the Republican Party. I can't tell if ZTMF thinks he's being clever or if he's a GOP operative trying to discredit the left. If the latter, he's doing a great job. Let's hope he isn't working on other, more widely read websites. Fuck, this is sad. —Coleman |
|
|
|
|
snuffy |
+ |
Friday, August 6, 2004 at 7:44 AM Teehee. I love it when lefties fight among themselves. While sane liberals wonder about their crazy compadres, us Republicans are working hard to get Bush re-elected. And thanks to wackos like the ones on display here, we are going to win in November. Coleman, when will you finally come to your senses and give up on these pussy loonies and back a sane party and candidate? Maybe the GOP doesn't offer you the piddly little domestic stuff you want, but at least if we're in charge there will still be an America in which you can fight for your precious health care and sex education programs in the not so distant future. If Kerry and his pussy/traitor friends have their way, you might not have a liberal democracy left in this country for you to work with. Don't be a fool. You seem like a smart, decent guy. Use your brains and figure out who the real enemy is. Come on in, bro, the water's fine. I used to be like you, so I feel your pain. —snuffy |
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Friday, August 6, 2004 at 9:59 AM It's funny how snuffy and the other neo-cons all say the same thing. Liberals are crazy, Kerry is a traitor, there will be no America if Bush loses, blah, blah b-fucking-blah.
Lose the rhetoric.
—Colin |
|
|
|
|
Coleman |
+ |
Friday, August 6, 2004 at 3:33 PM Seriously. GOPers never sound more ridiculous than when they proclaim that only Bush can save us and anyone who doesn't support Bush must be a traitor or a fool. Frankly, I'm not impressed by either candidate and desperately wish we had real options this year. McCain, Lieberman, Biden...all these guys have thoughtful, serious things to say about the way to handle this crisis, but they got squeezed out by the political machine. —Coleman |
|
|
|
|
Shandala |
+ |
Friday, August 6, 2004 at 8:09 PM
Edited Friday, August 6, 2004 at 8:11 PM So far, everyone here has been talking about who should win. Now let's talk about who will win. Here's my guess: It'll be very close, but Bush will just barely edge out Kerry, because Kerry has nothing to offer voters except the fact that he's not George W. Bush...and that just won't be enough this election. Of course, if, in the next three months, the economy does a complete meltdown and millions of workers are laid off, or Iraq erupts into complete civil war and thousands of American soldiers are killed, the smart money would then be on Kerry. Barring that, though, Bush will still be President in 2005. Anyone wanna take this bet? —Shandala |
|
|
|
|
snuffy |
+ |
Saturday, August 7, 2004 at 12:34 AM
Edited Saturday, August 7, 2004 at 12:34 AM Bush will win for all the reasons you gave. Maybe not all liberals are traitors (Coleman seems okay) but the Michael Moore-Noam Chomsky blame-America-first wing has come to represent liberalism today, and as long as it does, the Republicans are going to keep on winning. And that's a good thing. —snuffy |
|
|
|
|
Coleman |
+ |
Saturday, August 7, 2004 at 3:38 AM I suspect the last two posters are right and that Bush will just barely squeak by (not that I find that prospect particularly thrilling). The Democrats will have mostly themselves to blame. They keep getting their strategy all wrong. Progressive journalist Thomas Frank targets one tone-deaf tactic by the Democrats at their convention, and it's something they keep falling for over and over, despite the fact that it's killing them at the polls.
—Coleman |
|
|
|
|
Shandala |
+ |
Saturday, August 7, 2004 at 5:29 AM Thanks for the link. Frank has nailed it. The Democratic Party is split between two incompatible and unattractive factions: the DLC faction that wants the party to adopt a watered-down version of the GOP's economic policies, and so has cut its ties to labor unions and the working class in order to suck up to professionals and access all that corporate money; and the embittered, unhinged "Dennis Kucinich" faction that eagerly embraces the looniest conspiracy theories and can't focus on the bread-and-butter issues that used to keep the Dems in power. As a result, the working class, abandoned by the Democrats, has in turn abandoned them. Why vote for a fake Republican when you can vote for the real thing? And the Republicans won't sneer at you for flying Old Glory from your bedroom window. Being in a long, slow decline is a small price for the Democrats to pay in order to feel intellectually superior to all those gullible rubes and inbred hicks out there in the hinterland. I had always thought it would be the GOP, with its oil-and-water combo of Christian fundamentalists and big-business libertarians, that would self-destruct first. But the race to irrelevance and oblivion is the one race the Democrats seem to be winning. —Shandala |
|
|
|
|
Coleman |
+ |
Saturday, August 7, 2004 at 4:53 PM Bingo. The "long, slow decline" of the Democratic Party is the heart of the problem, and it's caused by the party's sociopolitical cluelessness. The Republicans have been extremely shrewd in using "culture war" issues as a wedge, but they couldn't have managed their political victories on their own. They are merely taking advantage of the fact that the Democrats are committing political suicide. If basic economic issues are removed from the table, only the social issues remain to distinguish the parties. And in such a climate, Democratic appeals to people of ordinary means can be easily neutralized. Forty years ago, it was assumed that the GOP was the party of the rich, and that the Democrats stood for the working class. Now, with their avid support of NAFTA and union-busting complicity, their fawning attitudes to Hollywood royalty, and their seeming contempt for common symbols of patriotism, the Democrats are the ones who are perceived as being against the working class's basic values. And the Republicans won't sneer at you for flying Old Glory from your bedroom window. A previous poster already linked to this article, but it's a perfect example of liberal cluelessness. What did the author hope to gain by writing it, except to bolster her sense of moral superiority to all those stupid patriotic proles who put out the flag immediately after 9/11 to show their grief and solidarity? She's all too typical of the pompous liberal dolts who are playing right into Republican hands. Because of fools like her, the GOP will probably have our government sewn up for the next twenty years. Nice job, Katha. Idiot.
—Coleman |
|
|
|
|
snuffy |
+ |
Saturday, August 7, 2004 at 10:31 PM Speaking of political sell-outs and Tweedledum/Tweedledee parties, how about the fact that so few Democratic politicians oppose the Patriot Act? You know who the most passionate and effective opponent of the Patriot Act is? It's Congressman Bob Barr. You remember him, the racist redneck Confederate-flag-waving homophobic creep from Georgia? How's that for historical irony? If the Democrats would ever grow a set of balls and stand up for their supposed principles, maybe more voters would take them seriously. Hell, if they did that, even I might start voting for them again. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though. —snuffy |
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Sunday, August 8, 2004 at 7:09 AM
Edited Sunday, August 8, 2004 at 7:09 AM True Conservatives should be the most vocal of the movement against the patriot act. True conservatives are just what their name suggests, they conserve things. They are the best recyclers, the people who care the most about the environment, they're for less government; not more, they dissaprove of the federal gov'ment making rules that the states must follow (patriot, no gay marriage, no child left behind, etc.). We have very few real conservatives in this administration. Bush may call himself one, but he's far from it. Our group of current neo-cons are a sad mix of anti everything. Gay, civil rights, labor, the poor, et al.
If the democrats hadn't voted for the patriot act, we'd have no dems in congress, thanks to Bush and co. politicizing 9/11. Karl Rove saiud right after 9/11 that the event would be what republicans should run the congressional campaigns on. Ergo, Rove was calling all people whjo voted against the patriot act anti American. Shouldn't we have people in Congress with their own brain?
—Colin |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Sunday, August 8, 2004 at 8:53 AM Y'all are truly embroiled in propaganda.
What does ZT stand for? Not that it will do any good, but I'll elaborate a bit.
Okay, first, get a defintion for each of the words I've "banned" [as I said before: (This would include: freedom fighter, insurgent, Taliban, al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Muslim, Islam, terrorism, war)]
Now, describe the events under discussion WITHOUT using any of the above words. eg. US troops invade Iraq's borders after massive concussive missile bombardment ect. Just the plain facts. No names of individuals, no motivations, no emotive colourations.
Last step: try and match up the "banned" words with step 2 paying STRICT attention to the definitions you have before you. Flash cards might help. It's like a jigsaw puzzle but with words instead of pictures (yes, much like the way children graduate from picture books to romance novels). As Hemant pointed out, this exercise in lateral thinking can work with WWII. In fact, you can objectively think about any situation from any time period. A word of warning though, the longer ago it happened, the less likely you will have any useful facts (Bible, Qur'an). This is especially pertinent to military histories written by the victoious side (colonial invasions of Africa, North America, South America, Asia, Australia, Antarctica).
Hemant: yes, Germany and Japan had soldiers in warring conflict with Russia and Britain (many other countries involved on all sides, of course). But, was the conflict that German troops had with the Jewish population of Europe a "war"? Yes there were troops involved, and much death, but it wasn't quite war. By the way, Hitler referred to Jews as both "insurgents" and "threats to the state". I'm pretty sure that a resisting Jew would be more of a freedom fighter. After all, when you don't have a bird's eye view of things (or a CNN satellite's view) then fighting the guy with a gun in your face (or the mouth of your wife) is freedom fighting no matter who you are. No?
Now, I don't actually know any of this beyond reading books and seeing films etc. I'm not claiming that WWII was a hoax, just that I know the difference between witnessing something occuring and being TOLD that something occured. Humans have been known to lie. I'll give another example. What was Japan's motivation to bomb Pearl Harbour? And how was the account of the Japanese soldiers responsible recorded in such detail? In my history classes I was told word by word of the thoughts of the Japanese officer in charge of bombing Pearl Harbour, as he was sailing to do it! How the fuck did that information get out, considering he and his boat were destroyed a few days later in the middle of the Pacific?
It's not that WWII didn't happen, it's just that many, many, many of the specific events that happened years and years ago during WWII could easily not have happened. Did that guy really kill that other guy? Or was it his buddy? Did the Poles provoke Russia by invading first or did Russia instigate aggression?
How can anyone know these specifics? Does anyone know how history books actually go about getting written? Why would anything in a book be taken as absolute fact? Have any of you ever kept a journal? It's difficult to accurately summarise one day of a normal life when you tell the truth and nothing happens. How about 2000 days of non-stop death/destruction spanning several continents, with political agendas shooting at the authors of these history books from all angles?
Would it even have mattered if Hitler ran anything? Whether he was the busiest man in Germany or just a puppet, isn't it more important that millions of Germans (and Austrians and Italians and Fins and Luxembourgians) took up arms to slaughter their fellow human? That people rounded up other people like cattle behind barb-wire fences, beat and starved and worked them to death then threw them in mass graves? Isn't the political (or otherwise) leader of a country fundamentally irrelevant to the actions of the millions of citizens following him/her? No conspiracy theories, no alternative explantions. I offer you nothing but plain, simple logic (haha/ boom ching).
Muthafuckas! Think for yourselves! Let this be the last idea that you ever swallow! —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
Perma Hardon |
+ |
Sunday, August 8, 2004 at 9:38 AM Deep Thoughts
by MajandraFan I often wonder what that dark crusty stuff is between my toes. People call it "toe jam." Funny, it doesn't taste like jam. —Perma Hardon |
|
|
|
|
snuffy |
+ |
Sunday, August 8, 2004 at 11:34 AM If the democrats hadn't voted for the patriot act, we'd have no dems in congress Yeah, that's what I love: Courageous liberal politicians willing to stand on principle and boldly make the argument against governmental abuses of power like the Patriot Act. Meanwhile, we have to rely on bigoted crackers like Bob Barr to act with a modicum of guts and do the right thing. One more sad symptom of the Democrats' decline into irrelevance. Cowardly "friends" are sometimes more dangerous than determined enemies. —snuffy |
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Sunday, August 8, 2004 at 12:36 PM Why does snuffy's comments sound like a beck-rush-hannity radio show?
Just curious.
—Colin |
|
|
|
|
Coleman |
+ |
Sunday, August 8, 2004 at 3:03 PM
Edited Sunday, August 8, 2004 at 3:07 PM MajandraFan sounds like he's picked up some third-hand postmodernism, a doctrine that says there is no such thing as truth, only competing expressions of power. It's a crude, cynical, and ultimately self-contradictory form of relativism based on the following flawed reasoning: We cannot have absolute knowledge and perfect objectivity, therefore anything goes and we can't pass judgment on anything. The conclusion simply does not follow from the (admittedly true) premises. Some things are much more likely to be true than others, even if we can never achieve godlike certainty about them. Furthermore, what does your conclusion leave you with? Nothing, in the end, but resort to naked force: There is my truth, there is your truth, there is no way to verify mine or yours, mine conflicts with yours, so, since we cannot reason with each other, I must use force against you and obliterate your truth. If that's the way things are, then it's always going to end badly for those in the minority. Exactly the opposite of what most college sophomores intend to do with their recently acquired pseudo-sophisticated philosophy, since I suspect they really want to make a case for the minority viewpoint against the majority. It's an idiotic philosophy, really. Why does snuffy sound like a beck-rush-hannity radio show? His relentless bashing of and sneering at the Dems sounds a lot like a Fox News commentator, but his actual criticisms are not quite those of a dittohead. Rush would defend the Patriot Act and would never call anyone, let alone a Republican Congressman, a "bigoted cracker." He sounds more like a disappointed leftist. Plus, he's right about the acquiescence of the Democratic Party. Very few Democratic pols have the guts to stand up for their professed principles. Except for a few admirable die-hard liberals, they've all become Clintonoid opportunists now. Triangulation is the name of the game these days. —Coleman |
|
|
|
|
Nosuchsoul |
+ |
Sunday, August 8, 2004 at 3:44 PM Do you mean Admiral Yamamoto? He did not die a couple of days later, his plane was shot down later in the war. —Nosuchsoul |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Sunday, August 8, 2004 at 7:42 PM All of you people reading this are retarded. —ZT |
|
|
|
|
snuffy |
+ |
Sunday, August 8, 2004 at 8:40 PM Would that include you too, ZT? IIRC, you're the retard who didn't know that Canada fought in World War II. —snuffy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Sunday, August 8, 2004 at 9:51 PM Dude, HELLOOOOO!!!! I'm Canadian! Check it: Ohh Canada!
My home and native landaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
True Partiot L | |
