| 28th February 2007 05:42 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
Jumping Jack wrote:
Guilt is a terrible thing, particularly when you've had your head in the sand like an Ostrich.
Spoken like a man who knows it well!!! |
| 28th February 2007 05:56 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
Jumping Jack wrote:
Yes, it is all Bush's embolding fault due to the Iranians are enriching weapons grade uranium and will promptly stop once Hillary starts "talking" to them, just like North Koreans stopped when Bill was talking to them.
The Dems are willing to bet Israel's future that the Iranians are only kidding about wiping them off the map, and their nukes are purely defensive. JB and the rest of the American Jewish population better seriously ask themselves "What Will Hillary Do" when the time comes and be confident she doesn't take a survey among the pacists, cowards, and antisemites in the country. Guilt is a terrible thing, particularly when you've had your head in the sand like an Ostrich.
bush weakened us, by a lame war in Iraq... Regardless Israel will do the job that america can't b.c our miltary is adegraded, our reserve non existent, that we can't even use our National guard, to help out domestically. Has nmothing to with Dems, they suck hard, just like Bush and Cheney! |
| 28th February 2007 06:18 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
pdog wrote:
I say lovely should be defined, We love Americas newest slut celebrity, no...
 
I have to go out tonight but I will def. be taping "Idol" as seeing her try to sing tonight will be interesting. As I said, she has a nice voice but the nerves will get to her tonight. |
| 28th February 2007 06:20 PM |
|
|
| Some Guy |
quote:
glencar wrote:
I have to go out tonight but I will def. be taping "Idol" as seeing her try to sing tonight will be interesting. As I said, she has a nice voice but the nerves will get to her tonight.
Will Simon mention the pictures? |
| 28th February 2007 06:21 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
pdog wrote:
bush weakened us, by a lame war in Iraq... Regardless Israel will do the job that america can't b.c our miltary is adegraded, our reserve non existent, that we can't even use our National guard, to help out domestically. Has nmothing to with Dems, they suck hard, just like Bush and Cheney!
We have the best military in the world. I think Iraq has turned bad but the initial decision to take out Saddam was a sound one. The aftermath has been poorly handled. |
| 28th February 2007 06:21 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
Some Guy wrote:
Will Simon mention the pictures?
No, they might make a reference to "controversy" but even that's doubtful. |
| 28th February 2007 06:42 PM |
|
|
| mojoman |
quote:
pdog wrote:
I say lovely should be defined, We love Americas newest slut celebrity, no...
she's warming my "polar" region |
| 28th February 2007 06:49 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
glencar wrote:
We have the best military in the world. I think Iraq has turned bad but the initial decision to take out Saddam was a sound one. The aftermath has been poorly handled.
B/c it's over, we did the job, Saddam gone, WMD's gone... Govt. elected, army created... It's bye bye time... Bush has his legacy! Mission Accomplished!
FREEDOM® and Liberty®
[Edited by pdog] |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Yes, we're idiots because we politicized a political movie. And you're a genius because you don't even know who won the 2000 election. Dumbass.
I think you're confusing the winner of the 2000 election with the winner of the Bush v. Gore case. |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
glencar wrote:
We have the best military in the world. I think Iraq has turned bad but the initial decision to take out Saddam was a sound one. The aftermath has been poorly handled.
The aftermath was not merely "poorly handled." It was absolutely predictable. You may recall the Time magazine piece written by George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft which I cited some time ago. They knew at the time of Gulf War I that removing Saddam would empower the Iranians. They also understood that, as ugly and brutal as Saddam's regime was, it was the only thing holding the British-created fiction "Iraq" together. As emotionally satisfying as it may be to eliminate a thug like Saddam, it was a disastrous policy decision. We have replaced a stable secular regime with a breeding ground for al-Qaeda and militant Shia forces. Back in the day, it was idealist lefties who railed against U.S. support for reactionary dictators while responsible conservatives argued that we needed to hold our noses and back any regime so long as it was anti-Communist. Now the right has adopted the naive idealism of the left. How the worm has turned. |
|
|
| Lethargy |
Just one more example (out of hundreds) of global warming related ideas that scientists are looking into OTHER than direct human causes. Guaranteed this will never be on abc / nbc / cbs / cnn / cnbc - it would interfere with their agenda.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
|
|
|
| rasputin56 |
I just love the word "agenda". |
|
|
| Lethargy |
I love your Avatar!
"Yes your Blueness!"
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
I just love the word "agenda".
|
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
Lethargy wrote:
Just one more example (out of hundreds) of global warming related ideas that scientists are looking into OTHER than direct human causes. Guaranteed this will never be on abc / nbc / cbs / cnn / cnbc - it would interfere with their agenda.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Did you read the entire article...? It doesn't make the non-humn cause case... It basically says opposite... |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
 |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
Internet? Which one? Internets is plural, says the winner of Bush v. Gore.
 |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
Brainbell Jangler wrote:
Internet? Which one? Internets is plural, says the winner of Bush v. Gore.
You take pretty much everything personal don't you?...that's a bad trait dude...Type A types tend to die earlier deaths...that's more scientifically quantified than global warming even |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
You take pretty much everything personal don't you?...that's a bad trait dude...Type A types tend to die earlier deaths...that's more scientifically quantified than global warming even
Say what? I take pretty much everything personal??? You post a pictorial taunt at President Gore and I respond in kind with one at the Usurper-in-Chief. Please explain howe that is taking anything personally. Really, at times I am puzzled at your thought processes. Perhaps you shouldn't drink and post.
 |
|
|
| mojoman |
i just checked the legion of super heroes...its the decider |
|
|
| pdog |
 |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
mojoman wrote:
i just checked the legion of super heroes...its the decider
Mmmm. De cider.
 |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
Brainbell Jangler wrote:
Say what? I take pretty much everything personal??? You post a pictorial taunt at President Gore and I respond in kind with one at the Usurper-in-Chief. Please explain howe that is taking anything personally. Really, at times I am puzzled at your thought processes. Perhaps you shouldn't drink and post.
I'm sorry Mr. Jangler, after reviewing your credentials, I've determined that there is really no sense in continuing this discussion
 |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Brainbell Jangler wrote:
Back in the day, it was idealist lefties who railed against U.S. support for reactionary dictators while responsible conservatives argued that we needed to hold our noses and back any regime so long as it was anti-Communist. Now the right has adopted the naive idealism of the left.
Even more so. Been saying that one for awhile now. Bush Geekian fools, no more than a bunch of naive feel-good yackers, wrapped in pseudo-conservative clothing. I don't know if it was their inability to fall out of line with their love of George Walker Bush III, or whether they actually believed what that idiot and his administration said every day (some actually STILL believe - they must be believed!).
Either way, yes, that peculiar brand of pie-in-the sky, ant can move a rubber tree plant type stupidity has certainly come full circle in the U.S. (and has completely killed the conservative thought it professed to align itself with). Strange times. |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
Wait...responsible conservative?...idealist lefty?...Can someone with a Harvard degree straighten this shit out?
"The former director of the CIA and current nominee for Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs "From the Shadows", that American intelligence services began to aid the opposing factions in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed a directive authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the revolutionary regime."
Grab a chair chumps...I'm about to learn ya
[Edited by Fiji Joe] |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
A perfect example of a responsible conservative gone wild
"In 1961-1962, the Kennedy administration authorized the use of chemical weapons to destroy rice crops."
In 1951, Congressman John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts set out for an extensive fact-finding mission to the Middle and Far East. Upon his return, Kennedy reiterated his support of western efforts to defend freedom in both regions. He claimed that if the West did not act upon this ideal, especially in Southeast Asia, that the Chinese Communists easily would dominate these countries.
In a radio address upon his return, the Congressman explained the complexities of Southeast Asia and warned that these complexities called for particular policies. Kennedy presciently observed:
The Indo-Chinese states are puppet states, French principalities with great resources but as typical examples of empire and colonialism as can be fond anywhere. To check the southern drive of Communism makes sense but not only through reliance on the force of arms. The task is, rather, to build strong native non-Communist sentiment within these areas and rely on that as a spearhead of defense. To do this apart from and in defiance of innately nationalistic aims spells foredoomed failure.
In many ways, this early rhetoric foreshadowed John Kennedy's presidential rhetoric on Vietnam. From 1961 to 1963, President Kennedy invoked idealistic terms to encourage Americans to view the conflict there as one small part of the larger struggle between freedom and communism. According to the President, the United States had to do whatever was necessary to defend freedom's Vietnam. |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
Go on Jimmy..rail...rail against them reactionary dictators...rail like a maw fuck I say
During his presidency, Carter proclaimed human rights to be "the soul of our foreign policy." Although many journalists promoted that image, the reality was quite different.
Inaugurated 13 months after Indonesia's December 1975 invasion of East Timor, Carter stepped up U.S. military aid to the Jakarta regime as it continued to murder Timorese civilians. By the time Carter left office, about 200,000 people had been slaughtered.
Elsewhere, despotic allies — from Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines to the Shah of Iran — received support from President Carter.
In El Salvador, the Carter administration provided key military aid to a brutal regime. In Nicaragua, contrary to myth, Carter backed dictator Anastasio Somoza almost until the end of his reign. In Guatemala — again contrary to enduring myth — major U.S. military shipments to bloody tyrants never ended.
From Latin America to East Africa, Carter functioned as "a hard-nosed defender of repressive state apparatuses, a willing consort to electoral frauds, an accomplice to U.S. Embassy efforts to abort popular democratic outcomes and a one-sided mediator."
Observing the 1990 election in the Dominican Republic, Carter ignored fraud that resulted in the paper-thin victory margin of incumbent president Joaquin Balaguer. Announcing that Balaguer's bogus win was valid, Carter used his prestige to give international legitimacy to the stolen election — and set the stage for a rerun this past spring, when Balaguer again used fraud to win re-election. |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
Et tu Slick William?...Et tu?
> ANNUAL STUDY REVEALS: $36 Billion
> in U.S. Military Support for Dictators During First Clinton Term
>
> Washington, D.C., October 8...A study of U.S. transfers of arms and training
> to developing countries approved during President Clinton's first term in
> office has found that non-democratic governments received an annual average
> of $9 billion. Dictators or Democracies? 1997: U.S. Transfers of Weapons
> and Military Training to the Developing World During President Clinton's
> First Term was released today by Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) and
> Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.). They are the sponsors of an arms trade "Code
> of Conduct" bill that would bar U.S. military support for dictators.
>
> The study is the third annual analysis by Demilitarization for Democracy, a
> Washington, D.C.-based research and advocacy organization that has joined
> hundreds of other citizens' organizations in a five-year effort to establish
> a Code of Conduct. The study found that $35.9 billion in arms and training
> were provided by the Clinton administration to the armed forces of
> non-democratic governments -- accounting for 82 percent of the $44.1 billion
> in total U.S. military support for developing nations.
>
> A Code of Conduct amendment by Representatives McKinney and Dana Rohrabacher
> (R-Cal.) passed the House in June. It would bar arms transfers and training
> to governments that are non-democratic (either not freely-elected or not
> having control over their armed forces), fail to protect human rights, are
> engaged in aggression, or do not take part in the UN arms trade register.
> The amendment's fate is now being decided by a House-Senate Conference
> Committee on the State Department Authorization. Senator Kerry's "Code"
> bill also instructs the President to challenge other suppliers to join in
> U.S. arms embargoes.
>
> In their forward to Dictators or Democracies?, McKinney and Kerry said:
> "Transfers of U.S. arms and training to non-democratic governments may
> provide political support and military means for the repression of
> legitimate demands for democracy -- as they have in Indonesia."
>
> With few congressional restrictions on arms exports, the level of U.S.
> military support rose and fell during the first Clinton administration based
> primarily on the ability of developing nations to pay for sophisticated U.S.
> weapons -- many of them equal in capability to those used by U.S. forces.
> According to Caleb Rossiter, director of Demilitarization for Democracy: "If
> not curbed by a legally-binding Code of Conduct, this $9 billion annual
> average of arms and training for dictators is likely to soar in the second
> Clinton term. American military corporations are currently lobbying Asian
> and Middle Eastern dictators who have recently improved their cash balances
> to ask the Clinton administration for advanced weapons."
>
> In 1996 the Clinton administration approved $4.3 billion in U.S. military
> support to 43 non-democratic developing nations. This was almost a
> billion-dollar increase from 1995, when the United States provided $3.5
> billion in arms and training to 42 non-democratic developing nations.
|
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
"Wow...Thanks Hugo!...An autographed copy of The Eagles Hotel California...You rock Huey!"
 |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
I'm sorry Mr. Jangler, after reviewing your credentials, I've determined that there is really no sense in continuing this discussion
Well, now, unlike my pictorial match to your pictorial post (devoid of any personal content, as anyone can see), this latest from you does appear to be an attempt to bait me into taking it "personal," to use your delightfully quaint colloquialism. I shall decline to be baited but will reiterate my earlier inquiry: What was it in my post about the internets that inspired you to accuse me of taking it "personal"? Are you prepared to acknowledge your non sequitur?
|
|
|
| sirmoonie |
Anyone know what he's attempting to point out? He's been seeing things that aren't there for several months now. Maybe longer, but I don't know. I just don't know. |
