[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The Taliban was also heavily involved in the drug trade. They only curtailed poppy production to drive up prices of their stockpiles.[/quote]
I didn’t say they weren’t selling drugs. I said there were no drug tzars the way there was prior to their rule. They had a strict policy on using, but had no problems selling it abroad.
Lixy is an american hating dipshit. That’s fine with me. But really - find a new dead horse to beat. We all know how badly you hate america, and Bush. Especially Bush.
Maybe in November you will shut the fuck up and go back to making meatballs, or working in your porn shop.
Bush is gone in a few months.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Lixy is an american hating dipshit. That’s fine with me. But really - find a new dead horse to beat. We all know how badly you hate america, and Bush. Especially Bush.
Maybe in November you will shut the fuck up and go back to making meatballs, or working in your porn shop.
Bush is gone in a few months. [/quote]
There is nothing like a shorn scrotum.
I got into this discussion a little late, but thanks for posting this video, Rockscar.
The worst enemy Patton ever had to overcome was our politicians, and they used him until he kicked ass and then they fired him. One of his great quotes was, “There will always be another war, because the politians always leave us with another one to fight.” (parapharsed)
MacAuther was fired in Korea because he wanted to finish the fight. Thank God Kennedy had the balls to call the Russian bluff in Cuba.
It’s always interesting to listen to the anti-war rhetoric. Anyone can be politcally correct until the fight comes, or something that they care about is threatened.
When push comes to shove, and it will eventually, I hope the “passionate doves” will step up. They usually don’t, they keep silent, get rid of the heroes when the current fight is finished, and then keep right on pushing their bull@$%& until the next one.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
kroby wrote:
If that would only wake up the fools that think we live in freedom today. It wouldn’t.
WHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU THINK THEY LIVE MORE FREE THAN US?
[/quote]
Rock, it’s not a matter of who lives more free, where. It is a matter of our freedoms being eroded in the here and now. Political correctness erodes freedom. Taxes erode freedom. Regulating supplements erodes our freedom. Free health care to illegal immigrants as a matter of law while citizens have none erodes our freedom. Redistribution of wealth erodes our freedom. Need I open your eyes more?
The yoke around our necks is far greater today than it was right after WWII. Why? Because gov’t. has gotten increasingly greedy. FDR created a monster: a society of dependency that owes it’s “free lunch” to gov’t. And it costs each and every one of us to perpetuate this “land of entitlement” that used to be the “land of opportunity.”
It has become so greedy, balancing it’s promises for change to their constituents during elections with it’s back door commitments to corporations, that the people have become disenfranchised without even knowing it. That is a loss of freedom, Rock. Do you understand?
[quote]kroby wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
kroby wrote:
If that would only wake up the fools that think we live in freedom today. It wouldn’t.
WHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU THINK THEY LIVE MORE FREE THAN US?
Rock, it’s not a matter of who lives more free, where. It is a matter of our freedoms being eroded in the here and now. Political correctness erodes freedom. Taxes erode freedom. Regulating supplements erodes our freedom. Free health care to illegal immigrants as a matter of law while citizens have none erodes our freedom. Redistribution of wealth erodes our freedom. Need I open your eyes more?
The yoke around our necks is far greater today than it was right after WWII. Why? Because gov’t. has gotten increasingly greedy. FDR created a monster: a society of dependency that owes it’s “free lunch” to gov’t. And it costs each and every one of us to perpetuate this “land of entitlement” that used to be the “land of opportunity.”
It has become so greedy, balancing it’s promises for change to their constituents during elections with it’s back door commitments to corporations, that the people have become disenfranchised without even knowing it. That is a loss of freedom, Rock. Do you understand?[/quote]
Sure I do. I totally agree with you on the land of Opp. The system has created a bunch of aliens and natives who believe they are “OWED”. Welfare was setup for the DEPRESSION…and now it’s a commonplace career choice for many.
Back to the Patriot Act. It’s needed in our time right now, and will be ammended when needed.
Too many people try to mold this Iraq thing into a ball, when it’s not.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Chewie wrote:
So, instead of being at a war with terror, what do you call it?
I call it like I see it. Bush invades Iraq under the guise of “war on terror”, when everybody fully knew Al-Qaeda and other Islamist were ardently fought by Saddam. Saddam gone, Jihadists and terrorists from all across the globe converge to Iraq. Bingo! You find the ideal reason for never leaving Iraq.
So yeah, your effort in Iraq has been to the terrorists’ advantage. Hence, your “war with terror” lapsus.[/quote]
Well maybe you should tell you brother terrorist Muslims to leave Iraq and them we won’t have any excuse to be there!
Funny how you blame Bush for the terrorists who are killing people (Iraq people) in Iraq. Yeh, Bush just made them do it. He has a magic button he can push to get those retarded terrorist to do whatever he wants!
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
As far as I know, being homosexual is not against any Singapore law.
[/quote]
It is ilegal mate.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
A gay ex-colleague of mine, who often went to Singapore on business, reported that it is one of the “cruisiest” places in the world, including San Francisco. The only difference being that in Singapore he never had to worry about getting harassed by homophobe rednecks.
[/quote]
Your “colleague” (aka you) has obviously never been to Bangkok 
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
AdamC further advised:
And for fuck sake don’t get caught with any illegal drugs at customs.
Name me one country on the planet where being caught with illegal drugs at customs would not have negative consequences.
[/quote]
Yeah but the death penalty?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
a lot of interesting stuff
[/quote]
Really i was just trying to be a bit of a devil’s advocate because of all the America bashing…but now for a little of my own (just a little).
See, Varqanir, I respect your opinion because you, unlike most Americans, have experienced life outside of America. The thing I find irksome about the “America is the land of the free” & “This is the greatest country on Earth” rhetoric is that hardly any Americans actually own a passport (some stats are as low as 20%?) and only see the “outside world” via the media. Sometimes it’s handy to get a feel for how the world works outside of your own little bubble. Maybe then you would have a better appreciation of your own countries weaknesses and also its strengths. America is not the world people!
[quote]AdamC wrote:
Your “colleague” (aka you) has obviously never been to Bangkok ;-)[/quote]
Why call it Bangkok if you’re not allowed to do so?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Lixy is an american hating dipshit. That’s fine with me. But really - find a new dead horse to beat. We all know how badly you hate america, and Bush. Especially Bush.
Maybe in November you will shut the fuck up and go back to making meatballs, or working in your porn shop.
Bush is gone in a few months. [/quote]
I don’t like Bush because he tries to sell immoral acts of aggression as noble and altruistic.
Foreign policy of the US never changes. Republicans are cocky about it while Democrats at least do their best to conceal it. At the end of the day, whoever is in the White House still ends up blasting innocents’ houses and butchering kids.
And for the last time, I don’t hate America. I love many aspects of America. I just hate their interventionist foreign policy. Can you not see the big difference between the two?
[quote]bigmike8832 wrote:
Anyone can be politcally correct until the fight comes, or something that they care about is threatened. [/quote]
Remind us again what was it you cared about that was threatened so badly you had to invade Iraq, would you?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Well maybe you should tell you brother terrorist Muslims to leave Iraq and them we won’t have any excuse to be there! [/quote]
It’s hard to take you seriously when you use such phrases as “your brother terrorist Muslims”. I’ll overlook it this one time nonetheless.
You got it all backwards. The sequence of events is uncontroversial. Your invasion presented Islamists with an excuse to be in Iraq - NOT the other way 'round.
[quote]lixy wrote:
And for the last time, I don’t hate America. I love many aspects of America. I just hate their interventionist foreign policy. Can you not see the big difference between the two?[/quote]
Dude don’t even worry, only a drooling moron equates criticizing Bush (and his policies) with hating America. Bush is one of the least popular presidents in American history (3rd place I believe) with approval ratings around 27%. There’s only one state in America where his approval numbers are over 50%, and it’s one of the least-populated states in America.
MILLIONS of Americans think Bush totally blows, and they don’t hate America either. The people who still like Bush are a fringe group who will never change their mind, no matter what. The good news is that Bush is absolutely gutting his party’s support, and because of Bush’s failed policies it’s highly unlikely that America will launch another unnecessary war for at least a decade (or more). So the dark cloud has a silver lining.
Duh, what about all those WMD stockpiles they found? If it wasn’t for Bush and Cheney, we’d all be speaking Iraqi right now.
/sarcasm
Hmmm, General Patton. Thats kind of hilarious.
Imagine Patton comes back to life today and finds out the US military still doesn’t have control of just the CITY of Baghdad after almost five years? I’d love to hear that speech.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Hmmm, General Patton. Thats kind of hilarious.
Imagine Patton comes back to life today and finds out the US military still doesn’t have control of just the CITY of Baghdad after almost five years? I’d love to hear that speech.[/quote]
Stop the presses!
JustTheFacts posted something without mentioning Jews or Zion.
I feel cheated.
Our lifeblood.
[quote]AdamC wrote:
Your “colleague” (aka you) has obviously never been to Bangkok ;-)[/quote]
Har har.
I think the only appropriate rejoinder would be “suck my dick!”
[quote]kroby wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Hmmm, General Patton. Thats kind of hilarious.
Imagine Patton comes back to life today and finds out the US military still doesn’t have control of just the CITY of Baghdad after almost five years? I’d love to hear that speech.
Stop the presses!
JustTheFacts posted something without mentioning Jews or Zion.
I feel cheated.[/quote]
Yes, I refrained from mentioning Patton’s opinion of the Jews in occupied Germany and in the media after the war – I didn’t want to bust anyone’s bubble.
Actually, Adam, I’ve been to Bangkok, and I lived in Singapore for three months (four, if you count the time I was a guest of the state… but that’s another story: http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1154027&cr=features )
I dodn’t learn much about the gay scene in either country, because I just wasn’t terribly interested.
HOWEVER, I did do some checking, and it does turn out that yes, you were correct, Singapore law punishes gay sex acts even if they are performed in the privacy of one’s own home, just like the sodomy laws of some US states. Of course, also just like those laws, heterosexual oral and anal sex are also criminalized.
In theory.
In practice, according to my flamboyant ex-colleague Chris, it’s a whole 'nother ball game… if you’ll pardon the pun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_gay_history:_2000_to_2009_A.D.
Gleaned from Wiki:
[i]On 1 December 2002, the Sunday Times printed an extract of a speech made by Minister of State for Health, Balaji Sadasivan: 'Research has also shown that the brain of homosexuals is structurally different from heterosexuals.
It is likely therefore that the homosexual tendency is imprinted in the brain in utero and homosexuals must live with the tendencies that they inherit as a result of the structural changes in their brain. Within the moral and cultural constraints of our society, we should be tolerant of those who may be different from most of us.’
In 2003, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, unprompted and of his own volition, was quoted as saying, ‘So let it evolve, and in time the population will understand that some people are born that way. We are born this way and they are born that way, but they are like you and me.’
He also stated that gays would now be allowed to serve in ‘sensitive positions’ in the Civil Service. The gay community was elated.[/i]
Can you imagine the President of the United States and his Surgeon General making such statements?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Bush is gone in a few months.
There is nothing like a shorn scrotum.[/quote]
You know, Zap, it just occurred to be that the Brazilian waxing salons should do a brisk business in the next election. Imagine the slogans:
“America Has No More Bush. Shouldn’t You Be Like America?”