Thank You, President Clinton!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]PtrDR wrote:
I can count on you to be yourself. Always ready to rip and full of negativity and bitterness. Of course, you don’t see it and/or deny it. But it’s in most of the posts I have read from you. You must not have a content spirit. Sad.

No, my purpose was NOT to tell you my rank, although I think that should lend SOME credibility.
My point is that you abused the word “ALL” when describing our military’s resources being tied up in Iraq; nothing more…nothing less. Blanket statements are good things to avoid.
[/quote]

I am amazed that you would take a statement so literal as to even think I meant that EVERY single man and woman is in Iraq right now. That is the only way you would even have a point. I doubt anyone else on this board has that problem with what was stated. Your rank doesn’t help you out on this. If “negativity” involves showing your attempt to be pointless, then so be it. I will be equally content pointing it out the next time you do something similar.

62

[quote]pookie wrote:
hspder wrote:
Yes, the part of the fascist police-state that keeps the angry, hungry guys under lockup. :wink:

Well, to keep that many poor people under lockup is going to cost a lot of money. Can’t have that with no taxes.

I’m sure HH has a better, more final solution.[/quote]

ROTFLMAO! :wink:

63

I think we should also be thanking Ronald Reagan for running from Lebanon without striking at the terrorists during his tenure.

He’s the one who taught the world that the US would run when bloodied (after saying he wouldn’t do so). Ask Osama, they played a clip of him on CNN talking about how that event helped shape is thoughts.

64

For those of you pushing for war w/ North Korea, I have a request:

Please wait until I move out of Tokyo, and before my friend moves out of Seoul, cuz both of these cities will be destroyed.

65

[quote]vroom wrote:
I think we should also be thanking Ronald Reagan for running from Lebanon without striking at the terrorists during his tenure.

He’s the one who taught the world that the US would run when bloodied (after saying he wouldn’t do so).[/quote]

And Bush learned the lesson well, running away from Saudi Arabia after 9/11. We should probably include that one in the “Biggest Beatdowns of All-Time” thread.

66

[quote]pookie wrote:
And Bush learned the lesson well, running away from Saudi Arabia after 9/11. We should probably include that one in the “Biggest Beatdowns of All-Time” thread.
[/quote]

pookie, I trully wonder at some of the things that you say.

I have a feeling that this paragraph was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

If you trully believe that the birthplace of the majority of the terrorists of 9/11 is the major issue, then I would appreciate a detailed set of suggestions as to how the Bush Administration should have dealt with Saudi Arabia on 9/12/01.

Please be sure to indicate your understanding of Saudi Arabia’s political structure. Make sure you include and give credit to the Administration for the accomplishments since 9/11/01 with regard to Saudia Arabia. Please indicate where you agree with the Administration’s stance.

If you say something inane like, “instead of invading Iraq, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia.” You’d better follow that up with what the likely effect on Iraq would have been. What would have happened? Would saddam have used that invasion as a preamble to more Anti-Americanism? Would we have been distracted to the point where he would have felt more emboldened? What would have the reaction been in more moderate regimes? How would the world have responded?

I’m asking for more than another pissing match. I’m actually giving you a compliment. I think you may be able to reason through these issues.

JeffR

67

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’m actually giving you a compliment. I think you may be able to reason through these issues.
[/quote]

LOL. You are also insulting him by presuming he hasn’t and suggesting that he may not be able to… pretty sly for a retarded guy.

68

[quote]JeffR wrote:
pookie wrote:
And Bush learned the lesson well, running away from Saudi Arabia after 9/11. We should probably include that one in the “Biggest Beatdowns of All-Time” thread.

pookie, I trully wonder at some of the things that you say.

I have a feeling that this paragraph was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

If you trully believe that the birthplace of the majority of the terrorists of 9/11 is the major issue, then I would appreciate a detailed set of suggestions as to how the Bush Administration should have dealt with Saudi Arabia on 9/12/01.

Please be sure to indicate your understanding of Saudi Arabia’s political structure. Make sure you include and give credit to the Administration for the accomplishments since 9/11/01 with regard to Saudia Arabia. Please indicate where you agree with the Administration’s stance.

If you say something inane like, “instead of invading Iraq, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia.” You’d better follow that up with what the likely effect on Iraq would have been. What would have happened? Would saddam have used that invasion as a preamble to more Anti-Americanism? Would we have been distracted to the point where he would have felt more emboldened? What would have the reaction been in more moderate regimes? How would the world have responded?

I’m asking for more than another pissing match. I’m actually giving you a compliment. I think you may be able to reason through these issues.

JeffR[/quote]

Why are you so focussed on Iraq?

69

[quote]

Why are you so focussed on Iraq?

http://www.bartcop.com/fox-stupid.jpg [/quote]

reckless,

I must give the same advice to an anti-american that I give to the liberals: Don’t accuse others of being stupid if you cannot spell.

What does “focussed” mean?

JeffR

70

[quote]Professor X wrote:
PtrDR wrote:
I can count on you to be yourself. Always ready to rip and full of negativity and bitterness. Of course, you don’t see it and/or deny it. But it’s in most of the posts I have read from you. You must not have a content spirit. Sad.

No, my purpose was NOT to tell you my rank, although I think that should lend SOME credibility.
My point is that you abused the word “ALL” when describing our military’s resources being tied up in Iraq; nothing more…nothing less. Blanket statements are good things to avoid.

I am amazed that you would take a statement so literal as to even think I meant that EVERY single man and woman is in Iraq right now. That is the only way you would even have a point. I doubt anyone else on this board has that problem with what was stated. Your rank doesn’t help you out on this. If “negativity” involves showing your attempt to be pointless, then so be it. I will be equally content pointing it out the next time you do something similar.
[/quote]

Touche to some of you finer points. I think you might have clarified your ALL statements is all.

As far as my rank, why pick on me for that? Why get mad about that? I was just trying to establish crebibility. I read and research more than the average joe or average GI. My rank is just a reflection of what type of imformation processing I have gone THRU to GET that rank!

Believe me Prof X; I certainly take your opinions more seriously and lend more credibiliy to your views, regardless of rank, than I do some of the yahoo’s that post on this here website!
Who knows…possibly I outrank you and that is the problem. I have no real clue. Maybe its your contrarian personility that is the culprit. And don’t tell me that has NEVER been mentioned before…be it the military…civilian life and personal relationships.

That your intellect is acute is not in question. I just find the “spirit” or tone of your posts the most disconcerting to most people.

Peace bro!!

Don

71

[quote]PtrDR wrote:
Who knows…possibly I outrank you and that is the problem. I have no real clue. Maybe its your contrarian personility that is the culprit. And don’t tell me that has NEVER been mentioned before…be it the military…civilian life and personal relationships.

That your intellect is acute is not in question. I just find the “spirit” or tone of your posts the most disconcerting to most people.

Peace bro!!

Don

[/quote]

As far as your rank, don’t worry, you don’t. I just don’t feel the need to display mine in any way because I am not my rank. Disconcerting?

dis?con?cert ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dskn-s?rt)
tr.v. dis?con?cert?ed, dis?con?cert?ing, dis?con?certs

  1. To upset the self-possession of; ruffle. See Synonyms at embarrass.
  2. To frustrate (plans, for example) by throwing into disorder; disarrange.

Thanks for the compliment.

72

[quote]pookie wrote:
hspder wrote:
Yes, the part of the fascist police-state that keeps the angry, hungry guys under lockup. :wink:

Well, to keep that many poor people under lockup is going to cost a lot of money. Can’t have that with no taxes.

I’m sure HH has a better, more final solution.[/quote]

Hey, I lost track, come back and Pooks is saying I’m Reinhard Heydrich reborn. How funny is that! Pookie, with your massive intellect, you should know that I’m not nearly as handsome as Himmler’s main henchman AND I don’t play the violin. Where’s your awareness, pal?

HH

73

[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What if I don’t WANT to provide someone else with a certain standard of living?

Let’s say you get your wish and a new “taxes are optional” system is put in place.

Suddenly, almost no funds are available for welfare and the masses of poor people, which largely outnumber the rich, discover that they’ll have to take by force what they need to subsist.

Now, do you prefer the government’s “gun” (generally in the form of laws, penalties, jail time, etc.) or an actual, real gun held by some angry, hungry guy who has to feed his family of 6?

Or am I missing some part of your imagined Utopia?

[/quote]

Fascinating that the libs, who so profess to love humanity, can only imagine a gun as a solution to a problem. They propose to establish a system of legal blackmail, where the producers are allowed to do so only if they pay ‘protection’.

When will you guys renounce your senseless violence? A gun is not part of a rational argument. Telling masses of people that they have ‘rights’ to food, clothing, housing, medical care, and on and on, is a formula for disaster. Eventually need will outrun production and that society will begin consuming its ‘seed corn’. Do you guys want the Dark Ages back? When you reward ‘need’ and punish ‘production’, what happens eventually? Consume your industrial base (can we say Britain?) and you’re done for.

You cannot grant rights to some at the expense of others — even a liberal MUST understand THAT.

No system based on irrationality can survive for very long. The more irrational the system, the shorter it lasts. Is THAT what you want?

HH

74

[quote]hspder wrote:
pookie wrote:
hspder wrote:
Yes, the part of the fascist police-state that keeps the angry, hungry guys under lockup. :wink:

Well, to keep that many poor people under lockup is going to cost a lot of money. Can’t have that with no taxes.

I’m sure HH has a better, more final solution.

ROTFLMAO! ;-)[/quote]

Only Hspder and Pookie could invoke the Holocaust as a source for their amusement. Just more indication of the true nature of the Liberals.

HH

75

Let them eat cake!

76

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Let them eat cake![/quote]

Let them be men! Let them stand up and face life ON THEIR OWN without a system of legalized blackmail, without nanny-government there to catch them if they fall.

The assumption of the liberals, like most savages, is that individuals only produce under threats. Liberals assume that capitalists are simply beasts who’ll plunder the poor at every opportunity (like Bill Gates?). Instead of relying on public charity, instead of trying to convince the wealth-producers that helping the poor is in their own interests, they believe that threats of violence will lead to peace. Go over that again, libs: THREATS OF VIOLENCE LEADS TO PEACE?

Is such irrationality even possible to these looters? Must be.

HH

77

[quote]vroom wrote:
I think we should also be thanking Ronald Reagan for running from Lebanon without striking at the terrorists during his tenure.

He’s the one who taught the world that the US would run when bloodied (after saying he wouldn’t do so). Ask Osama, they played a clip of him on CNN talking about how that event helped shape is thoughts.[/quote]

Reagan’s worst mistake was to not see the true nature of radical Islam.

He did not see Hezbollah or Iran for what they really are.

78

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Go over that again, libs: THREATS OF VIOLENCE LEADS TO PEACE?

[/quote]

Pssst: That actually works, Cold War and stuff…

79

[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Go over that again, libs: THREATS OF VIOLENCE LEADS TO PEACE?

Pssst: That actually works, Cold War and stuff… [/quote]

Pssst: Munich, 1938.

Threats can temporarily lead to peace, but in the case of social welfare, the threat has to be forever. My contention is that it is not logically possible to have a permanent peaceful society based upon violence, where some members are drained for the benefit of others.

80

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Go over that again, libs: THREATS OF VIOLENCE LEADS TO PEACE?

Pssst: That actually works, Cold War and stuff…

Pssst: Munich, 1938.

Threats can temporarily lead to peace, but in the case of social welfare, the threat has to be forever. My contention is that it is not logically possible to have a permanent peaceful society based upon violence, where some members are drained for the benefit of others.

[/quote]

You will also not have a peaceful society if people see no future for themselves except to turn to violence.

What we pay in Europe in welfare costs, the US pays in law-enforcement and jails.

What do you prefer? Yes, it is a form of blackmail, but we either act civilized about it, or its open civil war.

Some ideas are immoral, or rather amoral, but they still work…