Wow… Headhunter, you attack your neighbors?
Cool to see how America’s youth are being taught by the most open-minded, noble and well-natured of people…
Sarcasm at its best.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We have not been hit again because we have presented a united front to the terrorists. Now, if the congress goes to the Dems, the squabbling and gridlock will ensue. Perfect time to hit us…
I’m a teacher in Ohio. If I can think of that, won’t Osama and his minions as well?
HH[/quote]
Am I the only one worrying about education in Ohio?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Now I see why liberals are libs…the same thing that makes them miss my point makes them libs. Interesting.
This had actually nothing to do with politics. Here’s an example, for you mentally challenged libs: Say I have a feud with my neighbors. If they are squabbling amongst themselves, is that not a better time to attack, than if they presented a united front to me?
You guys definitely need to sack up and think about your country, and not your petty little partisanship.[/quote]
Actually, if you are a terorist, the best time is to attack when we have a united front. You’d incite more fear and panic that way. What better way to bring someone down than to hit them when they think they are immune?
I mean, I’m just a guy from Ohio and I can think of that…
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
We have not been hit again because we have presented a united front to the terrorists. Now, if the congress goes to the Dems, the squabbling and gridlock will ensue. Perfect time to hit us…
I’m a teacher in Ohio. If I can think of that, won’t Osama and his minions as well?
HH
Am I the only one worrying about education in Ohio?[/quote]
If the president and congress are not squabbling, this appears to the scum as a united front. Bringing in Nancy and Howard will demo to the scum that we (a) are ready to cut and run (b) the house will be so busy infighting, they’ll be preoccupied from hunting down terrorists. Why is this concept so hard for libs to understand?
Wait, lib and understand don’t go together in a sentence or concept. My mistake.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Now I see why liberals are libs…the same thing that makes them miss my point makes them libs. Interesting.
This had actually nothing to do with politics. Here’s an example, for you mentally challenged libs: Say I have a feud with my neighbors. If they are squabbling amongst themselves, is that not a better time to attack, than if they presented a united front to me?
You guys definitely need to sack up and think about your country, and not your petty little partisanship.[/quote]
I’d be all for a united front if I thought this administration had even an ounce of competence. Read a little, talk to a few people who’ve been to Iraq and Afghanistan, and then tell me we’re being well-led and should be behind our president 100%.
Partisan politics does harm this country to some degree, and does embolden our enemies, but the alternative looks awfully like unabashed support of the worst president since Carter.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
We have not been hit again because we have presented a united front to the terrorists. Now, if the congress goes to the Dems, the squabbling and gridlock will ensue. Perfect time to hit us…
I’m a teacher in Ohio. If I can think of that, won’t Osama and his minions as well?
HH
Am I the only one worrying about education in Ohio?[/quote]
Seriously, its kind of disturbing.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
We have not been hit again because we have presented a united front to the terrorists. Now, if the congress goes to the Dems, the squabbling and gridlock will ensue. Perfect time to hit us…
I’m a teacher in Ohio. If I can think of that, won’t Osama and his minions as well?
HH
Am I the only one worrying about education in Ohio?
If the president and congress are not squabbling, this appears to the scum as a united front. Bringing in Nancy and Howard will demo to the scum that we (a) are ready to cut and run (b) the house will be so busy infighting, they’ll be preoccupied from hunting down terrorists. Why is this concept so hard for libs to understand?
[/quote]
It’s hard to understand because we assume the terrorists are not half as dumb as this post.
The vast majority of americans already support redeploying troops/.changing course. They know this.
The military supports redeploying/changing course. They know this.
Most intelligent conservatives support redeploying/or changing the course. They know this.
Only you are currently less informed than the terrorists.
Now go get some newspapers, watch cnn, and findout what they already know.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
We have not been hit again because we have presented a united front to the terrorists. Now, if the congress goes to the Dems, the squabbling and gridlock will ensue. Perfect time to hit us…
I’m a teacher in Ohio. If I can think of that, won’t Osama and his minions as well?
HH
Am I the only one worrying about education in Ohio?
If the president and congress are not squabbling, this appears to the scum as a united front. Bringing in Nancy and Howard will demo to the scum that we (a) are ready to cut and run (b) the house will be so busy infighting, they’ll be preoccupied from hunting down terrorists. Why is this concept so hard for libs to understand?
Wait, lib and understand don’t go together in a sentence or concept. My mistake.
[/quote]
I understand you perfectly HH.
“I order to save democracy, we might just have to postponed these elections untill further notice.”
How am I doing?
I would ask, WHY haven’t we ALREADY been attacked again?
It almost defies logic when you consider major issues like the borders being left wide open for four years after 9/11 – and according to to the governments own reports, between 200-300 tons of COCAINE ALONE still makes it into the US from South America. Yet they know EXACTLY where 77% of it comes from and EXACTLY where most of it ends up.
“According to the Interagency Assessment of Cocaine Movement (IACM), an estimated 77 percent of the cocaine detected moving toward the United States in 2003 was transported through the Mexico-Central America corridor, an increase from 72 percent in 2002. Moreover, preliminary data show that the percentage of cocaine detected moving toward the United States through the Mexico-Central America corridor may have been higher than 90 percent in 2004.”
http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs11/13846/cocaine.htm
Given that we spent roughly $84 billion on Homeland Security…
Homeland security: Profiting from fear
October 19, 2004
“The security space suddenly became hot,” said Alan Brill, senior managing director of the firm, which offers services ranging from network security audits to digital investigations. “People said, ‘Oh boy, they are going to throw money at this.’”
And that they did. Federal agencies are expected to pay $84 billion toward homeland security this year, up from $5 billion in 2000, according to figures from Homeland Security Research, an analysis firm that covers government procurement.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5416893.html
…but still
U.S. Is Given Failing Grades By 9/11 Panel
Washington Post
December 6, 2005
The federal government received failing and mediocre grades yesterday from the former Sept. 11 commission, whose members said in a final report that the Bush administration and Congress have balked at enacting numerous reforms that could save American lives and prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
If someone asks me why I believe in conspiracy theories – I say it’s usually because it’s the only thing that makes any sense.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We have not been hit again because we have presented a united front to the terrorists. Now, if the congress goes to the Dems, the squabbling and gridlock will ensue. Perfect time to hit us…[/quote]
How do you know why we haven’t been hit again? Have you personally consulted with OBL? Have any of your informants? No & No. Could be nothing to it. Could be a coincidence. I would bet a lot that OBL doesn’t give a rat’s ass which party controls the House, so long as both parties are staunchly pro-intervention (which they are).
[quote]100meters wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
We have not been hit again because we have presented a united front to the terrorists. Now, if the congress goes to the Dems, the squabbling and gridlock will ensue. Perfect time to hit us…
I’m a teacher in Ohio. If I can think of that, won’t Osama and his minions as well?
HH
Am I the only one worrying about education in Ohio?
Seriously, its kind of disturbing.[/quote]
Why? Just because someone doesn’t think as you do, you find that disturbing? Isn’t that rather arrogant on your part?
I keep an open mind, but have moral absolutes as part of my philosphy. I express these moral absolutes in what I post. For example, I believe that all relationships between humans should be VOLUNTARY on all sides. Your gang, the libs, doesn’t believe that. They believe that they can regulate and tax humans at will, as long as that will represents majority opinion (this means that moral values are relative to who has the largest gang). From a practical point of view, your philosophy is insane, for the simple reason that using force against unarmed highly-intelligent people means that they produce LESS. Besides being immoral, your philosophy is destructive in the long run, in that sense. The classic example is the Soviet Union, where intelligent people either were killed or simply refused to produce to feed thugs.
Your liberal philosophy of violence against unarmed victims can only result in a descent into chaos. I’d suggest you worry about where YOUR principles (if you have any at all) are taking you. Slow dissolution and decay, as the men of the mind shut down, or a free and radiant tomorrow.
“Blood, whips and guns…or dollars. Take your choice. There is no other. And your time is running out.”
— Ayn Rand
Moral absolutes? Who are you kidding here? Yourself?
Preferring to obliterate or impose a way of life on a certain people due to the extremism of a handful of misguided ones is your idea of morality?
I feel sorry for you mate.
No adult person thinks in moral absolutes and those that think they do are either lying to themselves or mistake following moral absolutes with bending their knees to authority…
People who think they think in moral absolutes usually have so many clauses and sub clauses in their value system that they might as well be moral relativists…
[quote]orion wrote:
No adult person thinks in moral absolutes and those that think they do are either lying to themselves or mistake following moral absolutes with bending their knees to authority…
People who think they think in moral absolutes usually have so many clauses and sub clauses in their value system that they might as well be moral relativists…
[/quote]
You read one of my absolutes above. Do you disagree with it?
All relationships must be voluntary. Anyone breaking this rule is a criminal and is dealt with according to moral and objective laws.
If you disagree with it, you make my case: you believe in slaves and masters. Can we guess which one you want to be?
[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
Moral absolutes? Who are you kidding here? Yourself?
Preferring to obliterate or impose a way of life on a certain people due to the extremism of a handful of misguided ones is your idea of morality?
I feel sorry for you mate.[/quote]
Attempting to free a people is not obliterating them or imposing a way of life upon them. Is setting a slave free imposing a way of life upon him?
Feel sorry for yourself.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
Moral absolutes? Who are you kidding here? Yourself?
Preferring to obliterate or impose a way of life on a certain people due to the extremism of a handful of misguided ones is your idea of morality?
I feel sorry for you mate.
Attempting to free a people is not obliterating them or imposing a way of life upon them. Is setting a slave free imposing a way of life upon him?
Feel sorry for yourself.
[/quote]
Did the afore mentioned people asked to be liberated?
Or was the decision made for ,and imposed on ,them?
Just trying to see how that philosophical viewpoint holds up…
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
Moral absolutes? Who are you kidding here? Yourself?
Preferring to obliterate or impose a way of life on a certain people due to the extremism of a handful of misguided ones is your idea of morality?
I feel sorry for you mate.
Attempting to free a people is not obliterating them or imposing a way of life upon them. Is setting a slave free imposing a way of life upon him?
Feel sorry for yourself.
Did the afore mentioned people asked to be liberated?
Or was the decision made for ,and imposed on ,them?
Just trying to see how that philosophical viewpoint holds up…[/quote]
LOL, poor headhunter…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
Moral absolutes? Who are you kidding here? Yourself?
Preferring to obliterate or impose a way of life on a certain people due to the extremism of a handful of misguided ones is your idea of morality?
I feel sorry for you mate.
Attempting to free a people is not obliterating them or imposing a way of life upon them. Is setting a slave free imposing a way of life upon him?
Feel sorry for yourself.
[/quote]
Attempting to free a people? All the US forces have done is made things worse. You’ve attempted to set a slave free, but stepped on his face, bloodied his body but you still can’t free him, all the while he’s begging you to leave him alone.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
Moral absolutes? Who are you kidding here? Yourself?
Preferring to obliterate or impose a way of life on a certain people due to the extremism of a handful of misguided ones is your idea of morality?
I feel sorry for you mate.
Attempting to free a people is not obliterating them or imposing a way of life upon them. Is setting a slave free imposing a way of life upon him?
Feel sorry for yourself.
Did the afore mentioned people asked to be liberated?
Or was the decision made for ,and imposed on ,them?
Just trying to see how that philosophical viewpoint holds up…[/quote]
Ummm…if you asked, you got tied to a chair and a power drill was used on your hand. Or you got to watch your children be buried alive. Or both.
THAT’S what you’re defending?
[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
Moral absolutes? Who are you kidding here? Yourself?
Preferring to obliterate or impose a way of life on a certain people due to the extremism of a handful of misguided ones is your idea of morality?
I feel sorry for you mate.
Attempting to free a people is not obliterating them or imposing a way of life upon them. Is setting a slave free imposing a way of life upon him?
Feel sorry for yourself.
Attempting to free a people? All the US forces have done is made things worse. You’ve attempted to set a slave free, but stepped on his face, bloodied his body but you still can’t free him, all the while he’s begging you to leave him alone.
[/quote]
Interesting. I didn’t know it was Americans setting off IEDs and suicide bombs. Could those maybe be…the terrorists that you have a problem with?
Man, you need to get out more. Come up out of your mom’s basement and turn on CNN or something. Sheeessshhhh!