captainpooby 0 #1 December 17, 2003 You saw it here first! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #2 December 17, 2003 Is it just me or do a bearded Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro look a bit alike? Must be that evil-dictator look. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #3 December 17, 2003 ROTFLMFAO !!!!! witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #4 December 17, 2003 QuoteYou saw it here first! The Rumsfeld photo with SH was real, though.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #5 December 17, 2003 QuoteROTFLMFAO !!!!! I knew YOU would like it! How about this one? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #6 December 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteYou saw it here first! The Rumsfeld photo with SH was real, though. I knew you wouldnt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #7 December 17, 2003 Yes. They never post either of these accompanying it, though. I assume you'll recognize them and know why I find them pertinent. I remember. I know you do as well. Those who DON'T remember or are ignorant of this are easily misled by such comments as you just made. Shame on you. We did support Saddam Hussein at that point in history. We did the right thing in doing so at the time. Each time this Rumsfeld-Hussein photo or 'we supplied the Iraqis with weapons under Reagan' inanity comes up, I encourage all to remember this: 444 days. If you don't know its significance, you have no business talking with me about the photo or US-Iraqi relations in the early 80's.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #8 December 17, 2003 QuoteI knew you wouldnt. Bwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaahahaahahahhahaaaaaaaaaaaa mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #9 December 17, 2003 ROTFLMAO! I never thought I would see a candidate more wooden than Algore. Does he even have a neck? Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #10 December 17, 2003 QuoteYes. They never post either of these accompanying it, though. I assume you'll recognize them and know why I find them pertinent. I remember. I know you do as well. Those who DON'T remember or are ignorant of this are easily misled by such comments as you just made. Shame on you. We did support Saddam Hussein at that point in history. We did the right thing in doing so at the time. Each time this Rumsfeld-Hussein photo or 'we supplied the Iraqis with weapons under Reagan' inanity comes up, I encourage all to remember this: 444 days. If you don't know its significance, you have no business talking with me about the photo or US-Iraqi relations in the early 80's. I remember that time very well. The Canadian embassy hid a few folks for a while. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #11 December 17, 2003 >We did support Saddam Hussein at that point in history. We did the >right thing in doing so at the time. Of course! Terrorism and the use of WMD's is evil unless it helps us out a bit, in which case we wholeheartedly support it. Confused? Use this handy right wing redefinition table to determine how to view any event: An ally uses weapons of mass destruction against someone we don't like: They are defending themselves against an aggressor. An enemy uses WMD's: Any monster who would use WMD's on people must be destroyed for the sake of humanity. We fund terrorism: We are funding freedom fighters. Someone else is funding terrorism: Anyone who supports terror is evil and must be destroyed. A fledgling democracy arises near an enemy: We support freedom and democracy wherever it tries to rise above tyranny and oppression. A fledgling democracy arises near a trading partner: We oppose any unilateral decision that might bring independence to a new democracy. Meager and very doubtful evidence is found linking a country we don't like to 9/11: "Remember 9/11 when we invade!" Strong evidence linking an ally to 9/11 is found: We don't really need to know anything else; I'm sure our intelligence department will tell us if there's anything unsavory going on. Saudi Arabia supports UN sanctions against Israel: All those Arabs are just banding together. A government we installed complains of the UN's ineffectiveness: What a scathing, independent denounciation of the UN! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #12 December 17, 2003 Quote>We did support Saddam Hussein at that point in history. We did the >right thing in doing so at the time. Of course! Terrorism and the use of WMD's is evil unless it helps us out a bit, in which case we wholeheartedly support it. Confused? Use this handy right wing redefinition table to determine how to view any event: An ally uses weapons of mass destruction against someone we don't like: They are defending themselves against an aggressor. An enemy uses WMD's: Any monster who would use WMD's on people must be destroyed for the sake of humanity. We fund terrorism: We are funding freedom fighters. Someone else is funding terrorism: Anyone who supports terror is evil and must be destroyed. A fledgling democracy arises near an enemy: We support freedom and democracy wherever it tries to rise above tyranny and oppression. A fledgling democracy arises near a trading partner: We oppose any unilateral decision that might bring independence to a new democracy. Meager and very doubtful evidence is found linking a country we don't like to 9/11: "Remember 9/11 when we invade!" Strong evidence linking an ally to 9/11 is found: We don't really need to know anything else; I'm sure our intelligence department will tell us if there's anything unsavory going on. Saudi Arabia supports UN sanctions against Israel: All those Arabs are just banding together. A government we installed complains of the UN's ineffectiveness: What a scathing, independent denounciation of the UN! You didnt get it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #13 December 17, 2003 Dude, you don't get it. That Rumsfeld-Hussein photo has been making the rounds hasn't it? Democraticunderground.com, Dean, Kerry, and many other folks have pointed it out. The fact that this photo is even used to denounce the current administration or America in any way ticks me off. Those WITH three digit IQ's cognizant of the political environs of the time period who use this photo to denounce our current foreign policy have apparently let their lust for obtaining political office/advantage suppress any vestige of patriotism left within them - if it ever existed. Nothing like playing on the ignorant to get their vote, eh? Go back to my post and you click on those photos. Look at them. Do it right now. Now close your eyes and pretend you're talking with that blindfolded guy about current foreign policy. Show him that Rumsfeld-Hussein photo and denounce the US policy of the time period. Imagine you are doing it with his family and friends 444 times - once for each day he was held hostage. Tell him how this photo shows how bankrupt, hypocritical, and bereft of intellect conservatives are when it comes to foreign policy. While you're imagining doing this, let your thoughts wonder back to your own feelings in '79-'80 and how you felt back then. Your a damned bright fellow and undoubtedly realize that your diatribe wouldn't be taken too well by said hypothetical audience. This is what SICKENS me about the left these days. They use people/names that even the least informed citizen will recognize and use said recognition to mislead the ignorant. There are examples aplenty: Enron, Hussein-Rumsfeld, 'tax breaks for the rich', etc. In addition, they sure as HELL wouldn't read their letter to the Catholic Bishops of America to their NOW/NARAL supporters, would they? The left uses this photo to promote the 'we're hypocritical for going to war' line - among others. Since most wouldn't know Pahlavi from ravioli much less the history of US foreign policy in the region, it works - ON THE IGNORANT. Random thoughts. In closing, the use of that photo in this manner ticks me off. It's a disgrace.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jmpnkramer 0 #14 December 17, 2003 QuoteYou didnt get it. Nobody in Califonia or most of the West Coast gets it Billy. ^3!!!!!! Laters, KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER!!!!!!!!!!!The REAL KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER! "HESITATION CAUSES DEATH!!!" "Be Slow to Fall into Friendship; but when Thou Art in, Continue Firm & Constant." - SOCRATES Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
meltdown 0 #15 December 17, 2003 *** Of course! Terrorism and the use of WMD's is evil unless it helps us out a bit, in which case we wholeheartedly support it. Confused? Use this handy right wing redefinition table to determine how to view any event: An ally uses weapons of mass destruction against someone we don't like: They are defending themselves against an aggressor. An enemy uses WMD's: Any monster who would use WMD's on people must be destroyed for the sake of humanity. We fund terrorism: We are funding freedom fighters. Someone else is funding terrorism: Anyone who supports terror is evil and must be destroyed. A fledgling democracy arises near an enemy: We support freedom and democracy wherever it tries to rise above tyranny and oppression. A fledgling democracy arises near a trading partner: We oppose any unilateral decision that might bring independence to a new democracy. Meager and very doubtful evidence is found linking a country we don't like to 9/11: "Remember 9/11 when we invade!" Strong evidence linking an ally to 9/11 is found: We don't really need to know anything else; I'm sure our intelligence department will tell us if there's anything unsavory going on. Saudi Arabia supports UN sanctions against Israel: All those Arabs are just banding together. A government we installed complains of the UN's ineffectiveness: What a scathing, independent denounciation of the UN! _____________________________________________ Yikes! I never realized we righties were so stoopid and simple. Thanks for pointing that out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
meltdown 0 #16 December 17, 2003 *** There are examples aplenty: Enron ________________________________________________ This one is great. Bush got an unbelievable amount of flak over Enron, but if you look at Bill Clintons ties with Enron, they are numerous and well documented. Not to mention Clinton crony Bob Rubin trying to swoop in and save the day for them (and Citigroup, another evil capitalist institution) in the 11th hour. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #17 December 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteYou didnt get it. Nobody in Califonia or most of the West Coast gets it Billy. ^3!!!!!! I don't understand why. They told me that they are far more enlightened. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #18 December 17, 2003 QuoteDude, you don't get it...... ...Your a damned bright fellow and undoubtedly realize that your diatribe wouldn't be taken too well by said hypothetical audience. You're the one who doesn't get it. I think his point is exactly that. That what we've been doing and saying is for the benefit of the audience at the time, and not based on any kind of moral superiority. Did we support Iraq against Iran? Yes. Was it the right foreign policy decision at the time? Yes. Was it the morally correct thing to do? Hell no. I'm not even going to try to attempt to speak for Bill. But my problem with our policies is the hypocrisy. Yes, some nasty things need to be done in order to secure our safety. Yes, I support some of those nasty things. My problem is with the holier than thou, for the good of humanity, God told me we're in the right attitude from the administration and its supporters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #19 December 17, 2003 Quote You didnt get it. Now that just might be the understatement of the year.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #20 December 17, 2003 Ya know how it works.... When the US decided to leave Englands rule...It was a revolution. And I think most Americans are glad for it. However when the South wanted to leave it was bad. History is like that. Yes, I support people who fight against the people who wish me harm....And if the situation changes....Then so will my support."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #21 December 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteDude, you don't get it...... ...Your a damned bright fellow and undoubtedly realize that your diatribe wouldn't be taken too well by said hypothetical audience. You're the one who doesn't get it. I think his point is exactly that. That what we've been doing and saying is for the benefit of the audience at the time, and not based on any kind of moral superiority. Did we support Iraq against Iran? Yes. Was it the right foreign policy decision at the time? Yes. Was it the morally correct thing to do? Hell no. I'm not even going to try to attempt to speak for Bill. But my problem with our policies is the hypocrisy. Yes, some nasty things need to be done in order to secure our safety. Yes, I support some of those nasty things. My problem is with the holier than thou, for the good of humanity, God told me we're in the right attitude from the administration and its supporters. So I suppose it was hypocritical to ally with Stalin to defeat Hitler? Roosevelt used to call him uncle Joe. Shit, the Finns chose the other to keep Stalin out. An enemy of my enemy is my friend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #22 December 17, 2003 QuoteSo I suppose it was hypocritical to ally with Stalin to defeat Hitler? Yes, it was. Was it the wrong thing to do? No. Was it hypocritical to nuke Japan? Yes. Was it the wrong thing to do? I don't think so. There are a lot of policies that I don't have a problem with. I have a problem with people twisting the facts to make it seem like their decisions were morally riteous and for the benefit of mankind. When, in fact, they were for personal gain. Just say it, be honest, be truthful. Maybe some day, if everyone did that, people would realize how evil certain actions are, even when in response to a perceived threat, and stop commiting more evil. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #23 December 17, 2003 No, he is just concerned about new crime laws that to affect him somehow. And turtle, as far as the understatement goes, kudos."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #24 December 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteSo I suppose it was hypocritical to ally with Stalin to defeat Hitler? Yes, it was. Was it the wrong thing to do? No. In hindsight. So being hypocritical is the right thing to do? I thought that was wrong... unless it is the right thing to do? Trying to make sense of that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #25 December 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo I suppose it was hypocritical to ally with Stalin to defeat Hitler? Yes, it was. Was it the wrong thing to do? No. In hindsight. So being hypocritical is the right thing to do? I thought that was wrong... unless it is the right thing to do? Trying to make sense of that. Simple . . . It is ok to take lives to save lives as long as you don't kill anyone in the process of freeing the opressed from the opressive, with the exception of when the opressed are killing people or holding them hostage, in which case it is ok to take lives to save lives as long as you don't kill anyone in the process of freeing the opressed from the opressive, with the exception of when the opressed are killing people or holding them hostage, in which case it is ok to take lives to save lives as long as you don't kill anyone in the process of freeing the opressed from the opressive, with the exception of when the opressed are killing people or holding them hostage, in which case it is ok to take lives to . . .I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
