"At some level, "pranks" aren't acceptable to adults, you just haven't learned that yet."
This post isn't about adults, it's about children. You also must have missed where I called the prank stupid. That you did miss that surprises me the same way I'm surprised when the sun comes up every morning, which is to say that it doesn't.
"By the way, another name beginning with "Mas" should occur to you fanboys, but I suppose you're too busy masnicking to recall it."
So...the prank isn't acceptable, but you'll just point to how it can apply to Mike? Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?
"Timmy, why are you not here supporting his right to free speech and freedom of opinion ?"
Um, I never said he shouldn't be allowed to say stupid shit, I'm just pointing out it's stupid shit. Not sure why you don't understand the distinction....
Um, violent crime is waaaaaay down in America in general, and mass shootings are at worst level and at best slightly on the decline. Don't let media coverage fool you....
"Why does 'Merica insist on "taking anyone out"? World Police! Fuck Ya!"
You'd rather abdicate our human obligation to keep genocides from occurring? That's fine if you want that to be your policy, but then we need to remove our signature from the genocide convention....
1. Engage in wars of aggression - likely there are examples of this
2. Commit genocide - Not even close. To suggest this means you don't understand the definition. No specific ethnic group or people was singled out for destruction in whole or part in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Only armed combatants were sought, with no distinction on ethnicity or race made.
3. Harbor international terrorists/gangsters: Please provide examples, as many as you can over the 200+ year lifespan of our country, and let's see what that list looks like. Keep in mind Saddam personally harbored such terrorists himself over a much shorter timespan.
4. Be in non-compliance with the UN WMD regulations - The US absolutely IS in compliance with this treaty. In addition to being an allowed nuclear state, the US has eliminated over 80% of it's deployed nuclear warheads and 90% of its non-strategic warheads in NATO. We're currently in the process of eliminating entire categories of warheads and delivery systems as well. We've also reduced the role nukes play in the military since WWII. The treaty does NOT mandate immediate disarm of nuclear states, but gradual disarming as a prime policy. The US has done that.
All you've proven is that the US does NOT meet the criteria, so this discussion should be over....
Since the genocide convention was signed by the UN, no genocide has been committed by the United States. What was done to the native Americans was awful, but not of any note in this discussion.
"No-one is saying Sadam wasn't a bad guy, he really was, but that alone doesn't validate the invasion."
For those reading this string, if you ever want to confirm that someone doesn't know what they're talking about when it comes to Iraq, just wait for them to say "Saddam is a bad guy" and you'll have all the confirmation you need. Saddam wasn't a "bad guy". He was a homicidal crime boss that committed genocide, invaded two foreign nations in aggression, bombed another, harbored terrorists, and previously used WMDs. If you can't take out that kind of dictator, who COULD you take out?
"It certainly doesn't make the lies told to congress and the American people OK."
Well, no kidding. What Bush did was reprehensible. And it wasn't even NECESSARY. The case could have been made on the merits rather than with lies, half-truths, and bad intelligence. I'm not pro-Bush, I'm pro-removing Saddam.
Re: Re: Re: HEY, TIMMY, don't forget the illegal WARS:
"A country that did have WMDs up until 2001 but didn't have any with certainty after 2006 and this was known."
Huh? The inspectors were sent in in 2002. What does their not having WMDs after 2006 have to do with anything? We did NOT know they didn't have any in 2002, which was the whole point of the inspections farce.
"Did invade 2 other countries, the first of which they were both encouraged to do and supported in doing by the US.
The second of which the UN ruled against them on and the provisions of that resolution were what was followed to toss them out of Kuwait, albeit the US went far beyond the provisions of that resolution."
Again, the sins of our past don't negate the rightness of subsequent actions. In fact, it only strengthens the argument to oust Saddam in order to correct the mistake we made back then. The largest of those mistakes was not removing Saddam in 1993, which has since been corrected.
"As far as genocide goes, that was awful but historic. It was neither happening nor possible by 1992 never mind 2003"
Only because of the no-fly zone, which we put in place, paid for, and in which we were flying the sorties. It's worth remembering that the air patrols over northern Iraq were often times fired upon by Iraqi soldiers. It was only our restraint at the time that kept us from obliterating the soldiers at that time, but that is an act of war.
"the consequences of which led to far more deaths, maimings and dislocation than even the worst excesses of the al-anfal campaign could be credited with."
If you want to play the game of accounting for the consequences of the war, at least play it fairly by listing them all. No longer does the Iraqi government host terrorists like Abu Nidal. No longer are the marshlands burning to the ground, what has been called the greatest ecological disaster of our era. No longer is the Middle East a land of people unwilling to determine their own future, instead rising up against their oppressors. No longer does the government of Qaddafi have WMDs, since he gave them up when he saw Saddam's fate and they are now stored safely in the United States. No longer does our ally Israel have a madman at their gates, one who previously launched missiles into their borders.
Do you really suggest the Arab Spring had nothing to do with our ouster of Saddam? Do you really think the message hasn't been sent to the region that the world will not accept dictators of Saddam's kind? You need to do more than just count up the deaths when it comes to consequences of war, friend....
Re: Re: Re: HEY, TIMMY, don't forget the illegal WARS:
"Except we knew it was happening and did nothing."
If your point is our ouster of Saddam was done far too late, I agree. That doesn't negate the rightness of doing so in 2003.
"Then the people revolted and we did nothing to help them."
If your point is we didn't help our Kurdish allies in the north and rebels in the south when we first should have, I agree. That doesn't negate the rightness of doing so in 2003.
"Then we realised we didn't like the price of oil and invaded."
It's always fun to listen to the anti-war in Iraq crowd, since they negate their own arguments so much. Bush wanted to avenge his father, so he had plans to go into Iraq when he first came into office, but he also didn't do so until oil prices weren't what we wanted. The war was illegal, except it would have violated the international charter we signed NOT to go to remove Saddam for his genocidal actions. We can't go to war over oil, instead leaving one of the world's largest oil supplies in the hands of an international gangster crime family that treated its own citizens as its own personal property.
It's very easy and currently in vogue to decry the war in Iraq. Too bad doing so puts you on the side of a genocidal dictator. Too bad doing so ignore the fact that a confrontation with that country was GOING TO HAPPEN one way or the other, and it was better for us to choose the time and place for it. Too bad Saddam said after the Gulf War that his only mistake was invading Kuwait BEFORE getting the nuclear bomb he wanted so badly. Too bad he gassed the Kurds, killing thousands of people in his own country. Too bad we were spending untold amounts of money enforcing a never-ending no fly zone as the only means to ensure he didn't commit genocide AGAIN. Too bad Saddam did harbor terrorists and did financially support suicide bombers in Palestine/Israel. Too bad Saddam turned the oil for food program into his own personal palace-building slush fund.
"Iraq: A War of Aggression. No WMDs, No Connection to Al Qaeda"
Iraq: a country that DID use WMDs, DID harbor international terrorists, DID invade other countries (twice), and DID commit genocide. The Iraq War wasn't only not illegal, it was technically mandated by the UN genocide convention. What was illegal was anyone voting against it. Don't let Bush's bumbling confuse you into thinking it was an illegal war.
Of course I have. How could I NOT be aware of one of the greatest misnomers every created? Constitutional monarchies, when properly constructed, are NOT monarchies at all. To evidence this, one needs only look at the prime examples of so-called constitutional monarchies.
1. Canada
2. Australia
3. Denmark
4. New Zealand
5. UK
If you actually believe that any one of those examples is in any way beyond ceremonial functioning even in part as an actual monarchy, you don't know the meaning of the word. Those are all republics or democracies, and thank God for that.
"in many cases(listed in the link) its the only way a system will turn from absolute monarchy to any other system without violent insurrection."
Nonsense. Since none of those are actual monarchies in any functioning way and since some of them underwent relatively bloodless transitions from actual monarchies to their present system, your point is completely disproved.
"you cant really say our system works any better then theirs really"
I'm sorry, I can't say our government works better than a theocratic monarchy? I most certainly can.
"our politicians do whatever is best for themselves and the corporate masters, not whats best for We The People, or the nation as a whole..."
That certainly occurs far too often, but not being as good as we should doesn't make us as bad as others.
" I think your a big short sighted and have this impression that our systems the best system"
Incorrect, but I do believe democratic concepts are the best for of government yet devised. That doesn't mean we can't do it better, or that others aren't currently doing it better, but it does mean it's better in principal than a theocratic monarchy.
"There are schools of thought that suggest you need to be part of a system before you can effect change on it. You can look at his actions as cowardice or a recognition that the way he was going he'd be unable to do anything to improve the situation."
On the post: Piano Instructor Claims Copyright On Writing Letters On Piano Keys
Re: Holy cow! Timmy actually has it right!
Gee, now I can finally die happy....
On the post: High School Girl Faces Felony Charges For Yearbook Prank
Re: Yes, kids, $700 IS felony level of damages.
This post isn't about adults, it's about children. You also must have missed where I called the prank stupid. That you did miss that surprises me the same way I'm surprised when the sun comes up every morning, which is to say that it doesn't.
"By the way, another name beginning with "Mas" should occur to you fanboys, but I suppose you're too busy masnicking to recall it."
So...the prank isn't acceptable, but you'll just point to how it can apply to Mike? Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?
On the post: Magic Hat Brewery Sues West Sixth Brewing, Claiming 6 Looks Too Much Like 9
Re: Telling the difference after two slabs
On the post: Quack Professor Releases Dumbest Violent Video Game Theory Ever
Re: Timbo
Um, I never said he shouldn't be allowed to say stupid shit, I'm just pointing out it's stupid shit. Not sure why you don't understand the distinction....
On the post: Quack Professor Releases Dumbest Violent Video Game Theory Ever
Re:
On the post: Quack Professor Releases Dumbest Violent Video Game Theory Ever
Re:
If that's true, then I've apparently got about six months to live...
On the post: Retired Lt. Col.: Violent Media Has Bred A Generation Of Killers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HEY, TIMMY, don't forget the illegal WARS:
You'd rather abdicate our human obligation to keep genocides from occurring? That's fine if you want that to be your policy, but then we need to remove our signature from the genocide convention....
On the post: Retired Lt. Col.: Violent Media Has Bred A Generation Of Killers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HEY, TIMMY, don't forget the illegal WARS:
1. Engage in wars of aggression - likely there are examples of this
2. Commit genocide - Not even close. To suggest this means you don't understand the definition. No specific ethnic group or people was singled out for destruction in whole or part in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Only armed combatants were sought, with no distinction on ethnicity or race made.
3. Harbor international terrorists/gangsters: Please provide examples, as many as you can over the 200+ year lifespan of our country, and let's see what that list looks like. Keep in mind Saddam personally harbored such terrorists himself over a much shorter timespan.
4. Be in non-compliance with the UN WMD regulations - The US absolutely IS in compliance with this treaty. In addition to being an allowed nuclear state, the US has eliminated over 80% of it's deployed nuclear warheads and 90% of its non-strategic warheads in NATO. We're currently in the process of eliminating entire categories of warheads and delivery systems as well. We've also reduced the role nukes play in the military since WWII. The treaty does NOT mandate immediate disarm of nuclear states, but gradual disarming as a prime policy. The US has done that.
All you've proven is that the US does NOT meet the criteria, so this discussion should be over....
On the post: Retired Lt. Col.: Violent Media Has Bred A Generation Of Killers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HEY, TIMMY, don't forget the illegal WARS:
On the post: Retired Lt. Col.: Violent Media Has Bred A Generation Of Killers
Re: Re: Re: HEY, TIMMY, don't forget the illegal WARS:
Incorrect. For a country to lost its sovereignty in the international community, it must break all FOUR:
1. Engage in wars of aggression
2. Commit genocide
3. Harbor international terrorists/gangsters
4. Be in non-compliance with the UN WMD regulations
The US has certainly NOT violated all four of those. Iraq, on the other hand, was guilty of all four on multiple accounts each....
On the post: Retired Lt. Col.: Violent Media Has Bred A Generation Of Killers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HEY, TIMMY, don't forget the illegal WARS:
For those reading this string, if you ever want to confirm that someone doesn't know what they're talking about when it comes to Iraq, just wait for them to say "Saddam is a bad guy" and you'll have all the confirmation you need. Saddam wasn't a "bad guy". He was a homicidal crime boss that committed genocide, invaded two foreign nations in aggression, bombed another, harbored terrorists, and previously used WMDs. If you can't take out that kind of dictator, who COULD you take out?
"It certainly doesn't make the lies told to congress and the American people OK."
Well, no kidding. What Bush did was reprehensible. And it wasn't even NECESSARY. The case could have been made on the merits rather than with lies, half-truths, and bad intelligence. I'm not pro-Bush, I'm pro-removing Saddam.
On the post: Retired Lt. Col.: Violent Media Has Bred A Generation Of Killers
Re: Re: Re: HEY, TIMMY, don't forget the illegal WARS:
Huh? The inspectors were sent in in 2002. What does their not having WMDs after 2006 have to do with anything? We did NOT know they didn't have any in 2002, which was the whole point of the inspections farce.
"Did invade 2 other countries, the first of which they were both encouraged to do and supported in doing by the US.
The second of which the UN ruled against them on and the provisions of that resolution were what was followed to toss them out of Kuwait, albeit the US went far beyond the provisions of that resolution."
Again, the sins of our past don't negate the rightness of subsequent actions. In fact, it only strengthens the argument to oust Saddam in order to correct the mistake we made back then. The largest of those mistakes was not removing Saddam in 1993, which has since been corrected.
"As far as genocide goes, that was awful but historic. It was neither happening nor possible by 1992 never mind 2003"
Only because of the no-fly zone, which we put in place, paid for, and in which we were flying the sorties. It's worth remembering that the air patrols over northern Iraq were often times fired upon by Iraqi soldiers. It was only our restraint at the time that kept us from obliterating the soldiers at that time, but that is an act of war.
"the consequences of which led to far more deaths, maimings and dislocation than even the worst excesses of the al-anfal campaign could be credited with."
If you want to play the game of accounting for the consequences of the war, at least play it fairly by listing them all. No longer does the Iraqi government host terrorists like Abu Nidal. No longer are the marshlands burning to the ground, what has been called the greatest ecological disaster of our era. No longer is the Middle East a land of people unwilling to determine their own future, instead rising up against their oppressors. No longer does the government of Qaddafi have WMDs, since he gave them up when he saw Saddam's fate and they are now stored safely in the United States. No longer does our ally Israel have a madman at their gates, one who previously launched missiles into their borders.
Do you really suggest the Arab Spring had nothing to do with our ouster of Saddam? Do you really think the message hasn't been sent to the region that the world will not accept dictators of Saddam's kind? You need to do more than just count up the deaths when it comes to consequences of war, friend....
On the post: Retired Lt. Col.: Violent Media Has Bred A Generation Of Killers
Re: Re: Re: HEY, TIMMY, don't forget the illegal WARS:
If your point is our ouster of Saddam was done far too late, I agree. That doesn't negate the rightness of doing so in 2003.
"Then the people revolted and we did nothing to help them."
If your point is we didn't help our Kurdish allies in the north and rebels in the south when we first should have, I agree. That doesn't negate the rightness of doing so in 2003.
"Then we realised we didn't like the price of oil and invaded."
It's always fun to listen to the anti-war in Iraq crowd, since they negate their own arguments so much. Bush wanted to avenge his father, so he had plans to go into Iraq when he first came into office, but he also didn't do so until oil prices weren't what we wanted. The war was illegal, except it would have violated the international charter we signed NOT to go to remove Saddam for his genocidal actions. We can't go to war over oil, instead leaving one of the world's largest oil supplies in the hands of an international gangster crime family that treated its own citizens as its own personal property.
It's very easy and currently in vogue to decry the war in Iraq. Too bad doing so puts you on the side of a genocidal dictator. Too bad doing so ignore the fact that a confrontation with that country was GOING TO HAPPEN one way or the other, and it was better for us to choose the time and place for it. Too bad Saddam said after the Gulf War that his only mistake was invading Kuwait BEFORE getting the nuclear bomb he wanted so badly. Too bad he gassed the Kurds, killing thousands of people in his own country. Too bad we were spending untold amounts of money enforcing a never-ending no fly zone as the only means to ensure he didn't commit genocide AGAIN. Too bad Saddam did harbor terrorists and did financially support suicide bombers in Palestine/Israel. Too bad Saddam turned the oil for food program into his own personal palace-building slush fund.
Christ, are you even listening to yourself?
On the post: Retired Lt. Col.: Violent Media Has Bred A Generation Of Killers
Re: HEY, TIMMY, don't forget the illegal WARS:
Iraq: a country that DID use WMDs, DID harbor international terrorists, DID invade other countries (twice), and DID commit genocide. The Iraq War wasn't only not illegal, it was technically mandated by the UN genocide convention. What was illegal was anyone voting against it. Don't let Bush's bumbling confuse you into thinking it was an illegal war.
On the post: 'Bug' Allows Same-Sex Marriage In Nintendo Game, Nintendo Releases Patch To 'Fix' It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It deserves pointing out that the concept of a God granting us free will is illogical. If God gave it to me, it is not truly free will.
When people ask me if we have free will, I answer, "Of course, we have no choice." But unlike the religious, at least I know I'm being ironic.*
*Borrowed from Christopher Hitchens
On the post: Nintendo Exchanges Goodwill For Control; Issues Mass Monetization Claims On Let's Play Videos
Re: STOP IT!!
On the post: Saudi Religious Police: Anyone Using Twitter 'Has Lost This World And His Afterlife'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...
1. Canada
2. Australia
3. Denmark
4. New Zealand
5. UK
If you actually believe that any one of those examples is in any way beyond ceremonial functioning even in part as an actual monarchy, you don't know the meaning of the word. Those are all republics or democracies, and thank God for that.
"in many cases(listed in the link) its the only way a system will turn from absolute monarchy to any other system without violent insurrection."
Nonsense. Since none of those are actual monarchies in any functioning way and since some of them underwent relatively bloodless transitions from actual monarchies to their present system, your point is completely disproved.
"you cant really say our system works any better then theirs really"
I'm sorry, I can't say our government works better than a theocratic monarchy? I most certainly can.
"our politicians do whatever is best for themselves and the corporate masters, not whats best for We The People, or the nation as a whole..."
That certainly occurs far too often, but not being as good as we should doesn't make us as bad as others.
" I think your a big short sighted and have this impression that our systems the best system"
Incorrect, but I do believe democratic concepts are the best for of government yet devised. That doesn't mean we can't do it better, or that others aren't currently doing it better, but it does mean it's better in principal than a theocratic monarchy.
On the post: Saudi Religious Police: Anyone Using Twitter 'Has Lost This World And His Afterlife'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...
On the post: Saudi Religious Police: Anyone Using Twitter 'Has Lost This World And His Afterlife'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...
On the post: Saudi Religious Police: Anyone Using Twitter 'Has Lost This World And His Afterlife'
Re: Re: Re: Re: ...
Tell Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine that....
Next >>