^how cute, you believe the "no war for oil" garbage, i assume?

have you even paid attention to what has happened in the war? WMDs WERE found.

8/16/2006 11:05:08 AM

Quote :

" ^how cute, you believe the "no war for oil" garbage, i assume? have you even paid attention to what has happened in the war? WMDs WERE found. "

1. No i dont believe in the War for oil bullshit, I honestly dont even think thats why we are there or went there to begin with, because if it is, someone has fucked up pretty bad considering gas prices have DOUBLED since the invasion.

2. When and where? maybe in the first gulf war, but not in this one brotha, I have NEVER seen any evidence or reports suggesting or confirming this. Either one of us dosent keep up with shit, and I know I do, or you are smoking crack

8/16/2006 6:26:59 PM

Quote :

"Monday's edition of the Herald-Journal published an Associated Press story noting that 50 percent of Americans believe, contrary to every credible report, that Saddam Hussein's government had weapons of mass destruction in 2003. The article noted that this huge gap between belief and reality was due at least in part to misleading reports of 500 chemical munitions found in Iraq. According to the Pentagon, these "abandoned shells, many found in ones and twos, were 15 years old or more ... and they were unusable." Nonetheless, Sen. Jim DeMint trotted out this same story in his Sunday opinion piece in the Herald-Journal: "We have found more than 500 chemical weapons in Iraq ... . These weapons could easily fall into terrorists' hands … ." Despite the fact that the Pentagon has said these weapons were obsolete and unusable, DeMint used this misleading story to justify his support for the administration's disastrous course in Iraq."

Are you reffering to this? If you think some unusable chem weapons that had been laying around since before the first gulf war were the reason we went into Iraq and that there was really a danger of them being used, then you sir, are gullable, and play right into the hands of the administration, shoving the bullshit down your throat

[Edited on August 16, 2006 at 6:34 PM. Reason : []

8/16/2006 6:34:21 PM

Stand by...

Quote :

"Iraqi military officers destroyed or hid chemical, biological and nuclear weapons goods in the weeks before the war, the nation's top satellite spy director said yesterday. Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, said vehicle traffic photographed by U.S. spy satellites indicated that material and documents related to the arms programs were shipped to Syria. "

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10547

Way to cite your sources. Sometimes you have to get out of the mainstream liberal-dominated media to get more of the story.

8/17/2006 10:57:07 AM

Actually, you just self-pwnt yourself, for two reasons.

A. The source from which you got that article is a conservative "we hate liberals and think the news media has a liberal bias" type web site. They even have a link to "conservative t-shirts" in which a woman is wearing a t-shirt that says "Iran wants nukes, well give them to them!" and depicts a mushroom cloud. What they did is nitpick conservative editorials, or stories the Bush admin. PAID them media to run, and have them in an archive section about Iraq. If you believe these goobers and the opinion editorials that fill their Iraq archive, you are a fool!

B. Look at the date from the article:
"Syria Storing Iraq's WMDs
By Bill Gertz
Washington Times | October 29, 2003"

Oct. 2003! Thats when the bush administration was still trying to save its ass on the WMD story, and slowly push it into the limelight. The fact that NO CREDIBLE SOURCES confirm this, not only the US GOVERNMENT, but the US media, and the world media. If this shit in that article was true, dont you think the administration would have held some big news conference and been like "Look bitches! we done told you this shit was foreal!" but they didn't, because it never happened, no news outlets reported this, because it NEVER HAPPENED.

8/18/2006 1:37:07 AM

better yet:

you:

Quote :

"have you even paid attention to what has happened in the war? WMDs WERE found."

YOUR LINKED ARTICLE!:

Quote :

""Gen. Clapper said he is not surprised that U.S. and allied forces have not found weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq""

I didnt even have to do 5 seconds worth of looking to find a contradiction. This shit gets more and more like "1984" every day.

8/18/2006 1:39:34 AM

Isn't double posting (like you've done repeatedly) perceived by the people to denote a lack of intelligence?

8/18/2006 8:18:18 AM

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/14/D8JGI7C80.html

Hillary slams Bush for not doing enough to protect us from terrorism, suggests we should create a "Castle America" instead of fighting terrorists over seas.

8/18/2006 3:51:15 PM

Quote :

" Isn't double posting (like you've done repeatedly) perceived by the people to denote a lack of intelligence? "

Most of the time I post in here after midnight I already have some alcohol in me, so I dont catch things as quickly as I normally would, hence the double posts.

And Randy: Your last post did not counter my last posts.

8/18/2006 6:09:33 PM

what is there to say to you? did you even read it? of course they werent found in iraq, they were moved to syria, as the article states.

[Edited on August 18, 2006 at 6:30 PM. Reason : .]

8/18/2006 6:30:25 PM

Quote :

" WMDs WERE found "

Quote :

" of course they werent found in iraq, they were moved to syria "

Your article provides no solid proof they were moved to Syria, only speculation. If you really think they were moved to Syria, then why would we have not taken action on this since WMD was supposedly the justification for war in the first place? If you really believe there were WMD moved to Syria I would like to see proof from at least two CREDIBLE sources.

8/18/2006 6:46:08 PM

Quote :

"the U.S., Britain and France on one side and Russia and China on the other."

this would be an "ok" matchup, but the us, britain and france would whip that ass

8/24/2006 1:35:03 PM

^you sure about that?

8/24/2006 3:11:49 PM

^ I'm sure of that. The U.S. alone could wip all four asses. Britain, France, Russia, and China, all lose their air-power and naval-power within the first month, after that the U.S. can do whatever it wants with the enemies coastal areas. The U.S. would suffer massive losses, but we've got carrier groups to spare.

Of course, assumes no one goes nuclear. If it goes nuclear then all sides lose, just some more than others.

8/24/2006 4:16:16 PM

if Randy hates it so much here he should move to Dumbfuckistan.

8/24/2006 5:40:51 PM

^troll

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/D8JL0MJ80.html#a
looks like the GOP has outfundraised the democrats. i guess conservatives arent going to give it up to you without a fight!

8/27/2006 3:27:22 PM

so are you saying that conservatives have more really rich dudes?

8/27/2006 3:36:30 PM

so what that they have raised more money? the article is pretty much showing a large gap only last month, total money in hand they are within 1 million of each other. And in case you forgot randy, the elections are not in august, this leaves plenty of time for more fundraising

8/27/2006 4:20:21 PM

bush is a moron. ann coulter is a moron. All this whiny bitching about the "liberals" is moronic. Why can't you guys think for yourselves and outside your parties?

8/29/2006 3:43:33 AM

Quote :

"Why can't you guys think for yourselves and outside your parties?"

if i change that to "Why can't you guys think for yourselves and outside your religion", does that also fit?

8/29/2006 3:46:16 AM

This is the first election I have given money to a political party/candidate not named Ralph Nader.

This is a very important election, so important that I'm actually going to vote democrat instead of left leaning candidates.

8/29/2006 5:53:07 AM

^oh my god, you cant be serious...someone at a fine institution like state giving to that fool?

8/29/2006 1:27:04 PM

hey nutsmackr what did you get in return for your donation to nader? oh yeah, nothing

8/29/2006 1:45:43 PM

nutsmackr is the man without a party...no one wants him

[Edited on August 29, 2006 at 2:31 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2006 2:30:09 PM

bttt

taking YOUR taxes for the "common good"...Democrats in '06 and '08!

10/18/2006 12:23:29 PM

i really really would like people to stop calling the democratic party communists

there is no basis for the comparison to even be made

10/18/2006 12:25:58 PM

^taking away for the common good. its simple, but it works.

btw, as for Iraq, im really not worried. the 1970s showed that even if one president is mired in a war (Nixon), a strong competitor with a popular, successful message can still win from the same party, even with the war fresh on the minds of the population (Reagan). Who will the "new Reagan" be?

10/18/2006 12:28:11 PM

taking away from the common good. i'm sure you must be referring to taxes. tell you what, what do you think would happen if we did away with taxes.

here's a hint, didn't work after the american revolution

10/18/2006 12:29:47 PM

who said do away with taxes? we could afford to drastically reduce them, but we need them to provide strictly for the specific tennants provided for in our constitution. "the common welfare", while stated, is never defined, unlike many other things that ARE expressedly stated.

10/18/2006 12:34:23 PM

Maybe you didn't get the memo ... Those socialist Nordic countrys just passed the US in competitiveness ... Not to mention they've always been ahead in standard and quality of living ... I think it has something to do with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs ...

10/18/2006 1:05:41 PM

Quote :

"but we need them to provide strictly for the specific tennants provided for in our constitution. "the common welfare""

Wow, that almost sounds like the "Common Good". Goddamn communist forefathers.

10/18/2006 1:31:56 PM

Quote :

"i really really would like people to stop calling the democratic party communists"

True, Fascist fits much better.

Clinton's Health-care plan was remarkably similar to Mussolini's economic plan from the 1930s and looked nothing like Stalin's economic plan.

So, no, Communist? Not hardly. Fascist. Of course, so are the Republicans, just not as much.

10/18/2006 1:44:07 PM

Did you know Bush has a similar haircut to Hitler's?

10/18/2006 2:22:13 PM

I know some of his policies are similar to hitler's, different in spirit and intention of course. so?

10/18/2006 2:28:45 PM

The republicans are facists because bush has a similar haircut to hitler.

10/18/2006 2:30:47 PM

Lonesnark:

Quote :

"True, Fascist fits much better. Clinton's Health-care plan was remarkably similar to Mussolini's economic plan"

No wonder no one takes him serious ... someone tell the guy that people won't take his points seriously, when the comparisons are ridiculous ... (Mussolini's economic plan )

10/18/2006 2:31:00 PM

I'm sorry Bobo, maybe you misunderstood my point. Mussolini was not Satan, people throughout the world (including Kris' hero Keynes) praised Mussolini's economic plan. Perhaps it is merely a coincidence, but the plans are remarkably similar.

http://www.mises.org/story/524

"In Italy, a "National Council of Corporations" saw to it that private initiative could only exist "in the service of the national interest," as defined by Mussolini. In the Clinton plan, the National Health Board would have served the same function. The Italian National Council had the power to set prices and budgets and to issue regulations, just as the Clinton National Health Board would have had."

And no, Kris, I would never call Bush a Fascist, nor Clinton. Merely some of their policies were borrowed from fascists. Or, more accurately, all their policies were borrowed from the same people (James Madison and Abraham Lincoln).

[Edited on October 18, 2006 at 3:06 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/18/2006 3:04:40 PM

^ and this is why i read and take lonesnark's points seriously.

10/18/2006 3:07:35 PM

i give him 50/50

10/18/2006 3:22:36 PM

Total govement control of an economy is one thing, trying to make sure that everyone has access to healthcare is another. I think our heathcare system is a national disgrace, and a lot of statistics back me up.

I know know it's not popular, but I think there is a place for government in places like infrastructre, utilities, education, and healthcare. I don't think people's health should be left to pure profit motives (Cuba has a longer life expectancy than we do).

To equatate healthcare reform with total political and economic control is beyond exaggeration - it's hypebole. Healthcare reform is not total economic control and even healthcare reform had to go through the political process, which is the opposite of fascism.

[Edited on October 18, 2006 at 3:53 PM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

10/18/2006 3:50:05 PM

Quote :

"Mussolini was not Satan, people throughout the world (including Kris' hero Keynes) praised Mussolini's economic plan. Perhaps it is merely a coincidence, but the plans are remarkably similar."

We all know what you meant to incite when you called democrats fascist. Just because you've made this halfassed attempt at a semantics trap, doesn't mean it holds water.

Fascist refers to more than just the government in power in Italy. You simply tried to use one depreciated meaning for the word. Clinton's plan is not "fascist" in the current meaning of the word.

10/18/2006 4:00:40 PM

My apologies, I neglected the "curse word" aspect of the word "fascism"

So, Kris, what word should I have used? Surely not Capitalism, as although enterprises are free to chase profits they are not operating in a free market. Socialism implies state ownership, but in neither Mussolini's nor Clinton's plan was the government taking ownership over the industry(ies) in question. It was merely setting up Executive Boards to manage privately owned businesses by setting prices, quantity, profits, investment, etc.

Such a system was invisioned before the fascist states of Europe poisoned the word used to describe it.

So, Kris and others, what should we call the economic system set up by Hitler and Mussolini? I'm curious and want to be corrected, because I've evidently been wrong all this time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

10/18/2006 4:42:48 PM

he's just toying with you, Kris, its funny.

10/18/2006 4:46:34 PM

LoneSnark:

Quote :

"what should we call the economic system set up by Hitler and Mussolini?"

You can call their economic systems "economic fascism" if you like, but to equate it to healthcare reform is pure incitement (and inaccurate).

Fascists were not communists, or socialists (they fought the Russians, remember). As a matter of fact, they were extreme capitalists, as evidenced by your own reference:

Quote :

"Under fascism, business and government collude to profit by engaging in economic intervention. Lawrence Britt suggests that protection of corporate power is an essential part of fascism.[7] Socialist historian Gaetano Salvemini said in 1936: "In actual fact, it is the State, i.e., the taxpayer who has become responsible to private enterprise. In Fascist Italy the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social.""

Fascists control private enterprise, but they also control labor - they control everything in fact. It's just a matter of throwing around inaccurate, inflamatory terms to incite people's emotions. But when people make such extreme comparisons it makes them look unreasonable, and dogmatic.

[Edited on October 18, 2006 at 5:19 PM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

10/18/2006 5:14:33 PM

Fine Bobo, I'm sorry, won't do it any more.
But I am going to call it "economic fascism" as you suggest, because "extreme capitalism" sounds more like anarcho-capitalism (where corporate enterprises assume all government functions) than economic fascism (where government assumes all business functions).

10/18/2006 5:41:00 PM

Fascism: "fa-shi-zim" 1. n. a poltical ideology you don't like

[Edited on October 18, 2006 at 6:11 PM. Reason : .]

10/18/2006 6:10:24 PM

Quote :

"My apologies, I neglected the "curse word" aspect of the word "fascism""

I'm simply talking about what the word means. All aspects of mussolini's regime were not neccesarily facist under this definition.

Quote :

"So, Kris, what word should I have used?"

I don't know, I can't read minds. I do know what word you did use, and I do know that you used it incorrectly.

Quote :

"So, Kris and others, what should we call the economic system set up by Hitler and Mussolini? I'm curious and want to be corrected, because I've evidently been wrong all this time"

Perhaps you should read your own link.
that while there are some similarities, there is no distinctive form of fascist economic organization

Quote :

"he's just toying with you, Kris, its funny."

You are a toy. No one takes you seriously. I am baffled why you even bother to type the crap you post.

But loneshark, I will leave you with this quote:
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes strong than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. - FDR

10/18/2006 7:05:12 PM

That quote is quite easily levied again FDR himself.

Afterall, it was he that attempted (through the NRA) to place the executive branch personally in control of the whole American economy. Thankfully, it was rulled unconstitutional because it had, in effect, given complete power to the executive branch to make laws independent of Congress.

What private power could ever compare to that?

10/18/2006 9:48:29 PM

He seeked to strengthen the democratic state, not private power, so I guess if you completely reverse the quote you could use it agianst him.

10/19/2006 1:07:41 AM

Concerning gay marriage, the following quotation is strong evidence that most of you on the Left don't know what the fuck you're talking about:

2004 Democratic National Platform

"In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there" (p. 38). In addition, like George Bush, John Kerry, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton did NOT support gay marriage.

The following link reveals two related facts: (1) For many conservatives, the gay marriage issue isn’t even on our radar screens; we really don’t care that much about it. (2) If the Democrats are SO fucking high on gay marriage, why haven’t they introduced a constitutional amendment in support of gay marriage?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/14/us/politics/14marriage.html?hp&ex=1160884800&en=aaf282ec72ebe40f&ei=5059&partner=AOL

"The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is the commonly used name of a federal law of the United States that is officially known as Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996) and codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.

2. The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed by President Bill Clinton [emphasis added] on September 21, 1996" (Wikipedia.com).

Concerning the 2008 presidential election, the Democrats have NOBODY. If the party nominates Hillary Clinton, they might as well give the presidency away. Furthermore, if she is nominated, we will see sociopolitical division in the United States like we have not experienced in our lifetimes--there will be very little middle ground remaining.

[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 3:29 AM. Reason : .]

10/19/2006 3:28:05 AM