I have nothing to say about this other than to say, my hopes and prayers are with the survivors. Here's a link to the American Red Cross.
http://www.redcross.org
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Monday, August 29, 2005
No WMD? You just don't understand WMD!!!!
The press, and the left love to say that there was no WMD in Iraq. The following is a tally of all of our findings since we invaded, that have been ingnored by our press. And thanks to our mostly inept president, they are almost completely unbeknownst to most people. Here's a list I lifted from a newsmax story. And for all you libs who would impugn Newsmax's credibility, I have listed alternate sources for each key piece of evidence at the bottom. So there!
Among the WMD evidence discounted by the press [and almost never noted by the Bush administration]:
500 tons of yellow cake uranium stored at Saddam's al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development facility, which was secured by U.S. troops after the invasion.
1.8 tons of partially enriched uranium discovered at al Tuwaitha, which was removed by the U.S. Energy Department in June 2004 amidst warnings it could be used to produce a dirty bomb.
Centrifuge parts and blueprints hidden by one of Saddam's top nuclear scientists, who told U.S. interrogators that he was ordered to keep the bombmaking tools ready to resume production at a moment's notice.
Satellite photos from 2002 that showed new construction at al Tuwaitha, which had been largely destroyed in U.S. bombing raids during the first Gulf War and Operation Desert Fox.
The discovery of nearly two dozen artillery shells loaded with Sarin and mustard gas, which was reported in June 2004 by Iraq Survey Group chief Charles Duelfer.
Before we move on, I'd like to call to your attention to the Duelfer Report. For all you liberal moonbats, here's the Wikipedia description:
The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) was a fact-finding mission sent by the coalition after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs developed by Iraq under the regime of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. It consisted of a 1,400-member team organized by The Pentagon and CIA to hunt for Saddam's suspected stockpiles of WMD, such as chemical and biological agents, and any supporting research programs and infrastructure that could be used to develop WMD. The search uncovered numerous banned weapons-related programs, but failed to find stockpiles, which were the main stated reason for United States President George W. Bush ordering the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam.
Did you get that? They found that he had programs to develop wmd, but no stockpiles of weapons. Come on, people! If he actually had stockpiles of nukes or chemical weapons, then that would be a good reason NOT to invade! Why wait until they have the weapons, if you know they're trying to develop them? This is why Americans think Democrats are weak on national security! And damn it, Bush never said that there were huge stockpiles of these weapons. He just said that Saddam had failed to account for his wmd. Which could mean anything. It could mean that he failed to account for his programs. Intellectual capital means a lot in the world of technology. Just check out the story of Francis Cabot Lowell, if you disagree. He was the man who committed the famous act of industrial espionage responsible for ending England's monopoly on the textile industry. And he didn't do it by stealing one of their mills. He did it by touring their facilities, and learning how the mills work. In essence, he stole the technology. Destroying the weapons facilities, and indeed the weapons themselves, would be meaningless if you leave the technological ability to develop them, whether it's the blueprints for the devices, or the nuclear scientists with the knowledge of how they work.
Basically, the conclusion I draw is that Saddam wanted these weapons, and nothing could stop him from getting them. The inspections would only have delayed him. Why contain a problem, when you can eliminate it?
And as promised, here is the list of alternate sources:
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/IraqUNSC14072003.pdf
http://www.journalnet.com/articles/2005/08/10/news/local/news03.txt
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020906-iraq2.htm
http://www.npr.org/programs/wesat/features/2002/oct/iraq/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw-anx-f.htm">
Among the WMD evidence discounted by the press [and almost never noted by the Bush administration]:
500 tons of yellow cake uranium stored at Saddam's al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development facility, which was secured by U.S. troops after the invasion.
1.8 tons of partially enriched uranium discovered at al Tuwaitha, which was removed by the U.S. Energy Department in June 2004 amidst warnings it could be used to produce a dirty bomb.
Centrifuge parts and blueprints hidden by one of Saddam's top nuclear scientists, who told U.S. interrogators that he was ordered to keep the bombmaking tools ready to resume production at a moment's notice.
Satellite photos from 2002 that showed new construction at al Tuwaitha, which had been largely destroyed in U.S. bombing raids during the first Gulf War and Operation Desert Fox.
The discovery of nearly two dozen artillery shells loaded with Sarin and mustard gas, which was reported in June 2004 by Iraq Survey Group chief Charles Duelfer.
Before we move on, I'd like to call to your attention to the Duelfer Report. For all you liberal moonbats, here's the Wikipedia description:
The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) was a fact-finding mission sent by the coalition after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs developed by Iraq under the regime of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. It consisted of a 1,400-member team organized by The Pentagon and CIA to hunt for Saddam's suspected stockpiles of WMD, such as chemical and biological agents, and any supporting research programs and infrastructure that could be used to develop WMD. The search uncovered numerous banned weapons-related programs, but failed to find stockpiles, which were the main stated reason for United States President George W. Bush ordering the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam.
Did you get that? They found that he had programs to develop wmd, but no stockpiles of weapons. Come on, people! If he actually had stockpiles of nukes or chemical weapons, then that would be a good reason NOT to invade! Why wait until they have the weapons, if you know they're trying to develop them? This is why Americans think Democrats are weak on national security! And damn it, Bush never said that there were huge stockpiles of these weapons. He just said that Saddam had failed to account for his wmd. Which could mean anything. It could mean that he failed to account for his programs. Intellectual capital means a lot in the world of technology. Just check out the story of Francis Cabot Lowell, if you disagree. He was the man who committed the famous act of industrial espionage responsible for ending England's monopoly on the textile industry. And he didn't do it by stealing one of their mills. He did it by touring their facilities, and learning how the mills work. In essence, he stole the technology. Destroying the weapons facilities, and indeed the weapons themselves, would be meaningless if you leave the technological ability to develop them, whether it's the blueprints for the devices, or the nuclear scientists with the knowledge of how they work.
Basically, the conclusion I draw is that Saddam wanted these weapons, and nothing could stop him from getting them. The inspections would only have delayed him. Why contain a problem, when you can eliminate it?
And as promised, here is the list of alternate sources:
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/IraqUNSC14072003.pdf
http://www.journalnet.com/articles/2005/08/10/news/local/news03.txt
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020906-iraq2.htm
http://www.npr.org/programs/wesat/features/2002/oct/iraq/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw-anx-f.htm">
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Fair Trade or Free Trade?
I'd like to get a debate started about the issues of fair trade and free trade. I'm not sure which way I stand on this issue, because I've seen some pretty logical arguments on both sides. Anybody interested?
Friday, August 12, 2005
The White Man's Burden by Rudyard Kipling
The White Man's Burden
Take up the White man's burden --
Send forth the best ye breed --
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild --
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.
Take up the White Man's burden --
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times mad plain.
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden --
The savage wars of peace --
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hope to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden --
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper --
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go make them with your living,
And mark them with your dead!
Take up the White man's burden --
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard --
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light: --
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
"Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden --
Ye dare not stoop to less --
Nor call too loud on freedom
To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your Gods and you.
Take up the White Man's burden --
Have done with childish days --
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
Take up the White man's burden --
Send forth the best ye breed --
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild --
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.
Take up the White Man's burden --
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times mad plain.
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden --
The savage wars of peace --
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hope to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden --
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper --
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go make them with your living,
And mark them with your dead!
Take up the White man's burden --
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard --
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light: --
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
"Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden --
Ye dare not stoop to less --
Nor call too loud on freedom
To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your Gods and you.
Take up the White Man's burden --
Have done with childish days --
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
I'm in a poetic mood
Rudyard Kipling should be required reading these days.
THE YOUNG BRITISH SOLDIER
When the 'arf-made recruity goes out to the East
'E acts like a babe an' 'e drinks like a beast,
An' 'e wonders because 'e is frequent deceased
Ere 'e's fit for to serve as a soldier.
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
So-oldier ~OF~ the Queen!
Now all you recruities what's drafted to-day,
You shut up your rag-box an' 'ark to my lay,
An' I'll sing you a soldier as far as I may:
A soldier what's fit for a soldier.
Fit, fit, fit for a soldier . . .
First mind you steer clear o' the grog-sellers' huts,
For they sell you Fixed Bay'nets that rots out your guts --
Ay, drink that 'ud eat the live steel from your butts --
An' it's bad for the young British soldier.
Bad, bad, bad for the soldier . . .
When the cholera comes -- as it will past a doubt --
Keep out of the wet and don't go on the shout,
For the sickness gets in as the liquor dies out,
An' it crumples the young British soldier.
Crum-, crum-, crumples the soldier . . .
But the worst o' your foes is the sun over'ead:
You ~must~ wear your 'elmet for all that is said:
If 'e finds you uncovered 'e'll knock you down dead,
An' you'll die like a fool of a soldier.
Fool, fool, fool of a soldier . . .
If you're cast for fatigue by a sergeant unkind,
Don't grouse like a woman nor crack on nor blind;
Be handy and civil, and then you will find
That it's beer for the young British soldier.
Beer, beer, beer for the soldier . . .
Now, if you must marry, take care she is old --
A troop-sergeant's widow's the nicest I'm told,
For beauty won't help if your rations is cold,
Nor love ain't enough for a soldier.
'Nough, 'nough, 'nough for a soldier . . .
If the wife should go wrong with a comrade, be loath
To shoot when you catch 'em -- you'll swing, on my oath! --
Make 'im take 'er and keep 'er: that's Hell for them both,
An' you're shut o' the curse of a soldier.
Curse, curse, curse of a soldier . . .
When first under fire an' you're wishful to duck,
Don't look nor take 'eed at the man that is struck,
Be thankful you're livin', and trust to your luck
And march to your front like a soldier.
Front, front, front like a soldier . . .
When 'arf of your bullets fly wide in the ditch,
Don't call your Martini a cross-eyed old bitch;
She's human as you are -- you treat her as sich,
An' she'll fight for the young British soldier.
Fight, fight, fight for the soldier . . .
When shakin' their bustles like ladies so fine,
The guns o' the enemy wheel into line,
Shoot low at the limbers an' don't mind the shine,
For noise never startles the soldier.
Start-, start-, startles the soldier . . .
If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier ~of~ the Queen!
THE YOUNG BRITISH SOLDIER
When the 'arf-made recruity goes out to the East
'E acts like a babe an' 'e drinks like a beast,
An' 'e wonders because 'e is frequent deceased
Ere 'e's fit for to serve as a soldier.
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
So-oldier ~OF~ the Queen!
Now all you recruities what's drafted to-day,
You shut up your rag-box an' 'ark to my lay,
An' I'll sing you a soldier as far as I may:
A soldier what's fit for a soldier.
Fit, fit, fit for a soldier . . .
First mind you steer clear o' the grog-sellers' huts,
For they sell you Fixed Bay'nets that rots out your guts --
Ay, drink that 'ud eat the live steel from your butts --
An' it's bad for the young British soldier.
Bad, bad, bad for the soldier . . .
When the cholera comes -- as it will past a doubt --
Keep out of the wet and don't go on the shout,
For the sickness gets in as the liquor dies out,
An' it crumples the young British soldier.
Crum-, crum-, crumples the soldier . . .
But the worst o' your foes is the sun over'ead:
You ~must~ wear your 'elmet for all that is said:
If 'e finds you uncovered 'e'll knock you down dead,
An' you'll die like a fool of a soldier.
Fool, fool, fool of a soldier . . .
If you're cast for fatigue by a sergeant unkind,
Don't grouse like a woman nor crack on nor blind;
Be handy and civil, and then you will find
That it's beer for the young British soldier.
Beer, beer, beer for the soldier . . .
Now, if you must marry, take care she is old --
A troop-sergeant's widow's the nicest I'm told,
For beauty won't help if your rations is cold,
Nor love ain't enough for a soldier.
'Nough, 'nough, 'nough for a soldier . . .
If the wife should go wrong with a comrade, be loath
To shoot when you catch 'em -- you'll swing, on my oath! --
Make 'im take 'er and keep 'er: that's Hell for them both,
An' you're shut o' the curse of a soldier.
Curse, curse, curse of a soldier . . .
When first under fire an' you're wishful to duck,
Don't look nor take 'eed at the man that is struck,
Be thankful you're livin', and trust to your luck
And march to your front like a soldier.
Front, front, front like a soldier . . .
When 'arf of your bullets fly wide in the ditch,
Don't call your Martini a cross-eyed old bitch;
She's human as you are -- you treat her as sich,
An' she'll fight for the young British soldier.
Fight, fight, fight for the soldier . . .
When shakin' their bustles like ladies so fine,
The guns o' the enemy wheel into line,
Shoot low at the limbers an' don't mind the shine,
For noise never startles the soldier.
Start-, start-, startles the soldier . . .
If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier ~of~ the Queen!
Monday, August 08, 2005
Left Wing Monster #2
Here's an educational post for you young 'uns who don't remember Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. It's an article from discoverthenetwork.org, David Horowitz's much vilified attempt at understanding the network behind the left. This one is number two in the Left Wing Monster series. It's a story that is so extreme, in a sick way, it borders on comical. This one goes out to all you teenage hippie types passing out International A.N.S.W.E.R. literature. Your ignorance could someday destroy you.
Cult of 7G Crosses Over to The Dark Side
Today is a day that shall forever live in infamy. The Cult of 7G, has sworn allegiance to Emperor Darth Misha I, and has joined the ranks of loyal citizens of the Empire at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller. All hail Darth Misha I!! Death to Idiotarians!!
Friday, August 05, 2005
De-mystifiying the Left
I read this excellent article by Barry Loberfeld at frontpagemag.com. Truly a scholarly, and at times humorous critique of the left. It basically says everthing I've been screaming for years about leftists, only in a way far more articulate and scholarly than I could ever manage. They don't believe in freedom or equality. They sneer at the concept of freedom, and believe in hedgemony. How dare these unwashed masses determine the course of their own lives? How dare they not take the advice of their betters? If they won't listen to us, we'll take away their property and their rights and force them to listen! What the left actually seeks is their position on top! Under capitalism, Noam Chomsky is just another member of the peanut gallery. He has no control over me and my property, and thus I am left to my own evil devices, like the rest of the evil masses. Under communism, old Noam will get just what he wants, a position amongst the party elite, and the power to control us unenlightened heathens.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Screw Yahoo!
I've decided I'm going to stop using Yahoo as a source for news. I'm convinced that they intentionally change the url's of their news stories to confound bloggers. None of my hyperlinks to yahoo news stories work any more. I don't see why they shouldn't welcome the traffic I direct to their sites, but screw 'em. There are plenty of other fish in the sea. When I do see something in yahoo news that interests me, I'll do my best to find an alternative source to cite. Ya hear that, Yahoo? I say screw you blue, and your auntie too!
America Needs Another Patton
I've seen this quote circulating in conservative sectors of the blogosphere all week. It comes from Patton's famous speech to the 3rd army on the eve of D-Day.
We’re not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we’re going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We’re going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You’ve got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it’s the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you’ll know what to do!
You can read the whole speech here.
We’re not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we’re going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We’re going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You’ve got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it’s the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you’ll know what to do!
You can read the whole speech here.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Absolute War
Here's an excellent poem by George Patton. I'd say it kind of applies to the present.
Absolute War
Now in war we are confronted with conditions which are strange.
If we accept them we will never win.
Since by being realistic, as in mundane combats fistic,
We will get a bloody nose and that's a sin.
To avoid such fell disaster, the result of fighting faster,
We resort to fighting carefully and slow.
We fill up terrestrial spaces with secure expensive bases
To keep our tax rate high and death rate low.
But with sadness and with sorrow we discover to our horror
That while we build, the enemy gets set.
So despite our fine intentions to produce extensive pensions
We haven't licked the dirty bastard yet.
For in war just as in loving, you must always keep on shoving
Or you'll never get your just reward.
For if you are dilatory in the search for lust and glory
You are up shit creek and that's the truth, Oh! Lord.
So let us do real fighting, boring in and gouging, biting.
Let's take a chance now that we have the ball.
Let's forget those fine firm bases in the dreary shell raked spaces.
Let's shoot the works and win! Yes, win it all!
Absolute War
Now in war we are confronted with conditions which are strange.
If we accept them we will never win.
Since by being realistic, as in mundane combats fistic,
We will get a bloody nose and that's a sin.
To avoid such fell disaster, the result of fighting faster,
We resort to fighting carefully and slow.
We fill up terrestrial spaces with secure expensive bases
To keep our tax rate high and death rate low.
But with sadness and with sorrow we discover to our horror
That while we build, the enemy gets set.
So despite our fine intentions to produce extensive pensions
We haven't licked the dirty bastard yet.
For in war just as in loving, you must always keep on shoving
Or you'll never get your just reward.
For if you are dilatory in the search for lust and glory
You are up shit creek and that's the truth, Oh! Lord.
So let us do real fighting, boring in and gouging, biting.
Let's take a chance now that we have the ball.
Let's forget those fine firm bases in the dreary shell raked spaces.
Let's shoot the works and win! Yes, win it all!
Chauncy Biggins Goes Under Cover
After having such fun arguing with idiots in the yahoo message boards, Chauncy Biggins decided to take a cue from Communists for Kerry and pose as a communist, with hilarious results!
The following is an exerpt from a yahoo message board pertaining to the starvation of the people of North Korea, which is of course, America's fault. You can read the news story here. And please read the news story first. It really puts the madness of the left in perspective when you read their posts.
Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: dwbinter 07/26/05 02:27 pm
Msg: 1075 of 1571
It's leading the human race to the extinction with its "dog eat dog world"
principle.
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: jw1967rhsc 07/26/05 02:30 pm
Msg: 1121 of 1578
Hmmm.. so only the strong will survive then? good to know.
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: dwbinter 07/26/05 02:36 pm
Msg: 1193 of 1578
That doesn't include fat americans
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look) 07/26/05 02:40 pm
Msg: 1252 of 1578
1 recommendation
Yes, comrades! Fat americanski! Not like the starving HEROES of communism, scrounging diligently and valiantly for dead rat carcasses! Let those capitalist fools have their food! We have slogans and marches, rallies and fur hats! Let them eat their food, he he!
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look) 07/26/05 02:38 pm
Msg: 1224 of 1577
Yes, comrade! Capitalism is a failure! All the capitalists ever do is prop up sagging communist economies that can't support themselves! But we communists must be careful to distinguish between the rhetoric we feed the useful idiots and brainwashed masses and the truth: we need these capitalist fatcats in order for communism to survive. How else will we fund our military AND provide for the common welfare, like those evil capitalists do. After all, we can't afford to do it: we're communists! That's why we don't even try! Kim Jong Il threatens to blow the US up, and in turn, they feed a quarter of his population. Now that's what I call chutzpa! The only question is, when the whole world turns to communism, as it should, where will we find capitalists to support us? We'll have to find capitalists on other planets to support us. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: effyoumorons 07/26/05 02:35 pm
Msg: 1178 of 1571
Capitalism is indeed FAR from perfect. But it is light years ahead of Communism. In capitalism, some people are poor, but if you work hard you can get ahead of where you were. In communism EVERYONE is poor, and no ammount of hard work will ever pay off, even a little bit. Don't be so fucking stupid in the future.
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: dwbinter 07/26/05 02:41 pm
Msg: 1258 of 1571
Don't be so fucking stupid to believe what the american media tells you. Open your mind and your eyes travel around the world and you'll see the truth.
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look) 07/26/05 02:48 pm
Msg: 1360 of 1571
Yes, don't believe the lies of the american privately funded capitalist media! Believe the lies of the communist state-controlled media, for only there will you find the truth about communism!
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: dwbinter 07/26/05 03:09 pm
Msg: 1512 of 1574
Yeah believe what the privately funded american media has to say about anything that's not convenient to the american interests of world dominance
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look) 07/26/05 03:42 pm
Msg: 1573 of 1575
Yes, comrade! Expose the lies of the capitalists! They seek world domination, while we seek world Liberation! The difference is the word you use to describe it!
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: man_of_reason12345 07/26/05 02:44 pm
Msg: 1316 of 1577
1 recommendation
In Communism everyone is poor, but some (regular people) are more poor than others (communist leaders). If you limit the inflow of information into the country, people will perceive their life as normal and will not complain. So communist leaders will be able to maintain a nice feeling of power and superiority.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 1178 by effyoumorons
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look) 07/26/05 02:46 pm
Msg: 1334 of 1577
1 recommendation
No, comrade. Don't believe the capitalist lies! I know, it's all that food the fatcats let you eat! It clouds your judgement! Every communist party member knows that the proletarians enjoy long hours of back-breaking labor much more than they enjoy food! Communism is much better than capitalism. All that prosperity is bad for the complection. And all that disposable income makes people worried and frustrated because they don't know what to do with it! So many consumer choices! It can make life very complicated. When your only choice is to wait in line at the local ration station for your share of rice and beans, it can be very liberating. Never again will you have to worry about what to do with all that money! You'll be too focused on scrounging for food in the gutter, like any good communist should!
The following is an exerpt from a yahoo message board pertaining to the starvation of the people of North Korea, which is of course, America's fault. You can read the news story here. And please read the news story first. It really puts the madness of the left in perspective when you read their posts.
Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: dwbinter 07/26/05 02:27 pm
Msg: 1075 of 1571
It's leading the human race to the extinction with its "dog eat dog world"
principle.
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: jw1967rhsc 07/26/05 02:30 pm
Msg: 1121 of 1578
Hmmm.. so only the strong will survive then? good to know.
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: dwbinter 07/26/05 02:36 pm
Msg: 1193 of 1578
That doesn't include fat americans
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look) 07/26/05 02:40 pm
Msg: 1252 of 1578
1 recommendation
Yes, comrades! Fat americanski! Not like the starving HEROES of communism, scrounging diligently and valiantly for dead rat carcasses! Let those capitalist fools have their food! We have slogans and marches, rallies and fur hats! Let them eat their food, he he!
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look) 07/26/05 02:38 pm
Msg: 1224 of 1577
Yes, comrade! Capitalism is a failure! All the capitalists ever do is prop up sagging communist economies that can't support themselves! But we communists must be careful to distinguish between the rhetoric we feed the useful idiots and brainwashed masses and the truth: we need these capitalist fatcats in order for communism to survive. How else will we fund our military AND provide for the common welfare, like those evil capitalists do. After all, we can't afford to do it: we're communists! That's why we don't even try! Kim Jong Il threatens to blow the US up, and in turn, they feed a quarter of his population. Now that's what I call chutzpa! The only question is, when the whole world turns to communism, as it should, where will we find capitalists to support us? We'll have to find capitalists on other planets to support us. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: effyoumorons 07/26/05 02:35 pm
Msg: 1178 of 1571
Capitalism is indeed FAR from perfect. But it is light years ahead of Communism. In capitalism, some people are poor, but if you work hard you can get ahead of where you were. In communism EVERYONE is poor, and no ammount of hard work will ever pay off, even a little bit. Don't be so fucking stupid in the future.
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: dwbinter 07/26/05 02:41 pm
Msg: 1258 of 1571
Don't be so fucking stupid to believe what the american media tells you. Open your mind and your eyes travel around the world and you'll see the truth.
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look) 07/26/05 02:48 pm
Msg: 1360 of 1571
Yes, don't believe the lies of the american privately funded capitalist media! Believe the lies of the communist state-controlled media, for only there will you find the truth about communism!
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: dwbinter 07/26/05 03:09 pm
Msg: 1512 of 1574
Yeah believe what the privately funded american media has to say about anything that's not convenient to the american interests of world dominance
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look) 07/26/05 03:42 pm
Msg: 1573 of 1575
Yes, comrade! Expose the lies of the capitalists! They seek world domination, while we seek world Liberation! The difference is the word you use to describe it!
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: man_of_reason12345 07/26/05 02:44 pm
Msg: 1316 of 1577
1 recommendation
In Communism everyone is poor, but some (regular people) are more poor than others (communist leaders). If you limit the inflow of information into the country, people will perceive their life as normal and will not complain. So communist leaders will be able to maintain a nice feeling of power and superiority.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 1178 by effyoumorons
Re: Capitalism is the biggest failure
by: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look) 07/26/05 02:46 pm
Msg: 1334 of 1577
1 recommendation
No, comrade. Don't believe the capitalist lies! I know, it's all that food the fatcats let you eat! It clouds your judgement! Every communist party member knows that the proletarians enjoy long hours of back-breaking labor much more than they enjoy food! Communism is much better than capitalism. All that prosperity is bad for the complection. And all that disposable income makes people worried and frustrated because they don't know what to do with it! So many consumer choices! It can make life very complicated. When your only choice is to wait in line at the local ration station for your share of rice and beans, it can be very liberating. Never again will you have to worry about what to do with all that money! You'll be too focused on scrounging for food in the gutter, like any good communist should!
Monday, July 25, 2005
Back in the Saddle
Jane Fonda, aka Hanoi Jane, America's favorite treasonous whore-dog, has apparently decided to take up "the cause" once again and oppose our efforts in the middle of a war. I suppose she'll be wanting more photo-ops. Perhaps we can encourage her to go on a "fact-finding mission" in Iraq, which would most likely end with her being beheaded. Just a thought.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Chauncy Hands yet another Troll his proverbial Ass
This time the news story was about the upcoming deadline for an Iraqi constitution. Read the story here. On a side note, I'd like to say that I love how these liberals stake their whole credibility on hopes of failure. They all poo-pooed the elections, betting they would fail. But they didn't. Now they're praying for the Iraqis to fail in drafting a constitution. That really wins over the voters!
MORE WISHFUL THINKING FROM THE RIGHT=by: schuywriter2 (31/M/Everett, WA)
07/20/05 05:44 pmMsg: 631640 of 631650
equals August 15th deadline=defeat of insurgency!So if only 2 of 3 sects ratify the constitution (reaching on this one), does it still mean MISSION ACCOMPLISHED if it turns out that Islam is now a primary modifier in Iraqi politics and women's rights are no longer a consideration?
Re: MORE WISHFUL THINKING FROM THE RIGHTby: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look)
07/20/05 05:49 pmMsg: 631650 of 631654
Ha! Yeah, Saddam was really a champion of women's rights. They didn't have to wear the burqa, but they did have to be subject to systemic rape and murder! Yes, Saddam was an equal-opportunity murderer. I love this defeatism. Whatever happened to the left wanting to just "do something!" You thought Bill Clinton was such a hero for getting Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat to meet for lunch, even though there was no peace agreement. Shit, they got a nobel prize. We've got an ousted dictator, a new iraqi provisional government, free elections, and they're on their way to adopting a constitution. And now all you idiot libs are in the tenuous position of casting that as a negative. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic!
Posted as a reply to: Msg 631640 by schuywriter2
MORE WISHFUL THINKING FROM THE RIGHT=by: schuywriter2 (31/M/Everett, WA)
07/20/05 05:44 pmMsg: 631640 of 631650
equals August 15th deadline=defeat of insurgency!So if only 2 of 3 sects ratify the constitution (reaching on this one), does it still mean MISSION ACCOMPLISHED if it turns out that Islam is now a primary modifier in Iraqi politics and women's rights are no longer a consideration?
Re: MORE WISHFUL THINKING FROM THE RIGHTby: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look)
07/20/05 05:49 pmMsg: 631650 of 631654
Ha! Yeah, Saddam was really a champion of women's rights. They didn't have to wear the burqa, but they did have to be subject to systemic rape and murder! Yes, Saddam was an equal-opportunity murderer. I love this defeatism. Whatever happened to the left wanting to just "do something!" You thought Bill Clinton was such a hero for getting Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat to meet for lunch, even though there was no peace agreement. Shit, they got a nobel prize. We've got an ousted dictator, a new iraqi provisional government, free elections, and they're on their way to adopting a constitution. And now all you idiot libs are in the tenuous position of casting that as a negative. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic!
Posted as a reply to: Msg 631640 by schuywriter2
Chauncy, AKA Madmatt7g, Combats the Trolls in the Trenches
The following is an excerpt from an argument between the Cult of 7G's Chauncy Biggins and some liberal trolls in a Yahoo News message board. You can read the news story we were discussing here.
Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: jp_01752 (39/M/White House basement)
07/20/05 02:08 pmMsg: 640 of 807
Iraqis are doing it for them!!!!
Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look)
07/20/05 02:12 pmMsg: 662 of 807 1 recommendation
Well, actually, more troops have died at home in car accidents than in the field. Those suicide bombers and so-called insurgents mostly target Iraqi civillians and security forces. That insurgency you're rooting for is intentionally targeting civillians. So that puts you in an interesting position. You're actually against the Iraqi people and their newly-elected government, but in favor of the Ba'athist Sunnis and radical Wahabbi muslims from Iran. How does it feel to lend comfort to murderers and terrorists?
Posted as a reply to: Msg 640 by jp_01752
Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: hwy32redux
07/20/05 02:15 pmMsg: 680 of 809
the insurgency we're rooting for?Geez, get a grip. We're rooting to get our soldiers home and safe. We're rooting to get the US away from a fascist policy of foreign policy through unilateral attack. We're rooting to bring decency, honor, and honesty back to the government.And if we hadn't gone in there in the first place, there'd be no insurgency for anyone to root for. There were no WMDs. There were no terrorists. THere was no threat.That's the point, sir. None of this had to happen. We just want to get our soldiers, and our tax money, out of Iraq.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 662 by madmatt7g
Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look)
07/20/05 02:22 pmMsg: 705 of 809
You're ignoring recent history. In Tawaitha, Saddam had 1.8 tons of enriched uranium. He was still funding the IAEC until we invaded in 2003. Just because he didn't have stockpiles of nukes doesn't mean he wasn't trying. Besides, he was also in violation of un resolutions and our ceasefire agreement. Weeks into the conflict, we found a stash of russian migs that violated UN resolutions. The only reason those resolutions were in place was to protect the kurds and shiites from genocide! Sure, he wasn't the biggest threat to us? But since when are you libs non-interventionist isolationists? Saddam had to go, and military action was the only way to do it! You also ignore the fact that the Iraqi government doesn't want us to leave yet, doesn't even want us to announce a date. Because the decent people of Iraq need us to stay until they're secure enough to go it alone. What you want is for us to leave now, allow the Ba'athists to take over, and kill hundreds of thousands of people, like the last Gulf War or like Vietnam and Cambodia. Then you liberals could chalk this up as another American failure and use it in your propaganda to win elections.
And you can't tell me this garbage you people spew doesn't embolden our enemies and weaken our troops' morale. You can't pull this crap where you claim to support the troops when you shit on their mission and hope they fail. If that's what you think is support, then I'm sure they don't need it.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 680 by hwy32redux
Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: hwy32redux
07/20/05 02:29 pmMsg: 727 of 811
and now, like a good little Rove-ite, you change the discussion. The fact remains. Saddam lost all of his WMD under the UN restrictions enforced by Clinton.The rest of your parsing is just that: parsing.But good try. Go now to Fox News and see if you can come up with more bumper sticker stuff.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 705 by madmatt7g
Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look)
07/20/05 02:35 pmMsg: 740 of 813
Oh, bullshit. You've probably said that line to a hundred other people this week! Are you denying that he was in violation of our ceasefire agreement? Are you denying that Saddam Hussein was funding a nuclear weapons program that enriched 1.8 tons of enriched uranium? Isn't that at the very heart of the discussion, since you seem to think there was no justification for war? What about the horrible human rights abuses? Why doesn't that count? We invaded the Serbs, our NATO allies with less justification. Where was the massive outcry of criticism from the anti-war left then? You want us to believe that Saddam was this benign, huggable teddy bear and we're just these evil villains, invading a completely innocent country. But that's bullshit, and most people know it, including you. You're the one who changes the subject and turns to ad-hominem attack because you can't respond to my arguments.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 727 by hwy32redux
Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: hwy32redux
07/20/05 02:38 pmMsg: 750 of 815 1 recommendation
He didn't have shit. Yes, I'm denying it. If funding research is the standard, perhaps we should have attacked India, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea, which all have nuclear capability, not just research.Get a grip. we had no reason to attack Saddam. Not one. All the reasons Bush has used are more applicable to 20 other countries on earth before they'd be relevant to Iraq.Please, think. DOn't just listen to Rove and company.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 740 by madmatt7g
Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look)
07/20/05 02:49 pmMsg: 783 of 841
No, you think instead of parroting the same bullshit I hear from the talking heads in the media and your favorite hollywood movie stars. You want to invade 20 countries at once? We've already got a full plate with Iraq and Afghanistan. Shit, man, we were already engaged in Iraq. In case you weren't aware, our pilots have been risking their lives enforcing the no-fly-zone ever since the end of the first gulf war. Saddam kept moving anti-aircraft guns into the de-militarized zones, in violation of our ceasefire. So techinically, we've been in a state of war anyway. Which is better? Sending ground troops and overthrowing the problem, or authorizing pointless bombing campaigns against empty targets like Clinton? Perhaps now, someday we might actually pull out of Iraq. Isn't it better to solve a problem than to endlessly maintain it? Isn't it better to call the plumber than to put a bucket under the leaky pipe?
Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look)
07/20/05 02:51 pmMsg: 788 of 842
You're rationale for not stopping the human rights abuses in Iraq is that all the other countries are doing it? That's pretty pathetic, don't you think? So either you want us to solve all the world's problems, all at once, or we can't solve any of them at all. Is that what you're saying?
And just what would you say if the administration said they planned to invade india, pakistan, and north korea? Would you be behind it then? Or are non-sequiturs all you're capable of?
Perhaps you have the forensic "tools" to convince me you're right, but you're certainly not demonstrating it right now. And calling me a Rove-ite won't do it either. It neither hurts my feelings, nor does it sway my opinion. You're going to have to do better than that.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 750 by hwy32redux
Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: imperator_neoconus_maximus (531/M/In_partibus_ infidelium)
07/20/05 03:05 pmMsg: 818 of 846
the senate voted for the War against Saddam99-0I doubt you could get TED KENNEDY to vote for a war with INDIA!Unless they they by the JACK DANIELS DISTILLORY and outsource it to NEW DELHI!________________________________________Page 128 of the 9/11 commisson report--Sites evidence dating back to the CLINTON administration that claims SADDAM's IRAQI intelligence met with ALQUEDA---AND jointly worked on developing WMDS--according to CLINTON TERRORIST CZAR RICHARD CLARKE.Go read it yourself---of course it may or may not be true--however--given what was know before the WAR--it seemed to be plausible enough for YOUR SENATOR TO VOTE TO GO TO WAR!Don't listen to ROVE--LISTEN TO KERRY!or hillary or KENNEDY or PELOSIE!____________________________________“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998___________________________________________“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999____________________________________________“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002______________________________________________“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002______________________________________________He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002____________________________________________HILLARY EVEN MENTIONS THAT IRAQ GAVE AID TO ALQUEDA!IF YOU CAN'T believe HILLARY.......
Posted as a reply to: Msg 750 by hwy32redux
Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: jp_01752 (39/M/White House basement)
07/20/05 02:08 pmMsg: 640 of 807
Iraqis are doing it for them!!!!
Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look)
07/20/05 02:12 pmMsg: 662 of 807 1 recommendation
Well, actually, more troops have died at home in car accidents than in the field. Those suicide bombers and so-called insurgents mostly target Iraqi civillians and security forces. That insurgency you're rooting for is intentionally targeting civillians. So that puts you in an interesting position. You're actually against the Iraqi people and their newly-elected government, but in favor of the Ba'athist Sunnis and radical Wahabbi muslims from Iran. How does it feel to lend comfort to murderers and terrorists?
Posted as a reply to: Msg 640 by jp_01752
Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: hwy32redux
07/20/05 02:15 pmMsg: 680 of 809
the insurgency we're rooting for?Geez, get a grip. We're rooting to get our soldiers home and safe. We're rooting to get the US away from a fascist policy of foreign policy through unilateral attack. We're rooting to bring decency, honor, and honesty back to the government.And if we hadn't gone in there in the first place, there'd be no insurgency for anyone to root for. There were no WMDs. There were no terrorists. THere was no threat.That's the point, sir. None of this had to happen. We just want to get our soldiers, and our tax money, out of Iraq.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 662 by madmatt7g
Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look)
07/20/05 02:22 pmMsg: 705 of 809
You're ignoring recent history. In Tawaitha, Saddam had 1.8 tons of enriched uranium. He was still funding the IAEC until we invaded in 2003. Just because he didn't have stockpiles of nukes doesn't mean he wasn't trying. Besides, he was also in violation of un resolutions and our ceasefire agreement. Weeks into the conflict, we found a stash of russian migs that violated UN resolutions. The only reason those resolutions were in place was to protect the kurds and shiites from genocide! Sure, he wasn't the biggest threat to us? But since when are you libs non-interventionist isolationists? Saddam had to go, and military action was the only way to do it! You also ignore the fact that the Iraqi government doesn't want us to leave yet, doesn't even want us to announce a date. Because the decent people of Iraq need us to stay until they're secure enough to go it alone. What you want is for us to leave now, allow the Ba'athists to take over, and kill hundreds of thousands of people, like the last Gulf War or like Vietnam and Cambodia. Then you liberals could chalk this up as another American failure and use it in your propaganda to win elections.
And you can't tell me this garbage you people spew doesn't embolden our enemies and weaken our troops' morale. You can't pull this crap where you claim to support the troops when you shit on their mission and hope they fail. If that's what you think is support, then I'm sure they don't need it.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 680 by hwy32redux
Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: hwy32redux
07/20/05 02:29 pmMsg: 727 of 811
and now, like a good little Rove-ite, you change the discussion. The fact remains. Saddam lost all of his WMD under the UN restrictions enforced by Clinton.The rest of your parsing is just that: parsing.But good try. Go now to Fox News and see if you can come up with more bumper sticker stuff.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 705 by madmatt7g
Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look)
07/20/05 02:35 pmMsg: 740 of 813
Oh, bullshit. You've probably said that line to a hundred other people this week! Are you denying that he was in violation of our ceasefire agreement? Are you denying that Saddam Hussein was funding a nuclear weapons program that enriched 1.8 tons of enriched uranium? Isn't that at the very heart of the discussion, since you seem to think there was no justification for war? What about the horrible human rights abuses? Why doesn't that count? We invaded the Serbs, our NATO allies with less justification. Where was the massive outcry of criticism from the anti-war left then? You want us to believe that Saddam was this benign, huggable teddy bear and we're just these evil villains, invading a completely innocent country. But that's bullshit, and most people know it, including you. You're the one who changes the subject and turns to ad-hominem attack because you can't respond to my arguments.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 727 by hwy32redux
Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: hwy32redux
07/20/05 02:38 pmMsg: 750 of 815 1 recommendation
He didn't have shit. Yes, I'm denying it. If funding research is the standard, perhaps we should have attacked India, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea, which all have nuclear capability, not just research.Get a grip. we had no reason to attack Saddam. Not one. All the reasons Bush has used are more applicable to 20 other countries on earth before they'd be relevant to Iraq.Please, think. DOn't just listen to Rove and company.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 740 by madmatt7g
Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look)
07/20/05 02:49 pmMsg: 783 of 841
No, you think instead of parroting the same bullshit I hear from the talking heads in the media and your favorite hollywood movie stars. You want to invade 20 countries at once? We've already got a full plate with Iraq and Afghanistan. Shit, man, we were already engaged in Iraq. In case you weren't aware, our pilots have been risking their lives enforcing the no-fly-zone ever since the end of the first gulf war. Saddam kept moving anti-aircraft guns into the de-militarized zones, in violation of our ceasefire. So techinically, we've been in a state of war anyway. Which is better? Sending ground troops and overthrowing the problem, or authorizing pointless bombing campaigns against empty targets like Clinton? Perhaps now, someday we might actually pull out of Iraq. Isn't it better to solve a problem than to endlessly maintain it? Isn't it better to call the plumber than to put a bucket under the leaky pipe?
Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: madmatt7g (24/M/Im on the moon! Just look)
07/20/05 02:51 pmMsg: 788 of 842
You're rationale for not stopping the human rights abuses in Iraq is that all the other countries are doing it? That's pretty pathetic, don't you think? So either you want us to solve all the world's problems, all at once, or we can't solve any of them at all. Is that what you're saying?
And just what would you say if the administration said they planned to invade india, pakistan, and north korea? Would you be behind it then? Or are non-sequiturs all you're capable of?
Perhaps you have the forensic "tools" to convince me you're right, but you're certainly not demonstrating it right now. And calling me a Rove-ite won't do it either. It neither hurts my feelings, nor does it sway my opinion. You're going to have to do better than that.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 750 by hwy32redux
Re: Troops Don't Need to Kill Themselvesby: imperator_neoconus_maximus (531/M/In_partibus_ infidelium)
07/20/05 03:05 pmMsg: 818 of 846
the senate voted for the War against Saddam99-0I doubt you could get TED KENNEDY to vote for a war with INDIA!Unless they they by the JACK DANIELS DISTILLORY and outsource it to NEW DELHI!________________________________________Page 128 of the 9/11 commisson report--Sites evidence dating back to the CLINTON administration that claims SADDAM's IRAQI intelligence met with ALQUEDA---AND jointly worked on developing WMDS--according to CLINTON TERRORIST CZAR RICHARD CLARKE.Go read it yourself---of course it may or may not be true--however--given what was know before the WAR--it seemed to be plausible enough for YOUR SENATOR TO VOTE TO GO TO WAR!Don't listen to ROVE--LISTEN TO KERRY!or hillary or KENNEDY or PELOSIE!____________________________________“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998___________________________________________“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999____________________________________________“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002______________________________________________“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002______________________________________________He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002____________________________________________HILLARY EVEN MENTIONS THAT IRAQ GAVE AID TO ALQUEDA!IF YOU CAN'T believe HILLARY.......
Posted as a reply to: Msg 750 by hwy32redux
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
PETA Kills Helpless Animals
I was alerted to this story by a frontpage mag article here. I wasn't entirely surprised. Apparently, since PETA spends so much of it's budget on advertising and harassment campaigns against farmers and medical research facilities, it doesn't have enough money left over to care for animals. So a lot of these animals that PETA "rescues" end up getting euthanized and dumped. I've always suspected that PETA hurts more animals than it helps. If you've ever seen their literature, where they document the atrocious mutilations of animals supposedly done by hunters, then you know what I'm talking about. I was at a job fair at Ball State University where PETA had their own stall, passing out materials. They showed me this pamphlet of a fox that had been utterly mutilated. It looked like it had been mangled by farm equipment. The pelt was ruined. "What hunter would do this," I asked. It appeared to me that these PETA people most likely killed and butchered this fox specifically for the purposes of their propaganda, which I think is illegal. I always used to think PETA was insane because they care more about animals than people. Now, I'm beginning to think they're just plain insane.
Cult of 7G Salutes the Noble Pig
Here at the Cult of 7G, we don't understand all the fuss over such an adorable, intelligent, and tasty animal. Apparently, certain groups of people find them filthy and actually have a religious objection to eating their delicious flesh. Well I'm here to say that pigs are no filthier than chickens or cows. Both cows and chickens live, eat, and propagate in their own excrement. But when a pig does it, all of a sudden it's filthy! I say it's high time to elevate the noble pig to the status it deserves! It should be revered as a helpful fellow traveller on this earth, that delights us with its curly little tail, its personality, and its flavor! Long live the majestic, domestic swine!
Monday, July 18, 2005
After Iraq attacks, calls for militias grow
This is what I like to hear! Iraqis want to stand up and fight for themselves! If the state can't protect me, then I'll protect me! You hear that, Sarah Brady? You hear that, Chuck Schumer? Sometimes, the state can't protect you. There are universal truths in this world, completely separate from politics, and laws, and any other artificial concept. These are the laws of nature. Each individual has the right, and responsibility to defend their own person. You could attempt to write it away with laws all you like, but when the blows are raining down on your head, you'll act out of self-preservation, the most powerful of human instincts. When the state can't adequately meet your protection needs, whether you live in Miami, Florida or war-torn Baghdad, you have a responsibility to meet it yourself. And this truth apparently isn't lost on the people of Iraq. It's too bad some people in this country just don't get it. I'd like to take Chuck Schumer and drop him off in a gang neighborhood in south central LA. The average police response time there is 45 minutes, if they arrive at all. Maybe then he'd understand.
Security can't be established from the top down. It must be from the bottom up. The people of Iraq are closer to the insurgents than the US or Iraqi governments. They're also closer to their own homes and neighborhoods. Perhaps citizen militias will be the answer we've been looking for.
Security can't be established from the top down. It must be from the bottom up. The people of Iraq are closer to the insurgents than the US or Iraqi governments. They're also closer to their own homes and neighborhoods. Perhaps citizen militias will be the answer we've been looking for.
No WMD, eh?
Here's a story from Newsmax you won't here about in the mainstream press. Because it was already in the mainstream press back in May 2004. The following is an exerpt.
"The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure place outside Iraq," the paper announced in a little-noticed May 2004 report.
"The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium," the paper revealed, before insisting: "None of it [is] enriched enough to be used directly in a nuclear weapon."
Well, almost none.
The Times went on to report that amidst Saddam's yellowcake stockpile, U.S. weapons inspectors found "some 1.8 tons" that they "classified as low-enriched uranium."
The paper conceded that while Saddam's nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was "a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon."
Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.
The shit gets deeper. Read the whole story here.
"The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure place outside Iraq," the paper announced in a little-noticed May 2004 report.
"The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium," the paper revealed, before insisting: "None of it [is] enriched enough to be used directly in a nuclear weapon."
Well, almost none.
The Times went on to report that amidst Saddam's yellowcake stockpile, U.S. weapons inspectors found "some 1.8 tons" that they "classified as low-enriched uranium."
The paper conceded that while Saddam's nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was "a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon."
Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.
The shit gets deeper. Read the whole story here.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Driving Liberal Trolls Crazy
I'll show these neocon bastards! Selected, not elected! No war for oil!
NO WAR FOR OIL! Aaargh!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)