Firestarter

The United States military was designed to invade two countries at the same time and take and hold their capital cities indefinitely, while still retaining the ability to engage a third enemy and protect the homeland from any invading forces. Our current capabilities surpass that design goal by several degrees.

There you go. You and everyone else still alive are welcome. It could have indeed. It didn't. Thanks for making my point. On the latter point: I have no idea what you're talking about. On universities? The President doesn't make those decisions. McCain-Feingold? The President didn't support it. Something else? Clarify. On the former: you seem to have little or no understanding of economics so it's pointless to discuss it with you. Cutting taxes increases government revenue. Spending money is necessary when fighting a war. Which of the two do you have a problem with? Fighting a war or increasing government revenue? You probably think the deficit is a bad thing, too. Approximately. We have 33 brigades on active duty. "Usually?" There's no "usually" in any war. We're not overstretched, we've accounted for extended tours, and we don't need more personnel in any theatre of operations. And anyway, the Army isn't the only armed service. We also have the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marines, not to mention the National Guard, the Coast Guard, and the Merchant Marine. False. We are currently using 21 total. North Korea does not have the ability to openly attack the United States. Yes we do, what do think the National Guard is for? But in any case, we don't need to. If any country attacks us we can obliterate it from the face of the earth within 24 hours with 6 Spirits, 12 officers, and 122 support staff. We have those. (Trust me.) The only time we need a lot of weapons and manpower is when we pick a war to fight and decide to fight it without causing wholesale destruction. Without such self-imposed strictures, our military power is practically limitless. Even if our enemy had ICBM capability and nuclear warheads we could utterly decimate it and suffer little or no significant damage in return. Claiming that the United States is undefended or vulnerable because of deployments required by this or any other war is simply idiotic.

Nope, we're not. Our troops alone don't pay the Pentagon's bills, so don't try to wrap your partisan "concern" in a militaristic flag. Nope. First of all, we don't operate by giving anyone our "full and complete trust." That's why we audit accounts. The audits are not yet complete, and what we have turned up so far does not indicate that any actions were taken in bad faith. There are no suspicious discrepancies and there is no evidence of wrongdoing or fraud. If such evidence is uncovered, it will be acted on. If no such evidence ever turns up, well, I don't doubt you'll keep carping and whining anyway. But I won't let it keep me awake at night. I doubt anyone else will either.

I'm not telling myself anything of the sort. No one I know is telling himself anything of the sort. No one on this board or anywhere else has ever said anything of the sort. Where did you come up with that idea? Just pulled it out of your ass and decided to attribute it to "current conservative opinion" because you thought it sounded stupid enough? The fact remains that another terrorist attack is far less likely to occur if the President's policies continue to be enacted. Since all the Democratic candidates disagree sharply with the President's policies, the logical conclusion is that terrorist attacks are far less likely to occur if the President is re-elected. QED. And how have you reached that conclusion? Have I said anything, anything at all, to make you believe that? Or is it just because I'm a Republican, therefore I must be stupid, therefore I never thought anything like 9/11 could happen? Oh, good. What the world needs most is fewer and better diplomats, and much less diplomacy. Diplomacy gets people killed, and I prefer war. It's more honest, far more effective, and the body count is always lower.

I'm sure your smug complacency would be a great comfort to those who would die in the next 9/11, and their families and friends. But I'm glad the President has a different view on the matter: "My job is to keep America secure. That's my job. I've got a solemn duty to do everything I can to protect the American people. I will never forget the lessons of September the 11th, 2001. Terrorists attacked us. They killed thousands of our fellow citizens. And it could happen again. And, therefore, I will deal with threats - threats that are emerging and real... I acted because... I have a duty to protect this country. And I will continue to protect the country, so long as I'm the President of the United States." And that is precisely why President Bush will be re-elected in 2004.

I'm "dream[ing] up false agendas?" Really? This is what I said: You've scurried away from any number of arguments, claiming that you don't have the time to engage in them after you start them. You've bleated about your Personal Relationship with Jesus so often and at such length that it, and you, have become running jokes. You pontificate about the One True Path to Eternal Salvation all the time, condemning not only atheists and members of other religions to damnation but even Christians of other denominations as well: These are your own words. Deny them if you wish. You're a liar and a coward, and you always have been; it would be quite consistent with your past behaviour. This thread has gone off topic because we're all finished with the original topic. All replies from me, and I hope Spicy McHaggis as well, will be posted in public in this thread. The only reason to respond to you in private would be to save your titanic ego further public bruising. And that would serve no purpose beyond making you feel better, which frankly isn't my main goal in life. As I said once before: if you can't be a good example, you will serve as a horrible warning.

If that's the only production you ever see in your entire life, sure. Just because it's traditional doesn't automatically group anyone who sees it with hoi polloi.

Bullshit. It wouldn't be a "Bush(republican) led war" if every Democrat had supported the war. It would be a bipartisan accomplishment - as it should have been. And every Democrat could stand up and claim, honestly, to have contributed to our success. But they didn't, and they can't, and now it will not only hurt them but butcher them.

A line in another article makes my point absolutely explicit: Dean's supporters are crying about the capture of a mass murderer, a tyrant, and a vicious sadist. Saddam Hussein is the very reincarnation of Hitler that the Democrats jeeringly try to caricature President Bush as. And the people who support Howard Dean are crying. Crying because we ended the rule of a man who murderered half a million people and starved, oppressed, and tortured millions more, and captured him alive so that he could be brought to justice and made to answer for his unspeakable crimes. I can't emphasise this enough: Howard Dean's supporters are crying for Saddam Hussein. Go on. Justify that. Rationalise it. Go dig up one of the mass graves we're still uncovering in the deserts of Iraq, pick up a shattered skull and pour the sand out of it. Look into its eye sockets and tell it you're crying for the animals that left it there. Then vote for the Democrats. And may God have mercy on your soul.

Did you miss the parts where he repeatedly stated that he is a Democrat? Basically, the issue is this: Are you going to vote for a party which was hurt by the capture of Saddam Hussein?

- Dreams and Glory by David Brooks A good article (in the New York Times, surprisingly enough) which clearly delineates the probable choice confronting us in 2004. Either vote for the moral illiterate who doesn't even understand the nature of the war, let alone how to win it, or vote for President Bush. Pretty simple. NB: all boldface mine.

Bah. I go to the Kennedy Center all the time and no one dresses for anything anymore. We've got box seats to see the Nutcracker on Christmas Day and I'll bet more than half the people there will be in shorts and T-shirts despite the weather. O tempora, o mores... being a slob is now a fashion statement. You can wear anything you want, sadly enough. What you should wear, of course, is semi-formal dress - formal if it's in the evening. That means black or white tie. Since you used the word "tuxedo," though, it's unlikely you own a tailcoat.

Finished.

Inapplicable. Saddam Hussein is not a prisoner of war.

"A couple" wouldn't buy the house or the car in the first place. Every piece of property would belong to whomever had his or her name on the papers. Y'know, like for normal, single people. A side benefit of this would be that marrying for money would no longer be so easy. You could demand that your lovey put your name on everything she buys for you with her money, but if you're not planning on leaving her, why would you ask? I find it funny that gay people want this marriage thing so badly and so many ever so enlightened straight people are shouting that they must be given it. Why? If you love someone, why do you need a piece of paper from the government to prove it? I "support" civil unions in the sense that I don't see a difference between gay people and straight people (although "marriage" does traditionally refer to the union of a man and a woman, so I oppose gay "marriages" purely on linguistic grounds), and if a bunch of gay people are stupid enough to ask for something so pointless then they probably deserve it.

Nuremberg was, by and large, an American court.

It's not my "plan." I simply don't see the need for government to get involved in private life. Obviously property wouldn't automatically become "shared" if states didn't sanction marriages, so your request for a solution is silly because the problem would cease to exist. Child custody could be settled simply on the basis of the welfare of the child. DNA testing can establish parentage. End of story.

I'm one of them. Ultimately, I don't think the state should recognise any marriages or unions of any kind between any number of persons of any gender.

It's all so ridiculous. One could, of course, go into the differences between latria and dulia and hyperdulia, the doctrinal distinctions and their derivations from the Greek, the historical, Biblical, and spiritual precedent for and value of confession, and why calling Mary "Mother of God" isn't blasphemy but simply a statement of fact, but what's the point? SpiderPoet is only interested in preaching as quickly as he can, damning everyone in earshot to eternal perdition because they don't have his Unique Loving Relationship With His Own Personal King Jesus and scurrying away as soon as he's finished masturbating all over the Bible. I'm tired of watching it and I'm sick of listening to his crap.

Given his meek surrender, don't we know now that that wouldn't have squared with his psychology? And in that case, is it still so hard to believe that he wouldn't have used any WMDs he possessed? If not, isn't it obvious that the mere fact that he didn't use WMDs doesn't say anything, anything at all, about whether or not he possessed them?

"My name is Morris Fletcher. I work inside Area 51. I assumed Mulder's identity through a warp in the space-time continuum. Trust me, little man, I ain't him. Oh, I love you guys. I really do. I mean, you're the Lone Gunmen, aren't you? You guys are my heroes. I mean, look at this crap you print." "We uncover the truth." "The truth. Well, see, that's what's so great about you monkeys. Not only do you believe this horse pucky that we create, you broadcast it as well. I mean, look at this. There is no Saddam Hussein. This guy's name is John Gillnitz. We found him doing dinner theater in Tulsa. Did a mean King and I. Plays good ethnics." "You're trying to say that Saddam Hussein's a government plant?" "I'm saying I invented the guy. We set him up in '79. He rattles his saber whenever we need a good distraction. Ah... if you boys only knew how many of your stories I dreamed up while sitting on the pot." "What stories?" "I'm sorry, Melvin. That's classified." - Dreamland II, The X-Files

Go to Real Clear Politics and look on the right-hand side. Below Hussein's mugshot there should be links to statements from all the candidates.

7'6" noble fir, almost 8' with the angel.

I just wanted to say that "arsey little twat" made me laugh.

I just find the fact that you can say this right before this inexpressibly funny.