Firestarter

Watch out, CC, or he'll call you an idiot. That'll put you in your place.

Don't confuse him.

I'm the only one who gives orders to my girls, mister. You want a drink, go to the bar...

Here's a quarter, kid. Go buy yourself a better pair of glasses.

Whoa Nelly, I sure wouldn't want that to happen! I mean he might slander my good name!

Am I the only one who finds it highly amusing that someone voted both worst and least popular poster is trying to defend his "good name?" I mean seriously, what on earth? Isn't it obvious that if you get those awards you don't have much of a "good name" to defend?

With a what face?

Objection; the witness has uttered a willful falsehood.

I think the point is more that no one expects anyone to think anything like Moore.

I call mistress d'affaires. <cracks whip> WJM, you're way behind on your tabs... bend over.

To hell with Rush Limbaugh. Didn't he once say that if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't be worried? So why's he worried?

How outrageous that you would even presume that. Your "outrage" is comical given your earlier reactions. Is it even you speaking? Because, honestly, JotW is usually more animated and intelligent than this. Or is this entire exchange being crossposted to the SomethingAwful forums again by whoever took over your member ID the last time?

How relevant... oh wait, it's not. Christopher Reeve decided to fund research into spinal paralysis when HE was paralysed by a spinal cord injury. Your pretense that his decision to fund spinal paralysis research was a product of his "intestinal fortitude," and that is a joke. A stupid, ignorant, and baseless joke. "Continued to support" means that he supported "the causes he felt strongly for" BEFORE his "life shattering tragedy." He didn't. He never had anything to do with "the causes (you claim) he felt strongly for" before his "life shattering tragedy." He didn't feel strongly about research into spinal paralysis. He feels strongly about it now because HE'S GOT IT. Jesus Christ, I don't know how much simpler I can make it. But it's not about that, is it? You understand the point very well. You're just pretending you don't because your massive ego can't stand being proven wrong. Too bad, kid. You've already been hung out to dry, so try to take it like a man.

Yeah, like all his donations to research centers for paralysis and spinal cord injuries before 1995. Please don't make me laugh. Reeve's "support" for the "cause" is purely self-interested and about as praiseworthy as Magic Johnson's interest in a cure for AIDS. Don't ask me to admire them, don't ask me to give a flying fuck about their activism, and unless you think pissing yourself when you see death looming on the horizon is an exercise in courage, shut up about their "intestinal fortitude."

Y'all talk funny.

Hey, are we still allowing foreign folks on this board?

I somehow doubt you'd be saying that if we'd captured him. We certainly can. What a revelation! Goodness, it's nice to have people like you around. Whatever would we do without such brilliant insight? Yes, but in order to coordinate anything on the scale of 9/11 you need state funding and state support. We aren't trying to eliminate every crazed Unabomber the world will ever produce. That has never been the goal of the War on Terror. That's a convenient name that you're conveniently misinterpreting in order to try to make people you dislike appear foolish. You're failing, though, because no one has ever defined this war as the kind of lunatic enterprise you're positing. We're talking about large-scale state-sponsored ideologically-based terrorism. That is what we are going to eliminate, through military action, intelligence gathering, and the inexorable spread of democracy. One firm, steady, irreversible step at a time. Precisely so. And, simultaneously, we need to eliminate the state actors who enable UBL and his ilk to carry out their evil on the scale that they do. That is exactly what we're doing now, and that is exactly what we're going to keep doing.

So basically... the only way to defeat terrorism is to become as vile and morally reprehensible as they are? What the hell are you talking about? Not using a particular spelling of "Moslem" makes me "as vile and morally reprehensible" as a terrorist? Jesus, and people call me a grammar nazi. You do realise that evil is never "morally justifiable" no matter what the provocation?

<completely ignoring the sarcasm> Quite correct.

Sickening ploy. Time never supported the war, the country, the President, or the troops. They're just covering their rears by wrapping themselves up in phony bandwagon patriotism.

Absolutely. And the funny thing is that they'll be saying what we're saying right now, but without the qualifiers - he's just one man but he happens to be a symbol and a major player in the game. Capturing or killing him won't end the war but it will bring us closer to the end and shorten the war. It's a PR victory but it is also a vindicator of past intelligence and a great help to future intelligence. It doesn't make us absolutely safe but it does make us safer. All these criticisms will be true to a degree - as they were of the capture of Saddam Hussein - but the extent to which they will take it is the problem. Does capturing Saddam Hussein matter? Yes it does - quite a bit. It demonstrates absolutely to the Iraqi people that he is not coming back. It demolishes his self-created mythology of being a reincarnated Moslem war-leader, undefeated by the West. Is it only a PR victory? No. It has PR aspects - it eliminates the last remaining hope of the Ba'athists - but it also has very material aspects, as demonstrated by the massive raids and captures immediately following Saddam Hussein's preliminary interrogations. Are we still in just as much danger? Well yes - but we are a little safer now, and so are the Iraqis. When we went in not just to destroy, capture, humiliate, and punish, but also to feed, rebuild, give, and restore liberty, we inextricably linked our welfare to the welfare of Iraq. Just as our destiny and Japan's became intertwined the moment we appointed General MacArthur Supreme Commander, our destiny and Iraq's are now one and the same. A free, prosperous, and safe Iraq is a sine qua non for a free, prosperous, and safe America. Anything that hurts Iraq hurts us, and by the same token, anything that helps Iraq and Iraqis helps America and Americans. The capture of Saddam Hussein was a blessing for the Iraqi people, and therefore it's also a blessing for us. As for Usama bin Laden - is he just one man? Well, yes. Will killing or capturing him matter? Yes it will. No matter that he's just one symbol in a war saturated with them - that'll be one symbol less. Will it be only a PR victory? No - although it'll have PR aspects - but just as in our capture of Saddam, capturing or killing UBL will have intelligence benefits as well. Will we be safer? Unquestionably. There will still be terrorists, so no, we won't be completely safe and the war on terror will not end - but we'll have eliminated another major terrorist, and disheartened many, many more. By refusing to accept any and all facts which do not work directly for their purely partisan advantage, the Democrats are throwing away the last pathetic shreds of credibility they have left.

Our "diplomacy" was mostly our war. Unless they want to start living in bunkers, from now on, they'll play nice.

Flame-bait me one more time and it gets reported. I'm not ignoring your crap any longer, so consider this a warning.

Hilarious.

Rumsfeld repeatedly made statements insinuating that he could find the WMD himself if the Iraqi government wasn't playing their inspectors shell games. Find me one direct quote in which the President stated that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. You can't. Why? Because he said precisely the opposite. And you are a liar. Stop lying. Stop trying to weasel your way out of your lies. Is your statement false or not? Do you or do you not admit that you lied when you made it?