Justice

But... it's private funding.

*Cries a river*

Huh. I find a common feature in my arguments with a lot of liberals on campus is that "Can you honestly say that Iraq is better off with us than under Saddam?" Weird. I don't listen to Right Wing Radio, either, so I can't attest to any of that. I don't think it's a common feature outside of the extremes, but I hear it far more on the left than anywhere else. While I agree with the first statement (Planning on winning way too easily), I haven't heard anything of stretching our military forces thin. We have plenty of reservists and we can maintain a higher troop level pretty easily if Iraq is the only thing on our plate. We have easily enough troops to invade another country, though thankfully I doubt we'll stretch it that far. On Saddam not being a threat: That's great to say in hindsight, but with all the information presented (There was a great deal of intelligence saying Saddam had these weapons), right or wrong he made his actions built off intelligence said to be reliable. He made what he thought was a well-informed decision. I'm sure if Clinton had known that terrorists would get ballsy-er after the Cole he would have done a lot more, but it's all hindsight knowledge, so I can't blame him for doing what he did. The whole "Saddam wasn't a threat/No WMDs" is becoming a nice strawman because of all the hindsight.

That is textbook circular conservative thinking that the war was A. necessary and B. the only way to remove Saddam. The truth is conservatives simply no-sell the fact that Saddam in 2002/3 was not a threat to the US and that his reign was on the brink of collapsing under the weight of its own excesses. It happened in in all the communist countries of Europe, why not in Iraq? Uh, the proof that Saddam was going to collapse under his own excesses? He'd successfully made it so that the Embargo didn't actually harm him or his government in any way. Other problem is equating this with Communist Europe when it's a very different situtation: Communist Europe wasn't making any money. Saddam WAS making money, and a ton of it. It's doubtful that they would collapse similarly.

Surprisingly enough, besides Teke asking if it would be fine if someone had made such a comment during the Clinton inauguration, this entire matter stayed away from turning into a partisan debate. I'm not saying it was exactly mentioned, but the way the divide goes, it seemed like there were very partisan undertones. No offense, but I honestly see it being exactly reversed had it been Clinton, no matter what we say. Come on, we are CE Board people. We talk politics. Can we REALLY be trusted that much?

Wow, saw that post and saw that coming a mile away. I'm a bit torn on this: He didn't say he wanted to kill the President, though saying "One can only hope he gets a shot to the head" is pretty indicative of him actively wanting the death of the President. It's a stupid fucking thing to say, maybe deserving of a temporary ban, but I'm not sure a permanent ban is really necessary here. And, for the record, I hear this stuff way too much so I'm not really that offended at all. Stupid twats are fairly common if you haven't looked around in the world, and meeting one on the internet isn't all that surprising. Frankly, I'd like to see both sides shut the fuck up about the supposed 'partisan shit' behind this. I doubt Teke is acting on behalf of the Conservative Brigade here, and us conservatives need not act like he was acting insane or anything. Let's just look at it as is: He said stupid shit involving someone taking a sniper rifle to the President (Regardless of who the President is), and that sort of shit SHOULD be punished. I just might not agree on the severity.

Well, again, there's little to prove that anything near the extent he talked about actually occurred. I'm sure he heared some of it, but the whole "Thousands" and "Daily Basis" are horrible mistruths. And to note, of the 'many' brave soldiers, there were high-profile soldiers who had never served and were just acting for the Peace Movement (I believe in the same hearings that Kerry was apart of). Who is to say they were "mistruths" according to what documents or NEWS source? All you have done is called Kerry a liar over and over again, but shown little if nothing to back it up other then "well he is worse liar then SVBT" BOS's own article cites a very reputable book (Damn site is down, I can't remember the title of it), coupled with the fact that he even ADMITS that he embellished this, is why I call him a liar. There is little in the way of actually proving that anything NEAR the scale he said occurred in Vietnam. There literally is no proof. Everything cited in the article BOS posted says that attrocities occurred, but nothing more. If you have actual proof other than Oliver Stone movies, I'd really like to see it. Lord, you do know that some of the "courageous soldiers" that testified with Kerry never made it to Vietnam, and essentially lied through their teeth, right? I'm not saying it's wrong to speak out about attrocities; I have no problem at all with that. But to lie about them (Embellishing to an extreme degree is untruthful and lying, yes) is not courageous. When your lies force men to sign off contracts saying they are war criminals, you aren't being courageous. If you don't recognize that Kerry, through his gross exaggeration, basically dishonored thousands of soldiers, your blind.

Well, again, there's little to prove that anything near the extent he talked about actually occurred. I'm sure he heared some of it, but the whole "Thousands" and "Daily Basis" are horrible mistruths. And to note, of the 'many' brave soldiers, there were high-profile soldiers who had never served and were just acting for the Peace Movement (I believe in the same hearings that Kerry was apart of).

Ah, the lesbian fourway in chat...

... GET OFF MY LAWN! But in all seriousness, just remember this: We are people who are on the internet, writing stories about big, sweaty guys hitting each other for imaginary fame and gold. In my opinion, perhaps we really should go back to the lighter days of people just posting people in promos without permission needed as long as they don't rape the character completely or something like that. Not enough chaos, too much control. Of course, I'm old and senile. Take it all with a grain of salt. But I find a distinct lack of fun right now because it just seems too... businessy.

God damn boards. Uh... JUSTICE AND RULE > ANYONE!

Excellent stuff. Just a simple, assholish way of getting to someone. Reminds me of all the stuff Ejiro used to do: Childish, kinda stupid, but that's why it got to people. And the Bowers family doesn't appreciate the Christmas cards you sent.

cheating on your wife. He didn't get impeached for cheating on his wife, he got impeached for lying about it under oath. The SCOTUS has ruled that a wily defendant who gives evasive answers is not guilty of perjury. Homeboy was slick like that. Uh... I suppose that depends on your idea of 'sexual relations'. And maybe I missed this, but what court case is that?

Dude... It's Mad Dog Friday. It just doesn't work on any other day.

100? Jesus, that's an insane list. I don't think I can do it, to be honest: how can you really judge achievements in completely different areas against each other?

Source?! It's a well known fact that AC/DC's "Big Balls" song is supposed to be FDR speaking. Apparently he sounded like a gay british fop. o.0

Well, we do agree on something: This is inherently wrong. So that's all good. I don't believe that the higher-ups exactly approve of all this, though. It'd be hard for me to believe, just on the PR level alone. This was bound to get out, so why would they approve? I mean, I don't mind it, but I understand it's wrong and we can't do it. If they are like that, fair enough. But I don't think they've explicitly approved of any of this sort of behavior, otherwise why would they bring these soldier up on such charges? Yeah, I understand. This board makes everyone seem more extreme than they really are. Of course, I don't see Bush as being as bad as you think, but whatever. To say, though, we are 'eroding' global human rights is a bit too much to say. It's that talk that gets us to use the arguments that YPoV talks about, which continues this horrid misconception of us. :\ I won't talk of racial profiling, except that neither side (From a Law Major's point of view) has shown enough proof that it actually occurs or that it is right or wrong. There are no solid statistics to show any of it is really there, it's just pundits speaking out of their asses. We should drink together. I'm just across the damn river from you anyways. I'm sure we'd like each other better if we did...

Eh, Clinton spent 30 Million himself on his own second inauguration. Frankly, I'd rather see them be a bit more dignified, but I'd hardly attribute this to just Bush. :\ Edit: I picked other. I don't see a reason why any inauguration should be near that much. Can't we have something less expensive and more dignified?

Oh please, we are not all extreme conservative blowhards like Mike or Rush. You are just taking a misconception and using it as justification for a unjust view. Seriously, few conservatives I know approve of this, and I talk with a great range of extremes. The problem is, they find themselves asailed from all sides by people like C-Bacon who consider this standard practice among the US Military forces and hide behind a false cloak of 'international dignity' or some such false ideal. That's the only time I've EVER heard anyone I know use the Euro Nation defense. It's just the same as the "There were no WMDs defense": For all intents and purposes, the most intelligence gathered in Iraq was for the WMD argument, with info coming from the UN and other foreign intelligence agencies. NoCal can say "These arguments were around before!" but in all honesty, even Hans Blix only conceded it after the invasion. Sure, there was Joe Wilson, but the Senate says that Wilson was wrong and Bush was right in that case, even. Seriously, little argument was brought that he had no weapons until months after the invasion. Up until then, it was how to deal with the weapons that were there, not if they were there to begin with. Oh boy, am I drunk tonight.

Well, to be honest, does it truly matter? Think about this for a second: While they are stupid, Baathist fucks for killing our troops, we need to maintain a certain level of dignity. While I might not mind the humiliation, I understand that, on simple principle, it's wrong. We can't do it, because it's just not who we are. I'm all for locking them up, even executing them on site (As in, at the premises), but to do stupid, frat-boy shit like this is not the right way to handle it. :\ And yes, I am very, very inebriated. It's Mad Dog Friday, and I unknowingly agreed to this hell on Earth. May God forgive me.

For the same reason so many hawks think mainstream Arabs approve of Al Qaeda. Because you guys basically didn't make enough noise and let the extremists be viewed as the "norm." Some of us know better. Well, it depends on what you mean by 'making noise'. I didn't immediately damn Bush for this, yes, nor did I immediately reprimand the military or stuff like that. Like most conservatives, I wanted these people to be brought to justice. I'd rather make less commotion but do it in a better way than make a ton of it in all the wrong ways.

Why the fuck does everyone assume that every conservative approved of Abu Ghraib? I know I don't consider it torture, but it's humiliation and downright wrong nonetheless. Of course, overall I'd say still say we are better than most other countries. Hell, wasn't it the Belgian UN Soldiers that started a prostitution ring down in Congo, among other things? I mean, that's BELGIUM, for Pete's sake.

Mwuahahahahaha. Expect to get comments like "There weren't enough topless pictures in your match. What was with that?" and others. Feel free to resend your match with the appropriate revisions.

Ha. I have a bottle of Mad Dog Kiwi-Lemon in front of me. Marking tonight should be interesting. MAD DOG FRIDAY, BIATCH~!

You said that his lies were so great--greater than the SBVT...but he didn't really lie. He may have been overzealous and hyperbolic in his imagery--and in his old age he has admitted this. Bottom line: SBVT-lies Kerry-no lies, stupid use of imagery by a young idealist EDIT: My Lai was kinda Genghis Khan-ish, in my humble opinion. I don't care if you are being overzealous, he was still lying, whether or not you want to admit it. Yes, those attrocities happened. By "thousands of others" "on a day-to-day basis", though, is beyond exaggeration. The guy who wrote the whole book is full of shit. Kerry served honorably enough, I honestly don't think (now out of the entire fervor that the election put the board in) that Kerry would have done that shit. Just as well, his testimony as the Winter Soldier is very deceitful. I don't care if he was 'stuck in the heat of the movement', he basically lied his ass off when he describe the level of attrocities, which DID cause blowback against PoWs. He doesn't need to be convicted or anything, but he deserves to be scorned for it. On Mai Lai: It was horrible. I'll agree it's something Genghis Khan might have done, but what he said is much different. When we are talking about Genghis Khan, we are talking the continually butchering and ravaging of people, not one incident. Understand my view a bit better now?