Justice
-
Posts
2487 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Justice
-
-
Honestly, I have NO problem with you or anyone else who agrees with you. Each and every person as a right to believe whatever they choose to believe in. I happen to have distrust for most everyone, not just politicians
I'm not a bad guy once ya get to know me bro. I just get over-emotional with my theories sometimes, no malice is intended.
I understand what you mean. Arguments get heated, etc, etc... It happens to me often enough that I get what you mean. I think everyone on this board is MUCH MUCH MUCH different in reality than what they show here.
-
And I love it how conservatives change the subject to humanitarian aide when this was barely spoken of back when things were getting started.
Here's a hint: It's not just other countries who wouldn't have gone along with this sort of thing. Do you really think Johnny Redneck cares if Iraq's a democracy or not? Bush wanted to bomb a country, so all of a sudden they have non-existant WMD to get the country up into a frenzy of Bush support for the war. At least, that's how it played out to me.
Of course, when you say non-existant you are literally going against 12 years of something that was universally believed to be fact by the UN, the US, and NATO. To say that we just made this up all of a sudden by Bush is utter BS. The fact that people believed it then and still believe it now is because it is what every intelligence agency in the World and the UN has told us since the first Gulf War.
Actually, Kamui, a lot of people in the US probably would have supported a war in Iraq. We give out more international aid than any country in the world today and send troops just about anywhere and everywhere. We are a very compassionate nation. The fact was that we originally DIDN'T want go in without the UN and we had to drum up UN support somehow, so Bush focused on something that could disrupt the said Status Quo: WMDs. If we had just went in alone, though, humanitarian reasons would have been enough for the average US Citizen. Hell, I believe Tyler said he would have supported an action had Bush used the Humanitarian reasons. He's a pretty good chunk of what most liberals are. And most conservatives wuodl have no problem eliminating Saddam from the region.
-
Oh, I do question things. But then again, I don't make moronic conspiracy suggestions like you did a while back when you suggested that the Bush Administration somehow caused 9-11 or willingly allowed it to happen in some way. Of course, if I'm a sheep for thinking that my government would never commit such a henious act on its own people....
Edit: Okay then, no flamewar. Truce for now.
-
Question: If American troops were rushing towards you, would YOU want to be found in possession of WMDs? In all likelihood they probably buried them or hid them so they themselves wouldn't go down with Saddam as a war criminal. It's a better defense to say "We didn't have any!" compared to "Well, we did... but we SWEAR we weren't going to use them, no-siree."
This is a great excuse, but it would sound more accurate if you guys were throwing it out there as a possiblity when the war was starting.
Conservatives Then: "We'll find those WMD right away- they've got them by the PILE FULL, right in a big storage facility with WMD R Us in big neon letters hanging over it, so we'll confiscate all of it then march into Washington with our heads held high!"
Conservatives Now: "......Well, umm, they got rid of it all before we made it there! Yeah...."
Of course, I love how liberals refuse to acknowledge that while Bush cited WMDs to try and get international support, they completely forget the humanitarian reasons behind it. Bitch all you want about WMDs, but there are a dozen other reasons that justify the current action.
Then again, one could consider the fact that decades after the Nazis were defeated we were still finding documents and stashes of gold and such in the mountains of Austria, and they weren't in power as long as Saddam was.
Clue: I'm sure if the world and UN would have cared that the people of Iraq were suffering under Saddam he would have used that as his main reason. Of course, that flew out the window when they did practically nothing when Iraq booted them out in 1998.
Gotta love that Status Quo the world keeps so often...
-
Can't we just pick another Republican more intelligent, qualified, charismatic, and open to compromise?
*Malfunction in Brain* Statement does not compute...Meltdown commencing....
Of course, it doesn't take that much to overload your brain.
"Oh, hey there."
"... Information Overload. System Crash in 5..."
Fun Theory of the day: Mikey Moore would get 15-20% of the vote if he ran for President right now.If he were the ONLY Democratic Candidate against Bush? Yes.
If he were running as a third party? I'd say he'd get less than Pat Buchanan, and that's pushing it.
cartman: Continuing to set the standard for stupidity at TSM.
-
Wait until when. The worthless UN does something. Hussein was in violation of numerous resolutions, and should of been removed from power even sooner than he was.
Yeah, which is why he should have been removed during, you know, the first Gulf War.
Exactly. But the UN didn't want to do anything more, and Colin Powell deterred Bush because he was extremely worried about how the power-vacuum would be filled. We all dropped the ball, admittedly. So are we just going to look at it sitting on the ground or actually pick it back up again?
-
.....So where are these weapons again?
/begins planning to search for WMD in the Dark Dimension. WATCH OUT FOR GOLDAR~!!
Aww, liberal love-in! Group hug, everyone! Group hug!
Question: If American troops were rushing towards you, would YOU want to be found in possession of WMDs? In all likelihood they probably buried them or hid them so they themselves wouldn't go down with Saddam as a war criminal. It's a better defense to say "We didn't have any!" compared to "Well, we did... but we SWEAR we weren't going to use them, no-siree."
So if they had the capability to launch them in such a quick time, and they were in the armies hands, who were unwilling to fight, why didn't they just hand them over to the Americans?Damn you Kam, you beat me.
Again, they probably didn't want someone to even ASSUME that they had WMDs so there was a possibility they could get implicated in their potential use. But whatever.
Conservatives were boo hooing after a month when inspectors didn't find anything, and now they want years.Tyler, we've been doing the same inspections in Iraq for 12 years and we've ALWAYS been jerked around. There is a difference between doing inspections while the Despotic regieme is there and when it isn't because the Despotic Regieme can thwart and block and move everything before yuo get there. I personally loved Blix's "I'm going to announce where we are going... the day before." just to make sure they could get everything out of the way.
Honestly, do you think we could do an accurate investigation of the Stalinist Purges with Stalin still in power?
-
she aint running in 2004......just let it go for gawd sakes. (and if she does happen too, I will apologize for being wrong).
She'd be a better candidate than anyone I see in the field. /shrug
I didn't mean it as a criticsm- I don't care if she runs or not, I don't mind her or anything (in fact, as I said above, I like her more than what I've seen of the Dem candidates so far). We'll see what happens, I guess.
If she doesn't run now and the Dems lose in '04, then it's a given she's running in '08, though. And I'd be INCREDIBLY surprised if she loses.
I'm gonna call BS on this one. Hillary is quite possibly one of the worst candidates that can be put up by the Democrats because she stands for everything that the Democrats want to get rid of; no platform, only bashing Bush, carries tons of baggage and enemies from her husband's administration with only a fraction of his charisma, and the polarizing effect she has on her party (There are many dems out there who do NOT like her at all) and outside of it (There are NO Republicans who like her at all). She couldn't take a swing vote if she wanted because she's way too busy either 1) Bashing Bush or 2) Bashing Bush while never putting forth an actual alternative.
You have a better chance with Dean or Kerry or hell, even Kucinich than Hillary Clinton. If the Democrats are smart they'll NEVER let Hillary come in because that means the Republicans will get either Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell to run to counteract the whole "She's a woman running for president" thing, and you DON'T DON'T DON'T want that.
Just some friendly advice there.
-
Okay, the joke's offically dead now, guys.
This & the "EVOLUTION IS A [bLANK]~!!!" joke on the WWE board proves that if you want a joke killed- GO TO TSM~!!!
Hey, I still laugh my ass off at "EVOLUTION IS A PISSED MARINE!"
-
Very nice stuff. I think you need to work on how people talk (Elvis and Ghandi sound too much alike), but all the stuff down is hilarious. Bravo!
-
The Stretch muffler on the smackdown games is the leg move brock did.
I'm pretty sure a stretch muffler just standing back up, not sitting backwards on the guys back. But maybe I'm wrong...
-
Although, I do wonder if Rush will take himself up on his offer, sending all drug addicts to jail...
Of course we've never prosecuted people who have willingly gone into rehab (Unless it was on drug-dealing charges or other things). If you have the will-power to do that then you've obviously shown greater willpower than those we catch. Though it all depends on how one views it, I suppose.
-
Personally I'd like to see Condoleeza Rice go for it against Hillary. I think she could utterly stomp her because she lacks any real enemies while Clinton has no friends on the right side of the aisle and even causes bitter looks among some Democrats.
-
Heck, and Detroit does that WITHOUT competent sports teams to really get those riot numbers.
MAN, if the Tigers or Lions ever became competent, that place would be quite horrible.
-=Mike
They have the Red Wings. And before anyone pulls the 'Americans don't care about hockey' card, I don't think that applies to 'Hockeytown'.
But imagine the riots if the Lions became good.
What if they won the Super Bowl?
I mean riots ON TOP of hell freezing over?
-=Mike
There wouldn't be any riots. We'd just be sitting at our T.V.s, mouthes agape and staring in disbelief.
-
Heck, and Detroit does that WITHOUT competent sports teams to really get those riot numbers.
MAN, if the Tigers or Lions ever became competent, that place would be quite horrible.
-=Mike
They have the Red Wings. And before anyone pulls the 'Americans don't care about hockey' card, I don't think that applies to 'Hockeytown'.
Thank you, TC. We are almost as rabid as Montreal and Toronto fans (It's up for debate, but I honestly think you guys edge us out) when it comes to Hockey.
And I find it funny that while Detroit is on top, you have three places that are relatively close to it on the safest list. Hell, Detroit doesn't even make the top 25 on the Dangerous Metro Areas list. I suppose you could call that "containment" in a way...
-
That's a really touching promo, man. For all your hard times, you really have a storied guy there. Have a fun time on the outside and I hope to see you back soon, man.
-
Anyone got a picture of him on Raw? I wasn't able to catch it...
-
Boy do the Democrats need to get their acts together. Although I think that either Dean-Sharpton or Dean-Kerry would be a fantastic combination. No joking.
... The Democratic ticket continues to plummet like a wounded duck. Seriously, if Dean (Who honestly looks like he'll take the nomination) wants a chance to win he should consider running alone with this field of candidates...
-
Hardcore Match
"Judge Mental" William Hearford vs. Terrence "Janus" Bailey
Well, Janus was all set to challenge for the HCG Title tonight... only to be sidelined as Wildchild was called back to the Bahamas for a family emergency. Janus had his heart just set on brutalizing someone. Commissioner Stevens suggested he try his hand at a former hardcore legend of the SWF, and Terrence thought that sounded neat. Judge Mental could not be reached for comment.
.....fufufufufufufufufufufufufu. </anime laugh>
Quick question though - Judge, you're still the 'anti hardcore' thing, aren't you? Prefer real wrestling over clobbering people with weapons?
Meh, I claim it, but he'll still cheat and expect the chain to at least make one appearance.
-
...go pretend to get shot, asshole.
Murderer.
OMG FLAME BAITING OUTSIDE THE FLAME BAITING FOLDER!!11!
(Y)!
You still remember
! -
HA! You are now!
*Does victory dance*
-
Jobber, I'm sad that you didn't include me in there.
Powerplay: I don't know what is going on, but Jobber and Tyler here so I tagged along.
-
That sure beats the liberal stranglehold on high school education, college education, basic television, the rest of cable television, Time magazine, NY Times, LA Times, Newsweek, Reuters News wire... need I go on?
And I'll call bullshit on this one.
If you've read the current statistics from CNN, you'd realize that 59% of people in the age demographic of 18-30 recognize themselves as conservatives. High school education? Please. Recognize that most high school teachers will state that "I won't give my opinion because I don't want it to influence yours." Did anyone else have teachers like that, because I sure did.
They STATE that, but it doesn't necessarily mean they will. Most high school teachers that I've run into (Plus the ones my mother works with in the Detriot School System) are liberals and often show a bit of it through how they teach. Maybe not the math teachers, but the History and Poly Sci people generally show it off through their teaching. Maybe it's not a massively huge influence, but it is a sizable one and to deny that it's there is foolish. Of course, you seemed to be so biased to the liberal side that you probably didn't notice it as much as someone, say, on my side of the fence would.
College education is yet another matter. From the Boston Globe Magazine, this past week, 41% of college students consider themselves to be conservative, born-again Christians. Consider that this view is also extremely intolerable to any other viewpoint. So, if you are Jewish, Protestant, Buddhist, etc. you are all going to hell. Include me on this list.I honestly haven't seen it on my campus. Then again, a vast majority of college students to have a political viewpoint: they are completely indifferent to politics. And of course, intolerance is a must here...
Apparently nobody also watches Nightline here, as Koppel just did a piece on how some students in America, who are conservative, feel the need to eliminate any liberal teachers from America, because they are churning out unpatriotic citizens. In other words, if you aren't conservative, then you shouldn't teach. "Only teach views that are supportive and pro-America."Actually, the majority of us College Republicans don't mind liberal teachers per se, it's only the ones who tend to have it vastly influence their teachings that should be gone. My roommate had a teacher like this last year, a complete fem-nazi. She made both his and a half dozen other conservatives in the room utterly miserable with her rants on everything from AA to Abortion, which is not what he is paying for at college. Are liberal teachers bad? No, becasue my favorite law teacher is quite the liberal. He just tends to keep it on the side. But the ones getting Party dispatches and relaying it to us should be complained about and should go.
Time magazine is centrist, I hate to break it to you. It more often than not tries to get both sides to a story out, and let's the reader decide. How about the recent article on why people love or hate Bush? It merely presented both sides without trying to persuade you to believe one or the other.Debatable, depending on the article. It's not massively liberal, but it shares a bit of a tint. I personally like how they called Bush's approval ratings at the moment ominious considering they are higher than any of the last three presidents at this time in their presidency (Clinton had around 45% at this time). But whatever.
The New York Times? Liberal? Beats me. The LA Times is another story. Print journalism that is conservative as well: Washington Post, Weekly Standard (which gets advertised on such "liberal" networks like CNN and MSNBC), Boston Globe, Boston Herald.All your credibility you had went out the window when you said that the New York Times isn't liberal. Often the big papers tend to be liberal (NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, SF Chronicle, Detroit Free Press). Though they do have smaller conservative counterparts: Detroit News, NY Post, Washington Times ( I believe).
CNN and MSNBC tend to be liberal in their news reporting. Not as blantant as Fox tends to be conservative, but they have a liberal slant, like it or not.
In conclusion: I think that you have failed to prove that there is a liberal stranglehold on high school education, college education, print journalism, broadcast journalism, and the like. I think you've failed to prove anything. Which, evidently, seems to be a disturbing trend lately.Wildbomb, more and more your are turning out to be a less informed, further left version of Tyler. Congrats.
-
And that is absolutely irrelevant. I --- who have NO experience with an AK-47 whatsoever --- could perforate you in moments with one. Heck, UNTRAINED people could well be MORE dangerous as they'll kill people they don't intend to kill.
-=Mike
Thanks for backing up my point for me.
-Duo
So the kid could have killed that soldier, the soldier standing next to him, and an Iraqi that was in the background, and had nothing to do with the entire incident.
Doesn't exactly help prove your point there.
No, it helps my point that the soldier did the right thing by taking him down in a non-lethal fashion, since if the kid wasn't trained, who knows what he actually meant to do with the rifle compared to what he would actually end up doing with it. I still maintain the kid didn't deserve to die and the soldier did the right thing, and this helps my point.
-Duo
Well, training doesn't figure into intent. Whether or not he was trained doesn't mean he was intending to cause harm to those infront of him; it doesn't matter if he's a good shot or not if he is going to start shooting, and in all likelihood that would lead to innocent people being killed. I think that's the idea being put across here.
WMD Could've Been Launched in 45 Minutes
in Current Events
Posted
I don't remember them focusing on this in particular, but we DO actually have a connection between one of the 9/11 hijackers and Iraqi intelligence agents. I believe we've discovered that they met in Vienna a few times and an envelope was exchanging , but what was discussed and all that jazz is unknown. They most likely didn't plan any of 9/11, but they did have connections to Al Quadia.
And they did play up quite a bit that Saddam gave the $25,000 to families of Suicide Bombers in Palestine and talked of possible terrorist camps in Iraq as well. I remember quite it distinctly.