Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted December 17, 2003 Right, but looking beyond what justifies invading a country, if we have a NEED to invade a country, we can't. Our hands are tied unless we can get some more assistance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted December 17, 2003 We kept having our Terror Alerts bumped to Orange in the past few years, with the government swearing honest to God there could be a terrorist attack sometime soon. It never happened There you go. You and everyone else still alive are welcome. who's to say it couldn't have? It could have indeed. It didn't. Thanks for making my point. It's also sad that you no-sold everything else I said from the cutting & spending to the Free Speech Zones. 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. The US Army has 31 brigades. Approximately. We have 33 brigades on active duty. The government usually likes to have 1/3rd of the brigades in battle, 1/3rd on standby, and 1/3rd resting. "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. We are currently using 21 of the brigades in the war on terror. False. We are currently using 21 total. What happens if a North Korea or some other country attacks us? North Korea does not have the ability to openly attack the United States. We don't have the resources. We don't have the troops to fight that. 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted December 17, 2003 They said before the war that we have the ability to fight Iraq and North Korea at the same time and still have plenty of soldiers in reserve. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted December 17, 2003 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. First off, I'm not familiar with the guy involved here, but seeing that he was one of the "No blood for oil" people, I'm probably not the most supportive of his causes. It's the principle of free-speech zones I'm against. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/04/...ain586959.shtml Again, I'm not going to make a commentary on the ACLU's case to have the zones moved closer to the President. I'm more shocked that we have "Free Speech Zones" in this country in the first place. Should the Secret Service be able to keep a bubble around the President empty for the his safety? Of course. But literally setting aside certain locations for dissent and saying that your constitutional right to free speech is exempt outside of it leaves me speechless. 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. Uh, okay... But I was talking about invasion here, not obliteration. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted December 17, 2003 They said before the war that we have the ability to fight Iraq and North Korea at the same time and still have plenty of soldiers in reserve. 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted December 17, 2003 I'm not going to make a commentary on the ACLU's case to have the zones moved closer to the President. I'm more shocked that we have "Free Speech Zones" in this country in the first place... literally setting aside certain locations for dissent and saying that your constitutional right to free speech is exempt outside of it leaves me speechless. Oh yes. I remember this garbage. So you weren't allowed to get in the President's face and yell that he was a mass murderer and a corrupt moron. Big whoop. Try doing that to a private citizen and you'll have your ass thrown in jail for assault, intimidation, harassment, and stalking. You don't have the right to protest in the best position for a photo-op. There's no constitutional amendment that guarantees that. You have the right to protest. If the Secret Service decides that you might be a threat to the President's safety they have not only a right but a duty to move you. Bitch all you want, it's not an attack on free speech. You can still speak. You just can't do it in the President's face. Sorry.* * No I'm not. Uh, okay... But I was talking about invasion here, not obliteration. You said "what happens if someone else attacks us." I told you what could happen. The fact alone effectively renders the possibility of any open attack nonexistent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted December 17, 2003 Oh yes. I remember this garbage. So you weren't allowed to get in the President's face and yell that he was a mass murderer and a corrupt moron. Big whoop. I guess you just didn't read the rest where I was talking about how the the SS has every right to make a safety bubble around the President, but everything outside that bubble should be open, not the reverse. I don't care about the stupid suit and that the ACLU jumped on it. I'm not interested in people getting photo op's. I'm talking about the civil liberties behind the whole principle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted December 17, 2003 I guess you just didn't read the rest where I was talking about how the the SS has every right to make a safety bubble around the President, but everything outside that bubble should be open, not the reverse. I didn't see where the Secret Service told him to go to a specific spot and protest. They just moved him away from the President. So? I don't care about the stupid suit and that the ACLU jumped on it. I'm not interested in people getting photo op's. I'm talking about the civil liberties behind the whole principle. What principle? Seriously. What's the principle here? I'm asking this question in all honesty. What specific right do you think is being violated? It's not the right to protest. Bursey was allowed to protest. He was just made to do it in a spot which he felt was "out of sight of the president and the press." The Constitution does not guarantee that you will be seen by the President. The Constitution does not guarantee that you will get your picture in the newspapers. The Constitution does not force the President or any government agency to ensure that your face is televised nationwide. "My moment to speak out was taken away from me," says Neel. More accurately, Neel's fifteen minutes of fame were taken away from him. Go bitch at Andy Warhol. Go bitch at CNN. But don't bitch at the President, and don't bitch at me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted December 17, 2003 I find it hilarious that though he mentions that the "content of my sign was the problem" they don't tell you what he said IN the sign. It is a crime to threaten the President, has been for a while now and it didn't start with Bush II either. And I'll reserve my sympathies for prosters who are ignored for people like this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted December 17, 2003 You'd think a guy with the last name "Tomorrow" would have created an original concept anytime in the last 3 years. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted December 17, 2003 You'd think a guy with the last name "Tomorrow" would have created an original concept anytime in the last 3 years. -=Mike I didn't laugh at it either but, like him I suppose, I also wanted to roll my eyes when the ad he's parodying talked about people trying to stop the President from fighting "the terrorists." He was doing pretty well until he veered course from Al-Qaeda. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BX 0 Report post Posted December 17, 2003 You'd think a guy with the last name "Tomorrow" would have created an original concept anytime in the last 3 years. -=Mike Mike, what are the odds that this is the second or third time you've ever seen a Tom Tomorrow strip? You don't strike me as the type that would go out pick up a newspaper that carries the strip, only because the only newspapers that carry his strips are THE FUCKING GOD DAMN LIBERAL MEDIA that you hate so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted December 17, 2003 You'd think a guy with the last name "Tomorrow" would have created an original concept anytime in the last 3 years. -=Mike Mike, what are the odds that this is the second or third time you've ever seen a Tom Tomorrow strip? You don't strike me as the type that would go out pick up a newspaper that carries the strip, only because the only newspapers that carry his strips are THE FUCKING GOD DAMN LIBERAL MEDIA that you hate so. I've seen more than a few on the 'net, thanks just the same. You try, but as usual, you fail. Hmmm, seems like you're prejudiced towards me. Anti-Mike-ist! -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted December 17, 2003 I've seen more than a few on the 'net, thanks just the same. You try, but as usual, you fail. Hmmm, seems like you're prejudiced towards me. Anti-Mike-ist! -=Mike Aren't you just running the joke into the ground? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted December 17, 2003 I've seen more than a few on the 'net, thanks just the same. You try, but as usual, you fail. Hmmm, seems like you're prejudiced towards me. Anti-Mike-ist! -=Mike Aren't you just running the joke into the ground? That's the plan. Make anything that annoys me SO irritating to everybody else that is never uttered again. Censorship through sheer irritation. Come up with new lame catch phrases and I'll do the same. Heck, it killed off that lame-ass "LOLFAUXNEWS2003!" crap, didn't it? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted December 17, 2003 That's the plan. Make anything that annoys me SO irritating to everybody else that is never uttered again. Censorship through sheer irritation. Come up with new lame catch phrases and I'll do the same. Heck, it killed off that lame-ass "LOLFAUXNEWS2003!" crap, didn't it? -=Mike But the "LOLFAUXNEWS2003!" jokes haven't stopped. Now they serve no purpose. No one says "Faux News" anymore here. One annoying thing has been replaced by ANOTHER. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted December 17, 2003 That's the plan. Make anything that annoys me SO irritating to everybody else that is never uttered again. Censorship through sheer irritation. Come up with new lame catch phrases and I'll do the same. Heck, it killed off that lame-ass "LOLFAUXNEWS2003!" crap, didn't it? -=Mike But the "LOLFAUXNEWS2003!" jokes haven't stopped. Now they serve no purpose. No one says "Faux News" anymore here. One annoying thing has been replaced by ANOTHER. And WHY did "Faux News" stop? Because of this. We shall continue. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BX 0 Report post Posted December 17, 2003 As long as KKK sets them up (the catchphrases), you can keep knocking them down. That's all you've been reduced to. An endman for a "joke" that ran it's course before it even got on its feet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted December 17, 2003 Mike's my endman. Now get me something to drink, b*tch... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted December 17, 2003 As long as KKK sets them up (the catchphrases), you can keep knocking them down. That's all you've been reduced to. An endman for a "joke" that ran it's course before it even got on its feet. *yawn* -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BX 0 Report post Posted December 17, 2003 Like a little kid with a tee ball set. "Look KKK, I did it!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted December 17, 2003 If anything I'm Mike's b*tch. He bothers to debate the loony part of the TSM family -- I just read them and laugh. Now Mikey, did you go potty this time OK?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted December 17, 2003 If anything I'm Mike's b*tch. He bothers to debate the loony part of the TSM family -- I just read them and laugh. Now Mikey, did you go potty this time OK?... "I MAKE TINKY ALL BY MYSELF! YAY!" -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted December 30, 2003 (edited) More columns on Howard Dean: "What does Howard do now that he is being substantively challenged about his policies and his judgments and various misstatements and retractions?" Mr. Lieberman asked. "He goes to the Democratic Party leadership and complains we're being mean to him." - After Complaint, Dean Explains Himself to Party Chairman "I've got some news for Howard Dean," Lieberman added. "The primary campaign is a warm-up compared to what George Bush and Karl Rove have waiting for him." - Lieberman: Dean Will 'Melt' Under GOP Attacks The Washington Post reported that Dean admitted in an interview that while he planned to give his base the red meat it craved, "he (wouldn't) be talking like this during the general (election)." Quite an admission... - Howard Dean: The Democrats' death wish Mr. Dean also recently retreated from his position on Saddam Hussein. Actually, he's been all over the map on this issue, so it's not clear whether he's retreating or returning to a former position. A year ago, Mr. Dean said that - as reported in the Washington Post - "there is no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and our allies." He then spent the balance of 2003 opposing the dictator's ouster. Then after Saddam's capture, Mr. Dean said, "I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States." He also said, "The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will keep our soldiers in Iraq and around the world safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." Osama is out there as a campaign issue even if Mr. Dean can't decide exactly where he stands on catching or killing the terror lord. Mr. Dean has made himself out to be a snarling and possibly even rabid junkyard dog with a reputation of wanting to bite everyone. But good old Backsliding Dean appears not to want to bite the one man nearly every American wants to see get bit. - Backsliding Dean The last one, in the Wall Street Journal, is the best of the lot. All together now, one more time: Edited December 30, 2003 by Cancer Marney Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted December 30, 2003 The last couple of Democratic senators and Reps I have seen or spoken to have made it quite clear that the purpose of this election is not to lose badly. They just want 30% or more and even Dean can pull that in. Hell, Al Sharpton could pull in 30%. I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the arguments between the demos and the reps. It's fun to watch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted December 30, 2003 The last couple of Democratic senators and Reps I have seen or spoken to have made it quite clear that the purpose of this election is not to lose badly. They just want 30% or more That's very interesting. Not asking you to name names or anything, but I'm curious about what you do and where, and if you don't mind saying, for whom. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted December 30, 2003 The last couple of Democratic senators and Reps I have seen or spoken to have made it quite clear that the purpose of this election is not to lose badly. They just want 30% or more That's very interesting. Not asking you to name names or anything, but I'm curious about what you do and where, and if you don't mind saying, for whom. Reporter, small state. I'm not really going to get into it more than that. Most of the them were actually quite polite about it. Plus a few of them have came on tv (damned if I can remember, I'll have to see if I can't find the guys name) and said they aren't really expecting any of them to win. It's not like it's a huge secret. They don't expect it to win, they'd like to but if they don't but get 30% or more, it seems most of them will consider it a success. Same thing the Republicans were aiming for when Clinton ran again. Isn't that basic politics anyway? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted December 30, 2003 Admitting it is precisely the opposite of basic politics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted December 30, 2003 Admitting it is precisely the opposite of basic politics. Well, it was off the record anyway which is why I'm not going to say the one/ones who said it. For all anyone knows, it could be some small rep with no pull. You never know. If they had been stupid enough to say it ON the record, then I'd think they were morons. Not to mention, soon to be out of office morons. But when someone says "off the record" I keep it off. Cause being a full time news reporter? I'd rather have my b*lls yanked by a rope. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted December 30, 2003 Fot those who were too tired to read Marney's post, here's a one-sentence summary: Other candidates, Rush Limbaugh's brother, and the WSJ opinion page do not like Howard Dean. I am shocked, SHOCKED, to find gambling in here! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
