Do you have a problem with what

[Guest MikeSC]

 

It's called actually reading a post or two of yours.

 

Then I suggest you take some remedial reading classes because I have never bashed the military in my posts unless you're pulling some sort of "Bush is CIC so Bush bashing= military bashing" card.

 

As if I have the desire to do a post search on your name to provide examples.

 

Because you wouldn't find any examples that fit your point.

 

Go ahead and think you do more than bitch and moan, if it makes you all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

If pointing out how conservatives are wrong equals "bitching and moaning" you might have a point. Otherwise you're just engaging in more ass-talkery.

 

The BETTER question is why you even give two shits that I have little more than disdain for you.

 

Because I find it both hilarious and sad that you can summon up such intense feelings for people on the internet.

 

 

Not really. But feel free trying to continue to think.

 

Well you've made it clear you're a gung-ho war type of guy with no intention of ever taking part in the action yourself. Then again I guess it isn't a big deal when 90% of the republican hawks never served either.

I don't respect most people to start with, sek.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

That won't work. I tried that on him when he was attacking Kerry and Cleland's military service last summer.

Didn't insult their service. Just their incessant bitching about their service.

You're not just a talentless internet hack, but you're also a hell of a fucking liar.

 

Last summer you were so far up the Swift Boat Vet's asses you were practically going through reverse digestion. You spread some lies about Kerry's wounds, and accused Cleland of having his own limbs blown off by a grenade he was playing with. You even pulled out your patented "sandy vagina" metaphor then as well.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You'd actually feel even the tiniest bit of remorse for doing so?

 

Good God.

If you think regret doesn't happen on a battlefield, there's a bunch of guys who served in Vietnam that would like to talk to you.

 

I disagree yet still accept your position when it comes to terrorists, as they don't represent a country but a group that got together specifically in the interest of causing death and violence.

 

In the other cases, though, there is a difference between political leaders and soldiers who are causing atrocities and people who just happen to be affiliated with them .Your average Nazi wasn't routinely gassing Jews. Your average Communist probably didn't do anything other than wind up living in a Communist country, likely not by choice.

 

Try reading ACTUAL sources.

(...)

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040316-085118-1135r.htm

 

WashTimes Op-Ed. Nice ACTUAL sources there, man.

 

http://www.danielpipes.org/394.pdf

 

Nothing is said that hasn't been said by the religious right. That their religion should be the controlling one, all our answers can be found in their book, and they should refuse to secularize their lifestyles.

 

This puts that guy in the category of creeps, to me, but more like Christian Coalition than Osama bin-Laden.

 

http://www.cair-net.org/downloads/TAPPSletter.pdf and http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=a...1366&theType=NR (just to clarify, they're upset about a PRIVATE group, not a public one)

 

How dare they! Don't they know that privatization grants immunity to criticism!?

[Guest MikeSC]

You'd actually feel even the tiniest bit of remorse for doing so?

 

Good God.

If you think regret doesn't happen on a battlefield, there's a bunch of guys who served in Vietnam that would like to talk to you.

 

Try reading ACTUAL sources.

(...)

A lot of the people they were fighting were forced to fight out of fear of being killed by the VC if they did not. And they had to fight harder because the S. Vietnam army had a nasty habit of folding without a lot of help from us.

 

However, they see somebody who uses a kid as a bomb and ask them if they had a problem killing them.

In the other cases, though, there is a difference between political leaders and soldiers who are causing atrocities and people who just happen to be affiliated with them .Your average Nazi wasn't routinely gassing Jews. Your average Communist probably didn't do anything other than wind up living in a Communist country, likely not by choice.

You're actually right about some of the Communists. A LOT of them, however, joined for the benefits and that is simply taking money from evil. How many of these people ran the gulags? How many of them had no problem rounding people up for the show trials?

 

And I'll even agree on the younger Nazis, who genuinely did not know better (the one thing Hitler did understand was that if you control the kids, you're in power forever). The older ones who DID know better, however, deserve no sympathy. Sorry.

http://www.danielpipes.org/394.pdf

 

Nothing is said that hasn't been said by the religious right. That their religion should be the controlling one, all our answers can be found in their book, and they should refuse to secularize their lifestyles.

Oh that is utter bullshit. There is not a Christian who wants a government controlled by the Church. Even Robertson and Falwell never asked for that. Don't even attempt to argue that the Islamofascists are comparable to the religious right. The religious right don't call for the extermination of all people who don't believe just as they believe.

 

The Islamofascists do.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040316-085118-1135r.htm

 

WashTimes Op-Ed. Nice ACTUAL sources there, man.

It actually makes a cogent argument. However, no need to read it if you wish not to.

This puts that guy in the category of creeps, to me, but more like Christian Coalition than Osama bin-Laden.

They're not even close. The Christian Coalition does not want total control of the country.

http://www.cair-net.org/downloads/TAPPSletter.pdf and http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=a...1366&theType=NR (just to clarify, they're upset about a PRIVATE group, not a public one)

 

How dare they! Don't they know that privatization grants immunity to criticism!?

Yeah, it actually DOES protect you from demands of gov't interference to stop it.

 

Otherwise, we could figure out every mosque and school the Saudi gov't supports and shut them down, considering the lovely things Wahhabism teaches. -=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

By the way, Mike...

 

 

A serach for just "cair" turned up two results, both of which were a portion of the word Cairo.

 

Would you like to throw another dart at your Wheel 'O Debate and come up with a new arguement, or call it a day?

[Guest MikeSC]

By the way, Mike...

 

 

A serach for just "cair" turned up two results, both of which were a portion of the word Cairo.

 

Would you like to throw another dart at your Wheel 'O Debate and come up with a new arguement, or call it a day?

Astonishing, since Schumer referred to Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmed explicitly.

 

Not exactly solid work ya did there.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Schumer referred to Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmed explicitly.

 

 

While the Schumer quotes referenced do exist, they do not appear in this 800+ page document that you were saying did and was telling us to find ourselves.

 

Admit it, you were bullshitting.

 

Now are you done, or are you gunning for a THIRD embarassment?

[Guest MikeSC]

Schumer referred to Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmed explicitly.

 

 

While the Schumer quotes referenced do exist, they do not appear in this 800+ page document that you were saying did and was telling us to find ourselves.

 

Admit it, you were bullshitting.

 

Now are you done, or are you gunning for a THIRD embarassment?

Seeing as how I've never read FrontPageMag --- not quite.

-=Mike

...If it makes you feel better, a verbatim quote from John Kyl in his friggin OPENING statement:

 

'Next, we will hear from Matthew Epstein, a terrorism expert and lawyer specializing in terror finance and Assistant Director with the Investigative Project here in Washington. Mr. Epstein will provide testimony on the network of American Muslim organizations -- the majority of which are recipients of the very Saudi largesse Mr. Henderson will outline. Mr. Epstein will highlight their long history of sympathy, coordination and support for terrorist groups. As an example he will focus on a group that we, here on the Hill, are very familiar with, namely the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR. Members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations were invited to testify today on this important anniversary, an opportunity that this Subcommittee offered so that the organization could have its say about the serious allegations concerning its funding, ideology, leadership, and foreign and domestic networks. CAIR declined the Subcommittee’s invitation. CAIR has submitted a statement for the record."

 

And this was EXTREMELY early in the entire report. I've not even gotten to Schumer.

[SuperJerk 0]

Jesus, Mike, just shut the fuck up already. You LOST.

[Guest MikeSC]

Jesus, Mike, just shut the fuck up already. You LOST.

Nah. I'm still dead-on balls accurate.

 

But, watching you flounder is fun.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

To fight on after you've obviously lost is a great sign of gusto. Well done, old chap.

[Guest MikeSC]

To fight on after you've obviously lost is a great sign of gusto. Well done, old chap.

Are you going to threaten to kick my ass or something now?

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

To fight on after you've obviously lost is a great sign of gusto.  Well done, old chap.

Are you going to threaten to kick my ass or something now?

-=Mike

I bet you wish I'd do something to your ass.

 

 

(Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you're not my type.)

[Styles 0]

oooookk.....curiously, RobotJerk, did you previously go by another screen name around these parts? Because I don't remember seeing you around here much, so I'm assuming you're a regular who changed his name. ?

[SuperJerk 0]

Until about a week ago I was Y2Jerk.

[Styles 0]

To fight on after you've obviously lost is a great sign of gusto.  Well done, old chap.

Are you going to threaten to kick my ass or something now?

-=Mike

I bet you wish I'd do something to your ass.

 

 

(Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you're not my type.)

I love how liberals get all PC with their insults.

 

"You want me to do something to your ass don't you? Not that there's anything wrong with that of course. People should be allowed to practice whatever lifestyle they choose to as long as they don't impede on anybody else. You're still a bitch, not that I'm insulting women here, who deserve the same respect and oppurtunities as men, but I will fuck you up....not that violence is ever the answer, especially hate crimes..."

[Styles 0]

Until about a week ago I was Y2Jerk.

OK, thanks.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

RobotJerk: I had considered that, but decided to give the fellow the benefit of the doubt, since he was so keen on only using "actual" sources.

 

MikeSC: Nah. I'll permit you to find it.

 

As I used the amazing little-known (sense the sarcasm?) search tool in Adobe Reader and found nothing about CAIR in it, you lost plain and simple.

 

At this point, you are like a man shouting "And another thing!!" 10 minutes after he lost the arguement.

[SuperJerk 0]

To fight on after you've obviously lost is a great sign of gusto.  Well done, old chap.

Are you going to threaten to kick my ass or something now?

-=Mike

I bet you wish I'd do something to your ass.

 

 

(Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you're not my type.)

I love how liberals get all PC with their insults.

 

"You want me to do something to your ass don't you? Not that there's anything wrong with that of course. People should be allowed to practice whatever lifestyle they choose to as long as they don't impede on anybody else. You're still a bitch, not that I'm insulting women here, who deserve the same respect and oppurtunities as men, but I will fuck you up....not that violence is ever the answer, especially hate crimes..."

You got me.

 

 

 

Actually, I was trying to taunt him because I figured he was probably anti-gay.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Mike isn't anti-gay. He's just waiting for people to give him good reasons to be pro-gay.

[EricMM 0]

I think he doesn't hate gay people as much as someone who tries to convince him that hating gays is wrong.

 

Because thats a conservative staple. And everything Conservative is right.

 

Maybe if we can convice people it's okay for gays to marry, but even MORE okay to hate them at the same time, Mike will agree.

[Vern Gagne 0]

I'm just against the idea of a union between two of gay or lesbian couples being called "marriage". No problem with civil unions, where they receive the same benefits. Just want to keep certain things traditional.

 

Know before somene asked. What does matter to you if they're married. No it probably won't affect me personally. Just something I believe, based a lot on what the term has always meant.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Red-state homophobe...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

burp.

Edited February 7, 2005 by Jobber of the Week

[Ripper 0]

what the fuck happend to this thread?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'm just against the idea of a union between two of gay or lesbian couples being called "marriage". No problem with civil unions, where they receive the same benefits. Just want to keep certain things traditional.

 

Know before somene asked. What does matter to you if they're married. No it probably won't affect me personally. Just something I believe, based a lot on what the term has always meant.

They don't receive the same benefits under civil unions.

[2GOLD 0]

I'm just against the idea of a union between two of gay or lesbian couples being called "marriage". No problem with civil unions, where they receive the same benefits. Just want to keep certain things traditional.

 

Know before somene asked. What does matter to you if they're married. No it probably won't affect me personally. Just something I believe, based a lot on what the term has always meant.

They don't receive the same benefits under civil unions.

 

His point being he'd be for that.

 

Me? I don't care.

Married, fine whatever.

Civil Union, fine whatever.

Just tired of hearing "God", "The bible", and stuff like that as the only reason they shouldn't be allowed to be married.

 

If someone has reasons beyond God and the bible for why they don't want gays married, I'd love to hear them. Hell, I'd even have much more respect for people who have reasons instead of a book not everyone on the planet worships or gets married too.

[Vern Gagne 0]

what the fuck happend to this thread?

What happens to any thread longer than 1 page in CE?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

what the fuck happend to this thread?

What happens to any thread longer than 1 page in CE?

Damn, beat me to the punch...

[NoCalMike 0]

I'm just against the idea of a union between two of gay or lesbian couples being called "marriage". No problem with civil unions, where they receive the same benefits. Just want to keep certain things traditional.

 

Know before somene asked. What does matter to you if they're married. No it probably won't affect me personally. Just something I believe, based a lot on what the term has always meant.

They don't receive the same benefits under civil unions.

 

His point being he'd be for that.

 

Me? I don't care.

Married, fine whatever.

Civil Union, fine whatever.

Just tired of hearing "God", "The bible", and stuff like that as the only reason they shouldn't be allowed to be married.

 

If someone has reasons beyond God and the bible for why they don't want gays married, I'd love to hear them. Hell, I'd even have much more respect for people who have reasons instead of a book not everyone on the planet worships or gets married too.

Actually using "god" or "bible" as an argument at all would be ridiculous, since I can become an ordained minister of my very own made up religion, for I believe $35 and some paperwork downtown, and thus I could make up my own "holy book" saying that it is perfectly ok for gays to get married. The Marriage aspect, may very well be a religious conotation, but the civil union itself, which garners rights to a couple has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION, it has to do with the state, and if we allow domestic partnership benefits, why not allow civil unions, and then if a church wants to marry gay couples, which some are completely willing to do, then allow them to do so.