4,000 dead Americans

[At Home 0]

Like I said, I was deadly serious. I can back up that allegation in every aspect - with the documented words of Joe Biden (a Democrat), Reverend Peterson (a black), Abd al-Rahman al-Rashid (a Mohammedan), Bruce Carroll, (a homosexual), and Alan Dershowitz (a liberal).

 

Y'all want to keep playing identity politics, despite how it's fucked you up the ass with your primaries? Fine with me.

 

And guess what? I'll beat you.

 

Marney, what's your definition of patriotism? Is it the kind of patriotism that's all about the fake tits, real beer, rah-rah flag waving bullshit to send kids to die in the desert on a lie? Then yeah, your Republican buddies are, in fact, more patriotic than Democrats (+ niggers, sand niggers, fags, jew liberals). Unless you're talking about the kind of patriotism that says, "Hey, our country is great, but let's start making real changes. Like helping poor people out, maybe, or putting people through college, or help facilitate building infrastructure."

 

It's great that you subscribe to the "I say it therefore it is truth" mentality, but for the rest of us, half-assed inflammatory remarks aren't just gonna pass muster for us misogynists here.

[Skywarp! 0]

Marney is somehow a dead-serious incarnation of Stephen Colbert's right wing caricature. With a sand-discharging vagina.

[At Home 0]

Marney is somehow a dead-serious incarnation of Stephen Colbert's right wing caricature. With a sand-discharging vagina.

 

Except Colbert was in Stranger With Candy, is pretty funny, and does not suck and die.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

Marney is somehow a dead-serious incarnation of Stephen Colbert's right wing caricature. With a sand-discharging vagina.

 

Except Colbert was in Stranger With Candy, is pretty funny, and does not suck and die.

 

Marney was in Strangers With Candy, actually. Three episode arc.

[Firestarter 0]

Alan Dershowitz (a liberal).

 

And a Jew, Jews are unpatriotic! Also, he's white! Whites are unpatriotic!

 

Joe Biden (a Democrat)

 

And a Catholic! Catholics are unpatriotic!

 

Bruce Carroll, (a homosexual)

 

And a male! Males are unpatriotic!

 

Reverend Peterson (a black)

 

And a Protestant! Et al ad infinitum

Congratulations; you managed to miss the point entirely in three different but equally asinine ways. That took some doing.

 

1. I wasn't calling any of the people I named unpatriotic.

 

2. If you had the slightest bit of common sense (I know, I'm reaching here) you might have realized that I named the people I did because they have all stated that they agree with me concerning their own particular groups.

 

3. I was demonstrating that identity politics are stupid. What matters are the arguments, not the people who make them. Unsurprisingly, this too was lost on you.

 

Why don't you go ahead and call everyone who disagrees with you "self-hating" now? That seems to be the preferred fallback line.

[Firestarter 0]

Is it the kind of patriotism that's all about the fake tits, real beer, rah-rah flag waving bullshit to send kids to die in the desert on a lie?

You really are an ass. Attempting to define away your problems is not an argument. Didn't you learn that when Clinton was impeached?

 

Unless you're talking about the kind of patriotism that says, "Hey, our country is great, but let's start making real changes. Like helping poor people out, maybe, or putting people through college, or help facilitate building infrastructure."

See above. Also, tell me how you'd do any of those things. Any answer consisting of "TAX THE RICH!!!" will not be accepted.

 

It's great that you subscribe to the "I say it therefore it is truth" mentality

Your lack of self-awareness would be comical if it weren't so pathetic.

 

but for the rest of us, half-assed inflammatory remarks aren't just gonna pass muster for us misogynists here.

Please. I doubt anything I say could possibly "pass muster" here. Almost all the sensible people are gone, leaving only the liberal circle-jerk you mongoloids always wanted. You're not interested in reasoned discussion. You just want to a place to exchange variations of "BUSHITLER CHIMPY MCSHRUBURTON LOL" to each other and chant "Oh-bah-mah, oh-bah-mah."

[At Home 0]

Marney, don't accuse me of not being interested in reasoned discussion when you tell us that some minorities are unpatriotic and "support" your claim using little more than the names of one person belonging to that group, or refuse to call Barack Obama by anything other than B.O. Hussein, or blatantly tell us that someone cannot run for president if he or she is legally a bastard, and refer to us as "mongoloids."

 

How about we redistribute and prioritize our budget spending? That would be a good idea. $311 million a day in Iraq, you know.

 

We aren't afraid of difference opinion, but in your case, the way that you handle what you say is at best sloppy. It's great that you can mix your words well, but maybe try putting together a coherent case for your argument instead of throwing out one-liners and then insulting anyone who responds.

[Firestarter 0]

when you tell us that some minorities are unpatriotic and "support" your claim using little more than the names of one person belonging to that group

I cited those names in particular in order to demonstrate that my opinions are shared by members of the groups I consider unpatriotic.

 

or refuse to call Barack Obama by anything other than B.O. Hussein

I've never refused to call B.O. Hussein anything.

 

You, and others, have criticized me for not calling him anything else. I don't try to tell you how to refer to any public figure, and we all know who I'm talking about. Why do you even care?

 

or blatantly tell us that someone cannot run for president if he or she is legally a bastard

That's a flat-out lie. I said that the possibility that B.O. Hussein might be elected bothered me because he is a bastard. I never said that he is barred from running or holding office. Not once.

 

and refer to us as "mongoloids."

We hold these truths to be self-evident.

 

How about we redistribute and prioritize our budget spending? That would be a good idea. $311 million a day in Iraq, you know.

You're a little vague on the specifics. But sure, let's prioritize our redistribution of our spending on redistributing the budget so we can finally change the hope for audacity and audaciously hope for the audacity to change for hope. Or something.

 

We aren't afraid of difference opinion

Of course you aren't, child. That's because you know full well that the other jackals are just waiting in the wings to circle The Outsider. Feel free to call the pack; it's kind of funny to watch.

[At Home 0]

not especially. i'm technically a bastard myself.

You also can't run for President of the United States.

^ sounds a lot like it.

 

I'm not saying that I care that you call him B.O. Hussein, it does however, help prove one of my points.

 

I'm not going to write out the fucking semantics of curing the socioeconomic problems of the United States, Marn. Are you kidding?

 

Again, Marn, when you say that we gang up on you, what the hell do you expect? Here's the Cancer Marney Post Machine:

 

a) Type a few sentences worth of characters with your feet:

"lkasdflk;ajsdlk;jasdfl;kjasdlkjasdfl;kjasdfl;khjasdflkjhsdlkjhaeoi3o9t;oihj

sdfoi23r5 2oiw roijw rsdin sdfiosdflk;sadl'jkads'lksfdlkhj';sasd;hjksdfa;hlksfa/ajweo,.cvmnvc.,m;lkjoij[ewlkadsg.,nm/vx.,/vcxzoeia[w39u824joia"

Good!

 

b) Send it through the C.M. Post Machine, and pick your buzzwords:

[b.O Hussein, Mohammedan, unpatriotic, mongoloid]

 

c) Add in words to make it seem like you're correct:

documented, on record

 

d) Pick subject:

EricMM, Superjerk, pbone, IK Cool Jew

 

e) Add in grammar:

Self-explanatory

 

f) Assemble!:

 

stuff

You mongoloid, B.O. Hussein is documented as being an unpatriotic Mohammedan bent on turning this country into a pussified welfare state and is gay

 

 

There you have it.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Congratulations; you managed to miss the point entirely in three different but equally asinine ways. That took some doing.

 

1. I wasn't calling any of the people I named unpatriotic.

 

You didn't make this clear. From the way you said it, I thought you were going to use an "unpatriotic" quote from each to show that his "group" was unpatriotic. My bad!

[At Home 0]

Congratulations; you managed to miss the point entirely in three different but equally asinine ways. That took some doing.

 

1. I wasn't calling any of the people I named unpatriotic.

 

You didn't make this clear. From the way you said it, I thought you were going to use an "unpatriotic" quote from each to show that his "group" was unpatriotic. My bad!

 

Like I said, I was deadly serious. I can back up that allegation in every aspect - with the documented words of Joe Biden (a Democrat), Reverend Peterson (a black), Abd al-Rahman al-Rashid (a Mohammedan), Bruce Carroll, (a homosexual), and Alan Dershowitz (a liberal).

 

Wait, no, that is what she said.

[snuffbox 0]

How dumb do you have to be to take political cues from Joe Biden?

[Guest Teal-y Dan]

As the decoder of Eddie Winslow, I always appreciate a post that reduces an entire poster to a formula, whether I like the subject or not.

[EricMM 0]

Any answer consisting of "TAX THE RICH!!!" will not be accepted.

But I would.

 

Give me all your dollars! There's renewable energy that needs a-subsidizing!

[Firestarter 0]

not especially. i'm technically a bastard myself.

You also can't run for President of the United States.

^ sounds a lot like it.

Note the second word in my sentence: "You also can't run for President of the United States." I thought I remembered (maybe I was mistaken) that godthedog was British. I was merely noting that his own illegitimacy was irrelevant.

 

I'm not saying that I care that you call him B.O. Hussein, it does however, help prove one of my points.

Which would be?

 

I'm not going to write out the fucking semantics of curing the socioeconomic problems of the United States, Marn. Are you kidding?

No, I'm not. You cited one specific expense as excessive, without taking into account anything we may or may not be accomplishing with it, and then you claimed that we can put it to better use. It behooves you to explain how. Without meaningless generalities such as "prioritizing and redistributing budgets."

 

Again, Marn, when you say that we gang up on you, what the hell do you expect?

From you lot? Nothing more, honestly.

 

e) Add in grammar

So I'm in the minority.

[Firestarter 0]

Congratulations; you managed to miss the point entirely in three different but equally asinine ways. That took some doing.

 

1. I wasn't calling any of the people I named unpatriotic.

 

You didn't make this clear. From the way you said it, I thought you were going to use an "unpatriotic" quote from each to show that his "group" was unpatriotic. My bad!

 

Like I said, I was deadly serious. I can back up that allegation in every aspect - with the documented words of Joe Biden (a Democrat), Reverend Peterson (a black), Abd al-Rahman al-Rashid (a Mohammedan), Bruce Carroll, (a homosexual), and Alan Dershowitz (a liberal).

 

Wait, no, that is what she said.

No it's not. If you weren't as ignorant as you are, you'd know that each of the people I'd cited had specifically criticized the group to which he belongs as unpatriotic and/or anti-American. By using their names I was demonstrating the futility of identity-group politics.

[snuffbox 0]

Two more died today.

[At Home 0]

Note the second word in my sentence: "You also can't run for President of the United States." I thought I remembered (maybe I was mistaken) that godthedog was British. I was merely noting that his own illegitimacy was irrelevant.

 

Not once did you clear that up, even when Superjerk said that "even if someone was Hitler's illegitimate son, that wouldn't disallow him from running for president," or specifically making a rebuttal to your post, which insinuates that a legal bastard cannot run for president.

 

Which would be?

That rarely, RARELY do you ever contribute anything intellectually engaging to this thread.

 

No, I'm not. You cited one specific expense as excessive, without taking into account anything we may or may not be accomplishing with it, and then you claimed that we can put it to better use. It behooves you to explain how. Without meaningless generalities such as "prioritizing and redistributing budgets."

As far as I'm concerned, we're not making that much headway in Iraq. Why the hell were we in Iraq? A security threat? Come on, it's fucking IRAQ.

 

I can't give you specifics. It's not my specialty, but I think that we can agree that spending more on defense than all the other nations in the world combined might be a tad excessive.

 

Again, Marn, when you say that we gang up on you, what the hell do you expect?

From you lot? Nothing more, honestly.

 

e) Add in grammar

So I'm in the minority.

 

 

 

No it's not. If you weren't as ignorant as you are, you'd know that each of the people I'd cited had specifically criticized the group to which he belongs as unpatriotic and/or anti-American. By using their names I was demonstrating the futility of identity-group politics.

That's just bad writing then. What am I supposed to think by reading your original post. "I can back my allegation up (that x groups are unpatriotic) by using the words of members of x groups." Oh wait, yes, then I should deduce that the member of x group was actually criticizing his own group. Sorry I don't watch fox news enough to know when one person says something "unpatriotic."

[Firestarter 0]

Note the second word in my sentence: "You also can't run for President of the United States." I thought I remembered (maybe I was mistaken) that godthedog was British. I was merely noting that his own illegitimacy was irrelevant.

 

Not once did you clear that up, even when Superjerk said that "even if someone was Hitler's illegitimate son, that wouldn't disallow him from running for president," or specifically making a rebuttal to your post, which insinuates that a legal bastard cannot run for president.

As far as I'm aware Hitler never set foot in the United States. So why should I have bothered? I "insinuated" nothing of the sort and I CLEARLY stated that B.O. Hussein COULD become President regardless of his illegitimacy. I just said that that fact would bother me.

 

rarely, RARELY do you ever contribute anything intellectually engaging to this thread.

Irony.

 

I can't give you specifics. It's not my specialty, but I think that we can agree that spending more on defense than all the other nations in the world combined might be a tad excessive.

No, we can't. I think we need to increase our defense spending over 100%. And rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War.

 

That's just bad writing then. What am I supposed to think by reading your original post. "I can back my allegation up (that x groups are unpatriotic) by using the words of members of x groups." Oh wait, yes, then I should deduce that the member of x group was actually criticizing his own group. Sorry I don't watch fox news enough to know when one person says something "unpatriotic."

No, it's merely poor comprehension on your part, and, as I mentioned earlier, a complete ignorance of politics and political figures. The people I cited aren't obscure. They're rather high-profile, in fact (and not due to Fox), and I chose their names in particular because of that. You clearly recognized none of them, and formed your own risible conclusions in light of your ignorance.

 

Don't blame me for your stupidity.

[At Home 0]

I "insinuated" nothing of the sort and I CLEARLY stated that B.O. Hussein COULD become President regardless of his illegitimacy. I just said that that fact would bother me.

Not really. The language that you used pretty clearly spelled out to us heathens and retards that you were making the argument that Obama couldn't run. You did say that being a bastard bothered you, but you never corrected Superjerk on the matter that we are discussing now.

 

Irony.

I have a month's worth of posts to prove it.

 

No, we can't. I think we need to increase our defense spending over 100%. And rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War.

 

Point and case.

 

Don't blame me for your stupidity.

 

Then it's poor comprehension and stupidity on everybody's part. Everybody in here who "misreads" what you say is just stupid. Because most (if not all) of us, at one time or another, have tripped over your language, and then when we respond to the point that we think you are trying to make (and most people would think you are trying to make), it just becomes something like this.

 

Marney, you draw people into these personal brawls like these and slow the overall progress of the thread. Instead of having rational debate, you name call, get personal, seldom support what you say, glibly toss out incendiary claims, and then blame it all on the rest of us.

 

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Marney, you draw people into these personal brawls like these and slow the overall progress of the thread.

 

If you think long, drawn out personal arguments are pointless and detrimental to the thread why are you actively participating in one? Be part of the solution, not part of the problem!

[Firestarter 0]

The language that you used pretty clearly spelled out to us heathens and retards that you were making the argument that Obama couldn't run.

No, I said that it bothered me that he was running and had a chance.

 

You did say that being a bastard bothered you, but you never corrected Superjerk on the matter that we are discussing now.

If I corrected every single thing that every liberal said on this board, I'd be typing 24/7 for the next 1000 years, and who has that kind of time?

 

Everybody in here who "misreads" what you say is just stupid. Because most (if not all) of us, at one time or another, have tripped over your language

I don't.

 

Marney, you draw people into these personal brawls like these and slow the overall progress of the thread. Instead of having rational debate, you name call, get personal, seldom support what you say, glibly toss out incendiary claims, and then blame it all on the rest of us.

No, I really don't. Take a look back over my posting history. You'll find that I'm fairly nice even to liberals so long as they don't try to antagonize me, and I've called out more than one so-called "conservative" in the meantime. I'm not an ideologue. Never have been. You are simply wrong.

[Henry Spencer 0]

So, wait, are you still deadly serious, or just the regular kind now? I want to know whether I can stop cowering when my doorbell rings, for fear of Marney's hulking, blacksuited government contacts (she works for the government, don't you know) stopping by to rub me out for even viewing this thread.

[Firestarter 0]

So, wait, are you still deadly serious, or just the regular kind now?

Your terms are ambiguous. Clarify.

 

I want to know whether I can stop cowering when my doorbell rings, for fear of Marney's hulking, blacksuited government contacts (she works for the government, don't you know) stopping by to rub me out for even viewing this thread.

I am not working for the government in any official capacity at this time.

[SuperJerk 0]

Isn't it obvious by now that American liberals and conservatives define patriotism in different ways?

 

To conservatives, patriotism is loyalty to their interpretation of national heritage. To liberals, patriotism is the defense of their interpretation of national ideals.

[Firestarter 0]

Isn't it obvious by now that American liberals and conservatives define patriotism in different ways?

 

To conservatives, patriotism is loyalty to their interpretation of national heritage. To liberals, patriotism is the defense of their interpretation of national ideals.

This is a fair assessment.

 

However, I believe it has to be informed by two additional factors:

 

1. Conservatives fundamentally believe that human nature cannot be perfected.

 

2. Liberals believe the opposite.

[Nightwing 0]

While it's fun to count the dead to make a (albeit valid) political point or simply declare everyone who doesn't have an American Flag Tattoo to get out, let's switch gears and actually discuss the war, shall we?

 

I get the feeling that the vast majority of people on this board don't like the war (Just a hunch, mind you). With that in mind, how do we leave with a minimal chance of things getting worse? Both Obama and Hillary have plans to get us out in a year of their election, and both like to claim theirs is faster... but is that what we want? I mean, as great as it would be to have everyone home right now, I'm afraid that it their plan will either a) Not take into account problems and just be concerned with getting the hell out or b) Force them to abandon it as new political realities in Iraq spring up. I understand the need for them to do it politically right now, especially in the Democratic Primaries, but I'm not sure if they can hold to it with the nature of the conflict. I mean, what do you all think needs to happen in Iraq to be able to leave in a year? Should we be more concerned with making things hold in Iraq, or concerned with keeping on-track with our own removal? The entire region is at stake here, so we should really think about this question.

 

Secondly, I feel it is time for the United States Government and Military to reexamine our military strength and readiness. Despite what has been told to me numerous times, the longer we are over there the harsher it comes down on our troops. I'm not demeaning the military's power or the will of our troops, but we seriously need to change the way we judge our military so we can properly assess our ability to run these sorts of operations. I feel like we are still running on estimates that we made during the Cold War and that's not the sort of war we are looking to run. How do we need to adapt our military to make it more efficient to fight the conflicts of today?

 

Finally, is it possible for things to simply improve with a new President? I know NoCal has brought up this concept in either this thread or the Campaign 2008 thread, but with an Obama (Who I'm going to assume is the presumptive Democratic nominee) or a McCain, could it improve just because they aren't Bush? I mean, with an administration that would cut down on the rampant war-profiteering and admit to the wrongs that we've done, we might at least look better and not pay nearly as much for this conflict. Of course, that's a very optimistic assessment, but could measurable improvement come simply from removing the Bush Administration?

[SuperJerk 0]

Isn't it obvious by now that American liberals and conservatives define patriotism in different ways?

 

To conservatives, patriotism is loyalty to their interpretation of national heritage. To liberals, patriotism is the defense of their interpretation of national ideals.

This is a fair assessment.

 

However, I believe it has to be informed by two additional factors:

 

1. Conservatives fundamentally believe that human nature cannot be perfected.

 

2. Liberals believe the opposite.

I believe that while all people may not be good, most people at least think they are good. Given the right information, people wanting to continue to think of themselves as good will modify their behavior once they see the how their past behaviors were harmful. Once people in the North were taught about the horrors of slavery, abolitionism grew. Once the exploitation of the working class by early capitalists was exposed, labor laws were passed and the standard of living increased. Once the plight of native people against external oppression was openly embraced, empires were dismantled. Once a few women began achieving in positions once reserved for men, more and more men began to see them as equals and were accepted. The Civil Rights movement was jumpstarted because the public was made aware that patriotic African-Americans who had sacrificed for this country returned from Europe and were still treated as second-class citizens, and it was further galvanized when peaceful protestors were brutalized on television for all the nation to see. Ignorance and bigotry allow and perpetuate evil. It stands to reason that knowledge is its cure, and an educated society will strive to be a just society. Even if humans are not all good, the desire to think you are good may be enough to compel you to do the right thing.

[At Home 0]

No, I said that it bothered me that he was running and had a chance.

Something that I acknowledged, but in your post that I cited, the language used to present an argument and the actual argument are two different things.

 

If I corrected every single thing that every liberal said on this board, I'd be typing 24/7 for the next 1000 years, and who has that kind of time?

Um, you do, it seems.

 

 

No, I really don't. Take a look back over my posting history. You'll find that I'm fairly nice even to liberals so long as they don't try to antagonize me, and I've called out more than one so-called "conservative" in the meantime. I'm not an ideologue. Never have been. You are simply wrong.

 

If by antagonize, you mean engage, then I guess you could make that argument. But I have looked over your posting history and my point stands.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Obama says he might seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.

 

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytoo...on_torture.html

 

 

Realistically, I can't see either Hillary or Barack pursuing this. If either gets elected, they'll have a second term in mind, and starting a republican witch hunt is one way to ensure that wouldn't happen.