Iran leaders are a bunch of pussies.... Please God get this post to Iamadeamondjob

[LMPChris]

You hold British (who have not won a war on their own since 1812) sailors hostage for a week... S.O.B. you guys are getting scary! And you are going to take the stance of "they will think we are merciful and kind because we let them go" --- Sorry we are not all Clinton era citizens... Some of us make up our minds for ourselves....

"I did not have sexual relations with this woman" Damn right you shouldn't have did you see how ugly that bitch was???

Now lets bomb IRAN!

IRAN= I Raced American Neons (and lost!!!!!)

[Trip McNeely]

ummmm, wtf? :confused:

[gpamp]

um... yeah.

They TOTALLY should've killed those Brittish soldiers, huh?

:rolleyes:


Be thankful they're alive, and find another random topic that has nothing to do with Clinton, to bash Clinton.

[LMPChris]

um... yeah.

They TOTALLY should've killed those Brittish soldiers, huh?

:rolleyes:


Be thankful they're alive, and find another random topic that has nothing to do with Clinton, to bash Clinton.


Ok, you were not old enough to remember when Iran held American hostages for over a year. This dousch bag holds people hostage for a week to get his NUCLEAR program accepted because they are "peaceful people" and you fall for it! The Islamic extremists learned -- FROM CLINTON -- that America would "turn the other cheek" and "run when confronted with body bags". THAT is why I bring Clinton into this. These people (Al-Qaeda and others like them) have admitted that they "learned" this about us during those years he was in office. The sad part is that the current Democrats in power are wanting to continue down his same path.....

[gpamp]

Ok, you were not old enough to remember when Iran held American hostages for over a year. This dousch bag holds people hostage for a week to get his NUCLEAR program accepted because they are "peaceful people" and you fall for it! The Islamic extremists learned -- FROM CLINTON -- that America would "turn the other cheek" and "run when confronted with body bags". THAT is why I bring Clinton into this. These people (Al-Qaeda and others like them) have admitted that they "learned" this about us during those years he was in office. The sad part is that the current Democrats in power are wanting to continue down his same path.....
Sure, I was 3 when it happened.

That's still no argument for any of the statements you've made.

#1, you don't sound happy that the Brittish soldiers are alive. Did you want them to die, just so we'd get all pissed off and throw the rest of our military into Iran?

#2, The only thing worse than a Bush Basher is a Clinton Blamer. Some people could stub their toe, and find some way to say it was because Clinton got a blowjob.

Again, calm down (at your age, you need the blood pressure low), and be glad some people didn't die.

[AL P]

Ok, you were not old enough to remember when Iran held American hostages for over a year. This dousch bag holds people hostage for a week to get his NUCLEAR program accepted because they are "peaceful people" and you fall for it! The Islamic extremists learned -- FROM CLINTON -- that America would "turn the other cheek" and "run when confronted with body bags". THAT is why I bring Clinton into this. These people (Al-Qaeda and others like them) have admitted that they "learned" this about us during those years he was in office. The sad part is that the current Democrats in power are wanting to continue down his same path.....

It says a lot that Jimmy Carter was in control for a year and couldn't get the pussy ass Iranians to release the hostages. Then Ronnie Reagan gets elected and well....we all know what happened within a matter of days.

Hell I am glad they kidnapped those soldiers. Now when we bomb the fuck out of Iran, we can all say they had it coming.

[AL P]

Sure, I was 3 when it happened.

That's still no argument for any of the statements you've made.

#1, you don't sound happy that the Brittish soldiers are alive. Did you want them to die, just so we'd get all pissed off and throw the rest of our military into Iran?

#2, The only thing worse than a Bush Basher is a Clinton Blamer. Some people could stub their toe, and find some way to say it was because Clinton got a blowjob.

Again, calm down (at your age, you need the blood pressure low), and be glad some people didn't die.

That's right, just be glad some people didn't die, that's all that matters!! Won't somebody please think of the children!!!

Put down your guitar for a second and learn something about the politics of propaganda, son.

[jakesford]

It says a lot that Jimmy Carter was in control for a year and couldn't get the pussy ass Iranians to release the hostages. Then Ronnie Reagan gets elected and well....we all know what happened within a matter of days.

Hell I am glad they kidnapped those soldiers. Now when we bomb the fuck out of Iran, we can all say they had it coming.

It happened on his inauguration. If you look at past events, Iran doesn't respond to diplomacy, they tend to only respond to threats. The fact is Reagan campaigned that he would not allow Iran to continue the standoff, and basically threatened military action. Iran was affraid that the US might actually react, and bam hostages are released.

This time around the US parked a Carrier battle group of the coast and all of a sudden hostages are released. You rattle the saber a little bit and you get results. Sometimes the "Speak softly and carry a big stick" idea is the best way to handle business.

[line-em-up]

um... yeah.

They TOTALLY should've killed those Brittish soldiers, huh?

:rolleyes:


Be thankful they're alive, and find another random topic that has nothing to do with Clinton, to bash Clinton.

He's just another right wing nut sack licker that will find any reason to bash people he don't like.

[LMPChris]

Of course I am happy that the sailors are alive -- I am former military myself and would never wish for the death of anyone to come up with a reason to go to war with Iran.

If you read what I put and have paid any attention to what has been said by these groups is that Clinton's policies and actions/inactions made the terrorists where they are today with reagards to being more agressive and blatant with their actions.

If you don't really believe that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons (which their leader has admitted and admitted to wanting to use them on another country), then why do they want to enrich their nuclear fuel to certain levels ---

"The enriched uranium used in most nuclear reactors is not concentrated enough to build a bomb. Most nuclear reactors run on 4% enriched uranium; Little Boy used 80% enriched uranium; while lower enrichment levels could be used, the minimum bomb size would rapidly become infeasibly large as the level was decreased. However, the same plants and technology used to enrich uranium for power generation can be used to make the highly enriched uranium needed to build a bomb." (quoting from Wikipedia)

And with regards to Bush -- I don't think he has all the answers either.

[gpamp]

It happened on his inauguration. If you look at past events, Iran doesn't respond to diplomacy, they tend to only respond to threats. The fact is Reagan campaigned that he would not allow Iran to continue the standoff, and basically threatened military action. Iran was affraid that the US might actually react, and bam hostages are released.

This time around the US parked a Carrier battle group of the coast and all of a sudden hostages are released. You rattle the saber a little bit and you get results. Sometimes the "Speak softly and carry a big stick" idea is the best way to handle business.

The U.S. JUST sent the Carrier there. As in, yesterday or today. The one that was in there area was intel. And it was already there, before they took the hostages.

I mean, seriously, just name every Democrat in history and say its their fault. :rolleyes:

[gpamp]

He's just another right wing nut sack licker that will find any reason to bash people he don't like.

You're only saying that because Clinton got a blowjob.

Admit it.

:D

[jakesford]

The U.S. JUST sent the Carrier there. As in, yesterday or today. The one that was in there area was intel. And it was already there, before they took the hostages.

I mean, seriously, just name every Democrat in history and say its their fault. :rolleyes:

It has nothing to do with republican or democrat... IMO some countries can't be handled with "UN talks" and sanctions. Iran has been under increasing "sanctions", but the Iranian government would rather let its people due without international trade and the economic benefits that would bring.

[LMPChris]

It is much more necessary to enrich uranium to 90+ percent than it is to supply the civlians with power at 6% enrichment... Not like we can be a few numbers off here to overestimate what they are trying to accomplish..... (note the sarcasm)

[jyro]

The U.S. JUST sent the Carrier there. As in, yesterday or today. The one that was in there area was intel. And it was already there, before they took the hostages.


March 22, 2005 - Three US Naval Carrier groups converging on Iran and Syria.

[gpamp]

March 22, 2005 - Three US Naval Carrier groups converging on Iran and Syria.

Right. 2005. They'd been there. They didn't release the Brittish soldiers because Bush threw a bunch of Naval Carriers at them. They were already there. But they're also sending MORE, as we speak. But the new one isn't there yet.

I was just negating his point that Clinton tried to kill every American in the world, and probably slit the throat of Mother Theresa, and Bush is saving the planet one puppy at a time. (negating his bias)

I really shouldn't post on here after more than 2 Forty Creeks.

[AL P]

The U.S. JUST sent the Carrier there. As in, yesterday or today. The one that was in there area was intel. And it was already there, before they took the hostages.

I mean, seriously, just name every Democrat in history and say its their fault. :rolleyes:

There have been two CBGs in the Persian Gulf area for months now,

[gpamp]

There have been two CBGs in the Persian Gulf area for months now,

Right. One's been there since 2005. But in Iranian waters?

Man, this thread got off.

Thank God the Brits got out alive.

[Denny]

I strongly believe that Iran is getting something from this that isn't being released to the public.

[Vertnut]

I strongly believe that Iran is getting something from this that isn't being released to the public.
Of course they are...like the release of some of Irani's that the Brits had been interrogating.
Look, Iran pulls shit like this to manipulate their power hold over the world, due to their OIL. It boils down to OIL, and the worlds' need for it. Iran grabs a couple of Limey sailors, and BAM!, oil goes up $5 a barrel. They know this reaction will occur every time they do something "unstable", hence, the reason they will continue to do this type of thing in the future. No one (including us), is going to do a damn thing about it. If we do, BAM!, oil goes up to $100 a barrel...

[AL P]

Right. One's been there since 2005. But in Iranian waters?

Man, this thread got off.

Thank God the Brits got out alive.

Seeing as how Iran likes to claim all sorts of areas of the Persian Gulf, it depends on who you ask I'm sure.

[Casper]

It says a lot that Jimmy Carter was in control for a year and couldn't get the pussy ass Iranians to release the hostages. Then Ronnie Reagan gets elected and well....we all know what happened within a matter of days.

Hell I am glad they kidnapped those soldiers. Now when we bomb the fuck out of Iran, we can all say they had it coming.

Yeah, we can stop the bombing as a "gift", LOL!

[Paladin]

Sure, I was 3 when it happened.

That's still no argument for any of the statements you've made.

#1, you don't sound happy that the Brittish soldiers are alive. Did you want them to die, just so we'd get all pissed off and throw the rest of our military into Iran?

#2, The only thing worse than a Bush Basher is a Clinton Blamer. Some people could stub their toe, and find some way to say it was because Clinton got a blowjob.

Again, calm down (at your age, you need the blood pressure low), and be glad some people didn't die.

Please, find a post where someone said Clinton was a murderer or needed to be killed. The difference bewteen Bush haters and Clinton haters is huge. I hate Clinton for what he did to this country and what he did to the office, but I have never once said he needed to be killed like you Bush haters always seem to say.

I am shocked you jumped to Clintons defense, aren't you the one who said no soldiers died during Clintons term or was that some other Clinton nut hugger?

[Zarathustra]

It says a lot that Jimmy Carter was in control for a year and couldn't get the pussy ass Iranians to release the hostages. Then Ronnie Reagan gets elected and well....we all know what happened within a matter of days.

Hell I am glad they kidnapped those soldiers. Now when we bomb the fuck out of Iran, we can all say they had it coming.


yea---Iran contra--haha


Reagan:: How bout i give you millions--billions of dollars in aid, weapons, and intelligence in exchange for those 51 nobodies?

[AL P]

yea---Iran contra--haha


Reagan:: How bout i give you millions--billions of dollars in aid, weapons, and intelligence in exchange for those 51 nobodies?

We should have gave you more considering Iraq made Iran their bitch.

[Walsted]

The U.S. JUST sent the Carrier there. As in, yesterday or today. The one that was in there area was intel.

The Ike and Stennis battle groups were there, already. The Ike BG is nearing the end of its deployment, so the Nimitz BG was sent on its way so two CVBGs can be maintained within striking distance of Iran/the Gulf. I seriously doubt either carrier would enter Iranian territorial waters. Usually, when the US Navy wants to demonstrate that they can do what they want, they stay just outside of territorial waters, just daring Liby.., er..., someone to scramble or fire upon them.

[gpamp]

We should have gave you more considering Iraq made Iran their bitch.

We also gave aid to Iraq, too. Under Reagan, I believe.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July2004/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg

[gpamp]

Please, find a post where someone said Clinton was a murderer or needed to be killed. The difference bewteen Bush haters and Clinton haters is huge. I hate Clinton for what he did to this country and what he did to the office, but I have never once said he needed to be killed like you Bush haters always seem to say.

I am shocked you jumped to Clintons defense, aren't you the one who said no soldiers died during Clintons term or was that some other Clinton nut hugger?

Are you KIDDING ME??

When Clinton was IN OFFICE, remember the videotape? The one that was being passed around by Right Wingers, that actually accused him of KILLING PEOPLE. And HAVING PEOPLE KILLED. I had a teacher that made us watch it in High School. And that "Clinton Body Count" thing.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

Now, granted, no one in this thread has said Clinton killed anybody. I was addressing the fact that blame was being put on him, out of nowhere. And referenced the fact that the "Blame Clinton" crowd is just as bad as Bush Bashers. I posted this, to show you that the Right Wingers HAVE accused Clinton of killing people.

[AL P]

We also gave aid to Iraq, too.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July2004/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg

No shit? I'm glad you posted that! We also traded with Germany before kicking their ass in WWII. It's a wonderful black and white world with free puppies and balloons for everyone when you have absolutely no fucking idea of how foreign policy works.

[gpamp]

No shit? I'm glad you posted that! We also traded with Germany before kicking their ass in WWII. It's a wonderful black and white world with free puppies and balloons for everyone when you have absolutely no fucking idea of how foreign policy works.

:rolleyes:

[AL P]

Are you KIDDING ME??

When Clinton was IN OFFICE, remember the videotape? The one that was being passed around by Right Wingers, that actually accused him of KILLING PEOPLE. And HAVING PEOPLE KILLED. I had a teacher that made us watch it in High School. And that "Clinton Body Count" thing.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

Now, granted, no one in this thread has said Clinton killed anybody. I was addressing the fact that blame was being put on him, out of nowhere. And referenced the fact that the "Blame Clinton" crowd is just as bad as Bush Bashers. I posted this, to show you that the Right Wingers HAVE accused Clinton of killing people.

Are you actually making the claim that those people are anywhere near as common as the "I Hate Bush" idiots?

[AL P]

:rolleyes:

What are you rolling your eyes for? Your postin of the picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein says you have no fucking clue of how foreign policy has worked for centuries. You need to read the newspaper instead of using it to roll doobies, boy...

[gpamp]

What are you rolling your eyes for? Your postin of the picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein says you have no fucking clue of how foreign policy has worked for centuries. You need to read the newspaper instead of using it to roll doobies, boy...

haha. most of the people on this thread have had way more experience with doobies than I. (I've never tried it, and I'm 30)

No, I was rolling my eyes, because all I was doing was pointing out that we've given arms to Iran AND Iraq. That's all. I don't have any pictures of a US official hanging out with the Shaw, or else I would reference them. I mean, if it were a picture of Madeleine Albright & Saddam, it'd be just as, if not more, popular.

[gpamp]

Are you actually making the claim that those people are anywhere near as common as the "I Hate Bush" idiots?

When he was Pesident, yes.

[AL P]

haha. most of the people on this thread have had way more experience with doobies than I. (I've never tried it, and I'm 30)

No, I was rolling my eyes, because all I was doing was pointing out that we've given arms to Iran AND Iraq. That's all. I don't have any pictures of a US official hanging out with the Shaw, or else I would reference them. I mean, if it were a picture of Madeleine Albright & Saddam, it'd be just as, if not more, popular.

Well you aren't such a young punk after all. And I see your point.

My point is that we've sold arms to just about everyone. And every other country does it too. The problem is that we never know when the sons a bitches are just going to turn on us. Such as what Saddam did with Kuwait. In a perfect world we would never sell anything to anyone but in the real world we have to look out for our interests just like everyone else does. It can get ugly when you look at it with hindsight but it is one of those things that has to be done.

[gpamp]

Well you aren't such a young punk after all. And I see your point.

My point is that we've sold arms to just about everyone. And every other country does it too. The problem is that we never know when the sons a bitches are just going to turn on us. Such as what Saddam did with Kuwait. In a perfect world we would never sell anything to anyone but in the real world we have to look out for our interests just like everyone else does. It can get ugly when you look at it with hindsight but it is one of those things that has to be done.

As liberal as I am, I almost wouldn't mind sealing our borders, and building a 4 mile-high wall around this country sometimes.

haha

[AL P]

When he was Pesident, yes.

No way. There was the huge scandal regarding past financial dealings but that is just politics. I don't remember people burning dummies dressed up like Clinton or comparing him to Hitler. That only happens to Republican presidents for the most part and even then they have to be exceptionally controversial.

[AL P]

As liberal as I am, I almost wouldn't mind sealing our borders, and building a 4 mile-high wall around this country sometimes.

haha

We should no matter what. Our borders should be secure, its a huge security risk. But no one will do that until some weapons are smuggled in from Mexico and used to kill thousands of people.

[gpamp]

We should no matter what. Our borders should be secure, its a huge security risk. But no one will do that until some weapons are smuggled in from Mexico and used to kill thousands of people.

And I'm talking complete seperation. haha

Build the wall, and from then on, America is the world we know.

[Paladin]

Are you KIDDING ME??

When Clinton was IN OFFICE, remember the videotape? The one that was being passed around by Right Wingers, that actually accused him of KILLING PEOPLE. And HAVING PEOPLE KILLED. I had a teacher that made us watch it in High School. And that "Clinton Body Count" thing.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

Now, granted, no one in this thread has said Clinton killed anybody. I was addressing the fact that blame was being put on him, out of nowhere. And referenced the fact that the "Blame Clinton" crowd is just as bad as Bush Bashers. I posted this, to show you that the Right Wingers HAVE accused Clinton of killing people.

You tried to insinuate in the earlier post that people who hate Bush are no worse or even better than people who hate Clinton. I made my point that no one on here has accused Clinton of being a murderer and several people who think like you on here have accused Bush of being a murderer, a terrorist, and a liar. Thank you for admitting what I was saying is true.

Now, do you still say that Bush haters and Clinton haters are the same? I really think Clinton was a terrible President, is a terrible man, a terrible father, and a terrible husband. I have shown enough respect to not go and say he meant to let terrorists attack us on 9/11 or that he knew that allowing Bin Laden to escape when Syria had him was intentional. That would probably be going over the line like you Bush haters saying Bush is a murderer and a terrorist and that he knowingly lied to get us into the war in Iraq.

I will you say you are a complete idiot if you think the discussion about Clinton and the discussions about Bush are on the same level. You Bush haters have no respect and decency IMO.

[Paladin]

haha. most of the people on this thread have had way more experience with doobies than I. (I've never tried it, and I'm 30)

No, I was rolling my eyes, because all I was doing was pointing out that we've given arms to Iran AND Iraq. That's all. I don't have any pictures of a US official hanging out with the Shaw, or else I would reference them. I mean, if it were a picture of Madeleine Albright & Saddam, it'd be just as, if not more, popular.

Who is the "Shaw"? Did you mean the Shah of Iran?

Would pictures of Pelosi meeting with the leaders of Syria count? What if it is prove that Syria supports terrorists? I know you won't believe Bush, but there may be a few liberals who believe that. :rolleyes:

I find it funny that you are a Democrat who thinks we should negotiate with countries that are supporting terrorists, but if a Republican gets a picture taken with one, you post it like it is some big controversy? Please tell me you see how hypocritical your liberal stance is.

Rosalyn Carter had her picture taken with a serial murderer and it got shown quite a bit, but I would never post it like it was some big deal, since the picture was taken before he was known to be a murderer.

[Paladin]

As liberal as I am, I almost wouldn't mind sealing our borders, and building a 4 mile-high wall around this country sometimes.

haha

Just curious, but why would you "almost" consider it? What prevents you from supporting our borders being sealed?

[gpamp]

Just curious, but why would you "almost" consider it? What prevents you from supporting our borders being sealed?

When I said "sealing our borders", I meant no one in, no one out. No planes, ships, people, going out, or in. Basically put America in a bubble.

It's an extreme point of view, that was said in jest.

You, on the other hand, are an extremist. This probably looks like a good idea to you.

I find it funny that you are a Democrat who thinks we should negotiate with countries that are supporting terrorists, but if a Republican gets a picture taken with one, you post it like it is some big controversy? Please tell me you see how hypocritical your liberal stance is.

Who said I thought ANY Democrats should meet with terrorists? See, in your "extremist mind", by me being a Democrat, and Pelosi being a Democrat, I must be completely in step with her. Right?

That's the most used tactic on Right Wing Radio. If one Democrat does something stupid, or out of sync with the majority of their party, leave it to the far Right to lead people to believe that ALL Democrats are the exact same. It's a lame argument tactic, and holds no water to facts. Plus, if it were applied to Republicans, there'd be just as many evils involved.

And you are a complete idiot not to realize that your entire post, on whether or not Clinton Blamers & Bush Bashers are the same, made no sense. You basically said "I'm fighting not to say Clinton killed Americans by causing terrorist attacks", and "Bush Bashers say that Bush is a terrorist." Um... that's the same thing. Just because you "show enough respect" not to say it in here, means nothing. I'm quite sure you've said it before, to someone, if you harbor that belief. And it's a well known sentiment on the far Right, whether or not you say it out loud.

ALL politicians are crooked. Don't be fooled into believing the face they put on when cameras are around. And don't blindly follow someone because you feel they "represent you". I represent me.

"If we don't blindly follow our leaders, how can we ever truly be free" - Frank Burns

[Denny]

yea---Iran contra--haha


Reagan:: How bout i give you millions--billions of dollars in aid, weapons, and intelligence in exchange for those 51 nobodies?
I see that Iranian coming out of you again...

[Paladin]

When I said "sealing our borders", I meant no one in, no one out. No planes, ships, people, going out, or in. Basically put America in a bubble.

It's an extreme point of view, that was said in jest.

You, on the other hand, are an extremist. This probably looks like a good idea to you.



Who said I thought ANY Democrats should meet with terrorists? See, in your "extremist mind", by me being a Democrat, and Pelosi being a Democrat, I must be completely in step with her. Right?

That's the most used tactic on Right Wing Radio. If one Democrat does something stupid, or out of sync with the majority of their party, leave it to the far Right to lead people to believe that ALL Democrats are the exact same. It's a lame argument tactic, and holds no water to facts. Plus, if it were applied to Republicans, there'd be just as many evils involved.

And you are a complete idiot not to realize that your entire post, on whether or not Clinton Blamers & Bush Bashers are the same, made no sense. You basically said "I'm fighting not to say Clinton killed Americans by causing terrorist attacks", and "Bush Bashers say that Bush is a terrorist." Um... that's the same thing. Just because you "show enough respect" not to say it in here, means nothing. I'm quite sure you've said it before, to someone, if you harbor that belief. And it's a well known sentiment on the far Right, whether or not you say it out loud.

ALL politicians are crooked. Don't be fooled into believing the face they put on when cameras are around. And don't blindly follow someone because you feel they "represent you". I represent me.

"If we don't blindly follow our leaders, how can we ever truly be free" - Frank Burns

Give me a break. I have not lumped all democrats into one pile, but I
do think the democratic party is run by the far left, therefore if you support the democratic party, you are supporting that far left view. Am I right?

Please fill me in on your personal views on the following topics and what you think your party's leaders opinions are on the same topics.

Abortion
Gay Marraige
Death Penalty
Gun Control
Immigration
ACLU
Taxes

The reason I ask is this, many people will go down the above list of topics and not agree with the Democratic party on all but 1 or 2 of those issues, and then realize that they actually agree more with reublican views on them. I got MM2000 to admit he didn't agree with mayny of the Democratic stances, and that he didn't even know his party's stance on some and he is an admitted straight ticket democrat voter!

Remember, your party is being lead by Pelosi, Dean, Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha, Clinton, Edwards, and othrs who think like they do. It is not being run by any moderate on the above topics, so if you have the courage to address this question, it will test your intellectual honesty. Enjoy!

BTW, I still think you are an idiot if you think Clinton bashers are the same as Bush haters. Al asked you if you thought the Clinton bashers were as common as Bush haters, but you ignored that question. Hmmmm...

You mention right wing radio so I must ask, what shows do you listen to and how often? If you refer to them, surely you listen instead of relying on moveon.org to get info on right wing radio, right?

[exlude]

I'm still trying to figure wtf the original poster was saying exactly.

[gpamp]

Give me a break. I have not lumped all democrats into one pile, but I
do think the democratic party is run by the far left, therefore if you support the democratic party, you are supporting that far left view. Am I right?

Please fill me in on your personal views on the following topics and what you think your party's leaders opinions are on the same topics.

Abortion
Gay Marraige
Death Penalty
Gun Control
Immigration
ACLU
Taxes

The reason I ask is this, many people will go down the above list of topics and not agree with the Democratic party on all but 1 or 2 of those issues, and then realize that they actually agree more with reublican views on them. I got MM2000 to admit he didn't agree with mayny of the Democratic stances, and that he didn't even know his party's stance on some and he is an admitted straight ticket democrat voter!

Remember, your party is being lead by Pelosi, Dean, Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha, Clinton, Edwards, and othrs who think like they do. It is not being run by any moderate on the above topics, so if you have the courage to address this question, it will test your intellectual honesty. Enjoy!

BTW, I still think you are an idiot if you think Clinton bashers are the same as Bush haters. Al asked you if you thought the Clinton bashers were as common as Bush haters, but you ignored that question. Hmmmm...

You mention right wing radio so I must ask, what shows do you listen to and how often? If you refer to them, surely you listen instead of relying on moveon.org to get info on right wing radio, right?
I listen to all radio. I flip around all day. I know enough to know what it looks like in print.

If it seems like I ignored a question, sometimes I don't see it, or I felt I answered it already. Hmmmm... (I SAID they were the same)

Abortion - I, personally, will never have one.
Gay Marraige - Again, I will never have one.
Death Penalty - Is sometimes used to kill people, found innocent after DNA testing.
Gun Control - I'll never own a gun, but like Gay Marraige, I won't stick my nose in your business of having one. Just don't point it at me.
Immigration - George Bush is doing a bang up job on that one.
ACLU - Is extreme, and no matter how many times its brought up by people who who hate Democrats, they're not one in the same.
Taxes - Taxes are what is paying for our troops to eat food while they're in Iraq. So, they're good, right?

I believe the majority of issues have no bearing on whether or not you are Republican or Democrat. Especially things like Gay Marraige & Abortion. If Gay Marraige is against your religion, then let it be. But lets not start making laws based on religion. Otherwise....

"Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him. But if a woman have long hair, it is a Glory to her. For her hair is given her for a covering."

We'd have to lock up anybody with what the Government deems as long hair on men, and short hair on women.

Not to mention, that whole "turn the other cheek" thing wouldn't work with the Death Penalty (which I support, if the convicted person is ABSOLUTELY the killer)

[exlude]

I do believe you only actually stated your stance on ONE (1) of those issues.

[gpamp]

I do believe you only actually stated your stance on ONE (1) of those issues.
What do you mean?

A few of those issues have NOTHING to do with me. I can't say "ban gay marriage" because I'm not gay. It will NEVER affect me. Abortion will NEVER affect me. Gun laws, I said I'm fine with them as they are, because they don't affect me. As long as there are background checks, of course. ACLU doesn't affect me. Immigration, granted I thwarted that one a bit, but I think it should be easier to become a citizen, Make the ones already here, Americans, then make it harder for anyone else to get in. The Death Penalty, I believe I stated my view on that one, too.

I noticed you don't mention the Economy.

If I were a Republican, I wouldn't either.

[exlude]

You are a politician at heart. I can tell by your wordiness.

I support abortion in certain circumstances, much stricter than they are now. (Notice the first person claim to my belief). Now, I have never had an abortion, never plan to have one, and do not know anyone who has. Nevertheless, it's fairly naive to think it doesn't affect you, your taxes, and the culture around you.

I also support gay marriage or an equivalent. Now, I'm straight as an arrow but still think it's naive to say it won't affect me. It does affect me, my taxes, my freedoms, the culture around me, my insurance rates, etc.

ACLU affects you on all those levels and then some. They are actively lobbying for countless measures that could change the life you live. I especially don't see how you could say it doesn't affect you.

I didn't mention the economy because it wasn't my question in the first place. But "the economy" isn't really a dividing line between the partys' stances.

[gpamp]

I didn't mention the economy because it wasn't my question in the first place. But "the economy" isn't really a dividing line between the partys' stances.

True, but the economic strategies are.

Good points all around.

And if I were a politician at heart, then I wouldn't need an airbag in my car. :D

[Paladin]

What do you mean?

A few of those issues have NOTHING to do with me. I can't say "ban gay marriage" because I'm not gay. It will NEVER affect me. Abortion will NEVER affect me. Gun laws, I said I'm fine with them as they are, because they don't affect me. As long as there are background checks, of course. ACLU doesn't affect me. Immigration, granted I thwarted that one a bit, but I think it should be easier to become a citizen, Make the ones already here, Americans, then make it harder for anyone else to get in. The Death Penalty, I believe I stated my view on that one, too.

I noticed you don't mention the Economy.

If I were a Republican, I wouldn't either.

If you vote, those issues have something to do with you. I tested your intellectual honesty and you failed.

I will glady answer questions about what Republicans stand for, about what Democrats stand for, or what my conservative/traditional viewpoint is all about. Why wouldn't I since I have given my opinion in the political forum. If I couldn't stand the heat, I should stay out of the kitchen, right? Now leave and go to the living rom, becuase it is way too hot for you in here.

You asked about the economy, so I will ask you, do you support the tax and spend philosophy of the Democrats or the tax cuts of the Republicans? I also think the Dems have a little tactic called income redistribution, ever heard of it in your listening to radio? I doubt you will answer the question as asked, you will only speak about Vush's policies, which I don;'t always agree with, that is why i ask about party philosophies, not just individuals like you.

[Paladin]

I do believe you only actually stated your stance on ONE (1) of those issues.

I think he knows that he would have painted himself as hypocritical since he supports the Dems but does not know or does not support their stances. I will at least give him kudos for catching on to the trap, but he still didn't answer.

Hell, MM2000 didn't even catch on to the trap I set for him. LOL

[Paladin]

You are a politician at heart. I can tell by your wordiness.

I support abortion in certain circumstances, much stricter than they are now. (Notice the first person claim to my belief). Now, I have never had an abortion, never plan to have one, and do not know anyone who has. Nevertheless, it's fairly naive to think it doesn't affect you, your taxes, and the culture around you.

I also support gay marriage or an equivalent. Now, I'm straight as an arrow but still think it's naive to say it won't affect me. It does affect me, my taxes, my freedoms, the culture around me, my insurance rates, etc.

ACLU affects you on all those levels and then some. They are actively lobbying for countless measures that could change the life you live. I especially don't see how you could say it doesn't affect you.

I didn't mention the economy because it wasn't my question in the first place. But "the economy" isn't really a dividing line between the partys' stances.


This is how you answer gpamp, and he and I don't agree on these topics, but my point wasn't to tell you you were wrong or that I was right, it was to get you to see that the issues of your party are pretty extreme right now. I also would like for the average liberal to see in print what they are voting to support when they pull the level or push the button for their straight ticket vote.

I helped MM2000 see it, and I can help you too. :D

[TheAsp!]

Hey this couild be a survey:

Abortion- Not my body, none of my business
Gay Marriage- hmmm, not my body not my business
Death Penalty- Some situations call for it
Gun Control- Everyone should have one
Immigration- Build a wall and defend it
ACLU - Best dam thing to happen to America
Taxes- No taxes=no government; no government=no prosperity

The whole concept of political parties just provides balance to both extremes. In the middle are the moderates who change the parties on a regular basis as they see fit.
I am curious, what is the Democrat and Republican stand on sending our hard-earned money to any jack-ass with uranium?
This is about M-O-N-E-Y, not God vs. Allah, Republicans vs. Democrats.
In fact, its meant to divide us and here we are dancing to the music like a bunch of puppets. The citizens of Middle Eastern countries are equally distracted by the same small issues, while THEIR leaders and government get rich off of the same oil and conflict that drives our economy. This is big business running the world. The best proof is that here we all sit in conjecture while no one is writing their Senator or Representative about anything except what homos do in the dark.

[gpamp]

This is how you answer gpamp, and he and I don't agree on these topics, but my point wasn't to tell you you were wrong or that I was right, it was to get you to see that the issues of your party are pretty extreme right now. I also would like for the average liberal to see in print what they are voting to support when they pull the level or push the button for their straight ticket vote.

I helped MM2000 see it, and I can help you too. :D

But see, I view the Republicans, who value people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, as being VERY extreme. And you use the word "extreme" in the wrong context. What you should say is "...the issues of your party are pretty--different from mine--right now."

[gpamp]

The whole concept of political parties just provides balance to both extremes. In the middle are the moderates who change the parties on a regular basis as they see fit.
I am curious, what is the Democrat and Republican stand on sending our hard-earned money to any jack-ass with uranium?
This is about M-O-N-E-Y, not God vs. Allah, Republicans vs. Democrats.
In fact, its meant to divide us and here we are dancing to the music like a bunch of puppets. The citizens of Middle Eastern countries are equally distracted by the same small issues, while THEIR leaders and government get rich off of the same oil and conflict that drives our economy. This is big business running the world. The best proof is that here we all sit in conjecture while no one is writing their Senator or Representative about anything except what homos do in the dark.

Awesome.

[exlude]

God damnit I hate Ann Coulter.

[gpamp]

God damnit I hate Ann Coulter.
She's the Randi Rhodes of the Right (we Dems are ashamed of Randi).

[Paladin]

But see, I view the Republicans, who value people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, as being VERY extreme. And you use the word "extreme" in the wrong context. What you should say is "...the issues of your party are pretty--different from mine--right now."

Funny, you see the faces of the Republican party as two people who have never asked anyone for a vote and I see the Dems by the people that have been elected. Do you see the difference?

[gpamp]

Funny, you see the faces of the Republican party as two people who have never asked anyone for a vote and I see the Dems by the people that have been elected. Do you see the difference?

Ok, I could dig in and find every Republican with a touch of immorality or a taste for Pages, and say that all Republicans think like they do. But since the Dems don't have a hold on mud slinging radio, I used Rush & Ann.

[Paladin]

Ok, I could dig in and find every Republican with a touch of immorality or a taste for Pages, and say that all Republicans think like they do. But since the Dems don't have a hold on mud slinging radio, I used Rush & Ann.

You ever gonna answer your opinions about the topics as asked or let the intellectual honesty test go as a failure?

You are versed in avoiding topics, but not good at it. LOL

[Paladin]

Hey this couild be a survey:

Abortion- Not my body, none of my business
Gay Marriage- hmmm, not my body not my business
Death Penalty- Some situations call for it
Gun Control- Everyone should have one
Immigration- Build a wall and defend it
ACLU - Best dam thing to happen to America
Taxes- No taxes=no government; no government=no prosperity

The whole concept of political parties just provides balance to both extremes. In the middle are the moderates who change the parties on a regular basis as they see fit.
I am curious, what is the Democrat and Republican stand on sending our hard-earned money to any jack-ass with uranium?
This is about M-O-N-E-Y, not God vs. Allah, Republicans vs. Democrats.
In fact, its meant to divide us and here we are dancing to the music like a bunch of puppets. The citizens of Middle Eastern countries are equally distracted by the same small issues, while THEIR leaders and government get rich off of the same oil and conflict that drives our economy. This is big business running the world. The best proof is that here we all sit in conjecture while no one is writing their Senator or Representative about anything except what homos do in the dark.

You answered the questions no better than gpamp did.

Like it has been said before, it is a pretty uninformed view to say that the above topics don't affect you.

BTW, do you vote? If so, typically for what party?

I don't care what "homos" do in the dark, it is when they ask for a right they don't deserve, that is when it involves me. I don't care who they have sex with. This topic was not meant to be so important, it was meant to front out gpamp for voting for democrats while he didn't even agree with many of their issues, surely that matters to you, voting for the best candidates who agree with your viewpoints, right?

[gpamp]

You ever gonna answer your opinions about the topics as asked or let the intellectual honesty test go as a failure?

You are versed in avoiding topics, but not good at it. LOL

So, if I don't give philosophical paragraphs to answer your questions, you see me as intellectually dishonest?

My only question is, who the hell are you to decide who's intellectually honest, or not?

[Paladin]

So, if I don't give philosophical paragraphs to answer your questions, you see me as intellectually dishonest?

My only question is, who the hell are you to decide who's intellectually honest, or not?

It is usually pretty obvious when someone professes to support a topic and then when confronted, they don't.

BTW, I am against abortion. I am for the death penalty. I am for lower taxes and against raising taxes to lower budget surpluses. I am against gay marriage, against gun control, think the ACLU is a radical group that is pushing a secular agenda that has no boundaries (like it's support for NAMBLA), and I am against politicians getting slush money form big companies and PAC's. Did my answers have a philosophical paragraph to answer? Nope, sure didn't, just plain old staright forward answers.

It really isn't that hard to answer the querstions IMO, that is why I asked you. People like you who spew hate and profess to be liberal flail like in the wind on issues because you don't take a stand. I proved it once again with you, and the next liberal will probably fail the intellectual honesty test also. You guys always do.

[gpamp]

It is usually pretty obvious when someone professes to support a topic and then when confronted, they don't.

BTW, I am against abortion. I am for the death penalty. I am for lower taxes and against raising taxes to lower budget surpluses. I am against gay marriage, against gun control, think the ACLU is a radical group that is pushing a secular agenda that has no boundaries (like it's support for NAMBLA), and I am against politicians getting slush money form big companies and PAC's. Did my answers have a philosophical paragraph to answer? Nope, sure didn't, just plain old staright forward answers.

It really isn't that hard to answer the querstions IMO, that is why I asked you. People like you who spew hate and profess to be liberal flail like in the wind on issues because you don't take a stand. I proved it once again with you, and the next liberal will probably fail the intellectual honesty test also. You guys always do.

I answered the questions like that. Scroll up. Find it.

I never spewed hate. You're the one that, out of the gate, called me an idiot.

It was a cute attempt, though. ;)

[Paladin]

I answered the questions like that. Scroll up. Find it.

I never spewed hate. You're the one that, out of the gate, called me an idiot.

It was a cute attempt, though. ;)

You mean these statements?

[QUOTE=gpamp]Abortion - I, personally, will never have one.
Gay Marraige - Again, I will never have one.
Death Penalty - Is sometimes used to kill people, found innocent after DNA testing.
Gun Control - I'll never own a gun, but like Gay Marraige, I won't stick my nose in your business of having one. Just don't point it at me.
Immigration - George Bush is doing a bang up job on that one.
ACLU - Is extreme, and no matter how many times its brought up by people who who hate Democrats, they're not one in the same.
Taxes - Taxes are what is paying for our troops to eat food while they're in Iraq. So, they're good, right?
QUOTE]

BTW, I don't hate you because you are an idiot. :D

I will even make it easy for you, answer these yes or no.

Are you for or against abortion?
Are you for or against the death penalty?
Are you for or against gay marriage?
Are you for or against gun control?
Are you for or against raising taxes above the current rate to reduce a deficit?

The answers are either "for" or "against", not that you will never have an abortion. These topics are not really that hard for most, unless you already know you will be contradictory to your party on them and will be fronted for a fraud or idiot for voting for people who support things you don't.

Don't be skeeered! :D

[gpamp]

Should've kept scrolling. And if you still don't get what I'm saying, learn to read into it. Just because it's not a "yes" or "no" doesn't mean it's not a "yes" or "no".

A few of those issues have NOTHING to do with me. I can't say "ban gay marriage" because I'm not gay. It will NEVER affect me. Abortion will NEVER affect me. Gun laws, I said I'm fine with them as they are, because they don't affect me. As long as there are background checks, of course. ACLU doesn't affect me. Immigration, granted I thwarted that one a bit, but I think it should be easier to become a citizen, Make the ones already here, Americans, then make it harder for anyone else to get in. The Death Penalty, I believe I stated my view on that one, too.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get out of me. You've admitted that you don't fall in line to EVERYthing that your party claims. If I'm the same way, then why am I being asked these questions, that I've answered, over and over again. Is there a point, other than 90 Notch is being a slight hypocrite?

[Paladin]

Should've kept scrolling. And if you still don't get what I'm saying, learn to read into it. Just because it's not a "yes" or "no" doesn't mean it's not a "yes" or "no".


I'm not sure what you're trying to get out of me. You've admitted that you don't fall in line to EVERYthing that your party claims. If I'm the same way, then why am I being asked these questions, that I've answered, over and over again. Is there a point, other than 90 Notch is being a slight hypocrite?

The hypocrite calls me one? That is laughable.

You won't answer the questions except to spew some spin. That is my point, and I made it on your back. Another liberal gets fronted out!

[Walsted]

Please fill me in on your personal views on the following topics and what you think your party's leaders opinions are on the same topics.

Abortion
Gay Marraige
Death Penalty
Gun Control
Immigration
ACLU
Taxes


I'm a registered Republican, and not afraid to share my views.

Abortion - Generally pro-choice for first trimester. Should be a state issue, not national, and should not be legal in any state for a fetus that could survive on its own. Currently, if I recall correctly, the youngest fetus to survive was born at 20 weeks, so, in my opinion, after 20 weeks, it is murder, not abortion.

Gay Marriage - I would say states rights if it wasn't for the equal protection clause, so, I believe those states wishing to legalize civil unions as marriage equivalents should be able to, but it should not be called marriage and thus force other states to abide by their laws. As for Texas, I believe that domestic partnerships should be covered by other documents (insurance, wills, contracts, etc,) with employers having the choice as to whether to cover domestic partners (same or different sex) with benefits similar to those of married couples.

Death Penalty - In favor. It is not unusual, so therefor it cannot be deemed cruel AND unusual.

Gun Control - You should be able to control the weapon to shoot the bastard that is trying to harm you or your family. Felons and those convicted of violent misdemeanors should NEVER be allowed to own weapons, except maybe bullets in their internal organs.

Immigration - In favor of legal immigration for those with guaranteed jobs or in-demand skills. Not in favor of amnesty.

ACLU - The theory was great, the execution is wrong. If they would protect all ten amendments, I may have a little more respect. They only protect the perverse at this time, such as the ex-president of their Virginia chapter who had violent kiddie porn on his home computer.

Taxes - Tax for what is needed, selecting the optimum tax rate. Increasing taxes beyond optimum decreases overall revenue, and hurts the economy. Income redistribution is wrong.

For the bonus,
Legislation - Less is better, don't make laws unless it is for the collective (not individual) public good. Helmets should not be required for adults who can prove they have medical coverage preventing them from becoming a burden on society in the event of a head injury. Taxes on cigarettes should cover smokers' extra medical expenses to the state, no less, no more. Perry screwed the pooch on this one with his Gaurdisil requirement - it should only be required to attend schools if the spread of HPV in school is a problem, and in that case, there is a greater problem.

Crime - The choice isn't punishment OR rehabilitation; both are allowable, so the answer should be punishment THEN rehabilitation. Serve the sentence, and become rehabilitated while serving, not instead of serving. And I believe criminals should lose all rights while in the commision of a felony or violent misdemeanor. Get paralyzed while trying to mug someone due to someone else's neglect? Too bad.

I think that this type of answer is what is desired. I could be wrong, though.

(Edit for clarification)

[TexasDevilDog]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/42ACKzW_GQ8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/42ACKzW_GQ8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[gpamp]

The hypocrite calls me one? That is laughable.

You won't answer the questions except to spew some spin. That is my point, and I made it on your back. Another liberal gets fronted out!

Dude... what reality are you semi-existing in? I typed the answer, then quoted my damn self, just to show you WHERE I said it.

Is this Sean Hannity? Am I the victim of a prank? Sean? This isn't funny.

[Denny]

Abortion- The decision was made when the baby was made. After that, it's no longer your decision. If you don't take care of the baby, then you should be held accountable, the baby taken away, and raised at your forced expense. Now in the event of a crime, such as rape, then more than just the mother of the child is a victim. The baby's blood falls on the assaulter's hands. Tragic any way you look at it. Or if a doctor deems it necessary because of the health of the mother, then so be it, but it should be investigated afterwards and both the mother and doctor held liable for their decision. I think we have a duty to protect EVERYONE!

Gay Marraige- WTF are people thinking?!?! Gay marriage should be just as legal as marriage to an animal. So if you're for it in any way, stay away from my pets, please.

Death Penalty- Some people just don't need to be here. Enough said.

Gun Control- I take full responsibility for MY actions, so what's the problem. I can also hit my target better than most, so if I shott at something, it's because I meant to. I can justify my actions/decisions in a court of law.

Immigration- There's a legal process. Anything else is ILLEGAL and should be handled accordingly. No exceptions.

ACLU- Just like affirmative action, there WAS a time and place for it, but is no longer needed. Both have been abused and changed to the point where they actually draw more division in society than bringing equality. I would love to see America do away with ALL entities offering "fair" advantages to minorities, LULAC, NAACP, loan/scholarship advantages, etc. I think we'd surprise even ourselves.

Taxes- I have no problem paying what I pay. Never have. Actually, it's a hell of a deal ,if you think about what you can get out of it. My problem lies within the management of the money. Both parties can take blame in this. We have more than enough money coming in to accomplish so many goals. Keep the lobbyists out of Washington and treat them as the criminals they are.

Anyone who turns away from this issue and says it's not their busness should have no business in our country. I'd rather see an opposing view with an answer justifying why than reving the car in neutral. Throw some more issues up, I ain't skeered!

[gpamp]

Anyone who turns away from this issue and says it's not their busness should have no business in our country. I'd rather see an opposing view with an answer justifying why than reving the car in neutral. Throw some more issues up, I ain't skeered!

Which issue? Because gay marriage really isn't my business. It should be NONE of our business, unless you're gay. That's like saying I want the right to decide whether or not you & your wife have a baby. And because of that, I "have no business in our country"?? When you want the right to decide what someone else does in their personal life, like that, its borderline Totalitarian... you know, like Nazis.

[Walsted]

... Because gay marriage really isn't my business. It should be NONE of our business, unless you're gay...

I'm not trying to be a jerk or be argumentative, but I disagree with that reasoning. We should not ignore situations solely because the situation doesn't directly apply to us individually, and the government generally doesn't. Since there are laws limiting other types of marriage, (for instance, incestuous marriages and polygamy are generally illegal,) it is obvious that the government has the right to limit or prohibit marriages. Since our government is (supposed to be) "for the people, by the people," it is the peoples' business, whether the people are gay or not.

Others may disagree.

[Casper]

I'm not trying to be a jerk or be argumentative, but I disagree with that reasoning. We should not ignore situations solely because the situation doesn't directly apply to us individually, and the government generally doesn't. Since there are laws limiting other types of marriage, (for instance, incestuous marriages and polygamy are generally illegal,) it is obvious that the government has the right to limit or prohibit marriages. Since our government is (supposed to be) "for the people, by the people," it is the peoples' business, whether the people are gay or not.

Others may disagree.

True enough, when they arrest your neighbors for anal sex, are they coming after your monkey porn next? Its not always about the primary issue but sometimes the precedent as well. It works both ways too, legalizing something sets precedent as well.

That being said I would like to see marriage treated as a religious or social construct with no objective favoritism or exclusion; then I don't care. I have always felt polygamy laws unconstitutional. separate the civil contract portion (like child custody and inheritance) and I am fine with it. My compromise would probably be to decide it at a state level, but that doesn't begin to address the federal impact.

[Denny]

Which issue? Because gay marriage really isn't my business. It should be NONE of our business, unless you're gay. That's like saying I want the right to decide whether or not you & your wife have a baby. And because of that, I "have no business in our country"?? When you want the right to decide what someone else does in their personal life, like that, its borderline Totalitarian... you know, like Nazis.
Please stay away from my pets (and from behind me).

[gpamp]

Please stay away from my pets (and from behind me).
Does this negate the PM you sent me? :p

[gpamp]

Wow had we fought back many of us would not be here.

These are the people who have are back?

I never thought I'd but the Brits with the French but those guys just
wussed out.

Tony Blair get a clue bring them up on charges when they get home!
He released people that where locked up for people doing there duty.

Now what does this say to the crazy towel heads capture some poor
sob on gaurd duty in a FOB and we get uncle habib out of jail in
London. Smart real smart :rolleyes: .




Lets all think about the seal team that attacked the run way in Grenada out of
12 men 7 died and 4 more wounded but they took the mother.

Royal Marine's my ass.

um... I had to read this 3 times.

[Denny]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18021368/

And it's back to the grindstone, as usual for the Iranians...

[Denny]

um... I had to read this 3 times.
LMFAO!!! I guess I still need a few more go-rounds.

[98COBRA#770]

I deleted it I'm still confused at the whole thing!

Royal Marines giving up with out a fight...

[gpamp]

I deleted it I'm still confused at the whole thing!

Royal Marines giving up with out a fight...

I'm pretty sure Blair's reasoning is 2 things. (1) They may not have the man-power to fight a war on 2 fronts. I have no clue what their army looks like, as far as numbers, though. I just can't see them having a bigger army that the US. Probably half, right?

(2) Blair's not really popular with his country right now. I'm sure he's scared to try anything other than diplomacy.

[gpamp]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18021368/

And it's back to the grindstone, as usual for the Iranians...
Next, you're going to try and tell me Global Warming's coming. :D

[exlude]

The US has about 1.5 million active duty. Brits about 200k.

[gpamp]

The US has about 1.5 million active duty. Brits about 200k.
Ok. So, yeah. If I were Blair, I'd wait for the US to do something, then join in, to spank them. It's not a matter of "everyone waits for the US to bail them out", but with only 200k people to fight...

That's just above the population of Mesquite. Dang.

[Denny]

Next, you're going to try and tell me Global Warming's coming. :D
20 kilotons at a time.

[gpamp]

20 kilotons at a time.
haha

[Paladin]

Dude... what reality are you semi-existing in? I typed the answer, then quoted my damn self, just to show you WHERE I said it.

Is this Sean Hannity? Am I the victim of a prank? Sean? This isn't funny.


With all the people who have actually answered the questions in this thread you still think you answered them? There is even another person who said you didn't answer it, so keep dreaming.

I fronted you out for what you are, that was my main point anyway.

[Paladin]

I'm not trying to be a jerk or be argumentative, but I disagree with that reasoning. We should not ignore situations solely because the situation doesn't directly apply to us individually, and the government generally doesn't. Since there are laws limiting other types of marriage, (for instance, incestuous marriages and polygamy are generally illegal,) it is obvious that the government has the right to limit or prohibit marriages. Since our government is (supposed to be) "for the people, by the people," it is the peoples' business, whether the people are gay or not.

Others may disagree.

I bet he has an opinion but he is unwilling to post it for obvious reasons (hypocrisy). I love the cowards who say they aren't afffected by gay marrriage, abortion, the death penalty, or any other major social issue of our time. They vote for Democrats, and all their desire for government to solve our ills, then don't want to admit how much these issues affect them. Yeah, that is why you vote for people who want more government, becuase these issues mean nothing, right? LOL

[gpamp]

With all the people who have actually answered the questions in this thread you still think you answered them? There is even another person who said you didn't answer it, so keep dreaming.

I fronted you out for what you are, that was my main point anyway.
Ok, and you're a Nazi. I've proven that with cold-hard facts.

(Since that's how you go about arguing, I guess I can do it.)

[Casper]

Some people do prioritize their issues, I know I do.

Where a candidate stands on the second amendment is a good indicator of how much they trust John Q Public. So I weight that issue accordingly.

[Paladin]

I'm a registered Republican, and not afraid to share my views.

Abortion - Generally pro-choice for first trimester. Should be a state issue, not national, and should not be legal in any state for a fetus that could survive on its own. Currently, if I recall correctly, the youngest fetus to survive was born at 20 weeks, so, in my opinion, after 20 weeks, it is murder, not abortion.

Gay Marriage - I would say states rights if it wasn't for the equal protection clause, so, I believe those states wishing to legalize civil unions as marriage equivalents should be able to, but it should not be called marriage and thus force other states to abide by their laws. As for Texas, I believe that domestic partnerships should be covered by other documents (insurance, wills, contracts, etc,) with employers having the choice as to whether to cover domestic partners (same or different sex) with benefits similar to those of married couples.

Death Penalty - In favor. It is not unusual, so therefor it cannot be deemed cruel AND unusual.

Gun Control - You should be able to control the weapon to shoot the bastard that is trying to harm you or your family. Felons and those convicted of violent misdemeanors should NEVER be allowed to own weapons, except maybe bullets in their internal organs.

Immigration - In favor of legal immigration for those with guaranteed jobs or in-demand skills. Not in favor of amnesty.

ACLU - The theory was great, the execution is wrong. If they would protect all ten amendments, I may have a little more respect. They only protect the perverse at this time, such as the ex-president of their Virginia chapter who had violent kiddie porn on his home computer.

Taxes - Tax for what is needed, selecting the optimum tax rate. Increasing taxes beyond optimum decreases overall revenue, and hurts the economy. Income redistribution is wrong.

For the bonus,
Legislation - Less is better, don't make laws unless it is for the collective (not individual) public good. Helmets should not be required for adults who can prove they have medical coverage preventing them from becoming a burden on society in the event of a head injury. Taxes on cigarettes should cover smokers' extra medical expenses to the state, no less, no more. Perry screwed the pooch on this one with his Gaurdisil requirement - it should only be required to attend schools if the spread of HPV in school is a problem, and in that case, there is a greater problem.

Crime - The choice isn't punishment OR rehabilitation; both are allowable, so the answer should be punishment THEN rehabilitation. Serve the sentence, and become rehabilitated while serving, not instead of serving. And I believe criminals should lose all rights while in the commision of a felony or violent misdemeanor. Get paralyzed while trying to mug someone due to someone else's neglect? Too bad.

I think that this type of answer is what is desired. I could be wrong, though.

(Edit for clarification)

This is exactky what I was looking for from him, but he won't give it. Instead, he danced around it like I was shooting at his feet. Maybe he is skeered!

BTW, what is up with a registered Republican disagreeing with the oarty on abortion? I thought all of us conserative types towed the party line and never went agaisnt what our leaders told us? Man, you sure blew that stereotype for me. :rolleyes:

[Paladin]

Ok, and you're a Nazi. I've proven that with cold-hard facts.

(Since that's how you go about arguing, I guess I can do it.)

Once again, you prove your idiocy. Thanks

[gpamp]

This is exactky what I was looking for from him, but he won't give it. Instead, he danced around it like I was shooting at his feet. Maybe he is skeered!

BTW, what is up with a registered Republican disagreeing with the oarty on abortion? I thought all of us conserative types towed the party line and never went agaisnt what our leaders told us? Man, you sure blew that stereotype for me. :rolleyes:

Again, why do you assume that I have to break down and give answers to you? You're some idiot on a forum. I don't get why you think you're important enough to decide who's who, and what's what by pouring over people's responses to your questions. Even simple ones. You don't deserve my answer.

Here, I'll quote you in advance, since you're as predictable as your period.

He's dodging the question, again! IDIOT! IDIOT! I fronted him out! I'm so authoritative! IDIOT!

[Paladin]

Again, why do you assume that I have to break down and give answers to you? You're some idiot on a forum. I don't get why you think you're important enough to decide who's who, and what's what by pouring over people's responses to your questions. Even simple ones. You don't deserve my answer.

Here, I'll quote you in advance, since you're as predictable as your period.

If you had refused to answer it would have ended, but you chose to half ass answer the questions, so therefore I am making fun of you for your choice to answer, but not really answer.

I would have definitely made fun of you if you had capitulated and given full answers because of my making fun of you, so you will be spared that at least. LOL

[gpamp]

I'll give you a chance to retype that with, at least, a 2nd grade spelling level.

[Paladin]

I'll give you a chance to retype that with, at least, a 2nd grade spelling level.

The avoider bitch is at it again!

[gpamp]

The avoider bitch is at it again!
I already predicted you'd say that. Period boy.

[Paladin]

I already predicted you'd say that. Period boy.

I guess you have blown that "never" smoked dope stuff, huh? :confused:

[Stevo]

Again, why do you assume that I have to break down and give answers to you? You're some idiot on a forum. I don't get why you think you're important enough to decide who's who, and what's what by pouring over people's responses to your questions. Even simple ones. You don't deserve my answer.

Here, I'll quote you in advance, since you're as predictable as your period.

Wow, you suck at this, can we get another liberal in here? At least mm2k gives logical albeit misguided answers. :rolleyes:

Stevo

[Walsted]

...BTW, what is up with a registered Republican disagreeing with the party on abortion? I thought all of us conserative types towed the party line and never went against what our leaders told us? Man, you sure blew that stereotype for me. :rolleyes:

Hate to ruin a good stereotype. Sorry.

The reasoning behind my beliefs on that one are because I'm more of a less-government-is-better type of person. I'm not sure when human life actually begins, and think it is a religious question if we aren't talking about a viable fetus. So, I figure it is better if we let each determine for themselves, provided my tax dollars aren't being used. Once the fetus is viable, then it becomes murder, since there is a chance the fetus could theoretically survive if it were spontaneously aborted.

Others may disagree, and I respect intelligent disagreement.

[Paladin]

Hate to ruin a good stereotype. Sorry.

The reasoning behind my beliefs on that one are because I'm more of a less-government-is-better type of person. I'm not sure when human life actually begins, and think it is a religious question if we aren't talking about a viable fetus. So, I figure it is better if we let each determine for themselves, provided my tax dollars aren't being used. Once the fetus is viable, then it becomes murder, since there is a chance the fetus could theoretically survive if it were spontaneously aborted.

Others may disagree, and I respect intelligent disagreement.

My objection to abortion is mostly due to the fact that but for the abortion the child would survive. Kind of makes me dislike any abortion. To me a viable pregnancy is every one that we don't suck out a mother.

I did come around to the less government is better on the smoking issue. I am probably one of the most aggressive anti-smokers in the world, but I think the government should not legislate what private business owners should do. I hope every business owner decides for him/herself to ban smoking from their establishment. :D