Geo, you forgit to mention the REST of my sentence: "I pronounce it..."
As for on topic:
I don't think Uncle Sam is going to listen in on your conversation with your mother over in England about apple pie recipeis then SWAT-team you. If tthey're listening in on overseas conversations, I trust they have a good reason to suspect that the conversation is linked to a terrorist activity.
Uncle Sam does not care about your apple pie recipies. That is all.
I don't think Uncle Sam is going to listen in on your conversation with your mother over in England about apple pie recipeis then SWAT-team you. If tthey're listening in on overseas conversations, I trust they have a good reason to suspect that the conversation is linked to a terrorist activity.
It's pretty much common knowledge at this point that an alliance of English-speaking countries consisting of the US, the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and others, has been covertly intercepting and analyzing communications around the world since the Cold War. The US is the only member of this organization that denies its existence.
Yup. And the terrorism in our borders comes from where? Magical pretty-color land? Nope. It comes from one place. The Middle East.
"Aside from the Bloods, the Crips, the Militia that attacked Oklahoma City, Heaven's Gate, the Koreshians, the KKK, the Neo-Nazis, the Columbine shooters, the Unabomber and Eric Rudolph, whom are all American....because, um....they just....don't exist! Yeah, that's right!"
Also, I have no clue why you say Mexico houses terrorists. Could you please elaborate?
The Zapatas in northeastern Mexico are notorious for bombings because they want to break away from Mexico. And don't get started on the Columbian drug dealers and Mexican drug dealers. They practically ruled their respective governments for years.
Quote:
I trust they have a good reason to suspect that the conversation is linked to a terrorist activity.
Plus, as Bush said in one of his presidential addresses, this recent 'wiretaps' incident was revealed to have been used ONLY on people with known connections to Al Qaeda.
"Aside from the Bloods, the Crips, the Militia that attacked Oklahoma City, Heaven's Gate, the Koreshians, the KKK, the Neo-Nazis, the Columbine shooters, the Unabomber and Eric Rudolph, whom are all American....because, um....they just....don't exist! Yeah, that's right!"
Eric and Dylan don't even come close to being terrorists.
Plus, as Bush said in one of his presidential addresses, this recent 'wiretaps' incident was revealed to have been used ONLY on people with known connections to Al Qaeda.
And as we all know, Bush has fully proven himself to be a man who speaks nothing but the truth. Oh, and pretty much every newspaper I've read has quoted him as saying that you need merely be suspected of having "terrorist ties" in order to quaify for a covert gauntlet of cavalier violations of your personal rights. Let us not forget that being named Peter Johnson is enough to earn you a permanent place on the no-fly list.
Eric and Dylan don't even come close to being terrorists.
No, but they were certainly aiming for it.
"Aside from the Bloods, the Crips, the Militia that attacked Oklahoma City, Heaven's Gate, the Koreshians, the KKK, the Neo-Nazis, the Columbine shooters, the Unabomber and Eric Rudolph, whom are all American....because, um....they just....don't exist! Yeah, that's right!"
As for the gangs: Police matter. Unless you think we should sic the Air Force on Americans. And the KKK? ...They're still around? Damn, what do they DO at those meetings now anyway? "Ey George, we still hate people right?" "Yup." "Okay, we'll have another meeting next week." "Okay." Honestly? When's the last time any of these groups has killed over 4,000 people in a single day?
"He started it" is not an excuse.
When.. Did... Hur... I... .... F**k this.
And, hey, what about that one time when Russia invaded Colorado, huh? Is Russian mideastern?
Hell, if it wasn't for our spunky teens, we'd be eating potatoes right now.
...you are extremely quoteable. 😛
Heck yeah. Jsut look at all of my QotW thread posts.
No, but they were certainly aiming for it.
I think they were aiming for bloody revenge.
Ultra, ultra, ultra...
You've linked to biased republican-sympathising news sites. warped statistics and paranoid conspiracy theories of the sort I've just carefully explained why I don't give any credit to.
Believe the propaganda if you want, but you've going by misinformation from the companies owned by the kinds of rich, corrupt businessmen who will do anything to keep the Republicans on power as long as they keep on giving them tax breaks.
Link to an independent, non-american source for once and I might believe you.
As for Harold Pinter's speech- you've glossed over an awful lot of salient points with dismissive labels and false cobverse without actually backing up your rubbishing of what he's saying with anything whatsoever. Saying "I'm right and you're wrong because what you're saying is obviously laughable" does not a salient point make.
And frankly, I'd trust an independent outsider rather more than "military officials" with considerable vested interests in making sure they look good over the whole debacle.
And just because Iraq is finally beginning to improve doesn't chnage the fact that for years it was worse than under Saddam. Do you have any real authority for those supposed statistics you're copying and pasting so blithely?
I'm just going to make a general point here.
I pride myself on being open-minded. I didn't simply make up my mind based purely on the news sources I happen to normally read... i went and looked at news, statistics, opinions and sources on both sides in forming my opinion on Iraq. The only conclusion I could reach is that virtually all the sources, articles and analysis that claimed the war was a good thing, that there had been WMD and that there was a link between Iraq and 9/11 were all derived from companies and individuals with a vested interest in the Bush regime, making their impartiality and incentive to tell the truth nonexistent.
By contrast, sources supporting my argument were frequently based in other coutnries, not linked to any such interests, and taking a more balanced view of the situation.
Stop quoting political propaganda at me and glossing over the bits of my agrument you can't answer.
I thouht this needed to be mentioned.
First of all, big-cheese Iranian cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani "called Iraq's parliamentary elections a 'victory' for Iran and said the vote had shattered any U.S. expansionist ambitions in the Middle East," according to the Financial Times.
It's no wonder that Iran, a charter member of the Axis of Evil, is delighted at the turn of events in Iraq. I mean, twenty years ago they were in the middle of a bloody, violent war with Iraq, against a secular dictator by the name of Saddam Hussein, who was being funded and armed by the United States. Twenty years later Saddam is gone, Iraq has been destroyed, and its people are on the verge of electing a Shiite theocracy.
The cost? Let's do a quick end-of-year round-up. Last week George W. Bush casually estimated that 30,000 Iraqis have lost their lives since the U.S. invaded. (He didn't bat an eyelid. It was quite impressive.) Meanwhile, the death toll among American soldiers has passed 2,150, with at least 15,000 wounded (and the dead are being shipped back as freight, if you can believe it). It was also announced last week that the cost of the Iraq war to the American taxpayer will soon balloon past $500 billion. That's half a trillion dollars.
Meanwhile, Iraq has become a training ground for anti-American terrorists, the torture rooms have re-opened, Osama bin Laden is still at large, no weapons of mass destruction have been discovered, and Iran is throwing a party.
So I guess it's a big thumbs-up so far for GWB's Great Middle East Experiment!
Okay let me set something straight. Since when is the Associated Press, an international new corporation, american propoganda? And since when is Iraqi elections such a bad thing? I'll ask more later.
Pardon me Xag, but could you at least LINK to these sources you're citing? So far you've done nothing but claim that I've nothing to say except propaganda and misinformation, even though you've shown nothing to back that assertation up. Get my point?
As for Harold Pinter, he's a guy I can't take seriously. I mean, how can anyone honestly compare the US to the Soviet Union during the Cold War? I'm not pretending America's hands aren't clean. No question. But to say America's actions were equivalent to Soviet actions is just plain absurd. Take a look at this article. Take note it's in the Sunday Times by Niall Ferguson, a Professor of History at Harvard University. So there goes your 'Republican propaganda' angle right there.
And Cycle...last I checked, Iraq is NOT 'destroyed'.
30,000 lives. The article makes no mention whether or not this is either Iraqis who are NOT terrorists, Iraqis that ARE terrorists, or all of them. Even so, be realistic; 30,000 dead in 2.5 years under Allied/Iraqi control...or the many more that would have died under Saddam's regime? You make the call.
For the 15,000 wounded, you have to take into account that over 8,000 of those wounded have returned to duty. It's a lot yes. But considering the length of the war, the overall casualties are small from a historical standpoint.
For the soldier shipped home as 'frieght', you have to think about the way soldiers are taken home in context. How are they supposed to ship a coffin home when it's done by plane? Where else would they put except in cargo? An escort is given to each casket as it's transferred; however, the article seems to infer that some kind of 'outrage' has occured. This has been happening since the beginning of the war. This is how it works:
-A soldier dies in Iraq
-His/her body is shipped to a military base in the US in a coffin draped in a flag, a full color guard is present and gives proper salute
-The coffin with flag is taken to a commercial airport for transport home
-A soldier, most likely someone in his company, is assigned to monitor the loading of the coffin in the aircraft.
-The soldier boards the aircraft
-The flight arrives in XXX and then the accompanying soldier deboards first and goes to the cargo hold to ensure the coffin still draped by the flag is properly placed in the hearse.
-When the body arrives at its final destination airport, the soldier and a chaplain (and other support services) accompanying the coffin meets with the family.
Read this. It's an eyewittness account of an officer who was assigned as an escort for the remains of a soldier.
For 500 billion, a simple solution would simply be to cut some of the pork and spend less to make up for it. Unfortunately, we know how spending's been (yes, I know spending's out of control. I'm not a Bushbot.).
As for torture, read this. And I somehow doubt it's as severe as http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/26/91223.shtm l">Saddam's.
At least no panties were put on their head. Then it would've been REALLY horrible. /sarcasm
Finally, I have an article for you to read. Go ahead and take a look.
(Shrugs)
I'm not agreeing with everything Pinter says... I just think he makes some relevant points that the US tries to portray itself as squeaky-clean and really isn't.
As for my sources?
Paper and ink newspapers. Though one's based at www.guardian.co.uk
I tend to go by traditional news sources rather than interenet, tis all.
(Btw, your professor is american-based. Again. Link to someone outside the US, for once)
Quote:
(Btw, your professor is american-based. Again. Link to someone outside the US, for once)
True, however, my point was that he came from a university that hasn't quite been so sympathetic to the Republican point of view.
I just think he makes some relevant points that the US tries to portray itself as squeaky-clean and really isn't.
...
Squeaky-clean? the US? Hell, we don't try to make ourselves look perfect. It'd be impossible to.
There is a difference between trying to look totally innocent and trying to be right.
And by right I mean opposite of wrong, not opposite of left.
As for me, unless something a bit more intresting comes up, I'm out. Later.
Triple-7 for SX. LUCKY!
70 for the thread. Moving time. ALSO LUCKY!
EDIT: Wait...not 70 yet. Oops. oo;
o o
Quote:
True, however, my point was that he came from a university that hasn't quite been so sympathetic to the Republican point of view.
I'm sorry but that cracks me up. The biggest myth is that the Ivy League schools are bastions of liberal viewpoints. Since I not only attended/graduated from one of them (Columbia) and have several friends that attended most of the others (including Harvard), I laugh at the fact that people continue to perpetuate this stuff. There are plenty of professors (and definitely administrators) that are extremely conservative in these schools as well as moderates.
The university at which someone teaches has no bearing on their viewpoints of the issues than does where someone lives. I know plenty of liberals in supposedly die-hard conservative areas and plenty of conversatives in supposdely die-hard liberal areas.
Quote:
True, however, my point was that he came from a university that hasn't quite been so sympathetic to the Republican point of view.
(Agrees with Red, there.)
Even if the university is traditionally liberal, doesn't mean a thing about his personal opinion/bias. They don't employ academic staff on the basis of political leanings... yet.
