1,987 Forum Posts by "WolvenBear"
At 8/27/07 09:28 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Yes, he should of. We don't have mind reading powers. It turns out he was not, according to the legal system, the leak, but he was still a SUSPECT, so he was questioned. The whole "Clinton shouldn't have been put on trial" issue, I believe, wasn't the argument that "It turns out he didn't get a blow job, he never should have gotten put in court!". The point was "Getting a blow-job isn't illegal, so even if he was guilty he shouldn't have been tried in court". The cases are totally different. The similarity is that they both committed perjury.
Clinton was brought to trial originally in a civil suit for sexual harassment. He then committed no fewer than 10 felonies. He was then brought to CRIMINAL trial for breaking the law. He wasn't brought into court for "getting a bj from Monica", and anyone who tosses out that tired line doesn't know what they're talking about. The Monica issue was brought up to show a pattern of behavior in the Jones trial. Since sexual harassment IS illegal (it shouldn't be, but people like Clinton have to play by their own rules), he was validly in court. Since perjury is also illegal, he was rightfully brought into criminal court.
Now, to Libby. Before starting, Fitzgerald knew that Richard Armitage was the leaker, and he knew that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent, and therefore, the leaking of her name was not a crime. Yet, he continued investigating this non-crime. He allowed Plame and Joe Wilson to repeatedly commit perjury to convict Libby for "lying" about a telephone conversation he had with Tim Russert years ago in which he supposedly leaked the name. Russert was so unconvincing that the jurors didn't believe him.
So Fitzgerald did the following:
1) Presented Plame as a covert agent when she wasn't.
2) Wen't after a man who he knew was not involved in the leak, for an unimportant phone covnersation from years ago.
3) Wasted a lot of tax payer money on a frivilous trial when no crime had been committed.
To Gonzales.
Congress doesn't have a Constitutional right to conduct investigations...but moving on.
Firing attorneys, under any circumstance, is not a crime. The Democrats were right for defending Clinton against the charges back in 93. (And he was under investigation). So the Democrats started an investigation into the President for what they defended Clinton against years before. Since you can't drag someone into court to testify unless a crime has been committed or someone is being sued, the point is moot. Still, Gonzales testified anyways. Convincing or not, no one knows whether he lied, so calling him a perjurer is silly.
At 8/27/07 09:31 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Actually, I wouldn't call it "trumped up bullshit" at all. The Plame case was an OBVIOUSE case of leaked information, and the leaker was obviously a very high level Republican. Guess who fit's that build? If someone robs a bank, and my description fits that of the robber, the police are going to ask me some questions. It isn't "trumped up", it's being falsely accused of something.
Armitage was the one who gossiped Plames name. Fitzgerald knew that going in.
He also knew Plame wasn't covert.
If that's not trumped up, I don't know what is.
At 8/28/07 01:24 AM, fli wrote: First off, I aint playing the race card because I never did like Gonzalez, ever. But I'm pointing out the obvious: him, decended by illegals, him mestizo skin, him Spanish speaking; the US = "ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE EVIL........."
"I'm not playing the race crad. But he was Mexican. And we all know that the US is a nation of white bigots who hate darkies."
Please. I can't take anything you say after that seriously.
Bush Admin will probably have the best record for a very long time as being the most racially diverse cabinete, yet-- at the same time, it's the most White Wash. My "I want Whitey" thread speaks of that sentiment.
Coconut, Oreo, whatever.
I'm sick of leftists calling their own "not dark enough". It's pathetic.
So...
Why do White Republicans hated him?
Because they could never figure out where was his allegence. He's like them, but he can't be like them... so he has to use a lot of ambiguity to hover on both sides.
"All white people only trust darkies who are pro-white."
Pathetic
It's basically the same mentality that made us lock up all the Japanese Americans in concentration camps in the United States. They view him as somebody who could be a potential betrayer. He's Catholic. His father was a construction worker... his mom probably assembly. This isn't part of the political Republican scheme of life where affluency comes from being a in a religion that has Protestant ideal, what daddy did before, and money. (Although, I don't know why not... since I know so man
So after claiming you won't use the race card, you accuse white Republicans of hating him for being dark, you call him names meaning "too white", and claim all sorts of racial undertones.
Basically, you play the race card.
At 8/27/07 02:03 PM, tony4moroney wrote: Easier said then done, they tried to but Bush refused to comply with subpoenas and started calling for executive privileges. But you just don't get it do you? If I shot your mom in the face and then refused to answer any questions by the police or court when i'm a suspect and there is evidence that im witholding, that in itself is illegal (but in bush's case its an abuse of exec. priv.) then of course youre going to be suspected of lying and murder and rightfully. To think otherwise is fucking stupid and I'm not surprised that you would condone such conniving, deceptive actions.
Um, no. If you shot his mom in the face (the analogy sucks because Gonzales didn't commit a crime, but whatever), you are not required to answer any questions by anyone. It is your constitutional right to remain silent (5th Amendment and all). Furthermore, you have no duty to present evidence that hurts you. It's hardly illegal.
But to make the analogy better. The police suspect you of a crime. They don't KNOW if you did anything wrong. They think you might've, but they don't know what. You'd get off easy on that as they had no reason to suspect you of anything.
Correct analogy. A cop pulls up to you as you walk and demands you prove that when you crossed the street that you weren't jaywalking. He says you may have crossed legally, or you may have broken the law. He's not sure, but he's taking you in for questioning. When you don't answer his questions (because frankly this is bullshit anyway), he threatens that if you don't start talking, he'll jail you, whether or not he can prove anything.
THAT'S what happened to both Gonzales AND Libby.
Actually no you can't. For example you're not allowed to fire attorneys to cover up an investigation.
Yes, the President can. Attorneys serve at Presidental priviledge. That's why Clinton was able to fire 93 attorneys even as he was being investigated for white water.
No it can't. what the hell are you talking about? are you high? there shouldn't have been a multi-million dollar investigation into clinton's PERSONAL LIFE whereas in gonzales' case there is every reason to put someone on a stand when it relates to an activity that is suspected of being ILLEGAL. And why is it that every republican has to resort to clinton?
Clinton committed perjury while on defense for sexual harassment. He broke the law.
Gonzales didn't.
Next.
person: bush
republican: bu-bu-bu-but clinton!
It's a pretty good standard. When someone defends egregious conduct because the person is on their team, but then villifies the other guy for doing something equal or less. The same people who defended Barney Frank attacked Foley and Larry Craig. The same people who defended Clinton attack Bush. The same people who defend Sandy Burger attack Lewis Libby. It's rank hypocracy, and it shows that people like you have no convictions.
It's like the Islamist principal in liberal form. "Nothing that hurts liberals is good, nothing that helps liberals is bad." Principals be damned.
At 8/27/07 02:06 PM, tony4moroney wrote: Libby was found guilty of committing a crime, and that was perjury. It was also Treason considering it was related to the cover-up of someone who leaked sensitive information relating to national security.
Libby was found guilty of perjury despite the fact that the special prosecutor knew who "leaked" the name of non-covert agent Valerie Plame from the outset. And since there was no damage to National Security, it was hardly treason. God you're a partisan little douchebag.
From the jurors:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/06/l ibby.juror/index.html
The primary testimony that convinced the jury on most of the counts, Collins said, was Libby's alleged conversation with NBC's "Meet the Press" moderator Tim Russert. "Some of us believed it never happened," he said.
"We were told he had a bad memory and we actually believed he did." But that testimony was contradicted by testimony that he had an incredible grasp of details.
So, many of them believe that the conversation with Tim Russert (the reason he was being charged with perjury) never happened, but convicted him anyways.
Listening to the testimony of those jurors is ridiculous. They went in believing a crime had been committed and ruled accordingly. They believe that he might have forgotten the exact words used in a conversation years ago...but saw evidence that he could also have a grasp of details when they were important.
The guy got railroaded.
At 8/27/07 04:43 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: blah blah blah
So perjury is excused if it's about sex, even if felonies were committed to avoid a sexual harassment charge...but if it's in relation to saying the name of someone who's a desk jockey at the CIA....THAT'S INEXCUSABLE! If it's about a bj who cares? If it's about the legal powers of the president to fire employees, then it's a firing squad!
Ridiculous.
Don't pretend perjury matters sometimes, but not others.
At 8/27/07 08:53 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: And? Perjuring on something you aren't facing jail for is still illegal. If I remember, Clinton perjured himself on that whole blowjob thing, eh?
He was lying to face punishment. He was on trial for sexual harassment. Losing meant losing money. He committed perjury and created a real coverup to deny Paula Jones her day in court. (Normally, I don't think women should be allowed to come out of nowhere and sue for an incident that caused them no harm 15 years ago. But since Clinton was such a big supporter of this behavior as long as it was other poor guys who got sued...I'm less sympathetic.)
No, he can just be proven to have lied about treason. Just like if someone lies to cover up 9/11, you can't prove them a terrorist.
Except there was no treason committed. And since Libby was brought to trial on false premesis...he got railroaded.
At 8/27/07 09:18 PM, tony4moroney wrote: Which he was found guilty of doing by a non-partisan jury and judge in the federal court.
The jury expressed highly partisan statements, and many were adamant Democrats. The facts don't show an impartial jury.
I said technically it's treason considering he lied to cover up a scandal involving national security.
No national security was involved.
Since when did I claim he was the leak? Just because you're found guilty of being involved in covering up and lying to the court doesn't mean you were the person who committed the felony itself.
Yet Fitsgerald in his closing arguments accused him of outing Plame (who wasn't covert), despite knowing who the leak was before he ever talked to Libby.
I repeat...you're so partisan it's sad.
At 8/29/07 07:44 PM, fli wrote: But this isn't the only minority group that aren't willing to see the plight of gays. Blacks... oh dear god. They've finished the Civil Rights not too long ago (50 years.) And yet... they'll get upset if people parallel their struggle with gays. and this, despite Dr. MLK's wife, Coretta, says that there is indeed many great similarities.
Society not accepting as valid a homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue.
Marriage=society giving you the thumbs up.
There is no "gay struggle" today. Just like there's no black struggle.
I'm tired of whiny people demanding that society accept whatever nonsense they engage in...then cry discrimination when they don't get the official stamp of approval.
At 8/29/07 10:24 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Proteas, try killing somebody with an air rifle or a replica gun - without using it as a bludgeon. You may find it's a bit difficult. And I don't hear you saying "Yes, nobody has been killed with a semi-automatic weapon since they were banned - maybe there's a connection." Odd, that.
Um, there have been quite a few people killed with semi-automatic weapons. You're so full of shit.
Here's several:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engla nd/london/6363713.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engla nd/2724089.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engla nd/merseyside/6964312.stm
A semi-auto is a weapon that only needs a trigger pull to fire a gun. As such, most pistols qualify.
Exceptions: revolver, shotgun, single action rifle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automa tic_firearm
Most weapons nowadays are semi-auto. Since you are ridiculously lumping semi-auto rifles (which are rarely used in crimes anyways) in with all semi-auto weapons (which are obviously still in use), you either know shit about guns (definate), have an agenda, or both.
Here's the better question: How many times had that happened before? None?
Wow, that gun ban sure made a difference. Eye rollie.
At 8/29/07 05:08 PM, Transkar wrote: It's no surprise that neither of you morons payed any attention to what I said.
You jumped into a debate and called everyone stupid before making a point that had been hit on. Since your only contribution with to appeal to emotion, and to call quite a few people who are intelligently debating the issue stupid, there wasn't a whole lot to address. Oh, and since you consider all the other issues irrelevant, you really aren't setting yourself up as an intellectual.
Sure, that was ONE point of the 2nd amendment. But it was not the only use.
At 8/27/07 11:49 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Coincidentally, a drop from 2-8% to the sum of 0 shows it worked.
As I've stated elsewhere, 53% of Britain's gun crime is air rifles, brandishing replicas as real weapons increases every year...and gun crime using actual, live round firing guns has decreased. Coincidentally.
Yea, not quite.
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.
htm
Since 1997, Handgun and shotgun violence has increased.
And since "airguns" can't account for homicides...we'll toss that stupid argument out.
Oh, and since you tout laws as being responsible for England's "safety",
http://www.port.ac.uk/departments/academ ic/icjs/staff/documentation/filetodownlo ad,66240,en.pdf
Using imitation guns was made a felony in 1994. It has increased in prevalence every year since.
Oh, and the "0" number of gun murders since 1997...
Someone must not have gotten the memo.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/londo n/6363713.stm
If only he had a head of lettuce....
At 8/27/07 11:52 AM, tony4moroney wrote: So wait.. youre just going to take that statistic on it's face value and then go to an all encompassing conclusion that guns therefore do more good then harm?
I think it's pretty important we at least get an understanding behind it. How many of those instances would be entirely non-existent had a gun not been present in the first place? How many of these instances were preventable by another measure.. as someone else pointed out a man stopped an assailant with a cabbage head. You could prevent the advances of a threatening individual with a tazer gun, pepper spray or less lethal defensive weapon effectively.
So your entire argument is "if the crime had never been committed by a criminal, this talk wouldn't be neccessary"?
And who cares if it "could" be prevented another way.
That's demanding a victim justify defending themselves. Which is stupid.
But there are also several factors to consider such as immigration - homogeneous countries have been shown to have a drastically lower instance of hate crime, obviously. also, inflated statistics due to anomalous instances, as someone else pointed out earlier the victims of the london bombings were included in the murder statistics and also, a changing societal attitude not necessarily correlating with gun control.
So now we get to the crux of the problem of your argument. There's more than one factor involved in analyzing gun control. You cite this when someone points out a failure in gun control, but ignore it when gun control "succeeds".
Where was this proof and secondly i guess this shows that it is in fact possible to implement a successful gun control policy.
Not quite. The gun crime was dropping in Australia before the ban or buy back. It continued to drop at the same rate. (by D2K's own link). That's like saying "we've been paying down the family debt at a grand a month. Dad got a second job. THAT'S why our debt is now lower!" Really? If the rate of exceleration didn't increase (that is, if you didn't start paying MORE per month), then Dad's second job didn't help make your debt lower. (Tho it probably made life nicer.)
Except that according to these facts youve presented crime would reduce. The murder rate has increased in the uk, but murder by firearms is still low, their murder rate is lower then ours and overall, crimes have reduced in the uk.
So, murders have increased. Therefore, banning guns world wide would increase because crime is still low?
That logic don't make sense, bud.
At 8/28/07 08:00 AM, Elfer wrote:At 8/28/07 12:20 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:As D2K pointed out, most of the "gun" crime now is committed with air rifles and replicas. It would be more relevant to compare gun violence.
As the link I posted proves, air gun crime was high before the ban. It HAS increased. But it's not like people weren't doing it before.
As I pointed out, you're getting your information on "murder" from a site that changed counting methods in 1998, which records homicide instead of murder, and which includes about 100 deaths that can't possibly be attributed to gun involvement, and 250 murders which started during the 70s but weren't recorded until the early 2000s.
It's D2K's link. He posted it, and we've used it to discredit him. If you present flawed evidence, you can't go "aha, there's a problem with it!" once people use it to shoot you down. If nothing else, it shatters his whole point to begin with. INDEED, he's used that inflated number to argue that gun crimes are going down. Take out the overinflation, and what it shows is a continuing upward trend.
At 8/28/07 12:04 PM, tony4moroney wrote: to paraphrase: 'who's to say that in many of these reported instances of dgu the victim couldnt have defended his/herself with another weapon i.e tazer, pepper spray.' which can be likened to 'what are the underlying circumstances that led to these defensive uses?' and then extended to - and could they have been resolved in another way?
It's an irrelevant question. (Though as I explained, tazers and pepper spray aren't great defensive weapons. Unless your attacker is really close, and preferably unarmed.)
Better question: How many of these people wouldn't have to defend themselves if they weren't put in the situation by a criminal.
"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively."
That would mean only 240 000 of these estimated defensive uses are legitimate.
Depends on your use of the word "legitimate". To me legitimate= "protecting an innocent civilian from being victimized by a criminal."
Though that proves criminals are undeterred by laws, and gives credence to loosening gun laws...not tightening them.
survey stuff deleted for space
So it's fair to say that there aren't actually 2 million legitimate defensive uses a year, and that this number is grossly inflated, whereas the numbers for homicides are actually based on just that - real cases of homicide not estimates and anonymous telephone calls.
While this paper offers up some problems with the K&G survey, it is a VERY weak rebuttal.
Every study has its flaws. For example, the original NCVS study, while much more extensive, ONLY uses people who are actually victimized. Therefore, the use of a gun in self defense is severely downplayed. As most people who ACTUALLY become victims rarely use a weapon of any kind in self defense. Under this rather major flaw in the NCVS, no self defense (unless failed) would hit the records. That alone makes the entire study worthless.
This revue severely downplays that problem when attacking K-G.
The charge of bias is pure speculation. There is a chance for error, of course, and bad memory, but the idea that there's huge numbers of people who are deliberately lying to inflate the stat is unfounded and has nothing to back it up other than either wishful thinking, or an overzealous attempt to discredit he study.
While there are problems with the study that seem to bloat the numbers, there's also some that seem to deflate the numbers, such as a lack of respondants from New York and Detroit.
Bottom line: the study may over estimate the use of guns, but all the others dramatically under report. Even assessing a penalty of 50% for overinflation (more than fair) that still leaves 1 mil crimes prevented.
At 8/22/07 10:14 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: What a moron, indeed...
Whatever. Gun murders have went up. Home robberies have went up.
And your link shows that people are converting the replicas into working guns...making them fall into the category of...GUNS.
Because crime has ALSO risen with other weapons, it doesn't negate the rise in gun crimes. You keep trying to dance around the point "all in one city", "all gang activity", "not widespread". But none of that matters.
The facts on hand, which remain unchanged by your asshattery:
1) Gun crime in England was irrelevant before the ban. That it is still relatively low is not a success of said ban.
2) The gun ban was predicated on a mass shooting, of which England has had ONE. Pointing to lack of further shootings proves nothing.
3) Despite the gun ban, gun murders have gone up every year, as have armed home invasions. Banning guns, therefore, did not lower the murder rate.
4) Crime has dropped in the US since 97, despite there being no meaningful gun legislation (the AWB was useless).
5) The point about all of England's crime being centralized is irrelevant. When New York city reduced their murder rate by about 50%, the national murder rate dropped by about 20-25%. Combined, LA and New York are responsible for a good chunk of crime.
Therefore, by the above shown (and proven again and again) facts, the gun ban did not make England safer. And without banning guns, the US has become safer.
At 8/22/07 10:26 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Read the whole article, note that the graphs show that, on neither graph, does it state that blacks commit the most murders, so therefore your "argument" of tribal lineage being easy to blame is patently false.
Your graph indeed shows the most murders happening to coloureds. The bottom line is the plain gray one, which stands for whites. The lines from top to bottom are: colored (the greenish-gray line), black (black), asian (green), white (gray).
Furthermore, the sentence that is right above the graph states:
"The homicide rate for coloureds has almost always been higher than other race groups, exceeding 60 murders per 100,000 since 1980 (Figure 1). This does not, however, show the full picture. When analysed according to age and gender, the extent of violence within the coloured community becomes clearer. "
So what conclusion does this draw in the paper?
"Criminologists have shown that certain communities are affected by high levels of violence.9 One explanation is that members of such communities are more willing to use violence in everyday matters. The theory is that these people exist on the fringes of society and create their own set of rules about how to behave. These 'subcultures' see violence as normal and are more willing to use violence in situations where other people would not. They are also more likely to carry a weapon and more willing to fight to protect their 'honour' or 'status'. Young adult males are more likely to engage in this type of behaviour, and thus increase their chances of being both victims and perpetrators of violence.
It has been argued that South Africans have become accepting of violence - that they are part of a 'culture of violence'. If true, the coloured community would seem to represent the extreme of this 'violent culture'. They have a long history of unemployment, inadequate housing and health care, high rates of alcohol use, and family dislocation (see 'Still marginal: Crime in the coloured community' in this issue). The high number of gangs in the Western Cape is a result of this phenomenon.10 They have filled a gap in the community, giving young males a sense of identity. Gangs use violence to achieve their goals and have normalised the carrying and use of weapons. The continued high rate of knife use is undoubtedly connected to this behaviour. "
So, those dead are likely killed by people within the community. They blame coloureds for most coloured deaths, and blacks for most black deaths. And it's pretty likely that some of the Asian and White deaths are done by the black/coloured community as well, as this paper points out that they are indeed the most violent.
At 8/26/07 12:00 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Cellar, how is it that you jump from ignoring one argument that holes your "argument" beneath the waterline to ignoring another so frequently?
Wait, wait wait. YOU, of all people, don't get to accuse someone else of jumping from argument to argument, as that's your sole tactic of debate.
Me: Gun crime went up.
You: But only in two cities!
Me: But those two cities are where 90% of all crime is.
You: That's only gangs.
Me: But gang crime has went up. Not down...
You: Gun crime is higher in America! HAHA. Gun control works!
Etc.
But you'll ignore this and call me a liar.
Well, considering that the paper you provided makes the conclusion that blacks and coloureds commit more crime, and you use it to say that Asians are the most violent, I feel free to call you a liar.
At 8/27/07 11:20 AM, milinko959 wrote: Just as making alcohol illegal completely stopped the flow of it? Or how since a lot of drugs are illegal, there are never problems with them?
It didn't stop the flow, but it SEVERELY reduced it. It also led to a massive increase of crime in the country. When something is made illegal/banned, less people do it. Because law abiding people tend to follow the law. And common people, in addition to not WANTING to break the law, in cases like this have fewer resources to break the law (unless they make it themselves). This leads to an increase in crime for those who ignore the law. In the case of liquor, this is not a problem. If you have liquor and I don't...this doesn't lead to violence.
However, when killers and criminals have guns and the law abiding don't....well, that's good for no one but the criminal.
In no state in the union can people with recent violent felony convictions purchase firearms. Yet the National Institute of Justice survey of prisoners, many of whom were repeat offenders, showed that 90 percent were able to obtain their last firearm within a few days. Most obtained it within a few hours. Three-quarters of the men agreed that they would have "no trouble" or "only a little trouble" obtaining a gun upon release, despite the legal barriers to such a purchase.
This goes through what is known as a straw purchase. In which someone who is not barred from having a gun buys a gun legally for a criminal.
See: Columbine.
At 8/24/07 09:44 AM, Begoner wrote: That is wrong on so many levels. First of all, I don't deem the killing of American soldiers in Iraq " massacre"; only the widescale slaughter of Iraqi civilians fits the bill. And, last time I checked (by all means, tell me if I'm wrong), illegal immigration has not led to the death of ~4% of the US population (12 million people) as the Iraq War has. Furthermore, let's assume that twice as many Americans die daily at the hands of illegal immigrants than soldiers do in Iraq. What does that show? Well, we have about 150,000 troops in Iraq and 300,000,000 citizens in the US. So that equates to a per capita death rate that's 1000 times higher for soldiers in Iraq. Real safe.
The Iraq war has killed 80,000 people (by the Iraq Body Count's numbers), most of those by suicide bombers. Sad, but hardly OUR fault, as we're the ones who are trying to stop that.
Furthermore, assuming Iraq has ONLY 1 million people (they have more), and that those 80,000 deaths were spread evenly across the 4 years, that would be ~2%, not 4%, of the populous. Since the actual population is a little over 26 million, to kill 4% of the population, 800,000 would have had to die. There's been nowhere near that death total. So, your claims are blantantly false.
At 8/24/07 04:26 PM, Begoner wrote:At 8/24/07 12:51 PM, Memorize wrote: Iraqi Population: 27 millionI was referring to the number obtained a year ago by the Lancet study and extrapolated it to take into account this year's casualties. The problem with the official toll is that it does not record the deaths that were a consequence of the war (ie, the children who died because of malnutrition due to the demolished Iraqi economy and infrastructure or the people who died because Iraq's health-care system is in a shambles). So that yields ~1,000,000 excess deaths due to the Iraq War; that's roughly 4%.
Official Death Toll: ~120,000
Except for the fact that the big talking point before the war is that Millions of children starved to death under Saddam.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/
MiddleEast/Iraq/Sanctions.asp
And the Lancet study focused on violent deaths first, claiming over 600,000 dead as a result of violence. Since there's no possible way that the official numbers are that far off, and that everyone else is falling within the range of 80-120k, the numbers are wrong.
At 8/21/07 08:13 AM, bcdemon wrote: Sure, they killed innocent people, but I'm willing to bet that the Unocol pipeline (Central Asia Pipeline) had more to do with the removal of the Taliban than their human rights abuses did. Considering the guy the USA installed as president of Afghanistan is an ex Unocal consultant, and one of his first tasks as president was to sign Afghanistan on to the CAP deal.
Reframing the debate proves that your argument sucks. "Bush never did good things for anyone!" Sure he did. He saved millions from tyrany! "Well, he likes oil...."
Assuming you're 100% right. So what? Does it negate the millions freed? Of course not.
That the Afghan gov't would benefit from the pipeline, of course, is also irrelevant.
If taking out Saddam because he was a murdered was so monumental, then where were you back in 1988 when he actually did the killing? Oh that's right, you were supporting him when he bombed Halabja.
I was 5. I was in preschool. Do you really think you were witty here?
And again, reframe the debate. Saddam never STOPPED murdering his own people. Your "reframe" ignores it and tries to whitewash that.
A National Intelligence Estimate released last year "says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,". So you removed two governments that you used to support (when it was handy for you) and Al Zarqawi, but in turn you have made the overall terrorism problem around the world worse. You could try to argue that Afghanistan and Iraq are better off, but the world is definitely not better off.
The NIE estimate was, quite simply, wrong. The much hyped, by the right, report of Muslim support of suicide bombing shows that it is dropping. Al Quida's membership has plummeted. Libya disarmed after we invaded Iraq. The "we created more terrorists" crap is ridiculous.
Moreover, the report attributed homegrown violence in Pakistan and India to our actions in Iraq. Huh? So because we freed Iraq from a man who most terrorist groups considered an apostate...they decide to blow up Indians? (Buzzer sound.) Nope, try again.
The allies weren't considered terrorists because they didn't threaten Hitler with war if he did not leave his own country, dumbass. I'll agree that your in Iraq killing terrorists, the same terrorists that never would have existed in Iraq without your invasion of it.
Hyperbole.
We never GAVE Hitler the option to leave. We just went in. Your argument fails AGAIN.
And we created Zarqawi? Al Miliki? al-Sadr? Oh please. Spare me. So stupid.
Can you link to where I specifically complained about the removal Saddam?
Your argument is that our removal of Saddam has created terrorists and caused harm to Iraq. I told you before and I'll say it again. If you make the case for something, I'll call you on it. But hell, let's try this:
The allies weren't considered terrorists because they didn't threaten Hitler with war if he did not leave his own country, dumbass.
So, we're terrorists for removing Saddam. Piss off. You don't get to get by with making ridiculous claims then claiming you never made them. Not with me.
Again, some parts of Baghdad may be a bit safer, but as a whole, it's about as bad as it's been.
RIIIIIIIIGHT. That's why even Democrats admit the surge is working. Then use that to say we needto withdraw. Al Anbar was about 60% of all the violence in Iraq. If that violence decreased by 1/2, then overall violence goes down 30%
This has absolutely nothing to do with your troop surge, good try though.
Of course not. Nothing means anything. If we reduce violence, that's the result of freak chance. If it goes up, it's our fault. If they join us to attack al Quida (because we're now a viable force) that means nothing, but if 1 person joins al Sadr, it's cause we're a terrorist nation.
So much bullshit.
I will give you this one.
This is our PRIMARY goal.
But if deaths are up, then the goal of security is still lacking, unless overall security in Iraq is not one of your goals.
As an earlier poster noted, your numbers are old. From last year.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/1 4/iraq.main/index.html -Early surge
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08212007/new s/nationalnews/surge_working__but_too_la te__h.htm -NOW
So because Saddam murdered people, that makes everything you do over there A-OK?. Scores of people have been murdered with both USA and Saddam in control of Iraq.
Yea, but the "scores" of people (Which on average was 100,000 ppl a year under Saddam) is 80k under 4 years of us. And WE'RE not the ones killing them. Al Quida, the remnants of the Baathist party, al Sadr, and others are doing the killings. Do we blame the police for gang wars when they put violent gang lords in jail...nvm you probably do.
Umm not really, when you consider in Feb 2003 Blix said stuff like 'we haven't found any evidence of WMD', and 'there's no evidence of a mobile chemical weapons labs', and no evidence of an underground storage and production facility. But yet Bush still insisted there were WMD and programs going on in Iraq. And when all the WMD bullshit failed to gain support for the war, Bush became a terrorist and demanded Saddam leave Iraq or his country and the millions of innocent Iraqis will face war.
You can't be a terrorist by demanding a terrorist leave. You're going to stop using that.
And as I proved, Blix said otherwise.
And as I proved, they did.
So, since I can prove we've found weapons, and since I can prove Blix said Iraq wasn't complying, and since I can prove Britain told us he'd sought uranium in Niger, and since I can prove France told us the tubes were for uranium, and since I can prove Tenet (a Clinton throwback) stood behind the intel, you have nothing.
You show a speech from Blix in 04, ignoring what he said pre-invasion. You call Bush a liar and exonerate Clinton. You're a deceptive little partisan hack. You have as much commitment to the truth as Andy Dick does to the vagina.
How noble is it when your invasion leads to the death of a million people and displaces millions more? And if anyone made the UN look irrelevant it was the USA, when you ditched the UN for the Azores to sign your war pact.
A million? Try 80,000.
And sorry, but a pissant third world country telling the UN to dick off makes them look a hell of a lot more irrelevant than their bosses telling them that we're tired of their bunk.
At 8/23/07 04:21 PM, tony4moroney wrote: At 8/22/07 11:24 PM, TheShrike wrote: http://foxattacks.com/iran
Watch, read and comment.
Do you think we'll soon be in another war?
It's nonsense.
"My station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at FOX News."
That is CNN's Christiane Amanpour explaining why the major television networks failed to accurately inform the public in the lead-up to the Iraq war, choosing instead to follow FOX's lead.
Oh, did Clinton and his "footsoldiers" intimidate the poor widdle reporters as well? Please.
At 8/23/07 01:14 AM, stafffighter wrote: Long story short, fox news is a mouthpeice to the administration. One of their guys was press secretary for a while if you want to be hit over the head with it. Another war would rally Americans just like the last one did because, and I know I'm quoting a movie here, the way to win an election is to get people scared and tell them who to blame. Did Bush promise anything in 2004 other than finding Bin Laden? And has he?
James Carville was Clinton and Kerry's political advisor (He was at CNN at the same time he was advising Kerry). Not like ANYONE complains about that. Yawn.
which is why i actively urge people NOT to watch fox until they clean up their act and stop being a neoconservative and corporatist mouthpiece.
That article is SOOOOO much bs.
At 8/23/07 08:09 PM, Grammer wrote: More sources because I can
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/new s/local/article_1592092.php
also, cocks
Wow, neither of those charts prove anything.
Crime has gone down, and immigration has gone up! Great.
Is it your argument then that if we just flood our borders with poor Mexicans that crime would be erased?
And the number of legal Hispanics (many of which used to be illegals, or are the children of illegals), being comperable to the illegals says little too. The incarceration rate doesn't say what they're in for. There's quite a few non-violent offenders. And it doesn't talk about illegals that are just released (which are frequent).
Both those graphs are cool looking but mean nothing.
At 8/23/07 09:42 PM, Grammer wrote: Sorry to break this to you, but unless you're an indian, we're all immigrants.
The indians immigrated here too. Not that that means anything.
There's a difference between legal and illegal activities. You bought your TV, I stole mine. WE ALL HAVE TVS MAN!
Now please note the chart that displays the drastic difference in crime rate between foreign born, and national born Americans.
kthxbai
It does no such thing. It displays the difference in incarceration rates. COMPLETELY different animal.
At 8/24/07 12:33 AM, animehater wrote: Stop right there man. Why is everyone bashing my new catchphrase? Did you actually think a guy who was spewing your typical bullshit 'Iraq was for oil" and such should be defended when a guy tells the damn truth? You guys took nothing waaaaay out of proportion. You guys are just a bunch nobodies trying to start a flmae war over what was originally a joke. You're a joke yourselves.
My typical bullshit?
BWAHAHAHAHA.
Right, anyways.
Since reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit, I'll take it slowly...
I don't agree with him, and he doesn't seem terribly bright. (Hence why I disagreed with something else he said.) Yet, he makes a statement, which was, in part, about oil, and instead of even saying what you disagree with, you make a rather stupid joke. In mocking someone for being stupid, you then yourself got mocked for sounding stupid (the ALT thing didn't help).
So, you're crying that you are getting the same treatment you gave him. Sorry for not being sympathetic. And in the process, you got someone who's contribution is that he's gonna force me to suck his dick.
So again. You do it. Then we do it to put you in your place. Then your little closet case bud here, comes in and does the same thing, but has the balls to call us on doing exactly what you and he were doing. Small violins are playing for you...
At 8/24/07 12:24 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Wait... so you think American citizens are arrested more than 13 times per person? Or are you intentionally being stubborn because you don't want to admit you're wrong?
That's a credible sample group. The margin of error is pretty low when you're talking about over 50,000 people. If it was wrong (it's obviously not exact), it wouldn't be wrong by much. Hell, when you're talking about people being studied, data sets are usually 1000-2000 (or less) in order to be credibly within a certain margin of error.
He does have a good point. I'd like to see how many crimes the average citizen criminal commits. Many criminals are repeat offenders.
Stats and numbers
Of course, what that does is put an equal amount of crime on all the citizenry equally. But that's not the way it works.
Since (as far as I can see), the government stat deals only with criminals, and doesn't blanket it out over all illegals, your numbers don't quite work on that basis.
Wow, you sent me a ridiculous ammount of PMs, and threatened to rape me.
And I'm the queer?
You're just as annoying as your boyfriend.
At 8/24/07 12:03 AM, zambota wrote: Getting ready to make fun of you just like you do with strangers huh Wolvenbear? you're the lowest piece of shit I've ever seen. I know you going to ask "look who's talking?" well I'm only talking because you're a bully!
Yawn.
Your little idiot buddy insulted someone he didn't know for no good reason. He then got insulted by two other people, and didn't like his own medicine. So then YOU come in and insult us (for as little reason as we had to insult him). Cry me a river closet case. I'm a bully for doing to him what he did to someone else. Ohh, someone doesn't like it when it's his turn to be insulted...
Three notes:
1. Posting repeated insults for no reason is considered trolling on the board, and you can get banned for it. Furthermore, when I come and see that in the time it took me to wash the dishes from dinner, you've posted three "fuck yous", I'm not impressed or intimidated.
2. In insulting your significant other, both Gunter and I are standing up for someone that we don't agree with, and who (in the one post I'VE seen him) doesn't seem to be too terribly intelligent. However, your friend's baseless insulting him (as he doesn't seem to be any brighter) was jackassery on a personal level and annoying on a board for debate.
So, it seems you two are the bullies crying that someone's gonna stand up to you. Sniff Sniff...life's so hard for you two.
3. No matter how many times you call me faggot, I'm still not going to suck your dick. Stop getting your hopes up.
At 8/23/07 11:15 PM, animehater wrote: Fixed for great truth. Who are you? Another alt? Nice way to butt into something you're not apart of. Why don't you go off and get into some other peoples business?
At 8/23/07 11:32 PM, zambota wrote: And I'm curious that you decide to insult him for no good reason by a post not directed at you. Mind to explain in an intelligent manner? Or are you gonna say some bullshit like " you're too stupid to explain to" or some shit?
OH MY GOD! YOU'RE SAYING THE SAME THING! YOU'RE AN ALT!
Lol, couldn't help myself. Too good to pass up.
Basically, you're defending anime from gunter, because the "insults are unwarranted", even though anime came in here and insulted Kenny without provocation. Anime is basically complaining because he did the board equivalent and punching a stranger as soon as he entered the bar...then complaining when he got his ass kicked in return.
At 8/23/07 11:24 PM, zambota wrote: Wow. What's the point of you picking on him faggot? Ganging up on a guy for no good reason?
Generally, I just dislike stupid people, present company included.
I ESPECIALLY dislike people, who come in and make an ass of themselves, who are generally annoying, then have the balls to tell the people who come here normally that statements on a public board- on which people debate things- are off limits to them. See my example above.
I also dislike stupid people who rush to their defense and project their homosexuality onto me because they wish we were having a verbal gangbang, instead of a gangbeating.
Let me see if I accurately get the "defense" of Michael Moore correctly?
"Michael Moore is not a liar. He may not present the truth, and he may make unfair comparisons that aren't really true. And he may put information together that doesn't go together to make a false picture of things and deceive his viewers. Or he may lie through omission. But one thing he never does...Is lie."
Do I just about got it?
At 8/23/07 11:15 PM, animehater wrote: Fixed for great truth. Who are you? Another alt? Nice way to butt into something you're not apart of. Why don't you go off and get into some other peoples business?
OH MY TEH GOD! YOU CALLEDZORS ME STOOPID AND AN ALT IN TEH SAME SEENTENCE!
YOU ARE TEH GODZORS!
Yea, I'm not an alt either asshat. (Though if I WAS, this WOULD BE my business. So calling me an alt...then saying it's none of my business is retarded on several levels.
Look, jackass, you are doing the internet equivalent of walking into a bar full of regulars and generally being loud and annoying. As a semi-regular here, I havethe full right to tell you you sound like a complete and utter fucktard. This isn't your playground. And if you're being a little troll, all the people who come here get to destroy you over it.
In short: there's no such thing as "your business" in a public debate.
Tho, you are the gift that keeps on giving. You keep getting dumber with each post.
At 8/23/07 11:17 PM, zambota wrote:At 8/23/07 11:16 PM, Gunter45 wrote: It's fun to watch you make a complete and utter fool out of yourself. There's nothing more to it that that.It's fun to just flame instead of debating like an idiot like you're doing.
Soooo....to make the point that Flaming is bad....you flame.
BRILLIANT!
At 8/23/07 10:32 PM, animehater wrote: I'm not even left wing you dumb piece of shit. And stop pretending like that's not your alt.
Awesome. So you're stupid without a reason.
At least when someone is left wing, they have a reason for their idiocy. It's like Chicago Cubs fans pretending their team doesn't suck.
You're bitching about nothing without any evidence to your claims. You aren't even being taken seriously. Maybe you should start responding to the people who by the grace of god are actually trying to pretend you're not probably stoned right now.
Saying that the Democrats haven't ended the war (which is completely within their power) and that they have focused on "non-binding resolutions" and "official condemnations" is pretty damned conclusive.
Stop acting like calling someone stoned is a comeback, or pretending that he's the alt of the topic holder (which is nonsensical as they don't even talk the same).
It's like a broken record. "You're stoned." (scratching noise) "You're stoned." (scratching noise) "You're stoned." (scratching noise) "You're stoned."
What a worthless turd.
At 8/23/07 10:57 PM, KennyD wrote: You need to open your eyes, this isn't about left vs. right, this is about who has the money. Need proof? In 2000 your precious H. Clinton was the MOST outspoken critic of healthcare, but now while shes on her campaign run shes mute on the subject even thought its a huge issue. Why? 3 of her top 7 campaign contrubutors are healthcare providers. Bush's friends have clearly benefitted during his presidencey, what make you think that if Kerry or Gore was elected that thier friends would have benefitted?
What are you talking about? One of Hillary's main issues is healthcare reform. She recently had to defend herself on the issue when someone asked her about "socialised medicine". Her response? "I absolutely don't support that. I just believe everyone should have access to health care. We need universal coverage." For the slow of head...universal coverage=socialized medicine.
And since Gore was part of the Clinton administration, where his friends DEFINATELY benefitted...there's no reason to believe he wouldn't continue the trend. He did try to pass himself off as Clinton term 3.
At 8/21/07 04:23 PM, fli wrote: *eye rollie*
Because it's fact that animals can give consent.
"What's that's Lassie? Fellatio? 69! Bark twice for yes... Bark once for no!"
Sorry, Fli, but the issue of Gay marriage and Beastiality are intertwined NOT because of social conservatives,
The ENTIRETY of the gay movement's argument is "I have no control who I love, therefore the state HAS to give me their blessings and marry me."
The ONLY issue around marriage is: can the state define what marriage is. If the answer is yes, the gays are left out in the cold. If the answer is no, then the gov't have no right to say no to: gays, incestual couples, 3somes, 4somes, bisexuals, or even beastiality couples, or even a dude marrying his lawnmower.
At 8/21/07 11:20 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: No, you don't. You have irrefutable proof that previous attempts and banning guns to reduce crime failed miserably. No one with a clue debates that.
Oh, hell, that's no different than those who say Communism hasn't failed because it's never been tried. If every attempt to do something in the past has failed, then that something has failed.
End of story.
But how many of those cases in which gun's prevented crimes did gun's prevent crimes involving guns in the first place? (E.G, someone pulling a gun on a cop, armed civilian shoots criminals)
Well, if more crimes a year are prevented b guns than cause by guns...guns are a good thing!
No murder is going to say "damn, I WANT to murder him, but he has a gun!" The solution? Shoot him in the back. Run him over. Once again, the case I gave you of McDonalds introducing make it bacon coinciding with a rise in gun crimes.
Wow, that's stupid. That's like. "Oh my god, I chipped my tooth on a rock." "No you didn't. Because I ate a sandwich for lunch!"
Yes, you definately could. And without evidence to directly link the two, you should.
And I do.
Simply put: After gun bans, Englanda crime went up, Australia's went down.
There's simply not a person on the planet smart enough to pin the cause on guns. There are too many other factors.
Murders potentially irrelevent, "Gun Crime went up" could indicate that people didn't follow the ban and previously legal gun activities counted as crime (but let's assume that they didn't), and all a rise in gun crime proves is that the British gun ban failed. That doesn't prove that a hypothetical future U.S gun ban would fail.
But it doesn't prove a gun ban would succeed either.
Current trend don't prove your theory so try again!
Sorry, I'm not convinced.
Yes, the facts certainly point the the gun bans failed.
In England, they do. Uneqivocably. Guns were banned, crime went up.
As I said before, might not be the guns. But I can prove for a fact that banning weapons did not make crime go down.
But on the murder front, it was coincidence.
"If the facts don't agree with me they are IRRELEVANT!"
Except that you've failed to "disprove" my opinions in the least, nor will you be able to until you gain the power to see into the future. Once again, you fail to realize that disagreeing with your opinion =/= being incorrect. You also fail to realize that calling someone a "fucking idiot" or anything else doesn't disprove their POV, especially if you do not know their POV; last time I checked, I never posted how I think a hypothetical gun ban should be carried out if I was hypothetically for banning guns. In other words, you have no idea what my idea on a gun ban would be, yet still call me ignorent without hearing the plan.
Ok, then. I'm going to kick you in the shin. It will feel like God kissed you. Forget all the evidence that says that getting kicked in the shins hurts like hell. THIS TIME, it'll be better than sex. I promise.
No one gives 2 shits what your idiotic theory is.
MY POV is that gun control has little if any success. Since mine is backed up by facts, and yours is based on "it'll work next time"...we'll go with mine. Cause mine is the smart one.
PS. I don't care what your plan is. You're too stupid to look at the facts ion hand, so I doubt your ability to come up with a solution.
At 8/21/07 02:46 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: But personally, I prefer a lying fat-ass (talentless hack is bullshit, though, because as someone who likes to both write and film, I can say it's hard) who minipulates reality to a cold hearted whore who personally hurts people just to sell copies. I mean, the worst Micheal Moore ever did was waste $10 movie tickets that could have been sent seeing Room 1408. I can't say the same to a woman that told 9/11 widows that they are all money-grubbing and secretly happy their husbands died in the twin towers.
Yawn.
So basically, Moore can spin and lie all he wants, because you agree with his ideology.
But since Coulter is mean, SHE SHOULD DIE!
Yawn.
Cuppa, in future dealings I always promise to be slightly nicer to you because you seem to get it on this one.
So, in the future when we disagree, I'll definately keep this in mind!
This incident is ridiculous.
We have someone who openly flouts the law being punished.
Those of you who cry for this woman are fools.
"Today, a woman who has smoked crack has gone awy to prison for 15 years. She leaves behind a son..."
So if someone has family. We OBVIOUSLY can't punish them.
if youve read some polls or news youd realize international relations were at an all-time low and most people believe bush is the biggest threat to world peace.
Yet, France is more pro- US, as is Canada, as is Britain than before Bush. Your thesis doesn't begin to hold water.
The economy: awesome, thanks for asking.no it isnt
Yea, it is. Unemployment is at an all time low. Inflation is low. The stock market has hit all time highs. By any standard the economy is booming.
the entire middle-eastern region werent always breeding terrorists and keen on obliterating the u.s from the face of the world.
Of course it has. Even under the most ridiculous scenerios, that started during Carter (which is vastly unfair to Carter). Islamic terror has been going on for decades. Try again.
Expenditure: has crap to do with the war and has been goingon since the 20s
Thanks for not even trying to debate this.
wealth disparity: AGAIN, has shit to do with anything...but is entirely a product of socialismahahahahahaahahahahahaahahhaahahahahah
Or this. Just laugh.
You're out of your league here little man.
expanded powers: any person with an IQ above 5 knows the govt has been expanding powers since 15 years after it was formed.see from this ill take it youre joking and im hoping so for your sake. which is why i wont dignify your response with any thorough answers but as youll realize this determinination was made prior to this point, but will be cemented by it.
What I'll take it as is one more clue you can't be bothered enough to stop sucking leftists and look at what's going on.
Marbury vs Madison (1803). The Supreme Court gave itself the power of judicial review.
You're clueless. Go back to the sandbox, junior.
what? congress.. take.. war.. powers.. ?? thats a new one..
Wow, haven't watched the news or read the newspapers?
Congress has tried to set troop redeployment terms.
Which is a BLANTANT violation of powers.
civil liberties are continuing to be compromised due to iraq. executive powers were also expanded post-invasion, it did destabilize the region which the cia said would most likely happen and it has aggravated iran and russia putin claiming bush has sparked a new arms race by surrounding russia with nuclear capable weapons in eastern europe.
In turn...
Civil liberties rights violated? Still don't have an example.
Executive powers were expanded PRE-invasion. And except for the new FISA act, have not been significantly expanded since.
It DIDN'T destabilize the region, as there has been no new outbreak of "Iraq violence" anywhere else in the region, and in fact Libya disarmed after our invasion
Putin is a REAL civil rights violator, who is trying to provoke war.
Next?
uhh yes considering after bush couldnt find any wmds he resorted to the fallback - 'spreading democracy and removing the tyrant' and a justification for this was the kurdish massacre.
Trying to reframe the debate again are we?
You like ignoring important things when they hurt you and jumping on unimportant things when they help you huh?
Hence this bullshit that Blix never said Iraq had Wmds, and yet clinging to some Reagan era crap.
You're a worthless debater.
At 8/20/07 05:08 PM, tony4moroney wrote:At 8/20/07 04:49 AM, WolvenBear wrote:some dude: iraq war was bad
you: youre stupid how can it be bad? we killed bad people therefore it clearly is good
me: except the purpose was to eliminate terrorism and stabilize the region. by invading a civil war has erupted and there is more widespread terrorism and terrorist networks are growing. - self defeatist. bush killed bad people = good neglects the fact that there were repercussions that came with those actions which in this case are worst considering it's caused more casualties, more terrorism and more instability.
Ok, except here's how it really went!
You: Bush lied our way into Iraq!
me: Of course he didn't. Clinton said the same thing.
You: But Clinton didn't invade. He only shot missles!
Me: What does that have to do with anything?
You: Our invasion was a terrible idea!
Me: Well, you're TOTALLY convincing me so far by making stupid ass declarations that Bush lied while excusing Clinton from "lying", even though he said the same thing.
Now you're off on some other worthless tangant. Of course we're better off for removal Saddam. We didn't "create terrorism" in Iraq, it was already there. And we surely didn't make it worse, as when we originally invaded, several of our enemies disarmed out of fear.
Short version: As I've said all along, you have no clue what you;'re talking about.
see?
Then WHAT was your point? Basically you said "shit's hard, leave em to slaughter."
You tout the same stupid Euro BS that every worthless anti-war protester does. It's no different than when good Frenchie Jacques said "Iraqis don't want freedom."
how the hell did you get racism out of any of that?
Cause you touch yourself at night!
No seriously.
You are debating, that since the region is backwards, we shouldn't help them out. The inherent racism in that is staggering. Either that or you're just too damned stupid to make your point...
but wait get this.. when youre talking about the viability of a war. whether the war is/ was justifiable casualties or the possibility of them should be taken into account.
Really? Why?
Since, AGAIN, you don't know what you're talking about, please expound.
Casualties are a part of war, and this war is no exception. People die. Our soldiers included.
Please show me a nation other than the US who has EVER cared about THEIR casualties.
Yea, that's right. We're so great we worry about the other guy when we invade. Shut your trap.
except when we're the cause for their uprising+ existence.
Yea, no we're not. Al Quida is killing the people. And Al Quida is responsible.
You're really stupid, so let that sink in.
it's not cops and baddies. it isn't hollywood. i'm sorry if that's what you thought.
No, it's soldiers and baddies. We're debating Saving Private Ryan, not Bad Boys.
Who the hell brings up COPS in a war zone. God you're an idiot.
oh ok so japan declaring war on us courtesy bombing pearl harbor is a-ok by you. and the fact remains, we weren't the catalyst for our involvement in ww2 whereas in iraq bush was the aggressor, he was the invader. and if youre going to draw a comparison between ww2 and iraq then at least acknowledge that the threat of nazism was far more real then those wmds.
Actually, as I've proved 3000 times on this board, and twice in this thread, the WMDs were real.
As for Iraq, we weren't the catalyst there either.
Oh and, FYI, we'd involved ourselves in WW2 before Japan bombed us.
except they didnt do anything to justify BUSH going to war unless you want to be pedantic about sanctions with which he was found to have satisfactorily complied with and offered to comply with future investigations.
Except Hanz Blix said he wasn't complying (for the fifth time). Refer to earlier posts where I reprinted Blix's testimony about Iraq not complying.
wow ok clearly youre an idiot if you think none of that was related to iraq and im not gonna lecture you on basic knowledge.
Our economy is NOT related to Iraq. I'm sorry, I won't be lectured by a child here.
Russia: Was trading illegallly with Iraq! We stopped that! YAY US!no they werent
Iran: Are now trying to take control of Iraq and are clearly our enemy. We should attack them. Are you with me?no they arent
actually blair stepped down, sarkozy becoming president had nothing to do with us, australia was always an ally, india and canada's politics have nothing to do with our relations.
Blair's successor is an ally. Sarkozy ran on being an ally to the US and won. Canada has, since the Iraq war, voted in more conservative US friendly politicians.
My point is still valid. Anyone who matters has become MORE pro-US, not less. I never claimed it was Bush's doing. But at the same time, I can still DEFINITIVELY prove he hasn't made the world hate us more.
At 8/21/07 05:28 AM, Kronkus wrote: Ive tasted my cum and loved the taste its also high in protein
Translation:
"I like getting off in my own mouth."
Good for you.
At 8/18/07 02:29 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: blah blah blah...crime goes up
So the man who claims that UK's crime went down...admits it went up.
What a jackass.
At 8/19/07 07:17 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:At 8/17/07 01:03 PM, Dre-Man wrote:Yes. That's back when they where fighting a war against said government. Nowadays, murdering public officials tends to be frowned upon. See: JFK being assassinated.
And it was after we had finished with the war. Gun ownership was manditory WELL after the Revolutionary war.
And FYI, it was still a crime to murder public officials back then.
What a dummy....
It say's I should be able to bear arms. Not "Go murder some politicians".
Reframe the deabte instead of answer the point! Classy.
Great to know your one of those people that actively plans to have a gunfight with the police. Also glad to know that you would have no problem if Osama Bin Laden himself walked into a gun-shop and bought an Ak-47, since there would be no background check going "Hey, this guys a fucking murderer".
Great to know you use ad hominims.
So, if I (no criminal background) bought a gun for Osama, what good what that do you? None you say?
The idea of protecting yourself from the government is a uniquely US one (we did fight to free ourself from Europe...
And with shit like Waco being done by the government, protection is never a bad idea.
For example, SURE you love the girl you're screwing indiscriminately. Doesn't make you dumb to slip on a rubber....
Gun can't be lethal in the hands of a wanted mass murderer. That's whats wrong with it.
No, but any other number of things can be. Counting those that have been used by murderers with high kill count:
Gas (Happy Land Killings)
Knife (Serial Killer of Choice)
Poop (Timothy McVeigh)
Rope (BTK Killer)
Boxcutters->Planes (9/11)
Yes, they're harder to trace BECAUSE OF THE BACKGROUND CHECK THAT YOU SO VEHEMENTLY IMPOSE!
1. Criminal backgrounds checks are USELESS unless the perp shoots the weapon or he's caught.
2. If a criminal steals a weapon, BG checks are useless...
3. Heaven forbid he abandon the gun so it's never found...
Etc.
That's bullshit. Any gun was made by someone. Just because it's on the black market doesn't mean that it can't be traced to it's legitimate owner.
The fact that it's ON the black market means it can't be traced to the right guy.
What a fucking douchebag.
Perfect example: I use YOUR hammer to beat my wife to death.
And apparently you've never purchased a firearm before. Oh wait, I know you haven't, because your 15 and don't know what your talking about.
Yet he's right. You don't have to fill out paperwork to buy a gun illegally, or even to buy it legally from a private citizen.
If you want to purchase a firearm from someone, it's not like in the fucking movies where some mysterious black dude has a huge armory of good. You can buy whatever the hell the seller managed to purchase himself, and theres usually a REASON the legal owner gave it up; it's a shitty gun, the sight it fucked up, etc. It's a lot easier to go on a rampage with a Walther P22 (easily the best handgun I have ever fired) then with a shitty model like a Desert Eagle, especially when you bought that Desert Eagle illicitly and it ends up having a fucked up sight. The best gun I've ever been offered outside of a shop was a perfectly working .22 rimfire. HOLY SHIT, LOOK OUT FOR THE .22!
Or, the gun owner wants a newer cooler model. Or he's just tired of owning a gun. Or he sells the gun as a favor. Or its a gift, Or...
Oh, hell, just admit that you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about.
The point is to make it so that Joe Al-Qaeda operative and Joe Wanted Cerial Killer can't get all the weapons of death that they want.
Yes, because in an international agency devoting to killing America, a piece of paper is a deterent...
Some people are just too dumb to teach...
So basically. What we have here...
Is a bunch of men, telling another guy how to make it so he likes the taste of his own cum better....
What a buncha homos....
