Making Baby Jesus Cry

Penske_Account · 07-25-2005, 05:21 PM

????????????????

Hank Chinaski · 07-25-2005, 05:23 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Penske_Account
Actually I agree with him. A.good.idea. I have had lots of ideas that seemed good at the time, in the idea stage. "In practice" is a-hole-nother matter.

Remember patentparalegal?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Stealing blue_Triangle was a great idea, but then leagl said it made it was precedant to make it okay for someone to steal my Juan sock

Penske_Account · 07-25-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
????????????????

Fuck! I am not sure I know how to revise thread titles...............

Penske_Account · 07-25-2005, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Fuck! I am not sure I know how to revise thread titles...............

I figured it out. Give us a title burger, or mine sticks.

Penske_Account · 07-25-2005, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Penske_Account
Actually I agree with him. A.good.idea. I have had lots of ideas that seemed good at the time, in the idea stage. "In practice" is a-hole-nother matter.

Remember patentparalegal?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stealing blue_Triangle was a great idea, but then leagl said it made it was precedant to make it okay for someone to steal my Juan sock

I agree, leagl screwed your pooch on that one. Stealing a sock is dumber than dumbest. Just make up your own. Esta facile, si?

Spanky · 07-25-2005, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Shape Shifter said:

You are speaking past each other. I don't think sebby was framing this in the formalistic sense, he was addressing it from a practical perspective. In order for W to be able to sell the war to the American people, he had to prove that the threat was imminent. There are many things that we can do legally that are nevertheless unwise.

W did sell it to the American people. So his plan worked. There is an issue of whether or not what American did was legal. There is an issue of whether or not the invasion was wise. But the issue of whether Bush lied, exaggerated or did nothing is an irrelevent issue. The only consquences to what he did are political. There will be no trial or criminal investigation. So the question is will Bush's supposed exagerration cost him politically? He was up for reelection and won. And now he can't run again. So the issue is moot. Why do the liberals keep focusing on it? Their chance to make any political capital past after the election. Now it just does not matter.

etat -- t.s.

Shape Shifter · 07-25-2005, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Shape Shifter said:

You are speaking past each other. I don't think sebby was framing this in the formalistic sense, he was addressing it from a practical perspective. In order for W to be able to sell the war to the American people, he had to prove that the threat was imminent. There are many things that we can do legally that are nevertheless unwise.

W did sell it to the American people. So his plan worked. There is an issue of whether or not what American did was legal. There is an issue of whether or not the invasion was wise. But the issue of whether Bush lied, exaggerated or did nothing is an irrelevent issue. The only consquences to what he did are political. There will be no trial or criminal investigation. So the question is will Bush's supposed exagerration cost him politically? He was up for reelection and won. And now he can't run again. So the issue is moot. Why do the liberals keep focusing on it? Their chance to make any political capital past after the election. Now it just does not matter.

Might makes right?

07-25-2005, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Fuck! I am not sure I know how to revise thread titles...............

And you keep forgetting that exclamation points come in hat tricks.

07-25-2005, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Might makes right?

[Hi Douchebag!!!] Well, look who is back from his meeting [/Hi Douchebag!!!]

I will see you on the Spanky board if you are done with your "meeting".

Spanky · 07-25-2005, 05:40 PM

T-Rex:

"It's odd that you guys think we should take out Hussein, without regard to the poor prospects for replacing him with someone or something much better, but jump to that line when the subject is Pakistan. If we can install democracy in Iraq, why not Pakistan? Do you think Pakistanis are unready for democracy or something?"

Saddam Hussein was an evil nasty dictator that was against us. He was using all the power of a large state against our interests. In addition, he has a pretty educated population that is not overwhelmingly fundamentalist religious. Prior to his dictatorshiop it was a relatively affluent educated country. So there was a chance that Democracy could be better and not much of a chance of things getting worse. In addition, the majority of the population is Shiite so a government that forms there is unlikely to support Al Queda which hates Shiites as much as it hates the US.

Mushariff is a Pro-American dictator that is helping us on our war on terror. His population is highly uneducated, poor and full of relgious fanatics. If a national election were held a pro Al Queda government might get elected. Pakistan is the perfect example of why you need economic development before democracy. Pakistan needs to develop more economically before it will can establish a stable democracy. If it goes democratic before economic development is will probably just become a theocratic state.

Saddam Hussein's policies before and after the Gulf war were making the country poorer. So the long term chances of a stable democracy were nil. Mushariff has instituted free market reforms, that have led to growth, and which in the long run will lead to an affluent society that will lead to Democracy.

Spanky · 07-25-2005, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Might makes right?

No but in the international scene might wins the debate. As it always does when there is no rule of law that is enforced. But that is not the point.

Most savy liberals know that the whole debate about Bush lying to get us into the war is trying to hurt Bush politically. That is the only purpose is serves. But it has really failed on that front so no one has anything to gain from the debate anymore.

Shape Shifter · 07-25-2005, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by paigowprincess
[Hi Douchebag!!!] Well, look who is back from his meeting [/Hi Douchebag!!!]

I will see you on the Spanky board if you are done with your "meeting".

Too caustic over there. I'll stay here where it's bucolic and safe.

Penske_Account · 07-25-2005, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by paigowprincess

I will see you on the Spanky board if you are done with your "meeting".

2!!!

Hank Chinaski · 07-25-2005, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
T-Rex:

"It's odd that you guys think we should take out Hussein, without regard to the poor prospects for replacing him with someone or something much better, but jump to that line when the subject is Pakistan. If we can install democracy in Iraq, why not Pakistan? Do you think Pakistanis are unready for democracy or something?"

Saddam Hussein was an evil nasty dictator that was against us. He was using all the power of a large state against our interests. In addition, he has a pretty educated population that is not overwhelmingly fundamentalist religious. Prior to his dictatorshiop it was a relatively affluent educated country. So there was a chance that Democracy could be better and not much of a chance of things getting worse. In addition, the majority of the population is Shiite so a government that forms there is unlikely to support Al Queda which hates Shiites as much as it hates the US.

Mushariff is a Pro-American dictator that is helping us on our war on terror. His population is highly uneducated, poor and full of relgious fanatics. If a national election were held a pro Al Queda government might get elected. Pakistan is the perfect example of why you need economic development before democracy. Pakistan needs to develop more economically before it will can establish a stable democracy. If it goes democratic before economic development is will probably just become a theocratic state.

2. if we're going to throw out a government it doesn't make sense for it to be one that supports us. that what the Dems do. wasn't ditching the shah the most ShapeShifteryTM of all Carter's bonehead moves? I mean the houses the guy builds probably have terribly thought out flow and feng shui, you know?

Ty and them act like there aren't sides here. "the guy who was going to blow up a mom and kids on the bus did this, so our only response if that...."

They don't get this is war not crime. Doesn't matter really. i mean its about as relevant as what is (not was, is) the Whig party position on free trade?

Spanky · 07-25-2005, 05:50 PM

T-Rex said:

"Spanky seems to think the UN is a good idea. I'm with him."

I don't know where you got this but actually I do think the UN is a good idea. Did a great job in Korea and Gulf War I. I just think it needs to be reformed. I think it would be a tragic mistake to end the UN.