Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch



I guess those uppity niggras should have just been more patient. They'd probably be allowed in most of our schools by now.

Rumor has it that Helms was tutored in this regard by none other than Senator Byrd.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Rumor has it that Helms was tutored in this regard by none other than Senator Byrd.

It's nice to know that Repubs aspire to be only as enlightened as the most vicious, racist Dems.

Good luck to you and yours with this. Y'all must be so proud to have won back the South.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It's nice to know that Repubs aspire to be only as enlightened as the most vicious, racist Dems.

Good luck to you and yours with this. Y'all must be so proud to have won back the South.

That wasn't the point and you know it. Something about those in glass houses . . .

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That wasn't the point and you know it. Something about those in glass houses . . .

Since when does Byrd live in my house? Why do you assume that, if I attack a piece of shit like Helms, it means that I am calling all Repubs pieces of shit? Is it possible in the Club-world to talk about an individual without trashing a group?


And my point stands. I identify a particularly odious racist, who remains completely committed to his particularly odious views. You would never join in that attack, because the racist is a Repub, and you are a faithful observer of Reagan's Eleventh Commandment. Thus, you look for the worst possible Dem, and comfort yourself that, as long as that Dem remains as bad as any Repub then all is well in the Repub household.


I hate Jesse Helms, for many reasons, none of them being that he is a Repub. I know that you do not support his views. Yet you leap to his defense, solely because he is a Repub.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Since when does Byrd live in my house? Why do you assume that, if I attack a piece of shit like Helms, it means that I am calling all Repubs pieces of shit? Is it possible in the Club-world to talk about an individual without trashing a group?

And my point stands. I identify a particularly odious racist, who remains completely committed to his particularly odious views. You would never join in that attack, because the racist is a Repub, and you are a faithful observer of Reagan's Eleventh Commandment. Thus, you look for the worst possible Dem, and comfort yourself that, as long as that Dem remains as bad as any Repub then all is well in the Repub household.

I hate Jesse Helms, for many reasons, none of them being that he is a Repub. I know that you do not support his views. Yet you leap to his defense, solely because he is a Repub.

It's laughable to suggest that your post had nothing to do with politics. The only reason why you posted is because he is a Republican. I've never seen you post anything denouncing Byrd or any other DEM racist (and there are plenty) for that matter. So please kindly dismount your high horse and tether somewhere.

I am in no way defending Helms. I hate all racists, whatever their
party affiliation. If it makes you happy, I hereby denounce Helms, Thurmond, and any other racist GOPer.

And for the record, the only reason why I am still a registered Republican is that I've been too lazy to re-register. I am entirely disillusioned with the political process, and now comfort myself by pointing out the hypocricies that abound on both sides.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's laughable to suggest that your post had nothing to do with politics. The only reason why you posted is because he is a Republican. I've never seen you post anything denouncing Byrd or any other DEM racist (and there are plenty) for that matter. So please kindly dismount your high horse and tether somewhere.

Go fuck yourself. I have on several occasions attacked and criticized Democrats, notwithstanding the constant refrain of your kind that Dems cannot criticize each other.

I commented on Helms because I saw an article about his memoir on Yahoo, and because I have long held him in contempt (which started with his activities in supporting the maiming and murder of children, doctors, and schoolteachers in Mozambique). I didn't see a memoir by Byrd, or anyone else, reported that day.

So it had plenty to do with politics, but nothing to do with partisan affiliation.

I am in no way defending Helms. I hate all racists, whatever their party affiliation. If it makes you happy, I hereby denounce Helms, Thurmond, and any other racist GOPer.

Good for you!!!

Sometimes, when your first impulse is a stupid one - i.e., to respond to a negative comment about a Repub, one that has nothing to do with the fact that he is a Repub, by saying "oh yeah, well he learned that from a Dem!" - it's best to wait for another impulse to come along.

And for the record, the only reason why I am still a registered Republican is that I've been too lazy to re-register. I am entirely disillusioned with the political process, and now comfort myself by pointing out the hypocricies that abound on both sides.

Re-register as what?

And next time you point out a hypocricy by a Repub, please send me a PM. I don't want to miss it.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Go fuck yourself. I have on several occasions attacked and criticized Democrats, notwithstanding the constant refrain of your kind that Dems cannot criticize each other.

Only when prompted (i.e., you would never be the first poster)

Re-register as what?

Indy I think

And next time you point out a hypocricy by a Repub, please send me a PM. I don't want to miss it.

Take me off ignore, I have done this regularly. Why do you think that Gatti has high hopes of flipping me?

[Valentine]

Did the government of the United States lie to the American people, more to the point, did President Bush and his Neocon associates lie to Congress, to initiate a war of conquest in Iraq?

This question has been given currency by a memo leaked from inside the British Government which clearly indicates a decision to go to war followed by the "fixing" of information around that policy. This is, as they say, a smoking gun.

But the fact is that long before this memo surfaced, it had become obvious that the US Government, aided by that of Great Britain, was lying to create the public support for a war in Iraq.

First off is Tony Blair's "Dodgy Dossier", a document released by the Prime Minister (and later apologized for) that made many of the claims used to support the push for war. The dossier soon collapsed when it was revealed that much of it had been plagiarized from a 12-year old student thesis paper! The contents of the dossier, however much they seemed to create a good case for invasion, were obsolete and outdated.

This use of material that could not possibly be relevant at the time is clear proof of a deliberate attempt to deceive.

Then there was the claim about the "Mobile biological weapons laboratories". Proffered in the absence of any real laboratories in the wake of the invasion, photos of these trailers were shown on all the US Mainstream Media, with the claim they while seeming to lack anything suggesting biological processing, these were part of a much larger assembly of multiple trailers that churned out biological weapons of mass destruction.

This claim fell apart when it was revealed that these trailers were nothing more than hydrogen gas generators used to inflate weather balloons. This fact was already known to both the US and UK, as a British company manufactured the units and sold them to Iraq.

Our third piece of evidence consists of documents which President Bush referenced as in his 2003 State of the Union Speech. According to Bush, these documents proved that Iraq was buying tons of uranium oxide, called "Yellow Cake" from Niger. Since Israel had bombed Iraq's nuclear power plant years before, it was claimed that the only reason Saddam would have for buying uranium oxide was to build bombs.

This hoax fell apart fast when it was pointed out that Iraq has a great deal of uranium ore inside their own borders and no need to import any from Niger or anywhere else. The I.A.E.A. then blew the cover off the fraud by announcing that the documents Bush had used were not only forgeries, but too obvious to believe that anyone in the Bush administration did not know they were forgeries!

Along with forged "Yellow Cake" documents and balloon inflators posing as bioweapons labs, the American people were shown a steady barrage of spy photos taken from high flying aircraft and spacecraft. On the photos were circles and arrows and labels pointing to various fuzzy white blobs and identifying them as laboratories and storage areas for Saddam's massive weapons of mass destruction program. Nothing in the photos actually proved what the blobby shapes were, and in inspections which followed the invasion, all of them turned out to be benign objects. One purported biological weapons lab turned out to be a bakery, and a claimed nuclear facility turned out to be a commercial mushroom farm. Not a single one of the photographed targets proved to be what the labels claimed that they were.

In the end, the real proof that we were lied to about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. That means that every single piece of paper that purported to prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was by default a fraud, a hoax, and a lie. There could be no evidence that supported the accusation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. In a way, the existence of any faked documents about Iraq's WMDs is actually an admission of guilt. If one is taking the time to create fake documents, the implication is that the faker is already aware that there are no genuine documents.

What the US Government had, ALL that they had, were copied student papers, forged "Yellow Cake" documents, balloon inflators posing as bioweapons labs, and photos with misleading labels on them. And somewhere along the line, someone decided to put those misleading labels on those photos, to pretend that balloon inflators are portable bioweapons labs, and to pass off 12-year old stolen student papers as contemporary analysis.

And THAT shows an intention to deceive.

Lawyers call this "Mens Rea", which means "Guilty Mind". TV lawyer shows call it "Malice of forethought". This means that not only did the Bush Administration lie to the people and to the US Congress, but knew they were doing something something illegal at the time that they did it.

All the talk about "Intelligence failure" is just another lie. There was no failure. Indeed the FBI agents who erroneously claimed that missile tubes were parts for a uranium centrifuge received bonuses, while the Pentagon smeared Hans Blix, and John Bolton orchestrated the firing of Jose Bustani, the director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, because Bustani was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad.

The President of the United States and his Neocon associates lied to the people of the United States to send them off on a war of conquest.

[Replaced_Texan]

I do not think it means what you think it means.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I do not think it means what you think it means.

I presume the image is designed to forward the campaign by giving yound lads an image to rub one out, lest they be tempted otherwise to stray?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I do not think it means what you think it means.

Is that Charlize?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I presume the image is designed to forward the campaign by giving yound lads an image to rub one out, lest they be tempted otherwise to stray?

That's what I was thinking.

Then again, the "if I close my eyes and stick my fingers in my ears and hum maybe sex will just go away" types aren't too big on logic, from my experience, so maybe they don't actually find the obvious traditional advertising message of that image ("if you [buy this car] [use body spray] [practice abstinence], then I'll fuck you") problematic.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is that Charlize?

Unlikely.

I heard that that they had a similar ad prepared using Ann Coulter, but the "Scared Straight" program held the rights.

S_A_M

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is that Charlize?

I think so. Came from Fark, so I'm guessing that they didn't pay her.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I do not think it means what you think it means.

Damn. That sort of thing could lead to dancing.