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

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Certainly Unions are directly responsible for the destruction of the public school system in the US.

Oooooh, Penske ("why did we have to enter the war in Europe?") just called me stupid. Oooooh, that hurts so much.

Go talk to your socks, Nazi-lover.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Oooooh, Penske ("why did we have to enter the war in Europe?") just called me stupid. Oooooh, that hurts so much.

Go talk to your socks, Nazi-lover.

1. Actually, that was not what I meant. I will let you know when I am resorting to ad hominen attacks, veiled or otherwise. I assume you are admitting to being a product of public schools. I am too. We are the lucky ones. Just because the Unions have destroyed the public schools doesn't mean a minority did not overcome the stupidification that the public schools endow our youth with. Plus, we are old (although not as old as Billmore or Wonk, thank god, no offence), so we are also products of the age before total destruction set in.

2. I didn't say I was against WWII, I just asked you to justify your statement that our entry into the Euro-theatre was anything but elective. Your response indicates it was not.

And obviously Roosevelt is a liar.

[Penske_Account]

I just went for a walk and was accosted by a Larouchie wanting to explain to me how Bush Lied!

I thought of all of all y'all.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
BTW, I just clicked on Last Post for what I thought was PB (since I enver come here) and Ping! Pow! A set of knockers unde rthe header Perfect Tits. Where is A Concerned Person when you need him?

Where is this post that you are referring to?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
And obviously Roosevelt is a liar.

Roosevelt told the country that he was doing everything to keep America out of the war to "protect our neutrality". At the same time he had US Naval ships escorting both US and British merchant ships that were taking war supplies to Britain. He did everything he could to provoke a confrontation in the Atlantic. He lied when he ran for office saying he would do everything to keep us out of the war because he was trying to come up with a way to get us in. His lies cost countless of American lives. However, I am glad he lied and I am glad he did what he did. Although I don't think Bush lied, I am glad he took us to war against Iraq.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Roosevelt told the country that he was doing everything to keep America out of the war to "protect our neutrality". At the same time he had US Naval ships escorting both US and British merchant ships that were taking war supplies to Britain. He did everything he could to provoke a confrontation in the Atlantic. He lied when he ran for office saying he would do everything to keep us out of the war because he was trying to come up with a way to get us in. His lies cost countless of American lives. However, I am glad he lied and I am glad he did what he did. Although I don't think Bush lied, I am glad he took us to war against Iraq.

Exactly my point. OTOH, Clinton mistook Roosevelt's example of lying to rationalize perjury about things with inconsequential ends. His puerility overwhelmed his substantive potential.

Next time you play poker with Sidd, try to talk some sense (like the above) into him.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Your point is that the Bush campaign of lies was very successful, right?

I didn't care what Bush said. I expect a lot from our intelligence servies, but I don't expect them to know every weapon that every country has. How could they know what is in every building in Iraq or what every item is that get transported into Iraq. I know that Saddam had used WMDs before, he was continually trying to get his hands on more, and he kept obstructing the inspectors. It seemed obvious to me.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I expect a lot from our intelligence servies, but I don't expect them to know every weapon that every country has. How could they know what is in every building in Iraq or what every item is that get transported into Iraq. I know that Saddam had used WMDs before, he was continually trying to get his hands on more, and he kept obstructing the inspectors. It seemed obvious to me.

It seems to me that every one of the foregoing sentences is objectively obvious, which leads me to one thing, among many, that I don't get about the liberals. Why can't they see the obvious?

Of course, if Bush had done nothing, and now, two years down the road, Saddam had anthrax and successfully scored a WMD anthrax attack on us, killing 1000, the liberals would be up in arms. oh the whiny voices and handwringing we would see.

"Bush did nothing, why didn't he stop Saddam, we knew he was dangerous, we knew he was obstructing the inspectors, we knew he had used WMDs before, we knew our faux-allies like France and Germany were feckless and complict, where was our intelligence??, were was our preemptive deterrent??, did we learn nothing from 911??, oh the humanity, Bush was chasing bin ladens ghost in Afghanistan when he should have been focused on the threat of others like Saddam etc etc etc et al etc"

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
Roosevelt told the country that he was doing everything to keep America out of the war to "protect our neutrality". At the same time he had US Naval ships escorting both US and British merchant ships that were taking war supplies to Britain. He did everything he could to provoke a confrontation in the Atlantic. He lied when he ran for office saying he would do everything to keep us out of the war because he was trying to come up with a way to get us in. His lies cost countless of American lives. However, I am glad he lied and I am glad he did what he did. Although I don't think Bush lied, I am glad he took us to war against Iraq.

Why? Do you really believe the story that we're following a neocon plan to reshape the Middle East? Do you think we're not aware of the lessons the British learned trying that gig so many years ago?

Rumsfeld let the cat out of the bag the other day when he said off the cuff "We'll be fighting for a dozen years... But we'll be fighting OVER THERE."

The lie is 3 levels deep:

1. WMD - For rubes and kool aid junkies to believe;

2. Neocon plan - For conspiracy theorist dilletante foreign policy intellectuals and editors of Atlantic and Vanity Fair to write about; and

3. "Move the front elsewhere" - The too cynical to be baldly sold truth.

If democracy works, its an added bonus, but don't think we actually wen't there for that reason. And if you buy the "Saddam was a threat" story, you're hopeless. I don't mind the "move the front" plan. But the problem is they weren't even organized enough to manage that very well.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It seems to me that every one of the foregoing sentences is objectively obvious, which leads me to one thing, among many, that I don't get about the liberals. Why can't they see the obvious?

Of course, if Bush had done nothing, and now, two years down the road, Saddam had anthrax and successfully scored a WMD anthrax attack on us, killing 1000, the liberals would be up in arms. oh the whiny voices and handwringing we would see.

"Bush did nothing, why didn't he stop Saddam, we knew he was dangerous, we knew he was obstructing the inspectors, we knew he had used WMDs before, we knew our faux-allies like France and Germany were feckless and complict, where was our intelligence??, were was our preemptive deterrent??, did we learn nothing from 911??, oh the humanity, Bush was chasing bin ladens ghost in Afghanistan when he should have been focused on the threat of others like Saddam etc etc etc et al etc"

Under that specious reasoning, Bush should be attacking Iran and North Korea yesterday. He should also have assassinated Chavez.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
1. Actually, that was not what I meant. I will let you know when I am resorting to ad hominen attacks, veiled or otherwise. I assume you are admitting to being a product of public schools. I am too. We are the lucky ones. Just because the Unions have destroyed the public schools doesn't mean a minority did not overcome the stupidification that the public schools endow our youth with. Plus, we are old (although not as old as Billmore or Wonk, thank god, no offence), so we are also products of the age before total destruction set in.

You make about as much sense as your socks.

2. I didn't say I was against WWII, I just asked you to justify your statement that our entry into the Euro-theatre was anything but elective. Your response indicates it was not.

I suppose we could've let Europe fall, and done nothing to deal with an enemy that had declared war on us and sent its navy into our waters (yes, I'm talking about Germany). After all, it's not like they had non-existent WMDs, or anything real to worry about.

And obviously Roosevelt is a liar.

No, but you are obviously a dick, who cannot tell the difference between a statement of present intention and a statement of purported fact.

Unless, of course, you maintain that Bush was lying when he said he was against nation-building. Circumstances change.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
I didn't care what Bush said. I expect a lot from our intelligence servies, but I don't expect them to know every weapon that every country has. How could they know what is in every building in Iraq or what every item is that get transported into Iraq. I know that Saddam had used WMDs before, he was continually trying to get his hands on more, and he kept obstructing the inspectors. It seemed obvious to me.

Well, if it seemed obvious to you, then thank god.

I listened to Bush (well, not to Bush, but to Condi and Powell).

Are you suggesting that your friends had access to the same reports that Bush did -- the ones that cast doubt over much of what he was saying?

Were they briefed by the same generals who told Bush that they had no evidence of WMD?

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
1. WMD - For rubes and kool aid junkies to believe;

2. Neocon plan - For conspiracy theorist dilletante foreign policy intellectuals and editors of Atlantic and Vanity Fair to write about; and

3. "Move the front elsewhere" - The too cynical to be baldly sold truth.

1. WMD - Clinton, the Bipartisan Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he CIA, the UK, the French, Hans Blix, the UN, UNSCOM and the Israelis also all proclaimed that Saddam had WMDs. I guess your world is full of rubes and kool aid junkies.

2. I'll believe this Neocon conspiracy nonsense when we finally take out Syria, Iran and the Saudis too.

3. Where better? South Philly?

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
Under that specious reasoning, Bush should be attacking Iran and North Korea yesterday. He should also have assassinated Chavez.

Give it time. President Jeb will need a legacy too.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Unless, of course, you maintain that Bush was lying when he said he was against nation-building. Circumstances change.

And he traded Sammy Sosa. Let's never forget that.