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

[SlaveNoMore]

By Sunday, Bari, who also is the chairman of the East London Mosque, was reading a different message. The e-mails were running about 4-1 in favor of positive messages and sympathy for the predicament facing Muslim Londoners.

Sympathy? I sympathize for London's non-Muslims who are clearly are now walking targets for the Islamists.

Predicament? What predicament? You either publicly renounce the Islamists hiding in the shadows of the religion and seeking the death of the West, or you are clearly an enemy. Again, what predicament?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
You just aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Are you? We don't care that Clinton lied. Presidents lie all the time. They have to lie sometimes when it comes to National Security. Clinton LIED UNDER OATH. He didn't just lie - HE COMMITTED PERJURY. How did you pass the bar if you don't understand the difference between lying and lying under oath.

You fixate on the perjury because if you had to compare the severity of the fallout from the two men's lies your argument would sink like an anchor.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Well, he wasn't going away of his volition anytime soon.

He was a caged impotent dictator. He was contained. Utterly contained in every conceivable regard. All the poor sap could do was pop off some shots at UN planes every now and again. He was pathetic.

And he's a non-issue. We didn't go there to get rid of him. We went there to stake a claim in the middle east. We went there as part of the Neocon Manifest Destiny.

Is there anyone who doesn't believe that if Bush were tried for lying and willful ignorance on Iraq he wouldn't be convicted?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You fixate on the perjury because if you had to compare the severity of the fallout from the two men's lies your argument would sink like an anchor.

I fixate on the perjury because IT IS A CRIME. That would make a great legal system if we fixate on the results of the action instead of whether or not it is a crime. So if a woman leaves some oil rags out, they catch fire, and twenty people burn to death, should be punished more severly than a man who stalks a young child and kills it.

How well did you do in criminal law?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
But by then, the Republicans will be much more like the party of his Father. And his Grandfather.

The GOP will come around. Eventually, they'll start placing fiscal responsibility above their social agenda and things will be back to normal. But you probably loovvvvve their current spending habits, don't you? This is just a bizarro Republican blip on the radar screen in which your party has been taken hostage by a constituency that only used to get lip service. They used to preach moral values but apply sound fiscal policy. Now they preach sound fiscal policy and apply morality. The religious right will run this into the ground. In the meantime, you're just a pawn for zealots. And a very obtuse one at that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You fixate on the perjury because if you had to compare the severity of the fallout from the two men's lies your argument would sink like an anchor.

Clinton, the great hero of women, lied to cover up a severe case of harassment. Do you believe he didn't drop trou on Paula jones?

How can someone who is a hero to women frustrate a sexual harassment claim and not be seen as pond scum by women?

on the other hand, Bush believed that which Clinton, the Democratically controlled Senate, the UN and Blix all believed. we only know the fall out from bush having taken the only responsible course- we'll never know the fallout on hnon-action in Iraq.

We could extrapolate from the fall out of Clinton's non-action in Afghanistan, but that is really apples and oranges.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Sympathy? I sympathize for London's non-Muslims who are clearly are now walking targets for the Islamists.

No one believes this. Spare us the bullshit.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
He was a caged impotent dictator. He was contained. Utterly contained in every conceivable regard. All the poor sap could do was pop off some shots at UN planes every now and again. He was pathetic.

And he's a non-issue. We didn't go there to get rid of him. We went there to stake a claim in the middle east. We went there as part of the Neocon Manifest Destiny.

Is there anyone who doesn't believe that if Bush were tried for lying and willful ignorance on Iraq he wouldn't be convicted?

You can tell the families of the victims in the killing fields (and the victims of his sons) that Saddam Hussein was a non issue and was "contained in every conceivable regard".

I think the Kurds and Shiites that suffered under his regime would also disagree with your characterization of him being a "poor sap".

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
No one believes this. Spare us the bullshit.

no one beleives what? that another bomb could go off there tomorrow? here?
Isn't it pretty to think so?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
The GOP will come around. Eventually, they'll start placing fiscal responsibility above their social agenda and things will be back to normal. But you probably loovvvvve their current spending habits, don't you? This is just a bizarro Republican blip on the radar screen in which your party has been taken hostage by a constituency that only used to get lip service. They used to preach moral values but apply sound fiscal policy. Now they preach sound fiscal policy and apply morality. The religious right will run this into the ground. In the meantime, you're just a pawn for zealots. And a very obtuse one at that.

I agree with some of what you say here, but it is a two party system and you can't possibly believe that Slave and I belong in the Democrat party. No one can agree with everything their party leadership says or does. You join the party who you agree with the most. My guess is Slave agrees a hell of lot more with the Repubs than the Dems. So what is your beef?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
You can tell the families of the victims in the killing fields (and the victims of his sons) that Saddam Hussein was a non issue and was "contained in every conceivable regard".

I think the Kurds and Shiites that suffered under his regime would also disagree with your characterization of him being a "poor sap".

Again, the ends don't justify the means. You keep shifting from one justification to another. Its fucking embarrassing. Your people sold a bag of lies so badly it sets a new standard for piss-poor lying. Not only is your boy a horrible intel cooker, he's managed to switch stories so often that he's pissed away every pretext he had at the outset.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
He was a caged impotent dictator. He was contained. Utterly contained in every conceivable regard. All the poor sap could do was pop off some shots at UN planes every now and again. He was pathetic.

He sent a squad of assassins to kill George HW Bush during Clinton's term

He provided refuge and protection for non-Iraqi terrorists like Abu Nidal

He violated the UN Security Council from the end of the Gulf War

As the new article in the Weekly Standard shows, irrefutable evidence of links between the Hussein governement and Al Queda are surfacing from transcribed Iraqi documents each and every day.

The Russian and French governments were working long and hard to break the "cage" of which you speak, and to make him more "potent.

And he's a non-issue. We didn't go there to get rid of him. We went there to stake a claim in the middle east. We went there as part of the Neocon Manifest Destiny.

Others would tell you we went to finish his daddy's war. Others would say, "cuz Halliburton said so"

Is there anyone who doesn't believe that if Bush were tried for lying and willful ignorance on Iraq he wouldn't be convicted?

If the world was an Oliver Stone or Michael Moore film, sure.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
no one beleives what? that another bomb could go off there tomorrow? here?
Isn't it pretty to think so?

No one believes that Slave sympathizes. He is using sympathy, e.g. the Iraqi's killed by Saddam's regime, to justify the means of the "war on terror". He doesn't care that they're dead, but the fact that they are is very useful in formulating his argument.

[SlaveNoMore]

Did you just call me Coltrane?
No one believes this. Spare us the bullshit.

Good, when the fuckers blow up a few buildings in Chicago and a few of your High School buddies or former co-workers die, come talk to me.

Until then, you can suck my fucking dick.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Spanky
I agree with some of what you say here, but it is a two party system and you can't possibly believe that Slave and I belong in the Democrat party. No one can agree with everything their party leadership says or does. You join the party who you agree with the most. My guess is Slave agrees a hell of lot more with the Repubs than the Dems. So what is your beef?

My beef is that I'd like the priorities to be as they were. As Bilmore and I discussed via PM, the GOP's basic agenda remains the same. However, its order of priorities has changed vastly.

I used to mostly agree with the GOP of the past that placed fiscal responsiblity uber alles (except, for example, the GOP's complete disregard for economic externalities with respect to pollution regulation). Unfortunately, that's not true anymore. Now, God rules. The Republicans beef with Democrats used to be that the Democrats tried to regulate how people live their lives b/c they thought regular Americans were too dumb to survive on their own. Now, unfortunately, the GOP is trying to do the same thing, albeit in a different way.