The W
Views: 100802181
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.11.14 0919
The W - Current Events & Politics - CANADA SHOWS ITS TRUE COLORS. (Page 2)
This thread has 20 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next(2463 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (42 total)
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 366 days
Last activity: 360 days
#21 Posted on

    Originally posted by spf2119
    I'll just say one thing...Osama has/had a personal fortune in the billions. If that's what happens when money gets into the third world, then the hell with sharing.


Why does it have to be sarcasm? Here bin Laden has/had all this money easily available to him and his followers, yet his ground "troops" live(d) in sheer rat-eating poverty.

What a benevolent man.

When the UN tried to dole out food to starving Somalians all they got was bullets while the food and aid went to the relatively rich warlords. So fuck 'em anyhow.

And any Prime Minister who would use a tragedy such as the events of 9/11 as an excuse to try to play "good guy" with the clueless lazy Europeaceniks, gets to take his place as #1 on the sheer dickheaded list.

Before I get jumped on for that, I must say I do appreciate the country's efforts to take in the planes during the tragedy, and I do hope the US military men responsible for the deaths of the Canadian soldiers get what's coming to them. But that doesn't excuse cowardice in hindsight.



George Washington gave his signature
The Government gave its hand
They said for now and ever more that this was Indian Land

"As long as the moon shall rise"
"As long as the rivers flow"
"As long as the sun will shine"
"As long as the grass shall grow"


Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 230 days
Last activity: 31 days
#22 Posted on
Okay my replies:

1) Why does it have to be sarcasm?

Because it's a stupid single-minded argument. Here, let me change the particulars, and see if it hits a little closer to home. I'll just say one thing...those Enron executives has/had personal fortunes in the billions. If that's what happens when money get into the corporate world, then the hell with sharing Alright, so I'm not sure how we 'share' money with corporate fat cats, but it's still the same argument and it's pretty dumb. If you're going to be able to lump all of the middle east with Osama, then I'm going to lump every last corporate executive (Bush and Cheney I'm looking at you) with the rich bastards of Enron and WorldCom and others who left Americans without jobs and without pensions.

2) Here bin Laden has/had all this money easily available to him and his followers, yet his ground "troops" live(d) in sheer rat-eating poverty.

I'd probably chalk this one up to the fact that the majority of bin Laden's "troops" are terrorists. Their whole purpose is to strike without warning. The more money you spend, the easier you are to track. Also, a lot of Osama's funds have been frozen wherever the US can get to 'em.


3) When the UN tried to dole out food to starving Somalians all they got was bullets while the food and aid went to the relatively rich warlords. So fuck 'em anyhow.
I'm not sure I understand this one. Fuck the starving Somalians, because some evil warlords are intercepting the supplies? I'll just assume that I'm reading it wrong cause that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

4) And any Prime Minister who would use a tragedy such as the events of 9/11 as an excuse to try to play "good guy" with the clueless lazy Europeaceniks, gets to take his place as #1 on the sheer dickheaded list.


Again, I'm not sure I understand. Please explain this one better. The key points I don't get:

- How is Chretien using 9/11 as an excuse to play "good guy"?
- Who exactly are the clueless lazy Europeaceniks, and what exactly do they stand for? (I'm not too big on European politics)

Clear this up for me, and I'll have a better understanding of what you're trying to say.

-Jag




"You gotta hate somebody before this is over. Them, me, it doesn't matter."

"Hate, who do I hate? You tell me."

"Who do you love?"

-Wintermute to Case in William Gibson's Neuromancer
kazhayashi81
Potato korv








Since: 17.6.02
From: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Since last post: 2733 days
Last activity: 2684 days
AIM:  
#23 Posted on

    Originally posted by drjayphd


      However, in some of these cases, couldn't the problem be solved with massive building of infrastructure? The problem with aid is that the money just goes to the top, where it isn't used to benefit anyone but corrupt regimes. If we could go into these countries and build schools/hospitals/whatever, in compliance with their laws and traditions, then that would probably do much more good.



    Then we'd piss off the governments, which run the legit military forces, and who could start an anti-American propoganda campaign. Not exactly a win/win situation here.








    "You can save the planet, I'll save your seat"- Uncle Kracker, Better Days
    "Confucious say: Man with hand in pocket feel cocky all day!"- Crank Yankers
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 366 days
Last activity: 360 days
#24 Posted on

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Okay my replies:

    1) Why does it have to be sarcasm?

    Because it's a stupid single-minded argument. Here, let me change the particulars, and see if it hits a little closer to home. I'll just say one thing...those Enron executives has/had personal fortunes in the billions. If that's what happens when money get into the corporate world, then the hell with sharing Alright, so I'm not sure how we 'share' money with corporate fat cats, but it's still the same argument and it's pretty dumb. If you're going to be able to lump all of the middle east with Osama, then I'm going to lump every last corporate executive (Bush and Cheney I'm looking at you) with the rich bastards of Enron and WorldCom and others who left Americans without jobs and without pensions.



    ****Where did I lump all the middle east in with Bin Laden? Enron never sent any jets into towers as far as I know. Your comparison here makes no sense at all.


    2) Here bin Laden has/had all this money easily available to him and his followers, yet his ground "troops" live(d) in sheer rat-eating poverty.

    I'd probably chalk this one up to the fact that the majority of bin Laden's "troops" are terrorists. Their whole purpose is to strike without warning. The more money you spend, the easier you are to track. Also, a lot of Osama's funds have been frozen wherever the US can get to 'em.

    ****Bullshit. Bin Laden can/could get as much liquid asset as he wants by a single phone call to a freindly mullah. Freezing assets is a useless tactic among terrorists.

    >3) When the UN tried to dole out food to starving Somalians all they got was bullets while the food and aid went to the relatively rich warlords. So fuck 'em anyhow.
    I'm not sure I understand this one. Fuck the starving Somalians, because some evil warlords are intercepting the supplies? I'll just assume that I'm reading it wrong cause that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

    ****Have you ever spoken to someone who served in Somalia? NOt all the shooting was done by the warlords. After they came in and stole the supplies, the OTHER Somalis started firing on the UN as well, demanding more to fill the gap.

    4) And any Prime Minister who would use a tragedy such as the events of 9/11 as an excuse to try to play "good guy" with the clueless lazy Europeaceniks, gets to take his place as #1 on the sheer dickheaded list.


    Again, I'm not sure I understand. Please explain this one better. The key points I don't get:

    - How is Chretien using 9/11 as an excuse to play "good guy"?
    - Who exactly are the clueless lazy Europeaceniks, and what exactly do they stand for? (I'm not too big on European politics)

    Clear this up for me, and I'll have a better understanding of what you're trying to say.

    -Jag



****The speech was obviously meant to placate the socialist-leaning Europeans who believe the US should, rather than go in militarily, give money to terrorists and try to "get inside their head" so there would be no more terrorism and everyone will all feel better. By sucking up in this way he obviously is trying to avoid the "patsy" label Blair has gotten.



George Washington gave his signature
The Government gave its hand
They said for now and ever more that this was Indian Land

"As long as the moon shall rise"
"As long as the rivers flow"
"As long as the sun will shine"
"As long as the grass shall grow"


Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1301 days
Last activity: 1098 days
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Okay my replies:

    1) Why does it have to be sarcasm?

    Because it's a stupid single-minded argument.



Intelligent discourse strikes again.


    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Here, let me change the particulars, and see if it hits a little closer to home. I'll just say one thing...those Enron executives has/had personal fortunes in the billions. If that's what happens when money get into the corporate world, then the hell with sharing Alright, so I'm not sure how we 'share' money with corporate fat cats, but it's still the same argument and it's pretty dumb. If you're going to be able to lump all of the middle east with Osama, then I'm going to lump every last corporate executive (Bush and Cheney I'm looking at you) with the rich bastards of Enron and WorldCom and others who left Americans without jobs and without pensions.




Then I'll lump all of the Global Crossing people who enriched the major Demcorats with stock options(the Clintons, Terry McCauliffe, etc) in with you.


    Originally posted by Jaguar
    2) Here bin Laden has/had all this money easily available to him and his followers, yet his ground "troops" live(d) in sheer rat-eating poverty.

    I'd probably chalk this one up to the fact that the majority of bin Laden's "troops" are terrorists. Their whole purpose is to strike without warning. The more money you spend, the easier you are to track. Also, a lot of Osama's funds have been frozen wherever the US can get to 'em.


    3)



Bill Clinton makes hundreds of thousands of dollars for talking for an hour. How much of that does he share with the community surrounding his office in Harlem?


    Originally posted by Jaguar
    When the UN tried to dole out food to starving Somalians all they got was bullets while the food and aid went to the relatively rich warlords. So fuck 'em anyhow.
    I'm not sure I understand this one. Fuck the starving Somalians, because some evil warlords are intercepting the supplies? I'll just assume that I'm reading it wrong cause that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.



No, fuck them because we should not play policeman to the world. The humanitarian mission was fine because we were providing those who needed it with substinance. But under no circumstances should we have sent troops into Somalia because(and I'll talk so you Clintonites can understand) there was no controlling legal authority in the country. It's bad enough that we go into places where we know which side wears the white hats. We should've never gone into a place where everybody wears a shade of gray.


    Originally posted by Jaguar


    4) How is Chretien using 9/11 as an excuse to play "good guy"?



Because he blamed us for it. That plays well with the world's Americahaters(including some in Congress).


    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Who exactly are the clueless lazy Europeaceniks, and what exactly do they stand for? (I'm not too big on European politics)


Gerhard Schroeder, German PM is the biggest offender right now(and is a lot of the reason France seems to have grown a set recently). He stands for high taxes, socialistic utopia, repealing freedom and letting all dictators in funny hats threaten the world.
Tom Dean
Bockwurst








Since: 30.8.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3338 days
Last activity: 2707 days
AIM:  
#26 Posted on
IMHO, to interpret these remarks as a statement that the terrorists were "right" (rather than an attempt to understand their motives), you have to read way, way too much into the specific word choice "getting too rich." Also, the article posted here from the Globe & Mail doesn't even mention him saying those words at all.



Three Faces of Dean: Teenage Riot, T.R., and now this guy

"How YOU Doin'?"
- me, weekly (or so) at [slash]

"History is being make-ed... someone is going to get their head completely shaved off"
- David McLane, PPV opening promo

You see this? You see how my body's glowing like that? Yeah... a lot of people can't do that. Come get some of this glowing. Oh, okay, you. You want some. You want some of the glowing. Look, man... your soul... I'm going to totally floss with it and chew on your spirit. I read that somewhere. But I'll do it.

Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 230 days
Last activity: 31 days
#27 Posted on
Alright Grimis. Let's go.



Originally posted by Jaguar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay my replies:

1) Why does it have to be sarcasm?

Because it's a stupid single-minded argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Intelligent discourse strikes again.


1) Exactly! We agree on something. Oh wait, you went and used the same single stupid single-minded argument. *joy* Apparently you didn't understand what I was trying to say: You're not supposed to lump everybody together because one person did something bad. I repeat: Generalizing a crime that one person committed onto a whole group of people makes you an IDIOT. So DON'T do it, and we'll get along much better.

2) Please explain to me how Osama bin Laden using his family's money to support the terrorists who follow him has anything whatsoever to do with Bill Clinton. Then I might understand what you're getting at.

3) Okay, I understand what you're saying here. You agreed that the humanitarian aid mission was good. But then it becomes a complete failure. So you would've prefered that we just stop the aid mission instead of going forward with it and sending troops to see it through? Okay. (No argument here, just trying to observe your opinion)

4) Hmmmmm.... what to say, what to say. Okay, do I think that the terrorists had motivations behind the 9/11 attacks besides saying, "Let's go blow up some shit!" ? Yes. Do I believe that some of the motivations have to do with American foreign policy? Yes. Do I believe that some parts of current and past American foreign policy are wrong? Yes. Does this mean I hate America, or blame America for the actions of the terrorists? No.

I think that if the main goal here is world peace and a better life for everybody no matter country, race, or creed, then I think that what America and the Western world have been doing hasn't been working. I'm not saying that everything is bad, but that things need to be fixed. And not just in the Western world, but all over the place. It just so happens that the USA and it's allies are the only ones I feel qualified to comment on.

Okay, I lost my train of thought too many times. End post.

-Jag




"You gotta hate somebody before this is over. Them, me, it doesn't matter."

"Hate, who do I hate? You tell me."

"Who do you love?"

-Wintermute to Case in William Gibson's Neuromancer
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1301 days
Last activity: 1098 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    1) Exactly! We agree on something. Oh wait, you went and used the same single stupid single-minded argument. *joy* Apparently you didn't understand what I was trying to say: You're not supposed to lump everybody together because one person did something bad. I repeat: Generalizing a crime that one person committed onto a whole group of people makes you an IDIOT. So DON'T do it, and we'll get along much better.

    2) Please explain to me how Osama bin Laden using his family's money to support the terrorists who follow him has anything whatsoever to do with Bill Clinton. Then I might understand what you're getting at.




I was trying to note that bin Laden has billions, but does not help out the supporters surrounding him. Clinton makes millions doing speeches/TV and does not help out the supporters surrounding him. Strawman probably.


    Originally posted by Jaguar
    3) Okay, I understand what you're saying here. You agreed that the humanitarian aid mission was good. But then it becomes a complete failure. So you would've prefered that we just stop the aid mission instead of going forward with it and sending troops to see it through? Okay. (No argument here, just trying to observe your opinion)


Correct. Mission creep rearing its ugly head.



4) Hmmmmm.... what to say, what to say. Okay, do I think that the terrorists had motivations behind the 9/11 attacks besides saying, "Let's go blow up some shit!" ? Yes. Do I believe that some of the motivations have to do with American foreign policy? Yes. Do I believe that some parts of current and past American foreign policy are wrong? Yes. Does this mean I hate America, or blame America for the actions of the terrorists? No.

I think that if the main goal here is world peace and a better life for everybody no matter country, race, or creed, then I think that what America and the Western world have been doing hasn't been working. I'm not saying that everything is bad, but that things need to be fixed. And not just in the Western world, but all over the place. It just so happens that the USA and it's allies are the only ones I feel qualified to comment on.

Okay, I lost my train of thought too many times. End post.

-Jag



And saying that things need to be fixed takes this towards the realm of socio- and geopolitical worldviews. World peace is a nice thought and bringing everybody else up is a sweel idea but it is completely impractical. World peace is an impossible utopian ideal that goes completely against human nature. And sending resources to third-world countries for nothing is the "teach a man to fish" argument...
StampedeFan23
Morcilla








Since: 12.1.02
From: BC, Canada

Since last post: 2084 days
Last activity: 1620 days
#29 Posted on


    I'd say cut them off. If they want to force us to comply with their laws, then they're dead to us. Then again, they might do something to get our attention that'd make 9.11 look like someone throwing pebbles at a window.

    However, in some of these cases, couldn't the problem be solved with massive building of infrastructure? The problem with aid is that the money just goes to the top, where it isn't used to benefit anyone but corrupt regimes. If we could go into these countries and build schools/hospitals/whatever, in compliance with their laws and traditions, then that would probably do much more good.



Exactly. The West's solution to solving the third world problem is to throw money at it, but we don't take the time to see that the money is used properly. So, we get dictatorships and corrupt democracies with more money while the people starve to death. Like the old Chinese proverb says: "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, we will eat for a lifetime".



Are you ready for Mahkan-mania to run wild all over you?
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 230 days
Last activity: 31 days
#30 Posted on
I'm dropping the Clinton/Osama thing. It's a pretty stupid point. If you want to continue with it, I'll pick it up again.

And as for the "Teach a man to fish" thing. I don't really have an argument here. I think the Peace Corps does exactly that, and I think programs like that are great. I would much rather have my money going to helpful programs rather than other boneheaded foreign policy moves, such as supporting Saddam, or the Taliban in order to fight proxy wars with other countries.

-Jag





"You gotta hate somebody before this is over. Them, me, it doesn't matter."

"Hate, who do I hate? You tell me."

"Who do you love?"

-Wintermute to Case in William Gibson's Neuromancer
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 2019 days
Last activity: 1953 days
#31 Posted on
"Like the old Chinese proverb says: "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, we will eat for a lifetime"."

I thought Arrested Development said that. And again, nobody answered my question about the American-created dictatorships.




Apparently, I Am


The Result Of This Survey Was Really, Really Disturbing To Me

MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 34 days
Last activity: 1 day
#32 Posted on
I was trying to note that bin Laden has billions, but does not help out the supporters surrounding him. Clinton makes millions doing speeches/TV and does not help out the supporters surrounding him. Strawman probably.

Clinton also owes millions of dollars to his lawyers. And as neither you nor I have seen his tax returns, we have no idea if he helps his community out(or gives money to whatever else). He has been involved in raising money for a lot of stuff, most famously the 9-11 scholorship fund with Bob Dole (you probably saw them on TV).

Exactly. The West's solution to solving the third world problem is to throw money at it, but we don't take the time to see that the money is used properly. So, we get dictatorships and corrupt democracies with more money while the people starve to death.

The West throws a lot money at third world dictators all right. But it's generally less about misguided attempts to help the starving populace and more about making sure the dictatorships and corrupt democracies do stuff like make life easier for U.S. corporations in their countries and keep the oil flowing freely. Oh, and also to make sure said dictatorships and corrupt democracies can violently put down any alternative that wouldn't toe the U.S. line.






Expressing myself EVERY day - but especially on July 22, 2002!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1301 days
Last activity: 1098 days
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    I'm dropping the Clinton/Osama thing. It's a pretty stupid point. If you want to continue with it, I'll pick it up again.

    And as for the "Teach a man to fish" thing. I don't really have an argument here. I think the Peace Corps does exactly that, and I think programs like that are great. I would much rather have my money going to helpful programs rather than other boneheaded foreign policy moves, such as supporting Saddam, or the Taliban in order to fight proxy wars with other countries.

    -Jag




Amen on both accounts
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2862 days
Last activity: 2704 days
AIM:  
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
Grimis said:

Because it's a stupid single-minded argument. Here, let me change the particulars, and see if it hits a little closer to home. I'll just say one thing...those Enron executives has/had personal fortunes in the billions. If that's what happens when money get into the corporate world, then the hell with sharing Alright, so I'm not sure how we 'share' money with corporate fat cats, but it's still the same argument and it's pretty dumb. If you're going to be able to lump all of the middle east with Osama, then I'm going to lump every last corporate executive (Bush and Cheney I'm looking at you) with the rich bastards of Enron and WorldCom and others who left Americans without jobs and without pensions.

Share with corporations? I don't endorse fraud, from anyone, and I don't endorse corporate welfare, but last time I checked it was corporations who were *creating* welath. You benevolent socialists wouldn't be able to fund any of your Utopian programs if not for fleecing businessmen (and everyone else) with growth-destroying tax rates. Might I ask who is supposed to provide jobs if not for businessmen? Again, don't try to paint me as some sort of Enron sympathizer, please.

And, for Grimis, our friends, the Germans.



Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 230 days
Last activity: 31 days
#35 Posted on
You, my friend, make me laugh my ass off. Not only did you not read my post at all, but you managed to attribute it to the wrong person as the original poster. So while I had some respect for you before, your post begs me to ask this question.

Were you drunk when you wrote this, or are you just an idiot?

-Jag



"You gotta hate somebody before this is over. Them, me, it doesn't matter."

"Hate, who do I hate? You tell me."

"Who do you love?"

-Wintermute to Case in William Gibson's Neuromancer
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 10 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
#36 Posted on

    Originally posted by Grimis
    Okay, do I think that the terrorists had motivations behind the 9/11 attacks besides saying, "Let's go blow up some shit!" ? Yes. Do I believe that some of the motivations have to do with American foreign policy? Yes. Do I believe that some parts of current and past American foreign policy are wrong? Yes. Does this mean I hate America, or blame America for the actions of the terrorists? No.=


Then you clearly AGREE with us, because that's all any of us have been saying.



"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree."
---George Carlin

"Facts?! Aw, people can use facts to explain anything that's even remotely true!"
---Homer Simpson
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 230 days
Last activity: 31 days
#37 Posted on
Shit. Now I feel bad for calling Palp an idiot, because apparently this is some new epidemic. Okay, Palp, OlFuzzy:

Those are both pieces of my post. Grimis did not post those. I did.

-Jag

Am I missing something here?



"You gotta hate somebody before this is over. Them, me, it doesn't matter."

"Hate, who do I hate? You tell me."

"Who do you love?"

-Wintermute to Case in William Gibson's Neuromancer
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1301 days
Last activity: 1098 days
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Yeah, don't throw me under the bus for that one. I'm pro-business/anti-terrorist/pro-defense. Yikes...

Let us all hope that Stoiber becomes German chancellor today...
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 230 days
Last activity: 31 days
#39 Posted on
I'm surprised that there are so many of us who are pro-terrorist that you have to define yourself like that.

-Jag



"You gotta hate somebody before this is over. Them, me, it doesn't matter."

"Hate, who do I hate? You tell me."

"Who do you love?"

-Wintermute to Case in William Gibson's Neuromancer
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1301 days
Last activity: 1098 days
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    I'm surprised that there are so many of us who are pro-terrorist that you have to define yourself like that.

    -Jag



Touche...long night last night.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: This can only end badly...
Next thread: California Governor
Previous thread: Question about Flag presentation?
(2463 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I'd just like to say that while I appreciate the extra $$$ I get for the overtime I work, I could work 40 hours per week and still live quite well, and the REAL reason that I work so much is that people are counting on me to get things done for them an...
- JayJayDean, The 40 hour work week (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - CANADA SHOWS ITS TRUE COLORS. (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.148 seconds.