The W
Views: 101411347
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
18.12.14 1804
The W - Current Events & Politics - Torch the Torch (Page 4)
This thread has 31 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next(2456 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (113 total)
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2886 days
Last activity: 2729 days
AIM:  
#61 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
Have you been reading what I post here? I detest socialism. That was SARCASM, my friend, in response to MoeGates post, which made the same contention (minus the sarcasm). :)

(edited by PalpatineW on 26.9.02 1915)


Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.
Gavintzu
Summer sausage








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2923 days
Last activity: 2923 days
#62 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Ha ha ha! In this triple-threat match, the right-wing heels destroy each other in the ring with infighting, while the virtuous left-wing liberal faces play possum on the outside, waiting to pick up the pieces and score an easy pinfall!

Keep it up. Hey, Pool-Boy -- I heard Palp say that you are not only soft on illegal immigration, but you support a congressional investigation into Bush/Cheney corporate malfeasence in the 1990s!

And Palp -- I read in another thread that Grimis feels you "can't be counted on to fully support individuals' property rights" on the issue of gun control! You're not gonna take that, are ya?

(Pssst Moe ... sit back an enjoy the fireworks)






We work at our jobs, collect our pay;
Believe we're gliding down the highway --
When in fact we're slip sliding away.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#63 Posted on
I'd like to take your advice, but I really have to clarify things here.

Look, everyone agrees we need SOME taxes, if only to spend on defense and paying off the interest on the National Debt (wait, that's 75% of the budget right there). So, I'm merely offering my priorities on what kind of taxes we should have. See my previous post for my priorities, and feel free to offer your own. If you need to get some ranting against the liberals who are only out to steal your hard-earned money and spend it on welfare mothers out of your system, fine, but afterward try to at least follow up with something germane to the post you're responding to.

Is investment money "earned" income? More than inheritance (that's not even a gamble, just involves being born to the right parents) but less than earning a paycheck for stacking bricks or treating patients or running a business (business income is a different kind of income than investment) or taking orders at McDonalds or writing about wrestling on the internet (all 4 people who get paid for that anyway) or other income you get by, you know, working. As a result, I guess I'd amend my system to reflect that.

EDIT: sorry, before the hard-core libertarians get to this post, I'll amend to say 99% of people agree we need SOME taxes.

(edited by MoeGates on 27.9.02 0240)


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








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1326 days
Last activity: 1122 days
#64 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    And Palp -- I read in another thread that Grimis feels you "can't be counted on to fully support individuals' property rights" on the issue of gun control!


The blue hell? Why would I attack my own? I have to spend enough time defending myself from the liberal looniness.
A Fan
Liverwurst








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3613 days
Last activity: 3613 days
#65 Posted on
If I could speak on this....


I say we should nuke the hell out of Iraq and most of the Middle East. They are out to kill us, so I say kill them all before they get another chance.

That being said, I think the reasons why the Bush administration is going in is purely selfish. They want to go in for a variety of reasons:

1. Its an election. Bush is the only sitting President to lose the Senate in a non-election year and if you don't think that will be in histroy books, think again. Of course, no most text books it will be a line while Sept. 11th will be seven pages. Still, I'm sure the Republicans want to take back all they have lost since the 1994 election and they are not above using the war to get what they want. I would also say this if the President was a Democrate as well. No one is above using the war as a political weapon, no one.

2. No Bin Laden, Many Questions. I do think the war in Iraq is a diversionary tatic for not asking the question, "Why the hell I'm paying a Trillion dollars to a military that can't find one man in a desert?" When Sept. 11th's anniversary rolled around, the media did seem more focus on the human tragedy then the hunt for Bin Laden. Which is good or bad on your opinion of the what happened that day. Either way, no one has stepped up and said why does the Administration think they can get Saddam in a more fortified country than getting Bin Laden in open air country. Which begs the question is the United States really done in Afghanistian? If not, then why start a war with another country when the country you just invaded is not secured?

I do think as the months and maybe years go by if Bin Laden isn't caught, Bush will have some explaining to do in the 2004 election. As for now, the less talk about it the better off the administration will be.

3. Oil, baby, Yeah! I have been hearing various news sources saying that a lot of international companies and nations want the Iraqi Oil. Granted, this is just rumor, but the place is the second largest vat of oil, so it doesn't take a genuis to be two and two together. If the primary goal is just to get oil, I say Saudi Arabia is the way to go. They have a more obressive regime than Iraq, if you believe that, they are the ones funding Al Queda and they have a ton of oil. If Saudi Arabia wasn't an ally, and chances are they really aren't, we would have taken this place in the winter. The question, I have is if we are going to fight terrorism or just the Middle East either way I'm fine with it, can we at least do it for the right reasons and not turn into a huge mess?

I want to knock the piss out of Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia, but just give me a good reason for it or at least show me some plans for rebuilding the countries into a more democratic and friendly society. As of right now, I don't see the Bush Administration having a long term goal for this situation or having any justification for it. I will agree Saddam needs to be taken out, but if means putting oil companies and seven international countries which would kill for the oil then I say no.

A Fan- Through out history, large empires fall, because of critical errors, is this ours or is it yet to come?


Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1372 days
Last activity: 138 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#66 Posted on
Sarcasm is often "TOO" veiled.. The mistake is made, but the argument is still true! Sorry for doubting your intelligence, but you know there are people out there who actually think that!
I do not know... how hard do you think it is to find one man in the desert who could be in any number of countries?
As far as the "three-way" match thing goes... YUP! Republicans do often argue with eachother. That is because their ideas are based upon principles, and not the wind. If you want an example... look at each and every single Democrat who supported invading Iraq when Clinton was in office, and oppose it now, just because a Republican is in the White House.
And don't get me started about the politicizing crap. How is it ok to delay voting on such an important issue until AFTER the election? Don't we get to vote on our canditates based on how they will vote on certain issues, yet we are being "insulting" if we as how they will vote on this one? And don't start about the "Prescription drug" bills and other garbage like that... the Democrats have held those bills up for MONTHS (politicising them!) so that they would have issues to run on during the election...




Craig Reade
"Pool Boy"

Detroit Lions! 0-3!
On the road to 0-16!
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#67 Posted on
look at each and every single Democrat who supported invading Iraq when Clinton was in office, and oppose it now, just because a Republican is in the White House.

What? Name me three democratic elected officials who supported invading Iraq when Clinton was in office. Are you talking about in 91? If so, just because both scenarios have "Iraq" and "Invade" in common, you don't think they are different. Plus it was hardly politically popular to vote against the war in 91. More of a principled stand I'd say.

Come on, it's not like both sides don't have their nutty idealists, pricipaled statesmen, and calculating pragmatists. You don't think lefties argue with each other? My god, that's all we do.


(edited by MoeGates on 27.9.02 1434)


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








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1326 days
Last activity: 1122 days
#68 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Speaking of which, how are you Dems dealing with this Al Gore business. I'm surprised he didn't get whiplash from the quick 180 he did on the war...

I kinda hope he does run in 2004 because it means W will cruise to an easy re-election.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3090 days
Last activity: 303 days
#69 Posted on
Gore has been doing one thing right in recent weeks -- putting as much distance between himself and the Lieberman faction of the party as possible.

His recent speeches have had conservative pundits snarling with rage (Michael Kelly was hysterically funny trying to "analyze" the anti-war one, for instance), but ALSO dismayed many on the left because the speeches didn't go far ENOUGH to condemn the current administration and oppose the war-in-preparation. (His anti-war rant was less "Don't bomb Iraq" than it was "Don't bomb Iraq until we've finished with Afghanistan, THEN go bomb Saddam.")

Still, he's one of the only prominent Democrats stepping up and calling for _any_ delay before attacking Iraq... probably because he's not running for anything this year, if I may be cynical. (It's amazing how much more willing Congresscritters are to sacrifice some of America's young'uns when their seat is up for grabs.)

I have another year and a half to figure out who I'll be voting for in 2004, so I'll worry about it then. If Gore continues to back away from the sickly family-values-and-religion Republican-lite campaign he ran in 2000, I might even vote for him this time around.


(edited by vsp on 27.9.02 1335)


"No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_."
-- Frank Zappa
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1372 days
Last activity: 138 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#70 Posted on
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    look at each and every single Democrat who supported invading Iraq when Clinton was in office, and oppose it now, just because a Republican is in the White House.

    What? Name me three democratic elected officials who supported invading Iraq when Clinton was in office. Are you talking about in 91? If so, just because both scenarios have "Iraq" and "Invade" in common, you don't think they are different. Plus it was hardly politically popular to vote against the war in 91. More of a principled stand I'd say.

    Come on, it's not like both sides don't have their nutty idealists, pricipaled statesmen, and calculating pragmatists. You don't think lefties argue with each other? My god, that's all we do.


    (edited by MoeGates on 27.9.02 1434)



Oh! No problem! I will name several! How does Tom Daschle, Christopher Dodd, Patrick Leahy, Al Gore, Bill Clinton... And I am talking about in 1998! Look, go to this site and read this Let me tell you it is incredibly hard to find this information, since it is so damaging to the Democrats that the press so adores, but if you look hard enough, it is out there. NOTHING has changed in Iraq for the better since 1998. They have stronger links to Al Quaida, they are more entranched with their weapons programs, and quite honestly, from a personal standpoint, they were cheering in the streets on 9-11 and I have really personally wanted to attack them since then.
Now I ask you- WHAT has changed since 1998 to warrant such a position change by these Democrats? I do not think a change in administration is a good enough reason. And the whole "It will destract us from the War on Terror" argument is bunk too... this IS the war on terror. To even think that Sadaam had nothing to do with 9-11 in the face of the evidence is simply blind....

Edit: Oh, and look here All interesting info...



(edited by Pool-Boy on 27.9.02 1431)

Craig Reade
"Pool Boy"

Detroit Lions! 0-3!
On the road to 0-16!
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 255 days
Last activity: 56 days
#71 Posted on
...in the face of the evidence? What evidence?

-Jag

Fuck the warmongers.



"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
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2886 days
Last activity: 2729 days
AIM:  
#72 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Sarcasm is often "TOO" veiled.. The mistake is made, but the argument is still true! Sorry for doubting your intelligence, but you know there are people out there who actually think that



Hey, PoolBoy... it's all good, man. I still love you. I'm glad we could iron out our differences like rational adults, and not liberals.

But to clarify, I vote Libertarian, baby.


    Originally posted by Jaguar

    ...in the face of the evidence? What evidence?

    -Jag

    Fuck the warmongers.



Oh, Jag. Always advancing your side of the argument with cool reason. Start here. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but I am saying that the issue deserves more consideration than your angst-filled "fuck the warmongers."



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: 255 days
Last activity: 56 days
#73 Posted on
That's a great piece. Now here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to take Bush/Rumsfeld at their word. Alright. So some high ranking Iraqi met with someone associated with Al Qaeda at some point. And at some point, someone associated with Al Qaeda did some sort of 'training' in chemical weapons somewhere in Iraq. Ok. I can buy all that.

But who the fuck cares?

I betcha that Iraq isn't the only country in the world to play host to Al Qaeda. Are we threatening to invade Syria? No. Are we invading Saudi Arabia? No. Plenty of terrorist groups have done training in Libya over the years, are we planning on blowing the shit out of them? No. This war doesn't have a leg to stand on. If we really cared about Big Evil Saddam, we would've gone and killed him already. But no, this is simply a power play. Whether it's about taking oil from Iraq, or simply taking back Congress, it's complete bullshit and I'm not going to stand for it.

Yes, fuck the warmongers. I don't support Terrorism, especially when it's being committed by my own country.

-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
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#74 Posted on
Now I ask you- WHAT has changed since 1998 to warrant such a position change by these Democrats?

What position change? Reading all the articles, those Dems position in 98' was "we better go get Saddam...OK, I guess the U.N. got the weapons inspectors back in so we can back off a bit." That's the same as their position right now.

This might not be the right position overall (I certainly don't agree with it 100%) but it's certainly consistant. And politically, it's MORE popular to invade now than in 98, so I dn't see how the Dems can be accused of taking positions because of politics.

I notice that the weekly standard, of course, makes no attempt to report on those folks that were against Clinton's initiative in 98 and for invasion now. Those would be the people I'd accuse of bowing to the political winds above all else.



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








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1326 days
Last activity: 1122 days
#75 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Yes, fuck the warmongers. I don't support Terrorism, especially when it's being committed by my own country.

    -Jag



And this my friends is the way liberal minds work. The club of America-haters seems to belive that the death of 3,000 US civilians isn't nearly as bad as the United States ridding the world of evil EVIL individuals.


    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Are we invading Saudi Arabia? No.

But we should. Do you know how much oil is in there. Besides, the government of Saudi Arabia harbors terroists just like Iraq, Iran, and Syria do.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#76 Posted on
Grimis. weren't you against the invasion of Iraq, like, two weeks ago, until it became big-time Democrats VS Republicans and you had to start towing your side's party line? Seems *overwhelmingly* hypocritical...

Pool-Boy, that footage you saw on 9/11 was from Pakistan (and may well have been from the Gulf War), but, I know, a raghead's a raghead.

Iraq is a secular nation interested in regional dominance in the Middle East and, I assure you, is about as likely of hooking up with Al Queda as Canada is.

Maybe we could try to remember those who were killed last September and try to, you know, actually stop the people involved with that attack rather than mindless warmongering to avenge your Daddy's enemies. Of course, we tried that and, suprise, suprise, Bush failed at something else! (Like everything else he's ever done in his entire life), so we pick a new target and hope for the best.

And, don't worry, when Bush fails here, we've still got North Korea.

EDIT: Oh, and Grimis, don't you know that Saudi Arabia are our "allies in peace". That's what the Bush adminstration said. We get our oil from them, you know, so they can fly planes into and kill as many Americans as they want. It's not nearly as great a loss as high gas prices would be.

(edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 29.9.02 1110)



"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
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2886 days
Last activity: 2729 days
AIM:  
#77 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    EDIT: Oh, and Grimis, don't you know that Saudi Arabia are our "allies in peace". That's what the Bush adminstration said. We get our oil from them, you know, so they can fly planes into and kill as many Americans as they want. It's not nearly as great a loss as high gas prices would be.

    (edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 29.9.02 1110)



So... we shouldn't be "allies in peace" with the House of Saud, here? Wait a tic... are you for war as a means of removing terrorism and its sponsors, or against it?


    Originally Posted by MoeGates

    I'd like to take your advice, but I really have to clarify things here.

    Look, everyone agrees we need SOME taxes, if only to spend on defense and paying off the interest on the National Debt (wait, that's 75% of the budget right there). So, I'm merely offering my priorities on what kind of taxes we should have. See my previous post for my priorities, and feel free to offer your own. If you need to get some ranting against the liberals who are only out to steal your hard-earned money and spend it on welfare mothers out of your system, fine, but afterward try to at least follow up with something germane to the post you're responding to.

    Is investment money "earned" income? More than inheritance (that's not even a gamble, just involves being born to the right parents) but less than earning a paycheck for stacking bricks or treating patients or running a business (business income is a different kind of income than investment) or taking orders at McDonalds or writing about wrestling on the internet (all 4 people who get paid for that anyway) or other income you get by, you know, working. As a result, I guess I'd amend my system to reflect that.

    EDIT: sorry, before the hard-core libertarians get to this post, I'll amend to say 99% of people agree we need SOME taxes.



Before you start railing that I want to kick grandma out in the cold and starve poor women and children, well... don't. I've never taken a stand against helping the poor. I do, however, take a stand against GOVERNMENT helping the poor (and I use this term somewhat loosely). I believe in a minimalist government. Defense, police, courts, infrastructure and not much else past that. After all, if I drastically reduse your taxes, Moe, then you are free to send all that money you saved on to the poor. And I suspect very many people would. Just because a giant bureaucracy isn't feeding people doesn't mean they won't eat. What it comes down to is the larger the gov't and the higher the taxes, the fewer the choices I am allowed to make with my money and my life. The welfare state coerces me into some manner of charity. Removing social programs would not force me to NOT give my money to others, but it would give me a CHOICE. Unless you're anti-choice, Moe?


And even if I didn't work too hard to get my inherited money, whose right to it is greater? Mine, or the government's?

(edited by PalpatineW on 29.9.02 1335)

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: 255 days
Last activity: 56 days
#78 Posted on
Grimis, sometimes you make me laugh.



    Originally posted by Grimis

      Originally posted by Jaguar
      Yes, fuck the warmongers. I don't support Terrorism, especially when it's being committed by my own country.

      -Jag



    And this my friends is the way liberal minds work. The club of America-haters seems to belive that the death of 3,000 US civilians isn't nearly as bad as the United States ridding the world of evil EVIL individuals.


      Originally posted by Jaguar
      Are we invading Saudi Arabia? No.

    But we should. Do you know how much oil is in there. Besides, the government of Saudi Arabia harbors terroists just like Iraq, Iran, and Syria do.



First off, apparently you didn't read my whole post. As you know how, invading Iraq isn't about Saddam, and it isn't about Al Qaeda, because either one of these problems could've been taken care of at anytime without an invasion. Of course you seem to want to invade the Saudi's as well for their oil, so that makes it all pretty clear. So while I don't agree with you, I at least find your honesty a bit refreshing as compared to the current administration.

I'm just going to ignore the fact that you're in complete agreement with me about other middle eastern countries harboring terrorists as well while Bush and Co. dick around in office.

And then there's this whole, "3,000 civillians vs Evil Individuals" thing. How many civillians do you think we'll end up killing when we start bombing Iraq?

-Jag

And when did I say that I hated America? Fuck you and your self-righteous bullshit. If you can't get your point across without name-calling or trying to demonize me for what I think then don't even bother replying.



"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
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2886 days
Last activity: 2729 days
AIM:  
#79 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
    Originally Posted by Jaguar
    First off, apparently you didn't read my whole post. As you know how, invading Iraq isn't about Saddam, and it isn't about Al Qaeda, because either one of these problems could've been taken care of at anytime without an invasion.


Huh? Damn, man. You better pass on your strategy to the White House, because they're under the delusion that these terrorists are bad people who aren't simply going to stop committing terrorist acts simply because we'd like them to.

(edited by PalpatineW on 29.9.02 1537)


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








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#80 Posted on

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
      Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
      EDIT: Oh, and Grimis, don't you know that Saudi Arabia are our "allies in peace". That's what the Bush adminstration said. We get our oil from them, you know, so they can fly planes into and kill as many Americans as they want. It's not nearly as great a loss as high gas prices would be.

      (edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 29.9.02 1110)



    So... we shouldn't be "allies in peace" with the House of Saud, here? Wait a tic... are you for war as a means of removing terrorism and its sponsors, or against it?



Well, there's a slight difference between a country that sponsors damn near all the terrorism on the planet and was the home of all the 9/11 hijackers except two, and an easily distracting scapegoat who had *ZERO* to do with the attacks, no matter how much time we wasted searching for a link.



"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
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextThread ahead: Um...
Next thread: Hitchens to leave The Nation
Previous thread: Reorganize the U.N.
(2456 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
But close.... http://www.nypost.com/ news/nationalnews/26839.htm
- StaggerLee, Not quite DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN (2004)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Torch the Torch (Page 4)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.269 seconds.