The W
Views: 145981181
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
16.9.19 1936
The W - Current Events & Politics - US to develop Hypersonic Weapons (Page 2)
This thread has 38 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next(2008 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (42 total)
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 4823 days
Last activity: 1078 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by PalpatineW

      Originally posted by godking
      Good heavens, I can think of nothing quite so brilliant as researching a weapon that gives unlimited first-strike capability. It's foreign policy genius.

      Also, I bet all those terrorists are real scared now!



    I assume you meant that as sarcasm, but it comes off as completely logical. (Which, really, means it must be sarcasm).



You'd be a lot funnier if you weren't apparently serious.

Imagine that the Chinese announce tomorrow that _they've_ developed unlimited first-strike capability. A similar drone is on their runway, it could be over Disneyland in under two hours, and they've borrowed from the Dubya Doctrine and announced that "no other nation will be permitted to build a military comparable to ours." How would YOU react?



"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if Iím going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 1330 days
Last activity: 908 days
#22 Posted on
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a DEFENSE system AGAINST that sort of thing? We already have the ability to send nukes and kill the world anyway, do we need a missile that would do it faster?



Washington Huskies, 2003 Pac-10 football champs. Coming soon.
FurryHippie
Frankfurter








Since: 29.10.02
From: New York

Since last post: 4769 days
Last activity: 3457 days
#23 Posted on
Pardon my bad quoting skills - I'm just going to use open and closed quotes instead of the masterful job done by Grimis. I apologize for the difficult viewing.

"Guess what? It's still kill or be killed. Know why? There's this little thing called "human nature" that requires people to protect themselves. Nothing you or I can do about it."

For this, I refer you to the point I made before. I hate the sound of a man who doesn't believe the world can work it out. As much as you justify it as "human nature", it is infinitely more INhumane to believe that it must be "kill or be killed". We aren't apes. We're human beings with minds. And sure, humans do have to protect themselves, it is part of human nature. But I also have a feeling that the "human nature" you define doesn't just include paranoia and protection. I have the oddest feeling it includes something like, I don't know, rationality and peace.


"Yeah, because terrorists will sit at the fucking table..."

I admit myself to oversimplification, but I'm gonna call you for that one here. Once again, I agree that it's not easy to have "terrorists" talk to you, but I'm saying instead of just killing for revenge, look at why they do what they do (and what they do ISN'T because of blind hate), and think if there just may be a reason they're hating us. I'll give you one hint: As it relates to the reasons they hate us, I wouldn't exactly be happy with us either.


"Let me get this straight, we should be attacked(please remember 3,000 civilians died in those attacks), and then do NOTHING in return? You do realize that by NOT retaliating we are giving carte blanche for terrorists to blow MORE shit up because there is no disincentive not to."

I was hoping the words of my post would ring in your ears, but I guess not. Murder for revenge of murder only leads to murder for revenge of those who murdered for the revenge of the originally murdered. And you're a smart guy, tell me the next logical step in that sequence.

And no disincentive not to? I'm not going to blame America for what happened Sept. 11th, but as I said before - the terrorists aren't after us because we're free - they're after us because of our standings in the middle east. And do you know why we will never change anything? As heroic as we try to make ourselves out to be, it would impress me a *hell* of a lot more if we would not just think of our best military causes when it comes to the middle east. We're too concerned about reaping our own benefits out there, and have no concern about doing something like 'the right thing'. We're out just for ourselves. And like I said, sure, great, a safe America is an excellent thought. But instead of paranoia leading to arming up, I think we should take a hard look at what we're doing, why we are hypocritical in our support of "good" and "bad" guys, and what we can do OUT THERE to help us build PEACE, not our ballsack.


"Yeah! Americans are murderers! Fuck ourselves for beating Germany. We should've UNDERSTOOD why Germany was murdering all of the Jews and embraced it's diversity!"

Did you even read my post? I call out other countries for being just as guilty. I didn't say America should understand the world - I said EVERYBODY should work on it, going back to the human nature theory. To state that I'm implying we should embrace Germany's murder of people is completely ridiculous. AMAZINGLY ridiculous. I'm sitting here typing out a long post about what the world has to do to bring understanding to everybody, and you're saying my post was implying acceptance of murder. The EXACT OPPOSITE of EVERYTHING I'm talking about. Do you understand the concept I'm speaking to you about? It's called peace. Which means everybody accepting of everybody. I CAN'T give you a correct answer for what was done in Germany back then. I just can't justify it. But you know what? As terrible as the situation was, there's NOTHING we can do about it now. I'm talking about peace in the future. It's the same reason racism won't die. Instead of building for a future, those who keep racism flowing keep harping on "you held us down all those years" or "we used to own you guys".

There are measures we can take for peace. One huge problem - it involves swallowing pride. That's something American won't do. It's all about revenge, which I'm pretty sure is quite the ugly thing.


"With all due respect Furry, your view of world affairs is not based in the world of reality. We cannot understand the bad guys and sing "kumbaya". "

Once again, you misunderstood the post. Understanding "the bad guys" isn't my solution. I fully agree others are guilty, just as we are. But I'm not on an Arabic message board preaching to al-Quada, so obviously I'm targeting what us Americans are doing in this post. For the kumbaya thing, please leave the satire to Excalibur.


"Sometimes, you have to fight. It's not something anybody with a soul likes to do. I agree, war is a bad thing. But you have to take preventative measures for your own national security, and to ensure that you have the proper weaponry to fight such a war. If you don't, that's when you're setting yourself up for national extinction."

I'm not talking about national extinction. I'm talking about world extinction. I'm not worried about siding with "my people". I view myself as a human being, above all else. Americans like you may see me as lacking in national pride, and to that I'd say you're probably right. I'll accept that criticism as long as you understand I look at life from a bigger picture. I don't live life looking for what's best for America. But understand that is only because I'm more concerned what's best for the people (aka 'the world'). And that knows no man-made, flag-waving boundaries.

(edited by FurryHippie on 2.7.03 0717)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 3059 days
Last activity: 1513 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by FurryHippie
    For this, I refer you to the point I made before. I hate the sound of a man who doesn't believe the world can work it out. As much as you justify it as "human nature", it is infinitely more INhumane to believe that it must be "kill or be killed". We aren't apes. We're human beings with minds. And sure, humans do have to protect themselves, it is part of human nature. But I also have a feeling that the "human nature" you define doesn't just include paranoia and protection. I have the oddest feeling it includes something like, I don't know, rationality and peace.

Granted, I am in fact a realist in the geopolitical sense. However, we are still not too far removed from being apes. We've only been a civilized people for 6,000 years. That's not very long, especially when humans are "hard-wired" to be survivalists. Is peace good? Yes. But remember that human nature provides good people and evil people. That's not simplicity, it's reality.



    Originally posted by FurryHippie
    I admit myself to oversimplification, but I'm gonna call you for that one here. Once again, I agree that it's not easy to have "terrorists" talk to you, but I'm saying instead of just killing for revenge, look at why they do what they do (and what they do ISN'T because of blind hate), and think if there just may be a reason they're hating us. I'll give you one hint: As it relates to the reasons they hate us, I wouldn't exactly be happy with us either.

But at this point we're getting into moral relativism. The same kind of logic that says that the reason North Korea is starving is because of US sanctions. The "why" is pretty simple actually: we're not muslims. We don't believe in oppression, or spreading our religion, or that women are second class citizens. Does foreign policy have anything to do with it? Yes. But that is no reason(at this point) for our policy to be radically altered because even if we did not have our fingerprints in the Middle East, we will still be a target because of our beliefs.


    Originally posted by FurryHippie
    As heroic as we try to make ourselves out to be, it would impress me a *hell* of a lot more if we would not just think of our best military causes when it comes to the middle east. We're too concerned about reaping our own benefits out there, and have no concern about doing something like 'the right thing'. We're out just for ourselves. And like I said, sure, great, a safe America is an excellent thought. But instead of paranoia leading to arming up, I think we should take a hard look at what we're doing, why we are hypocritical in our support of "good" and "bad" guys, and what we can do OUT THERE to help us build PEACE, not our ballsack.

What is the alternative to war with terrorism? There are a non-state entity. They are radical islamic fundamentalists? What are we going to do, send in the Peace Corps and hope democracy sticks? When you're dealing with a group of fanatics, the only response to force is by force.


    Originally posted by FurryHippie
    To state that I'm implying we should embrace Germany's murder of people is completely ridiculous. AMAZINGLY ridiculous.

Yes, it is ridiculous. But it is similar to the moral relativism that says we should "understand" why terrorists want to kill us.


    Originally posted by FurryHippie
    I'm talking about peace in the future. It's the same reason racism won't die. Instead of building for a future, those who keep racism flowing keep harping on "you held us down all those years" or "we used to own you guys".

But America is buidling for peace. Wonder why we're dropping billions into Iraq to rebuild the country? It's not because Bud Selig wants the Expos in Baghdad.


    Originally posted by FurryHippie
    There are measures we can take for peace. One huge problem - it involves swallowing pride. That's something American won't do. It's all about revenge, which I'm pretty sure is quite the ugly thing

There is a difference between pride and revenge. We're not out for revenge. We're out to destroy the organization that attacked the United States and the state entities that help their existance.


    Originally posted by FurryHippie
    I'm not talking about national extinction. I'm talking about world extinction. I'm not worried about siding with "my people". I view myself as a human being, above all else. Americans like you may see me as lacking in national pride, and to that I'd say you're probably right. I'll accept that criticism as long as you understand I look at life from a bigger picture. I don't live life looking for what's best for America. But understand that is only because I'm more concerned what's best for the people (aka 'the world'). And that knows no man-made, flag-waving boundaries

Sorry, but I am an American first and foremost. Humankind, as it were, does not have a great track record of freedom and liberty in the macro sense. Muslim society, while rich in culture, is oppressive. While America has its faults, it sure as hell is better than anything else anybody else has come up with. I don't want to see a worldwide Pax Americana; I am more isolationist than anything else. But if somebody hits you, you hit back. And America hitting back at terrorists and states that sponsor terrorism is not only better for America, but better for the world.




""I haven't seen a starting nine like that since the '62 Mets"
- Dennis Miller on the Democratic Presidential Candidates
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 5695 days
Last activity: 5640 days
#25 Posted on
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a DEFENSE system AGAINST that sort of thing?

Ah, but the Bush Administration has already jumped the gun on that by preparing to install a missile defense system. Granted, it's not even close to working in any sense that would, like, actually stop a missile or anything, but it cost you a hundred billion dollars, so there's that at least.

And having a workable defense against nuclear attack would destabilize the geopolitical environment just as quickly as having Flash-speed nukes. The entire idea behind both boils down to "I can hurt you before you can hurt me", and when somebody is on the receiving end of that, they have a tendency to not like it.

Besides, if missile defense is ever successfully implemented, it'll just mean that the arms race has taken a new turn and your geopolitical rivals will have to come up with a new supermegahyperweapon that the shield won't stop. And so on and so forth.
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 5538 days
Last activity: 5007 days
#26 Posted on

    Originally posted by Grimis
    The "why" is pretty simple actually: we're not muslims. We don't believe in oppression, or spreading our religion, or that women are second class citizens.


So, then, Muslims are our enemies? Thanks for clearing that up, Grimis, we'll call you up for volunteer guard duty when we set up the interment camps.

As for "oppression, spreading our religion, or that women are second class citizens"... well, that's such a damned ignorant statement that I can barely imagine someone computer literate would make it.



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 3059 days
Last activity: 1513 days
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Nate The Snake
    As for "oppression, spreading our religion, or that women are second class citizens"... well, that's such a damned ignorant statement that I can barely imagine someone computer literate would make it.

Really? I didn't know that Al Qeida was for free elections, freedom of the press, and equal rights. Man, I never knew they were freedom loving people like supporters of Castro, the Khmer Rouge and the Sandanistas. Thanks!



""I haven't seen a starting nine like that since the '62 Mets"
- Dennis Miller on the Democratic Presidential Candidates
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 5538 days
Last activity: 5007 days
#28 Posted on

    Originally posted by Grimis
    Really? I didn't know that Al Qeida was for free elections, freedom of the press, and equal rights. Man, I never knew they were freedom loving people like supporters of Castro, the Khmer Rouge and the Sandanistas. Thanks!


Get over yourself, Grimis, you lumped every single Muslim in the entire world together with a few psychopathic radicals. Take a deep breath- that high horse you're sitting on just shat all over the place.





Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 4823 days
Last activity: 1078 days
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by Grimis

      Originally posted by Nate The Snake
      As for "oppression, spreading our religion, or that women are second class citizens"... well, that's such a damned ignorant statement that I can barely imagine someone computer literate would make it.

    Really? I didn't know that Al Qeida was for free elections, freedom of the press, and equal rights. Man, I never knew they were freedom loving people like supporters of Castro, the Khmer Rouge and the Sandanistas. Thanks!



Yep -- they're not like Christians, who bomb abortion clinics, advocate religious conversion at gunpoint, and force wives to submit to their husbands' authority.

All of which are ridiculous overgeneralizations, of course, and not reflective of what a typical Christian is like. You might want to try applying similar logic.




"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if Iím going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
Dahak
Frankfurter








Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.

Since last post: 3815 days
Last activity: 3468 days
#30 Posted on

    Originally posted by Dahak
    1. I see the logic. It will scare China, Russia, and India. Whether the damn thing ever works is another thing. But on the other hand it will scare China, Russia, and India. Possibly causing another arms race which could very easily be bad.

Uh, the arms race wasn't nearly as bad as everybody thinks it was. It was just a conviencens for Kennedy to keep research going.

<

Look Grimis, I am certainly not a hippie. My point is that the first arms race went fairly well until 1990. Then you had the old USSR selling pretty much every damn thing to whoever had the money. I think a 2, 3, or even 4 way arms race would be even worse after it ended.
To all the antiwar the US is evil groups. The US has a lot of problems. But most of those problems are caused because there is no answer that won't piss off someone. Or that would require time travel to fix. Look at Israel. Should the US let the Islamic countries overrun Israel? What do you think Israel would do? It would nuke Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and probably Egypt. Plus which organization brought Israel into being? The UN.
More importantly look at the other countries who had power or reasonably could have became the main world power. Does anyone really think that Nazi Germany, the USSR, China, Japan, France, or England would have done any better? The first 4 wouldn't have given a fuck about any other countries or minority groups. The last 2 at least tried to keep it's genoicide under some control. To become the most powerful country you need to piss off a lot of smaller countries. The US at least tries to do as little damage as possible. Yes it fails an awful lot.

(edited by Dahak on 2.7.03 2016)

(edited by Dahak on 2.7.03 2017)

Marge I am just trying to get into heaven not run for Jesus.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 4619 days
Last activity: 4462 days
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00

    Originally posted by Nate The Snake

      Originally posted by Grimis
      The "why" is pretty simple actually: we're not muslims. We don't believe in oppression, or spreading our religion, or that women are second class citizens.


    So, then, Muslims are our enemies? Thanks for clearing that up, Grimis, we'll call you up for volunteer guard duty when we set up the interment camps.

    As for "oppression, spreading our religion, or that women are second class citizens"... well, that's such a damned ignorant statement that I can barely imagine someone computer literate would make it.



I don't think anything the man said is ignorant. Please name me a functioning liberal democracy in a predominantly Muslim country (other than Turkey).

And even if all Muslims don't hate us for not being Muslims (and I don't think they do), those that DO hate us hate us for the reasons Grimis stated.



godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 5695 days
Last activity: 5640 days
#32 Posted on
Please name me a functioning liberal democracy in a predominantly Muslim country (other than Turkey).

Indonesia, Malaysia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Algeria, Chad, Djibouti, Senegal, Kyrgyzstan and Yemen.

Plus, if you're willing to count constitutional monarchies (and since Japan, Norway and Sweden all are, I don't see why not), Brunei, Bahrain and Morocco.
MoeGates
Boudin blanc








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 5 days
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
But at this point we're getting into moral relativism.

What do you think U.S. foreign policy is based on? It's certainly not based on any kind of universal moral code. It's based on self-interest. This leads us to not support certain very bad peoople, and support other, equally bad, people. That's pretty morally relativistic. Maybe that's fine and good and necessary, but it's certainly not based on anything moral. I, and most other lefties, would be very happy if the U.S. applied a consitent moral standard to its foreign policy.

As to "why they hate us," what "they" are you talking about. Some folks just hate the infidels, and attack us because we're the most powerful infidels around right now. I'm not worried about understanding them or anything like that, I'm interested in getting rid of them. These people, fortunately, are pretty small in number.

Now there's other people - a lot of other people - that aren't 100% on our side in this whole thing. Kind of like if some drunk asshole beats up my next door neighbor who's dog always shits on my lawn. Sure I say "boy, that's awful," but somewhere I'm also thinking "fuck that guy anyway, he always lets his dog shit on my lawn."

If I'm the neighbor, I just want the drunk guy arrested, I don't particularly care to know his motives or whatever. But if I tell my next door neighbor he's got to help me find the drunk asshole, and the next door neighbor doesn't really seem too into it, or even seems a little smug about my getting beat up, maybe it's worth it to find out why, and when he tells me "dude, you always let your dog dhit on my lawn," maybe it's worth it to try to do something about it. It doesn't mean I've let the drunk asshole win or anything. It's simply called being a good neighbor. And right now, to some countries, the United States is considered a very poor neighbor.



"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States Senator. It's sort of freaking me out."


Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 3059 days
Last activity: 1513 days
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Nate The Snake
    Get over yourself, Grimis, you lumped every single Muslim in the entire world together with a few psychopathic radicals. Take a deep breath- that high horse you're sitting on just shat all over the place.



    Originally posted by vsp
    Yep -- they're not like Christians, who bomb abortion clinics, advocate religious conversion at gunpoint, and force wives to submit to their husbands' authority.

    All of which are ridiculous overgeneralizations, of course, and not reflective of what a typical Christian is like. You might want to try applying similar logic.




I'd like you to tell me where I threw all Muslims under the bus? What I said was that the TERRORISTS that are trying to kill us are Muslims. NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL.

This is the typical liberal logic: we'll hunt and peck certain phrases of what the conservative said without actually getting the full thing in context.

Bigot: A Conservative winning an argument with a Liberal...

And Nate, you have yet to revela the source of your knowledge that shows Al Qeida to be the light that will provide freedom and democracy to the region...





""I haven't seen a starting nine like that since the '62 Mets"
- Dennis Miller on the Democratic Presidential Candidates
DrOp
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 4024 days
Last activity: 2891 days
#35 Posted on
Grimis said:

    This is the typical liberal logic: we'll hunt and peck certain phrases of what the conservative said without actually getting the full thing in context.

    Bigot: A Conservative winning an argument with a Liberal...



See, now you're doing exactly what you accuse Nate and vsp of doing to you.

Moe--excellent points. I agree.



And Marking Out
Slashwrestling.com
Wienerville
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 1896 days
Last activity: 1399 days
#36 Posted on
I, and most other lefties, would be very happy if the U.S. applied a consistent moral standard to its foreign policy.

It's probably not necessary, but I would like to point out that you don't have to be a leftist to agree with that statement.

And, Grimis, if the U.S. does not practice this moral relativism in their foreign policy, then could you please explain to me why we support Saudia Arabia and Pakistan. I had no idea that the kindly heads of state within these countries were serving as lights of democracy tirelessly fighting for free elections, freedom of the press, and equal rights. Perhaps my sources were simply flawed (and, I have other, similarly flawed sources in Central and South America).
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 3059 days
Last activity: 1513 days
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Corajudo
    And, Grimis, if the U.S. does not practice this moral relativism in their foreign policy, then could you please explain to me why we support Saudia Arabia and Pakistan.

Never said we did not. I've said it before and I'll say it again: let's take out the house of Saud.



""I haven't seen a starting nine like that since the '62 Mets"
- Dennis Miller on the Democratic Presidential Candidates
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 1415 days
Last activity: 290 days
#38 Posted on
FWIW, I probably would have supported a move against Saudi Arabia more than I did the move on Iraq. In Saudi Arabia you have enough evidence to show some major Al-Qaeda links within that government, the kind of which facilitated 9/11. I would love to see us move in, take out the House of Saud, and then ask the United Nations or even better in terms of PR, ask the Arab League to come in and take over the handling of Mecca and Medina as pan-Islamic protectorate cities, no longer under the control of any one state but rather the entire Muslim world. That could offset the anger we would have from invading the Islamic Holy Land hopefully if we stuck to Riyadh in terms of our operations.



and maybe I should open up my sensitive side/but really, the sensitive side sucks./I've been there./You can only imagine the kinds of sweaters they make you wear.

blogforamerica.com
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 1330 days
Last activity: 908 days
#39 Posted on

    Originally posted by Grimis
    I'd like you to tell me where I threw all Muslims under the bus? What I said was that the TERRORISTS that are trying to kill us are Muslims. NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL.


I'm not taking a side here, but I just wanted to tell you, Grimis, that when I read this paragraph in an earlier post in this thread, my first reaction was that you were doing just that. I was pretty sure you didn't mean it the way it came out, but I see I wasn't the only one who had that thought.

But at this point we're getting into moral relativism. The same kind of logic that says that the reason North Korea is starving is because of US sanctions. The "why" is pretty simple actually - we're not muslims. We don't believe in oppression, or spreading our religion, or that women are second class citizens. Does foreign policy have anything to do with it? Yes. But that is no reason(at this point) for our policy to be radically altered because even if we did not have our fingerprints in the Middle East, we will still be a target because of our beliefs.

(Color added by me, only for the purpose of clarifying the point.)



Washington Huskies, 2003 Pac-10 football champs. Coming soon.
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 5695 days
Last activity: 5640 days
#40 Posted on
This is the typical liberal logic: we'll hunt and peck certain phrases of what the conservative said without actually getting the full thing in context.

You don't seriously think that doesn't go both ways, do you?
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: Since nobody else has said it yet
Next thread: Liberians Want U.S. Intervention...
Previous thread: The Opposition to French Unions is...
(2008 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Do we have to call him Papa Smurf if he wins?
- evilwaldo, Um... (2002)
The W - Current Events & Politics - US to develop Hypersonic Weapons (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2019 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.11 seconds.