78 replies to this topic

[redlion]

Im sorry but i forgot the last time the government was listening in to the juicy conversations i have with my girlfriend but i do remember that it was able to reel in quite a few suspects that out lovely news stations dont wish to mention. I am not going to elaborate too much further or cause a big scene which i usually like to do but ive seen it not much use because this forum is overwhelmingly filled with misinformed people. Alex please next time you are watching CNN or NBC news change the channel and store your New York Times issue in the waste basket please. Remember Democrats think with their hearts and Republicans think with their heads. You cant run politics with your heart. If you are a kid and you are not a Democrat who have no heart but if you are an adult and are a Democrat you have no brains. I will stand firmly with this for the rest of my life.

Congratulations! Your political indoctrination is complete! Now you have the following features!

a) You'll follow the party line whether you like it or not, just because you think that someone else, more important than you thinks it is right. (Read:You're brainless)

b) You are woefully committed to any president that professes to be a conservative, without researching his policies, or even looking into what he says he is. (Read: Your an unquestioning puppet of Fox News)

c) You are completely nonsensical about how you view the political process, including making horrible analogies including hearts and heads. (Read: Failure at communication)

In other words, I used to have respect for you. Because of this post, I've lost it all. Particularly this bit

If you are a kid and you are not a Democrat who have no heart but if you are an adult and are a Democrat you have no brains. I will stand firmly with this for the rest of my life.

First of all, that isn't sensical, and I have neither the time nor the willpower to decipher your insult to a diverse group of people that can trace their roots to John Adams and the federalist movement.

On that note, isn't it odd that the Republican party, descendants of the Anti-federalist party are now the ones that are enlarging the powers of the government? Oh, and newsflash, it isn't the low percentage chance that you're being spied upon by the government; its the principle of the thing. Conservatives talk about the slippery slope of abortion and gay rights, but what about the slow but steady removal of all of our constitutional rights? That seems like something the founding fathers would be more concerned about than whether or not two guys can get their freak on in the privacy of their own home.

In addition, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are both conservative papers. The fact that they've turned on an administration that isn't conservative does not change their political viewpoint, it merely shows that they're not idiots after all, and that there are still some conservatives out there that can think and function.

One more thing here, before this either gets closed or someone gets warned. Who is asking who to think with their hearts? Which party is constantly barraging the populace with 'Don't you have compassion for our troops? Can't you imagine what they're going through?' etc, etc. That'd be the Republican party, not the Democrats. So before you go spouting shit about how one party all think the same way, look around at what your own party is doing.

[Hater_Boxden]

Congratulations! Your political indoctrination is complete! Now you have the following features!

a) You'll follow the party line whether you like it or not, just because you think that someone else, more important than you thinks it is right. (Read:You're brainless)

b) You are woefully committed to any president that professes to be a conservative, without researching his policies, or even looking into what he says he is. (Read: Your an unquestioning puppet of Fox News)

c) You are completely nonsensical about how you view the political process, including making horrible analogies including hearts and heads. (Read: Failure at communication)

In other words, I used to have respect for you. Because of this post, I've lost it all. Particularly this bit
First of all, that isn't sensical, and I have neither the time nor the willpower to decipher your insult to a diverse group of people that can trace their roots to John Adams and the federalist movement.

On that note, isn't it odd that the Republican party, descendants of the Anti-federalist party are now the ones that are enlarging the powers of the government? Oh, and newsflash, it isn't the low percentage chance that you're being spied upon by the government; its the principle of the thing. Conservatives talk about the slippery slope of abortion and gay rights, but what about the slow but steady removal of all of our constitutional rights? That seems like something the founding fathers would be more concerned about than whether or not two guys can get their freak on in the privacy of their own home.

In addition, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are both conservative papers. The fact that they've turned on an administration that isn't conservative does not change their political viewpoint, it merely shows that they're not idiots after all, and that there are still some conservatives out there that can think and function.

One more thing here, before this either gets closed or someone gets warned. Who is asking who to think with their hearts? Which party is constantly barraging the populace with 'Don't you have compassion for our troops? Can't you imagine what they're going through?' etc, etc. That'd be the Republican party, not the Democrats. So before you go spouting shit about how one party all think the same way, look around at what your own party is doing.

Actually Lets take a look down the road of history...The Anti-Federalist party lets skip the parts you already know....Anti-Federalists continue until Jackson in which they Become Democratic Republicans until they become just Democrats vs. Whigs in the whole Bank Fiasco. Long story short, whigs fall apart during the end of the Antebellum era and become the Republicans which are today vs. Democrats. After Civil War, Republican freedom for black people turns into freedom for business. 1960s, Kennedy supports Civil Rights movement, blacks move to Democrats, Southerners come to Republicans. That is basically where we are today. As you see Republicans did not descend from Antifederalists but the Whigs who did want to expand Federal powers and incite federally funded improvements against the wishes of people like Jackson which is what closely resembles Democrats today. Therefore i am not contradicting myself but you are. This same distorted sense of Federal improvement is what is trying to destroy the budget with useless home improvements right now when the true object should be this "evil war". And what principle does this Patriot Act violate? Privacy? As an American i care about my individual liberty which is what this country is based on, to be an individual. Individually all i see with my own two eyes that no one has invaded or violated my privacy but i do see that it has the possibility and has captured people who can possibly kill my family. Democrats think too much about what is in their opinion a blessing for "the common good" but how many common goods are there? To them its only one. In privatizing social security they think they know what the common good is with my individual money. Cutting and Running to them is what is the common good. Transfat banning and cigarette banning is the common good. Everyone in this country is an individual and decides what to do for themselves and that is what they are constantly trying to take away. Ive seen videos upon videos of children and women begging soldiers to save them, saying they need us and our troops acknowledging the fact that innocent people need them when their sons are blown up walking down the street like you and me. How you can possibly say that this is a result of being in Iraq and having training that makes all soldiers think alike like machines (basically brainwashing which you said in your other post) is beyond the scope of my understanding. And to Alex who took alittle time to superficially rant at me and block me. You turned your little Ben Franklin quote around on yourself.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin"

That would be you my friend. You wish to make a 360 and withdraw troops from Iraq when people are dying so that our troops can live and no one has to die. This is your temporary safety from the evils we face you would withdraw and have your moment until another Osama comes along and crashes a plane through your roof and endangers the life of your children. When Ben Franklin made this quote he refered to the uncertainty the colonists still had about fighting the British. The Merchants did not want to give up their protect of the the British Navy and the navigation acts and people feared an unstable government without the Monarch rule. People such as yourself would give up the liberty of all that we have for a transcient peace until we get attacked again. War is never certain as the colonists knew when they chose to fight the British and we maintain our liberty because of it today. Dont tell me im just a bone head following any conservative politician.

[Alex]

That would be you my friend. You wish to make a 360 and withdraw troops from Iraq when people are dying so that our troops can live and no one has to die. This is your temporary safety from the evils we face you would withdraw and have your moment until another Osama comes along and crashes a plane through your roof and endangers the life of your children. When Ben Franklin made this quote he refered to the uncertainty the colonists still had about fighting the British. The Merchants did not want to give up their protect of the the British Navy and the navigation acts and people feared an unstable government without the Monarch rule. People such as yourself would give up the liberty of all that we have for a transcient peace until we get attacked again. War is never certain as the colonists knew when they chose to fight the British and we maintain our liberty because of it today. Dont tell me im just a bone head following any conservative politician.

How can you even mention Osama bin Laden? There were reports released and even Bush himself said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We're not even looking for Osama at this point. They've completly forgoten about him. When was the last time you heard him mentioned?

And how would us leaving Iraq make us less safe on our homeland? Most of the people we're fighting are only fighting us because of our occupation of their country.
Where is the logical link between occupying Iraq and being safe at home? I don't see it at all yet for you it clearly exists as you say

This is your temporary safety from the evils we face you would withdraw and have your moment until another Osama comes along and crashes a plane through your roof and endangers the life of your children.

There is no link. We're not any safer. Yet we are in debt, and we did lose liberties, and probably will continue to do so until 2008.

[redlion]

Actually Lets take a look down the road of history...The Anti-Federalist party lets skip the parts you already know....Anti-Federalists continue until Jackson in which they Become Democratic Republicans until they become just Democrats vs. Whigs in the whole Bank Fiasco. Long story short, whigs fall apart during the end of the Antebellum era and become the Republicans which are today vs. Democrats. After Civil War, Republican freedom for black people turns into freedom for business. 1960s, Kennedy supports Civil Rights movement, blacks move to Democrats, Southerners come to Republicans. That is basically where we are today.

Wrong. Time for a history lesson

In the interest of time, I'll give you a quote with a source

The name was first used by Thomas Jefferson's party, later called the Democratic Republican party or, simply, the Democratic party. The name reappeared in the 1850s, when the present-day Republican party was founded.

Source

If you wish to debate further on the origins of the GOP, let me know.

Therefore i am not contradicting myself but you are.

I thought we just disproved this, right?

This same distorted sense of Federal improvement is what is trying to destroy the budget with useless home improvements right now when the true object should be this "evil war". And what principle does this Patriot Act violate? Privacy? As an American i care about my individual liberty which is what this country is based on, to be an individual.

Yes, it does violate the principle of Privacy. It is explicitly stated in the constitution that the government cannot violate one's right to be secure in his papers without the approval of a court of justice. The PATRIOT act allows the executive branch to bypass the fourth amendment. That is unconstitutional. It cannot be argued. Whether or not it is necessary, it is unconstitutional. Prove me wrong.

Individually all i see with my own two eyes that no one has invaded or violated my privacy but i do see that it has the possibility and has captured people who can possibly kill my family.

Name one instance in which someone has been detained through the PATRIOT act when they could not have been detained through legal means. I don't care how long it takes, find one. Because I've searched, and I cannot find a single case of it being necessary. And that is still putting aside the fact that it is illegal.

Democrats think too much about what is in their opinion a blessing for "the common good" but how many common goods are there? To them its only one. In privatizing social security they think they know what the common good is with my individual money. Cutting and Running to them is what is the common good. Transfat banning and cigarette banning is the common good.

What? That didn't even make sense. The common good is good for everyone. Thats what the name implies. Privatizing social security is a Republican idea, not a democratic one. Democrats are for socializing healthcare. Cutting and Running (how easy it is for you to use a party line when you say you're not a party liner) will save american lives, which is what elected Democrats are supposed to do. I'd prefer that over becoming the world's police force and having everyone hate us. If you want to argue with transfat bans, go argue with New York, not Democrats as a whole. But wait, isn't New York governed by a Republican Mayor? Oh yeah...

Everyone in this country is an individual and decides what to do for themselves and that is what they are constantly trying to take away. Ive seen videos upon videos of children and women begging soldiers to save them, saying they need us and our troops acknowledging the fact that innocent people need them when their sons are blown up walking down the street like you and me.

Who is they? Democrats? Because the last time I checked, it was a republican president that is limiting freedoms, not Democrats or Iraqis. There will always be people in a nation that accept the invaders as saviors. There were French and Poles that welcomed the Germans as liberators from oppressive governments; doesn't change the fact that Germany invaded sovereign nations and killed 6 million Jews (not even mentioning the other minorities they massacred) How many Iraqis have died up to this point? 100,000? And that is just counting the ones that have been reported. I mean, damn. The Germans were trying really damn hard to kill jews and they only got through 6 million in about 6 years. We're not even trying and we've killed around 1/60th the number. And how many people died under Saddam Husein? Perhaps as many as 50,000 citizens. Seems to me thats a score for the dictator, no? Don't preach to me about how we're the saviors of Iraq. We're the invaders of Iraq.

How you can possibly say that this is a result of being in Iraq and having training that makes all soldiers think alike like machines (basically brainwashing which you said in your other post) is beyond the scope of my understanding.

It isn't so much the fact that we brainwash our armed servicemen. That was more of a cause for the present situation concerning the polarization of our nation, not Iraq. Sorry for the confusion. It is, however because there wasn't an opportunity for insurgents and militias to attack each other before we invaded because Saddam held everyone in an iron fist. That is, in fact, the only feasible way to govern a nation where three distinct groups of people want to rule and won't be denied.

If you feel that is inane to you. Then i guess im as crass as they come. I am not a party liner. I see what is going on and what they don't show you on every channel.

Ha. I think we've demonstrated thus far that only a party liner would say the things that you say. If you think that protesting your independence from the party will differentiate you from every other conservative, you're wrong. I recognize you for what you are.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin"

WOAH! Did you seriously just pull out that card? First of all, you're completely misusing it. Its a democratic card

Second of all, Alex is right. How would pulling out only temporarily save lives? As I see it, we'd be saving a hell of a lot of Americans from dying over there if we get out right now. Not that I'm necessarily for that, but you have to agree that some Americans are going to die in this process.

Third, in the spirit of Benjamin Franklin, you're an asshole. Giving up essential liberties (i.e. our right to privacy) makes us all deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

[Hater_Boxden]

Wrong. Time for a history lesson

In the interest of time, I'll give you a quote with a source Source

If you wish to debate further on the origins of the GOP, let me know.
I thought we just disproved this, right?

Yes, it does violate the principle of Privacy. It is explicitly stated in the constitution that the government cannot violate one's right to be secure in his papers without the approval of a court of justice. The PATRIOT act allows the executive branch to bypass the fourth amendment. That is unconstitutional. It cannot be argued. Whether or not it is necessary, it is unconstitutional. Prove me wrong.
Name one instance in which someone has been detained through the PATRIOT act when they could not have been detained through legal means. I don't care how long it takes, find one. Because I've searched, and I cannot find a single case of it being necessary. And that is still putting aside the fact that it is illegal.
What? That didn't even make sense. The common good is good for everyone. Thats what the name implies. Privatizing social security is a Republican idea, not a democratic one. Democrats are for socializing healthcare. Cutting and Running (how easy it is for you to use a party line when you say you're not a party liner) will save american lives, which is what elected Democrats are supposed to do. I'd prefer that over becoming the world's police force and having everyone hate us. If you want to argue with transfat bans, go argue with New York, not Democrats as a whole. But wait, isn't New York governed by a Republican Mayor? Oh yeah...

Who is they? Democrats? Because the last time I checked, it was a republican president that is limiting freedoms, not Democrats or Iraqis. There will always be people in a nation that accept the invaders as saviors. There were French and Poles that welcomed the Germans as liberators from oppressive governments; doesn't change the fact that Germany invaded sovereign nations and killed 6 million Jews (not even mentioning the other minorities they massacred) How many Iraqis have died up to this point? 100,000? And that is just counting the ones that have been reported. I mean, damn. The Germans were trying really damn hard to kill jews and they only got through 6 million in about 6 years. We're not even trying and we've killed around 1/60th the number. And how many people died under Saddam Husein? Perhaps as many as 50,000 citizens. Seems to me thats a score for the dictator, no? Don't preach to me about how we're the saviors of Iraq. We're the invaders of Iraq.
It isn't so much the fact that we brainwash our armed servicemen. That was more of a cause for the present situation concerning the polarization of our nation, not Iraq. Sorry for the confusion. It is, however because there wasn't an opportunity for insurgents and militias to attack each other before we invaded because Saddam held everyone in an iron fist. That is, in fact, the only feasible way to govern a nation where three distinct groups of people want to rule and won't be denied.

Ha. I think we've demonstrated thus far that only a party liner would say the things that you say. If you think that protesting your independence from the party will differentiate you from every other conservative, you're wrong. I recognize you for what you are.
WOAH! Did you seriously just pull out that card? First of all, you're completely misusing it. Its a democratic card

Second of all, Alex is right. How would pulling out only temporarily save lives? As I see it, we'd be saving a hell of a lot of Americans from dying over there if we get out right now. Not that I'm necessarily for that, but you have to agree that some Americans are going to die in this process.

Third, in the spirit of Benjamin Franklin, you're an asshole. Giving up essential liberties (i.e. our right to privacy) makes us all deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

First of all your reformed history lesson is completely wrong and it said the same facts that i said to you but just put a different connotation on it. Indeed it did start with Thomas Jefferson and it continued to Jackson who both were both in the same party. They opposed federal improvements. If you tell me Jefferson didnt say that farmers are the chosen children who shall inherit the earth, you must be on drugs. The Whigs who opposed them, Aka Henry Clay, Aka Daniel Webster are people who did want to put in Federal reforms like railroads and banks. when the Whigs were destroyed, the Republicans were formed from a coalition of the former Whigs along with others. Check your history because that is 100% true and that website just skips like 50 years in time to 1850 and then another like 150 years to today. About the Patriot Act i already answered that. You think it violates a principle which doesn't affect you, if you would still preach about it for what you think represents the view of all Americans and that it destroys everyone's liberty continue, but i don't think so because you constantly dont think of what it doesnt mention. The way i am thinking it in my head and i think you can let down your guard for a moment and try to see things from another side is: I have not had my privacy invaded, the government does not intend this in a malicious way and has not used any spied on calls for future blackmail or to sit with their friends and gain entertainment from what you say, but instead to capture terrorists in our country and has done so to a somewhat (and i do say somewhat because i know the number has not been sooo overwhelming) degree. The guys who almost killed my own mother who worked in the towers at the time of the attack were people like you and me who lived here and were indistinguishable from your everyday neighbour. Further how can you even dare compare us to Hitler. Besides the fact that its just insulting and fulsome, your statistical comparison does not even make sense. He killed well over 6 million first of all, now experts consider it something like 9 million, 6 is just a well known number that people tend to use. He did this from like 1939-1944 5 years which is the number we are approaching for this war. You are saying that we "killed" 100,000 in 5 years. Not saying thats not bad but not even a good analogy to what you just did. My common good phrase is something that indeed makes sense it is a principle that goes all the way back to the Puritans who believed their rigid idealism about god was the common good and these words of the common good were directly quoted from their charter of Massachusetts when they landed. However, what in practice it turned to be was the common good according to them, leading to prosecution of dissenters. When our founding fathers formed the Declaration of Independence. In fact if you read it carefully, they make direct reference to the changing times from the Puritans saying:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.

These were deists. In terms of Human events and the laws of Nature they bring our government back to earth and put the common good in the hands of the people rather than a fantasy world of god and the common good. That is the reference i refered to when i said Democrats make reforms that seek to control people (AKA things i mentioned, privitization, banning transfat, putting budget into things that are not the focus of what the times call for) They do this because they believe it is the common good. Similarly they need to come back down to earth because their common good and control is not what i consider "common". I want to eat what i want, do what i want with my money, and live my own life. How is what Alex said a democratic quote, when it was said there were no parties. The quote in the way you two use it is also misused as it has closer relation to what is happening now in the sense that you want to withdraw and that safety is TEMPORARY you say you want to stop being the policemen of the world and stop everyone from hating you like Iraq caused this. We were in danger even before Iraq and there were those who hated us before then. Its about Israel not Iraq and if you withdraw troops you only stop death until someone else who hates us comes and bombs us again. That is what i mean by temporary safety. You put this in terms of "How does withdrawing from Iraq which never did anything to us make it temporary because with withdrawing our troops we will save their lives and this will be permanent". Like i just said its not about Iraq. So do you see the analogy of Franklin to what i am saying, Not fighting British is giving up Liberty for their protection, Not fighting in Iraq gives up our liberty to live in a free world for a temporary bubble of ignorance.

Edit: And with Privitization i worded it wrong so i apologize thats my fault. I meant their particular stance on it which is against.

[Alex]

Not fighting in Iraq gives up our liberty to live in a free world for a temporary bubble of ignorance.

"Liberty to live in a free world" What? I don't even know what kind of liberty that is, or how it's related to Iraq.

"Temporary bubble of ignorance" What? You realize by bringing this into the debate, you're making it logically conclusive to say that we should invade other countries where humanitarian aid is needed?

[Hater_Boxden]

"Liberty to live in a free world" What? I don't even know what kind of liberty that is, or how it's related to Iraq.

"Temporary bubble of ignorance" What? You realize by bringing this into the debate, you're making it logically conclusive to say that we should invade other countries where humanitarian aid is needed?

No thats not what i am saying at all. I am saying that is the idea behind our cause and you make it seem like its something heinous. The Analogy you make of "if we can invade here that means that you're saying we can do it anywhere" is inappropriate to this because it is Muslim terrorists trying to attack us which are now killing Iraqis and meanwhile threatening us. It has not been about Saddam for a long time. Now it is about him being gone(which is a good thing). Now insurgents are trying to threaten the establishment of a new order and these same people are being supported and funded by the same people who attacked our country. That is your link. And for the Osama Bin Laden comment. I said "Another Osama Bin Laden" implying a person like Osama meaning another terrorist leader to come attack us. Read more carefully please. So far you have only been taking tiny one liners from my posts and misconstruing them to your original thought that invading is wrong which really gets us no where. You do not consider any of the other ideas that i brought up.

For now though, i do admit that i was trying to start a fight with my hearts/head statement because posts like this do anger me. But for now lets forget that. This should be a session of Realtalk not invectives.

[Kyoshi]

I support the troops not bush. And if I think bush is a bastard I wonder what Americans think

[Sweeney]

All I am saying is that the US public knows nothing.

The one thing I wish is that the Government did not feel so secretive so that they could tell the public the 100% of the truth so that their opinions actually make sense.

...you do know that your average squaddie knows nothing more than the average civilian about the higher workings of government...

[sonic]

...you do know that your average squaddie knows nothing more than the average civilian about the higher workings of government...

I agree, to most extent.
CNN = Democratic channel.

My platoon Sargent, was attached to a division with a CNN news crew.
When in Iraq 9/10 villages you go through will be American Friendly. They give the troops food and hand made American Flags, but the news crews NEVER have their cameras turned on then. They only have them turned on when you hit that one village with IEDs on the roads.... Americans don't want to see things going good. They love hating bush and the war effort, if you tell them different they are not happy and wont watch the news.....

How can you even mention Osama bin Laden? There were reports released and even Bush himself said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We're not even looking for Osama at this point. They've completly forgoten about him. When was the last time you heard him mentioned?

Shows how ignorant you are to the truth.
8,000 U.S. troops involved in Operation Enduring Freedom.
All there because that is were Osama is Suspected to be. It is also the Al-quda strong hold.
No barking oil contracts....
My barking unit is deployed in Afganistan.

[redlion]

I agree, to most extent.
CNN = Democratic channel.

If you agree, then why are you arguing that american citizens are idiots? That we 'don't understand how it is' or how we don't know what the government is actually doing.

My platoon Sargent, was attached to a division with a CNN news crew.
When in Iraq 9/10 villages you go through will be American Friendly. They give the troops food and hand made American Flags, but the news crews NEVER have their cameras turned on then. They only have them turned on when you hit that one village with IEDs on the roads.... Americans don't want to see things going good. They love hating bush and the war effort, if you tell them different they are not happy and wont watch the news.....
Shows how ignorant you are to the truth.

And why throw in the thing about CNN? Absolutely no one has denied it, even though its not true, so why make a huge deal out of it? Those reporters are simply doing their job: selling airtime advertisements. If people only tune in to see gory segments, then that is primarily what they'll put on the air, as that is what gets the most advertising money. Its simple economics, not politics. They're businessmen trying to sell their product, and shock value has a lot of weight in television. Why do shows like Fear Factor get any viewing base at all? Because they're shocking. Same thing with the news. Don't misunderstand the system; they're not biased against the administration, they're simply trying to create buzz/controversy/attention for whatever they show.

8,000 U.S. troops involved in Operation Enduring Freedom.
All there because that is were Osama is Suspected to be. It is also the Al-quda strong hold.
No barking oil contracts....
My barking unit is deployed in Afganistan.

8,000 troops to secure a nation with a population of 31,889,923 people? (July 2007 est.) by CIA We have more police officers in Manhattan than we do troops in Afghanistan. And don't speak to me about how bin Laden is supposedly in Afghanistan, because we have no idea where he is. We haven't captured a Taliban leader or Al-Queda lieutenant in months. Shows how ignorant you are to the truth.

I have the utmost respect for people that will put their lives on the line for their country, whether it is necessary or not, but this is plain brainwashing. When was the last time you watched a news network that wasn't FOX? Perhaps you'd see how the world really works if you did.

[Chris]

Woah, are you contesting the fact that the PATRIOT act does nothing but limit our freedoms? Please elaborate on your position.

are you seriously against the patriot act?

[Tetiel]

ZOMBIE TOPIC!!! *runs*

[sonic]

are you seriously against the patriot act?

chris is like that splodge that makes dead people come back to life.

[fonkeymonkey]

Even if WW3 did come along. It wouldnt be like it was in WW2 and WW1. We have MUCH better technology. And its not even US Soldiers killing iraqis. Its iraqis killing iraqis. Canadians are there for support and such but we definitely dont peace keep for anyone who thinks that.

I dont suspect WW3 any time soon. The ROUSHKIS wouldn't bother coming up against US. THey are the main powerhouse. The only country with better technology or close to it is Japan and China. And I dont think Japan would go to war. Hint hint; Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Google those events.

[Hawk]

I like how Euphoria, being the typical shit starter he is, had to make that mocking topic about something that was posted like two weeks ago. Way to go Euphoria!

By the way- Sonic, Good luck if you ever go overseas. My bro was overseas for a year or so, and was a gunner on a Humvee.

[sonic]

I like how Euphoria, being the typical shit starter he is, had to make that mocking topic about something that was posted like two weeks ago. Way to go Euphoria!

By the way- Sonic, Good luck if you ever go overseas. My bro was overseas for a year or so, and was a gunner on a Humvee.

mechanised infantry. Nice.
Ask him if it was a 50 cal or a m-60

[Hawk]

mechanised infantry. Nice.
Ask him if it was a 50 cal or a m-60

I think it was a 50 cal.

[Darkness]

having read noting but the first post I say I <3 Sonic, I hate liberals, I want a taco

[Hawk]

having read noting but the first post I say I <3 Sonic, I hate liberals, I want a taco

Mmmm, Tacos.

[nox]

I dont suspect WW3 any time soon. The ROUSHKIS wouldn't bother coming up against US. THey are the main powerhouse. The only country with better technology or close to it is Japan and China. And I dont think Japan would go to war. Hint hint; Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Google those events.

japan's constitution forbids any offensive military, as well as anything that could ever be a threat to the united states.

Edited by nox, 03 May 2007 - 02:16 PM.

[Hawk]

japan's constitution forbids any offensive military, as well as anything that could ever be a threat to the united states.

Thank God for Douglas MacArthur

[sonic]

Thank God for Douglas MacArthur

McArthur, and Eisenhower....
I hate Truman.
Not only cause of his Democratic stance, but for him firing the wrong people....If you get my drift.

[redlion]

McArthur, and Eisenhower....
I hate Truman.
Not only cause of his Democratic stance, but for him firing the wrong people....If you get my drift.

Well, Macarthur did sort of invade north Korea and push the Chinese to involve themselves in the war. I loled at Eisenhower...

[Paradox]

You make it sound like it's the troops choice to invade wherever the hell they want. They didn't choose to invade Iraq. Bush made them go over there. Don't blame the troops for bankrupting our country. They're just told where to invade by the president. If you must blame someone, blame Bush. He's the one that made the decision to invade Iraq in the first place

If it wasn't for the troops, we wouldn't be free. We gained our freedom from the Declaration of Independance and the Revolutionary War. If we had lost the revolutionary war and other wars after that, who knows what our country would be like. We wouldn't be free, that's for sure. And how exactly have our freedoms been taken away? If there was a draft, you'd be right, but all the soldiers in Iraq right now are there because they VOLUNTEERED. They knew what they were getting into before signing up. They knew they were putting there lives on the line, but they did it to protect and insure that America's freedom is kept safe. Sure we're a huge and powerful country, but that's partly due to the wars we've won. We won the wars because of our troops.

Sure they're fighing under Bush's reasons, but that dosn't at all mean they're not fighting for our country. Bush sent them there to protect our country, to do what he thinks is best so technically, they are fighting for our country. I think what he thinks is best is stupid, but he's the president so I can't do anything about it.

Could you at least give our troops some respect? They're out there dying right now so we keep our freedom. I agree that it doen't make someone right if someone joins the army, but like I've said, that's not their choice. When you join the army, you're most likely gonna shoot some people to protect or country. If you don't want to shoot people, don't join the army! Sure there are other ways to protect innocent people, but "joining the army and shooting people" has worked pretty well for the last 300 some years(going back to the 1700s).

damn. you must of contradicted yourself there like 5 times.