The US as a banana republic
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I respect the constitution as it was originally written,
Means absolutely nothing. You do not respect the constitution - to bad for you.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I respect. Including the part where the president is less empowered to interpret it than the supreme court is.
Oh man, that is a load of bullshit. Show me where in the constitution the president is given the power to interpret the constitution above that of the Supreme Court.
oilFactotum wrote:
You do not respect the constitution - to bad for you.
Again, I respect the original intent of the founders and consider myself to be a traitor to what your evil ilk have turned it into.
oilFactotum wrote:
Show me where in the constitution the president is given the power to interpret the constitution above that of the Supreme Court.
If you had ever actually studied history rather than reading it off some Marxist blog, you would know this has always been a very controversial area of the law: Thomas Jefferson argues against exclusive judiciary construction of the Constitution; such exclusive power of constitutional interpretation would, according to Jefferson, undermine the principle of checks and balances-since it would allow the judiciary department to prescribe rules for the government of the others. If the judiciary has sole power of constitutional interpretation, then the Constitution "is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." Jefferson instead recommends that each department be truly independent of the others and have the right to decide for itself the Constitution's meaning in cases submitted to its action-especially in those cases where it is to act ultimately and without appeal. [^] As with most things, I side with Jefferson and oppose Marshall. There is nothing in the constitution that actually gives the Supreme Court absolute authority to interpret the constitution. The only power they have to do so is derived exclusively from their own interpretations of that document. We are now witnessing why that was such a bad precident to follow.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
The "America is evil" meme that you continually hype is nothing more that your rationalization for torture. Again proof that you are now a "leftist" and you have already lost.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And water-boarding some asshole terrorist is less evil than the alternative of allowing their networks to persist.
Except, of course, that not everyone we hold is a terrorist (or even knows anything of value), and torture is ineffective, and traditional (non-coercive) interrogation techniques are effective and that is what is needed to defeat the terrorists. Torture will never do it. The point of torture is torture and to extract false confessions - in that it is quite effective.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Either you support efforts to defeat them even when the means is brutal and violates our closely held moral principles or you don't.
Absolutely not! The brutal means you advocate will fail, have failed, and always will fail. History is all the proof you need. We can and will defeat them without violating our principles. Why you wish to do so is beyond me. Not only will you fail to defeat them, you will destroy us in the process - handing them the victory they could not obtain on their own. The only deep and fundamental threat that the terrorists pose to us is that we will adopt their methods, restrict our own freedoms, and compromise our core values. That is what you advocate, essentially making you a fellow traveler of the terrorists. It is thinking like yours that would hand the terrorists a victory they could never accomplish on their own.
oilFactotum wrote:
The "America is evil" meme that you continually hype is nothing more that your rationalization for torture. Again proof that you are now a "leftist" and you have already lost.
If our government is evil now, then it was even more so then. You cannot refute that. Dropping nuclear bombs on women and children just to make a point is no more a part of our national morality than is water boarding some asshole terrorists, yet we have done both.
oilFactotum wrote:
Except, of course, that not everyone we hold is a terrorist
And everyone we dropped bombs on in WwII were not Nazis'. So what?
oilFactotum wrote:
Torture will never do it. The point of torture is torture and to extract false confessions - in that it is quite effective.
According to the CIA they got useful information after only about 30 seconds of water boarding one of these guys.
oilFactotum wrote:
Absolutely not! The brutal means you advocate will fail, have failed, and always will fail. History is all the proof you need. We can and will defeat them without violating our principles. Why you wish to do so is beyond me. Not only will you fail to defeat them, you will destroy us in the process - handing them the victory they could not obtain on their own.
History shows precisely the opposite of that. We have never defeated evil by being anything other than brutal right back. We have never defeated an enemy by being nice to him.
oilFactotum wrote:
The only deep and fundamental threat that the terrorists pose to us is that we will adopt their methods, restrict our own freedoms, and compromise our core values. That is what you advocate, essentially making you a fellow traveler of the terrorists. It is thinking like yours that would hand the terrorists a victory they could never accomplish on their own.
No, they represent a real on-going threat to thousands of our contrymen. Is the threat to an indiviudal America that great? Of course not. But some of us are not comfortable risking the almost absolute certainty of further attacks even if our personnel risk is not that great. We want the government to deal with the threat as necessary. And doing that has not risked anything in our system of government. Except for the
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
the democrat party
It's "Democratic Party", imbecile.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove and evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... yeah, makes perfect sense.
Than why are they called "democrats" rather than "democratics", moron.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
You do not respect the constitution - to bad for you.
Again, I respect the original intent of the founders and consider myself to be a traitor to what your evil ilk have turned it into.
oilFactotum wrote:
Show me where in the constitution the president is given the power to interpret the constitution above that of the Supreme Court.
If you had ever actually studied history rather than reading it off some Marxist blog, you would know this has always been a very controversial area of the law: Thomas Jefferson argues against exclusive judiciary construction of the Constitution; such exclusive power of constitutional interpretation would, according to Jefferson, undermine the principle of checks and balances-since it would allow the judiciary department to prescribe rules for the government of the others. If the judiciary has sole power of constitutional interpretation, then the Constitution "is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." Jefferson instead recommends that each department be truly independent of the others and have the right to decide for itself the Constitution's meaning in cases submitted to its action-especially in those cases where it is to act ultimately and without appeal. [^] As with most things, I side with Jefferson and oppose Marshall. There is nothing in the constitution that actually gives the Supreme Court absolute authority to interpret the constitution. The only power they have to do so is derived exclusively from their own interpretations of that document. We are now witnessing why that was such a bad precident to follow.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
Ah, so your "I respect the constitution as it was originally written" is just more BS. You can't show me where the constitution gives the president the authority to ignore the supreme court and pick and chose which parts of the constitution he will obey because it isn't there. All you have is a competing interpretation that was not accepted.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
The "America is evil" meme that you continually hype is nothing more that your rationalization for torture. Again proof that you are now a "leftist" and you have already lost.
If our government is evil now, then it was even more so then. You cannot refute that. Dropping nuclear bombs on women and children just to make a point is no more a part of our national morality than is water boarding some asshole terrorists, yet we have done both.
oilFactotum wrote:
Except, of course, that not everyone we hold is a terrorist
And everyone we dropped bombs on in WwII were not Nazis'. So what?
oilFactotum wrote:
Torture will never do it. The point of torture is torture and to extract false confessions - in that it is quite effective.
According to the CIA they got useful information after only about 30 seconds of water boarding one of these guys.
oilFactotum wrote:
Absolutely not! The brutal means you advocate will fail, have failed, and always will fail. History is all the proof you need. We can and will defeat them without violating our principles. Why you wish to do so is beyond me. Not only will you fail to defeat them, you will destroy us in the process - handing them the victory they could not obtain on their own.
History shows precisely the opposite of that. We have never defeated evil by being anything other than brutal right back. We have never defeated an enemy by being nice to him.
oilFactotum wrote:
The only deep and fundamental threat that the terrorists pose to us is that we will adopt their methods, restrict our own freedoms, and compromise our core values. That is what you advocate, essentially making you a fellow traveler of the terrorists. It is thinking like yours that would hand the terrorists a victory they could never accomplish on their own.
No, they represent a real on-going threat to thousands of our contrymen. Is the threat to an indiviudal America that great? Of course not. But some of us are not comfortable risking the almost absolute certainty of further attacks even if our personnel risk is not that great. We want the government to deal with the threat as necessary. And doing that has not risked anything in our system of government. Except for the
Stan Shannon wrote:
You cannot refute that
Sure I can. It is patently false.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Dropping nuclear bombs on women and children just to make a point
That is complete BS. Make a point hardly. Is was about a costly invasion - to both the US and the Japanese.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And everyone we dropped bombs on in WwII were not Nazis'.
You haven't made a point. I find it both tiresome and disgusting your attempt to make the strategic bombing of Germany morally equivilent to the gassing of 6 million Jews. Perhaps if you bothered to read a little history instead of getting all your insight by slavish devotion the the decider, you might have learned that while the Brits bombed Germany at night, we chose to bomb during the day for greater accuracy and fewer civilian casualties even though our bomber losses increased.
Stan Shannon wrote:
According to the CIA
Show me the link. While your at it show me the information that torture is broadly effective, not in just one isolated case.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We have never defeated evil by being anything other than brutal right back. We have never defeated an enemy by being nice to him.
Stan Shannon wrote:
History shows precisely the opposite of that.
Only in your mind. I notice you changed from evil to brutal. Big difference and a very weak argument: War is brutal, so fighting a war makes us the moral equivalent of Nazis - that is so lame. So you concede. Thanks.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No,
Yes.
Stan Shannon wrote:
they represent a real on-going threat to thousands of our contrymen.
That is not a fundamental threat to our nation. Who are you talking about anyway? The potential victims of terrorist bomb?
Stan Shannon wrote:
We want the government to deal with the threat as necessary.
I agree with that statement, but I know that your idea of necessary is lot different than mine. You want to use torture to extract false confessions, give the president the power to "disappear" both foreigners and US citizens at will, secretly sp
-
Than why are they called "democrats" rather than "democratics", moron.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote: the democrat party
I missed that until I saw Al Beback post. You really are a tool of the Republicans. It is the Democratic party, and it is you who are the moron for spouting the foolish gibberish you hear from the R's.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
The only real and fundamental threat we face from radical Islam is that we will turn away from our constitution and our way of life and embrace the barbarism of those that oppose us. You are a disheartening example of that barbarism.
Yet isn't it odd that meeting our enemies on their own terms during WWII, and going far beyond their own brutality did not result in us becoming what they were, it merely resulted in us defeating them. These current events were an opportunity for the left to show that it had out grown the teason of the Vietnam generation of leftists and unite in a great national effort to defeat a truly evil and determined foe. You guys instead opted to turn on your own country, to make it the source of evil. Well, fine. We all know where we stand now.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet isn't it odd that meeting our enemies on their own terms during WWII, and going far beyond their own brutality[...]
Wow. I didn't know we went beyond Hilter's death camps, the Nanking massacre, and the Bataan Death March.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet isn't it odd that meeting our enemies on their own terms during WWII, and going far beyond their own brutality[...]
Wow. I didn't know we went beyond Hilter's death camps, the Nanking massacre, and the Bataan Death March.
Fire bombing Dresden and Tokyo, Nukeing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those were not the acts of 'nice guys', they were the actions of fanatics determined to defend themselves at all costs - as they had every right to do, then and now.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You cannot refute that
Sure I can. It is patently false.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Dropping nuclear bombs on women and children just to make a point
That is complete BS. Make a point hardly. Is was about a costly invasion - to both the US and the Japanese.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And everyone we dropped bombs on in WwII were not Nazis'.
You haven't made a point. I find it both tiresome and disgusting your attempt to make the strategic bombing of Germany morally equivilent to the gassing of 6 million Jews. Perhaps if you bothered to read a little history instead of getting all your insight by slavish devotion the the decider, you might have learned that while the Brits bombed Germany at night, we chose to bomb during the day for greater accuracy and fewer civilian casualties even though our bomber losses increased.
Stan Shannon wrote:
According to the CIA
Show me the link. While your at it show me the information that torture is broadly effective, not in just one isolated case.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We have never defeated evil by being anything other than brutal right back. We have never defeated an enemy by being nice to him.
Stan Shannon wrote:
History shows precisely the opposite of that.
Only in your mind. I notice you changed from evil to brutal. Big difference and a very weak argument: War is brutal, so fighting a war makes us the moral equivalent of Nazis - that is so lame. So you concede. Thanks.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No,
Yes.
Stan Shannon wrote:
they represent a real on-going threat to thousands of our contrymen.
That is not a fundamental threat to our nation. Who are you talking about anyway? The potential victims of terrorist bomb?
Stan Shannon wrote:
We want the government to deal with the threat as necessary.
I agree with that statement, but I know that your idea of necessary is lot different than mine. You want to use torture to extract false confessions, give the president the power to "disappear" both foreigners and US citizens at will, secretly sp
oilFactotum wrote:
You haven't made a point. I find it both tiresome and disgusting your attempt to make the strategic bombing of Germany morally equivilent to the gassing of 6 million Jews. Perhaps if you bothered to read a little history instead of getting all your insight by slavish devotion the the decider, you might have learned that while the Brits bombed Germany at night, we chose to bomb during the day for greater accuracy and fewer civilian casualties even though our bomber losses increased.
We didn't do that in Japan. We used higher altitude less accurate bombing with incendearies on Tokyo so that our loses would be less. We met evil with evil. Just as we did in WWI, just as we did in the Indian wars, just as we did in the Civil War, just as we did in the Mexican war, the war of 1812 and the Revolution. Law or no law, necessary or not, killing is evil. The truly disgusting thing is that you can so easily dismiss dropping nuclear bombs on women and children for reasons that ultimately were created by the implemnetation of your own political principles by FDR, but you get all squimish when a far more competent president pours a little water in the nose of a single individual who helped plan the murder of thousands of your countrymen? Dude, serioiusly, you badly need to buy a new moral compass. That one you bought from Karl Marx is pointing in all the wrong directions.
oilFactotum wrote:
That is not a fundamental threat to our nation. Who are you talking about anyway? The potential victims of terrorist bomb?
You do not consider the mass murder of thousands of your countrymen to be a fundamental threat? There goes that damned moral compass again.
oilFactotum wrote:
That is exactly what you are asking for.
No, I'm asking the government to perform its most basic constitutional responsibilities to defend its citizens from murder by foreign agents.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Fire bombing Dresden and Tokyo, Nukeing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those were not the acts of 'nice guys', they were the actions of fanatics determined to defend themselves at all costs - as they had every right to do, then and now.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fire bombing Dresden and Tokyo, Nukeing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
As horrific as those acts of war may have been, they were within the realm of warfare. But we did not, as you but it, "meet the enemy on their own terms" and go far beyond their brutality. The USA did inter Japanese-Americans but we did not put them in gas chambers. Claiming that we exceeded the brutality of the Axis Powers in World War II while restricting the discussion to the battlefield is disingenuous. Ignoring Hitler's death camps and Japanese treatment of Allied POWs in a discussion of brutality during World War II is the intellectual equivalent of the old saw "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fire bombing Dresden and Tokyo, Nukeing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
As horrific as those acts of war may have been, they were within the realm of warfare. But we did not, as you but it, "meet the enemy on their own terms" and go far beyond their brutality. The USA did inter Japanese-Americans but we did not put them in gas chambers. Claiming that we exceeded the brutality of the Axis Powers in World War II while restricting the discussion to the battlefield is disingenuous. Ignoring Hitler's death camps and Japanese treatment of Allied POWs in a discussion of brutality during World War II is the intellectual equivalent of the old saw "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
Tony Wesley wrote:
Ignoring Hitler's death camps and Japanese treatment of Allied POWs in a discussion of brutality during World War II is the intellectual equivalent of the old saw "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
yes, and ignoring the brutality of people we are "torturing" today falls into precisely the same category. Bombing Hiroshima, as bad as it was, did not make us as bad as the Japanese, and pouring water into some muslims nose, as bad as it might be, does not make us as bad as Osama bin Ladin. Useing brutal and otherwise evil means of defending ourselves does not reduce us to the level of our enemies, than or now. We have every right to do anything and everything it takes to defeat them, regardless of who is offended by it.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
You haven't made a point. I find it both tiresome and disgusting your attempt to make the strategic bombing of Germany morally equivilent to the gassing of 6 million Jews. Perhaps if you bothered to read a little history instead of getting all your insight by slavish devotion the the decider, you might have learned that while the Brits bombed Germany at night, we chose to bomb during the day for greater accuracy and fewer civilian casualties even though our bomber losses increased.
We didn't do that in Japan. We used higher altitude less accurate bombing with incendearies on Tokyo so that our loses would be less. We met evil with evil. Just as we did in WWI, just as we did in the Indian wars, just as we did in the Civil War, just as we did in the Mexican war, the war of 1812 and the Revolution. Law or no law, necessary or not, killing is evil. The truly disgusting thing is that you can so easily dismiss dropping nuclear bombs on women and children for reasons that ultimately were created by the implemnetation of your own political principles by FDR, but you get all squimish when a far more competent president pours a little water in the nose of a single individual who helped plan the murder of thousands of your countrymen? Dude, serioiusly, you badly need to buy a new moral compass. That one you bought from Karl Marx is pointing in all the wrong directions.
oilFactotum wrote:
That is not a fundamental threat to our nation. Who are you talking about anyway? The potential victims of terrorist bomb?
You do not consider the mass murder of thousands of your countrymen to be a fundamental threat? There goes that damned moral compass again.
oilFactotum wrote:
That is exactly what you are asking for.
No, I'm asking the government to perform its most basic constitutional responsibilities to defend its citizens from murder by foreign agents.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We didn't do that in Japan.
Wow, we weren't perfect. Who'da thunk it! It all makes sense now. We can't be perfect, so lets not even try. Let's become the Jihadists, embrace their evil and throw away what this country stands for. Of course throughout this argument you have completely ignored the fact that the technology of the time prevented anything like the kind of pinpoint bombing that exists today. But never mind all that - killing is evil and that justifies all evil acts.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We met evil with evil.
False. Your irrational desire to torture has lead you to argue that the strategic bombing of Germany and Japan is morally equivelent to the extirmination of 6 million Jews and that is truly disturbing. It simply won't fly.
Stan Shannon wrote:
killing is evil.
That's really the core of your arguement, isn't it? Killing is evil and once that line is crossed any evil can be excused. Death camps, torture, summary executions, suicide bombers, anything. It all comes down to hate, doesn't it? You hate the terrorists and you want to hurt them. You like torture, not because of any intelligence that might be gained, you like torture as an end in itself. You want the terrorists (and anyone who might happen to be in the way - which would probably be most of your victims) to be tortured and suffer. You have truly embraced the world of the Jihadist. I hope you are happy there, clearly the freedoms that this country represents disgust you.
Stan Shannon wrote:
that ultimately were created by the implemnetation of your own political principles by FDR
Stan Shannon fantasy time. I can't even begin to guess what you are talking about.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You do not consider the mass murder of thousands of your countrymen to be a fundamental threat?
Thousands died at the WTC. Did the country collapse? No.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There goes that damned moral compass again.
Moral compass? What a joke! You have no moral compass, you are in bed with the terrorists. If people like you get their way, this country will truly see a fundamental threat to our way of life.
Stan Shannon wrote:
-
Yes they make it a point to always remember, but more in the context of 'this is what happens when we do horrible things to other people'. And they still recognize that it was probably the only thing that would have ended the war.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
Yes they make it a point to always remember, but more in the context of 'this is what happens when we do horrible things to other people'.
Really? So you have your finger on the pulse of what every Japanese person feels about the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? [I can't find any evidence of this, but I would imagine it would be impossible for us to say what the Japanese think about two of their cities being destroyed by bombs. We can only say that they mourn.
BoneSoft wrote:
And they still recognize that it was probably the only thing that would have ended the war.
Source?
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
The nation of Japan has been in a state of cultural mourning for the victims of the attack ever since it happened.
Big fucking deal, it turned them into a nation of peace loving folk. And, just an fyi, there's still families that mourn for the losses at Pearl Harbor.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Big fucking deal
Stay classy, Mike Gaskey. It was the only use of atomic weapons in war in the history of the world. It was a very, very big deal. Pearl Harbor was also a tragedy, but few civilians were killed during the attack on a military base in Hawaii.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I sure as hell have no respect for any constitution someone like you would defend.
That would be the US Constitution. Thanks for clearing that up.
ZING
-
Being all talk and no walk is typically considered a lack of manliness. Go ahead and impeach them for defending the nation, I have nothing to lose from that. If they are guilty they should be impeached, if they are not it will destroy the democrat party. Either way, I win.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Being all talk and no walk is typically considered a lack of manliness.
It's not brave to electroshock someone's balls in a prison cell. It's gay. Like, really gay. And to take pictures of them stacked up naked? That's pretty gay, too. You know what else is gay? Being gay. And then cheating on your wife with a stranger in an airport bathroom. Keep calling us sissies, though.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Go ahead and impeach them for defending the nation, I have nothing to lose from that.
Then why not impeach him yourself? Why make us do it? Why are you all talk and no walk, Stan? Don't worry, we'll get your little buddy out of office for you while you watch TV and get fat.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Being all talk and no walk is typically considered a lack of manliness.
It's not brave to electroshock someone's balls in a prison cell. It's gay. Like, really gay. And to take pictures of them stacked up naked? That's pretty gay, too. You know what else is gay? Being gay. And then cheating on your wife with a stranger in an airport bathroom. Keep calling us sissies, though.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Go ahead and impeach them for defending the nation, I have nothing to lose from that.
Then why not impeach him yourself? Why make us do it? Why are you all talk and no walk, Stan? Don't worry, we'll get your little buddy out of office for you while you watch TV and get fat.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
It's not brave to electroshock someone's balls in a prison cell. It's gay. Like, really gay. And to take pictures of them stacked up naked? That's pretty gay, too. You know what else is gay? Being gay. And then cheating on your wife with a stranger in an airport bathroom. Keep calling us sissies, though.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Then why not impeach him yourself? Why make us do it? Why are you all talk and no walk, Stan? Don't worry, we'll get your little buddy out of office for you while you watch TV and get fat.
Because I don't believe he has done anything to be impeached for. You guys are the ones who seem to have some kind of evidence that I have not seen. If you have proof he has broken the law, impeach away. Makes me no difference.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Yes they make it a point to always remember, but more in the context of 'this is what happens when we do horrible things to other people'.
Really? So you have your finger on the pulse of what every Japanese person feels about the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? [I can't find any evidence of this, but I would imagine it would be impossible for us to say what the Japanese think about two of their cities being destroyed by bombs. We can only say that they mourn.
BoneSoft wrote:
And they still recognize that it was probably the only thing that would have ended the war.
Source?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Really?
Virtually everybody I talked to. And how it's portrayed in the media, which is usually a decent gauge of social perception.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Source?
Ooku no nihonjin.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Ask virtually any Japanese about that and they'll tell you that it was justified and it almost certainly saved lives.
You've got to be kidding me. Saved lives, maybe, but we dropped those bombs on civilian targets. The nation of Japan has been in a state of cultural mourning for the victims of the attack ever since it happened.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
nation of Japan has been in a state of cultural mourning for the victims of the attack ever since it happened
As are the Chinese in Manchuria and Nanjing, and many many other places in south east Asia over what the Japanese did to their civilians. All through the 30's the Japanese Imperial Army committed atrocities that were almost on par with Hitler's Germany. As sad as it is, civilians will always be hurt in war. How about all the civilians killed by their own governments during WWII, thanks to leaders like Stalin and Mussolini? Or due to inept leaders like Mao Zedong, which wasn't even war related?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
It's not brave to electroshock someone's balls in a prison cell. It's gay. Like, really gay. And to take pictures of them stacked up naked? That's pretty gay, too. You know what else is gay? Being gay. And then cheating on your wife with a stranger in an airport bathroom. Keep calling us sissies, though.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Then why not impeach him yourself? Why make us do it? Why are you all talk and no walk, Stan? Don't worry, we'll get your little buddy out of office for you while you watch TV and get fat.
Because I don't believe he has done anything to be impeached for. You guys are the ones who seem to have some kind of evidence that I have not seen. If you have proof he has broken the law, impeach away. Makes me no difference.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have no idea what you are talking about.
None of those incidents ring a bell with you? Shocking guys' balls and stacking them up into naked man-pyramids? You don't remember your beloved conservative administration supporting and condoning these acts? You don't remember your conservative senator Craig trying to get a blowjob from a man in an airport bathroom? Conservatives are faggots dressed up in camouflage to try to hide it. Be gay and proud, Stan, don't deny it like the rest of your party cohorts.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because I don't believe he has done anything to be impeached for.
Then why does it make no difference to you? Shouldn't you be upset about the attempted impeachment of a President that's done nothing wrong? Or are you just pretending it's no big deal so that when he is eventually shamed you will have been unimpressed from the start? It's bizarre. No one cares. The guy is going to ruin your party's credibility and power and you're standing by watching it happen, pretending not to care. You are the only person that doesn't realize how silly you look.