Good Answer

[Lost User]

"If there is nothing left to defend against" then "I'm advocating fighting back" could be a waste of your time, a waste of your monies, and eventually, a waste of your very self. Might be better to put up with what you have rather than wishing for something you know you can't have.

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Just non-Americans. There have been postings here from CP member citizens of the good old US of A condemning those "flawed" reports of WMD and the assumption that oil was the primary reason for GulfWarII. Are all these American CP members putting or agreeing a "ludicrous allegations" charge without a foundation to base their charges upon

Even if they disagree with its policies, any patriotic American should be willing to allow our system to work the way it was designed to work without publically promoting arguments which basically say - "Our government is evil, you are right to be killing our troops." If the president overstepts the bounds of his authority, it is the duty of congress to take actions against him. They have every power they need to do that. If enough citizens demand that of their congressman, it would happen. That is the way it is supposed to be done. To wage a proganda war against a commander in chief while troops are committed legally to battle without such appropriate legal actions being taken, is purely a political ploy to regain power at the expense of those troops, and it is most certainly treason by any definition of the word.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

"If there is nothing left to defend against" then "I'm advocating fighting back" could be a waste of your time, a waste of your monies, and eventually, a waste of your very self. Might be better to put up with what you have rather than wishing for something you know you can't have.

Which is precisely what I am advoating - unless an honorable opportunity presents itself to do otherwise. But the enemy - the leadership of the left in this country - is alreay here. They are already in control. Any actual invasion would just be so melodramatic at this point.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Lost User]

Stan Shannon wrote:

if an foreign army invaded my coutnry for the purpose of liberating me from the democrat party and the principles it promotes, I would fight along side that army against the democrats

You will have George Washington turning in his grave. He fought against a foreign army not with them.

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

No good you saying that unless you can suggest an alternative system that would have universal approval from the American Electorate.

How about a system with a press that is actually willing to do its job and give both sides an equal chance rather than constantly demonizing a perfectly valid, traditional, American political point of view. Would that be too much to ask for?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Mustafa Ismail Mustafa]

Stan Shannon wrote:

No, I'm considering an insult a valid response to being asked if I am willing to do something that I have, in fact, already done.

Regardless of what you say, or has been said to you, insults are playground tactics because one is stumped or lacking the wit for a response.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Than let me state it more clearly - if an foreign army invaded my coutnry for the purpose of liberating me from the democrat party and the principles it promotes, I would fight along side that army against the democrats. I see no reason why I should prefer rule by the modern democrat party to be preferred to rule by anyone else. I have no patriotic attachements to a single principle they stand for.

That is very unconvincing. You fight back any way you can, regardless of who(m) is invading. Aiding another invader defeat a previous invader does not solve anything but simply compounds the issue.

Don't forget to vote if the response was helpful

---

Sig history "dad" Ishmail-Samuel Mustafa Unix is a Four Letter Word, and Vi is a Two Letter Abbreviation

[Lost User]

The press have always had a political view. It may not be the view that pleases Stan Shannon. The only way you (Stan Shannon) will force the press to publish that which only Stan Shannon approves of is by Stan Shannon buying the press and printing only what Stan dictates. Or Nationalizing it "Stalin - like" so it only prints "the Stan Shannon party line" irrespective of the truth. A political system is much more than "the Press". Try again, an alternative system you still haven't found.

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

You will have George Washington turning in his grave. He fought against a foreign army not with them.

Actually he didn't. He fought against what had been his own country for his entire life because it no longer represented the values it was supposed to.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

Regardless of what you say, or has been said to you, insults are playground tactics because one is stumped or lacking the wit for a response.

Well, kiss my rosy red juvenile American ass.

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

Aiding another invader defeat a previous invader does not solve anything ...

Sure it does.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Mustafa Ismail Mustafa]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Well, kiss my rosy red juvenile American ass. Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote: Aiding another invader defeat a previous invader does not solve anything ... Sure it does.

Then I guess your rose red, baboon like, juvenile ass is that color because of the beatings and the whippings you're getting from the invaders who are currently straddling you bareback...

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

The press have always had a political view. It may not be the view that pleases Stan Shannon. The only way you (Stan Shannon) will force the press to publish that which only Stan Shannon approves of is by Stan Shannon buying the press and printing only what Stan dictates. Or Nationalizing it "Stalin - like" so it only prints "the Stan Shannon party line" irrespective of the truth.

Please. Anyone who can look at what just happened in this country and accuse anyone other than the left of doing exactly what you accuse me of, is a liar or a fool. You are simply part of the propaganda machine, Richard. Our mainstream press is as corrupt and useless as is every other part of our political process. All you need do is compare the treatment of Sarah Palin and Barak Obama. One is given a complete pass on the most heinous and vile anti-American associations imaginable, while the other is demonized for compeletely normal, traditional American values. The system is rigged from top to bottom to aide one side of the political spectrum.

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

A political system is much more than "the Press". Try again, an alternative system you still haven't found.

The alternative that I have always promoted is the principles the nation was founded upon. Jeffersonian democracy as it was practiced upon until the time of FDR.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

Then I guess your rose red, baboon like, juvenile ass is that color because of the beatings and the whippings you're getting from the invaders who are currently straddling you bareback...

Indeed...

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Mustafa Ismail Mustafa]

Glad you're enjoying it.

Don't forget to vote if the response was helpful

---

Sig history "dad" Ishmail-Samuel Mustafa Unix is a Four Letter Word, and Vi is a Two Letter Abbreviation

[Lost User]

Stan Shannon wrote:

treatment of Sarah Palin

McCain chose an unknown as his running-mate. So it is reasonable for "the Press" to ask a myriad of questions about her, including finding out any skeletons there existing. When you go into National Politics, essentially, you lose nearly all rights to a private life. She knew these things and accepted those restrictions, why can't Stan Shannon? Now she has again returned to relative obscurity, a kind-of "normal" lifestyle can now be enjoyed. Regarding Jeffersonian democracy, so you want to return to an obsolete system. Do you still hanker for running MSDOS 1.0

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

McCain chose an unknown as his running-mate. So it is reasonable for "the Press" to ask a myriad of questions about her, including finding out any skeletons there existing. When you go into National Politics, essentially, you lose nearly all rights to a private life. She knew these things and accepted those restrictions, why can't Stan Shannon? Now she has again returned to relative obscurity, a kind-of "normal" lifestyle can now be enjoyed.

And why didn't Obama get the same treatment?

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Regarding Jeffersonian democracy, so you want to return to an obsolete system.

There is nothing obselete about it. It remains the most advanced political theory in the world, which is precisely why it is so dangerous. In fact, if anything, the amount of effort that it has taken to overthrow it, and return human civilization to a nearly pre-enlightenment condition, demonstrates precisely how effective and workable Jeffersonian principles are.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Lost User]

Stan Shannon wrote:

And why didn't Obama get the same treatment?

For a few weeks of Palin's life, the press were extremely interested in her. Obama had been in "the limelight" for considerably longer so the press had ample time and opportunities to investigate him. Investigate him they no doubt did, but over a longer timescale. And some sensational stuff came out, so he did get "the treatment".

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

For a few weeks of Palin's life, the press were extremely interested in her. Obama had been in "the limelight" for considerably longer so the press had ample time and opportunities to investigate him. Investigate him they no doubt did, but over a longer timescale. And some sensational stuff came out, so he did get "the treatment".

No actual news gathering organization in the world has done any investigative journalism of any kind on Obama. They sent dozens of reporters out to gather all the information they could on Palin, but have never sent anyone out to do anything on Obama. Ever. They did everything they could to obfuscate and coverup for him on the issues that were uncoverred from other media sources. The media never broke any story on his chruch, his minister, his deals with Rezko(sp?), his association with Ayers, his life prior to his taking public office, his associations with ACORN and other groups, his activities in college, his early years. Nothing. We know less about Obama than we have ever known about anyone who has ever set in the oval office. And that is by design. We are not supposed to know. The duplicity on this could not be more obvious or overt, and anyone who defends it is clearly a part of the process. It is vile and it is evil on every possible level, it is anti-democractic, anti-AMerican, anti-Jeffersonian, anti-western, it is, in short, part and parcel of socialist principles and tactics at work in AMerican society. The reason that is no big deal to you is becuase you are part of it.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I have spent most of my adult life in uniform defending this country against the USSR

Stan has admitted in this forum that he joined the Naval guard during the Vietnam war in a vain attempt to avoid active duty. Unfortunately for him his outfit was mobilized. Fortunately for him he never came closer to combat than watching helicopters take off. (It was equally fortunate for anyone whose life might have depended on his combat skills.) Later he joined the Army national guard to pick up some extra bucks, but as soon as it looked like we might go to war in the middle east he moved to a spot in Utah that allowed him to claim he was too far away from any unit to travel to the meetings. (Again, Stan has admitted this here in this forum.) So they dumped him as a bad investment. Although the guard was (over)used by Rumsfeld to keep from re-imposing the draft in the 2000's and many of its members served bravely and well in Iraq, one should remember that back in the sixties and seventies, guys in the real armed forces used to call the guard, draft-dodgers - or say that that their serial numbers all began with NG, as proof that they were "No Good." In Stan's defense, he didn't get out of service altogether by claiming to have a pilonidal cyst like his hero Limbaugh did. Given Stan's homophobia, it was probably because he didn't want any doctor messing around with his asshole long enough to be able to give him the excuse. . .

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

[Lost User]

Stan Shannon wrote:

We are not supposed to know

Ever considered that Obama's early life was so boring that it was uneventful and thus uninteresting? If his association with ACORN is contrary to, or incompatible with, the good due to the public office he holds, then you must do that which your Constitution allows in order for that to stop now and for the future.

Stan Shannon wrote:

The reason that is no big deal to you is becuase you are part of it.

I reckon you are over-acting the part. He may be left of centre in terms of his politics, but his policies over the next few years are what you should judge him by. He may turn out to be the saviour of the United States. But then again, he might not be. Time will tell.

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Stan has admitted in this forum that he joined the Naval guard during the Vietnam war in a vain attempt to avoid active duty. Unfortunately for him his outfit was mobilized. Fortunately for him he never came closer to combat than watching helicopters take off. (It was equally fortunate for anyone whose life might have depended on his combat skills.) Later he joined the Army national guard to pick up some extra bucks, but as soon as it looked like we might go to war in the middle east he moved to a spot in Utah that allowed him to claim he was too far away from any unit to travel to the meetings. (Again, Stan has admitted this here in this forum.) So they dumped him as a bad investment.

Jon, please that is just dishonest. I have been entirely honest about my military experiences. I joined the active duty navy in January 1972 for a four year enlistment three months after turning 18 (I had enlisted the summer before, but January was the earliest slot they had following my 18th birthday). I did so largly for two reasons, my father was concerned about my low draft number and didn't want me to be drafted. He had served in the Navy in WWII and saw it as a perfectly honorable alternative to the draft. And, because I wanted to learn electronics and the Navy had the best electronics schools. By Novemeber of 1972 all US ground forces had been pulled out of Vietname but Naval operations continued until 1975 (76?). So regardless of my motives, I saw more of Vietnam by joining the Navy than I would have by being drafted. In fact, my ship was the flag ship of the task force that demined haiphong harbor. I served as part of a rescue team that would have gone after any pilots that went down (never needed). I did my fucking duty. So fuck you. I joined the guard after being in ROTC and served as a field artillary officer in the Oklahoma national guard (171FA, 45th "Thunderbird" ID) for about four years, got out for a while, served in the Army Reserves for a while, than went back into the Guard. MOved to Utah in the early '90s and with the draw down in military at that time had trouble finding a slot close to my home which is a common problem with Guard service for officers. I could have continued my service on an inactive. unassigned, status, but simply did not want to. I probably would not have stayed in even if I had never left Oklahoma.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us