home studios equipment staff/friends booking/rates for sale forum contact

radio personality: rush limbaugh

Vote and debate.

Moderators: kerble, Electrical-Staff

rush?

rush, rush i can feel you! i can feel you all through me!
3
3%
crap
85
89%
find him entertaining but don't necessarily agree with his politics
2
2%
find him entertaining but despise his politics
6
6%
 
Total votes : 96

Postby yut on Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:01 pm

Although I attended college in Los Angeles, one of my professors was from Chicago (Petrosik). He was the guy who first wrote about the realignment of the political parties in the 60s.

Anyway, he showed us a little film called "Ed Kelley and The Fighting 47th". Remembering this, I can understand how people native to Chicago think voting is important. After all, if you don't vote for Ed, you won't have your garbage picked up. I guess if you are used to such widescale and open corruption and being intimidated to vote a certain way, then voting does seem important. You also get something out of it -- civic services like garbage collection. Now, how do they find out who voted for whom?

It was corruption like this that made Dr. Petrosik choose a career in academics -- and Dr. Petrosik is an asshole! I guess not enough of an asshole to be in politics.

Oh, and Ed Kelley is a Democrat!
User avatar
yut
happy meal
happy meal
 
Posts: 967
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:56 pm
Location: Chicagae, IL

Postby stevenstillborn on Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:36 pm

Yut,
You keep talking about "High School Civics Class," but I believe those are mostly a thing of the past. I know I never had one, and I'm now a high school teacher and I'e never heard of one being offered. I think part of the problem is that people are NOT educated in high school on how the system works. The problem isn't that people on this board have a "high school civics understanding" it's that, even if that's true, it's way more of an understanding than the general public. And, since we didn't get up in arms about the break down of public education until we had multiple genarations of undereducated people, we get the government we deserve. But, based on our system of government, you can't make changes without compromise.
I think what most of the people on this board think (and I'm sure you know, deep down) is that the Democratic leadership couldn't pass a bill bringing the troops back right away. It just wouldn't pass. So, yes, they oversell this bullshit plan to bring them home in 18 months. But, had we left the Republicans in, I am certain that even that wouldn't be getting discussed.
What are the queers doing to the soil?
User avatar
stevenstillborn
pete maravich
pete maravich
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:45 pm
Location: Somewhere in the Swamps of Jersey

Postby stewie on Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:38 pm

longdivi wrote:Or am I off and it was some kind of rectal problem that Matthew had? I forget.


Matthew says he had ulcerative colitis, and had a colostomy because of it. That's the only known cure for colitis.
User avatar
stewie
Heaven-Sent Hero
Heaven-Sent Hero
 
Posts: 6877
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 10:43 am
Location: Near Boston

Postby yut on Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:54 pm

clocker bob wrote:My objection ( as you read ) is that Yut likes to sneer and condescend and take personal shots at those who are also on the Left, but who do not subscribe to his 'they're all equally worthless, right and left' viewpoint.


No... That's where you are wrong. I don't swear at people like Steve, nor do I make ad hominem attacks without provocation. What you are reacting to is maybe a lack of education on your part. I can't be responsible for that. What I do know is that Steve can get away with treating people like crap, and they still think he is so great. I know someone who worked at EAR for a while, I know more about this than I want to...

I think Steve is a dumb punk. I mention a view that is shared by intellectuals and scholars -- that voting is irrational and interest groups really control policy. His response is nothing intellectual or even intelligent. He just swears like a dumb punk and has nothing constructive to say. Then he indicates that he really has no idea how war policy is made, he thinks it is solely an executive decision. He is ignorant of a law passed by Nixon that is in every high school history textbook.

Then he has a problem with me being anonymous? Like if I am some rock star then my words are more worthy? He can't take the argument for what it is worth? He needs to know who is saying it? What are you going to do if you know who I am? Try to beat me up with your scrawny little arms? That would be a big mistake...

This is sort of the problem here. People take Steve as some sort of intellectual, when he is just a craftsman. Journalism and recording are just crafts. He is not an intellectual. He is just another punk who got lucky and recorded some popular bands -- bands that he would say are irrelevant crap if he didn't record them (like Nirvana). He has surrounded himself with musicians who have strong political views, but have taken little effort to define or understand why they think this way. He takes on the same argumentation as a Republican -- if you are against us then you support so and so. He is a good recording engineer, but that doesn't mean he knows everything. He seems to think that success in one field means he is knowledgeable about everything. His understanding of politics is inline with his fanaticism for baseball. It is a "pick a team and support them" approach.

I see a lot of this butt-sniffing where someone is correct if they are from this or that band that .001% of the population has heard of. No one here is a rock star. Not even Steve...

Steve is not a rock star or a household name. I have friends in bands that sell 20 times as many records as Shellac has ever sold, and they are much more humble. They have also informed me why they don't record with Steve. They could never understand why I had a modicum of respect for him. Now I don't understand why I did either. He is a guy that is respected by jerks. Going to a Shellac show has the same vibe as a lynching, because his music attracts people like that. I went to one of their shows, and never went to another one. It was like a gathering for brown shirts.

You tolerate and even revel in his idiotic yappy dog crap, and when someone tries to make a point without swearing or invoking ad hominem attacks then it's -- "oh, that tone". What tone? Are you reading this after drinking 30 cups of coffee? What about Steve's tone? Is that acceptable to swear at people for expressing a view that many scholars and intellectuals hold? No argumentation or logic. Just low brow crap.

Any sort of anger you sense is more frustration at this notion that the Democrats are going to save you. You can say that you have never felt this way all you want, but I read that Clinton would have been so much better. I read that "we vote for Democrats because they are the better choice". If you can choose between a party that steals an election by excluding voters or one that tries to win an election by prolonging a war that is killing hundreds of thousands, then you are nuts.

I know people who were so happy that the Democrats won the mid-terms and were hooting and hollering about all of the things they would change. You are fooling yourselves. To see people have such passion about their mediocre political views is enough to make anyone who knows the reality angry. Nonetheless, I don't swear or attack people without provocation.

Image

Oh, that's how he gets that tinny sound? I thought he used Gorilla Banana amps.
User avatar
yut
happy meal
happy meal
 
Posts: 967
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:56 pm
Location: Chicagae, IL

Postby Minotaur029 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:21 pm

God, you are such a douche Yut.
User avatar
Minotaur029
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7792
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: 7777

Postby nihil on Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:46 pm

yut wrote:
What I do know is that Steve can get away with treating people like crap, and they still think he is so great. I know someone who worked at EAR for a while, I know more about this than I want to...


I think Steve is a dumb punk. He just swears like a dumb punk and has nothing constructive to say.


What are you going to do if you know who I am? Try to beat me up with your scrawny little arms? That would be a big mistake...


He is just another punk who got lucky and recorded some popular bands -- bands that he would say are irrelevant crap if he didn't record them (like Nirvana).


He has surrounded himself with musicians who have strong political views, but have taken little effort to define or understand why they think this way.


I see a lot of this butt-sniffing where someone is correct if they are from this or that band that .001% of the population has heard of. No one here is a rock star. Not even Steve...


Steve is not a rock star or a household name. I have friends in bands that sell 20 times as many records as Shellac has ever sold, and they are much more humble. They have also informed me why they don't record with Steve. They could never understand why I had a modicum of respect for him. Now I don't understand why I did either. He is a guy that is respected by jerks.


Going to a Shellac show has the same vibe as a lynching, because his music attracts people like that. I went to one of their shows, and never went to another one. It was like a gathering for brown shirts.


You tolerate and even revel in his idiotic yappy dog crap, and when someone tries to make a point without swearing or invoking ad hominem attacks then it's -- "oh, that tone". What tone? Are you reading this after drinking 30 cups of coffee?


Oh, that's how he gets that tinny sound? I thought he used Gorilla Banana amps.


This shows pettiness and a lack of education and on your part. Calling you a "fucktard" seems appropriate enough to me.
User avatar
nihil
Best leader Who Realized Human Wisdom
Best leader Who Realized Human Wisdom
 
Posts: 2583
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:47 pm
Location: St. Louis

Postby clocker bob on Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:01 am

yut wrote:Oh, and Ed Kelley is a Democrat!

Every politician in Chicago is a Democrat. The state Republican party regularly fails to even field candidates for Mayor or Alderman.
clocker bob
 

Postby clocker bob on Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:12 am

yut wrote:I know people who were so happy that the Democrats won the mid-terms and were hooting and hollering about all of the things they would change. You are fooling yourselves. To see people have such passion about their mediocre political views is enough to make anyone who knows the reality angry.


I would still like an answer to the question I posed at the end of the final paragraph. Please define your prescription for change.

What is the value of voting?

( or: What should citizens do if they reject their right to vote? )

Yut says a vote for the Democrats is certification that you are a willing victim of their giant mind control experiment, despite people making the point to him over and over that, "We know it's not a perfect choice, but sometimes, it is the only useful choice".

Yut says a vote for the Democrats reveals stupidity, gullibility and obedience, despite people making the point to him over and over that, "We know it's not a perfect choice, but sometimes, it is the only usefeul choice".

Yut, people agree with much of the substance of your ( political ) views, just not with the conclusions you make about other people from them. You've imported the classic philosophy of the bigot into your ideology. I read your same thought process from Angry White Males, who are convinced that only they possess the reasoning skills to control government, and all the softheaded women and minorities need to stand aside. You seem to have chosen your ideology to fuel your ego alone, because the way you argue against people on a personal level, you're not going to build a movement with your cynicism against all politics.

I flap my jaws about politics for ego fulfillment, too, but I try to, with conspiracy theories ( as widely despised as they are ), at least tell people there is a different way of thinking that can let you escape from the prison of the false left/right paradigm constructed by the ruling elites. Can I ask you this: where do you want people to go, if you can get them to agree with you?
clocker bob
 

Postby chet on Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:54 am

Yut, Steve is going to be deeply hurt because you made fun of his guitar tone. That was a kick right to the sack. No doubt about it; Shellac is over.

They're probably redoing the new album right now with Marshall stacks and 7-string Ibanezs. Why do you think he hasnt written back yet? Good work you genius - now we have to wait even longer...
User avatar
chet
tired of birds
tired of birds
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:09 pm

Postby Little Atlas Heavyweight on Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:32 am

so if a rush limbaugh thread chases matthew off...

what other threads can i start?

hm...
somebody help me. i can't help myself.
User avatar
Little Atlas Heavyweight
quetzalcoatl
quetzalcoatl
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:39 am
Location: richmond, va

Postby Linus Van Pelt on Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:49 am

yut wrote:I see a lot of this butt-sniffing where someone is correct if they are from this or that band that .001% of the population has heard of. No one here is a rock star. Not even Steve...

Don't sell yourself short, Fugazi-keyboard-guy!
Why do you make it so scary to post here.
User avatar
Linus Van Pelt
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
 
Posts: 4251
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:01 am
Location: Peninsulam Amoenam

Postby Earwicker on Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:56 am

yut wrote:Clinton was also the guy who said he didn’t inhale… He also said this great one: “That depends on what the definition of the word “is” is”.



He should have joined in the back end of the ID/Evo thread.
Or maybe Bill IS Matthew!!

I guess it depends on the definition of the word 'is'

Anyways, this Yut fella is not making any friends, insulting folk and what have you, but I pretty much agree with him re-voting. I spoke about this ages ago and since did actually change my mind some and registered to vote but Yut's pretty much changed it back.

On saying that I'll use my vote but I just won't expect it to be of any use whatsoever other than it will prevent people from saying 'well if you don't vote you can't complain' in a whiny voice at me.

I like complaining

Also Yut do you not think the pressure groups have an impact because the politicians are concerned that they might effect the voting numbers?

I guess your stance is that voting itself is harmful but the alternative as far as I can see isn't pressure groups - its guns.

I don't like either so I'm going to buy me a farm and herd sheep.
User avatar
Earwicker
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:36 am
Location: House, Newcastle, Great Britain

Postby Mark Hansen on Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:54 am

Little Atlas Heavyweight wrote:so if a rush limbaugh thread chases matthew off...

what other threads can i start?

hm...


Um...you're a little short on the number of posts here, so don't start rubbing yourself while looking in the mirror trying to think up posts designed to drive other people away. You sound a bit.....trollish.
User avatar
Mark Hansen
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
 
Posts: 8952
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:45 am

Postby Janet Reno 911 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:04 pm

Roberto Gonzales is a pussy. I fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys after Clinton appointed me. It wasn't for political reasons. I just didn't like the cut of their jib.

I attended political demonstrations recently, to see what the kids are up to. They kept chanting "Gore, more war!".

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publi ... 3823.shtml

excerpt from URL (above) wrote:In 1989, a neoconservative primer entitled The Democratic Imperative: Exporting the American Revolution was published. According to Richard Nixon’s blurb on the book jacket, “Isolationists of both the left and the right will not like Fossedal’s conclusions: that if the Democratic trend is to continue, it will be because the United States ensures that it does by pursuing an activist, even interventionist, foreign policy.” Who else praised the book? Republican Jack Kemp and Democrat Al Gore also commended this work. Both Kemp and Gore had run for their party’s presidential nomination the previous year. Seven years later, these men would compete against one another as vice-presidential nominees. By the 1990s, Kemp, a “Neoconservative,” and Gore, a “New Democrat,” represented the bipartisan legacy of Humphrey-Jackson Cold War liberalism. Gore’s words of praise for the Fossedal book—“a forceful analysis of what American foreign policy should stand for, and how it can prevail”--cast doubt on the widely held assumption that the Iraq War and broader war on terror would not have occurred after 9/11 had Gore been in the White House. Given Gore’s own neoconservative philosophy, his support for the first Gulf War, his anti-Iraq stance during eight years as vice president, and his choosing of hawk Joseph Lieberman as a running mate, we cannot assume that Gore would not have initiated an attack on Iraq during his presidency. Or he may have chosen instead to launch full-blown military intervention into Colombia, a country linked to both “the war on drugs” and the Gore family’s extensive ties to Occidental Petroleum. [8] It is inaccurate to see Gore as a principled opponent of interventionism or war.


Would you rather have a Starbucks on every corner in every corner of the world, or a mosque? Those are your two choices. 1 or 0.

Hillary even makes me even more proud. From her own website:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=1328

Hillary wrote:Now, make no mistake, Iran poses a threat to our allies and our interests in the region and beyond, including the United States. The Iranian president has held a conference denying the Holocaust and has issued bellicose statement after bellicose statement calling for Israel and the United States to be wiped off the map. His statements are even more disturbing and urgent when viewed in the context of the regime's request to acquire nuclear weapons. The regime also uses its influence and resources in the region to support terrorist elements that attack Israel. Hezbollah's attack on Israel this summer, using Iranian weapons, clearly demonstrates Iran's malevolent influence even beyond its borders. We also have evidence, although it is by no means conclusive, of attacks using Iranian-supplied or manufactured weaponry against our own American soldiers. As I have long said and will continue to say, U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat, as I've also said for a long time, no option can be taken off the table.


I agree. We need to militarily engage anyone who is an enemy of the U.S. and Israel (as long as congress is OK with it, don't worry they will be). Iran is just the start. Soon we will have Starbucks everywhere, because most of the world does not like the U.S. or Israel...

I disagree that both parties are the same. The Democrats are even better at fooling people who care and mean well into falling for a neo-conservative agenda. We're better at firing U.S. Attorneys and appointing "liberals" that suit our agenda. We engage global warming and health care, much like Don Quixote would challenge a windmill.

Image

Steve "Coulter" Al-bini is also into selling Democratic values to sustain a neo-conservative agenda:

http://petdance.com/actionpark/bigblack/press/fe9.php

Steve Al-bini wrote:No, I just played bass and they were upset that I kept calling Bryan Ferry a stupid fag...

...We played at this frat party in Idaho, which was actually pretty great...
Last edited by Janet Reno 911 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:08 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Janet Reno 911
troll
troll
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:49 pm

Postby oxlongm on Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:28 pm

Wow, how surprising that a former Attorney General doesn't know the difference between a federal judge and a U.S. Attorney!

I have heard something about how they're actually in entirely separate branches of government, they fill completely different roles, and no one with a shadow of a clue could ever confuse them in a typo... but hey, that might have been from a high-school civics class or something, so never mind.

I have to wonder if this is actually someone else posting.

Janet Reno 911 wrote:Roberto Gonzales is a pussy. I fired all 93 federal judges after Clinton appointed me. It wasn't for political reasons. I just didn't like the cut of their jib.

...

I disagree that both parties are the same. The Democrats are even better at fooling people who care and mean well into falling for a neo-conservative agenda. We're better at firing federal judges and appointing "liberals" that suit our agenda. We engage global warming and health care, much like Don Quixote would challenge a windmill.

User avatar
oxlongm
doc severin
doc severin
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:51 pm
Location: 215

Postby Janet Reno 911 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:32 pm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 61,00.html

Woops, I made a typo in addition to all the other problems I caused as Attorney General. Yes, I fired 93 U.S. Attorneys, who are federal (and not state) attorneys.
Last edited by Janet Reno 911 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Janet Reno 911
troll
troll
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:49 pm

Postby Janet Reno 911 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:43 pm

oxlongm wrote:I have heard something about how they're actually in entirely separate branches of government, they fill completely different roles, and no one with a shadow of a clue could ever confuse them in a typo... but hey, that might have been from a high-school civics class or something, so never mind.


It is true, they are not judges. This is what I get for listening to the media. I never said they were part of the judicial branch of government. They are part of the executive branch.

The great intellectual journalists have been using this interchangably with "U.S. Attorney".

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/

Each United States Attorney is the chief federal law enforcement officer of the United States within his or her particular jurisdiction.

United States Attorneys conduct most of the trial work in which the United States is a party. The United States Attorneys have three statutory responsibilities under Title 28, Section 547 of the United States Code:

the prosecution of criminal cases brought by the Federal government;
the prosecution and defense of civil cases in which the United States is a party; and
the collection of debts owed the Federal government which are administratively uncollectible.
Although the distribution of caseload varies between districts, each has every category of cases and handles a mixture of simple and complex litigation. Each United States Attorney exercises wide discretion in the use of his/her resources to further the priorities of the local jurisdictions and needs of their communities. United States Attorneys have been delegated full authority and control in the areas of personnel management, financial management, and procurement.


This is the best you've got? Semantics? So I made a small mistake, but I am not one who believes the structure of government and it's "checks and balances" are really working... The problem is, people spend too much time learning how government works "officially", but this is not how it really works. Yes, the Attorney General can fire U.S. Attorneys. Your representatives in the House and Senate are supposed to represent you too. Much of what you learn in government class is fiction, and the other stuff is true, but of no real consequence.

The point is, it doesn't matter which party fires U.S. Attorneys, appoints federal judges, etc. They are all after the same neo-conservative agenda. By belittling me for a minor mistake (which I was informed from sloppy TV news coverage that I should not be even watching) you simply do not do any damage to the claim that both parties are the same.

I don't believe that the high school government class is important. The rules and structure of the goverment facilitate the agendas of interest groups. It has always been the case. Did people vote for prohibition? Do you think they wanted to ban alcohol? No, it was interest groups. Does the president keep your vote in mind when he appoints judges? Does the Attorney General keep your vote in mind when he or she fires U.S. Attorneys? Does the president keep your vote in mind when he hires them? No. This is the point, and your small, trivial, yet correct point fails to address this.

What about Gore's pro-war ideologies? Sure, now he is saying he is against Bush's war. But he would have had his own war.

What about Hillary's sabre-rattling over Iran? She also says she is against Bush's war, but voted for it and continues to fund it.

I don't care about the structure of government. It is irrelevant. This is not a republic, but an aristocracy. You try to diminish my argument by pointing out one inaccuracy, which was a mistake. Yes, they are not federal judges, but U.S. Attorneys. Who cares? The assholes you (most likely) voted for are pulling the wool over your eyes. The far more gross inaccuracy is the notion that Democrats are liberals or even a better party to vote for. So, while you are correct with the government trivia, you completely miss the point.

Image
Last edited by Janet Reno 911 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Janet Reno 911
troll
troll
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:49 pm

Postby Janet Reno 911 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:05 pm

Roberto Gonzales is a pussy. I fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys after Clinton appointed me. It wasn't for political reasons. I just didn't like the cut of their jib.

I attended political demonstrations recently, to see what the kids are up to. They kept chanting "Gore, more war!".

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publi ... 3823.shtml

excerpt from URL (above) wrote:In 1989, a neoconservative primer entitled The Democratic Imperative: Exporting the American Revolution was published. According to Richard Nixon’s blurb on the book jacket, “Isolationists of both the left and the right will not like Fossedal’s conclusions: that if the Democratic trend is to continue, it will be because the United States ensures that it does by pursuing an activist, even interventionist, foreign policy.” Who else praised the book? Republican Jack Kemp and Democrat Al Gore also commended this work. Both Kemp and Gore had run for their party’s presidential nomination the previous year. Seven years later, these men would compete against one another as vice-presidential nominees. By the 1990s, Kemp, a “Neoconservative,” and Gore, a “New Democrat,” represented the bipartisan legacy of Humphrey-Jackson Cold War liberalism. Gore’s words of praise for the Fossedal book—“a forceful analysis of what American foreign policy should stand for, and how it can prevail”--cast doubt on the widely held assumption that the Iraq War and broader war on terror would not have occurred after 9/11 had Gore been in the White House. Given Gore’s own neoconservative philosophy, his support for the first Gulf War, his anti-Iraq stance during eight years as vice president, and his choosing of hawk Joseph Lieberman as a running mate, we cannot assume that Gore would not have initiated an attack on Iraq during his presidency. Or he may have chosen instead to launch full-blown military intervention into Colombia, a country linked to both “the war on drugs” and the Gore family’s extensive ties to Occidental Petroleum. [8] It is inaccurate to see Gore as a principled opponent of interventionism or war.


Would you rather have a Starbucks on every corner in every corner of the world, or a mosque? Those are your two choices. 1 or 0.

Hillary even makes me even more proud. From her own website:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=1328

Hillary wrote:Now, make no mistake, Iran poses a threat to our allies and our interests in the region and beyond, including the United States. The Iranian president has held a conference denying the Holocaust and has issued bellicose statement after bellicose statement calling for Israel and the United States to be wiped off the map. His statements are even more disturbing and urgent when viewed in the context of the regime's request to acquire nuclear weapons. The regime also uses its influence and resources in the region to support terrorist elements that attack Israel. Hezbollah's attack on Israel this summer, using Iranian weapons, clearly demonstrates Iran's malevolent influence even beyond its borders. We also have evidence, although it is by no means conclusive, of attacks using Iranian-supplied or manufactured weaponry against our own American soldiers. As I have long said and will continue to say, U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat, as I've also said for a long time, no option can be taken off the table.


I agree. We need to militarily engage anyone who is an enemy of the U.S. and Israel (as long as congress is OK with it, don't worry they will be). Iran is just the start. Soon we will have Starbucks everywhere, because most of the world does not like the U.S. or Israel...

I disagree that both parties are the same. The Democrats are even better at fooling people who care and mean well into falling for a neo-conservative agenda. We're better at firing U.S. Attorneys and appointing "liberals" that suit our agenda. We engage global warming and health care, much like Don Quixote would challenge a windmill.

Image

Steve "Coulter" Al-Bini is also into selling Democratic values to sustain a neo-conservative agenda:

http://petdance.com/actionpark/bigblack/press/fe9.php

Steve Al-Bini wrote:No, I just played bass and they were upset that I kept calling Bryan Ferry a stupid fag...

...We played at this frat party in Idaho, which was actually pretty great...
Janet Reno 911
troll
troll
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:49 pm

Postby Angus Jung on Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:29 pm

Janet Reno 911 wrote: You try to diminish my argument by pointing out one inaccuracy, which was a mistake.

It's okay, Janet. Even Tony Banks plays a bum note every now and then.
Angus Jung
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9451
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 7:04 pm
Location: High Desert

Postby Linus Van Pelt on Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:50 pm

Great, WZ's getting out the sockpuppets. Step 3 is spamming a bunch of threads, step 4 is getting banned again, and step 5 is coming back with another username. Fun.

Apart from that...

The reality is that US Attorneys are political appointees. It's not uncommon at all for all of them to leave when a new president takes office. Yes, Clinton accepted 93 of 93 resignations in 1993. Why didn't it make news? The same reason it didn't make news when Bush accepted 91 of 93 resignations in 2001. What doesn't happen is US Attorneys being fired in the middle of a term for the heinous offense of doing their jobs.
Why do you make it so scary to post here.
User avatar
Linus Van Pelt
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
 
Posts: 4251
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:01 am
Location: Peninsulam Amoenam

PreviousNext

Return to Crap / Not Crap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anonymous37, mrcancelled, the_joe_lemur and 17 guests