mattp Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Jay, it seems that you need another cup of coffee again today. I have not said you or anybody else have to approve of Chavez. You, Mr. K, Mr. Fairweather, and Rush Limbaugh have criticized, ridiculed, and --oh wait: I don't want to use too strong of a word -- those who complained about US election results while you are now acrid in their criticism of those who disagree with their assessment of politics in Venezuela (oh wait: I did it again: "acrid" is too strong a word -- maybe I mean "dismissive or vaguely insulting." (And, by the way: Fairweather started this thread by saying that Chavez needs to be "slapped" and you said that his last move had been "shocking." I'm not really sure those reactions are far from expressions of outrage.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 There you go, KK, Quoting RR will not help you here, Matt. If anyone deserves THAT famous retort repeatedly on this forum it is certainly *you*. You apparently don’t like what Mr. Chavez stands for. Big surprise. I’m not saying I’m a supporter, either, although I do admire the guy’s pluck. He was elected, however. As far as I know, we have no reason to think the elections were unfair. If you respect democracy around the world, you gotta respect him as an elected leader. No, I don't "gotta respect him", just like you don't "gotta respect" GW as an elected leader. I am only suggesting that you admit your objection is ideological and wondering if the bottom line is that you only respect free and fair elections if they produce a result you support. You make a serious error in your assumptions, sir. I acknowledge the results of that election but recognize and speak out against the direction that leader is taking his country, just as YOU do with GW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Boy. You really know how to rebut somebody, Jay. Soften the phrase "being so outraged" and replace it with the phrase "being so stridently vocal about how they disapprove" if you like. But the fact is, there would appear to be some hypocrisy or discord in the positions I describe, wouldn't there? My advice is not to take bits transmitted over TCP/IP on the "motherf***g Intraweb" so seriously, Matt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 You make a serious error in your assumptions, sir. I acknowledge the results of that election but recognize and speak out against the direction that leader is taking his country, just as YOU do with GW. Fair enough, that. By the way, who is RR? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 You make a serious error in your assumptions, sir. I acknowledge the results of that election but recognize and speak out against the direction that leader is taking his country, just as YOU do with GW. Fair enough, that. By the way, who is RR? Reagan. You didn't intentionally quote him? BTW, for the record, I'm not really that concerned about Chavez. I don't think he threatens the US at all, and will do little to destabilize the region, but when I hear his Marxist rhetoric I can only think about how screwed his people will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Jay, it seems that you need another cup of coffee again today. I have not said you or anybody else have to approve of Chavez. You, Mr. K, Mr. Fairweather, and Rush Limbaugh have criticized, ridiculed, and --oh wait: I don't want to use too strong of a word -- those who complained about US election results while you are now acrid in their criticism of those who disagree with their assessment of politics in Venezuela (oh wait: I did it again: "acrid" is too strong a word -- maybe I mean "dismissive or vaguely insulting." (And, by the way: Fairweather started this thread by saying that Chavez needs to be "slapped" and you said that his last move had been "shocking." I'm not really sure those reactions are far from expressions of outrage.) I was being sarcastic when I said that what Chavez was doing was shocking. I was anything but shocked, as it's been clear to me that this would happen for years, despite the various protestations that his fans on the left have been making for an equally long time. Tell me again, how any of this relates to the US elections of 2000? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 it relates because it is bush's fault Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Speaking of Rush Limbaugh, here's the latest from the "proprietor of the truth": This is what I know for sure, ladies and gentlemen. We could destroy these countries (Iran, Syria, Iraq) without sending any more troops. We could do it even if we withdrew the troops. We could destroy these countries, and you know it and I know it. We could win this and solve this rather quickly without sending any more troops. We have the air power, we have the naval power to obliterate these societies such as they are. So if the issue is winning, there is no question we can. The question is, “Would the liberals support that?” The answer is no. This becomes a major obstacle for the president in conducting this policy. .....So what we have to face, as we enter the aftermath of the speech last night, is that we have two enemies. We have one foreign and one domestic Are there different rules of engagement for each enemy, or should we just kill them all now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 I think we should ask Aaron Ralston what he would do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Who would Baby Jebus bomb? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 (edited) morons Speaking of Rush Limbaugh, here's the latest from the "proprietor of the truth": This is what I know for sure, ladies and gentlemen. We could destroy these countries (Iran, Syria, Iraq) without sending any more troops. We could do it even if we withdrew the troops. We could destroy these countries, and you know it and I know it. We could win this and solve this rather quickly without sending any more troops. We have the air power, we have the naval power to obliterate these societies such as they are. So if the issue is winning, there is no question we can. The question is, “Would the liberals support that?” The answer is no. This becomes a major obstacle for the president in conducting this policy. .....So what we have to face, as we enter the aftermath of the speech last night, is that we have two enemies. We have one foreign and one domestic Are there different rules of engagement for each enemy, or should we just kill them all now? Wow. I wonder what his definition of "winning" is. Genocide? "Would the liberals support that?" I don't think anyone with functioning cortex would. Edited January 12, 2007 by Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 I'm for collagenocide; the extermination of great fat pie wagons who cannot keep their lips from slapping together in a rabid fashion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Wow. I wonder what his definition of "winning" is. Genocide? Well, he did say: "obliterate those societies", and "destroy those countries". Which I would assume includes, by necessity, killing millions of citizens of those countries. More immediately, I'm curious as to when this sort of "two enemies" talk combined with irrational calls to kill millions of people (or else "they" might kill us...) will bring us back to the good old days of political assassinations and civil unrest. Would be easy to laugh all this off if he wasn't the pied piper for so many people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Forget the Surge. Let's go for the Purge: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 is that on I-5? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 is that on I-5? Only when there's a big traffic jam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Nuking the Middle East would make for some excellent Youtube watching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 might be tuff to watch - you know...with sand in our eyes and all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Chavez does work for the people! aOoqWhCLXbo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 ooh look honey!!! its the boogie man! its a good thing WE dont have a fucked up moron as our leader! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if kim made visits to crawford, like the taliban used to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 I AM A MAN OF LARGE CALIBER. WRANK ROO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Hans Brix, my frien, so good to see you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 because socialism works. why don't you move to cuba or n korea fuckhead. i lived "the socialist dream" you cock sucking moron and let me tell you- it doesn't work people like you make me puke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 hehe the little angry polish man has graced us with a visit! But he brings us lies, lies, nothing but lies, since he lives in a (semi-) socialist country, and extols its virtues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.