Fairweather Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share Posted January 19, 2007 (edited) Where do you get the idea that "mattp, Sexual Chocolate, Prole, and the newbie ass-clowns" are particularly happy about what Mr. Chavez is up to? Maybe I missed it, but all I recall from this thread is a couple of statements about how he WAS in fact elected, and as far as we know he DID actually live up to his campaign rhetoric about what his leadership style would be -- unlike Mr. Bush. You are right: if anyone thinks there is a valid comparison they are living in a different universe. Chavez is a bellicose opportunist, but Venezuela is at least at present not posing a great threat to anybody else and thus is relatively harmless in the grand scale of things. Bush is a bellicose opportunist, but he has the keys to the US military and economic machine. He has brought war to Iraq and Afghanistan, and now he wants to broaden it to include Syria and Iran. Are you, Mr. Fairweather, "happy as can be" about that? If I recall, Mr. Matt, Alqaeda brought us the war in Afghanistan - not Mr Bush. (Please don't tell me you're yet another 9/11 conspiracy whacko.) And thank God that Al Gore wasn't elected president pre 9/11/01 to practice your version of turning the other cheek/grabbing ankles. As for Iran, I'm sure you're looking forward to Akminajihad aquiring a nuclear weapon so he can "wipe Israel off the map" and finally be rid of those nasty little Jews whom you claim control the media and manipulate world events. Edited January 19, 2007 by Fairweather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 hey fairweather, didya notice nicaragua fell? as did ecuador? holy shit, and venezuela and bolivia and brazil and argentina. and now chavez and ahmadinejad have started a multi-billion dollar fund for various projects in cash-strapped countries, as a counter to US influence. friggin domino theory playing out. the new soviets. bush's aim was to promote democracy around the world, and he's fomented a populist revolution. i suppose he's happier when he has enemies, eh? ring a bell, jello-man? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share Posted January 19, 2007 (edited) jello-man? ...and, actually, I consider those like Jim and Prole the new Soviets. Edited January 19, 2007 by Fairweather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 If I recall, Mr. Matt, Alqaeda brought us the war in Afghanistan - not Mr Bush. (Please don't tell me you're yet another 9/11 conspiracy whacko.) And thank God that Al Gore wasn't president on 9/11/01 to practice your version of turning the other cheek/grabbing your ankles. As for Iran, I'm sure you're looking forward to Akminajihad aquiring a nuclear weapon so he can "wipe Israel off the map" and finally be rid of those nasty little Jews whom you claim control the media and manipulate world events. so you are happy with afghanistan's (deteriorating) situation? and do you believe we should attack iran? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share Posted January 19, 2007 so you are happy with afghanistan's (deteriorating) situation? Did I say that? Do you really think our involvement there isn't justified? and do you believe we should attack iran? If your neighbor down the street has sworn to kill both you and the Goldsteins next door - just as soon as he can get his hands on a gun - should you wait until he actually aquires that weapon, kills your friends, and starts firing bullets into your home before you take action? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 the lure has been hidden in your mouth, my friend. can you extract? yes it's a vicious cycle this violence we have embraced. more anger more war more war more anger until.... i read a fascinating article in the new york commie times, about some hasidic jews who happen to be anti-zionists. they think that the forced removal of 500,000 to 700,000 palestinians in 1948 for the creation of israel wasn't the right thing to do! how insane is that? what, are they traitors or commies or something? they even had the nerve to go meet ahmadinejan himself! they even hugged. ugly scene. then they had the nerve to come back and say that ahmadinejad's statements have been taken out of context, and that he isn't really anti-semitic (there are a number of jews living in iran even now, go figure), but finds the institutionalized bias in the western world attrocious. anyways, what a bunch of suckers, eh? friggin gullible jews actually looking at the situation through their own eyes; how stupid is that? especially when they could have had all their news and view-points fed to them through the popular (and proper!) information channels that provide the correct viewpoints. plus, they are not even carrying the correct emotional tone of mistrust, paranoia, anger, self-righteousness, vindictiveness, and violence! Crazy Hasidic Jews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Yeah - hopefully one day we'll all be as enlightened as Ahmedineja and we'll obtain the objective clarity necessary to dispute the occurence of the Holocaust too, won't we, SC? Ahmedinejad has served at least one useful function. He's doing a pretty good job of galvanizing all of the Sunni powers against him. Look for this dynamic to become more prevalent in the months and years ahead, and for official and/or public opinion in the Middle East to become steadily less favorable towards Iran's armed proxies in Lebanon and Palestine. Were it not for the beginnings of this dynamic, Siniora's government would probably have already fallen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 I get the impression that F will be unhappy until the US declairs WW4 against a whole slew of countries including Syria and Iran. Why try and talk to people when we can nuke them till they glow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 here is some gasoline: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 I get the impression that F will be unhappy until the US declairs WW4 against a whole slew of countries including Syria and Iran. Why try and talk to people when we can nuke them till they glow. That is pretty much what he said immediately after 911 in a thread where I said then, and I still believe, we were neither justified nor honest about why we were invading Afghanistan (or, more properly speaking, aiding the Northern Alliance in taking over). If we wanted to capture and punish Bin Laden and his high leutenants, we would have collected intelligence and sent special ops or targetted missiles at THEM and their training camps, rather than giving them two months to hide, occupying the country, and letting Bin Laden go. Immediately after 911, I argued that by invading Afghanistan we were sure to kill many many innocents and that we were almost certainly doing it for reasons that had little or nothing to do with capturing Bin Ladin or reducing any terrorist threat. I said this was clear, because our pending war/invasion could be expected to accomplish neither. Fairweather argued that if we were not afraid to use it, we could simply drop a few atomic bombs and our problems would be solved. I don't think he was clear about exactly where he wanted to drop those bombs, but he seemed to suggest we should simply wipe out an entire nation or nations. Seriously, Fairweather: do you think Al Queda really brought war to Afghanistan and Bush didn't? Even if you think it was "justified" to wage war on the country, do you think it was a good idea? Do you think broadening the war now is a good idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 LOLZER http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/19/colbert.oreilly.ap/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 DOUBLE LOLZER http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/18/texas.nugent.ap/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Don't challenge the link master! Here's someting to scan at lunch: Top Secret Shit on Latin America! Shhhh.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 and do you believe we should attack iran? If your neighbor down the street has sworn to kill both you and the Goldsteins next door - just as soon as he can get his hands on a gun - should you wait until he actually aquires that weapon, kills your friends, and starts firing bullets into your home before you take action? If your neighbor threatens you (note to self: Iran has not threatened the US...if Israel wants to attack them, let them suffer the consequences) and you attack and kill him, you appropriately get convicted for murder. If and when Iran attacks us, we are justified in retaliating. An attack on Iran would inflame the entire region, fail in its military and political objectives (we have zero ability to "invade and subdue" Iran), and further turn the rest of the world actively against us. It would be 180 degrees against our own interests; an act of supreme shortsighted stupidity. But then again, so was the invasion of Iraq, which you also vehemently support. After being so wrong for so many years, and supporting such complete fucking buffoons, one would think that you, too, would come to this more adult, pragmatic, global, and longer term viewpoint. So far, no good. Your unquenchable need to play the contrarian and distaste for the mythical enemy of 'liberalism' outweighs such an outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 DOUBLE LOLZER http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/18/texas.nugent.ap/index.html "Whenever someone sports the Confederate battle flag, many Texans will be offended, and rightly so, because of what it symbolizes: the enslavement of African-Americans and more recently the symbol of hate groups and terrorists," said Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Yeah, exactly as many Texans as there are black people in Texas, and not one more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 And thank God that Al Gore wasn't elected president pre 9/11/01 to practice your version of turning the other cheek/grabbing ankles. And here, my good man, is where we will just have to agree to disagree. There is no proving how things would have turned out had they turned out differently, but I cannot possibly imagine that Al Gore could have done worse than Bush, who has destablized the region, severely stressed our military with no clear end in sight, alienated many if not most of our real and potential allies in "the war on terror," caused 100's of thousands of innocent people to die, given huge propaganda support to at least a generation of new terrorists, and destroyed the credibility of our great nation for years to come. Would Al Gore have bent over and grabbed his ankles? I doubt it, but even that might have been better than most of what Bush did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 And thank God that Al Gore wasn't elected president pre 9/11/01 to practice your version of turning the other cheek/grabbing ankles. Yes, I'm sure Al Gore would have turned the other cheek and grabbed his ankles when Saddam Hussein...didn't...attack us... Oh, wait a minute. Anyone who thinks Al Gore could have done a worse job than Shrub at this point is sad and laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 And thank God that Al Gore wasn't elected president pre 9/11/01 to practice your version of turning the other cheek/grabbing ankles. And here, my good man, is where we will just have to agree to disagree. There is no proving how things would have turned out had they turned out differently, but I cannot possibly imagine that Al Gore could have done worse than Bush, who has destablized the region, severely stressed our military with no clear end in sight, alienated many if not most of our real and potential allies in "the war on terror," caused 100's of thousands of innocent people to die, given huge propaganda support to at least a generation of new terrorists, and destroyed the credibility of our great nation for years to come. Would Al Gore have bent over and grabbed his ankles? I doubt it, but even that might have been better than most of what Bush did. you said nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 More good news for Fairweather on the Chavez front: far from a slap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 20, 2007 Author Share Posted January 20, 2007 and do you believe we should attack iran? If your neighbor down the street has sworn to kill both you and the Goldsteins next door - just as soon as he can get his hands on a gun - should you wait until he actually aquires that weapon, kills your friends, and starts firing bullets into your home before you take action? If your neighbor threatens you (note to self: Iran has not threatened the US...if Israel wants to attack them, let them suffer the consequences) and you attack and kill him, you appropriately get convicted for murder. What if we just snuck into his house and took away his gun before he had a chance to load it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 20, 2007 Author Share Posted January 20, 2007 More good news for Fairweather on the Chavez front: far from a slap. Your ADD is showing, Matt. That's the same link I posted last night to kick off this latest round. Focus, Matt. Focus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Come on F, when should we start WW4? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Fairweather, I take it you are insulting me because you don't want to respond to my last few posts. Call me whatever you want, but I'm still curious: Do you STILL think we should just nuke a country or two? Which ones? Do you REALLY think Bush has done a better job responding to 911 than Gore would have? How? Are you just trolling here or trying to be annoying or do you have a point? We understand that you don't like Mr. Chavez, but we've touched upon Bush and Iraq and I'm honestly interested in your thoughts on these issues. (I posted these questions extra large just in case you may be experiencing a little "inability to focus" yourself.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 "i caught a fish THIS big" 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.