lI1|1! Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 ........................... drift Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 bloviating, jizz-garging, bitch-tit-flaunting, Tiger-mountain-king-kong, self-congratulatory sack of raw sewage. Â That's the ticket! You mean,.... He has cooties!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 (edited) Thank God that everyone waited for Germany to complete its rearming process, and wait on the sideline while their massive conventional superiority relative to Germany diminished, or imagine the bloodshed that could have resulted.  An oft quoted but bullshit historical analogy. Basically summed up as Saddam = Hitler. Riiiiighhhht.  The newest version is Iran = Nazi Germany.  FACT: Iran IS pursuing nuclear weapons. I've seen no hard evidence of this. It's been repeated so many times that it has become fact, just like the WMD story.  FACT: Iran is provoking the U.S. Really? It seems to me that the overwhelming provocation has come from our side (and the Iraqi Kurds, which have been attacking Iran for years now).  FACT: Iran WILL give its nukes to terrorists. Really? Why would that be in Iran's national interest?  FACT: Iran with nukes would be a disaster. Really? Pakistan already has them, and it also proliferated nuclear technology to North Korea and other countries hostile to the U.S. for two entire decades. It also has more jihadists per square mile than any other place on earth, yet I see no invasion plans on the table for Pakistan. How would starting WWIII by attacking a country that does not yet have nukes provide greater security again?  FACT: Iran is crazy! Why, because I'm-a-dinner-jacket denies the holocaust? Shit, our president believes in the End Times. That's a bit scarier to me, personally. Iran has acted rationally nearly ever step of the way, destruction of Israel rhetoric excepted. They are developing nuclear energy in a world of dwindling oil resources (we are not), they are establishing closer relations with the majority Shiites in Iraq (we are pissing them off), they are establishing close ties with Russia and China. And, if they are developing nukes, that is certainly a rational response to explicit threats from the United States.  QUESTION: What will Russia do with it's very real, intercontinental nuclear weapons once we've started WWIII by attacking it's ally Iran? Both the Russians and Chinese will see this as a grab by the U.S. for regional domination, particularly of Iran's huge oil resources. Personally, I think this is the real issue; Iranian nukes serve as yet another smokescreen from an administration that simply can't quit its addiction to spectacularly failed idea of global hegemony.  SUGGESTION: Engage Iran in regional talks to pursue the common goal (and it is a common goal) of regional stability.  It's amazing to me that the very same people on this forum who voted for Bush and now feel screwed by him are believing the exact same kind of PR campaign that got us into the Iraq fuck up in the first place.  Please sir, may I have another?  Edited November 1, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Not that he'd read this even if the "ignore" (or "I can't take being made an ass of all day") feature wasn't in use, but just in case.... Â I don't respond to that bloviating, jizz-garging, bitch-tit-flaunting, Tiger-mountain-king-kong, self-congratulatory sack of raw sewage. Nice try though. Â Um, I think you just did. Â He he. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 FACT: Iran with nukes would be a disaster. Really? Pakistan already has them, and it also proliferated nuclear technology to North Korea and other countries hostile to the U.S. for two entire decades. It also has more jihadists per square mile than any other place on earth, yet I see no invasion plans on the table for Pakistan. How would starting WWIII by attacking a country that does not yet have nukes provide greater security again? Yup. Watch what happens if the Pakistani government looses control. Iran and the Pakistani opposition are directed by Religious fundamentalism. Â Â SUGGESTION: Engage Iran in regional talks to pursue the common goal (and it is a common goal) of regional stability. Â Â Clearly a good idea. They fear us. We fear them. We all fear the unknown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 (edited) non-self executing (they require further, more specific legislation to be passed to enact them) or self executing (they do not; the law is explicitly spelled out in the treaty) Â nitpicking is so much fun! Â Hardly a nitpick. The Kyoto protocol, for example, is a non-self executing treaty. It requires further specific legislation to enact it, which the Bush administration has refused to support. It has also not been ratified (ditto). For those two reasons, Kyoto is not part of U.S. law. Â It would have taken someone like KKK about five seconds to mistakenly post Kyoto as an example of why treaties are 'not law' and therefore do not matter, so I decided to head that one off at the pass and save myself a little time. Edited November 1, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Thank God that everyone waited for Germany to complete its rearming process, and wait on the sideline while their massive conventional superiority relative to Germany diminished, or imagine the bloodshed that could have resulted.  An oft quoted but bullshit historical analogy. Basically summed up as Saddam = Hitler. Riiiiighhhht.  The newest version is Iran = Nazi Germany.  FACT: Iran IS pursuing nuclear weapons. I've seen no hard evidence of this. It's been repeated so many times that it has become fact, just like the WMD story.  FACT: Iran is provoking the U.S. Really? It seems to me that the overwhelming provocation has come from our side (and the Iraqi Kurds, which have been attacking Iran for years now).  FACT: Iran WILL give its nukes to terrorists. Really? Why would that be in Iran's national interest?  FACT: Iran with nukes would be a disaster. Really? Pakistan already has them, and it also proliferated nuclear technology to North Korea and other countries hostile to the U.S. for two entire decades. It also has more jihadists per square mile than any other place on earth, yet I see no invasion plans on the table for Pakistan. How would starting WWIII by attacking a country that does not yet have nukes provide greater security again?  FACT: Iran is crazy! Why, because I'm-a-dinner-jacket denies the holocaust? Shit, our president believes in the End Times. That's a bit scarier to me, personally. Iran has acted rationally nearly ever step of the way, destruction of Israel rhetoric excepted. They are developing nuclear energy in a world of dwindling oil resources (we are not), they are establishing closer relations with the majority Shiites in Iraq (we are pissing them off), they are establishing close ties with Russia and China. And, if they are developing nukes, that is certainly a rational response to explicit threats from the United States.  QUESTION: What will Russia do with it's very real, intercontinental nuclear weapons once we've started WWIII by attacking it's ally Iran? Both the Russians and Chinese will see this as a grab by the U.S. for regional domination, particularly of Iran's huge oil resources. Personally, I think this is the real issue; Iranian nukes serve as yet another smokescreen from an administration that simply can't quit its addiction to spectacularly failed idea of global hegemony.  SUGGESTION: Engage Iran in regional talks to pursue the common goal (and it is a common goal) of regional stability.  It's amazing to me that the very same people on this forum who voted for Bush and now feel screwed by him are believing the exact same kind of PR campaign that got us into the Iraq fuck up in the first place.  Please sir, may I have another?  the media is working its magic.......they will need another fake terrorist attack to make vote for war and VOILA..! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 non-self executing (they require further, more specific legislation to be passed to enact them) or non-self executing (they do not; the law is explicitly spelled out in the treaty) Â nitpicking is so much fun! Â Hardly a nitpick. The Kyoto protocol, for example, is a non-self executing treaty. It requires further specific legislation to enact it, which the Bush administration has refused to support. It has also not been ratified (ditto). For those two reasons, Kyoto is not part of U.S. law. Â It would have taken someone like KKK about five seconds to mistakenly post Kyoto as an example of why treaties are 'not law' and therefore do not matter, so I decided to head that one off at the pass and save myself a little time. Â I wasn't saying you were nitpicking, I was the one nitpicking your duplication of "non-self executing" to describe both types Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lI1|1! Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 hey i think there was some gay pilot that died today. what's with people making a big deal in the news about gay pilots dying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Oops. Correction made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 So you are suggesting an armed response to pakistan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Nuke em all. Why not!? We can. Who's gonna stop us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 So you are suggesting an armed response to pakistan? Â Seems to me we recognize Pakistan's central role in terrorism and hence we have engaged them in an appropriate manner for our interests - supporting a military dictator who is friendly to the US in return for cooperation and stability in that region (and overlooking his faults). Â Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Nuke em all. Why not!? We can. Who's gonna stop us? Â you only get to shoot your wad once. unless you're v7 and have 9 sister-in-laws. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaps Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 You guys are such dweebs! Can't you go find a political bulletin board to go post on? This is a climbing website! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Fair enough. I think this guy having his gay sex is just fine and dandy. No complaints, as long as he isn't hurtin no one.  That guy extorting him for money is repugnant!  When we get something happening like this to two-faced politicians though it is quite nice in a "truth in advertising" type of way.  Hey, now, let's not be getting all judgemental and throwing around terms like "gay sex". That guy said he wasn't gay, so that man-on-man tryst-gone-awry was not "gay sex".  What is it with these dudes having sex with other guys and then saying they are not gay? I don't think they're fooling anyone except possibly themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 OK let's call them "super-fun". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 All this gay stuff about republicans. Sounds like they are trying to become more mainstream. I give them an "A" for effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 All this gay stuff about republicans. Sounds like they are trying to become more mainstream. I give them an "A" for effort. Â yeah, gay is so main stream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 It is if you're republican. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 It is if you're republican. Â Like this guy? Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Â Or maybe this guy? Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Don't tell me. Let me guess. You used a giant photo of a gay Democrat so you can print out a poster and hang it in your bathroom(?). Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No. 13 Baby Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 I love how Barney Frank gets to guys like the resident KKK. Part of me wishes I still lived in MA just so I could vote for Barney, Teddy, and Kerry again and again and again. 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.