PDA

View Full Version : Happy Day! Zarquawi is dead...


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Logical
06-09-2006, 05:34 PM
So why does anybody even care why Pigskin Park folded?

Not when, but why? They are trying to say that Pigskin Park folded because it was all in an all in one forum. Evidently there memories have failed them.

Logical
06-09-2006, 05:36 PM
Ol' Cut & Run Jim.

I got no problem with that, we went their to get rid of Saddam, once that was done we should have gotten out and let self determination with aid for infrastructure be our goal.

Logical
06-09-2006, 05:37 PM
We will have to agree to disagree.At least now I understand what you disagree about.

patteeu
06-09-2006, 07:21 PM
I'm serious. I think AZ was a distraction for the home grown insurgents. They will not be sorry he's gone. Perhaps AQ will be weakened in Iraq and those who are serious about 'defending their country' can do so without seeming to align themselves with him or AQ.

The thought may not be yours originally, but you sure are carrying the flag for the "AZ's death is good for the insurgents" spin. Of course, this comes as no surprise to those of us who are familiar with you. Other than the people we are fighting in Iraq, only your mother and Logical could love you when you get like this. ( :p @ Logical )

patteeu
06-09-2006, 07:39 PM
I think that honest native Iraqi people (not AQ who are outsiders) who are trying to have the government turn out the way they want it, much like our revolutionary leaders are doing what they feel is best for their country. I support he idea we should withdraw and let the people in the country determine their future and not support any side until that has happened, just provide aid to help them rebuild their infrastructure.

How romantic. They're all just a bunch of modern day George Washingtons and James Madisons, eh? Don't you think there's a chance that there are a few of those honest native Iraqi's who think of themselves more like modern day Saddams?

BigOlChiefsfan
06-09-2006, 07:49 PM
Iowahawk has Zarkman reporting on Paradise from beyond the grave:


http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2006/06/paradise_blows.html

Logical
06-09-2006, 08:36 PM
How romantic. They're all just a bunch of modern day George Washingtons and James Madisons, eh? Don't you think there's a chance that there are a few of those honest native Iraqi's who think of themselves more like modern day Saddams?

You don't think it was possible that some of our early forefathers would have preferred a country of our own with a King/Dictator/Emporer running it? There are always possibilities.

WilliamTheIrish
06-09-2006, 08:37 PM
So why does anybody even care why Pigskin Park folded?

This was a good thread. Deep down, I knew it was too good to last.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 08:40 PM
Not when, but why? They are trying to say that Pigskin Park folded because it was all in an all in one forum. Evidently there memories have failed them.


No, Jim, you are simply misunderstanding. Stevie is not saying that Pigskin died because of the forum issue. He is saying that it died, and and that DC was created here, because of Denise.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 08:42 PM
by that logic, your kids losing you would mean nothing more than replacing you with a new mommy.


Actually, it would mean quite a bit more: it would mean they would have an opportunity not to grow up completely warped.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 08:42 PM
Let's review:

1) Thinks the US should leave Iraq immediately.

2) Dead terrorists and their families are innocents, US soldiers invaders.

3) If I told you that you really don't know what it's like to blow a guy, then went into detail for about 2 hours what it's really like to blow a guy, would you maybe think I've blown a guy?...


ROFL

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 08:44 PM
This is pretty stupid.

What I did was agree with Brock's assessment. I then said that some people were acting as though they thought the job was done. I then gave my reasoning.

My guess is that Brock was referring to Denise. However, Brock didn't say who he was referring to. Assuming that Brock was referring to Denise, I tried to offer a little balance by pointing out that those who were using the opportunity to take cheap shots at those who have opposed the war were also acting as though the job was done.

Plain and simple. No deflection and no personal insults. I think the debate is not whether some people think it is good news. We all do. I think the debate should be what the impact will be. That's really all I'm going to say further on the subject.


Say WHAT? How in THE hell do you draw that conclusion?

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 08:45 PM
lol

First it's "NOT ENOUGH TROOPS!!!", now it's "SPECIAL FORCES ONLY!!"?

dumbf*cks.



It is rather amusing how the argument changes just like that.

Logical
06-09-2006, 08:49 PM
No, Jim, you are simply misunderstanding. Stevie is not saying that Pigskin died because of the forum issue. He is saying that it died, and and that DC was created here, because of Denise.


I think it is unfair to blame Pigskin solely on DEnise, when Thomas, you I as well as couple of other libs long since departed (never moved to the Planet) were responsible in almost equal measure for the acrimony that brought it down. No doubt DEnise was a huge cause but it takes two sides to make the kind of discord we had over there. I will agree she was a major reason for that. I remember the political silly season being the reason DC was created and she was only a small part of that compared to Donger, jAZ, Ringleader, and a few others. Hell I was even sick of the election related threads and felt we needed a separate forum. Do you really remember DEnise being a part of that? I remember Big Daddy had a big blowout with Denise completely unrelated to the election and that is when he suggested the DC forum be separated with his poll, but I don't think the majority voted for it over DEnise but over the anger between all the posters.

Loki
06-09-2006, 08:51 PM
Duh, I mean we should not be occupying Iraq. We should have left after we captured Saddam and let them determine what they want to do with their country. Let special forces supplemented by AF or Navy based outside of Iraq for bombing and surveillance support work the capture/kill of AQ now in Iraq.

duh?
lol... nice "clarification".

your plan is even more brainless than rumsfeld's idea to go in with only 150k boots on the ground. (most people should leave the military planning to the generals... they have lots of experience and know what they're doing/talking about.)

the US cutting and running as you suggest is not what the iraqi gov't has requested of us. a move like that is certainly uncharacteristic of what the US armed forces are accustomed to doing (being that we usually finish a job that we start). in the off chance that we have cut and run, the situation usually gets out of control and tends to bite us in the a$$ at a later date (see desert storm or somalia).

it would more than likely be a REALLY good idea for us to finish this job...

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 08:52 PM
You don't think it was possible that some of our early forefathers would have preferred a country of our own with a King/Dictator/Emporer running it? There are always possibilities.

Ummmm....NO. Being taxed without the benefit of representation was one of the biggest issues of the day. Kinda hard to be represented under a King or Dictatorship or Emperor.

Logical
06-09-2006, 08:52 PM
This was a good thread. Deep down, I knew it was too good to last.

About 200 posts ago it should have been move to DC, fact is if we are going to have the separate forum it should always have been in there. Once people got done congratulating the troops it of course came down to the politics of our being over there still. No way that was going to remain uncontroversial with the country so divided on the issue.

Logical
06-09-2006, 08:54 PM
Ummmm....NO. Being taxed without the benefit of representation was one of the biggest issues of the day. Kinda hard to be represented under a King or Dictatorship or Emperor.Really, why is that if it is your appointed King instead of Britain's. The Brits loved their King thought they had the best form of government. It all depends on perspective.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 08:54 PM
*squiggle* *squiggle*




And I don't support the rights of Iraqi insurgents to kill Americans. I support their right to defend their country against whomever they feel is illegally occupying it. Unfortunately, in this case it is Americans.


Ladies and gentlemen, this is what is commonly referred to as speaking out of both sides of your ass. Good. God. Almighty. :shake:

"I don't support the right of the insurgents to kill American troops."

"I do support the right of the insurgents to kill foriegn forces."

You can't have it both ways, Denise. As long as you support the right of the insurgents to kill those they deem a threat to their country, you ARE supporting the right for them to kill Americans, because that is exactly who they are killing. Enough with the double speak already, the only person you are fooling with it is Jim (we really need to find a cure for this spell she's cast on you, bud), everyone else sees the conflicting duality of your statement.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 08:55 PM
Look me in the eye and say this with a straight face.


ROFL

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 08:57 PM
Really, why is that if it is your appointed King instead of Britain's. The Brits loved their King thought they had the best form of government. It all depends on perspective.

They also had and still do have a Parliament. The royalty in England has been a mere figurehead for ages. The true power is wielded by the Parliament....the REPRESENTATIVES of the PEOPLE.

Logical
06-09-2006, 08:57 PM
duh?
lol... nice "clarification".

your plan is even more brainless than rumsfeld's idea to go in with only 150k boots on the ground. (most people should leave the military planning to the generals... they have lots of experience and know what they're doing/talking about.)

the US cutting and running as you suggest is not what the iraqi gov't has requested of us. a move like that is certainly uncharacteristic of what the US armed forces are accustomed to doing (being that we usually finish a job that we start). in the off chance that we have cut and run, the situation usually gets out of control and tends to bite us in the a$$ at a later date (see desert storm or somalia).

it would more than likely be a REALLY good idea for us to finish this job...

If I believed we could settle differences that have existed for literally thousands of years I would agree. If we could do that we should have already solved the Israeli problem, Palestinian problem, Iran problem etc. Some people are dreamers and others are realists. People who believe we are going to resolve the 1000 of years of hatred in that region have their heads so far up their asses the dreams come out as farts.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 08:59 PM
I support the person that has the soundest reasoning IMO. I do not support what many people say DEnise is saying because when I read her words (not their interpretation) she is making sense and they are clearly distorting her words when they say she supports Americans being killed. She has at least twice explicitly stated she does not support the deaths of American soldiers.


She has also in the very next sentence said that she does.

Good Lord, Jim, what has become of you old pal? This is both mind boggling and saddening to behold. It is like you have lost touch with reality.....

Loki
06-09-2006, 09:01 PM
She has also in the very next sentence said that she does.

Good Lord, Jim, what has become of you old pal? This is both mind boggling and saddening to behold. It is like you have lost touch with reality.....

wish i could tell him that without getting a hostile response or neg-repped...

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 09:02 PM
I think it is unfair to blame Pigskin solely on DEnise, when Thomas, you I as well as couple of other libs long since departed (never moved to the Planet) were responsible in almost equal measure for the acrimony that brought it down. No doubt DEnise was a huge cause but it takes two sides to make the kind of discord we had over there. I will agree she was a major reason for that. I remember the political silly season being the reason DC was created and she was only a small part of that compared to Donger, jAZ, Ringleader, and a few others. Hell I was even sick of the election related threads and felt we needed a separate forum. Do you really remember DEnise being a part of that? I remember Big Daddy had a big blowout with Denise completely unrelated to the election and that is when he suggested the DC forum be separated with his poll, but I don't think the majority voted for it over DEnise but over the anger between all the posters.


Unfair or not, I was merely clarifying what Stevie was getting at.

And to answer your question, yes, I do recall Denise being one of the major players during the "political silly season" of '04.

Logical
06-09-2006, 09:05 PM
They also had and still do have a Parliament. The royalty in England has been a mere figurehead for ages. The true power is wielded by the Parliament....the REPRESENTATIVES of the PEOPLE.Dude you need to study your history. Great Britain did not have a formal parliment in the late 1700s.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland) was created in 1801 by the merger of the Kingdom of Great Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain) and the Kingdom of Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ireland).
The principle of ministerial responsibility to the Lower House did not develop until the nineteenth century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_century). The House of Lords was superior to the House of Commons both in theory and in practice. Members of the House of Commons were elected in an antiquated electoral system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system), under which constituencies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituency) of vastly different sizes existed. Thus, the borough of Old Sarum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Sarum), with seven voters, could elect two members, as could the borough of Dunwich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunwich), which had completely disappeared into the sea due to land erosion. In many cases, members of the Upper House controlled tiny constituencies, known as pocket boroughs or rotten boroughs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_borough), and could ensure the election of their relatives or supporters. Many seats in the House of Commons were "owned" by the Lords. After the reforms of the nineteenth century (beginning in 1832), the electoral system in the Lower House was much more regularised. No longer dependent on the Upper House for their seats, members of the House of Commons began to grow more assertive.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 09:05 PM
wish i could tell him that without getting a hostile response or neg-repped...


I may not be able to tell him that with out eithe rof those things happening. I don't know. I don't really care either. I call it the way I see it, especially with people I consider friends.

Logical
06-09-2006, 09:07 PM
Unfair or not, I was merely clarifying what Stevie was getting at.

And to answer your question, yes, I do recall Denise being one of the major players during the "political silly season" of '04. Wow DC was not created until 04, I thought it was created in January 01 after the Gore debacle. Are you sure? Sure sucks the archives are missing for all those years.

Logical
06-09-2006, 09:09 PM
wish i could tell him that without getting a hostile response or neg-repped...You are not going to get a hostile response or neg repped in fact I will give you postive rep for having the gut to stand up for yourself. I happen to be very particular about the English languae (Jamie can tell you I have always been that way) and I am not reading into DEnise's response what many folks are.

Loki
06-09-2006, 09:10 PM
Enough of this ignorance, even if its coming from someone with apparent inside information.

Ok. Here is the thing. AZ, has been having his asshole friends blowing up Shiite shrines, police stations, army recruitment lines, sawing the heads off of civilians and using intimidation on the locals. His main goal....Insighting a civil war between the factions in Iraq to cause trouble for the US.

Now...He's a worm farm, 40 raids were immediately carried out, which cut out more of his weapons and funding(for the terrorism and intimidation).

Without his ordered attacks on Iraqi Civilians, there is likely to be LESS events, causing turmoil between Sunni and Shiite. Less Turmoil=More success= conditions for US withdrawl.

Do I think his death stops the fighting? Hell no...the place is full of assholes(see foreign fighters, Shiite Militia and former Bathists Sunni Assholes). Someone will step up, and hopefully, will be dead very soon afterwards. The new leader is a bomb maker....a manufacturer of bombs that have killed ALOT of innocent, civilian iraqis. You should also take note, with your very informed opinion, that many of the locals(including Shiite Badr Brigade and Sunni Insurgents) have been fighting with, and killing Foreign TERRORISTS.

Chopping down the trouble makers can do nothing but improve the Stability.

yep.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 09:12 PM
If and when an Iraqi government takes charge, and the U.S. leaves, then the insurgency will become a true insurgency.....illegitimate, until it attains support of the majority of Iraqis. For now, they are terrorists. Period.

Guess you need to take it up with Dick then...

think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." 6/20/05


Or perhaps the Pentagon. :hmmm:

Logical
06-09-2006, 09:14 PM
I may not be able to tell him that with out eithe rof those things happening. I don't know. I don't really care either. I call it the way I see it, especially with people I consider friends.

BS Jamie, when have I ever neg repped you. You and I keep it above board and we don't get personal with attacks on each other only on the other's ideas. As I just told Loki I am reading Denise's literal words and I am not finding what others are saying she is saying. She has explicity stated she does not support the killing of American forces but that she understands the insurgent's motivations and it is unfortunate that we are the ones to suffer the consequences of those motivations.

alanm
06-09-2006, 09:16 PM
despicable as they are, hamas is the legitimately elected government of palestine because a majority of palestinians voted for them...
That's debatable in and of itself GB. It's akin to saying Castro was legitimately elected. "Hey you!! Come here, Vote Hamas or die :bang:

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 09:18 PM
You can't have it both ways, Denise. As long as you support the right of the insurgents to kill those they deem a threat to their country, you ARE supporting the right for them to kill Americans, because that is exactly who they are killing. Enough with the double speak already, the only person you are fooling with it is Jim (we really need to find a cure for this spell she's cast on you, bud), everyone else sees the conflicting duality of your statement.

If the Americans were not there they would not be getting killed by people who are exercising their sovereign right to defend their country. I'm not going to say I support a human beings right to defend their country as long as it's not against the US as occupiers. What kind of bull shit sovereignty is that? If the shoe were on the other foot no way would Americans feel that was just.

I wish they weren't Americans they were killing but I'm not going to deny they have a right to defend their country because it's Americans that are doing the occupying. We do not HAVE to be there. We do not HAVE to have our soldiers being killed. It is our choice to be there just as it is their choice to defend their country.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 09:20 PM
Wow DC was not created until 04, I thought it was created in January 01 after the Gore debacle. Are you sure? Sure sucks the archives are missing for all those years.


I am positive. It happened during the Bush/Kerry race. The Gore debacle took place just months after this board was started; we had politics in the main forum for some time after that.

Logical
06-09-2006, 09:22 PM
I can have it both ways. If the Americans were not there they would not be getting killed by people who are exercising their sovereign right to defend their country. I'm not going to say I support a human beings right to defend their country as long as it's not against the US as occupiers. What kind of bull shit sovereignty is that? If the shoe were on the other foot no way would Americans feel that was just.

I wish they weren't Americans they were killing but I'm not going to deny they have a right to defend their country because it's Americans that are doing the occupying.

OK well I guess I misunderstood your intent, now it sounds like you are supporting them, not just understanding their motivations.

Color me confused.:(

Logical
06-09-2006, 09:23 PM
I am positive. It happened during the Bush/Kerry race. The Gore debacle took place just months after this board was started; we had politics in the main forum for some time after that.

I will take your word on that, but I really don't remember Denise being big into supporting Kerry. In fact I am pretty sure she was a Howard Dean supporter

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 09:24 PM
OK well I guess I misunderstood your intent, now it sounds like you are supporting them, not just understanding their motivations.

Color me confused.:(

Nope. I don't support them killing US soldiers. But the fact is US soldiers would not be killed if they weren't there. The point is they have a right to defend their country regardless of who they are defending against. Just as we do. Just as any citizen of any country does.

The unfortunate thing is that it is our fellow citizens who are being killed in the process. That is the VERY REASON I didn't want them there in the first place.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 09:25 PM
I will take your word on that, but I really don't remember Denise being big into supporting Kerry. In fact I am pretty sure she was a Howard Dean supporter

No, I was a John Edwards supporter. Did not like Dean and wasn't crazy about Kerry.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 09:26 PM
BS Jamie, when have I ever neg repped you. You and I keep it above board and we don't get personal with attacks on each other only on the other's ideas. As I just told Loki I am reading Denise's literal words and I am not finding what others are saying she is saying. She has explicity stated she does not support the killing of American forces but that she understands the insurgent's motivations and it is unfortunate that we are the ones to suffer the consequences of those motivations.


You have neg repped me at least once, but it was not in the form of an attack. However, I was not saying that you would certainly become confrontational with me over what I said, (actually I suspected you wouldn't) but you have changed some the past year or two, so anything is possible. I was not my intention to offend you, though I can see how I might have, and am truly sorry if I did.

In retrospect, I shouldn't have typed that.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 09:31 PM
I am positive. It happened during the Bush/Kerry race. The Gore debacle took place just months after this board was started; we had politics in the main forum for some time after that.

Actually many of the Bush/Gore election posts can be found in the archives and they weren't in DC. So you are right on this issue.

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 09:32 PM
Dude you need to study your history. Great Britain did not have a formal parliment in the late 1700s.

No, YOU need to review YOUR history.

The absolute power of the royalty was taken away in 1215 by a document known to most as the Magna Carta. Ring any bells?

http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=18&parent=17

Then came what is now known as parliament.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0860252.html

Enjoy.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 09:36 PM
I guess don't understand the notion that a country can be sovereign and has a right to defend itself unless it's defending itself against our interests. Then somehow that right doesn't exist.

I certainly wouldn't want another country thinking this about our right to defend ourselves.

And many of the people pretending that this view is somehow supportive of the killing of Americans are the very people who would be using their own caches defending this country against a foreign occupier. Yet they somehow can't grasp how people on the other side of the world might want to do the same.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 09:37 PM
If the Americans were not there they would not be getting killed by people who are exercising their sovereign right to defend their country. I'm not going to say I support a human beings right to defend their country as long as it's not against the US as occupiers. What kind of bull shit sovereignty is that? If the shoe were on the other foot no way would Americans feel that was just.

I wish they weren't Americans they were killing but I'm not going to deny they have a right to defend their country because it's Americans that are doing the occupying. We do not HAVE to be there. We do not HAVE to have our soldiers being killed. It is our choice to be there just as it is their choice to defend their country.


Well f#ck, she managed to retype what she initially posted before I could capture it. Thankfully, Jim got it. :)

And in response to the first thing you said: NO, you cannot have it both ways. You either support their right to "defend" their country against "invaders", or you don't.

As to the rest of this retyped garbage - I typically despise double standards, but when it comes to the lives of my fellow country-men, I can and will say that no one has the right to kill them in defense of their country.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 09:38 PM
Actually many of the Bush/Gore election posts can be found in the archives and they weren't in DC. So you are right on this issue.

No duh.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 09:41 PM
Well f#ck, she managed to retype what she initially posted before I could capture it. Thankfully, Jim got it. :)

And in response to the first thing you said: NO, you cannot have it both ways. You either support their right to "defend" their country against "invaders", or you don't.

As to the rest of this retyped garbage - I typically despise double standards, but when it comes to the lives of my fellow country-men, I can and will say that no one has the right to kill them in defense of their country.

Then no one really has a right to defend themselves but us? In an ideal world we could wish this was the case but in reality it's not. There are people all around the world who would fight to the death defending their country against WHOMEVER dared to invade it. It's their right, and in many cases their responsibility, as citizens of their country to do so. I might not like that reality but it's true.

Logical
06-09-2006, 09:43 PM
No, YOU need to review YOUR history.

The absolute power of the royalty was taken away in 1215 by a document known to most as the Magna Carta. Ring any bells?

http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=18&parent=17

Then came what is now known as parliament.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0860252.html

Enjoy.From your article

The first step was achieved by the great Reform Bill of 1832 (see Reform Acts (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0841399.html)), followed by the Reform Bills of 1867 and 1884 and the eventual establishment of universal suffrage by the Representation of the People Acts (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0841559.html) in 1948. Parliamentary committees, appointed to investigate social conditions and recommend legislation, played an enlarged role.

The tendency toward consolidation of parties was accelerated as public opinion became a factor in elections free from patronage. Although the Liberals and the Conservatives were known to stand for certain general policies, it was not until near the end of the 19th cent. that William E. Gladstone began the practice of making national campaign tours to pledge the party to a program for the coming Parliament. With the development of the party caucus, at about the same time, freedom of action by individual members was reduced.

Basically prior to that royalty just appointed other royalty to serve as advisers, they were not elected.

Logical
06-09-2006, 09:45 PM
Nope. I don't support them killing US soldiers. But the fact is US soldiers would not be killed if they weren't there. The point is they have a right to defend their country regardless of who they are defending against. Just as we do. Just as any citizen of any country does.

The unfortunate thing is that it is our fellow citizens who are being killed in the process. That is the VERY REASON I didn't want them there in the first place.That is more consistent with what you were saying before, you are walking a fine line.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 09:47 PM
I guess don't understand the notion that a country can be sovereign and has a right to defend itself unless it's defending itself against our interests. Then somehow that right doesn't exist.

I certainly wouldn't want another country thinking this about our right to defend ourselves.

And many of the people pretending that this view is somehow supportive of the killing of Americans are the very people who would be using their own caches defending this country against a foreign occupier. Yet they somehow can't grasp how people on the other side of the world might want to do the same.


Of course you don't understand this, you have bad wiring in your head that doesn't allow you to understand how the real world works. You may not want any other country thinking in those terms in regards to us, but news flash, they would. This is exactly why you idiot peaceniks should NEVER be allowed in positions of power, because you are too f#cking stupid to understand that there are bad people out there, and they don't give a flying f#ck about your rights. Hitler didn't sit in his chair hoping that the peoples of the nations he was about conquer would excersise their God given right as human beings to resist him, he wanted everyone to lay down for him. Same with every other person who has gone to war.

But you live in this f#cking fantasy world where everybody has this certain understanding about rights, and rules, and love, and peace, and happines, and flowers, and small children playing in babbling brooks, and they all want those things for everyone else. Grow the f#ck up and realize that utopia ain't happening on this earth as long as man is in charge. Good God.

Logical
06-09-2006, 09:49 PM
Well f#ck, she managed to retype what she initially posted before I could capture it. Thankfully, Jim got it. :)

And in response to the first thing you said: NO, you cannot have it both ways. You either support their right to "defend" their country against "invaders", or you don't.

As to the rest of this retyped garbage - I typically despise double standards, but when it comes to the lives of my fellow country-men, I can and will say that no one has the right to kill them in defense of their country.

Jamie every country would have to be like Poland and France is that the kind of world you want to live in?

penchief
06-09-2006, 09:49 PM
Say WHAT? How in THE hell do you draw that conclusion?

You may be right but I feel the need to clarify a minor point in the part you higlighted. I was not accusing Brock of saying anything derogatory about denise. I had already read her posts and made the assumption he was referring to her. There was nothing wrong with what he said.

But other conversations prior to that had involved a lot of smear type remarks, etc. And during those discussions I thought to myself, "some people are acting like they won something. What have they won?"

So when I read Brock's post, mistakingly assuming it referred to denise, I commented on those earlier posters that I had thought were overreacting to the good news by shoving it on other people's faces.

I know that was a long story but I did want to clarify that point.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 09:50 PM
That is more consistent with what you were saying before, you are walking a fine line.

Not really. It is the same thing. One is just laced with more political undertones while the other with philosophical undertones.

I have a philosophical belief that citizens have the right to defend their country from enemies within and without.

The political fine line comes when making the distinction that the above right ceases to exist if the US is involved.

banyon
06-09-2006, 09:51 PM
Hitler didn't sit in his chair hoping that the peoples of the nations he was about conquer would excersise their God given right as human beings to resist him, he wanted everyone to lay down for him. Same with every other person who has gone to war.

No. you are right. Hitler came up with his own ideas, refused to obey any sort of international consensus on the issues, and denounced any Germans who opposed his plans for their lack of Patriotism.

So...what does that mean for you?

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 09:51 PM
Then no one really has a right to defend themselves but us? In an ideal world we could wish this was the case but in reality it's not. There are people all around the world who would fight to the death defending their country against WHOMEVER dared to invade it. It's their right, and in many cases their responsibility, as citizens of their country to do so. I might not like that reality but it's true.


I am not saying that right does not exist generally, I am saying it vanishes when it is excersized against us.

I fully expect people to resist, but that in no way means that I am going to give them my blessing to do so. That is just rigoddamndiculous.

Logical
06-09-2006, 09:52 PM
Of course you don't understand this, you have bad wiring in your head that doesn't allow you to understand how the real world works. You may not want any other country thinking in those terms in regards to us, but news flash, they would. This is exactly why you idiot peaceniks should NEVER be allowed in positions of power, because you are too f#cking stupid to understand that there are bad people out there, and they don't give a flying f#ck about your rights. Hitler didn't sit in his chair hoping that the peoples of the nations he was about conquer would excersise their God given right as human beings to resist him, he wanted everyone to lay down for him. Same with every other person who has gone to war.

But you live in this f#cking fantasy world where everybody has this certain understanding about rights, and rules, and love, and peace, and happines, and flowers, and small children playing in babbling brooks, and they all want those things for everyone else. Grow the f#ck up and realize that utopia ain't happening on this earth as long as man is in charge. Good God.Is Hitler really the model you want our expectations set by?

banyon
06-09-2006, 09:53 PM
No, YOU need to review YOUR history.

The absolute power of the royalty was taken away in 1215 by a document known to most as the Magna Carta. Ring any bells?

http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=18&parent=17

Then came what is now known as parliament.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0860252.html

Enjoy.


Hate to correct you, CHIEF4EVER, but the House of Lords was in power until the 1900's as the British upper house. They were not elected, but attained their status by birthright.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 09:54 PM
Of course you don't understand this, you have bad wiring in your head that doesn't allow you to understand how the real world works. You may not want any other country thinking in those terms in regards to us, but news flash, they would. This is exactly why you idiot peaceniks should NEVER be allowed in positions of power, because you are too f#cking stupid to understand that there are bad people out there, and they don't give a flying f#ck about your rights. Hitler didn't sit in his chair hoping that the peoples of the nations he was about conquer would excersise their God given right as human beings to resist him, he wanted everyone to lay down for him. Same with every other person who has gone to war.

But you live in this f#cking fantasy world where everybody has this certain understanding about rights, and rules, and love, and peace, and happines, and flowers, and small children playing in babbling brooks, and they all want those things for everyone else. Grow the f#ck up and realize that utopia ain't happening on this earth as long as man is in charge. Good God.

Jamie, if people did not believe they had a right to defend themselves than this very country would not exist. And yet you are assuming that others in the world don't have the same basic desires and aspirations that built this country.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 09:56 PM
Jamie every country would have to be like Poland and France is that the kind of world you want to live in?


So long as my country isn't like that, I really couldn't give a damn. I am a nationalist, I care about MY country. F#ck everyone else. I'm sorry if that makes me a mean person, but f#ck everyone else. What I care about is my home land, the place where I intend to raise my family, and see my family raise their families. I want what is best for them. I could give a rat's ass about anyone else, unless it has some sort of impact on this country.

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 09:57 PM
From your article



Basically prior to that royalty just appointed other royalty to serve as advisers, they were not elected.

Don't squiggle Jim, it doesn't become you. The people of England have been represented by a Parliament since 1295 but the true parliamentary power began in the 16th century.

The House of Lords with its chancellor and the House of Commons with its speaker appeared in their modern form in the 16th cent. The English Reformation greatly increased the powers of Parliament because it was through the nominal agency of Parliament that the Church of England was established.

Logical
06-09-2006, 09:57 PM
I am not saying that right does not exist generally, I am saying it vanishes when it is excersized against us.

I fully expect people to resist, but that in no way means that I am going to give them my blessing to do so. That is just rigoddamndiculous.Sorry Jamie but the idea that we can be the only purveyors of right goes against my grain. We could end up with a despot for a leader and not be in the right someday. To not acknowledge the possibility is to blind yourself to history.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 10:00 PM
I am not saying that right does not exist generally, I am saying it vanishes when it is excersized against us.

I fully expect people to resist, but that in no way means that I am going to give them my blessing to do so. That is just rigoddamndiculous.

I'm not giving them my blessing either. I wish they wouldn't exercise their right. I wish they would lie down and rollover and bend over and just take it. But they won't and WE WOULD BE DOING THE SAME DAMN THING IN THE SAME SITUATION.


To be clear, I am specifically talking about the home grown insurgency not the AQ fanction that have infiltrated the insurgency.

Logical
06-09-2006, 10:01 PM
Don't squiggle Jim, it doesn't become you. The people of England have been represented by a Parliament since 1295 but the true parliamentary power began in the 16th century.I may have misunderstood your original point that a Democratically elected Parliment ruled Britain during the revolutionary war time period. It did not. The Parliment was an appointed body by the British aristocracy up until the 1800s which is why our Republic is considered to predate theirs and we are noted as the longest standing representative democracy. At least that is they way I learned it when they taught history.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 10:01 PM
So long as my country isn't like that, I really couldn't give a damn. I am a nationalist, I care about MY country. F#ck everyone else. I'm sorry if that makes me a mean person, but f#ck everyone else. What I care about is my home land, the place where I intend to raise my family, and see my family raise their families. I want what is best for them. I could give a rat's ass about anyone else, unless it has some sort of impact on this country.

People who think like this are a danger to the entire world. I think they end up like AZ or OBL. MOF, they probably have a quote very similiar somewhere out there. :rolleyes:

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 10:02 PM
No. you are right. Hitler came up with his own ideas, refused to obey any sort of international consensus on the issues, and denounced any Germans who opposed his plans for their lack of Patriotism.

So...what does that mean for you?


Nothing that has to do with what is being discussed.

banyon
06-09-2006, 10:02 PM
I may have misunderstood your original point that a Democratically elected Parliment ruled Britain during the revolutionary war time period. It did not. The Parliment was an appointed body by the British aristocracy up until the 1800s which is why our Republic is considered to predate theirs and we are noted as the longest standing representative democracy. At least that is they way I learned it when they taught history.

Hey, i already said that! I wanted to get the history extra credit :harumph:

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 10:04 PM
Is Hitler really the model you want our expectations set by?


Because there are people like Hitler, we have little choice. You have to fight the enemy on even ground, or you are going to wind up the loser more often or not. It's called being realistic and practical.

Logical
06-09-2006, 10:04 PM
So long as my country isn't like that, I really couldn't give a damn. I am a nationalist, I care about MY country. F#ck everyone else. I'm sorry if that makes me a mean person, but f#ck everyone else. What I care about is my home land, the place where I intend to raise my family, and see my family raise their families. I want what is best for them. I could give a rat's ass about anyone else, unless it has some sort of impact on this country.All we are saying is that is logical for every country's people to feel the same way. I don't support there right to kill our soldiers but I understand that they are going to try and I expect us to kill them in return for their efforts.

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 10:05 PM
I may have misunderstood your original point that a Democratically elected Parliment ruled Britain during the revolutionary war time period. It did not. The Parliment was an appointed body by the British aristocracy up until the 1800s which is why our Republic is considered to predate theirs and we are noted as the longest standing representative democracy. At least that is they way I learned it when they taught history.

I never said a word about Democratically elected Parliament, I said the people were REPRESENTED by Parliament. And they were.

Logical
06-09-2006, 10:06 PM
Hate to correct you, CHIEF4EVER, but the House of Lords was in power until the 1900's as the British upper house. They were not elected, but attained their status by birthright.Props you beat me to it.

rep is on the way.

Ugly Duck
06-09-2006, 10:06 PM
your a moran...Kew-el! Thats like my totally favotite line, dude!

Man... we get so caught up in the "insurgent" thing - we must be watching way too much TV. Insurgent, inschmurgent... its a smokescreen issue from the perspective of the neocon cabal. This "government" we've set up may be effective for placating the masses here in the US, but its a farce to most Iraqis. They are busy manuevering for the power struggle that will begin in earnest upon our departure. That "government" won't mean doo-doo when the fight for oil begins. Its already heating up - Shia murdering Sunnis, Sunnis slaughtering Kurds, bombs blowing the hell out of everyone. Oh sure... AQ jihadists are flocking there to Iraq to kill Americans because we're still dim enough to keep providing them with the bait. They'll get their asses kicked soon as they get in the way of the Iraqis fighting each other for oil. Want to get AQ out of Iraq? Quit putting our boys there to attract them in. Trouble is - "staying the course" means we'll be there until the Iraqis "stand up" when "standing up" ain't anywhere on their agenda. They're too busy fixin' to fight each other soon as we leave. Meanwhile, we're attracting AQ jihadists there to pick off our boyz one by one as we shout "Insurgent!" Time to take control of the situation instead of voluntarily being hostage to the "standing up" of Iraqis who have no intention of standing up. Time to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

banyon
06-09-2006, 10:06 PM
Nothing that has to do with what is being discussed.

Sure it does. You try to prognosticate how "liberal" policies will be america's downfall as in your previous post by pointing out that they would be weak against a despot like Hitler. But, in the same vein, of course, adopting conservative policies in a different vein might result in exactly what Hitler desired in a society; they might result in exactly the same sort of despot. It's not fair for you to be able to prognosticate such events on a conservative view and not allow the converse.

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 10:08 PM
Hate to correct you, CHIEF4EVER, but the House of Lords was in power until the 1900's as the British upper house. They were not elected, but attained their status by birthright.

Hate to correct YOU but I never said an effing word about ELECTED.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 10:08 PM
Jamie, if people did not believe they had a right to defend themselves than this very country would not exist. And yet you are assuming that others in the world don't have the same basic desires and aspirations that built this country.


No I am not. I seem to recall saying that I fully expect people to resist. I just don't want them resisting against us. It doesn't mean they won't, it just means that I would just as soon they didn't.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 10:09 PM
All we are saying is that is logical for every country's people to feel the same way. I don't support there right to kill our soldiers but I understand that they are going to try and I expect us to kill them in return for their efforts.

Exactly. :clap:

No one is saying we expect them NOT to kill us or for us to not to kill them for trying to kill us.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 10:10 PM
No I am not. I seem to recall saying that I fully expect people to resist. I just don't want them resisting against us. It doesn't mean they won't, it just means that I would just as soon they didn't.

Me too, Jamie, me too.

Again, in an ideal world they wouldn't. This world is anything but ideal.

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 10:11 PM
Kew-el! Thats like my totally favotite line, dude!

Man... we get so caught up in the "insurgent" thing - we must be watching way too much TV. Insurgent, inschmurgent... its a smokescreen issue from the perspective of the neocon cabal. This "government" we've set up may be effective for placating the masses here in the US, but its a farce to most Iraqis. They are busy manuevering for the power struggle that will begin in earnest upon our departure. That "government" won't mean doo-doo when the fight for oil begins. Its already heating up - Shia murdering Sunnis, Sunnis slaughtering Kurds, bombs blowing the hell out of everyone. Oh sure... AQ jihadists are flocking there to Iraq to kill Americans because we're still dim enough to keep providing them with the bait. They'll get their asses kicked soon as they get in the way of the Iraqis fighting each other for oil. Want to get AQ out of Iraq? Quit putting our boys there to attract them in. Trouble is - "staying the course" means we'll be there until the Iraqis "stand up" when "standing up" ain't anywhere on their agenda. They're too busy fixin' to fight each other soon as we leave. Meanwhile, we're attracting AQ jihadists there to pick off our boyz one by one as we shout "Insurgent!" Time to take control of the situation instead of voluntarily being hostage to the "standing up" of Iraqis who have no intention of standing up. Time to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

Sounds like you have succumbed to the brainwashing of the liberal media. Can you prove with a reputable source ANYTHING you just posted or is this all conjecture on your part?

Logical
06-09-2006, 10:11 PM
Kew-el! Thats like my totally favotite line, dude!

Man... we get so caught up in the "insurgent" thing - we must be watching way too much TV. Insurgent, inschmurgent... its a smokescreen issue from the perspective of the neocon cabal. This "government" we've set up may be effective for placating the masses here in the US, but its a farce to most Iraqis. They are busy manuevering for the power struggle that will begin in earnest upon our departure. That "government" won't mean doo-doo when the fight for oil begins. Its already heating up - Shia murdering Sunnis, Sunnis slaughtering Kurds, bombs blowing the hell out of everyone. Oh sure... AQ jihadists are flocking there to Iraq to kill Americans because we're still dim enough to keep providing them with the bait. They'll get their asses kicked soon as they get in the way of the Iraqis fighting each other for oil. Want to get AQ out of Iraq? Quit putting our boys there to attract them in. Trouble is - "staying the course" means we'll be there until the Iraqis "stand up" when "standing up" ain't anywhere on their agenda. They're too busy fixin' to fight each other soon as we leave. Meanwhile, we're attracting AQ jihadists there to pick off our boyz one by one as we shout "Insurgent!" Time to take control of the situation instead of voluntarily being hostage to the "standing up" of Iraqis who have no intention of standing up. Time to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.:clap: It is scary how much we agree on this subject.

banyon
06-09-2006, 10:13 PM
Hate to correct YOU but I never said an effing word about ELECTED.

Hate to correct, correct you, but here was your quote:

No, YOU need to review YOUR history.

The absolute power of the royalty was taken away in 1215 by a document known to most as the Magna Carta. Ring any bells?

So the "absolute power" of the royalty was not taken away in 1215, since the chief house of Parliament was still royalty until the early 1900's/late 1800s. Democracy did not prevail until then in Britain.

Sure you didn't say "democracy", but you implied an alternative to monarchy, which didn't exist.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 10:13 PM
Kew-el! Thats like my totally favotite line, dude!

Man... we get so caught up in the "insurgent" thing - we must be watching way too much TV. Insurgent, inschmurgent... its a smokescreen issue from the perspective of the neocon cabal. This "government" we've set up may be effective for placating the masses here in the US, but its a farce to most Iraqis. They are busy manuevering for the power struggle that will begin in earnest upon our departure. That "government" won't mean doo-doo when the fight for oil begins. Its already heating up - Shia murdering Sunnis, Sunnis slaughtering Kurds, bombs blowing the hell out of everyone. Oh sure... AQ jihadists are flocking there to Iraq to kill Americans because we're still dim enough to keep providing them with the bait. They'll get their asses kicked soon as they get in the way of the Iraqis fighting each other for oil. Want to get AQ out of Iraq? Quit putting our boys there to attract them in. Trouble is - "staying the course" means we'll be there until the Iraqis "stand up" when "standing up" ain't anywhere on their agenda. They're too busy fixin' to fight each other soon as we leave. Meanwhile, we're attracting AQ jihadists there to pick off our boyz one by one as we shout "Insurgent!" Time to take control of the situation instead of voluntarily being hostage to the "standing up" of Iraqis who have no intention of standing up. Time to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

You know, this sounds so revolutionary and insightful if not clairvoyant. And yet, you've been saying it for years now. As have a few of us.

Logical
06-09-2006, 10:14 PM
I never said a word about Democratically elected Parliament, I said the people were REPRESENTED by Parliament. And they were.If you are not elected I don't see you as representing, you are not beholded to them. They were beholden to the other Royals.

Donger
06-09-2006, 10:14 PM
Dude you need to study your history. Great Britain did not have a formal parliment in the late 1700s.

Umm, you may want to look at that again.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 10:15 PM
Sorry Jamie but the idea that we can be the only purveyors of right goes against my grain. We could end up with a despot for a leader and not be in the right someday. To not acknowledge the possibility is to blind yourself to history.


I never said that. I simply said that I am not going to give other people my blessing to kill our troops. Why in God's name would I? Despot? Why give someone my blessing to kill our troops when I could handle the despot situation in house. We are not like the Iraqis, we are capable of doing so.

Logical
06-09-2006, 10:18 PM
Umm, you may want to look at that again.I should have said representative parliment instead of formal. My error. The Royals controlled Parliment until the 1800s.

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 10:18 PM
Hate to correct, correct you, but here was your quote:



So the "absolute power" of the royalty was not taken away in 1215, since the chief house of Parliament was still royalty until 1900. Democracy did not prevail until then in Britain.

Sure you didn't say "democracy", but you implied an alternaitve to monarchy, which didn't exist.

Hate to correct you but the alternative DID exist. Since the 16th century. The House of Lords and House of Commons existed then. Absolute power of the monarchy should have been my phrasing of it but the ramification is clear by my stating that the royalty (in this case king or queen) was and is a figurehead.

Logical
06-09-2006, 10:19 PM
I never said that. I simply said that I am not going to give other people my blessing to kill our troops. Why in God's name would I? Despot? Why give someone my blessing to kill our troops when I could handle the despot situation in house. We are not like the Iraqis, we are capable of doing so.Saying you understand why they are doing it is not saying you are giving your blessing. Why do so people understand the clear distinction.

Logical
06-09-2006, 10:21 PM
Hate to correct you but the alternative DID exist. Since the 16th century. The House of Lords and House of Commons existed then. Absolute power of the monarchy should have been my phrasing of it but the ramification is clear by my stating that the royalty (in this case king or queen) was and is a figurehead.Uh no royalty has always been the landed gentry of Dukes, Knights, Princes, Princesses as well as Kings and Queens. We definitely view Royalty differently. As I recall royalty is of noble blood.

banyon
06-09-2006, 10:22 PM
Hate to correct you but the alternative DID exist. Since the 16th century. The House of Lords and House of Commons existed then. Absolute power of the monarchy should have been my phrasing of it but the ramification is clear by my stating that the royalty (in this case king or queen) was and is a figurehead.

you do realize the the House of Lords are Royals , right? (and i don't mean the sh**y baseball team).

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 10:23 PM
Uh no royalty has always been the landed gentry of Dukes, Knights, Princes, Princesses as well as Kings and Queens. We definitely view Royalty differently. As I recall royalty is of noble blood.

Apparently you missed the part where I said I should have phrased it MONARCHY instead of ROYALTY. Try reading the entire quote please sir knight.....I mean Jim. :p

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 10:24 PM
People who think like this are a danger to the entire world. I think they end up like AZ or OBL. MOF, they probably have a quote very similiar somewhere out there. :rolleyes:


Sorry, but those are your realitives, terroistme, not mine.

And they are not nationalist either, they are religious whackos fighting for a radical interpretation of their religion.

Donger
06-09-2006, 10:24 PM
I should have said representative parliment instead of formal. My error. The Royals controlled Parliment until the 1800s.

The House of Lords' power has fluctuated over the centuries. For instance, the Commons was vastly more powerful than the Lords in the mid-1600s. But, even then, the Commons was hardly comparable to our House, even then. IIRC, it wasn't until 1832 that it became 'democratic' in our sense of the word. There were all kinds of property ownership restrictions and other typically British class-shit to deal with.

"The Royals controlled Parliament until the 1800s" could be argued quite effectively, however. More like, "The Nobles controlled Parliament until the 1800s."

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 10:25 PM
you do realize the the House of Lords are Royals , right?

Of course and the House of Commons are NOT. What point are you trying to make?

Logical
06-09-2006, 10:25 PM
Apparently you missed the part where I said I should have phrased it MONARCHY instead of ROYALTY. Try reading the entire quote please sir knight.....I mean Jim. :pYou are correct I did miss Monarchy, (now searching for precise definition of monarchy admitting I do not know):hmmm:

Donger
06-09-2006, 10:26 PM
Uh no royalty has always been the landed gentry of Dukes, Knights, Princes, Princesses as well as Kings and Queens. We definitely view Royalty differently. As I recall royalty is of noble blood.

Yes. By definition. But, not all noble blood is royal.

A fine distinction, but vast in reality. Trust me.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 10:27 PM
All we are saying is that is logical for every country's people to feel the same way. I don't support there right to kill our soldiers but I understand that they are going to try and I expect us to kill them in return for their efforts.


I never said it wasn't logical. All I am saying is that it is equally logical for me not to support them when they are fighting my country.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 10:27 PM
Sorry, but those are your realitives, terroistme, not mine.

And they are not nationalist either, they are religious whackos fighting for a radical interpretation of their religion.

Nope they are not my relatives and I have nothing in common with them. You, however, have a view of the world that they undoubtedly share. Their way or no way. F#@k everyone else.

Donger
06-09-2006, 10:27 PM
you do realize the the House of Lords are Royals , right? (and i don't mean the sh**y baseball team).

I hope you realize that you are wrong. At least, not all of them.

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 10:27 PM
The House of Lords' power has fluctuated over the centuries. For instance, the Commons was vastly more powerful than the Lords in the mid-1600s. But, even then, the Commons was hardly comparable to our House, even then. IIRC, it wasn't until 1832 that it became 'democratic' in our sense of the word. There were all kinds of property ownership restrictions and other typically British class-shit to deal with.

Thank you. Finally someone who gets it.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 10:28 PM
I never said it wasn't logical. All I am saying is that it is equally logical for me not to support them when they are fighting my country.

Sigh, I guess we need to draw a picture one might relate to.

I acknowledge the right of people to be RWNJs. That does not mean I support them being one.

Logical
06-09-2006, 10:29 PM
Monarchy - a government having an hereditary chief of state with life tenure and powers varying from nominal to absolute. I do not believe the Monarchy became a figurehead until the 1800s, is it not correct that the King/Queen had nominal leadership powers until then?

Note I am asking not telling.

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 10:29 PM
You are correct I did miss Monarchy, (now searching for precise definition of monarchy admitting I do not know):hmmm:

In a nutshell, King and/or Queen or in direct line of reasonable succession.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 10:30 PM
Sure it does. You try to prognosticate how "liberal" policies will be america's downfall as in your previous post by pointing out that they would be weak against a despot like Hitler. But, in the same vein, of course, adopting conservative policies in a different vein might result in exactly what Hitler desired in a society; they might result in exactly the same sort of despot. It's not fair for you to be able to prognosticate such events on a conservative view and not allow the converse.


Would you please point out to me where I said anything about liberals or conservatives? Because I don't recall it.

banyon
06-09-2006, 10:31 PM
Of course and the House of Commons are NOT. What point are you trying to make?

royalty ≠ Democaracy, like you said in post #543. You actually said "the power of the royalty was taken away." It's no big deal, but it was an error. i still respect ya. :)

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 10:35 PM
Me too, Jamie, me too.

Again, in an ideal world they wouldn't. This world is anything but ideal.


No sh!t? Really? I can't believe nobody has made that point yet. Oh, wait, I did......

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 10:36 PM
Saying you understand why they are doing it is not saying you are giving your blessing. Why do so people understand the clear distinction.


I never said that I did not understand it. This was about nothing more than Denise saying she didn't support it, and then the very next sentence saying she did. I admit to allowing the argument to transform into one other than what it was about. It is about nothing more than Denise's conflicting statements, and her attempt to squiggle out of them.

Logical
06-09-2006, 10:37 PM
Has anyone noticed that for the most part this discussion has been completely civil all evening. Yet we have some very strong willed people involved. Short one terroristme reference I think we have all done well.

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 10:37 PM
royalty ≠ Democaracy, like you said in post #543. You actually said "the power of the royalty was taken away." It's no big deal, but it was an error. i still respect ya. :)

Where did I say Democracy in #543?

No, YOU need to review YOUR history.

The absolute power of the royalty was taken away in 1215 by a document known to most as the Magna Carta. Ring any bells?

http://www.founding.com/library/lbo...id=18&parent=17 (http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=18&parent=17)

Then came what is now known as parliament.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0860252.html

Enjoy.

banyon
06-09-2006, 10:38 PM
Would you please point out to me where I said anything about liberals or conservatives? Because I don't recall it.

OK. I apologize. I've had a few. Remove the word "liberal" and replace it with the word "pu**y". in post #572.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 10:39 PM
Nope they are not my relatives and I have nothing in common with them. You, however, have a view of the world that they undoubtedly share. Their way or no way. F#@k everyone else.


Bullshit. You both view America as the bad guy.

And I don't go around terrorizing innocent people to make them follow my way. And that is the last that I will respond to this ridiculous assertion. If anyone actually needed any further proof that you are insane, comparing me to those two assholes should do it.

banyon
06-09-2006, 10:39 PM
Where did I say Democracy in #543?

all you have to say to make your argument correct is that Royalty was not taken away in 1600. Saying it was implies a democratic state. what else would it be?

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 10:40 PM
Sigh, I guess we need to draw a picture one might relate to.

I acknowledge the right of people to be RWNJs. That does not mean I support them being one.


That is NOT what you initially said, and you know it.

Logical
06-09-2006, 10:41 PM
Where did I say Democracy in #543?This one seems like a loser you have already admitted you should have said Monarchy not royalty. The power of royalty was indeed not taken away (diluted) until the 1800s.

Iowanian
06-09-2006, 10:42 PM
Ironically enough...Today, Dense's favorite poster child of legitimate insurgency, has anounced that they'll resume blowing up pizza parlors in Israel.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 10:43 PM
Has anyone noticed that for the most part this discussion has been completely civil all evening. Yet we have some very strong willed people involved. Short one terroristme reference I think we have all done well.


C'mon, Jim, you are going to point that out while letting the fact that I was compared to the likes of AZ and OBL (which is exactly what the terroristme reference was in response to) go with out mention?

That's pretty f#cked up, bud.

Logical
06-09-2006, 10:43 PM
Bullshit. You both view America as the bad guy.

And I don't go around terrorizing innocent people to make them follow my way. And that is the last that I will respond to this ridiculous assertion. If anyone actually needed any further proof that you are insane, comparing me to those two assholes should do it.Many in the world would say the US terrorized Iraq by invading it as a sovereign nation and killing many non-military individuals as collateral damage and destroying most of their infrastructure.

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 10:44 PM
all you have to say to make your argument correct is that Royalty was not taken away in 1600. Saying it was implies a democratic state. what else would it be?

I have already said Monarchy should have been used rather than royalty. You know full well the context if you read the full exchange between Jim and I. It doesn't imply jack squat about democracy.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 10:44 PM
OK. I apologize. I've had a few. Remove the word "liberal" and replace it with the word "pu**y". in post #572.


Will you please point out to me where I said "pussy", because I do not recall it.


(maybe you ought to quit while you are behind)

Logical
06-09-2006, 10:45 PM
C'mon, Jim, you are going to point that out while letting the fact that I was compared to the likes of AZ and OBL (which is exactly what the terroristme reference was in response to) go with out mention?

That's pretty f#cked up, bud.I think your statements were compared not you. But then that is just the way I read it.

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 10:46 PM
This one seems like a loser you have already admitted you should have said Monarchy not royalty. The power of royalty was indeed not taken away (diluted) until the 1800s.

But if you replace Monarchy for royalty then you understand the point I was making (as I am sure you already do). The power of the Monarchy was taken away by the Magna Carta.

Frazod
06-09-2006, 10:47 PM
Well, THIS certainly seems like old times. :spock:

I don't know where Russ is, but I'd be willing to bet that his fingertips are tingling and he can't figure out why. :D

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 10:49 PM
Many in the world would say the US terrorized Iraq by invading it as a sovereign nation and killing many non-military individuals as collateral damage and destroying most of their infrastructure.


*Yawn* We had umpteen UN resolutions allowing for the use of force in Iraq if Saddam did not live up to his end of a signed peace treaty. The world establishment, that so many seem so concerned about, signed off on it. I couldn't give a damn what is said by "many".

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 10:50 PM
Bullshit. You both view America as the bad guy.

And I don't go around terrorizing innocent people to make them follow my way. And that is the last that I will respond to this ridiculous assertion. If anyone actually needed any further proof that you are insane, comparing me to those two assholes should do it.

I'm not comparing YOU. I'm comparing your statement. It sounded EXACTLY like something hateful they'd mutter. Go back and check your words I highlighted and my response.

banyon
06-09-2006, 10:50 PM
I have already said Monarchy should have been used rather than royalty. You know full well the context if you read the full exchange between Jim and I. It doesn't imply jack squat about democracy.

Ok. It seems like the quibbling has reached a crescendo of minutae. I think you and i get along well enough for having divrgent poltical views. It's just my opinion tonight that you overplayed your hand wrt to the anti-Royal aspects of pre-Victorian England in the firct couple of posts I addressed.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 10:52 PM
I think your statements were compared not you. But then that is just the way I read it.


I'm sure that is the way she will try and spin it, but it was a passive-aggressive attack at the very least.

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 10:53 PM
Ok. It seems like the quibbling has reached a crescendo of minutae. I think you and i get along well enough for having divrgent poltical views. It's just my opinion tonight that you overplayed your hand wrt to the anti-Royal aspects of pre-Victorian England in the firct couple of posts I addressed.

Quibbling over minutae is very accurate. A poorly chosen word on my part led to misunderstanding of the point in context. Bottom line, our founding fathers would NEVER have wanted a King/Emperor/Dictator to rule them.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 10:54 PM
Well, THIS certainly seems like old times. :spock:

I don't know where Russ is, but I'd be willing to bet that his fingertips are tingling and he can't figure out why. :D



:D If it weren't so late I'd call the bastard up.

banyon
06-09-2006, 10:54 PM
Will you please point out to me where I said "pussy", because I do not recall it.


(maybe you ought to quit while you are behind)

you basically said that if we idiot liberals don't stand up to a stooge like Hitler, then it will be the end of the world as we know it.

This is exactly why you idiot peaceniks should NEVER be allowed in positions of power, because you are too f#cking stupid to understand that there are bad people out there, and they don't give a flying f#ck about your rights. Hitler didn't sit in his chair hoping that the peoples of the nations he was about conquer would excersise their God given right as human beings to resist him, he wanted everyone to lay down for him. Same with every other person who has gone to war.

Now who exactly were you referring to in that post? Hare Krishnas?

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 10:55 PM
I'm sure that is the way she will try and spin it, but it was a passive-aggressive attack at the very least.

Oh, please. It was only disgusting and reprehensible to you when it was pointed out that YOUR words sounded like something they would say?

Trust me, your words were reprehensible and disgusting on their own. My point saying that they sounded like something those two would utter was to illustrate how extreme and hateful the words sounded.

Donger
06-09-2006, 10:55 PM
But if you replace Monarchy for royalty then you understand the point I was making (as I am sure you already do). The power of the Monarchy was taken away by the Magna Carta.

Taken away? I'd disagree with that. British history is rather more complex than that. Its basic principle was that the monarch could be governed by law, not just by his or her will. And, during the Middle Ages, even that was basically disregarded.

It was a good start, however. But to say that the power of the monarchy was "taken away" by Magna Carta is simply incorrect. History demonstrates that it was not.

Logical
06-09-2006, 10:55 PM
But if you replace Monarchy for royalty then you understand the point I was making (as I am sure you already do). The power of the Monarchy was taken away by the Magna Carta.I might be quibbling but the absolute power was taken away, it was not until the 1800s that the monarchy became the figureheads they are today. Will you acknowledge that?

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 10:55 PM
I'm not comparing YOU. I'm comparing your statement. It sounded EXACTLY like something hateful they'd mutter. Go back and check your words I highlighted and my response.


Yes, you are correct, saying that we share the same world view is in NO way a comparison.

Get the f#ck out.

banyon
06-09-2006, 10:55 PM
Quibbling over minutae is very accurate. A poorly chosen word on my part led to misunderstanding of the point in context. Bottom line, our founding fathers would NEVER have wanted a King/Emperor/Dictator to rule them.

ok we agree. f*** I had a lot of typos in that post.

Logical
06-09-2006, 10:58 PM
Quibbling over minutae is very accurate. A poorly chosen word on my part led to misunderstanding of the point in context. Bottom line, our founding fathers would NEVER have wanted a King/Emperor/Dictator to rule them.
First I never implied they all would, that only some might have. Do you totally disregard the possibility?

After all some of the time suggested Washington should become King as I recall and he flatly said it was not a good idea.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 10:58 PM
Oh, please. It was only disgusting and reprehensible to you when it was pointed out that YOUR words sounded like something they would say?

Trust me, your words were reprehensible and disgusting on their own. My point saying that they sounded like something those two would utter was to illustrate how extreme and hateful the words sounded.


No, it would be disgusting and reprehensible regardless of what my words sounded like.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 10:58 PM
Jamie, here are YOUR words. Do you not think that horrible human beings like OBL and AZ have uttered similar statements? I'll grant you your point of them not being nationalists but use religion instead.


Originally Posted by raiderhader
So long as my country isn't like that, I really couldn't give a damn. I am a nationalist, I care about MY country. F#ck everyone else. I'm sorry if that makes me a mean person, but f#ck everyone else. What I care about is my home land, the place where I intend to raise my family, and see my family raise their families. I want what is best for them. I could give a rat's ass about anyone else, unless it has some sort of impact on this country.

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 11:00 PM
Taken away? I'd disagree with that. British history is rather more complex than that. Its basic principle was that the monarch could be governed by law, not just by his or her will. And, during the Middle Ages, even that was basically disregarded.

It was a good start, however. But to say that the power of the monarchy was "taken away" by Magna Carta is simply incorrect. History demonstrates that it was not.
But prior to the Magna Carta the power of the Monarch WAS absolute in all matters in England. The Magna Carta was a good start and as time went on, more and more of the legislative power was decided by Parliament....glaringly during the 1600's.

With the accession (1603) of the Stuart kings, inept in their dealings with Parliament after the wily Tudors, Parliament was able to exercise its claims, drawing on precedents established but not exploited over the preceding 200 years. In the course of the English civil war (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0817372.html), Parliament voiced demands not only for collateral power but for actual sovereignty. Although parliamentary authority was reduced to a mere travesty under Oliver Cromwell and the Protectorate, the Restoration brought Parliament back into power—secure in its claims to legislative supremacy, to full authority over taxation and expenditures, and to a voice in public policy through partial control (by impeachment) over the king's choice of ministers. Charles II set about learning to manage Parliament, rather than opposing or circumventing it. James II's refusal to do so led to the Glorious Revolution (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0821027.html) of 1688, which permanently affirmed parliamentary sovereignty and forced William III to accept great limitations on the powers of the crown. During the reign of Queen Anne even the royal veto on legislation disappeared.

Logical
06-09-2006, 11:02 PM
Jamie, here are YOUR words. Do you not think that horrible human beings like OBL and AZ have uttered similar statements?Jamie the words you uttered are the type of words I would expect someone supporting absolute rule and sovereignty to make, not the words of a person raised on the principles of self determination.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 11:04 PM
Jamie, here are YOUR words. Do you not think that horrible human beings like OBL and AZ have uttered similar statements?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by raiderhader
So long as my country isn't like that, I really couldn't give a damn. I am a nationalist, I care about MY country. F#ck everyone else. I'm sorry if that makes me a mean person, but f#ck everyone else. What I care about is my home land, the place where I intend to raise my family, and see my family raise their families. I want what is best for them. I could give a rat's ass about anyone else, unless it has some sort of impact on this country.


I could care less if they have or not. The way the goal is acheived is the difference. You won't see me cutting off heads or flying jumbo jets into sky scrapers full of innocent people to advance my beliefs.

Unless you have a reputable link providing these similiar quotes that you speak of, get the f#ck off of it. Of course, even if you do, I would simply direct you back to my first sentence of this post....

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 11:05 PM
First I never implied they all would, that only some might have. Do you totally disregard the possibility?

After all some of the time suggested Washington should become King as I recall and he flatly said it was not a good idea.

Yes, I totally disregard the possibility. The colonies were semiautonomous until after the French and Indian War. The taxation to pay for the war enraged the colonists because they didn't get any representation and were regarded as colonists instead of bonafide English citizens in England. They regarded the crown as oppressive and that is why I doubt highly that ANY founding father would have considered having another one, even one of their choosing.

banyon
06-09-2006, 11:06 PM
I hope you realize that you are wrong. At least, not all of them.

sorry I made a similar definitional error to CHIEF4EVER. I should've said "noble" instead of "royal" you are correct.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 11:06 PM
Jamie the words you uttered are the type of words I would expect someone supporting absolute rule and sovereignty to make, not the words of a person raised on the principles of self determination.


Read them how you want, I really am beyond caring at this point. My country comes first. Period.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 11:06 PM
I could care less if they have or not. The way the goal is acheived is the difference. You won't see me cutting off heads or flying jumbo jets into sky scrapers full of innocent people to advance my beliefs.

Unless you have a reputable link providing these similiar quotes that you speak of, get the f#ck off of it. Of course, even if you do, I would simply direct you back to my first sentence of this post....

Jamie, their desire to blow up buildings and fly plans into skyscrapers started with a small seed of contempt for other human beings different than they are...

it started with a feeling of caring only about their religion (or nation as in your statement) and their interests and culminated in something terrible. I'm not saying yours will.

I am saying the seeds of terror are sown in statements like yours...

Logical
06-09-2006, 11:07 PM
Proof:

King Washington? Following the war, Washington quelled a potentially disastrous bid by some of his officers to declare him king. He then returned to Mount Vernon and the genteel life of a tobacco planter, only to be called out of retirement to preside at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. His great stature gave credibility to the call for a new government and insured his election as the first President of the United States. Keenly aware that his conduct as President would set precedents for the future of the office, he carefully weighed every step he took. He appointed Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton to his cabinet. Almost immediately, these two men began to quarrel over a wide array of issues, but Washington valued them for the balance they lent his cabinet. Literally the "Father of the Nation," Washington almost single-handedly created a new government -- shaping its institutions, offices, and political practices.
http://www.americanpresident.org/history/GeorgeWashington/

Logical
06-09-2006, 11:08 PM
Yes, I totally disregard the possibility. The colonies were semiautonomous until after the French and Indian War. The taxation to pay for the war enraged the colonists because they didn't get any representation and were regarded as colonists instead of bonafide English citizens in England. They regarded the crown as oppressive and that is why I doubt highly that ANY founding father would have considered having another one, even one of their choosing.Sorry but history shows this to be untrue. Please read the previous post.

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:10 PM
Jamie, their desire to blow up buildings and fly plans into skyscrapers started with a small seed of contempt for other human beings different than they are...

it started with a feeling of caring only about their religion (or nation as in your statement) and their interests and culminated in something terrible. I'm not saying yours will.

I am saying the seeds of terror are sown in statements like yours...

You are FOS, woman. Muslims today think like misguided Christians during the stinking Crusades. Hello? It's the 21st century for Peter's sake. Wake the hell up.

Logical
06-09-2006, 11:11 PM
Read them how you want, I really am beyond caring at this point. My country comes first. Period.

Just be careful with your philosophy, such absolutism is what leads to Khmeer Rouge and Nazi control and acts of supreme cruelty.

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 11:11 PM
Proof:

http://www.americanpresident.org/history/GeorgeWashington/

A call by some of his OFFICERS, not the founding fathers. Remember that his officers and soldiers regarded him with almost religious reverence for the most part.

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:11 PM
Sorry but history shows this to be untrue. Please read the previous post.
You know, you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. Your arrogance is going to do you in, if you aren't careful.

banyon
06-09-2006, 11:12 PM
Yes, I totally disregard the possibility. The colonies were semiautonomous until after the French and Indian War. The taxation to pay for the war enraged the colonists because they didn't get any representation and were regarded as colonists instead of bonafide English citizens in England. They regarded the crown as oppressive and that is why I doubt highly that ANY founding father would have considered having another one, even one of their choosing.

Hate to back up Vlad again, But Alexander Hamilton certainly doesn't fit your mold.

banyon
06-09-2006, 11:13 PM
You know, you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. Your arrogance is going to do you in, if you aren't careful.

great argument, Jebus. :rolleyes:

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:14 PM
Jamie, here are YOUR words. Do you not think that horrible human beings like OBL and AZ have uttered similar statements? I'll grant you your point of them not being nationalists but use religion instead.

His youth, makes his passion and myopia understandable. What's your excuse?

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 11:14 PM
great argument, Jebus. :rolleyes:

Why even respond to To...err..he who shall not be named.

Frazod
06-09-2006, 11:15 PM
Hate to back up Vlad again, But Alexander Hamilton certainly doesn't fit your mold.

Really? How so?

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 11:15 PM
[B]Jamie, their desire to blow up buildings and fly plans into skyscrapers started with a small seed of contempt for other human beings different than they are...[B]

it started with a feeling of caring only about their religion (or nation as in your statement) and their interests and culminated in something terrible. I'm not saying yours will.

I am saying the seeds of terror are sown in statements like yours...


Your problem is that you seem to think that I have contempt for human beigns (understandable to a degree given the harshness of my words, but not if you know me, which I pray you never will), but I don't, different or otherwise. I just believe in putting my people first, because they are MY people. I'm not going to put somebody else's kids before my own. Like wise, I am not going to put other people before my countrymen. I am not a globalist; I do not think we can or should all be one big nation. Too many differences, everyone wants something different. And I don't want anyone changing what I got, because it is the only place in the world where it is found.

So in short: my country comes first, because it is mine, and I like it that way.

banyon
06-09-2006, 11:16 PM
Why even respond to To...err..he who shall not be named.

Christ! Is that him too? motherf***er. i didn't know.

banyon
06-09-2006, 11:18 PM
Really? How so?

Hamilton was an advocate of a very strong executive, much more closely aligned with monarchy than republican democracy.

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:18 PM
Christ! ...

Yes?

Donger
06-09-2006, 11:18 PM
But Alexander Hamilton certainly doesn't fit your mold.

Oh? What 'mold' is that?

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 11:18 PM
You are FOS, woman. Muslims today think like misguided Christians during the stinking Crusades. Hello? It's the 21st century for Peter's sake. Wake the hell up.

Yes, some do. That is why I take issue with their religion...

and the Crusaders.

Raiderhader
06-09-2006, 11:19 PM
Just be careful with your philosophy, such absolutism is what leads to Khmeer Rouge and Nazi control and acts of supreme cruelty.


My philosophy is simple: don't f#ck with me and I won't f#ck with you. The two groups you named had completely different ideas.

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:19 PM
Hamilton was an advocate of a very strong executive, much more closely aligned with monarchy than republican democracy.

You overstate his position. Dramatically. Strong central government did not mean MONARCHY to Alex.

banyon
06-09-2006, 11:20 PM
Oh? What 'mold' is that?

the mold of a founding father who didn't long for monarchy. True, most didn't. But there was a minority, lead by Hamilton who did.

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:22 PM
Yes, some do. That is why I take issue with their religion...

and the Crusaders.

You realize the "some" you refer to, are the majority withim Islam, in the ME anyway....those leading the Muslim world today? I'm glad you take issue, but see beyond your hatred of Dubya. See the forest, instead of the trees.

Donger
06-09-2006, 11:22 PM
Hamilton was an advocate of a very strong executive, much more closely aligned with monarchy than republican democracy.

Nonsense. He believed in strong, centralized, federal government, and he was right.

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:22 PM
the mold of a founding father who didn't long for monarchy. True, most didn't. But there was a minority, lead by Hamilton who did.
You are misrepresenting his support for a strong central government, for support of Monarchy.

Logical
06-09-2006, 11:23 PM
Proof:

http://www.americanpresident.org/history/GeorgeWashington/

A call by some of his OFFICERS, not the founding fathers. Remember that his officers and soldiers regarded him with almost religious reverence for the most part.Now who is quibling

I said You don't think it was possible that some of our early forefathers would have preferred a country of our own with a King/Dictator/Emporer running it? There are always possibilities.

I did not say founding fathers, the military that fought the revolutionary war were our forefathers.

By the way you said


Originally Posted by CHIEF4EVER
They also had and still do have a Parliament. The royalty in England has been a mere figurehead for ages. The true power is wielded by the Parliament....the REPRESENTATIVES of the PEOPLE

Which was not true until the 1800s

Frazod
06-09-2006, 11:24 PM
Hamilton was an advocate of a very strong executive, much more closely aligned with monarchy than republican democracy.
Hamilton was an advocate of a strong central government. He NEVER advocated monarchy, although his critics claimed he did. Hamilton was demonized by his enemies, primarily Jefferson. And because he died relatively young, he never had a chance to rehabilitate his image or legacy.

Donger
06-09-2006, 11:25 PM
the mold of a founding father who didn't long for monarchy. True, most didn't. But there was a minority, lead by Hamilton who did.

No, he didn't. He saw the benefits of a strong, centralized federal government. He also saw the inherent flaws of a family-based monarchical government.

Unless, of course, something's come to light since I was in school. If so, please illuminate.

Logical
06-09-2006, 11:26 PM
Christ! Is that him too? motherf***er. i didn't know.Yes it is Voldemortom

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:26 PM
Hamilton was an advocate of a strong central government. He NEVER advocated monarchy, although his critics claimed he did. Hamilton was demonized by his enemies, primarily Jefferson. And because he died relatively young, he never had a chance to rehabilitate his image or legacy.

True words, from the Angry One.

banyon
06-09-2006, 11:27 PM
Here is Hamilton's plan for the Constitutional Convention in 1787:

Hamilton's plan
On June 18th Alexander Hamilton reported his own plan for the US government. In a marathon speech, Hamilton outlined a plan calling for a president and Senate that would be elected, but serve for life on "good behavior," and a House of Representatives directly elected for three year terms. It was largely based on the British form of government, which still had a number of admirers in America, and hinted of Monarchy. The plan was never seriously considered by the convention. Although the delegates had agreed that the debates of the convention were to be confidential, in later years, Hamilton's political foes leaked elements of his plan in an effort to cast Hamilton as a monarchist.

Hamilton left the convention soon after, only to return to sign the Constitution near the end of the Convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention#Hamilton.27s_plan


a lot closer to a monarch than what we have, anyway. I'm goin' to bed.

Donger
06-09-2006, 11:28 PM
True words, from the Angry One.

Yo, Jesus!? Already said that, dude!

I swear, you're always late. Late to the temple. Late to the Last Supper. And you shootin' were late pulling your feet up!

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 11:28 PM
Now who is quibbling

I am. NYAH THHHHBBBBTFFFTHHHHHHH!!!!! :p

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:28 PM
Here is Hamilton's plan for the Constitutional Convention in 1787:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention#Hamilton.27s_plan


a lot closer to a monarch than what we have, anyway. I'm goin' to bed.
His position changed, after the Constitution was ratified and the new government had evolved.

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:29 PM
Yo, Jesus!? Already said that, dude!

I swear, you're always late. Late to the temple. Late to the Last Supper. And you shootin' were late pulling your feet up!
Eh, go back. I bloody beat you to the punch in an earlier post. No problem though, son.

banyon
06-09-2006, 11:31 PM
His position changed, after the Constitution was ratified and the new government had evolved.

Right you f***ing idiot.

But AT THE TIME OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL F***ING CONVENTION, which hopefully, our Founding fathers attended, obviously , not all of them (namely F***ing Hamilton) agreed that monarchy was an evil.

Donger
06-09-2006, 11:32 PM
Here is Hamilton's plan for the Constitutional Convention in 1787:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention#Hamilton.27s_plan


a lot closer to a monarch than what we have, anyway. I'm goin' to bed.

Actually, it was closer to the parliamentary system that the UK had, NOT a monarchy.

banyon
06-09-2006, 11:32 PM
Actually, it was closer to the parliamentary system that the UK had, NOT a monarchy.

You elect your PM for Life?

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:33 PM
Right you f***ing idiot.

But AT THE TIME OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL F***ING CONVENTION, which hopefully, our Founding fathers attended, obviously , not all of them (namely F***ing Hamilton) agreed that monarchy was an evil.

Do you not understand the difference between a parliamentary government, and a monarchy?

Frazod
06-09-2006, 11:33 PM
His position changed, after the Constitution was ratified and the new government had evolved.

He was also a driving force behind the document's ratification.

I just finished Ron Chernow's biography of Hamilton. Talk about somebody who has been dissed by history. He was a giant among midgets.

Donger
06-09-2006, 11:33 PM
Eh, go back. I bloody beat you to the punch in an earlier post. No problem though, son.

Cool. Thanks a lot. Better to be beaten by the bloody punch than the bloody nails, I guess.

Donger
06-09-2006, 11:34 PM
You elect your PM for Life?

I don't have a PM.

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:34 PM
You elect your PM for Life?
The "for life" provision was negotiable for Hamilton. Read a biography of two, instead of cruising for internet porn.

Logical
06-09-2006, 11:34 PM
You can say what you want but these threads become infinitely more varied and interesting as they drift when in the lounge.

banyon
06-09-2006, 11:34 PM
Do you not understand the difference between a parliamentary government, and a monarchy?

When the president is elected for life, not so much.

Ask Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:36 PM
When the president is elected for life, not so much.

Ask Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

Read post #683.

banyon
06-09-2006, 11:36 PM
The "for life" provision was negotiable for Hamilton. Read a biography of two, instead of cruising for internet porn.

That is the position he chose to advocate in front of the Constitutional Convention (obviously because he believed it best). It's not as if he came up with the idea after a night of binge drinking and a game of pin the tail on the donkey.

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:37 PM
He was also a driving force behind the document's ratification.

I just finished Ron Chernow's biography of Hamilton. Talk about somebody who has been dissed by history. He was a giant among midgets.

Apparently, banyon is too busy to read biographies.

banyon
06-09-2006, 11:37 PM
I don't have a PM.

I thought you were dual, my bad.

Well, when you used to have a PM then.

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 11:38 PM
You can say what you want but these threads become infinitely more varied and interesting as they drift when in the lounge.

I agree.

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:38 PM
That is the position he chose to advocate in front of the Constitutional Convention (obviously because he believed it best). It's not as if he came up with the idea after a night of binge drinking and a game of pin the tail on the donkey.
He was a stinking Federalist. He stinking supported ratification. :banghead:

Read any of his Federalist Papers, per chance?

banyon
06-09-2006, 11:38 PM
OK I'm convinced. It only took me about 6 posts, but iggy for - ahem, shut your mouth -, and another message to the mods to get him re-banned. I'm sick of his unreflective, vitriolic bullsh**.

Donger
06-09-2006, 11:39 PM
I thought you were dual, my bad.

Well, when you used to have a PM then.

Just so we're clear, what do you mean by "PM"?

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:40 PM
OK I'm convinced. It only took me about 6 posts, but iggy for - ahem, shut your mouth -, and another message to the mods to get him re-banned. I'm sick of his unreflective, vitriolic bullsh**.

I'm not TC. Heh.

Donger
06-09-2006, 11:40 PM
He was a stinking Federalist. He stinking supported ratification. :banghead:

Read any of his Federalist Papers, per chance?

Whoa, Jesus! Easy boy! Gettin' all riled up. It's not like he's a banker or something.

Turn the other cheek, dude! TURN IT!

banyon
06-09-2006, 11:41 PM
Apologies to all except ___________. I have to go to sleep to get my stupid Continuing Legal Education class tommorrow or they could disbar me. I'll try to catch up tomorrow late.

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:43 PM
Whoa, Jesus! Easy boy! Gettin' all riled up. It's not like he's a banker or something.

Turn the other cheek, dude! TURN IT!

Study the whole "turn the other cheek" evolution.....you guys think it's a command to become timid. It is not....in my days, turning the other cheek was a reference to readying yourself for self-defense. You guys have screwed the pooch on that one.

Donger
06-09-2006, 11:44 PM
Study the whole "turn the other cheek" evolution.....you guys think it's a command to become timid. It is not....in my days, turning the other cheek was a reference to readying yourself for self-defense. You guys have screwed the pooch on that one.

ROFL

greg63
06-09-2006, 11:46 PM
-- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most wanted terrorist in Iraq,
is dead, according to an aide to Iraq's prime minister.

CNN.com's Breaking News E-Mail Alert

Now if we could just get Bin Ladin's head ona stick...

Logical
06-09-2006, 11:47 PM
Now if we could just get Bin Ladin's head ona stick...Would be nice.

Frazod
06-09-2006, 11:48 PM
That is the position he chose to advocate in front of the Constitutional Convention (obviously because he believed it best). It's not as if he came up with the idea after a night of binge drinking and a game of pin the tail on the donkey.

You do realize, don't you, that Hamilton fought against the British, right? He wasn't a fan. But he also wasn't a fan of France. While Jefferson (who was a backstabbing, cowardly, despicable piece of shit, BTW), was crawling in bed with the butchers of the French revolution, Hamilton (and Washington) favored neutrality in the war between England and France because he knew the United States, which had almost no standing army and no navy) didn't have the strength at the time to fight anybody, and also because England was our primary trading partner, and we needed money to pay off the war debt and build the country. Because of this, he was labeled a monarchist and even a British agent by the Republican press, which was controlled by Jefferson.

Hamilton may have had the occasional bad idea, but that's bound to happen when you have 100 times more ideas about things than everybody else. Most of them were very good.

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:48 PM
Would be nice.

Head on a stick, cowering and impotent in a cave along the Afgani-Pakistani border? Not much of difference.

Frazod
06-09-2006, 11:50 PM
Head on a stick, cowering and impotent in a cave along the Afgani-Pakistani border? Not much of difference.

Dude, MAKE IT HAPPEN.

:)

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:50 PM
ROFL

Those bankers in the temple subscribed to the whole "Jesus is a hippie" bullcrap too.

greg63
06-09-2006, 11:50 PM
Would be nice.

Yeah, I wonder what, if any, progress is being made toward that end.

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:51 PM
Dude, MAKE IT HAPPEN.

:)

You guys seem to have an aversion to torture. Dad and I? We don't, in the right circumstances. Heh.

Donger
06-09-2006, 11:55 PM
Yeah, I wonder what, if any, progress is being made toward that end.

If he's still alive, Predator is going to get him.

Donger
06-09-2006, 11:56 PM
Those bankers in the temple subscribed to the whole "Jesus is a hippie" bullcrap too.

It's the Birkenstocks, dude. Gotta give those up.

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:57 PM
It's the Birkenstocks, dude. Gotta give those up.

Hey. They are very comfortable. :shrug:

Donger
06-09-2006, 11:59 PM
Hey. They are very comfortable. :shrug:

You might want to invest in some steel-soles. They might come in handy later on.

greg63
06-10-2006, 12:14 AM
If he's still alive, Predator is going to get him.

Predator and Alien can fight over him.

Donger
06-10-2006, 12:24 AM
Predator and Alien can fight over him.

Seriously. I got close to one of those recently. I was stunned as to its capabilities, and they sure as sh*t didn't show me everything.

If that f*cker sticks his head out from the ground for more than a few hours (asuming he's still alive), he's dead.

Loki
06-10-2006, 01:01 AM
You are not going to get a hostile response or neg repped in fact I will give you postive rep for having the gut to stand up for yourself. I happen to be very particular about the English languae (Jamie can tell you I have always been that way) and I am not reading into DEnise's response what many folks are.

dude... gimmie a break. you've been up my a$$ ever since you decided to change your opinions 180 degrees.

you told me once you though i was a "reasonable" person on most issues. i used to think the same of you. now, i don't know what your deal is. you and i had an argument a while back and i called you a name. i also realized my mistake and made a public apology for it. apparently that wasn't good enough for you as you seem to hold a grudge. whatever. i tried. :shrug:



anyways, back to your comments about dreamers and farts.

you can have your opinions about the current situation in iraq, compare it to israel and call them reality all you want. the fact remains that our troops are over there and are making great headway wether or not you want to acknowledge it. AZ getting smoked was a great victory not only for our troops but also the iraqi people. it also shows that the intelligence we are getting over there is coming more frequently and also becoming rock solid. 40 more raids have been conducted with information gleaned from the AZ raid/bombing, and each of these raids have been similarly successful in their own right.
if none of this is indicative of things actually moving forward for our troops efforts and those of the iraqi gov't, police, defense forces and average "joe iraqi" i don't know what is going to convince you.

do i expect the violence to stop because AZ is toast? no. but i do think this is going to help ease the minds of the iraqi citizens to the point that intel will be that much more forthcoming and more progress can be made.
a lot of iraqi's may not like the US forces being there, but i am willing to bet that they dislike a$$holes like AZ indiscriminantly blowing up their churches, markets, medical clinics and school children even less. (a good muslim that...)
people usually find themselves emboldened when they see a bully put in his place. i don't see this fact being lost on the iraqi citizens when AZ is no longer going to be sawing off heads, destroying mosques or killing their kids.

Loki
06-10-2006, 01:23 AM
Iowahawk has Zarkman reporting on Paradise from beyond the grave:


http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2006/06/paradise_blows.html

lol... funny article.

go bowe
06-10-2006, 01:45 AM
That's debatable in and of itself GB. It's akin to saying Castro was legitimately elected. "Hey you!! Come here, Vote Hamas or die :bang:everything is debatable, but you are undoubtedly right that there was some degree of voter intimidation in some areas, but the elections were run by the palestinian authority
(read fatah), weren't they? (i don't know for sure)

and hamas as a political party has virtually been running the gaza strip for some time and they have created a favorable image of themselves among the rank and file palestinian voters...

and there was some degree of international observation of the election, wasn't there? i don't really recall, but i assume that there was...

everything i've seen seems to indicate that hamas just flat out won the elections...

which creates some very interesting problems for the u.s. because it forces us into the position of opposing a democratically elected government...

and that's pretty much where we are today, as best as i can make it out...

J Diddy
06-10-2006, 01:47 AM
everything is debatable, but you are undoubtedly right that there was some degree of voter intimidation in some areas, but the elections were run by the palestinian authority, read fatah, weren't they?

and hamas as a political party has virtually been running the gaza strip for some time and they have created a favorable image of themselves among the rank and file palestinian voters...

and there was some degree of internation observation of the election, wasn't there?

everything i've seen has indicated that hamas just flat out won the elections...

which creates some very interesting problems for the u.s. because it forces us into the position of opposing a democratically elected government...

and that's pretty much where we are today, as best as i can make it out...

umm, says the green bay fan, hehe

go bowe
06-10-2006, 01:57 AM
So long as my country isn't like that, I really couldn't give a damn. I am a nationalist, I care about MY country. F#ck everyone else. I'm sorry if that makes me a mean person, but f#ck everyone else. What I care about is my home land, the place where I intend to raise my family, and see my family raise their families. I want what is best for them. I could give a rat's ass about anyone else, unless it has some sort of impact on this country.quit whining, you loser liberal... :p :p :p

Guru
06-10-2006, 02:09 AM
Now if we could just get Bin Ladin's head ona stick...
:thumb:

Hows this? http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/sniper.gif

greg63
06-10-2006, 02:34 AM
:thumb:

Hows this? http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/sniper.gif

Oh yeah!!! :thumb:

BigOlChiefsfan
06-10-2006, 08:07 AM
Hitch in SLATE - A Good Days Work

http://www.slate.com/id/2143305/?nav=fo

Ugly Duck
06-10-2006, 09:01 AM
:clap: It is scary how much we agree on this subject.Thats because we're right. To quote Hannibal Lecter:

"Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing, ask: What is it in itself? What is its nature?"

stevieray
06-10-2006, 10:06 AM
What is its nature?"

Your nature is to claim you're right as to keep propigating opinion as fact.

That seems to be the nature of the detractors. Having to be right, claiming to be right, even though they're been wrong for years.

banyon
06-10-2006, 11:00 AM
You do realize, don't you, that Hamilton fought against the British, right? He wasn't a fan. But he also wasn't a fan of France. While Jefferson (who was a backstabbing, cowardly, despicable piece of shit, BTW), was crawling in bed with the butchers of the French revolution, Hamilton (and Washington) favored neutrality in the war between England and France because he knew the United States, which had almost no standing army and no navy) didn't have the strength at the time to fight anybody, and also because England was our primary trading partner, and we needed money to pay off the war debt and build the country. Because of this, he was labeled a monarchist and even a British agent by the Republican press, which was controlled by Jefferson.

Hamilton may have had the occasional bad idea, but that's bound to happen when you have 100 times more ideas about things than everybody else. Most of them were very good.

I was a little over dramatic in some of my posts last evening. I admire Hamilton greatly. From the looks of this post it seems like I admire Jefferson a wee bit more than you do, but all that I wanted to say was that there were at least a couple of founding fathers who though America should have its own king. Sure Hamilton came around, but his distate for the British doesn't mean he can't be a monarchist. Just because he didnt like their sh***y king, doesn't mean he didn't want one of his own, just not so lousy.

Jefferson favored (and maintained) our neutrality wrt England and France until 1808. Why would he lambaste others for doing the same thing he had done? :cuss: liberal media! :p

Taco John
06-10-2006, 11:14 AM
Your nature is to claim you're right as to keep propigating opinion as fact.

That seems to be the nature of the detractors. Having to be right, claiming to be right, even though they're been wrong for years.


I was wrong when I believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction...

patteeu
06-10-2006, 11:56 AM
Jamie, here are YOUR words. Do you not think that horrible human beings like OBL and AZ have uttered similar statements? I'll grant you your point of them not being nationalists but use religion instead.

So long as my country isn't like that, I really couldn't give a damn. I am a nationalist, I care about MY country. F#ck everyone else. I'm sorry if that makes me a mean person, but f#ck everyone else. What I care about is my home land, the place where I intend to raise my family, and see my family raise their families. I want what is best for them. I could give a rat's ass about anyone else, unless it has some sort of impact on this country.


Jamie the words you uttered are the type of words I would expect someone supporting absolute rule and sovereignty to make, not the words of a person raised on the principles of self determination.

Can we get a mod to merge the Logical and memyselfi accounts? I think they've become one at this point anyway.

patteeu
06-10-2006, 11:58 AM
Proof:



Proof that Washington was no Saddam Hussein. That was a fundamental part of my point earlier in the thread, thanks for making it for me.

patteeu
06-10-2006, 12:05 PM
OK I'm convinced. It only took me about 6 posts, but iggy for - ahem, shut your mouth -, and another message to the mods to get him re-banned. I'm sick of his unreflective, vitriolic bullsh**.

I don't believe that Jesus is TC. I don't see a similarity.

go bowe
06-10-2006, 12:12 PM
me either...

but unless it's part of his act, he appears to be a conservative... :p :p :p

WilliamTheIrish
06-10-2006, 12:13 PM
I thought ______ was Kotter.

WilliamTheIrish
06-10-2006, 12:15 PM
And I see this thread has taken an interesting turn. Now it's about the colonialists/founding fathers. Which is funny.
I think I could go archiving and find nearly the exact posts from the same people regarding this subject. (with the exception of banyon)

Frazod
06-10-2006, 12:39 PM
I was a little over dramatic in some of my posts last evening. I admire Hamilton greatly. From the looks of this post it seems like I admire Jefferson a wee bit more than you do, but all that I wanted to say was that there were at least a couple of founding fathers who though America should have its own king. Sure Hamilton came around, but his distate for the British doesn't mean he can't be a monarchist. Just because he didnt like their sh***y king, doesn't mean he didn't want one of his own, just not so lousy.

Jefferson favored (and maintained) our neutrality wrt England and France until 1808. Why would he lambaste others for doing the same thing he had done? :cuss: liberal media! :pAfter reading biographies of Adams, Washington and Hamilton, there is little to like about Jefferson. Washington felt so betrayed by him that he didn't speak to or correspond with Jefferson for the last two years of his life, and Jefferson did not attend Washington's funeral. Had certain of Jefferson's dealings with the French during his stint as Secretary of State been known to Washington, Jefferson might well have been charged with (and convicted of) treason. Jefferson was a pure elitist born to a life of privilege who masqueraded as a man of the people. The closest he ever came to combat during the Revolution was to run like hell from the British when he was governor of Virginia. He screwed his slaves, who bore his children who were then his slaves (an interesting quote from a French visitor to Monticello - "But I was amazed to see children as white as I was called blacks and treated as such"). This from Mr. All-Men-Are-Created-Equal. And he used others to do his bidding in viciously attacking his enemies, then pretended to know nothing about it. In short, he was the polar opposite of Hamilton, a self-made, hands-on, stand-up guy who served during the war, hated slavery and fought his own battles. Many of the policies and actions credited to Washington were, in fact, Hamilton's. Hamilton was Washington's most trusted and loyal advisor throughout the war and throughout his presidency. But critics of their Federalist leanings couldn't attack Washington, because he was was a national icon and was pretty much bulletproof, so all the abuse was heaped upon Hamilton instead.

Jefferson did redeem himself somewhat with certain actions of his presidency (primarily with the Louisiana purchase), and once he actually became president, he quickly realized that all those executive powers he had so strenuously railed against were pretty cool when he was the one calling the shots. But he was a snake and a hypocrit, and the more I learn about the man, the less respect I have for him. I have little doubt as to the reason why he burned all of his personal correspondence toward the end of his life - shame.

You really should read Chernow's biography of Hamilton. It is eye opening.

jlscorpio
06-10-2006, 12:42 PM
what the **** is it gonna take to get this moved to DC?

Bowser
06-10-2006, 12:45 PM
what the **** is it gonna take to get this moved to DC?

A mod that gives a shit.

go bowe
06-10-2006, 01:24 PM
A mod that gives a shit.ROFL ROFL ROFL

FAX
06-10-2006, 01:52 PM
A question for the informed.

Are there gay muslim terrorists? I mean, it is possible that Z was a latent homosexual and manifested violent tendencies due to intense sexual identity frustration.

Anyway, if he is a brokeback martyr, does he get male virgins in the afterlife?

FAX

patteeu
06-10-2006, 01:53 PM
I don't get why people who don't want to participate in this thread insist upon entering and complaining about the fact that it's here. It is currently squeezing the "Bob Saget Rap Video." thread off the front page of the Lounge. Is that what all this fuss is about? I wish I had broadband so I could check that sucker out. Must be some pretty good stuff.

The funny thing is that every time one of them posts here, it pulls this thread back up to the top to keep it alive that much longer.

Frazod
06-10-2006, 01:54 PM
I don't get why people who don't want to participate in this thread insist upon entering and complaining about the fact that it's here. It is currently squeezing the "Bob Saget Rap Video." thread off the front page of the Lounge. Is that what all this fuss is about? I wish I had broadband so I could check that sucker out. Must be some pretty good stuff.

The funny thing is that every time one of them posts here, it pulls this thread back up to the top to keep it alive that much longer.

One thread like this on the front page isn't a big deal.

15 threads like this on the front page SUCKS.

patteeu
06-10-2006, 01:55 PM
A question for the informed.

Are there gay muslim terrorists? I mean, it is possible that Z was a latent homosexual and manifested violent tendencies due to intense sexual identity frustration.

Anyway, if he is a brokeback martyr, does he get male virgins in the afterlife?

FAX

ROFL

Frazod
06-10-2006, 02:02 PM
I don't know if it waw commented upon yesterday, and I'm not trudging through several hundred Jamie/DEnise bitchfest posts to find out, but I found a great deal of satisfaction in the fact that Zarqawi was still alive when U.S. troops showed up, and the last thing he was American soldiers, and he died knowing we f#cking nailed him.

patteeu
06-10-2006, 02:07 PM
One thread like this on the front page isn't a big deal.

15 threads like this on the front page SUCKS.

15 on the front page was a rarity, but even if we stipulate that that's the case, it doesn't explain why there have been several people in this thread whining about the fact that this lone thread based on news that is of broad interest hasn't been sent to DC.

FAX
06-10-2006, 02:08 PM
I don't know if it waw commented upon yesterday, and I'm not trudging through several hundred Jamie/DEnise bitchfest posts to find out, but I found a great deal of satisfaction in the fact that Zarqawi was still alive when U.S. troops showed up, and the last thing he was American soldiers, and he died knowing we f#cking nailed him.

I liked that too, Mr. frazod.

They mentioned on the news that he said something just before he died that was unintelligible. I hope it was something like, "Dang, that stings."

You know, I wish we had some 500 pound pork and bean bombs. No better way to get your point across to a gay muslim terrorist than to lay a good sized pork and bean bomb on his safe house.

FAX

patteeu
06-10-2006, 02:09 PM
I don't know if it waw commented upon yesterday, and I'm not trudging through several hundred Jamie/DEnise bitchfest posts to find out, but I found a great deal of satisfaction in the fact that Zarqawi was still alive when U.S. troops showed up, and the last thing he was American soldiers, and he died knowing we f#cking nailed him.

I heard that too and if it's true its fantastic. I think there might have been confusion in the reporting though and I wouldn't be surprised if it was just Iraqi police on the scene when he died instead of American soldiers.

Frazod
06-10-2006, 02:12 PM
15 on the front page was a rarity, but even if we stipulate that that's the case, it doesn't explain why there have been several people in this thread whining about the fact that this lone thread based on news that is of broad interest hasn't been sent to DC.

Right before DC was created, I'd say 15 or so was the NORM. And that was in the middle of friggin football season.

There was a reason DC was created, and I strongly supported its creation and continued existence. The people complaining about this thread know that some of the politicos will use this thread as an excuse to post other policital threads, pushing the envelope as they always do.

Logical
06-10-2006, 03:27 PM
Proof that Washington was no Saddam Hussein. That was a fundamental part of my point earlier in the thread, thanks for making it for me.

As far as I can recall you and I had no discussion last night after that one response from you. The proof in the quote was that some of our forefathers wanted Washington to be king. I was debating with Chief4ever at the time who claimed there was no way any of them wanted a King.

Logical
06-10-2006, 03:29 PM
Right before DC was created, I'd say 15 or so was the NORM. And that was in the middle of friggin football season.

There was a reason DC was created, and I strongly supported its creation and continued existence. The people complaining about this thread know that some of the politicos will use this thread as an excuse to post other policital threads, pushing the envelope as they always do.
I think you are exagerrating Tim. I will stipulate seeing 7 or 8 would not have been unusual, but 15?

Maybe you mean 15 NFTs, that seems possible.

memyselfI
06-10-2006, 03:32 PM
what the **** is it gonna take to get this moved to DC?

More :deevee: from people too immature to skip over or ignore the thread...

stevieray
06-10-2006, 03:38 PM
More :deevee: from people too immature to skip over or ignore the thread...

Ironic..considering that some here read and post any and everything they don't like about Bush.

don't like it? don't read about it, right?

:shrug:

Logical
06-10-2006, 03:38 PM
what the **** is it gonna take to get this moved to DC?
Is this thread ruining your .15 post per day experience. You do realize you wasted 6 days posts with this complaint post.ROFL

patteeu
06-10-2006, 03:59 PM
As far as I can recall you and I had no discussion last night after that one response from you. The proof in the quote was that some of our forefathers wanted Washington to be king. I was debating with Chief4ever at the time who claimed there was no way any of them wanted a King.

I figured out that you were probably posting in response to Chief4ever after I posted that, but it fit the brief exchange we had last night too so I left it.

Baby Lee
06-10-2006, 04:08 PM
Jefferson was a pure elitist born to a life of privilege who masqueraded as a man of the people.
Whoa! Frankie's signature flashback!!


ROFL ROFL

vailpass
06-10-2006, 05:04 PM
15 on the front page was a rarity, but even if we stipulate that that's the case, it doesn't explain why there have been several people in this thread whining about the fact that this lone thread based on news that is of broad interest hasn't been sent to DC.

I'm among those that feel this thread deteriorated to DC quality.
Why? I'll be point-blank honest, speaking as a visitor/guest on your board.

Because it went from a broad-based discussion of the post topic down to the usual 4-5 posters, especially Vlad and meme, spouting the same tired rhetoric with which they fill DC.

In my observation when meme enters a thread the vast majority of CP members are turned off and want her to go away. Her political views, especially as they concern America, are distasteful at best. Meme's presence in a thread can best be described by the picture Big Daddy posts when he refers to her.

This thread is now dominated by the DC Few and as such needs to go to DC. (DC Few is defined as those CP posters who would remain if football and all other topics but politics were removed from the board.)