Not A Story for The New York Times

[Polystyrate]

You dont hear about our soldiers because more often then not we are in the position of dominance, or in situations that we put ourselves into. Or better yet if you believe our soldiers are being persecuted, write it up, and send it too fox maybe they will run it as a story. O and thank you so much for defining my belief structure for me, I was totally lost and confused until you pointed out i was a spineless, tree hugging, democrat. The world is so much better off when people define other peoples beliefs and values for them, good game.

 

[Polystyrate]

Excelent retort. Atleast you havent subverted to name calling just because someone dissagrees with you.

 

[Polystyrate]

sure, i'll pint all over it. Im not a democrat, never once hugged a tree, I have a spine, and i am an adult who barely ever cries. Need any further elaboration?

 

[Polystyrate]

I am an independant, but I registered as a republican so I could vote in the primaries. As for why I'm independant, because 90% of the time both the red and blues are full of sh*t, or mostly only concerened about drawing and defending partisan lines.

 

[dilloduck]

I am an independant, but I registered as a republican so I could vote in the primaries. As for why I'm independant, because 90% of the time both the red and blues are full of sh*t, or mostly only concerened about drawing and defending partisan lines.

So which candidate you going for in 2008?

 

[Polystyrate]

Didnt you already ask me this question?
Here is the same answer as last time. I dont know who I am going to vote for until I know who is running, then I'll do a little research so who I like and go from there.

 

[dilloduck]

Didnt you already ask me this question?
Here is the same answer as last time. I dont know who I am going to vote for until I know who is running, then I'll do a little research so who I like and go from there.

as an independent, why don't you do your own research and not be dependent on the GOP or Dems to come up with one for you?

 

[sitarro]

http://www.faluninfo.net/
http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/HumanRightsForAll.asp
Theres lots and lots more, just google human rights or check out amnesty international. How can we convince people that we are hear to help when we constantly side with people who are doing the things we say we are against?

Are you saying we should have gone up against a couple dozen countries at once or just sat back and done nothing like the Nimrods at the UN ?

Are you actually trying to justify dropping nuclear weapons on populated civilian targets as a means of "strategy"? Under that same logic suicide bombing poll lines is just a "strategy" for the insurgents to stop voting. Dont justify mass murder just because it was your team that did it.

Yes I am. It's so very easy to ignore the diference in times and just be horrified by the action of a President that was losing tens of thousands of his male citizens to a war that had lasted years . The Japanese forced the hand a lot like Saddam asked for this action that is taking place now . It is so very naive to "not think" the way you do . You can't judge by todays standards , you can learn from what has been done in the past but you are a fool to try to second guess . The same is done with slavery , we can't believe that could happen today but back then it was pretty standard , we have learned from past mistakes . Just as today we are fighting in a more humane way than wipng out of entire cities . I would rather see Falujah disappear than one of our guys lose their lives but the times wouldn't allow it . Our compassion is causing more loses on our side , it isn't the way a war should be fought, it causes it to go on longer than wasting the dump and scaring the shit out of these pussies that cut the heads off of innocent citizens or blow themselves up for some book.
The Japanese had their own suicide bombers , they were called kamikazi pilots , I haven't heard of another one of those sense Hiroshima .

One other thing . . . it will always get you back when you play spelling monitor of the board , on your very next post you mispelled your own political classification .
Most people are typing fast and will make plenty of grammatical and spelling mistakes . . . these aren't term papers , they jare just trying to get their message across .

 

[theim]

http://www.faluninfo.net/
http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/HumanRightsForAll.asp
Theres lots and lots more, just google human rights or check out amnesty international. How can we convince people that we are hear to help when we constantly side with people who are doing the things we say we are against?

Are you actually trying to justify dropping nuclear weapons on populated civilian targets as a means of "strategy"? Under that same logic suicide bombing poll lines is just a "strategy" for the insurgents to stop voting. Dont justify mass murder just because it was your team that did it.

You know, what do you want us to say? "Yeah, we shouldn't have dropped that thing and instead let MILLIONS of Americans die trying to invade the island" Nice, genius.

I'm sure if Truman had laser guided munitions and sattelites that can read over a guy's shoulder from orbit he would have used them, but he didn't.

 

[elephant]

Nor will many people vote to impose religious law on themselves.

The editor should have cut this sentence. People LOVE their religions. It seems many people would be happy to live by the words of whatever religious book they believe. This is exactly one of the reasons that people have killed each other since the beginning of civilization. Not only do they want religious law they want their religious laws for everyone else.

The whole editorial was weak, but this was a glaring moment of idiocy. I will get to some others later.

 

[Merlin1047]

The editor should have cut this sentence. People LOVE their religions. It seems many people would be happy to live by the words of whatever religious book they believe. This is exactly one of the reasons that people have killed each other since the beginning of civilization. Not only do they want religious law they want their religious laws for everyone else.

The whole editorial was weak, but this was a glaring moment of idiocy. I will get to some others later.

And you arrived at this concusion by studying what sources? If all you have is your own personal opinion, that's fine. Just don't try to pass it off as fact.

The history of any current democracy does not support your assertion. If what you claim is true, then there would be many more theocracies than currently exists in the world.

Methinks thou art simply another lib with an axe to grind against religion.

 

[elephant]

And you arrived at this concusion by studying what sources? If all you have is your own personal opinion, that's fine. Just don't try to pass it off as fact.

The history of any current democracy does not support your assertion. If what you claim is true, then there would be many more theocracies than currently exists in the world.

Methinks thou art simply another lib with an axe to grind against religion.

Prove the history of current democracies goes against what I'm saying. You cannot because 1) it is just your opinion and 2) I am correct. How about a couple of good examples of how I am wrong? That would be a good start.

Hopefully you have done some statistical anaylsis that clearly shows a relationship between current number of nations organised as theocracies and the number of people who love there religions enough to fight, kill and die for them? It seems like a really valid hypothesis. Maybe you are just working from a primary source historical aspect. That is good stuff as well. I would love to see your work. Maybe you can give me the Library of Congress catalog numbers of some of your more recent works. I'll try to pick them up this week.

P.S. I am the elephant - I make W. look like a Kennedy at a Red Sox party.

 

[Annie]

Prove the history of current democracies goes against what I'm saying. You cannot because 1) it is just your opinion and 2) I am correct. How about a couple of good examples of how I am wrong? That would be a good start.

Hopefully you have done some statistical anaylsis that clearly shows a relationship between current number of nations organised as theocracies and the number of people who love there religions enough to fight, kill and die for them? It seems like a really valid hypothesis. Maybe you are just working from a primary source historical aspect. That is good stuff as well. I would love to see your work. Maybe you can give me the Library of Congress catalog numbers of some of your more recent works. I'll try to pick them up this week.

P.S. I am the elephant - I make W. look like a Kennedy at a Red Sox party.

I can't rep you currently. Too bad, I wanted to say that you are an asshat. Whoops, guess I did. (In case this is lost on you, why should anyone bother proving anything, since you don't?) :firing: