Romney: Made In The USA Bitches

[squeeze berry]

has he? which race?

please... rant and rave and show us some more of that obama-deranged lunacy that's fired up the rabid right for the past 3 plus years.

my god are you ever stupid

You should ban yourself

Not seeing any examples yet. Are they coming soon?

I would ask you if you were playing dumb, but I know it's not an act.

There have been plenty of threads about that subject on USMB try reading them

PS here is one example. Try to dodge this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...atio_n_1704406.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

 

[kaz]

So the attack on the USS Cole wasn't terrorism?

The bombing of the barracks in Lebanon wasn't terrorism?

I'm not certain he's the confused one here.

No, they weren't terrorism. You have to be so mind numbingly specific with liberals, and then it isn't enough. But I'll waste one post actually making an argument and then I'll give it up in the next one when you still don't get it.

Terrorism is an attack which serves no purpose but to instill ... wait for it ... terror. It has no military value and no purpose other than the psychological impact of the attack. I can't believe I have to explain that.

Bin Laden was given to me as an example asking why his attack was not terrorism against the Russians in Afghanistan and it was against the US in NY. My answer did involve military attack against Russians and civilian attack against the US, so you took it to the mind numbing extreme I didn't say or mean that I was saying all attacks against the military are not terrorism and no attack against civilians are not terrorism. So, to address your examples, which if you give lucid replies to I will say serious and if you don't I'm not going to play catch the mouse with you.

Afghanistan - They were attacks against the Russian military who had invaded Afghanistan. Bin Laden was there fighting them to repel the invasion. A clear military objective. Tot terrorism.

NY - Bin Laden blew up a civilian office building in NY and murdered civilians. No military objective, no purpose but instilling terror. Terrorism.

Indians attacking whites. First, Joe in his bigotry lumps all Indians together as if they were the same, they weren't. But on the attacks against white civilians, the Indians who fought them were killing people who they viewed as invading their territory to drive them out. It was a clear military objective.

Lebanon and the Cole were attacks also on the military in a region of the world the people who attacked them felt did not belong there. They were for a purpose, not terrorism.

Attacks on the military are almost always not terrorism. The one I could think of that could be argued was the radical Muslim who opened fire in the cafeteria in North Carolina, it's hard to see a military objective in that.

Attacks on civilians can be, it depends ... wait for it ... why they did it. Note I did not argue right or wrong, just whether it's actually "terrorism" or not. Seriously, I can't believe you guys don't know what "terrorism" is. Then again, sadly I can believe it. Terrorism for liberals is like all words, the definition of the word changes based on what suits the interests of liberalism.

There you have it, folks! The USS Cole, the bombings in Lebanon? Those weren't terrorism.

you heard it here first.

What about addressing my argument rather than just flaunting your ignorance?

 

[kaz]

Things I've learned on this board (changing daily!)
1. The 2010 elections were an electoral college landslide for Republicans (Rottweiler)
2. South Africa was a "prosperous" and "civilized" country under Apartheid. (Uncensored)
3. Willowtree is going "to vote for Romney because he's white."

On #3, are you really that stupid that you can't recognize when someone is mocking you or are you a dick who does know it and takes it seriously to be offended? I just pointed out liberals like to do that.

It's a quote. I can't be held accountable for other people's stupid, racist comments.

No, but you can be held accountable for being too butt stupid to recognize sarcasm. I award you you your due recognition.

On #2, not sure what you were disagreeing with.

Oh, of course you can't. Is it really hard to understand that Apartheid was not civilized?

Not getting points is a core competence of yours, isn't it?

 

[8537]

No, they weren't terrorism. You have to be so mind numbingly specific with liberals, and then it isn't enough. But I'll waste one post actually making an argument and then I'll give it up in the next one when you still don't get it.

Terrorism is an attack which serves no purpose but to instill ... wait for it ... terror. It has no military value and no purpose other than the psychological impact of the attack. I can't believe I have to explain that.

Bin Laden was given to me as an example asking why his attack was not terrorism against the Russians in Afghanistan and it was against the US in NY. My answer did involve military attack against Russians and civilian attack against the US, so you took it to the mind numbing extreme I didn't say or mean that I was saying all attacks against the military are not terrorism and no attack against civilians are not terrorism. So, to address your examples, which if you give lucid replies to I will say serious and if you don't I'm not going to play catch the mouse with you.

Afghanistan - They were attacks against the Russian military who had invaded Afghanistan. Bin Laden was there fighting them to repel the invasion. A clear military objective. Tot terrorism.

NY - Bin Laden blew up a civilian office building in NY and murdered civilians. No military objective, no purpose but instilling terror. Terrorism.

Indians attacking whites. First, Joe in his bigotry lumps all Indians together as if they were the same, they weren't. But on the attacks against white civilians, the Indians who fought them were killing people who they viewed as invading their territory to drive them out. It was a clear military objective.

Lebanon and the Cole were attacks also on the military in a region of the world the people who attacked them felt did not belong there. They were for a purpose, not terrorism.

Attacks on the military are almost always not terrorism. The one I could think of that could be argued was the radical Muslim who opened fire in the cafeteria in North Carolina, it's hard to see a military objective in that.

Attacks on civilians can be, it depends ... wait for it ... why they did it. Note I did not argue right or wrong, just whether it's actually "terrorism" or not. Seriously, I can't believe you guys don't know what "terrorism" is. Then again, sadly I can believe it. Terrorism for liberals is like all words, the definition of the word changes based on what suits the interests of liberalism.

There you have it, folks! The USS Cole, the bombings in Lebanon? Those weren't terrorism.

you heard it here first.

What about addressing my argument rather than just flaunting your ignorance?

Your "argument" as it were is simply that bombing military targets is not terrorism.

I feel no need to argue such a point. It's absurd.

 

[8537]

On #3, are you really that stupid that you can't recognize when someone is mocking you or are you a dick who does know it and takes it seriously to be offended? I just pointed out liberals like to do that.

It's a quote. I can't be held accountable for other people's stupid, racist comments.

No, but you can be held accountable for being too butt stupid to recognize sarcasm. I award you you your due recognition.

Umm, he's not being sarcastic. Read more of his posts. Then read Rabbi's posts about how black people can't lead. The two peas are in the same pod.

On #2, not sure what you were disagreeing with.

Oh, of course you can't. Is it really hard to understand that Apartheid was not civilized?

Not getting points is a core competence of yours, isn't it?[/QUOTE]

So, maybe we can add you to the list. Do YOU think Apartheid is civilized?

 

[kaz]

No, they weren't terrorism. You have to be so mind numbingly specific with liberals, and then it isn't enough. But I'll waste one post actually making an argument and then I'll give it up in the next one when you still don't get it.

Terrorism is an attack which serves no purpose but to instill ... wait for it ... terror. It has no military value and no purpose other than the psychological impact of the attack. I can't believe I have to explain that.

Bin Laden was given to me as an example asking why his attack was not terrorism against the Russians in Afghanistan and it was against the US in NY. My answer did involve military attack against Russians and civilian attack against the US, so you took it to the mind numbing extreme I didn't say or mean that I was saying all attacks against the military are not terrorism and no attack against civilians are not terrorism. So, to address your examples, which if you give lucid replies to I will say serious and if you don't I'm not going to play catch the mouse with you.

Afghanistan - They were attacks against the Russian military who had invaded Afghanistan. Bin Laden was there fighting them to repel the invasion. A clear military objective. Tot terrorism.

NY - Bin Laden blew up a civilian office building in NY and murdered civilians. No military objective, no purpose but instilling terror. Terrorism.

Indians attacking whites. First, Joe in his bigotry lumps all Indians together as if they were the same, they weren't. But on the attacks against white civilians, the Indians who fought them were killing people who they viewed as invading their territory to drive them out. It was a clear military objective.

Lebanon and the Cole were attacks also on the military in a region of the world the people who attacked them felt did not belong there. They were for a purpose, not terrorism.

Attacks on the military are almost always not terrorism. The one I could think of that could be argued was the radical Muslim who opened fire in the cafeteria in North Carolina, it's hard to see a military objective in that.

Attacks on civilians can be, it depends ... wait for it ... why they did it. Note I did not argue right or wrong, just whether it's actually "terrorism" or not. Seriously, I can't believe you guys don't know what "terrorism" is. Then again, sadly I can believe it. Terrorism for liberals is like all words, the definition of the word changes based on what suits the interests of liberalism.

Your "argument" as it were is simply that bombing military targets is not terrorism.

I feel no need to argue such a point. It's absurd.

You also don't have to argue that point because it's not what I said, see red. See argument in red. Anyway, you've proven my point also that you're a dumb ass who can't follow a simple argument and it's a waste of time to try, so I'm giving it up. See my point in blue.

 

[kaz]

So, maybe we can add you to the list. Do YOU think Apartheid is civilized?

No one said it was, you don't understand the discussion

 

[8537]

So, maybe we can add you to the list. Do YOU think Apartheid is civilized?

No one said it was, you don't understand the discussion

I think I understand the discussion just fine, thanks. The claim was made that South Africa was civilized under Apartheid.

I'd love for you and the rest of your party to run on that platform since it's obviously an idea you defend.

 

[JoeB131]

I forget what a hoot you are. I am out of time for fun today. Granted I mentioned military and civilians, but... Oh forget it. Let's go with that.

Please scamper off with your tail between your legs like a nice whipped doggie...

OMG, too funny. Eight year old playground, pretty much your standard fare. I was trying to be polite and not just "disappear." Has that ever worked? Telling people they have to say on a message board with you until you give them leave?

No, actually, what would impress me is you kind of admitting that you are drawing an artificial distinction between "terrorism" and "warfare" when the only real distinction is whether you are on the receiving end of it or not.

Not that I'd ever think you were man enough for that sort of honesty...

 

[8537]

No, they weren't terrorism. You have to be so mind numbingly specific with liberals, and then it isn't enough. But I'll waste one post actually making an argument and then I'll give it up in the next one when you still don't get it.

Terrorism is an attack which serves no purpose but to instill ... wait for it ... terror. It has no military value and no purpose other than the psychological impact of the attack. I can't believe I have to explain that.

Bin Laden was given to me as an example asking why his attack was not terrorism against the Russians in Afghanistan and it was against the US in NY. My answer did involve military attack against Russians and civilian attack against the US, so you took it to the mind numbing extreme I didn't say or mean that I was saying all attacks against the military are not terrorism and no attack against civilians are not terrorism. So, to address your examples, which if you give lucid replies to I will say serious and if you don't I'm not going to play catch the mouse with you.

Afghanistan - They were attacks against the Russian military who had invaded Afghanistan. Bin Laden was there fighting them to repel the invasion. A clear military objective. Tot terrorism.

NY - Bin Laden blew up a civilian office building in NY and murdered civilians. No military objective, no purpose but instilling terror. Terrorism.

Indians attacking whites. First, Joe in his bigotry lumps all Indians together as if they were the same, they weren't. But on the attacks against white civilians, the Indians who fought them were killing people who they viewed as invading their territory to drive them out. It was a clear military objective.

Lebanon and the Cole were attacks also on the military in a region of the world the people who attacked them felt did not belong there. They were for a purpose, not terrorism.

Attacks on the military are almost always not terrorism. The one I could think of that could be argued was the radical Muslim who opened fire in the cafeteria in North Carolina, it's hard to see a military objective in that.

Attacks on civilians can be, it depends ... wait for it ... why they did it. Note I did not argue right or wrong, just whether it's actually "terrorism" or not. Seriously, I can't believe you guys don't know what "terrorism" is. Then again, sadly I can believe it. Terrorism for liberals is like all words, the definition of the word changes based on what suits the interests of liberalism.

Your "argument" as it were is simply that bombing military targets is not terrorism.

I feel no need to argue such a point. It's absurd.

You also don't have to argue that point because it's not what I said, see red. See argument in red. Anyway, you've proven my point also that you're a dumb ass who can't follow a simple argument and it's a waste of time to try, so I'm giving it up. See my point in blue.

Your "argument" is absurd. The USS Cole and the bombings in Lebanon weren't terrorism? That's funny.

Please, add that to your platform right next to the claim that Apartheid was civilized.

 

[JoeB131]

No, they weren't terrorism. You have to be so mind numbingly specific with liberals, and then it isn't enough. But I'll waste one post actually making an argument and then I'll give it up in the next one when you still don't get it.

Terrorism is an attack which serves no purpose but to instill ... wait for it ... terror. It has no military value and no purpose other than the psychological impact of the attack. I can't believe I have to explain that.

Bin Laden was given to me as an example asking why his attack was not terrorism against the Russians in Afghanistan and it was against the US in NY. My answer did involve military attack against Russians and civilian attack against the US, so you took it to the mind numbing extreme I didn't say or mean that I was saying all attacks against the military are not terrorism and no attack against civilians are not terrorism. So, to address your examples, which if you give lucid replies to I will say serious and if you don't I'm not going to play catch the mouse with you.

I think the problem here is that you are drawing artificial distinctions as to whether an attack has actual military value. A psychological attack can be just as valuable militarily as one that destroys military assets, if not more so.

Examples- The fire bombing of Dresden in WWII, or the Nuclear attacks against Japan. By the definition you've set down, these would be terrorism, not warfare.

Afghanistan - They were attacks against the Russian military who had invaded Afghanistan. Bin Laden was there fighting them to repel the invasion. A clear military objective. Tot terrorism.

Except the Russians didn't "invade" Afghanistan, they were invited in the UN recognized government. Of course that government had some funny ideas about secular rule and teaching girls how to read, so the Muslim extremists weren't going to have any of that at all.

NY - Bin Laden blew up a civilian office building in NY and murdered civilians. No military objective, no purpose but instilling terror. Terrorism.

Or that they realized that the destruction of something called a "World Trade Center" would have devastating effects on our economy.

Indians attacking whites. First, Joe in his bigotry lumps all Indians together as if they were the same, they weren't. But on the attacks against white civilians, the Indians who fought them were killing people who they viewed as invading their territory to drive them out. It was a clear military objective.

Wow. lying about my statement... why does this not surprise me. Actually, it's unlikely that a lot of these attacks had any such objective strategically. More often then not, these were people raiding for supplies, women and simple revenge. And sometimes they were paid by foreign powers to stir up trouble. For instance, the French in the French and Indian War (An extention of the Seven Year War in Europe) or the British in the War of 1812.

So again, how was the British arming Techumsah any more or less "not terrorism" than Reagan arming Bin Laden.


Le

banon and the Cole were attacks also on the military in a region of the world the people who attacked them felt did not belong there. They were for a purpose, not terrorism.

Attacks on the military are almost always not terrorism. The one I could think of that could be argued was the radical Muslim who opened fire in the cafeteria in North Carolina, it's hard to see a military objective in that.

No, that was just a crazy person. But I know you guys need fear to get us to go along with the gag.

For the Cole, what military objective was acheived by damaging it? It wasn't engaged in any military operation nor did damaging it really change our policy. So by your definition that terrorism is to strike fear, it would be terrorism.

Attacks on civilians can be, it depends ... wait for it ... why they did it. Note I did not argue right or wrong, just whether it's actually "terrorism" or not. Seriously, I can't believe you guys don't know what "terrorism" is. Then again, sadly I can believe it. Terrorism for liberals is like all words, the definition of the word changes based on what suits the interests of liberalism.

I think your screed just shows the artificialness of the term.

 

[Unkotare]

And then we see that same black man destroy at least 20 years of racial progress.

Right. And how did he do that, exactly?

Obama has certainly used his position of authority to give favorable treatment to his own race.

that is racism my friend

What 'race' is that?

 

[Unkotare]

[

Except the Russians didn't "invade" Afghanistan, .

What a ******* surprise that a loon like you would be so far left as to play the apologist for the USSR. You're a ******* whack-job.

 

[Unkotare]

[ you can't be a racists of a race you belong to.

Of course you can. Don't be stupid, you lefty drone.

 

[kaz]

So, maybe we can add you to the list. Do YOU think Apartheid is civilized?

No one said it was, you don't understand the discussion

I think I understand the discussion just fine, thanks. The claim was made that South Africa was civilized under Apartheid.

I'd love for you and the rest of your party to run on that platform since it's obviously an idea you defend.

Word games. South Africa was "civilized" when they had "Apartheid" ergo Apartheid was civilized. Actually saying that a country is "civilized" does not imply that each and every aspect of that country was civilized. As I said, you're playing word games. And poorly. The United States was civilized when we had slavery, but slavery was definitely not civilized. If you ever want to have an actual grown up discussion, let me know.

 

[kaz]

Your "argument" is absurd. The USS Cole and the bombings in Lebanon weren't terrorism? That's funny

No, actually, what would impress me is you kind of admitting that you are drawing an artificial distinction between "terrorism" and "warfare" when the only real distinction is whether you are on the receiving end of it or not.

What you two simpletons don't understand is that "terrorism" doesn't mean "bad." It has an actual definition. What's funny is how you think you're the intelligent party when you can't understand words past that they mean "good" or "bad."

Bombing the Cole was bad (it was), terrorism is bad, ergo bombing the Cole was terrorism. It's as deep as it goes. Actually shooting a missile at a military ship in the middle east has a clear military objective. Terrorism, by definition, doesn't. It wasn't terrorism, it was a military attack.

Here's a total mind **** for you. The attack on the Cole wasn't terrorism, but it was still "bad." I mean wow, you two will be trying to figure that one out for months...

 

[bodecea]

Your "argument" is absurd. The USS Cole and the bombings in Lebanon weren't terrorism? That's funny

No, actually, what would impress me is you kind of admitting that you are drawing an artificial distinction between "terrorism" and "warfare" when the only real distinction is whether you are on the receiving end of it or not.

What you two simpletons don't understand is that "terrorism" doesn't mean "bad." It has an actual definition. What's funny is how you think you're the intelligent party when you can't understand words past that they mean "good" or "bad."

Bombing the Cole was bad (it was), terrorism is bad, ergo bombing the Cole was terrorism. It's as deep as it goes. Actually shooting a missile at a military ship in the middle east has a clear military objective. Terrorism, by definition, doesn't. It wasn't terrorism, it was a military attack.

Here's a total mind **** for you. The attack on the Cole wasn't terrorism, but it was still "bad." I mean wow, you two will be trying to figure that one out for months...

Oh really?

 

[kaz]

I think I understand the discussion just fine, thanks. The claim was made that South Africa was civilized under Apartheid.

I'd love for you and the rest of your party to run on that platform since it's obviously an idea you defend.

I have to hate every aspect of South Africa or I am defending Apartheid. Got it.

 

[kaz]

Your "argument" is absurd. The USS Cole and the bombings in Lebanon weren't terrorism? That's funny

No, actually, what would impress me is you kind of admitting that you are drawing an artificial distinction between "terrorism" and "warfare" when the only real distinction is whether you are on the receiving end of it or not.

What you two simpletons don't understand is that "terrorism" doesn't mean "bad." It has an actual definition. What's funny is how you think you're the intelligent party when you can't understand words past that they mean "good" or "bad."

Bombing the Cole was bad (it was), terrorism is bad, ergo bombing the Cole was terrorism. It's as deep as it goes. Actually shooting a missile at a military ship in the middle east has a clear military objective. Terrorism, by definition, doesn't. It wasn't terrorism, it was a military attack.

Here's a total mind **** for you. The attack on the Cole wasn't terrorism, but it was still "bad." I mean wow, you two will be trying to figure that one out for months...

Oh really?

Rather than making me repeat the discussion why don't you read the last couple pages so you know what my argument is.

 

[kaz]

Terrorism is an attack which serves no purpose but to instill ... wait for it ... terror. It has no military value and no purpose other than the psychological impact of the attack

A psychological attack can be just as valuable militarily as one that destroys military assets, if not more so

First, I gave an example of a military attack which wasn't terrorism and a civilian attack which was, so you jump to that my argument is that ALL military attacks are NOT terrorism and ALL civilian attacks ARE terrorism.

When I shot that down as the crap it was and that I hadn't said that (highlighting it in red) now you switch your game to that I'm saying any psychological component is terrorism. Once again in red, that once again isn't what I said.

You just gave examples of attacks which did have psychological components AND military components. The atom bombs were geared to get the Japanese to surrender by showing overwhelming force. The attacks on cities like Dresden were to bring the war to the German people who had been supporting invasion of the world and not paying a personal price, it made the war real to them. Neither of those were only to "scare" them.

You really are not very bright, but you are comical. Again the funniest part is you think you're the intelligent party when you don't even know what terrorism is.

Hint, what is the root word?