|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
Campfire Ranger
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278 |
Remember,stealing from the government isn't wrong in Barak's world!! Hmm. What do you mean when you say "stealing from the government?" I tried to come up with an example and couldn't.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278 |
Some Congressional leaders are now speaking of the PFC's execution, if convicted. Unfortunate and outrageous, of course, but on the other hand, he should have known what happens to people who climb into bed with a government.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043 |
What do you mean when you say "stealing from the government?" I tried to come up with an example and couldn't.
=====================
Exactly what I meant and you know that....but, you still have that edgy style with semantical game-playing, I'll grant you that.
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.
William Arthur Ward
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,607
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,607 |
The FFs were the complete OPPOSITE of isolationists Then I've convinced you? Excellent! Who are the isolationists, then? GOD you are dense. Since day one I've been saying the FFs were not isolationists and had they been, Manifest Destiny would have never happened and you kept saying the opposite that Jefferson was against foreign treaties etc., but as to your question, Ron Paul and you for starters.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,559
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,559 |
Since day one I've been saying the FFs were not isolationists Me too. So where is our disagreement?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 48,411
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 48,411 |
War is a terrible thing requiring terrible acts. The American people can barely stick hamburgers in their mouths without feeling guilty about it.
This leak was meant not only to expose intelligence, but to put Americans on another guilt trip and thereby derail the war effort. If Americans were strong, we'd just brush it off and call for more. But America is a pussified state without any resolve or stomach for reality. That's certainly the spin that is disseminated by the ruling class. You're to be commended for swallowing it so effortlessly and regurgitating it so accurately. Another view is that Americans by and large hate the Bush/Obama wars and think they're stupid, immoral, wasteful, dangerous, and counterproductive; and that this outrage--rather than fear or pusillanimity--is where their lack of support comes from. In this view, publishing additional evidence of atrocities and other criminal behavior committed by the US government and its henchmen, then, would serve to reinforce the existing popular contempt for the ruling class's war drums. +1 aw, the two Cindis agree.....that's sweet. Y'all got your matching Code Pink shirts on while you type this stuff?
Proudly representing oil companies, defense contractors, and firearms manufacturers since 1980. Because merchants of death need lawyers, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043 |
Don't forget the "I'm With Stupid" quotes on the front of them;Barak's being believable.
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.
William Arthur Ward
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,559
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,559 |
aw, the two Cindis agree.....that's sweet. Y'all got your matching Code Pink shirts on while you type this stuff? That's right, Steve. You're not a real he-man unless you favor perpetual war. War is peace, after all. Keep repeating it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 48,411
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 48,411 |
problem with you girls is....you think surrender is peace.
it ain't.
Proudly representing oil companies, defense contractors, and firearms manufacturers since 1980. Because merchants of death need lawyers, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,806
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,806 |
Another view is that Americans by and large hate the Bush/Obama wars and think they're stupid, immoral, wasteful, dangerous, and counterproductive; and that this outrage--rather than fear or pusillanimity--is where their lack of support comes from. In this view, publishing additional evidence of atrocities and other criminal behavior committed by the US government and its henchmen, then, would serve to reinforce the existing popular contempt for the ruling class's war drums.
It is too late for you to argue about whether or not we should be entangled in these wars. We are at war, you can't go back. Now the task is to win them. Criminal or not, you are now just as accountable as all other Americans. We need to get back to the Old School of waging war - you kill the enemy and everybody who remotely supports them, and you break all their stuff. Plain and simple.
Islam is a terrorist organization.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,607
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,607 |
So where is our disagreement? For one here in your totally wrong definition of an isolationist, which BTW, fits you to a tee: Hawk,
If you don't mind my asking, how do *you* define an isolationist?
Not trying to be a smart ass, but I am curious as I am trying to understand your argument?
Sure. I know you're sincere. An isolationist is a straw man conjured up by American leftist internationalists of the early Twentieth Century. It's purpose was, and remains, to marginalized those who believe in following the sage advice of the Founding Fathers regarding the avoidance of entangling and permanent foreign alliances, and foreign adventurism. These voices needed marginalization in order to persuade a large enough percentage of Americans that entangling and permanent foreign alliances and foreign adventurism is vital to national security, thus permitting the dominance over national policy of the military industrial complex, as Eisenhower warned in his farewell address. According to the leftist internationalists, an isolationist is someone who wishes to figuratively wall in the United States such that she has relations with no other people or nation, i.e., isolate herself from the wider world. This they argued was a proper reduction of the position of those who wished to follow the sage advice of the Founders on such matters. In short, it was a piece of clever propaganda. If the founders had been true isolationists, we would still be a nation of thirteen colonies. One simple concept there Ace; MANIFEST DESTINY, now there was an isolationist concept! jeez And an even better description and destruction of your posit by Pugs: The founding fathers are the same people that funded our first blue water Navy, that proceeded to chase pirates to Africa with it, established treaties with France, Prussia, Morocco, Spain, Algeria, Tripoli and Tunis all before 1797. Our country has been involved in international "entanglements" as you call them for it's entire history.
My definition of isolationist?
1) People who believe that the US should never send it's military overseas for any reason other than a direct attack on the United States (although they conveniently forget the haven that was Afghanistan for the Taliban the people that funded and directed the 9/11 attacks) and they like to forget the many actions the US fought all over the world in the first part of our country. Heck we built a fort in east Polynesia in 1813!
2) People that believe the United States can exist solely by itself without trade and their associated agreements and (gee, here it is again) "entanglements" with foreign governments because of some weird view that the founding fathers disagreed with these mechanisms that are (a) Specific powers in the Constitution and (2) Something that we had 36 of before the country was 100 years old.
No TRH, you can bluster your theories here but facts will bear out that the reality is we have always been a country leading the world forward and active with them and will continue to be so, even if it means our folks going in harms way for the benefit of others.
I RP and those who thik like him EVER pull their heads out of their collective gluteal clefts and follow the above, then they might garner a vote or two. Then again he has to work on his goofy look...jorge
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,559
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,559 |
So where is our disagreement? For one here in your totally wrong definition of an isolationist, which BTW, fits you to a tee: But that's just it. By your definition (which was the one I summarized in the post you quote), I am certainly not an isolationist. Not even close. In fact I doubt there is any real school of thought or political movement that fits that term. In other words, it parallels "Johnny Reb." The North, in an effort to nip in the bud the potential for Northern sympathy with the Southern position leading up to and during the war, manufactured and popularized the label "Johnny Reb" to identify those who stood with the South and/or who agreed with the arguments of the South. No Confederate, however, proposed rebellion against the United States, but only secession from it, which was a power retained by the states from the beginning. "Johnny Reb" was intended to marginalize those who opposed the folks who manufactured the term. Same with "isolationist." In truth there never were any Johnny Rebs, and there never were any isolationists. Those terms are just propaganda intended to marginalize viewpoints in opposition to their creators.
![[Linked Image from images7.memedroid.com]](https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED555/651dcaab819c9.jpeg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 48,411
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 48,411 |
We need to get back to the Old School of waging war - you kill the enemy and everybody who remotely supports them, and you break all their stuff. Plain and simple.
problem is, the United States has never played by those rules. Closest we got was bombing civilian centers in WWII, but even that was accompanied by much hand wringing and waffling, and self-delusion about military benefits. The US isn't Rome or Carthage and we don't fight like they did.
Proudly representing oil companies, defense contractors, and firearms manufacturers since 1980. Because merchants of death need lawyers, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278 |
problem with you girls is....you think surrender is peace.
it ain't. We can't surrender: we're not at war, because there's been no declaration of war. More practically, though, it's silly for you to talk about surrender. Whenever this thing ends, not only is nobody going to surrender, nobody's even going to lose! Both sides will declare victory; and then both sides will go back to their accustomed pastime: killing brown people.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043 |
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.
William Arthur Ward
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 48,411
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 48,411 |
We can't surrender: we're not at war, because there's been no declaration of war.........
Both sides will declare victory; and then both sides will go back to their accustomed pastime: killing brown people.
the first sentence was going to be my nominee for dumbest thing posted this year, until I read the second. a)you surrender by giving your opponent what he wants....no paper needed. b)the brownest people in Afghanistan are US GI's.
Proudly representing oil companies, defense contractors, and firearms manufacturers since 1980. Because merchants of death need lawyers, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278 |
It is too late for you to argue about whether or not we should be entangled in these wars. Again, an excellent restatement of the standard spin of the ruling class. Congratulations. It is, of course, totally false. It's never too late to condemn immorality. We are at war, you can't go back. Now the task is to win them. Of course we can go back. Load 'em all on planes and fly 'em home. If they're unwilling, then cut off their funding until they're no longer unwilling. It's not only possible, it's even simple. And nobody has ever come up with a credible suggestion for what "win them" means. Kill all the Muslims? Not credible. Make the Taliban and al Qaeda promise to behave and be good? Not credible. Successfully install puppet democracies? Theoretically possible, but of course the puppets will be overthrown the instant they're no longer propped up with US arms. They were stupid wars to start, they were stupid wars to fight, and they're stupid wars to continue. Criminal or not, you are now just as accountable as all other Americans. Hardly. It's not Americans who are accountable for these wars, it's Americans who are victims of these wars. (Along with a whole bunch of other people.) It's the US government and its henchmen who are responsible (I didn't use the word accountable, because holding the government or its minions actually accountable for something is nearly impossible) for these wars. We need to get back to the Old School of waging war - you kill the enemy and everybody who remotely supports them, and you break all their stuff. Plain and simple. Not with my money. If that's what you want, you buy a plane ticket with your own money and pack your own guns and ammunition and go over there and kill all the Muslims you want on your own.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,559
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,559 |
you surrender by giving your opponent what he wants....no paper needed. By that definition, Ronald Reagan surrendered to Libya when he ordered the cessation of air strikes against Muammar Qaddafi.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278 |
a)you surrender by giving your opponent what he wants....no paper needed. So what happens if you and your opponent want the same thing? The Taliban and al Qaeda would obviously like it if the US just up and left; and the longer these stupid Bush/Obama wars go on, the larger becomes the segment of the American people who would like that too. b)the brownest people in Afghanistan are US GI's. Where did you get the idea Afghans were white people? I know Afghans, and they're not. They're all different shades of brown--like Indians. (Computer Indians, not casino Indians.) And when they come to the US to compete in IT, they're damn smart, also like Indians.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,806
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,806 |
We need to get back to the Old School of waging war - you kill the enemy and everybody who remotely supports them, and you break all their stuff. Plain and simple.
problem is, the United States has never played by those rules. Closest we got was bombing civilian centers in WWII, but even that was accompanied by much hand wringing and waffling, and self-delusion about military benefits. The US isn't Rome or Carthage and we don't fight like they did. Sure we did. And should again. I asked dear old Dad "What if the Germans were in a school? Did you shoot at them?" Answer: "Yes, we shot at them wherever they were, schools, hospitals, churches, didn't matter. Then we called in artillery to level the places. If there was a soldier or someone carrying water for a German soldier, we killed them. They either surrendered or we killed them." Oh, and Barak, don't even try to blow that [bleep] about "war is immoral". Not going to fly. War is terrible, but often necessary. Terrible <> Immoral
Islam is a terrorist organization.
|
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,387
Posts18,469,719
Members73,931
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
