DescentBB

ThunderBunny wrote:The world is filled with people that want to kill you and take your stuff. The only thing preventing that is force of arms.

i.e. - A savage from the middle east isn't going to admire you for your 'courage' disarming yourself. He's going to laugh while he beheads you and rapes your sisters/mother/daughters and kill them as well.

You're confused. The world is filled with such people, but a majority of the more powerful governments in the world are not. I was talking specifically about Russia--and no, they do not want to kill us and take our stuff. They're reasonable. There are exceptions, such as Syria. But what might do we need to show against Syria? They can't touch us. They couldn't touch us if we got rid of all of our nuclear warheads. We would never need to use nukes against such an inferior enemy. Russia, yes, but Russia is not an enemy. The point is that we can easily hold all of the people who want to "kill us and take our stuff" at bay without the threat of nuclear warfare. We could destroy them easily will much weaker weapons.

DoTheGeek wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:The world is filled with people that want to kill you and take your stuff. The only thing preventing that is force of arms.

i.e. - A savage from the middle east isn't going to admire you for your 'courage' disarming yourself. He's going to laugh while he beheads you and rapes your sisters/mother/daughters and kill them as well.

You're confused. The world is filled with such people, but a majority of the more powerful governments in the world are not. I was talking specifically about Russia--and no, they do not want to kill us and take our stuff. They're reasonable. There are exceptions, such as Syria. But what might do we need to show against Syria? They can't touch us. They couldn't touch us if we got rid of all of our nuclear warheads. We would never need to use nukes against such an inferior enemy. Russia, yes, but Russia is not an enemy. The point is that we can easily hold all of the people who want to "kill us and take our stuff" at bay without the threat of nuclear warfare. We could destroy them easily will much weaker weapons.

Russia is a common ethic common morality neighbor.
Islamofacists are NOT. That is why mutually assured destruction works between Russia and the US.
How does it work against a suicidal martyr mentality form of government in charge of nuclear/chemical/biological weapons?
That is why we try to prevent some belligerents from joining the club.

I have no doubt that the politicians in Washington send and funding of international mercenaries in Syria, which the United States calls the " opposition " against constitutional authority of the Government of Syria. Assad looks reasonable politician and struggling with these " opposition " by his troops. I am also sure that the chemical attack was organized by U.S. agents as a pretext for attack of U.S. troops on Syria . To carry out the wish of Saudi Arabia for the purpose of strengthening the influence of Saudi Arabia in the Middle East. While Russia is trying to protect not only the foundations of international law , but also to the people of Syria, from such a blatant lawlessness of the United States. Except to Russia , it seems, no one else will be able to protect the Syrian people from the tyranny USA. Almost no one else dares to say directly in the face of the United States, that they are wrong . Is a great shame that the U.S. buys or overtly threatens countries in economic dependence on the United States to force them to vote for the illegal actions of the United States. An even bigger shame to all countries that have sold their political virginity and their personal opinions in exchange for U.S. money when they signed a statement in support of U.S. unilateral military initiative against Syria. There is a suspicion that even the majority of UN member states can be politically engaged by the United States. All this is very sad to see.

sigma wrote:I have no doubt that the politicians in Washington send and funding of international mercenaries in Syria, which the United States calls the " opposition " against constitutional authority of the Government of Syria. Assad looks reasonable politician and struggling with these " opposition " by his troops. I am also sure that the chemical attack was organized by U.S. agents as a pretext for attack of U.S. troops on Syria . To carry out the wish of Saudi Arabia for the purpose of strengthening the influence of Saudi Arabia in the Middle East. While Russia is trying to protect not only the foundations of international law , but also to the people of Syria, from such a blatant lawlessness of the United States. Except to Russia , it seems, no one else will be able to protect the Syrian people from the tyranny USA. Almost no one else dares to say directly in the face of the United States, that they are wrong . Is a great shame that the U.S. buys or overtly threatens countries in economic dependence on the United States to force them to vote for the illegal actions of the United States. An even bigger shame to all countries that have sold their political virginity and their personal opinions in exchange for U.S. money when they signed a statement in support of U.S. unilateral military initiative against Syria. There is a suspicion that even the majority of UN member states can be politically engaged by the United States. All this is very sad to see.

Ridiculous halfbaked subterfuge aside, the alternative to most of that would be much worse for those who prefer relative freedom as opposed to choosing life under oppressive religious zealots or the winners of a fight among powerful criminals over the remnants of a communist regime.

I wonder if sigma would get away with slandering his own government.

Spidey wrote:I wonder if sigma would get away with slandering his own government.

hell, you can't even paint a picture of the President in drag, so I guess we all know the answer.

Think Obama found an out from this mess, courtesy of Kerry's little convenient comment? Is Russia taking control of all of Assad's chemical weapons and perhaps destroying them a third viable option?

Wow...sigma makes the rest of the people around here seem sane.

Lol! Obama just encouraged everyone to go watch videos of gas attack victims before deciding if you want to oppose his desire to bomb Syria.

Isn't he the leader of the liberal left who have tried so hard to censor all pictures and videos of the attack on 9/11/2001. Hell they were even removing scenes of the twin towers from old movies because it was making Americans irrationally angry at islamofacist whackos!

...what.

Spidey wrote:I wonder if sigma would get away with slandering his own government.

First, the expression of my point can not be considered slander, for the reason that the post on the forum is not an official statement or articles in the media. This is just an my opinion based on an analysis of the situation. Second, wherein is a lie? The fact that the U.S. has long been fanning the flames of war in the Middle East , with a view to establish control over the vast oil reserves in the region? Under the ridiculous pretext of establishing democracy ? American democracy is a real threat to the world is much longer than once upon a time was communism. Who gave the U.S. the right to impose on other countries to democracy methods of provocations and bombings of sovereign states? Destroying the color of other nations and destroying ancient civilizations. Who gave the U.S. the right to defend some international norms by violating others? Why for the sake of democracy, the United States allows itself to forget the principles of democracy in relation to other countries? Why is the U.S. putting the interests of American national security above human rights in other countries? You deny that the countries that have signed the statement of the U.S. intervention in Syria, did it in the interest of the United States? In all these countries, except the United States, there is no benefit at all to bomb Syria ! U.S. accused Russia of supplying weapons to Syria, government troops , while at the same time as the U.S. and Russia supplied weapons there . Despite offering a peaceful solution to the conflict , the United States are now openly supply weapons 'opposition' ! United States has repeatedly confirmed and continues to confirm his words and actions that they will achieve their goal of that with which they organized war in Syria - Middle East oil reserves.

Top Gun wrote:...what.

You didn't watch his speech last night?

Will Robinson wrote:Lol! Obama just encouraged everyone to go watch videos of gas attack victims before deciding if you want to oppose his desire to bomb Syria.

Isn't he the leader of the liberal left who have tried so hard to censor all pictures and videos of the attack on 9/11/2001. Hell they were even removing scenes of the twin towers from old movies because it was making Americans irrationally angry at islamofacist whackos!

Hell, Bush did his part in the coverup too, and not just images.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-565782.html

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6762

And Bush was the one who censored the photos of soldier's bodies being returned from his 2 fake wars, while Obama at least reversed that decision. Yes, we know you hate Obama, but at least do us the courtesy of casting the blame more evenly.

http://rense.com/general44/dead.htm

Will Robinson wrote:

Top Gun wrote:...what.

You didn't watch his speech last night?

No, I didn't, but that wasn't what my reply was directed at. It was at your pants-on-head assertion about the "liberal left" censoring the hell out of anything to do with the World Trade Center or 9/11. Which...isn't a thing that happens.

I can not help feeling that the U.S. Congress such strange ways is trying to write off part of the U.S. public debt ( this is in the best case / but perhaps can talk at all about the blackmail congressmen, which earlier bought the sheiks and now forced to work off the money) of Saudi Arabia due to their desire to finish disloyal policy of the leadership of Syria. And they get involved in their dirty deeds unhappy Barack Obama.

if that were a bit less wordy, Sigma, it might approach haiku. Seriously, I think the translation of what you are attempting to say is getting garbled. You seem to indicate that Congress might be seeking to appease Saudi Arabia for the purpose of writing down debt?

Yes, I really wanted to say that maybe some congressmen forced to work some shadow money of Saudi Arabia.

Top Gun wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

Top Gun wrote:...what.

You didn't watch his speech last night?

No, I didn't, but that wasn't what my reply was directed at. It was at your pants-on-head assertion about the "liberal left" censoring the hell out of anything to do with the World Trade Center or 9/11. Which...isn't a thing that happens.

It IS a thing that was happening for a number of years. But you can pretend to live in another dimension where it didn't if you choose to.

Yes Will, please tell me something that the the twin towers were censored out of...please??

I think the only, ONLY time I've even heard something about the liberals having a problem with the twin tower footage was when McCain decided to make a little opening montage at the GOP Convention in 08 and needlessly showed people jumping to their deaths....again. No one censors it big guy. We all know it happened. Whether or not someone takes it out of a video, it still happened and everyone knows it. So please...where was it censored?

The only thing I can think of that fits is a scene or two that was removed from the trailer of the original Spider-Man movie...but that was literally right after 9/11, and it would have been a total dick move to keep them in. But considering I was watching a piece this morning on SportsCenter of all things that showed footage from that day, Will's full of it.

Spiderman, Men in Black II and this one is particularly funny, in a pathetic way because it is a cartoon and wasn't even supposed to represent the twin towers yet someone decided it was too much:

Early versions of the 2004 film The Incredibles featured a scene where a frustrated Mr. Incredible vents his emotions on an abandoned building, but ends up accidentally damaging a neighboring building as well. This was considered too reminiscent of the World Trade Center collapse, and was replaced with a scene where Mr. Incredible and Frozone rescue trapped civilians from a burning building.

There have been dozens of movies, I don't know how many TV shows. Frankly I'm amazed because you guys really believed I was wrong about this! It isn't any secret, when one of the anniversaries coincided with troubling events coming from Islamofacsist-land the falling towers footage was conspicuously missing from the Remember 9/11 memorial crap on TV and a lot of people were complaining about it...sorry I don't remember which year it was...I never imagined having to prove what was obvious and nationwide. I forget sometimes the knee jerk reaction you 'centrists' have to anyone who ever said anything bad about your ideological masters

Top Gun wrote:The only thing I can think of that fits is a scene or two that was removed from the trailer of the original Spider-Man movie...but that was literally right after 9/11, and it would have been a total dick move to keep them in. But considering I was watching a piece this morning on SportsCenter of all things that showed footage from that day, Will's full of it.

Get it straight. I never said it is currently censored. I said Obama and the left made many efforts to keep it out of sight/out of mind.
There are frikken web sites dedicated to listing all the times the footage has been taken out of something for crying out loud. So full of it I think not.

Second of all, and straight to the whole point of me bringing it up....
According to you it would be a dick of a person to put it in too soon after the event, right?
Well....why did I laugh at Obama?!? For asking us to go look at days old footage of children DYING FROM POISON GAS so we will feel like supporting his frikken bombing run!!

Get over your selves people!

You know this sort of nonsense is why you aren't even worth bothering with. Only you could equate individual producers making judgment calls on certain scenes to some sort of vast cabal censoring any association with the attacks. And I suppose you wouldn't see any difference between looking at something for evidence and unnecessarily replaying something that we all saw a thousand times the day it happened, would you?

Yea, when some people see a pattern, they think conspiracy (not you Will) but basically it’s more about group think leading a lot of people to do the same things.

Top Gun wrote:You know this sort of nonsense is why you aren't even worth bothering with. Only you could equate individual producers making judgment calls on certain scenes to some sort of vast cabal censoring any association with the attacks. And I suppose you wouldn't see any difference between looking at something for evidence and unnecessarily replaying something that we all saw a thousand times the day it happened, would you?

I found it hilarious that he managed to link the phenomenon with 'Obama and the Liberal Left', as if they are even REMOTELY the same.

callmeslick wrote:

Top Gun wrote:You know this sort of nonsense is why you aren't even worth bothering with. Only you could equate individual producers making judgment calls on certain scenes to some sort of vast cabal censoring any association with the attacks. And I suppose you wouldn't see any difference between looking at something for evidence and unnecessarily replaying something that we all saw a thousand times the day it happened, would you?

I found it hilarious that he managed to link the phenomenon with 'Obama and the Liberal Left', as if they are even REMOTELY the same.

Obama often refuses to call a terrorist attack an act of terrorism. He coined the euphamism "man caused disaster" to use instead! He is the king of bending over for Islamic radicals....from providing them with surface to air rockets to policing American discourse to protect them he is their boy.

So I think associating him, in this context, is completely appropriate....not to mention a number of other liberal positions he takes puts him clearly in the same boat.
I know you have this fantasy that you are not a left leaning liberal type but do you really think Obama isn't one as well?!?
Never mind, totally rhetorical question and you have already provided me with a full days supply of LOL! Save it for tomorrow please, I might bust a gut laughing if you go further!

Will Robinson wrote:Obama often refuses to call a terrorist attack an act of terrorism. He coined the euphamism "man caused disaster" to use instead! He is the king of bending over for Islamic radicals....from providing them with surface to air rockets to policing American discourse to protect them he is their boy.

thanks for the trip to fantasy-land, Will. Oh, and this relates to 'liberal left' how, exactly?

So I think associating him, in this context, is completely appropriate....not to mention a number of other liberal positions he takes puts him clearly in the same boat.

so, since he(or anyone) embraces an idea you view as liberal, as most Centrists do(embrace ideas from either side of the center), Obama is part of the 'liberal left'? Interesting logic, Will, that speaks to exactly what was being said here yesterday about certain individuals not able to see how extreme right-wing their positions and comfort zone truly are.

I know you have this fantasy that you are not a left leaning liberal type but do you really think Obama isn't one as well?!?

as was patiently pointed out yesterday, I clearly am not too left of center, and I think Obama is in exactly the same zone. If you think either of us is a true, dyed-in-the-wool liberal, you REALLY need to explore the opinions of some of your fellow citizens.

Never mind, totally rhetorical question and you have already provided me with a full days supply of LOL! Save it for tomorrow please, I might bust a gut laughing if you go further!

ignorance is, indeed, bliss, as the Ramones tune goes.

Obama is idealistically unique, except where in agreement with his supporters, and whenever his actions don't measure up he has at least had the best of intentions (it's usually the fault of the politics around him). We all fall short where the interest of the country is at stake make mistakes.

I wouldn't want any of you as President either, if it makes you feel better.

the feeling is no doubt mutual, Thorne, but I don't envy anyone the process of winning, nor the process of holding, the POTUS job.

It may not be cushy, but it certainly has its rewards for those who want it. As far as the process of winning, well, that's pretty fucked up in this country with these news organizations. The media at large should take pride in disqualifying the likes of most of Washington D.C. If there were more investigative journalists and less ideological news whores we would all be better off.

As far as the tit-for-tat, "I wouldn't elect you", I think you missed my point. Everyone that gives Obama a pass because they're so impressed, and consider him a better person than they are who is victimized by circumstances, has at least attained to being as disqualified as he is for their position. I mean we all make mistakes, and you can't damn a person for that, but just because you couldn't find your way through your house in the dark doesn't mean you should give someone a break and hire them as a navigator when they couldn't either (grossly inadequate analogy, but you get the idea). There is only so much understanding that is tolerable when the stakes are high.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:There is only so much understanding that is tolerable when the stakes are high.

it isn't a matter of understanding, so much as making a basic attempt at seeing nuance. Far too many of the Obama-hater types don't even try, and haven't since the get-go.

I'm sure that's true. I've seen it. At the same time far too many people are not able to call something bad unless it's described in very negative-sounding rudimentary terms with the aid of foreboding background music and a leading introduction. And you of all people ought to know that you can sink a business by embracing nuance to spite the big picture. Nuance informs the accurate big picture, but it is a poor substitute for it.