See, the little girl in that photo is obviously with the angry bearded bloke, therefore you fail.

That's his mommy.

FAIL.

Hey, I needed to explain why the picture had a big arrow in it. Blame the blog I stole it from.

FAIL.

...

My feelings are best described by the word 'meh'.

What's wrong with it?

About his sex life. I wouldn't care if Bush lied under oath about his favorite kind of pizza, either.



I'm sorry you feel that way, but too bad. It's a basic truth. America's world approval rating has gone plummeting down. Anyone with a logical bone in their body can see why complacency of a president who has lied and killed Americans would make us look kind of stupid to the rest of the world?

Blair resigned out of association. Do you get that? The leader of another first world country RESIGNED out of shame and association with our president. But you're right, Bush has nothing to do with America's horrible approval rating. It's Clinton getting a BJ.


Also, on the topic of insurgency:

[quote=Immortal Technique "Bin Laden"]
They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam
But that's bull****, I'll show you why it's totally wrong
Cuz if another country invaded the hood tonight
It'd be warfare through Harlem, and Washington Heights
I wouldn't be fightin' for Bush or White America's dream
I'd be fightin' for my people's survival and self-esteem
I wouldn't fight for racist churches from the south, my nigga
I'd be fightin' to keep the occupation out, my nigga
[/quote]

I don't care if you personally wouldn't agree with the above response to occupation, I think it's pretty clear that it'd be true for a great deal of Americans one way or another. I don't see why we're so shocked by the reaction of Iraqis, even if our soldiers weren't being irresponsible and poorly managed.

Because it's all about "shock value" and lacks any sort of insight.

It was made by you.

Wow, I'm trying to think of how you could more grossly generalize and misrepresent the entire situation in Iraq, but it's just not coming.

That's a fake issue. What Clinton did was not perjury.

Oh, and:



The reason why you caring about this is a waste of breath.

The 2nd amendment is incredibly outdated. It was made in a time where America's soldiers were citizens. Now that American has it's own army, navy, etc., there really is no need for all citizens to carry guns.

Look at any shooting in America. Nearly all shootings in this country are committed with guns that are obtained legally. Stopping this would make the crime rate plummet.

I mean some exceptions with hunters would be fine. And if Americans ever had to overthrow their own government, hunters would be the first to fight anyway.

Even I know that the above statements are crap. Gun laws wouldn't stop gun crime. Those are crimes for a reason. While people probably don't need their guns, our problems wouldn't go away by taking them away.

And if you know anything about America, it'd probably cause MORE problems. "Out of my cold dead hands."

Yeah. However, it is clear, clear, that the intent was to provide protection for society and it's members from other members of society as well as the government. It's only fuzzy if you just read the second amendment and do not consider the reasons for which it was implemented. I dunno, I would say being accosted by criminal elements of society is still especially relevant, even if the concept of a general militia has faded. If anything, that is even more reason for the right to be retained.




I dunno where you got that. Most criminal shootings (the statistics you speak of also incorporate accidents) are committed with illegal weapons.

Also 100% of drug crime is committed with drugs obtained illegally.



I don't know about that. I think the first to fight would be criminals and and criminal organizations. With their illegal weapons that they are going to have no matter what.

I was just reading a chapter in Freakonomics (fun book btw) that went over arguments as to whether gun laws contributed much to the crime drop of the 90s. One of the stats the author pulls up is that a study of imprisoned felons showed that only a fifth of criminals used guns bought through a licensed dealer.

That being said, if nearly all shootings in the US are by licensed guns as petmc20 claims, perhaps you ought to be more restrictive on their use if so many people are accidentally shooting each other so often.

n/m

Abortion is a right every woman should have.

I was going to read this thread, then I remembered that politics threads on massassi suck!

Yeah for real. Mostly, I think that sellers should just require that you have been to a hunter's safety class or some ****, so that people understand things like the weapon being unloaded if it isn't in a holster or a safe, or to clear it when you do anything with it.

Basically you've given us a completely impossible scenario to imagine.

1. No one is capable of holding any significant US territory short of Mexico moving the border fence up a few feet when no one's looking. We have a higher probability of being radioactive smears on the wall than ever being occupied for any length of time baring the breakup of the US into much smaller nations.

2. The vaaaast majority of Americans do not have the will/reason to fight back or go around suicide bombing other average Americans or playing [insignificant] insurgent against what would have to be a massive first world army.

3. If no one's fighting back, what's there to torture anyone over?

4. In the event that America was capable of being invaded, the world would probably have gone to an unheard of level of hell and I would probably welcome any kind of stability.

Of course the point is not if his scenario would be at all possible. The point is, can you imagine how it would be IF something like that happened, whatever country you might be living in. Just try to see it from the Iraqi side for a moment. The analogy really wasn't that bad.

I must've made a post where I said that, too. Maybe if you look up:

[quote=Immortal Technique "Bin Laden"]
They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam
But that's bull****, I'll show you why it's totally wrong
Cuz if another country invaded the hood tonight
It'd be warfare through Harlem, and Washington Heights
I wouldn't be fightin' for Bush or White America's dream
I'd be fightin' for my people's survival and self-esteem
I wouldn't fight for racist churches from the south, my nigga
I'd be fightin' to keep the occupation out, my nigga[/quote]

My point is that there are several big news stories going on that nobody is discussing here. I mentioned a few with some slight commentary to get the ball rolling. Aparantly most people are more interested in rehashing the war debate again.

bluuuuuuuuuuuuuuh

If you want, I'd be happy to put together some clips of the Winter Soldier testimonies, but I'm not sure anyone would bother listening.

I would, Vin, hook us up.

Wookie, the reason Republican sex scandals are reported so well is because they're sensational. Republicans are the socially conservative party, they're the ones with members trying to introduce "family values" (the right's equivalent to political correctness), abstinence only sex education, to restrict the rights of homosexuals, etc etc. There's that and the way they used the Clinton scandal to epic proportions, so when these scandals come out there's an element of "those in glass houses shouldn't cast stones". It's also rather silly to complain about scandals being used as a political tool as if the Repubs have never done that themselves.

Examples:

• when Mark Foley gets caught harassing young male congressional pages for sex while campaigning against the sexual abuse of children and being chairman of the "House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children", the news networks love it. It's got all the hypocrisy they need for a good scandal story.
• Larry Craig campaigned against homosexual rights and then gets caught propositioning a guy for sex in a public bathroom. (If they were to go off to a private place to continue, there'd be nothing illegal about it, so I still don't know why he was arrested, but the hypocrisy remains).
• Ted Haggard gets called out as a drug user and user of gay prostitutes, when he's been campaigning against homosexuality for years and apparently had weekly meetings/phone calls with the president.
• David Vitter gets caught using prostitutes in some bizarre case involving wearing nappies leading to a nickname amongst the prossies as "the ****ter". His wife during the Clinton scandal having joked she'd do a Lorena Bobbit on him if he did the same.

All of these have the ingredients the news channels and newspapers want.

That's why when the president of the USA gets caught getting blowjobs from someone who wasn't his wife and then lies about it under oath, the entire world hears about it for months on end.

(PS, I think the Spitzer scandal has had more of an impact than you state. Hasn't Spitzer been forced to resign over this one? In comparison Vitter and Craig remain in office.)

Yeah, same here.

Of course people here would be interested in an anti-war event featuring an anti-war group, discussing anti-war stuff.

If you don't respond to my posts I'm just going to assume you realized how stupid you are and don't care to defend your arguments.

You haven't posted anything in this thread that interests me. Sorry if you're feeling neglected.

I'm interested in the Winter Soldier thing, but I'm even more interested in seeing Wookie defend his silly claim that the Spitzer scandal is underreported.

Yeah seriously.

I can't turn around without seeing how hot the lady he bonned is.

I'm interested in the Winter Soldier thing.

However it would be nice if you could hear from those who weren't involved in the relatively small numbers of inappropriate incidents as well. But they don't really get together to form groups because it isn't sensational and won't work.

[mp3]http://members.cox.net/vinmusic/wintersoldier.mp3[/mp3]

http://members.cox.net/vinmusic/wintersoldier.mp3

It's kind of long...

I never claimed the Spitzer scandal was underreported. I believe the scandal itself was adequately covered.

Edit: Oh, I see what you're saying. That they emphasize it's a Republican when there's a Republican in a scandal, but play down that it's a Democrat when there's a Democrat in a scandal.

It's still not true. Not only have they been pointing out that he's a Democrat, they've been pointing out that he's a Democratic superdelegate.