Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

She's back !
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 3 12:00:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  This is History calling – quick, get me Rewrite!
Ann Coulter

June 3, 2004

The invasion of Iraq has gone fabulously well, exceeding everyone's expectations – certainly exceeding the doomsday scenarios of liberals. The Bush-haters' pre-war predictions – hundreds of thousands dead, chemical attacks on our troops, retaliatory terrorist attacks in the United States, an invasion by Turkey, oil facilities in flames and apocalyptic environmental consequences – have proven to be about as accurate as Bill Clinton's "legally accurate" statements about Monica Lewinsky.

Inasmuch as they can't cite any actual failures in Iraq, liberals busy themselves by claiming the administration somehow "misled" them about the war.

As I understand it, there would be no lunatics shouting "Bush lied, kids died!" if Paul Wolfowitz had admitted before the war that Saddam "probably hadn't rebuilt his nuclear program" – the one that was unilaterally blown up by the Israelis in 1981, thank God. What Wolfowitz should have said is that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the way you think about law enforcement, and I think we're much closer to being in a state of war than being in a judicial proceeding."

Liberals would be all sugar and sweetness if only – instead of blathering about nukes, nukes, nukes – Wolfowitz had forthrightly conceded back in 2002 that "there's an awful lot we don't know, an awful lot that we may never know, and we've got to think differently about standards of proof here."

Also, I assume we wouldn't be hearing that the administration is frustrated by its failure to instantly create a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq if Wolfowitz had said something like, "[W]ell, Japan isn't Jeffersonian democracy, either." If only Wolfowitz had lowered expectations by saying that "even if [Iraq] makes it only Romanian style, that's still such an advance over anywhere else in the Arab world."

Also, the media would have no grounds for complaint if Wolfowitz had said Iraqi democracy "is not the president's declared purpose of 'regime change' in Iraq, which is to get rid of a very bad man." If only he had mentioned that Saddam Hussein "has been known to have children tortured in front of their parents."

But guess what? That is exactly what Wolfowitz did say! All these quotes are from a Sept. 22, 2002, article in the New York Times magazine written by Bill Keller, now editor-in-chief at the seditious rag. The last paragraph about Saddam's torture of children are Keller's paraphrases of Wolfowitz; the rest are direct quotes from the wily neoconservative himself.

But you'd have to put liberals in Abu Ghraib to get them to tell the truth about what people were saying before the war – and then the problem would be that most liberals would enjoy those activities. (No torture has yet been devised that could get a liberal to mention the poor, beleaguered Kurds dancing in the streets because Saddam is gone.)

To refresh everyone's recollection, before the war began, the Democrats' argument was that Iraq was not an "imminent" threat to the United States. The Republicans' argument was: By the time the threat is imminent, Chicago will be gone. Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address specifically responded to the Democrats' demand that we wait for nuclear and biological threats to be "imminent" before we act. But now, liberals want to have their Nigerian yellow cake and eat it, too.

In January 2003 – or three months after Sen. Tom Daschle voted for the Iraq war resolution hoping to fool the voters of South Dakota this November – he was horrified that Bush seemed to be actually contemplating war with Iraq! According to Daschle, Bush should have waited for Iraq to grow into a problem of crisis proportions before deciding to do anything – citing the Cuban missile crisis as a model to be emulated. "If we have proof of nuclear and biological weapons," Daschle asked, "why doesn't [Bush] show that proof to the world as President Kennedy did 40 years ago when he sent Adlai Stevenson to show the world U.S. photographs of offensive missiles in Cuba?"

The answer is and was: Because by the time Saddam had nuclear weapons, we wouldn't be able to do anything. That's why it's known as the "Cuban missile crisis," not the "Cuban missile triumph."

Before the war, Democrats were carping about the Bush administration's inability to predict the future and tell us everything that would happen in Iraq after the war. On MSNBC in September 2002, for example, Robert Menendez, D-N.J., was complaining that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld "didn't have an answer for what happens in a post-Saddam Iraq." But now liberals are acting as if the Bush administration said they knew exactly what would happen after liberating a country from a 30-year barbaric dictatorship – and got it wrong.

The good news is: Liberals' anti-war hysteria seems to have run its course. I base this conclusion on Al Gore's lunatic anti-war speech last week. Gore always comes out swinging just as an issue is about to go south. He's the stereotypical white guy always clapping on the wrong beat. Gore switched from being a pro-defense Democrat to a lefty peacenik – just before the 9-11 attack. He grew a beard – just in time for an attack on the nation by fundamentalist Muslims. He endorsed Howard Dean – just as the orange-capped Deaniacs were punching themselves out. Gore even went out and got really fat – just before America officially gave up carbs. This guy is always leaping into the mosh pit at the precise moment the crowd parts. Mark my words: Now that good old Al has come lunging in, the anti-war movement is dead.





 
addi Posted: Thu Jun 3 12:14:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ...and she's right. She makes a lot of sense. I just can't find any weakness in her logic and facts.


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Jun 3 12:22:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I like the part where she calls the New York Times a "seditious rag". Also, the class just exudes when she calls Al Gore " really fat".


 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 3 12:38:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>the class just exudes when she calls Al Gore " really fat".


The pictures from her site, especially the one where she holds the gun, are very classy though.

lol.


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Jun 3 13:44:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  yeah. id hit it.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 3 14:17:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>I like the part where she calls the New York Times a "seditious rag". Also, the class just exudes when she calls Al Gore " really fat".
>
But you probably didn't think Al Franken was without class when he labeled Mr. Limbaugh a big fat idiot ?
Double Standard ?


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jun 3 14:18:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The point of this article is that liberals are going in the exact opposite direction of every issue as compared to conservatives, and that they aren't consistent and yadda yadda. In reality, that is what whatever party that doesn't have control does. If John Kerry wins, he's going to do what he wants, regardless of whether it agrees with what Bush is doing now or not, and the Republicans, regardless of what it is, will disagree with it. If they don't they'll never get elected. Ann is arguing, basically, that stupid politics we're all aware of exist. Woo-and-hoo.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jun 3 14:25:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>DanSRose said:
>>I like the part where she calls the New York Times a "seditious rag". Also, the class just exudes when she calls Al Gore " really fat".
>>
>But you probably didn't think Al Franken was without class when he labeled Mr. Limbaugh a big fat idiot ?
>Double Standard ?

Ann did nothing to show that the New York Times was a 'seditious rag,' while Al writes an entire book explaining why Rush Limbaugh is the big fat idiot he is.

And that reminds me - according to studies, Rush Limbaugh and his radio talk show thingy will have much less of an impact on the 2004 elections than another key radio show - Howard Stern's. Stern grew angry at attempts to censor him, and is turning his audiences against Bush. And unlike Limbaugh's listeners, Stern's aren't all decided conservatives. Many are undecided.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 3 14:51:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Ann did nothing to show that the New York Times was a 'seditious rag,' while Al writes an entire book explaining why Rush Limbaugh is the big fat idiot he is.
>
Exactly how are these two tied together ?
I commented in rebuttal to Dan's comment about how classless it was to call Mr. Gore really fat. I said nothing about the seditious rag known as the new york times.

>And that reminds me - according to studies, Rush Limbaugh and his radio talk show thingy will have much less of an impact on the 2004 elections than another key radio show - Howard Stern's. Stern grew angry at attempts to censor him, and is turning his audiences against Bush. And unlike Limbaugh's listeners, Stern's aren't all decided conservatives. Many are undecided.
>
Studies ? what studies would that be ?
I would be willing to bet that most of Mr. Stern's listeners don't even vote, while most of Mr. Limbaugh's listeners are voters.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jun 3 15:54:07 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Studies ? what studies would that be ?
>I would be willing to bet that most of Mr. Stern's listeners don't even vote, while most of Mr. Limbaugh's listeners are voters.

I don't remember what studies, but it was in the newspaper (and not some wacko liberal insurgent one). But many people that listen to Howard Stern have said they will be voting against Bush because they are angry about censorship rules, while virtually everyone that listens to Rush wouldn't change their minds if Bush nuked Wyoming.

I'm kidding of course. Wyoming doesn't really exist.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Jun 3 17:46:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  this bitch writes for who? i'm shocked that she's published in anything more than a high school newspaper. this article and the responses to it have made me very proud of my choice in the "who would you fight?"(or whatever it was titled) thread, but sad that i hif in the mix.

out of the articles of hers ,that i've read and those are few, only ones hif has annoyingly posted, i think she's brought up the clinton and monica thing twice now. c'mon bitch, don't say ale gore is behind the times when you're oh so cleverly using analogies like that.

i don't think it's as simple as just arguing against the opposite power in command, it's a difference in ideals. this bitch, and many conservatives out there, believe "proof" can be found in a similar method to how "proof" was simply declared back in the salem witch trials. this entire article is created in that fashion; she has an opinion on what went down but it's not based on facts, it's based on exagerations. liberals do it too, there are prolly an equal number of dumb liberals out there to match the force of the dumb conservatives but please, hif, PLEASE, step above it and stop reading what this dumb ass writes.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Jun 3 17:47:33 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>this bitch writes for who? i'm shocked that she's published in anything more than a high school newspaper. this article and the responses to it have made me very proud of my choice in the "who would you fight?"(or whatever it was titled) thread, but sad that i hif in the mix.

forgot a word there, supposed to read "sad that i forgot hif in the mix."


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Jun 3 17:49:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  on a similar topic, i hear iran is next in line. anyone want to make bets on when we're gonna hit them?


 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 3 18:09:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>on a similar topic, i hear iran is next in line. anyone want to make bets on when we're gonna hit them?


If they don't want to prevent america from a future economic disaster I'd say not any time soon.


Weird that nobody up to this point has given me a good reason why it wasn't North-Korea but Iraq by the way.


How very strange and coincidential.


 
addi Posted: Thu Jun 3 18:17:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>this bitch writes for who? i'm shocked that she's published in anything more than a high school newspaper.

sincere apologies to hif in advance

LMAO!!
sometimes, just sometimes, Asswipe your bluntness is a fresh of breath air!

*As far as Iran you may be on to something. At least name the next country Bush would like to invade (there's so many on the list now it's hard to keep them straight!)

They (some nuclear regularitory group, I forgot their name) just reported that Iran may not have been totally upfront about the sophistication of some of the highly technical equipment they posess now for processing high grade plutonium. Those naughty Iranians got caught with their dicks in their hands again.


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Jun 3 18:27:06 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>on a similar topic, i hear iran is next in line. anyone want to make bets on when we're gonna hit them?

yeah, Iran or Syria.




 
Mesh Posted: Thu Jun 3 18:28:31 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:

>sometimes, just sometimes, Asswipe your bluntness is a BREATH OF FRESH air!
>

I always enjoy his bluntness.



 
addi Posted: Thu Jun 3 18:38:17 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  meshuggah said:

>>sometimes, just sometimes, Asswipe your bluntness is a BREATH OF FRESH air!

i prefer the way i wrote it : )



 
Mesh Posted: Thu Jun 3 18:58:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  nonsense poopy pants.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 3 19:35:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>this bitch writes for who? i'm shocked that she's published in anything more than a high school newspaper. this article and the responses to it have made me very proud of my choice in the "who would you fight?"(or whatever it was titled) thread, but sad that i hif in the mix.
>
Have you read her bio ?
She has sterling academic credentials and she has written several bestsellers. You may disagree with her politics, but please don't call her a dumb ass. That only serves to call attention to your own limitations, which are considerable.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 3 19:36:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Weird that nobody up to this point has given me a good reason why it wasn't North-Korea but Iraq by the way.
>
>
>How very strange and coincidential.
>
perhaps you should go back a look at may 22 postings.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Jun 3 19:36:43 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  seriously, did she even go to college? 'cause she definatly can't formulate a sound argumentive article.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 3 19:54:48 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>seriously, did she even go to college? 'cause she definatly can't formulate a sound argumentive article.
>
Ann Coulter is the author of three books, all New York Times best sellers -- Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (June 2003); Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (June 2002); and High Crimes and Misdemeanors:The Case Against Bill Clinton (August 1998). Her next book will be released this fall.

Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including Hannity and Colmes, Wolf Blitzer Reports, At Large With Geraldo Rivera, Scarborough Country, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, The O'Reilly Factor, Good Morning America and has been profiled in numerous publications, including TV Guide, the Guardian (UK), the New York Observer, National Journal, Harper's Bazaar, and Elle magazine, among others. She was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner in 2001.

Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.

After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.

A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.




 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jun 3 20:59:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I now discredit Ann Coulter's books.

Ann Coulter's reigning point is "Liberals hate America."

Here's a brief conversation I had with a friend of mine just a moment ago.

Me: Do you consider yourself a liberal?
Friend: Yes.
Me: Do you hate America?
Friend: No.

If liberals hate America, then America has failed, because there's a really, really large number of liberals in this country.


 
addi Posted: Thu Jun 3 21:42:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.

A higher education does not necessarily equate a higher intelligence.
Being an ex teacher I would never downplay the importance of a quality education, but I also know you don't have to look too hard to find examples of educated folk that are clueless.
I have a close friend in minnesota that for many reasons never got past a high school education. She could run circles intellectually around me and Coulter.

Somebody taught Ann how to put sentences together and say clever things. No one ever taught her how to think.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu Jun 3 22:35:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>I have a close friend in minnesota that for many reasons never got past a high school education. She could run circles intellectually around me and Coulter.

Yea, I have relatives in New Jersey who are filthy rich. One didn't graduate high school, the other did but didn't go to college. They run an air duct cleaning business out of their ginormous house and make twenty times more than my dad who went to Cornell, like Ann. Wait a minute. Wrong comparison.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Jun 3 22:56:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Have you read her bio ?
>She has sterling academic credentials and she has written several bestsellers. You may disagree with her politics, but please don't call her a dumb ass. That only serves to call attention to your own limitations, which are considerable.

well now i've read her bio, but that only slightly sways my point. she is playing the dumb conservative in order to be on the best selling list. if she has the backround of a lawyer then she can no doubt form a valid argument, and what she presented above was certainly not that, which only leaves one option: she's shooting to please your crowd, hif, in order to make the bucks, or perhaps, to stick w/ the view of her being intelligent, to influence america, by slinging shit to get an applause and a following from the dumb schmucks out there.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Jun 3 22:59:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:

>well now i've read her bio, but that only slightly sways my point. she is playing the dumb conservative in order to be on the best selling list. if she has the backround of a lawyer then she can no doubt form a valid argument, and what she presented above was certainly not that, which only leaves one option: she's shooting to please your crowd, hif, in order to make the bucks, or perhaps, to stick w/ the view of her being intelligent, to influence america, by slinging shit to get an applause and a following from the dumb schmucks out there.

so in conclusion: my opinion on the bitch has changed; i see her reasons for writing how she does and i simply have no respect for her dumbing herself down. she's barely even witty, folks.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Jun 3 22:59:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  and i'd still like to fight her


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Jun 3 23:01:07 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  and i'd still like to do her.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Jun 3 23:01:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>I now discredit Ann Coulter's books.
>
>Ann Coulter's reigning point is "Liberals hate America."
>
>Here's a brief conversation I had with a friend of mine just a moment ago.
>
>Me: Do you consider yourself a liberal?
>Friend: Yes.
>Me: Do you hate America?
>Friend: No.
>

hahaha


 
mat_j Posted: Fri Jun 4 06:23:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Anne Coulter burned my books and touched my areas


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 4 07:11:25 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>well now i've read her bio, but that only slightly sways my point. she is playing the dumb conservative in order to be on the best selling list. if she has the backround of a lawyer then she can no doubt form a valid argument, and what she presented above was certainly not that, which only leaves one option: she's shooting to please your crowd, hif, in order to make the bucks, or perhaps, to stick w/ the view of her being intelligent, to influence america, by slinging shit to get an applause and a following from the dumb schmucks out there.
>
She believes what she writes and so do I, and so does approx half of the country. The other half would seem to be woefully uninformed liberals.
Her exaggerations are for humor and if you ever read her stuff with politics aside, you would see that the woman is hilarious.
I didn't expect you to change your mind about her politics, but at least you acknowledged she's not a dumbass. Since you've acknowledged that much, that serves to prove that you are not a dumbass either, and that vexes me.
Since you are not a dumbass, you must be a liberatarian, because not being a dumbass precludes you from being a liberal. LOL


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 4 07:12:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>Anne Coulter burned my books and touched my areas
>
god,
I hope she washed her hands first.


 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 4 07:43:54 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>She believes what she writes and so do I, and so does approx half of the country.

Was reading in bed last night about a theory this scientist has regarding some peoples genetic disposition towards being followers (lemmings)in life. He was making several points to support his beliefs and brought up an old stunt done on the Candid Camera show years ago to use as one example. The shows producers made a large official sign that read: "Delaware Closed", and put it up over a major highway leading in to the state at the border. They then filmed, and watched in amazement, several cars stopping after reading the sign and turning around.

if anyone needs to ask me what my point was in writing this, well...


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 4 08:49:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>She believes what she writes and so do I, and so does approx half of the country.
>
>Was reading in bed last night about a theory this scientist has regarding some peoples genetic disposition towards being followers (lemmings)in life. He was making several points to support his beliefs and brought up an old stunt done on the Candid Camera show years ago to use as one example. The shows producers made a large official sign that read: "Delaware Closed", and put it up over a major highway leading in to the state at the border. They then filmed, and watched in amazement, several cars stopping after reading the sign and turning around.
>
>if anyone needs to ask me what my point was in writing this, well...
>
nothing wrong with being a follower as long as you follow the truth.
When Slick Willie was in office I was definitely not a follower then, the liberals were the lemmings . . .


 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 4 09:34:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>nothing wrong with being a follower as long as you follow the truth.


yeah tell that to the followers of Jim Jones in Guyana and David Koresh in Waco. They were following the "truth".

Conservatives question liberals

Liberals question conservatives AND other liberals.







 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 4 10:00:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>nothing wrong with being a follower as long as you follow the truth.
>
>
>yeah tell that to the followers of Jim Jones in Guyana and David Koresh in Waco. They were following the "truth".
>
>Conservatives question liberals
>
>Liberals question conservatives AND other liberals.
>You could say it that way, or you could say the conservatives show a united front, and liberals are in disarray.
You are the one that posted how Dubya's followers are questioning him, not wanting to gloat or say "I told ya so".


 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 4 10:44:15 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>You are the one that posted how Dubya's followers are questioning him, not wanting to gloat or say "I told ya so".

that's true. I did.
But the republicans publically saying anything are such a tiny percentage, and they are the exceptions. Most will go down with the ship, and not stop to question Bush's policies until the train has long since pasted them by.

>You could say it that way, or you could say the conservatives show a united front, and liberals are in disarray.

Life is in constant disarray. It is not a neat tidy series of unified orderly events, even if the rich and powerful try to make it so.
If the liberals seem to be disorganized it's because they more accurately reflect the complexities of life itself, instead of trying to manipulate life into a false simplicity.





 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 4 11:39:14 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Life is in constant disarray. It is not a neat tidy series of unified orderly events, even if the rich and powerful try to make it so.
>If the liberals seem to be disorganized it's because they more accurately reflect the complexities of life itself, instead of trying to manipulate life into a false simplicity.
>
And I personally think that liberals make things much more complicated than they need to.
I don't care why Habib wants to kill me and my family. I don't care about the cultural complexities and social nuances that causes this hatred. The fact that he wants to kill me and my family and as many other American women and children as he can is all I need to know about him. He can learn to live and let live or he can die by my sword.
Bring 'em on !


 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 4 12:16:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>I don't care why Habib wants to kill me and my family. I don't care about the cultural complexities and social nuances that causes this hatred. The fact that he wants to kill me and my family and as many other American women and children as he can is all I need to know about him. He can learn to live and let live or he can die by my sword.
>Bring 'em on !

You just made it crystal clear on our differences better than I probably ever could.

You see, I do care why Habib wants to kill me and my family, because if I get a handle on "Why" I might be able to diffuse the situation, and put policies in motion that rationally try to solve the sourse of the hatred. Maybe even put an end to why Habib hates me.

So instead of saying Habib hates us. Let's go kill him
I want to say, Let's protect ourselves as best we can for the time being, and focus on the sources of Habib's hatred so we can put an end to it.

One outlook attempts to deal with the problem head on.
Yours (and Bushs) only manages to propogate the disease and make it spread to areas it wasn't at in the beginning.


 
Asswipe Posted: Fri Jun 4 16:46:48 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>She believes what she writes and so do I, and so does approx half of the country. The other half would seem to be woefully uninformed liberals.
>Her exaggerations are for humor and if you ever read her stuff with politics aside, you would see that the woman is hilarious.
>I didn't expect you to change your mind about her politics, but at least you acknowledged she's not a dumbass. Since you've acknowledged that much, that serves to prove that you are not a dumbass either, and that vexes me.
>Since you are not a dumbass, you must be a liberatarian, because not being a dumbass precludes you from being a liberal. LOL

it seems that you read my conclusion w/ out paying attention to how i arrived there, because if you actually read what i said, or understood it, you'd have realized that i insulted the crap out of you and your 50% of the country.


 
Asswipe Posted: Fri Jun 4 16:50:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>addison said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>
>>>She believes what she writes and so do I, and so does approx half of the country.
>>
>>Was reading in bed last night about a theory this scientist has regarding some peoples genetic disposition towards being followers (lemmings)in life. He was making several points to support his beliefs and brought up an old stunt done on the Candid Camera show years ago to use as one example. The shows producers made a large official sign that read: "Delaware Closed", and put it up over a major highway leading in to the state at the border. They then filmed, and watched in amazement, several cars stopping after reading the sign and turning around.
>>
>>if anyone needs to ask me what my point was in writing this, well...
>>
>nothing wrong with being a follower as long as you follow the truth.
>When Slick Willie was in office I was definitely not a follower then, the liberals were the lemmings . . .

heh, i was talking to my older brother a few months back, on the night of my 21st birthday actually, and he was telling me how much fun it is to just make shit up, act like you know what you're talking about and watch 90% of the people you do it to simply nod their head in agreement. most people do not base their opinion on the actual facts, what is actually being said, they base their feelings on an issue on how it is being said to them. thus, in conclusion: hif is wrong, 90%+ of all people are stupid, don't follow anyone into believing anything dogmatically.(don't argue against me, you're wrong)


 
Asswipe Posted: Fri Jun 4 16:52:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>nothing wrong with being a follower as long as you follow the truth.
>
>
>yeah tell that to the followers of Jim Jones in Guyana and David Koresh in Waco. They were following the "truth".
>
>Conservatives question liberals
>
>Liberals question conservatives AND other liberals.
>
>


that's not true mate, there are smart conservatives out there, honest to god, it's just easier to agree w/ a dumb liberal then it is to agree w/ a dumb conservative, but at the base of it, they're both dumb.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 4 16:55:16 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>heh, i was talking to my older brother a few months back, on the night of my 21st birthday actually, and he was telling me how much fun it is to just make shit up, act like you know what you're talking about and watch 90% of the people you do it to simply nod their head in agreement. most people do not base their opinion on the actual facts, what is actually being said, they base their feelings on an issue on how it is being said to them. thus, in conclusion: hif is wrong, 90%+ of all people are stupid, don't follow anyone into believing anything dogmatically.(don't argue against me, you're wrong)
>
Typical childish drivel from one who has a rather pedestrian knowledge of theory no real-world knowledge or experience.


 
Asswipe Posted: Fri Jun 4 16:58:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>
>You just made it crystal clear on our differences better than I probably ever could.
>
>You see, I do care why Habib wants to kill me and my family, because if I get a handle on "Why" I might be able to diffuse the situation, and put policies in motion that rationally try to solve the sourse of the hatred. Maybe even put an end to why Habib hates me.
>
>So instead of saying Habib hates us. Let's go kill him
>I want to say, Let's protect ourselves as best we can for the time being, and focus on the sources of Habib's hatred so we can put an end to it.
>
>One outlook attempts to deal with the problem head on.
>Yours (and Bushs) only manages to propogate the disease and make it spread to areas it wasn't at in the beginning.

you make a very good point here, perhaps touching on a bit of evolution taking place amongst human society. perhaps an evolution of the mind, retiring the old "dog eat dog", "you fuck w/ me, i fuck w/ you", "revenge" mindset, typically found in nature and lesser lifeforms, ie. the warhawks you just mentioned, and taking up a path of righteousness, forgiveness, care and respect in trying to settle the problems, not w/ violence, but in investigating motives. sup jesus?

in conclusion: hif sux


 
Asswipe Posted: Fri Jun 4 17:04:17 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Asswipe said:
>>heh, i was talking to my older brother a few months back, on the night of my 21st birthday actually, and he was telling me how much fun it is to just make shit up, act like you know what you're talking about and watch 90% of the people you do it to simply nod their head in agreement. most people do not base their opinion on the actual facts, what is actually being said, they base their feelings on an issue on how it is being said to them. thus, in conclusion: hif is wrong, 90%+ of all people are stupid, don't follow anyone into believing anything dogmatically.(don't argue against me, you're wrong)
>>
>Typical childish drivel from one who has a rather pedestrian knowledge of theory no real-world knowledge or experience.

i merely agreed w/ what addison read about the scientific study, saying that i've seen it in action, and it's frightening. at least you listened to my last statement and didn't argue w/ me and instead just simply unleashed the inner warhawk.


 
Zacq Posted: Fri Jun 4 17:06:42 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The usual reaction most liberals with an open mindset have after reading the average Ann Coulter article is that it is true, because they're looking for lies. Shortly after, however, it occurs to them why. Most of what she says is opinion, or based on exaggeration, and if try to think what the point of the article is her methods become clear.

Notice for one that she often talks about things liberals said. Besides labeling a group and pretending that every one has identical beliefs, she doesn't quote any! And for much of the article, she acts like anything that didn't live up to the most extreme predictions of failure was perfect. And yes, Monica jokes got old a long time ago.


 
erikagm Posted: Fri Jun 4 17:51:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>She believes what she writes and so do I, and so does approx half of the country. The other half would seem to be woefully uninformed liberals.
>Her exaggerations are for humor and if you ever read her stuff with politics aside, you would see that the woman is hilarious.
>I didn't expect you to change your mind about her politics, but at least you acknowledged she's not a dumbass. Since you've acknowledged that much, that serves to prove that you are not a dumbass either, and that vexes me.
>Since you are not a dumbass, you must be a liberatarian, because not being a dumbass precludes you from being a liberal. LOL

I might not be qualified to post an opinion, since i am a mexican, but from an outsider's point of view, the USA government should just keep its nose OUT OF OTHER COUNTRY'S BUSINESS. If someone is making nukes, and/or threatening to invade/attack the USA, it's because most of the world resents them for not being able to mind their own business, and conservatives like yourself, who can't see past their own noses, should keep your short-sighted opinions to themselves unless you've traveled enough to other countries and experienced head-on the kind of oppression being under the american thumb carries.
There's a saying here in Mexico, roughly translated it goes something like this:
"We of Mexico are low on luck, we're so far from God and so close to the USA"



 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 4 17:59:54 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  erikagm said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>She believes what she writes and so do I, and so does approx half of the country. The other half would seem to be woefully uninformed liberals.
>>Her exaggerations are for humor and if you ever read her stuff with politics aside, you would see that the woman is hilarious.
>>I didn't expect you to change your mind about her politics, but at least you acknowledged she's not a dumbass. Since you've acknowledged that much, that serves to prove that you are not a dumbass either, and that vexes me.
>>Since you are not a dumbass, you must be a liberatarian, because not being a dumbass precludes you from being a liberal. LOL
>
>I might not be qualified to post an opinion, since i am a mexican, but from an outsider's point of view, the USA government should just keep its nose OUT OF OTHER COUNTRY'S BUSINESS. If someone is making nukes, and/or threatening to invade/attack the USA, it's because most of the world resents them for not being able to mind their own business, and conservatives like yourself, who can't see past their own noses, should keep your short-sighted opinions to themselves unless you've traveled enough to other countries and experienced head-on the kind of oppression being under the american thumb carries.
>There's a saying here in Mexico, roughly translated it goes something like this:
>"We of Mexico are low on luck, we're so far from God and so close to the USA"
>
You're under our thumb ?
Bullshit without our money,you wouldn't have half of what your corrupt government can steal from you.
If we're so bad, why do you come over the border by the millions every year risking everything so you can live here?


 
Mesh Posted: Fri Jun 4 18:00:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  haha dude you can post your opinion just because youre meixican doesnt mean you cant.

half of us here arent american.


 
erikagm Posted: Fri Jun 4 18:07:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The reason we need american money so much is because that's the only way we can support ourselves thanks to your nation taking away more than half of ours in the course of the 1800-current date.
In fact, dont you think if your government really wanted to keep all us "beaners" out, with all of your millions, they could?
They want our poor and uneducated for cheap labor, so they keep allowing it.
And the reason we have poor and uneducated people is because the US has enough clout in OUR government, to make our government make sure that it stays that way for YOUR benefit... Where do you think all our politicians get their money? From us? All of us put together couldnt make in a year what they take in a month's time.
People like you are the ones that keep oppression running freely.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 4 18:09:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>I don't care why Habib wants to kill me and my family. I don't care about the cultural complexities and social nuances that causes this hatred. The fact that he wants to kill me and my family and as many other American women and children as he can is all I need to know about him. He can learn to live and let live or he can die by my sword.
>>Bring 'em on !
>
>You just made it crystal clear on our differences better than I probably ever could.
>
>You see, I do care why Habib wants to kill me and my family, because if I get a handle on "Why" I might be able to diffuse the situation, and put policies in motion that rationally try to solve the sourse of the hatred. Maybe even put an end to why Habib hates me.
>
>So instead of saying Habib hates us. Let's go kill him
>I want to say, Let's protect ourselves as best we can for the time being, and focus on the sources of Habib's hatred so we can put an end to it.
>
I didn't say let's go kill him, note the term "live and let live" in my previous post.

>One outlook attempts to deal with the problem head on.
>Yours (and Bushs) only manages to propogate the disease and make it spread to areas it wasn't at in the beginning.
>
I don't see a cure when dealing with religious fanaticism. It just don't happen.
Are you going to convince Habib that we aren't really infidels ? Don't think so.
Were you going to tell Saddam that it just really isn't nice to wage war on his neighbors or build nukes to bring to America ? C'mon it ain't gonna happen.
Habib thinks it's ok to kill women and children in the name of god. Habib will export his religion of death whenever possible. He already done this many times. How are you going to change his mind ? How are you going to make him see that it's ok for jews and christians to exist on his planet ?
My first responsibility is to make sure that Habib doesn't kill my women and children, then maybe, time permitting I can worry about his re-education, but that is most definitely not first on my to-do list.


 
erikagm Posted: Fri Jun 4 18:13:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Now don't get me wrong... There have to be wrongs in order for the rights to be appreciated, because, if there was no illness, health wouldnt be half as treasured as it is now, but there are some wrongs that we can certainly do without.
Like the USA backing the all-but-declared dictatorship that had ruled our country by the nation's so-called "institucional revolutionary party" which, may I add, was backed financially by YOUR government, in exchange for constitutional amendments that would benefit your contry.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong... If there is abuse going on in the world, or threats of violence towards your country, isn't that what the UN is for??? Why is it that their headquarters are in YOUR country, but nonetheless your country is the first to go against what it prescribes if it does not think it is in their best interest, regardless of what the rest of the council says?


 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 4 18:15:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  erikagm said:

>I might not be qualified to post an opinion, since i am a mexican

Whether we agree or not with you here you are of course just as qualified to post an opinion here as the rest of us dimwits are.

My own preference is to have all of us remain as civil as possible when discussing hot topics like this, and for the most part we pull that off (minus a few Koff threads), so have at us!

and Welcome erik. Another "outsiders" opinion is always welcome (unless you're a stinkin' conservative, cuz we dun need no more stinkin' conservatives!)
: )



 
Mesh Posted: Fri Jun 4 18:17:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  yes, welcome to the forums.




 
erikagm Posted: Fri Jun 4 18:19:33 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  if said:
I don't see a cure when dealing with religious fanaticism. It just don't happen.
Are you going to convince Habib that we aren't really infidels ? Don't think so.
Were you going to tell Saddam that it just really isn't nice to wage war on his neighbors or build nukes to bring to America ? C'mon it ain't gonna happen.
Habib thinks it's ok to kill women and children in the name of god. Habib will export his religion of death whenever possible. He already done this many times. How are you going to change his mind ? How are you going to make him see that it's ok for jews and christians to exist on his planet ?

-I see a problem with your logic, and go so far as to doubt the extent of your knowledge. I myself am a Catholic, however, I have friends of several different religions. I have talked extensively with muslims, and they do NOT make propaganda out of killing people. It is fanatics that do. And those fanatics may be catholics, muslims, jews or any religion you decide to pick on. You cannot generalize about a group of people just based on what a few do.

An former (and deceased) president of Mexico, once said, very wisely:

"Respect for other's rights is peace"

If someone wants to exert their right to declare war on another country, that's their business. You can't go butting into Irak's and Kuwait's business and expect everyone to be alright with it. Irakis are going to be pissed off, naturally.

I say let everyone resolve their own problems. If the US hadn't launched desert storm in the first place, they would never have gotten Irak pissed off in the first place.


 
erikagm Posted: Fri Jun 4 18:26:07 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  By the way, I'm actually erika, not erik. LOL


 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 4 18:26:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  erikagm said:

>Why is it that their headquarters are in YOUR country, but nonetheless your country is the first to go against what it prescribes if it does not think it is in their best interest, regardless of what the rest of the council says?

to be honest i don't know enough about Fox and your current government to speak real intelligently. But you have to remember that the U.S. is not the first country to defy the vote of the council. The Soviets did it and I'm sure if I did a little research i'd find plenty more. That does not excuse our behavior at all nor make it right, but don't single us out like we're the only power that would go against the UN.

I think if we're going to make the UN a legitimate force to deal with we (the U.S.) HAVE to respect the votes of the other members, even when we may not like it. It's in our best interest over the long term.


 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 4 18:29:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  erikagm said:
>By the way, I'm actually erika, not erik. LOL

sorry

*once again Addi gets the sex wrong. must keep looking at those medical books and learn the differences


 
FN Posted: Fri Jun 4 18:34:50 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>you are of course just as qualified to post an opinion here as the rest of us dimwits are.


Speak for yourself addi ;o)


Hi Erika.


 
FN Posted: Fri Jun 4 18:37:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>I think if we're going to make the UN a legitimate force to deal with we (the U.S.) HAVE to respect the votes of the other members, even when we may not like it. It's in our best interest over the long term.


Lol.

Shit like this is going to be america's downfall in the long run, just like with any other empire.


 
erikagm Posted: Fri Jun 4 18:38:42 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I never meant to say that the US is the ONLY country to ever defy the UN, what I meant to say is that being the first to preach about justice, civil liberties and respectfulness, it should also be the first to enforce them.

Fox, and his party, unfortunately, are headed in exactly the same direction that the previous party was in.

This time the people decided to actually vote for the lesser of two evils, but there's no real noticeable difference between them. It's was just a choice between the REALLY REALLY bad tasting medicine, or the REALLY bad tasting medicine.


 
FN Posted: Fri Jun 4 18:44:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  erikagm said:
>This time the people decided to actually vote for the lesser of two evils, but there's no real noticeable difference between them. It's was just a choice between the REALLY REALLY bad tasting medicine, or the REALLY bad tasting medicine.


Same thing will be happening in America I think.

Extremely weird system.

No nuances, everything seems to be doomed to either be black or white in america ("with us or against us", "axis of evil", "2 party system", etc. anyone?).

That's not the way the world works.


 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 4 18:45:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
> He can learn to live and let live or he can die by my sword.
>Bring 'em on !

Technically you're correct. You did say live and let live. but the "Bring em on" made your intent very clear: Who gives a fuck why?! Just kill them cuz they want to kill us!

I am not naive. I don't think it's realistic to expect to become best buddies with the fanatics. I only meant that every possible human effort should be made to understand their hatred and attempt to find a way to enact a foreign policy that neutralizes that deep hatred. Maybe trying the approach of throwing water on the fire of U.S. hatred, instead of gasoline.

It just seems like common sense has been missing from the approach we've taken so far.




 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 4 18:52:42 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>
>Shit like this is going to be america's downfall in the long run, just like with any other empire.

now you're sounding like hif, only at the other end of the spectrum, christophe. America: the great evil empire. Pssssht

Don't use such a broad brush stroke and oversimplify my country, it makes you lose credibility.


 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 4 19:00:04 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  erikagm said:
>I never meant to say that the US is the ONLY country to ever defy the UN, what I meant to say is that being the first to preach about justice, civil liberties and respectfulness, it should also be the first to enforce them.

I agree. I've admitted this before, but I hold our country to a high standard and don't feel the need to apologise about that. I don't want to see those standards lowered or comprimised, and I know some of the dissapointment others in the world have towards us now is because we are not the America they know, the America of those past high standards.


 
erikagm Posted: Fri Jun 4 19:28:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>I agree. I've admitted this before, but I hold our country to a high standard and don't feel the need to apologise about that. I don't want to see those standards lowered or comprimised, and I know some of the dissapointment others in the world have towards us now is because we are not the America they know, the America of those past high standards.

I dont expect anyone to apologise, nor am I asking them to. Digressing a bit, it would be like expecting every american to apologise for slavery that happened hundreds of years ago, or, in my country's case, expecting Spain to keep saying, over and over, oh, we're sorry that we did such a shitty thing during the conquest of Mexico and for 500 years afterwards. It's over, learn to deal with it.
I believe that you can get to be someone even if everyone else is trying to pull you back down, if you have enough courage and will, but what I dont like about the USA, (and I'm going to use a really radical analogy here) is that the USA is like a pedophile seeking to ban porn sites, while he takes the pictures that appear on them himself.
Don't get me wrong. I admire your country and its potential, as well as what it stands for, but I just wish that what they preach is what they did themselves.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 4 19:48:17 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  erikagm said:
>Now don't get me wrong... There have to be wrongs in order for the rights to be appreciated, because, if there was no illness, health wouldnt be half as treasured as it is now, but there are some wrongs that we can certainly do without.
>Like the USA backing the all-but-declared dictatorship that had ruled our country by the nation's so-called "institucional revolutionary party" which, may I add, was backed financially by YOUR government, in exchange for constitutional amendments that would benefit your contry.
>Also, correct me if I'm wrong... If there is abuse going on in the world, or threats of violence towards your country, isn't that what the UN is for??? Why is it that their headquarters are in YOUR country, but nonetheless your country is the first to go against what it prescribes if it does not think it is in their best interest, regardless of what the rest of the council says?
>
Are you talking about the 15 resolutions ad nauseum ? How many is too many before action must be taken ?
How many cheeks can one turn ?
Actually no one knows what the UN is for anymore, it sure isn't what it was designed to be. Most Americans would be happy if the UN just disappeared.
It's a good idea on paper, but can you name one time, just once, when the UN was effective in solving any kind of squabble between countries ? The only thing they have a good track record on is emergency relief and even that is not all that good.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 4 19:54:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  erikagm said:
>>-I see a problem with your logic, and go so far as to doubt the extent of your knowledge. I myself am a Catholic, however, I have friends of several different religions. I have talked extensively with muslims, and they do NOT make propaganda out of killing people. It is fanatics that do. And those fanatics may be catholics, muslims, jews or any religion you decide to pick on. You cannot generalize about a group of people just based on what a few do.
>
>An former (and deceased) president of Mexico, once said, very wisely:
>
>"Respect for other's rights is peace"
>
>If someone wants to exert their right to declare war on another country, that's their business. You can't go butting into Irak's and Kuwait's business and expect everyone to be alright with it. Irakis are going to be pissed off, naturally.
>
>I say let everyone resolve their own problems. If the US hadn't launched desert storm in the first place, they would never have gotten Irak pissed off in the first place.
>
I never generalized about any particular religious group in my previous post. I don't know how you read that into what I was trying to say. I was only dealing with religious fanatics, the ones that want to kill us (you included). The problem that I see with the moderate muslims is that they do not speak out against the fanatics. Where is their outrage ? Behind closed doors they will rail against the terrorists but not in public.
As for butting into Iraq's business and Kuwaits business. Kuwait asked for our help, and Iraq sponsored terrorists. If you can't see that, then I question you're knowledge.


 
erikagm Posted: Fri Jun 4 20:02:25 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Are you talking about the 15 resolutions ad nauseum ? How many is too many before action must be taken ?
>How many cheeks can one turn ?
>Actually no one knows what the UN is for anymore, it sure isn't what it was designed to be. Most Americans would be happy if the UN just disappeared.
>It's a good idea on paper, but can you name one time, just once, when the UN was effective in solving any kind of squabble between countries ? The only thing they have a good track record on is emergency relief and even that is not all that good.
Oh my God... I couldnt believe what I read. "Most americans would be happy if the UN just disappeared"? I'd like to see a poll on that one... And I would guess that you would have to be speaking for yourself, mainly.
Yes, it would be nice for the US if the UN disappeared... It would mean that people like you would have free reign to stomp on whoever you pleased.
Face it, you're just a narcissistic power-hungry, sorry excuse for a person
Oh, and your spelling sucks as well.
Can't believe your language is MY second language and I can actually type it better...


 
erikagm Posted: Fri Jun 4 20:04:50 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>As for butting into Iraq's business and Kuwaits business. Kuwait asked for our help, and Iraq sponsored terrorists. If you can't see that, then I question you're knowledge.

Oh so I guess that just being good neighbors and all, US decided to step in, huh? It didn't have anything to do with the fact that elections are usually won by presidents who have recently been involved with wars...
Nor did it have anything to do with the fact that Kuwait is basically floating on oil and the US is one of the main consumers of oil products and by-products...
Bush Sr. was just being a good neighbor! Gee, I'm sorry, I take all that's been said back.
NOT!


 
erikagm Posted: Fri Jun 4 20:10:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Are you talking about the 15 resolutions ad nauseum ? How many is too many before action must be taken ?
>How many cheeks can one turn ?

You don't like the resolutions simply because they don't agree with your way of "resolving" things, which, from what I've gathered so far, is VENGEANCE.
You turn as many cheeks as are needed to avoid a war. War kills innocents.

And don't think I don't understand your outrage. The whole word stood up and rallied with the US to help them. Even MY empoverished and famine-ridden country rose up and offered help.

In a personal note, I have a half-sister who's american since her mother is, and she was living and working QUITE close to the area of 9/11 at the time and I was wrecked with worry.

Nonetheless, even if she HAD been killed, it wouldn't have been an excuse to go to a synagoge and shoot a few muslims, which is the equivalent of what your country did to Irak.

Thousands of innocents people were killed. You don't fix a wrong by committing a wrong yourself, face it.


 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 4 20:28:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  erikagm said:

>Face it, you're just a narcissistic power-hungry, sorry excuse for a person
>Oh, and your spelling sucks as well.
>Can't believe your language is MY second language and I can actually type it better...



: (

can we disagree without the scathing personal attacks?


 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 4 20:32:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  erikagm said:

> what I dont like about the USA, (and I'm going to use a really radical analogy here) is that the USA is like a pedophile seeking to ban porn sites, while he takes the pictures that appear on them himself.

Ouch. Nasty analogy!
(because there is an element of truth to it)



 
erikagm Posted: Fri Jun 4 20:53:17 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>: (
>
>can we disagree without the scathing personal attacks?

You're right. I'm lowering myself to his/her level.

I apologise.

Although may I excuse myself by saying these sort of people drive me to my wit's end?


 
marsteller Posted: Fri Jun 4 20:57:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  umm....Machiavelli's Prince...when you're out for power, the ends justify the means....something like that....i'd say that guy's a good deal wiser than most of us.


 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 4 21:05:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  erikagm said:


>You're right. I'm lowering myself to his/her level.
lol his

>I apologise.
: )

>Although may I excuse myself by saying these sort of people drive me to my wit's end?

Hif and I always come to blows on politics, but believe it or not erika, he's a good hearted person



 
Mesh Posted: Fri Jun 4 21:14:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I officially declare this thread ended.


No more. No more.


 
erikagm Posted: Fri Jun 4 21:18:56 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  meshuggah said:
>I officially declare this thread ended.
>
>
>No more. No more.

LOL You're right

Plus I should really be concentrating on evaluating the agents that don't have a quality evaluation yet.

Bye!


 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 4 21:57:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  erikagm said:

>Plus I should really be concentrating on evaluating the agents that don't have a quality evaluation yet.

i have no idea what that means, but thanks for your imput and join the craziness on the other threads sometime. There are some wonderful fools here!

: )




 
Asswipe Posted: Fri Jun 4 22:23:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>umm....Machiavelli's Prince...when you're out for power, the ends justify the means....something like that....i'd say that guy's a good deal wiser than most of us.

and what ends are you so looking forward to?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 5 09:10:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  erikagm said:
>>You don't like the resolutions simply because they don't agree with your way of "resolving" things, which, from what I've gathered so far, is VENGEANCE.
>
It's pretty obvious to me that you do not have a grasp on current events. If you knew about the "resolutions" issue, you would know that each and every one was supported by the US and the whole issue is that not a single one was enforeced. It was resolution 1551 that authorized the coalition to invade Iraq.

>You turn as many cheeks as are needed to avoid a war. War kills innocents.
>
Yes war kill innocents, so does idly standing by while a despot kills even more.

>And don't think I don't understand your outrage. The whole word stood up and rallied with the US to help them. Even MY empoverished and famine-ridden country rose up and offered help.
>
Thank you

>In a personal note, I have a half-sister who's american since her mother is, and she was living and working QUITE close to the area of 9/11 at the time and I was wrecked with worry.
>
>Nonetheless, even if she HAD been killed, it wouldn't have been an excuse to go to a synagoge and shoot a few muslims, which is the equivalent of what your country did to Irak.
>
Jeez ! talk about spelling (Iraq)(synagogue)

Saddam was given every chance to avoid a war. Too many it would appear. All he had to do was disclose his weapons programs.

>Thousands of innocents people were killed. You don't fix a wrong by committing a wrong yourself, face it.

Uh, I don't suppose you noticed the mass graves that were and still are being uncovered in Iraq ? We saved more live than we took.
Thousands upon thousands of Iraqi girls and women are going to school now that were never allowed before. In schools that did not exist. The boys that are in school have papers, books, pencils, etc. that they didn't have before. The schools have electricity and running water and waste disposal systems they did not have before. This list goes on and on.

As for the Kuwait issue, yes we went in for two reasons. We were asked by the Kuwaiti govt and we couldn't stand idly by while a despot like Saddam Hussein just grabbed a country that would give him control of 80% of the world's oil supply. Where have you been? You appear to not have a clue as to what happened.



 
FN Posted: Sun Jun 6 04:04:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Jeez ! talk about spelling (Iraq)(synagogue)


Lol hif. Wtf.

You think the american way of writing a country's name is the only correct one?

We cal "Iraq" Irak as well, just like we say synagoge instead of "synagogue".

You think the Iraqi's write "Iraq"?


It's Belgi๋ and nog Belgium.


 
FN Posted: Sun Jun 6 04:05:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Typo's, typo's...



Cal= Call

nog= not


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Jun 6 07:13:07 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Typo's, typo's...
>
>
>
>Cal= Call
>
>nog= not
>
she was call attention to my spelling.
Yet she was writing in English. If you are writing in English, then you should use the English spelling.
Yes, of course I know there differences, but if I were typing in French, for example, I would use the Francais way of spelling things.



 
FN Posted: Sun Jun 6 07:23:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I could be wrong but you cannot write names wrong as long as they are fonneticly saying more or less the same thing.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Jun 6 08:31:33 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I could be wrong but you cannot write names wrong as long as they are fonneticly saying more or less the same thing.
>
Fenneticly ? phonetically ?
You are correct, but depending on the language you are using, the spelling could be different.
I would spell theater. Matj would spell theatre.
I would spell labor. Matj would spell labour.
Addie would spell liberal. I would spell dirty stinking communist dog.
Anyway you get my drift.

I think that here on gt, most spelling errors are probably type-o's rather than actual mispellings due to the rather informal setting.
I also think it would be childish to take one's spelling to task if for any reason other than humor.


 
FN Posted: Sun Jun 6 10:21:17 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>I also think it would be childish to take one's spelling to task if for any reason other than humor.

I think so as well, hence my reaction.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Jun 6 16:39:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>I also think it would be childish to take one's spelling to task if for any reason other than humor.
>
>I think so as well, hence my reaction.
>
And if you read upwards you will see that erikagm took my spelling to task first, and what you saw was my reaction to her.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Jun 6 16:40:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>I also think it would be childish to take one's spelling to task if for any reason other than humor.
>>
>>I think so as well, hence my reaction.
>>
>And if you read upwards you will see that erikagm took my spelling to task first, and what you saw was my reaction to her.
And since she was writing in English, she should have been using the English spelling.


 
erikagm Posted: Tue Jun 8 18:20:59 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>And since she was writing in English, she should have been using the English
spelling.

What you're not taking into account is that english is NOT my first language, whilst it IS yours. You should know how to spell it properly, while I have an excuse for not doing so. I don't have typo's in spanish.

And look at a conservative calling someone "not current on events"... You guys have your head in the sand (for not mentioning other places) most of the time...


 
mat_j Posted: Tue Jun 8 19:20:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  erikagm said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>And since she was writing in English, she should have been using the English
>spelling.
>
>What you're not taking into account is that english is NOT my first language, whilst it IS yours. You should know how to spell it properly, while I have an excuse for not doing so. I don't have typo's in spanish.
>
>And look at a conservative calling someone "not current on events"... You guys have your head in the sand (for not mentioning other places) most of the time...

Way to go Erika!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jun 8 21:41:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  erikagm said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>And since she was writing in English, she should have been using the English
>spelling.
>
>What you're not taking into account is that english is NOT my first language, whilst it IS yours. You should know how to spell it properly, while I have an excuse for not doing so. I don't have typo's in spanish.
>
oh, pardon me, I wasn't aware that I was dealing with miss world class typist.
>And look at a conservative calling someone "not current on events"... You guys have your head in the sand (for not mentioning other places) most of the time...
>
still doesn't make your point very well at all, just diverting the subject.
no constructive comments on my last post, just bitching.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]