B-
I knew that you wouldn’t and won’t get it because a hypocrite obviously won’t be able to spout out hypocrisy.
B-
I knew that you wouldn’t and won’t get it because a hypocrite obviously won’t be able to spout out hypocrisy.
Actually hank i'm going to go deeper into how you figure this out
now what does this part say ?Quote:
But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test—that passes the global test—where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Heres where the problem comes in. Only after he checks with the world to see if its ok with them and passes their test will we do something.isn't the word "did" a past tense? and "doing what you are doing"...doesn't that mean you are already doing it?Quote:
But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test—that passes the global test—where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
If he had said and you can prove to the world what we are going to do you would have a case...but hank you have this wrong buddy.
the fact is he didn't sayOnly after he checks
Last edited by vidcc; 10-07-2004 at 04:49 PM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
That makes even less sense than before. It’s just plain stupid.
So after we do something to protect ourselves THEN it has to pass a global test. Doesn’t that contradict his whole stance of building a coalition and gathering allies?
Really the whole thing is ridiculous.
I still hate the new quote system.
no . We have to be legitimate in our actions is what it means.... so that we don't endanger our chances of buildng building a coalition and gathering allies.Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
I would argue your definition of Global, in the context of that statement.But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test—that passes the global test—where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Global in this context would mean the whole of the country... it is defined by the words following:
"where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing,"
The other countries are tagged onto the end of the statement as an afterthought.
There are many definitions of the word "Global", and though your definition is a correct one, the context of the whole statement means that is not the definition that is required.
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
Whatever Hank.Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank
The bottomline is your, our President fucked up. The rationale he used to go to war preemptively didn't work and there's no way you or this fucked up President can tell any intelligent person otherwise.
Say Saddam's a bad man. So are many others.
Say Iraqi's needed freedom. So do many others. It didn't justify a prolonged war with no post war plan that impacts the U.S. negatively with needless Americans dying, gross financial losses (except for Halliburton), and respect for us a nation globally.
Say Saddam was trying to get nukes. Who ain't?
Say Al Qaeda was in Iraq. They weren't. They had more to do with Iran than Iraq and Saddam had his own feud with them.
I watched 60 minutes last night and there were Iraqis interviewed about the American occupation. Initially they thought they were saved now they see it differently. Families have lost more relatives, cultural treasures, and freedom than before we invaded. People are routinely kidnapped.
By the way these Iraqis didn't want there names revealed or be seen talking to Americans in public for fear of being killed by insurgents.
Bush should up fess to America that he invaded for the wrong reason and is using the wewentintogiveIraqisfreedomAlQaedawasthereallalongSaddamhelpedsponsor911Iraqisstillwantusthere as a band-aid.
If you Hank actually know that Bush is a fuck up and have a substantial financial interest or something in President Bush then I commend you for putting up such a nice Republican united front for us all here.
We have been duped. Why one would do this on an internet forum is anyone's guess though seeing as you are not a politician and could never hope to be, uh bump that, Bush is in office but he has name. Add to that we really don't know who you are.
BUT....
If you actually believe Bush's track record thus far is great and he's doing nothing wrong then you have to be the best grade A class bonafide idiot in the history of idiocy and it's shameful that people like yourself represent a voting demographic in America.
If this was Clinton you'd be foaming at the mouth.
EDIT: ...and the new quote system does suck.
Last edited by Busyman; 10-07-2004 at 05:26 PM.
Silly bitch, your weapons cannot harm me. Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, Bitchhhh!
Flies Like An Arrow, Flies Like An Apple
---12323---4552-----
2133--STRENGTH--8310
344---5--5301---3232
There are many points that I would like to comment on about your post but this is most intriguing to me.Originally Posted by Busyman
Firstly why one would do this on an internet forum. I like the conversation here and think that it’s a great mental exercise to do this sort of thing. It’s not fun at all to always have conversations about politics with people who agree with you. People around here generally understand the threat that we are under. This used to be a very pro Democrat state but things have changed. There are more people with Bush stickers on their cars than you can shake a stick at.
Now onto my main point: why could I never be a politician? I’ve seen you say this more than once now and its really got me wondering why I could never get you to vote for me.
Here's the point:
You cannot make countries understand; nor satisfyingly prove that your doing what your doing; that is their perspective and in their territory. I'm sure that even you can concede that President Bush believes that what he is doing is right, for various reasons, but making other countries concede is preposterous. I also believe that the reasons mentioned (and have been rehashed, rehashed, and rehashed), though maybe not agreed on, can be understood. We cannot force countries to understand, and we shouldn't hinder protecting Americans for it.
For the scinareos you mentioned vid; there has to be legal credence to what they are doing.
Do you know everything? do you know 3% of everything? Could it be that what you don't believe in is in the other 97%?
What's really sad is that I added that in as an edit and I'll be damned if that's the only thing you focused on. (the quote thing wasn't the only edit)Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank
I figured as much.
The other stuff I mentioned is very hard to refute. That's why it wasn't addressed...even in the "Now onto my main point" part you were still addressing an edited segway.
Silly bitch, your weapons cannot harm me. Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, Bitchhhh!
Flies Like An Arrow, Flies Like An Apple
---12323---4552-----
2133--STRENGTH--8310
344---5--5301---3232
Just for my own clarification manny...do you think kerry said he will ask other countries before he takes action?Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
Well let's put a real life scenario in place...911.
we found out who did it and we went after them....that's credibility. we didn't need to ask the world and they backed us
Iraq...we didn't get our facts straight before we took our actions...not credible.... now it doesn't matter that "everyone knew " saddam had WMD...what matters is that we took actions before we did know for sure and it turns out we were wrong.WE took action because we said...well the UN isn't doing anything to disarm this "imminent threat".... but turns out that he was disarmed do you think that's credible?
before you answer i don't want to be hearing the "new just thought of reasons" after the WMD turned out to be an "oops"....i want to hear about the reasons we did it when we did it.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Bookmarks