lol i'm a neutral so i really don't care who comes up against meOriginally Posted by j2k4
Stand by your "dig", sir.
Watch behind you for liberals.
One n Only
BT Rep: +2
lol i'm a neutral so i really don't care who comes up against meStand by your "dig", sir.
Watch behind you for liberals.
en(un)lightened
Well, then.lol i'm a neutral so i really don't care who comes up against me
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
.
Totally flawed argument.
If you boil it down, he is arguing that the current political alignment in Japan means that WW2 was a positive outcome for the US and therefore war was a better solution than negotiation.
The problem with that argument is that it was Japan that went to war while the US was trying for negotiation. Japan lost!
Not that it has anything to do with whether Obama deserves the Nobel prize.
.Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
<
No use in watching biased reporters, your brain will simply melt from the, well, biased point of view...
As soon as the guy start using the term 'liberal', you know you're in for a take on a simplified world view. The reverse holds true as well of course....
This is what you get when the media is run by money; extreme polarization designed to appeal to a specific market... no good.
Last edited by ahctlucabbuS; 10-22-2009 at 02:17 AM.
en(un)lightened
You're both incorrect.
Whether or not war is wrong, appeasement/negotiation/diplomacy is at worst a total waste of time, and at best a financial drain.
The fellow used the term "liberal" only in the interest of accuracy; you people who reject labels (when they are applied to you) really should settle in behind your beliefs rather than selectively presenting as some sort of ideological will-o-the-wisp.
Fact is, the fellow wasn't advocating war, he was merely telling the truth about the other.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Shovel Ready
So, if diplomacy is always a bad idea, then war is the only option...for everything.
"Might is right" in all cases, eh?
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
en(un)lightened
Diplomacy has it's place and use.So, if diplomacy is always a bad idea, then war is the only option...for everything.
"Might is right" in all cases, eh?
So has war - let's not naively pretend otherwise.
Your difficulty is discerning when diplomacy becomes a game of 'chicken', and war is looming off-stage-left, looking at the assholes for it's cue.
Diplomacy should always be practiced to the very last moment, of course, but please realize there are a few genuine barbarians left, and many of them are rather unfortunately positioned to cause trouble, as can plainly be seen from the right.
Think of it this way:
Given the relatively new trend of laxity in dealing with those pursuing the ability to cause catastrophic destruction, whether flying flags or under terrorist auspices, the option of 'turning the other cheek' has been removed from the menu.
Human nature creates the imperative, you see?
Last edited by j2k4; 10-22-2009 at 03:59 PM.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
.
Total and utter crap.
At the end of the day, short of total annihilation of one side, wars only come to an end by some sort of negotiation. That's even the case when it is described as "unconditional surrender".
Since negotiation is inevitable it is better, where possible, to have that negotiation before conflict occurs.
"Jaw, Jaw is better than War, War" - Winston Churchill.
Let's see you call HIM a left wing liberal.
Last edited by lynx; 10-22-2009 at 05:58 PM.
.Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
They gave it to Gorbachev for similar reasons - I wouldn't say he deserved it, but the prize IS a political award (after all base don opinion of a select few) just like the Oscars.. did Halle Berry deserve it for that sex scene with Billy Bob in Monster's Balle - hell no! She should've gotten it the year b4 for Dorothy Dandridge but they gave someone else who was the popular vote instead that year and "made it up" to her with that giveaway.
As said before the positive is they could give it to Joe Plumber and he probably wouldn't have the kind of impact that Obama and his administration could have.
As to him being involve din wars in the Middle East and a plunging economy I think you'll find with a weeb it of research taht is George W's mess he's trying to clean up! lmao!
Shovel Ready
Channeling Cheney again I see.
You "right-seers" really nailed the call invading Iraq the second time didn't you?
Your excellent vision could see an Al-qaeda connection and WMDs where none existed.
Your impeccable political senses could discern widespread local support and desire for Western democracy that is still not apparent to anyone else.
Your belief that you and yours are the only ones capable of seeing and dealing with the threats that face the world is sadly not supported by fact.
Of course, you guys are adept at rewriting history to suit your ends- see: Jackie Robinson was a Republican- and clearly masters of ignoring facts, so who here is surprised?
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks