This is topic Because the starving children deserve it ! in forum Politics/Religion/Current Affairs at The Geek Culture Forums!.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.geekculture.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000265

Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on February 07, 2008, 05:39:
 
If you are a far right politician and don't like a bunch of UC Berkley commies trying to push a marine recruiting station out of town, what is the sane thing to do to show your disapproval?

->Discuss with them that you have as much right to recruit soldiers as the have to protest them.

->Stay put despite thier efforts and show them how succesful thier recruiting statio i town is.

->Be civil.

->Be sane.

->Take food away from poor hungry children (by means of a cutting of funding for a federal free lunch program) that have nothing to do with this political battle.

CNN.com


I hope these bastards find out just once, somehow, what it feels like to be hungry, and then be denied food.
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on February 07, 2008, 09:10:
 
______________________Ashitaka Amen. With the growing chasm between the haves and the have nots, how do the haves look at them selves in the mirror and then go to church and put a pitance in the colection plate and think that makes up for denying Universal Health Care or Food stamps for the poor. What unmitigated Gaul.
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on February 07, 2008, 10:29:
 
Erm... maybe I'm missing something. If you're protesting the war, wouldn't you want access to the recruitment center so that you can protest and present your point of view to those who thinking of enlisting? Getting the recruitment center to move would do nothing to stop people from enlisting, but would make it harder for you to protest and present your point of view.

The over-reaction by others is heinous too, of course, but I'm inclined to think that both sides of this particular dispute are made up of idiots who shouldn't be allowed to handle sharp objects, much less hold government positions.
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on February 07, 2008, 12:21:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steen:
The over-reaction by others is heinous too, of course, but I'm inclined to think that both sides of this particular dispute are made up of idiots who shouldn't be allowed to handle sharp objects, much less hold government positions.

Agreed. It seems none of the politicians mentioned in the article really thought through what they were doing.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on February 07, 2008, 12:52:
 
The Berkley council's decision was purely symbolic, they simply told the recruiting centre "you're not welcome".

They didn't send cops with attack dogs to remove them from the building.

They didn't barricade the street.

They didn't stop collecting their trash.

The Republicans responded to this symbolic gesture with real, tangible retaliation against hungry kids who had nothing to do with the original decision.

These Republican scumbags are effectively holding little children hostage.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on February 07, 2008, 13:55:
 
Steen and Sxepto - I really have had enough of this a plague on both their houses bullshit, because that's exactly what it is. If I stick my tongue out at you, and you then punch me unconscious, I would find your excuse that I had asked for it pretty damn thin. That's exactly the situation here, and made all the more serious in that by the implied threat that this represents. These Republicans are attempting to stifle legitimate political debate. If you oppose the war you'd better shut your mouth, or you'll get it. The blame for this lies clearly and almost completely on one side. The only possible excuse for their actions is that it conforms to their rigidly held dogmatic belief that any substantive help for the poor saps their moral fibre.

This is exactly what bothers me about Obama's policy of reaching out to these bastards. If you do that they'll likely bite you hand off. They need to be fought, roundly defeated and despatched to the political wilderness that is their natural home.

I think that as decent human beings, you ought both to be thoroughly ashamed of what you posted.
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on February 07, 2008, 14:36:
 
Heh... never being one to trust a politician, I did a little digging...

What DeMint claims is being cut:
One earmark provides $243,000 in taxpayer dollars for the organization Chez Panisse to create gourmet organic school lunches in the Berkeley School District. Chez Panisse is dedicated to “environmental harmony” and their menu features “Comté cheese soufflé with mâche salad,” “Meyer lemon éclairs with huckleberry coulis,” and “Chicory salad with creamy anchovy vinaigrette and olive toast.”

What is actually in the bil
Chez Panisse Foundation, Berkeley, CA for the school lunch initiative to integrate lessons
about wellness, sustainability and nutrition into the academic curriculum 243,000


So... to sum up, DeMit is proposing to cut money that would go to nutrition education, but claiming that he's cutting money that would pay for pricey gourmet foods.

Honestly, I would have said I was cutting nutrition education because that would have created less of an uproar.
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on February 07, 2008, 14:45:
 
Callipygous wrote:
I think that as decent human beings, you ought both to be thoroughly ashamed of what you posted.

Which part am I supposed to be ashamed of? The part where I called the funding cuts heinous? Or the part where I said I didn't understand the point of what Berkeley's politicians did?

... and I still don't see the point. Protesting in front of a recruitment center makes a point. Asking the recruitment center go away where you can't protest is... well, it's the exact opposite of making a point, isn't it?

How is the action of the Berkeley council not idiotic? How is DeMint's action not heinous? Please enlighten me or STFU.

You aren't stupid and you can damned well read exactly what I wrote. Don't go ASM on me and try to reinterpret what I said [Razz]

BTW, DeMint isn't alone... The others just aren't making their involvement known. For the record, the ones behind the attempt to cut funding are Jim DeMint, Saxby Chambliss, Tom Coburn, John Cornyn, James Inhofe, David Vitter, and John Campbell.
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on February 07, 2008, 14:47:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steen:
Heh... never being one to trust a politician, I did a little digging...

What DeMint claims is being cut:
One earmark provides $243,000 in taxpayer dollars for the organization Chez Panisse to create gourmet organic school lunches in the Berkeley School District. Chez Panisse is dedicated to “environmental harmony” and their menu features “Comté cheese soufflé with mâche salad,” “Meyer lemon éclairs with huckleberry coulis,” and “Chicory salad with creamy anchovy vinaigrette and olive toast.”

What is actually in the bil
Chez Panisse Foundation, Berkeley, CA for the school lunch initiative to integrate lessons
about wellness, sustainability and nutrition into the academic curriculum 243,000


So... to sum up, DeMit is proposing to cut money that would go to nutrition education, but claiming that he's cutting money that would pay for pricey gourmet foods.

Honestly, I would have said I was cutting nutrition education because that would have created less of an uproar.

OK , I am less mad now.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on February 07, 2008, 14:56:
 
Steen you could always look at the foundation's web site if you were interested. It doesn't look like a trivial business to me, but then I think food is important and not merely fuel. It's about honest food rather than goumet fancy pants food. I don't buy your excuse. This is still naked political blackmail.
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on February 07, 2008, 15:00:
 
I have to ask... how does calling DeMint's action heinous equate to excusing his action in your mind?

What the hell is wrong with your English skills?
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on February 07, 2008, 15:23:
 
OK Steen. I am not distorting your views. Here they are:-

quote:
Originally posted by Steen:
Erm... maybe I'm missing something. If you're protesting the war, wouldn't you want access to the recruitment center so that you can protest and present your point of view to those who thinking of enlisting? Getting the recruitment center to move would do nothing to stop people from enlisting, but would make it harder for you to protest and present your point of view.

The over-reaction by others is heinous too, of course, but I'm inclined to think that both sides of this particular dispute are made up of idiots who shouldn't be allowed to handle sharp objects, much less hold government positions.

OK then, in your first paragraph you give your objection to the symbolic political gesture made by Berkley Council. While I can follow your reasoning I happen to disagree though of course like all gestures, it's ultimately impotent. You then go on to say that the over-reaction was heinous too. This to me means that you think the action of the Berkley council was also "heinous", which in my book is a fairly strong term of moral reproach. Or do you use Bill and Ted speak?

Finally you conclude that both sides are equally incompetent. I characterised this post as "a plague on both your houses", which seems accurate, and your whole post seems to me to argue that the Republican reaction was, if not excusable, at least understandable.

I still think that you are utterly wrong and that your post was shameful. And I don't say that lightly, because I have some personal regard for you.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on February 07, 2008, 15:44:
 
I know I saw it around here somewhere...

Ah yes, here it is.
 -
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on February 07, 2008, 16:41:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
Steen and Sxepto - I really have had enough of this a plague on both their houses bullshit, because that's exactly what it is.

Calli, you're always welcome to cut out the "they're evil and they're out to get us" paranoid "bullshit." [Big Grin] [devil wand]

The senators' move is as symbolic as the city council's (does anyone honestly thinks the proposal has a snowball's chance in hell of even getting past a committee?), and neither were very effective, creating an angry backlash that could easily have been foreseen in both cases.

This is only tangentially related to political parties, anyway. I have a low regard for city councils in general, so I consider Berkeley city council's lame attempt at protest a typical ego trip. On the other hand, senators are supposedly professionals, so they should be smarter than that (I think some actually are, but these guys were in particularly amateurish form).
 
Posted by Colonel Panic (Member # 1200) on February 07, 2008, 17:05:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
These Republican scumbags are effectively holding little children hostage.

Sounds like mild treatment to me. Most of the conservatives I've been tracking wouldn't just hold the kids hostage, they'd take dirty pictures of the kids and try to sell the pics on the internet.

Gotta remember that conservatives elected a child predator, Tom Foley, to head up the committee to prevent child predation. Then they turned around and blamed the kids for the adult's criminal behavior. They voted against Adam's law. They don't believe in gay marriage because it's more fun to pick up sex partners in airports.

Put the values of "values voters" in perspective.

Hang on a bit Druid, we'll see the conservatives blame these kids for being held hostage.

CP
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on February 07, 2008, 17:08:
 
I wrote:
Erm... maybe I'm missing something. If you're protesting the war, wouldn't you want access to the recruitment center so that you can protest and present your point of view to those who thinking of enlisting?

and Callipygous wrote
in your first paragraph you give your objection to the symbolic political gesture

No. I said I didn't understand their action because it not only seems pointless, but it makes it harder, if not impossible, for protesters to protest at the recruitment office. This DOES NOT translation into an objection to them protesting.

...and just so you know, nearby businesses were complaining about the protesters, so the Berkeley council tried to get the recruitment office to move and take the protesters with them to solve their problem because they couldn't take away the protesters' freedom of speech. The Berkeley council was not providing a symbolic objection to the war, they were catering to the local businesses who didn't like the protesters by trying to move the protests elsewhere so that people wouldn't have to hear the message of those who actually oppose the war.

I also wrote:
The over-reaction by others is heinous too, of course, but I'm inclined to think that both sides of this particular dispute are made up of idiots

and Callipygous wrote
You then go on to say that the over-reaction was heinous too. This to me means that you think the action of the Berkley council was also "heinous"

No, it means that I think that the senators' (and the one congressman's) action was heinous IN ADDITION to being stupid while the council's action was just stupid. You're trying to take statements in the previous paragraph and ignoring the rest of the sentence in order to try and conjure up a statement of support for something I called heinous. You're doomed to fail, however, because I made no such statement.

Finally you conclude that both sides are equally incompetent.

Well, at least you got that part right. I think both sides have proven that they're not competent to wield the powers granted to them by their offices and should be replaced with people who, I dunno... think through the consequences of their actions and behave in a responsible manner? Crazy, I know, and incredibly unlikely to ever happen, but I can dream. Maybe I'll give up dreaming some day and just hope that we aren't electing meth and crack addicts to positions of power (not that those haven't happened already [Roll Eyes] )

your whole post seems to me to argue that the Republican reaction was, if not excusable, at least understandable.

This is the part where you go off into idiotville with the council and the senators and congressman. NOTHING I wrote implies that I excuse or sympathize in any way with what they did. Calling an action heinous does not mean that you consider that action understandable or excusable. Claiming that it does is disingenuous.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on February 07, 2008, 18:31:
 
Steen sweetie neither of us is an idiot and I don't deliberately distort arguments a la ASM. I also understand the English Language just as well as you. Also I was not being disingenuous as I still view my interpretation of what you said as much the most obvious, taking the plain meaning of the words you used, and I believe that is how most people would read it. However I also accept that you are not a devious character, and that if you take a contrary view, then I accept that you too are being straightforward and honest and the meaning you intended was as expressed in your last post.

OK? And come and visit me one day in idiotville. I'd love to show you round.
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on February 07, 2008, 18:57:
 
Callipygous wrote:
And come and visit me one day in idiotville. I'd love to show you round.

See... if you knew my dating history, you'd know that I'm probably qualified to serve as mayor of idiotville. I may not be a good celibate, but I have good reasons for being the worst one [Smile]
 
Posted by brainisfried (Member # 3067) on February 08, 2008, 05:26:
 
If anyone's curious about the other side of the story:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGU5NDljOWNhZjc1NDhiYmU3MDJiMjI1ZWNlOWFjYzc=

So Berkeley politicians give the protesters special privileges to facilitate their harassment of the Marines and are shocked, shocked! that the Marines have friends? That not everyone believes "that our men and women in uniform were responsible for 'horrible karma'"?

Also, why does a wealthy city like Berkeley need the federal government to pay for their programs, no matter how benevolent they sound? It amuses me that people who encourage dependence on Big Brother got bit by their shortsightedness. Surely I'm not the only one to see the obvious libertarian argument here?

Do you think those people would be so big and brave harassing a group that could actually hurt them, in the unlikely event they'd be so inclined? What a bunch of cowards.
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on February 08, 2008, 05:58:
 
quote:
Originally posted by brainisfried:

Do you think those people would be so big and brave harassing a group that could actually hurt them, in the unlikely event they'd be so inclined?

Yes


Opposing a war does not make one a coward, though, doing wrong to be and maintain the status quo is cowardly

Haven't you seen the war protests with liberal use of pepper spray and rubber bullets?

I think those that go against the majority are the brave ones.

Only dead fish go withthe flow.
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on February 08, 2008, 06:12:
 
__________________________Only dead fish go with the flow.

That is so good.

As a citizen it is incumbant to ask WHY? Many times may be warranted.

Why?
 
Posted by Colonel Panic (Member # 1200) on February 08, 2008, 18:38:
 
quote:
Originally posted by brainisfried:
If anyone's curious about the other side of the story:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGU5NDljOWNhZjc1NDhiYmU3MDJiMjI1ZWNlOWFjYzc=

So Berkeley politicians give the protesters special privileges to facilitate their harassment of the Marines and are shocked, shocked! that the Marines have friends? That not everyone believes "that our men and women in uniform were responsible for 'horrible karma'"?

Also, why does a wealthy city like Berkeley need the federal government to pay for their programs, no matter how benevolent they sound? It amuses me that people who encourage dependence on Big Brother got bit by their shortsightedness. Surely I'm not the only one to see the obvious libertarian argument here?

Do you think those people would be so big and brave harassing a group that could actually hurt them, in the unlikely event they'd be so inclined? What a bunch of cowards.

I guess you're right, Brain.

After poorly considered and poorly fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan our Marines -- or is it Mariannes? -- just aren't the tough fighting force that took Guadalcanal anymore. Is that what you're saying?

The Marines can't take a "Code Pink" parking alert anymore? Is that it, sweetcakes?

Hell, it used to be them fellows could actually win a war. I don't see them doing that anymore. And they have that goddamned genius GW Bush leading them. Y'all told us it would be rose petals in Bagdad in a couple of weeks. Must of been those panty-waist Mary-Annes who screwed the pooch, huh?

And now, you're saying the Marines can't stand up to a bunch of flower-toting liberals in Berkley?

Whose side are you on?

The Marines will give toys to tots, but they won't give a starving child a goddamned meal? And that makes sense to you? What unit did you say you were with? The Limbaugh-Hannity-O'ReillyFire-Breathing draft dodgers? Some bunch of jerks who say a guy who spent six years at the Hanoi Hilton ain't tough enough? Those punks?

As for tax subsidies, I think folks in that part of the country are paying a lot more than their fair share of taxes. And to do what?!?! To pay for the largest (neocon/liberatarian-sponsored) growth of government in US history?

What the freak are you smoking at the Timothy McVeigh Compound for anarchy anyway?

There is a reason this country is taking a great big turn to the left -- the right has turned the toughest fighting force in the world into a bunch of goddamned panty waists!

You make no sense at all.

Now come on over here an have a few real men wipe your butt and blow your nose for you, Ms. Prissy Pants.

Better still, quit crapping your pants in a public forum.

Colonel Panic
 
Posted by brainisfried (Member # 3067) on February 09, 2008, 07:13:
 
If the Marines so much as laid a finger on the protesters they'd be hauled off to court and Code Pink's Democrat enablers would howl about those mean soldiers (they carry guns you know, though perhaps not at the recruiting station) trampling the rights of The People to be screaming lunatics. The protesters know it. THAT'S cowardly, not to mention disrespectful to the Marines who volunteer to keep them safe.

It's bad enough that the protesters keep giving the enemy the idea that if they hold out long enough we'll give up and go home. But harassing Marines who DON'T SET POLICY is retarded.

The protesters are acting like a bunch of dhimmis.

As for taxes, seeings how Berkeley overwhelmingly votes for high federal taxes (that's what Democrats do) I really can't sympathize when reality bites them.
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on February 09, 2008, 13:29:
 
_________________________ Lets see Democrats are tax and spend. While Republicans appear to be spend, spend and pass the tab on to the next administration to balance the budget. Have I got that right?

Democrats are pinko commie lefties, and Repubicans wear white robes and hoods at night and claim they are at a lawful meeting. Have I got that part right?

Dems would allow a woman to control her own destiny, While Reps would want her to have a child from rape and then exicute him because he grew up in a love less home, Have I got that right?

It is not black and white there is a huge ammount of grey between the two extremes, I would perfer to vote for some one that filled most of my requirements than vote against some one because they do not fufil one requirement.
 
Posted by Mr Agreeable (Member # 11127) on February 09, 2008, 14:54:
 
quote:
Originally posted by brainisfried:
harassing Marines who DON'T SET POLICY is retarded.

I agree.

And retaliating against hungry school kids is the right thing to do, because they do set policy.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on February 09, 2008, 15:23:
 
It does mystify me how the Republicans manage to represent themselves as fiscally responsible stewards of a growing economy, and the Democrats as spendthrifts driving it into ruin, when what evidence we have suggest the opposite may be true. Bill Clinton was probably as lucky as he was astute, but his presidency did mark the longest and most sustained period of rapid economic growth for the US in modern times. It should also be remembered that on election, he ditched much of the policy platform he was elected on to clear the deficit, so he was willing to take tough economic decisions. In contrast GWB, as with everything else is a slave to his dogma, whatever the problem tax cuts are the answer, and like his Republican predecessors he has run up a huge deficit. Statistics also indicate that while his presidency has seen the rich get much richer, there has been little change for the great majority of the US population. I find it reassuring that now that the US seems to be heading for, at the very least, difficult times, and possibly much worse, that none of the three main Presidential candidates are committed to any particular economic theory, and so will be free to use pragmatic solutions.
 
Posted by Colonel Panic (Member # 1200) on February 09, 2008, 19:00:
 
Soooo,

We won't even address losing the war on terrorism, right? Osama is still free, WMDs haven't been found, Al Queada is closer to possessing nukes in Pakistan than ever before.

As for the Marines, the numbers say they'd rather shoot themselves than the enemy -- suicides are at an all time high.

Brain, you have yet to tell us the unit with which you served. Or are you of age and just talk a lot, you know, like a COWARD! Or does a high score on WOW qualify you as a vet anymore?

NOW LET'S TALK LIBERTARIAN, OK, WIENIE?

The Constitution tells us the Federal Government shall not quarter soldiers in our homes. I don't see such a stretch when people don't want them quartered in their communities. After all, it is a Federal Government intrusion isn't it?

Or does not wanting the Federal Government in ones community only apply when the Feds are about to bust a kiddie porn ring run out of a "Home School" operation?

So you propose Libertarianism. Tell me why on this issue that some son of a bitch politician from Lousiana (who can't take care of his own in a hurricane) decides to dictate policy in California?

Show us where that is a Libertarian ideal. It appears more like a bunch of cowards talking big to me -- which is why the country is losing the war.

Why is it the only constitutional powers Libertarians are ever for is lynching niggers, not paying taxes, bombing Federal buildings, and having the right to shoot up a mall full of innocent people?

Libertarians -- just one more lie away from being another GWB.

Read the sig, Moron.

Libertarians, my ass.

How old are you, and why aren't you in Iraq?

CP
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on February 09, 2008, 19:44:
 
Um, CP, his name is "brainisfried". That probably tells you something about his thinking skills. [Wink]
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on February 10, 2008, 01:47:
 
quote:
I don't deliberately distort arguments a la ASM.
[ohwell]   Actually, it's just a matter of responding to the stupidity that some of you display.

For example:
quote:
Event: Religious court sentences person to death over "verbal" disagreement of beliefs.

Liberal Response: Well, I'm not saying that is good.......

WAKE UP! THAT IS F_CKING EVIL. If you don't know that, then your intellect with respect to philosophy is somewhere between "moss" and "tapeworm." You're a thousand or so years behind the learning curve.

quote:
These Republican scumbags are effectively holding little children hostage.
Do you honestly think "If the Marines Don't Feed the Children -- the Children Will DIE!!!"?

Damn ... You have to be real stupid to think the Marines are a primary "food service" organization.

If you believe it's really going to be such a horrific tragedy: Don't post again until the news article "Hundreds of American Children Starve Because Marines Didn't Feed Them" comes out -- that shouldn't be more than a week or so, right? </sarcasm>

Several of you have made it very clear how much you hate the US, and yet the most you can say about something like the suicide bombing at a wedding is "I never said that was good." You're completely unqualified to make moral judgments, so go find something else to talk about.

Although it's unlikely, the best response to people that don't want military recruiting:
quote:
When a national disaster occurs let them make their own food and water instead of getting any help from the armed forces (like National Guard).

 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on February 10, 2008, 02:41:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
I don't deliberately distort arguments a la ASM.

Actually, it's just a matter of responding to the stupidity that some of you display.


and then later in the same posting...

quote:
Do you honestly think "If the Marines Don't Feed the Children -- the Children Will DIE!!!"?

Damn ... You have to be real stupid to think the Marines are a primary "food service" organization.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

<gasping for breath, struggling to see the screen through the tears of laughter>

Oh ASM, you've really outdone yourself here!

Sheer comic genius!

Please ASM, entertain us some more, tell us all about how Daffy Duck saved the Mayflower from being torpedoed by the Titanic.

Ho ho ho ho ho.....
 
Posted by brainisfried (Member # 3067) on February 10, 2008, 07:25:
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMoMan:
_________________________ Lets see Democrats are tax and spend. While Republicans appear to be spend, spend and pass the tab on to the next administration to balance the budget. Have I got that right?

Democrats are pinko commie lefties, and Republicans wear white robes and hoods at night and claim they are at a lawful meeting. Have I got that part right?

Dems would allow a woman to control her own destiny, While Reps would want her to have a child from rape and then execute him because he grew up in a love less home, Have I got that right?

It is not black and white there is a huge amount of grey between the two extremes, I would prefer to vote for some one that filled most of my requirements than vote against some one because they do not fulfill one requirement.

I'm pissed about Republican overspending too. I fail to see how electing Democrats who overtax AND overspend is an improvement. The Club for Growth has been working on getting wayward Republicans replaced in the primaries, with some success.

Actually, the KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party. Jonah Goldberg's new book "Liberal Fascism" has a chapter on it I think. You should read it.

Better to kill the kid rather than give him a chance, eh? That's what a good eugenicist would do. See, I can be melodramatic too. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the Marines...

Yes, there is a huge amount of gray out there. I don't like spendthrift government, I could care less about social issues, but I want pro-growth economic policies and I want America's enemies to know that attacking America is a death sentence. That makes the Republican Party the best fit for me. Progressives would rather we "understand" jihadis, but watch out for those scary Marines!

As for how the war's going, read this article by one of the right-wing extremists at the Washington Post:
Learning to Fight a War
 
Posted by sconzey (Member # 2347) on February 10, 2008, 09:29:
 
Personally, what I detest most is stupid generalisations about entire political parties. Especially parties as big as Republican and Democrat parties in the US.

Whether or not certain republicans do or do not have racist tendencies is a long way from being anything like the KKK...

Who - I think - should count as Nazis under Godwin's Law. [Razz]
 


© 2018 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0