Democrats versus Republicans

[sck5]

Oh and about that thing with my wife and the Red Sox. All right thinking Americans including her know the Red Sox are evil. In fact, their evil taints all teams from Boston.

[chucklesR]

sck,

No, that's not the 'american way'. Not even in previous centuries. Sending in the Marines and blowing their heads off invariably means civilian, innocent casualties. It's also an act of war.
Terrorism is not war, it's sick animals using force, shock and violence to affect a political or religious agenda on others.
It is a act of insanity yet criminal in intent and purpose, and therefore should be treated as such. Using the law to deal with them doesn't work because they recognize no law other than (in the case of extremist islam) the Koran. I do not believe that using their same methods against them is wrong nor shameful, it is instead what any military person would deem EFFECTIVE which is the point, and the only point that matters.

[sck5]

On another topic entirely, I just heard on the radio that Fidel "retired". Now they will have his brother permanently - I hear he is an alcoholic. Maybe this is the beginning of the end of their regime. It will be hard to hold it together once fidel is dead which cant be long from now.

[RAGNAR]

nnn

[sck5]

chuckles

Your last post sounds just like a lot of democrats when they criticize invading Iraq and say that we should use police methods against Osama. You sure you're a Republican? I have to say it would be a great thing to see Osama put in the general population at Riker's Island which is where murder suspects go in NYC to await processing. I suspect his processing would be somewhat expedited by the inmates.

[RAGNAR]

nnn

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

sck5,
Let's try another round of logical thinking here.

Obama's campaign headquarters in Houston has a silk-screen of Che hanging in the reception room. What can we draw from that?
1. The person who hung it is a fan of Che.
2. That person's immediate supervisor, while perhaps not a Che fan, certainly does not object to Che.
3. The campaign manager might qualify as either of the two above, but was guilty of worse.
4. The campaign manager either tolerated the potrait because no one of "impotance" was going to see it, or he didn't care who saw it and what they thought of it.
5. Or the campaign manager thought it stuck just the right cord with the type of people being sought for recruits.

You cannot have it both way's. The campaign manager was either for it or tolerated it. What impression does that give you of either his beliefs or his managerial skills? And what does that tell you about Obama's judgement; of acts and of people? When the 3rd Mate runs the ship aground, they don't hang the 3rd Mate for the act. They hang the Master for allowing the 3rd Mate to run the ship aground.

You come home to find your wife in bed with the entire infield of the Boston Red Sox. She respond's, "It's an illusion. Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own lyin' eyes?".

Even if this was actually the act of some pseudo-serious intellectual staffer, what does it tell you about the rest of the organization? Or the canidate.

Methinks sck5 has been hoist by his own petard! He holds President Bush personally responsible for unauthorized criminal acts committed by low-level soldiers, but when an embarrassing Che Guevara poster is hung in his beloved candidate's campaign headquarters, he says, with a completely straight face, "That poster was put there by a stupid, unauthorized, low-level staff member."

Honestly, sck5, your explanation is a classic, but you missed the best explanation of all - the one you guys always rely on as a last resort. "It's a conspiracy! The Republicans must have put the poster there! Yeah, that's it! The Republicans did it!"

[bubb2]

Originally Posted by sck5

chuckles

Your last post sounds just like a lot of democrats when they criticize invading Iraq and say that we should use police methods against Osama. You sure you're a Republican? I have to say it would be a great thing to see Osama put in the general population at Riker's Island which is where murder suspects go in NYC to await processing. I suspect his processing would be somewhat expedited by the inmates.

Those at Rikers's are no more human than Osama himself. Being from New York and also knowing a few New York City Firemen, It would be more just to push Osama though the front door of an maned NY City fire station and lock the door behind him.

343 not forgotten

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by sck5

chuckles

Your last post sounds just like a lot of democrats when they criticize invading Iraq and say that we should use police methods against Osama. You sure you're a Republican? .

Nope, I'm a registered Independent who admittedly has never voted in any election, at any time in my entire life. I'm registered so I can perform my duties as a citizen (e.g., jury duty) - much the same way I served in the military until I retired because my family always does.
I refuse to participate in the general folly that we call elections as that would give moral support to the idiots who are filling our political offices, the parties that foist them off on us and the 'media' who 'help' us choose and understand what it all means in 10 second sound bites and 4th grade writing.


Note I do not think we should use the legal system against terrorist. I think we should use THEIR system against them. Find 'em, terrorize them, kill them, do it early and often and soon they will get the message of intolerance and behave, or there won't be any more to worry about. Like it or not, when american indians raided settlers the same policy worked then, it's politically incorrect but effective. Dead people don't terrorize, they just rot in the ground.

[PBzeer]

Here's why I'll no longer discuss the Iraqi situation, and it's ramifications with you any longer sck5.

Originally Posted by sck5

But you are getting all up in arms about a third level moron in the campaign when our leader, George Bush, leads an administration that TORTURES HUMAN BEINGS TO DEATH. And defends it.

Implict in that quote is that the use of torture to kill people is not only ongoing, but is American policy. To prove this, you cite one alledged death by presumed torture.

Words mean things, and if you give no more thought to your use of them than appears in that quote, then there is no civilized, rational avenue for discussion.