More American Al-Qaeda Arrested

[UDT89]

know what i say to everyone that has a problem........................

Mexico and Canada have some NIIIIIICE real estate available.


If WWIII came about, who would want to fight for the best country in the world which you call your home? Or will you scream violation of rights there too............

 

[PrinceofWands]

That's very true - and Dave, possibly more than even Moonie, has the right to turn right around and call him out for what he is - cause Dave has earned it.

Do you say that because you believe it, or just because you agree with Dave and not with Moonie? I ask because I served during the gulf war (though not IN the gulf mind you), so by your logic (and my own coincidentally) I've "earned the right". However, my views more often lean towards moonies than Daves.

So what I'm asking is, do you think that serving earns us the right to disagree with the government and/or your views, or are you only using that as an excuse to applaud your own feelings?

btw, I'm not involved in the basis of this discussion, just curious about your response here.

 

[Phuz]

Why argue with Dave? He makes these discussions similar to a playground arguement, with the self control of a 6 year old.

do you think that serving earns us the right

Serving doesn't earn you any rights. You did a "good" thing, and it was your choice.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Why argue with Dave? He makes these discussions similar to a playground arguement, with the self control of a 6 year old.

I only do that with you Phlegm and only because I am teaching to the level of the class.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Corn]

Moonie sez......

There's a problem in your sentence and so I'm guessing the above is logically what you intend. If so then I can say I would have hardly expect you to. You do not have sufficient life data for such knowledge nor can you access mine. Naturally I inadvertently used the words that apply personally. Let us say instead then that, due to and flowing from data transmitted to me from somewhere or other and beyond the scope of this conversation, and additionally thrice tested by me over a lifetime via those inner and universal tests of self validation, namely of self analysis, insight and the inward application of just such data, there has arisen in the psyche of this most peculiar entity here, your dear Moonbeam, a repeated and now crystallized certainty, that the factors which engender in individuals that pandemic condition of psychosis you see spread like a contagion all over the planetary surface, and which erupts like a boil or pox in isolated but frequent cases in that particular form of outward expression commonly called crime, there is a most elementary etiology, but one about which modern peoples of all colors and flavors remain perpetually blind, and they posses, if you will, this log in their eye, precisely, exactly, and only because a correct view of reality in this regard does not flatter them. And additionally you can rest assured, in case you had any concerns in that direction, that this further ?fact? which has now in turn been transmitted to you, has also undergone a thorough ?reality check?, as you might say, and as a consequence, your utterance of the phrase ?I would hardly call?? as a perhaps subtlety intended word bomb zinger not only failed to knock me out of my tree, but arrived, as the station master in a Swiss subway might say, right on time.

Here, let me just repeat (minus 2 words) what it was I (well tried anyway) said earlier:

Moonie, I would hardly call what you believe to be the motivations that cause people to commit violent or criminal acts to be "fact".

You do not have sufficient life data for such knowledge.......

Perhaps not, but then again, I never claimed *I* did.......hmmm......

.........nor can you access mine.

Actually, yes I can, and did. Evidence of that correct assessment is rather obvious by your reply.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
I will address a couple of things that were mentioned while I was wasting time sleeping. First of off I am not, nor to my knowledge have I ever, invoking any special privledge because I am on active duty. Millions of people have served before me and there are millions more to come whose only privledge is the same as eveyone's who was lucky enough to be born in this country. The only thing I ask is that you don't spit or throw blood on me or my compatriots in an airport. :| Secondly I don't consider myself to be a gullible tool, naive or an idealist. I understand perfectly the fact that most politicians will do almost anything to get themselves re-elected. Several years ago I had dinner with someone high up in the state goverment of Louisiana ( my last ship) and he explained it very well, " When you understand why someone would spend $5 million getting themselves elected to an office that pays $35 thousnad dollars a year, you'll understand politicians." I know it's about money and power but I also think underneath there is a desire to serve and to do right by the country. That's why I don't understand these accusations of "their trying to take our rights away". Why would they? How does it benefit them? I think they are trying to do the right thing but we don't agree with them. If that makes me a naive, gullible tool of an idealist then guilty as charged. Take me out back and whoop me with a stick. The problem in this country is not the politicians, the problem is not enough people are involved in the political process.

So you think its about the people not voting...then you are saying this is a fair democracy, one person equals one vote and the wealth and big business and other lobbies don't have a much stronger influence towards power than the individual and the politicians don't cater to this? Our one vote is equivalent to their one vote, regardless of these self-interest conflicts? If you do, then yes that is very idealistic.

And regarding our military, as courageous as the individuals who serve desire to be (or are, or were) on the battlefield, they are generally puppets for our politicians/leaders foreign policy, which is guided much more by protecting our capitalism interests and driving economic growth for us than protecting our freedom and democracy, muchless anyone elses.

 

[UltraQuiet]

So you think its about the people not voting...then you are saying this is a fair democracy, one person equals one vote and the wealth and big business and other lobbies don't have a much stronger influence towards power than the individual and the politicians don't cater to this? Our one vote is equivalent to their one vote, regardless of these self-interest conflicts? If you do, then yes that is very idealistic

No, what I am saying is that people don't get involved in the political process. Yes part of that is voting. There are also many other parts. For instance, when was the last time you wrote your Congressman, went to a town council meeting, school board meeting, etc, etc ,etc. I'm not singling you out. Less than 50% percent of the eligible people vote in this country. How involved are we in the political process. How involved are you in making this a better place to live? Yes, I know full well that money buys access in DC. There is also power in numbers. Do you belong to any lobby groups that support your point of view? AARP, NRA, NRDC, etc, etc. There are ways to get your views heard. People are just too lazy to do it.

And regarding our military, as courageous as the individuals who serve desire to be (or are, or were) on the battlefield, they are generally puppets for our politicians/leaders foreign policy, which is guided much more by protecting our capitalism interests and driving economic growth for us than protecting our freedom and democracy, muchless anyone elses.

I take offense at the word puppet. I'll let it slide. Yes the military is an element of foreign policy hopefully the one of last resort but one who is effective by it's very existence. If you don't think that our national security is directly dependent on our economic security you are very naive. It is imperative for our national security that we defend our economic interests overseas and elswhere. Without one the other does not exist. The easiest example of that is oil. What happens if Saddam controls the whole region and cuts off the oil? Think about it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Corn Quote:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here, let me just repeat (minus 2 words) what it was I (well tried anyway) said earlier:

Moonie, I would hardly call what you believe to be the motivations that cause people to commit violent or criminal acts to be "fact".


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do not have sufficient life data for such knowledge.......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Perhaps not, but then again, I never claimed *I* did.......hmmm......


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.........nor can you access mine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Actually, yes I can, and did. Evidence of that correct assessment is rather obvious by your reply.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Corn, originally I rewrote your sentence just as you did, but I decided to say the same thing in my own words so that you could tell if I had actually understood your intent rather than having posted your intended sentence but without any evidence or indication of whether I had actually understood it. Since what I extrapolated was the essence of your intent you could simply have said yes. But never mind. I suppose I can understand a reluctance to agree that I figured out anything myself. 😀

It is important, though, to keep in mind that bias towards this or that is by its nature blinding. So I wonder if maybe for just such reasons you might have reacted to ?You do not have sufficient data for such knowledge?.? negatively as a criticism rather than an as just an objective description void of any value judgment. Nobody criticizes Newton because he did not predict black holes.

So when you reply ?perhaps not but then again I didn?t say I did?, I?m left scratching my head as to where that came from. I called something a fact; you replied that as far as you were concerned it wasn?t a fact. I then added that I have data sufficient to persuade me it?s a fact but understood that you don?t so can?t go along. That?s it, nothing more. Simply a clarification as to why you couldn?t possibly agree, not a finger wagging and saying you claimed you did.

As to your comment, ?Actually, yes I can, and did. Evidence of that correct assessment is rather obvious by your reply.?, I?m afraid I?m left in the dark as to the content of your analysis. Doubtless I lack sufficient data for the transmogrification of its pith into revelatory insight. Alas, alas. I?m especially confused by the non-specificity in your comment wherein you refer to ?my reply?. My reply? My reply covered a lot of ground and was intended both for you and others.

I know I might be asking a lot for a clarification. I get this nagging impression that ?obvious by your reply? is one of those appeals to the untold multitudes of the unnamed gods of worldly reason and the billions of other imaginary right thinking beings who inhabit the interstices of your unexamined assumptions to bolster and inflate them into a sleepy sense of rectitude. But if not, I?m all ears. Pin the tail on your dear donkey Moonbeam in such a way that he can turn around an admire it. Be specific.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hehe, Phuz. Remember that in order to tango somebody has to bend over backwards. Better than being bent over the other way, I suspect. Dave may tend to sever a thread with a sword or crack a peanut with a sledge hammer, (you gotta admit that teaching to the level of the class was priceless) but in my humble opinion, isn't comming from where also in my humbled opinion I think you think he is. Anyway if you have the courage of your confictions and stick to or even eventually get around to the issues and don't get tooooo sidetracked dealing with some perceived insult or other, I think you'll find something in common with everybody. Me and Corn, for example, don't much like liars. 😀 I heard your 'You did a good job' and I liked it. Have faith, friend.

 

[Corn]

Corn, originally I rewrote your sentence just as you did, but I decided to say the same thing in my own words so that you could tell if I had actually understood your intent rather than having posted your intended sentence but without any evidence or indication of whether I had actually understood it.

Dude, I'm way too hung over today (Red Wings Stanley Cup victory celebration) and that sentence has added to my misery. 😉

Since what I extrapolated was the essence of your intent you could simply have said yes. But never mind. I suppose I can understand a reluctance to agree that I figured out anything myself.

There was never any doubt in my mind that you did actually understand what it was that I was saying (even though when I re-read my "quote" this morning, all it did was intensify my suffering.....). I simply repeated it (with added clarity) because, well, because its true. 😉

I?m afraid I?m left in the dark as to the content of your analysis. Doubtless I lack sufficient data for the transmogrification of its pith into revelatory insight. Alas, alas. I?m especially confused by the non-specificity in your comment wherein you refer to ?my reply?. My reply? My reply covered a lot of ground and was intended both for you and others.
I know I might be asking a lot for a clarification.

Here it is in a nutshell: You neglected to provide any evidence to the contrary. Instead your fingers wandered aimlessly about the keyboard attempting to provide a convoluted answer to something that amounts to "its a fact because I said so".

So when you reply ?perhaps not but then again I didn?t say I did?, I?m left scratching my head as to where that came from.

Head and Shoulders reply: It was simply an example of a statement of fact containing the evidence to support said fact. I was hoping you would follow my example. Pointing out my supposed ignorance does not satisfy a question of fact.

 

[Moonbeam]

jjsole, I think you've gotten the proper answer to your questions and objections. I would like to add that out here on the Left Coast where there still resides a fairly healthy repository of 'correct thinking' we have a talk show host by the name of Ray Taliaferro, a beacon of truth from out of the night. His fanatical, left winged, far out answer to the mess this country is in is a truly revolutionary idea, political participation, i.e. voting, writing to your representatives, becoming involved locally, organizing, getting better informed. The guy is a first class subversive. 😀

Last night he was ranting and raving about the idea that if people don't like the fact that the Democrats have rolled over on Bush's theft of the dirty bomber's rights as a citizen, they had better write. He had this rather cynical notion that if the politicians got a whiff of the possibility they'd be held accountable for their actions or inaction, they would respond in a heartbeat. They like being re-elected.

As to our national security being dependent on our economic security and that link to oil, I seem to remember Red Dawn saying something about getting off the oil addiction. That ain't gonna happen with this Admin. in my opinion. They are the oil interests it seems to me. Because I'm a nut case, I call that treason, the preservation of personal gain at the expense of the best interests of the nation done via the exercise of inside political power, but anyway. Energy is security. Dependence on oil for energy is insanity. Allowing market forces to operate where survival is at stake is another form of insanity. There should be a massive defense effort, funded by the government, and regardless of how much oil people have to loose, focused as if we were at war, of energy independence. This should be priority 1 in my opinion. Such energy will be non-localized and terrorists immune. It will completely change our need to prop up rotten governments in the Middle East, the freedom loving people of which countries hate us because we support their governments. It will remove any need for pretext our politicians might feel in risking our military people's lives in a war for the wrong kind of economic interests, personal ones.

Put simply, what I see as the big problem is that there isn't any real long ranged thinking going on. It's always crisis management of today's problem. We run on oil so we need oil. No, we run on oil because we are stupid and let those who have an interest in oil determine the blind alley we go down. We have got to find a way to get those who think of themselves out of office and put people who can think and care about the future of whole nation in their place. That has got, it seems to me, to include removing the influence money has on the vote. This will require an overhaul of the absurdity that money is speech and corporations are individuals.

 

[Corn]

This will require an overhaul of the absurdity that money is speech and corporations are individuals.

But Moonie, "money" is speech, and corporations are owned by individuals. Irony abounds in that quote of your's--seems to me you're as bad as Bush when it comes down to taking away our rights, as individuals and shareholders.

 

[Moonbeam]

Corn, sorry about the hang over and sorry I picked just such a time to slip into Mentat mode, the correct explanation for, 'your fingers wandered aimlessly about the keyboard attempting to provide a convoluted answer to something that amounts to "its a fact because I said so".' Sheese! While you are essentially correct, you know I can't lie, it isn't just a matter of saying something is so because I say so, but saying it in a way that makes that sound true. 😀 Hope this helps:


I used the word fact where I shouldn't have because it's a fact for me, but not one that can be just given away because it gets to be seen as factual by living with it. It's not a fact because I say so. It's a fact to me because it says so to me. I can't prove it. All I can do is explain it as best I can. The rest is up to anybody who wants to take it on.

What you refered to as my pointing out your ignorance isn't quite right if by ignorance you mean not knowing something you should know if you had normal intelligence. What I refer to as fact is almost practically unknown to anybody. That's why I'm keen to point it out.

Essentially what I was offering was a way to accommodate two radically different and yet underlyingly fundamentally identical ideas, the conservatively popular, we have to take responsibility for our actions, and the liberally realized, we are all a victim of circumstance. I am essentially saying that while we are a victim of circumstance, we must be held accountable for our actions the moment we express our personal insanity as actions that harm others, i.e. as soon as we act out. In this way we preserve what is best about both and eliminate what is worst. We eliminate support for the holier than thou notions so many conservatives exhibit, their pretended inate superiority which is really only a cover for unconscious inferiority, and the liberal mush headed gross lack of response to injustice, just a rather more convoluted avoidence of just those same inner feelings of worthlessness. I'm saying that a massive amount of the struggle between these two common poles of human expression both have good features, and the intesnity of debate that develops between the two sides results from the fear that that good will go by the wayside if the issue is lost. I'm saying there is a third way to see things and from that vantagepoint one can drop what the other side rightfully objects to and keep what is known to be good.

 

[Moonbeam]

Corn, when you say money is speach and corporations are people, you refer, I think to Supreme court split decisions not unlike 'separate but equal' I'm not about 'taking' your rights. I'm about rectifying their improper definition. Separate isn't egual. Money is not speach, and corporations aren't individuals, and for the same reason. These improper interpretations of rights lead to disaster.

 

[Corn]

Moonie, individuals express themselves in may ventures, be it direct communication of some form, or simple support for an organization that supports their value system. Corporations, for profit and non-profit, are used by millions of people to exercise their freedom of expression. Should the Sierra Club be banned from supporting politicians with whom they believe to be like minded to their sensibilities? If not, why should it be any different for, say, General Motors?

No matter how you dice it, you're still limiting avenues for people to express themselves. You're attempting to supress the rights of people on the basis of your morality. Sounds kind of puritanical to me.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think you're looking at it wrong, Corn. Suppose for example that separate but equal was still the law and I argued that it shouldn't be. Help me out here. Couldn't you also, in that case, say that I'm being pruitanical and wanting to restrict peoples rights, maybe something along the lines of, hey Moonie, you're trying to limit my right to send my kids to an all white school. I'm trying to dull the pain of paying bills by imbibing a Moosehead or three, so help me out. OOPs I already said that. Would that be a valid parallel? You can't take away rights if the premice on which those rights rests or are established is incorrect. Wow, that sentence sounded pretty good. Somebody stop the room from spinning.

Moombeam also not like Sierra Club. Sierra Club execs live in big houses in suberbia and put bad chemical in CA gas. Moonbeam scared that Sierra Club INC just like Oil America INC, interested only in personal pocket book. Moonbeam not like Nomad. Must eliminate error. Must eliminate error. Must eliminate error. Moonbeam not eliminate error. Me vote. Majority eliminate error. God bless the Canadians.

 

[MadRat]

<<Shut up moonie.>>

Nice, dehumanize Moonbeam because he's wrong in your opinion. Just another lesson from military service, eh? Kind of like how the U.S. troops labelled Vietcong as "gooks", the Somalians as "skinnies", etc.

<<From what i've seen, Dave jumps on anyone who projects any bad vibe towards the "american way". I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but one can be patriotic and love their country while still maintaining an open mind.>>

Bingo. Problem is the military brainwashes people into believing they are patriots projecting the holy crusade of Americanism upon the world, therefore the fight is a good fight. He has no comprehension of tolarance of societies that lay outside of American ideals. Its heresy to think otherwise!!

<<You have more support than you may think, Dave. I can't fathom where Moonbeam is coming from. We have to take a proactive approach.>>

I presume by "proactive" he meant like the U.S. was pro-active in Lybia, Nicauragua, Mexico, Cuba, Korea, Congo, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iran, Lebanon, Grenada, Bolivia, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Albania, Kosovo, Serbia etc. The U.S. has a long history of sending the military in after the diplomacy wears thin, or when a buck can be made. Yes, the military has done some good. The truth is that it also sits idle and watches the same dictators and terrorists operate around the world until Congress of the President has an agenda.

<<There really is no way we can attack Iraq unilaterally and be sucessfull.>>

Yeah, the Iraqis will line the milk trucks in front of our tanks and will do the magic trick to hide all of its planes, tanks, and rocket launchers and somehow all of the Iraq soldiers will fire the magic "blue bolt" shot each time they aim at U.S. forces.

<<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't prove my point or anything... You're only insulting your own intelligence here, Dave.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What point might that be, Phlegm. The only thing that is insulting my intelligence is reading your posts.>>

Thats the Dave we all know, pass off as ignorant, and tolerate.

<<jjsole, I think you've gotten the proper answer to your questions and objections. I would like to add that out here on the Left Coast where there still resides a fairly healthy repository of 'correct thinking' we have a talk show host by the name of Ray Taliaferro, a beacon of truth from out of the night. His fanatical, left winged, far out answer to the mess this country is in is a truly revolutionary idea, political participation, i.e. voting, writing to your representatives, becoming involved locally, organizing, getting better informed. The guy is a first class subversive. 🙂>>

Dave would probably want a subversive like him shot!

<<Put simply, what I see as the big problem is that there isn't any real long ranged thinking going on. It's always crisis management of today's problem. We run on oil so we need oil. No, we run on oil because we are stupid and let those who have an interest in oil determine the blind alley we go down. We have got to find a way to get those who think of themselves out of office and put people who can think and care about the future of whole nation in their place. That has got, it seems to me, to include removing the influence money has on the vote. This will require an overhaul of the absurdity that money is speech and corporations are individuals.>>

I know I'm sick of hearing about crisis this and crisis that. Every day there is a new crisis. Reminds me of the brass at the top of a certain railroad around here... *ducks*

<<But Moonie, "money" is speech, and corporations are owned by individuals. Irony abounds in that quote of your's--seems to me you're as bad as Bush when it comes down to taking away our rights, as individuals and shareholders.>>

Shareholders can exercise their rights as individuals without using company resources to fund governmental candidates and political agendas.

 

[UltraQuiet]

SadRat you got a PM.

 

[Corn]

Couldn't you also, in that case, say that I'm being pruitanical and wanting to restrict peoples rights, maybe something along the lines of, hey Moonie, you're trying to limit my right to send my kids to an all white school.

The constitution does guarantee freedom of speech/expression. If in your world, say, happiness is sending your children to an all white school, then the constitution does guarantee your right to search for such a "utopia". It does not guarantee that utopia exists, only that you can pursue the dream of perhaps finding such a place. You're gonna need to do much better than that Moonie.

MadRat sez.....

Shareholders can exercise their rights as individuals without using company resources to fund governmental candidates and political agendas.

Of course they can, but you are forgetting a very important point: Who "own's" the resources of a corporation? That's right, the shareholders.

MadRat bends over and pulls this outta his ass:

Nice, dehumanize Moonbeam because he's wrong in your opinion. Just another lesson from military service, eh? Kind of like how the U.S. troops labelled Vietcong as "gooks", the Somalians as "skinnies", etc............

Problem is the military brainwashes people into believing they are patriots projecting the holy crusade of Americanism upon the world, therefore the fight is a good fight.

Now that's an interesting example of hypocrisy. You accuse someone of "dehumanizing" his opponent (and since when is telling someone to "shut up" an example of "dehumanization" anyway?) and they the very next thing you say is exactly what you just accused him of doing.

Well you lefty extremists are nothing if not consistent, even if it's consistantly hypocritical. How do you feel about "gun control" and the 2nd ammendment? LOL

 

[UDT89]

i see a lot of future draft dodgers in this thread, if they are of the age.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Well you had your chance to respond in PM. Whoever is reading to you must have left already.

Nice, dehumanize Moonbeam because he's wrong in your opinion. Just another lesson from military service, eh? Kind of like how the U.S. troops labelled Vietcong as "gooks", the Somalians as "skinnies", etc

Since when is telling someone to shut- up dehumanizing them. It is absolutely nothing like why soldiers call their enemies names. Nothing. So once again you show your ignorance old man.

Bingo. Problem is the military brainwashes people into believing they are patriots projecting the holy crusade of Americanism upon the world, therefore the fight is a good fight. He has no comprehension of tolarance of societies that lay outside of American ideals. Its heresy to think otherwise!!

Again your ignorance is shining like a beacon old man. It is blatantly obvious who has been brainwashed about what. What's next, you gonna call me a baby killer? For someone who claims his "main friends " are career military you sure have a great disdain for it. What's the matter, did some sailor loosen the old lady up for you.

I presume by "proactive" he meant like the U.S. was pro-active in Lybia, Nicauragua, Mexico, Cuba, Korea, Congo, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iran, Lebanon, Grenada, Bolivia, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Albania, Kosovo, Serbia etc. The U.S. has a long history of sending the military in after the diplomacy wears thin, or when a buck can be made. Yes, the military has done some good. The truth is that it also sits idle and watches the same dictators and terrorists operate around the world until Congress of the President has an agenda.

Yes,moron, that's exactly what he meant. And yes the military does sit idle until the Pres and Congress have an agenda. That's the way it works in this country, the military is controlled by civilians. I thought even you would know that. Oh well I thought you were smarter than a house plant. I guess I was wrong.

Yeah, the Iraqis will line the milk trucks in front of our tanks and will do the magic trick to hide all of its planes, tanks, and rocket launchers and somehow all of the Iraq soldiers will fire the magic "blue bolt" shot each time they aim at U.S. forces.

My God your stupidity has reached a new level. Why did we have to have a coalition last time then, asshole? Please explain to me how how we are going to win a war against Iraq w/o the support of at least Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and overflight permission of every country between here and there?

Thats the Dave we all know, pass off as ignorant, and tolerate.

His ignorance, like yours, stands out like a wart. Sorry if it offends you that I point it out, smegma breath, but it's obvious neither one of you are aware of it, so somebody needs to tell you.

Dave would probably want a subversive like him shot

When have I ever said I wanted anyone shot. I've never heard of him but he probably wouldn't bother anymore than say Rush Limbaugh does. Of course in your ignorance you assume that I want to kill anyone that dosen't agree with me. Hell, SadRat, I don't even want to kill you. You are so stupid you probably shouldn't be allowed to procreate but you do provide a service to society. Goats need to be blown and you do it cheaply. Thanks for picking up the slack since your mother retired.

 

[Corn]

That's gonna leave a mark.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm very disapointed in you Corn. I specifically asked you to help me out with the proper analogy and look what you did. You made fun of the preliminary one I provided as a template for you. Now you're going to require me to go back and think it all through myself. That doesn't make me happy at all. Now what was your feebly complaint:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"The constitution does guarantee freedom of speech/expression. If in your world, say, happiness is sending your children to an all white school, then the constitution does guarantee your right to search for such a "utopia". It does not guarantee that utopia exists, only that you can pursue the dream of perhaps finding such a place. You're gonna need to do much better than that Moonie."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Oh man, just on the surface I'm beginning to think that feeble was a bit mild. What had I said:
____________________________________________

I think you're looking at it wrong, Corn. Suppose for example that separate but equal was still the law and I argued that it shouldn't be. Couldn't you also, in that case, say that I'm being pruitanical and wanting to restrict peoples rights, maybe something along the lines of, hey Moonie, you're trying to limit my right to send my kids to an all white school. You can't take away rights if the premice on which those rights rests or are established is incorrect.
____________________________________________

Holy Moly, Corn, the first thought that comes to my mind is that the constitution does guarantee freedom of speech/expression. If in your world, say, happiness is sending allowing corporations and individuals to influence polititians, then the constitution does guarantee your right to search for such a "utopia". It does not guarantee that utopia exists, only that you can pursue the dream of perhaps finding such a place. You're gonna need to do much better than that Corn.

Now aside from that the limitation of freedom imposed by the demise of separate but equal was not to limit peole's search for such a place but their previous right to have it provided by taxes. Furthermore, the kinds of limitations I'm requestion are already present. The need to be strengthened.

UDT89 UDT89 UDT89. I've seen that name somewhere.

Draft Dodgers? The permanent draft was abolished in 1973. Where have we been?

 

[MadRat]

Well, Dave, considering you couldn't wait an hour for me to respond my message seems to have struck home.

btw - Here's a copy of Dave Sohmer's PM @10:49PM on 6/14/2002: "What the f<beep>ck is your goddamn problem. Did you read anything I posted or did you just pick out sh<beep>t to take a rip at me. Huh. You have no f<beep>cking idea who I am or what I stand for or anything else. You're nothing but a whiny f<beep> cking c<beep>cksucker who hasn't accomplished a f<beep>cking thing his entire sorry f<beep>cking life except sit on a discussion board and pass judgement on people. My reccomendation to you is that you everything that somebody says before you start running your c<beep>ckholster in public. You take those tyes of rips at me again and I will embarass your sorry old ass in public and not in PM." (EDITED TO PASS THE FILTER)

I laugh at people like Dave. He actually believes the doctrine he spews forth in this thread: Its fine - not just fine but preferable - to go in and bomb the holy hell out of a country simply because its the good fight. We had alot of good reasons to go into all of those countries listed, all because the American way of life was somehow affected by these remote and backwards progressing societies. Bombers, battleships, missiles, tanks, planes and all that designed for World War III are the best way to convert the pagans to all holy socialism. They really needed the heavy hand of the U.S. military to see the truth... Your true colors really show over and over:

• "What's the matter, did some sailor loosen the old lady up for you."
• "Yes,moron, that's exactly what he meant."
• "I thought even you would know that. Oh well I thought you were smarter than a house plant. I guess I was wrong."
• "His ignorance, like yours, stands out like a wart. Sorry if it offends you that I point it out, smegma breath, but it's obvious neither one of you are aware of it, so somebody needs to tell you."
• "You are so stupid you probably shouldn't be allowed to procreate but you do provide a service to society. Goats need to be blown and you do it cheaply. Thanks for picking up the slack since your mother retired."

As for trying to embarass me, well you have done yourself far worse than you'd ever embarass anyone else. Perhaps you (I'm speaking to you, Dave) should seek some professional help because the only lunatic in this thread is Dave Sohmer. It would be a good time for you to put away the bottle and join the rest of society. Its a kinder, gentler world outside your circle of war pigs.

<<That's gonna leave a mark.>>

Corn, none of what he says has any effect on me. Dave has been spewing his hate filled speech to me for over a year now and I get a real laugh out of it. He has spent his whole life in the Navy and has never tasted the "American way of life" that the average Joe Smoe enjoys. And this really was one of his more mild PM's.

 

[Red Dawn]

Mad Runt

I laugh at people like Dave.

Yeah like some loon laughing and talking to himself. We don't laugh at you, we pay close attention to you and those like you because you are not that much different than the extremists who are trying to destroy us. Like them you are a Religious Zealot who probably will not be satisfied until those who do not preach and follow your dogma are silenced.