Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Mr. Bowfinger, up to your old tricks again!
First, you don't know what gratifies me, so your talking out your arse as usual. But since you bring it up, I'd gladly insult you to your face, wtf, you gonna hit me or something, lol.... settle down old man.
Relax, junior. I'm not into hurting people for expressing their opinions childishly. I may laugh, roll my eyes, or make fun of you as I did above, but I figure that level of immaturity is its own punishment.
Heh, cool, it's so relieving to know you don't hurt people... I was worried there for a sec :roll: It is however still perplexing that you still talk out your arse about my personal likes and dislikes... something you need to work on.
Second, I never said the terrorists had anything to do with Iraq. Can you think of anything else besides drudging up off-topic BS that I didn't even say? Doubtful...
Hmmm. Care to explain this comment in the context of the OP then: "Terrorists attacked the United States of America, k? Put that into your thick skull... they attacked ME."? The alternative would seem to be that you're suggesting it was OK to attack "John" because we were attacked by "Sam".[/quote]
Do I need to scroll up and repeat the context for you? Supertool said the terrorists attacked New Yorkers... I replied that they attacked America. His insinuation is exactly what the OP is talking about, so I made a note of it.
"A free society should act on the assumption that citizens can reason about military issues without personal military experience, just as they can reason about any issue without needing a doctorate degree to do so. If you can't trust citizens to reason intelligently outside of their personal fields of expertise, you've ceded political control to the experts."
That's the point of the OP. Supertool is playing the good Lib and doing exactly what Douglas Kern is talking about: Pretending only a few select people can decide or debate policies in a given subject... as if only New Yorkers had a voice after the attacks.
Suddenly Mr. Bowfinger chimes in with his obsessions about the legitimacy of the Iraq war... getting a fvcking life man, we've heard it all before, and frankly your old and tired ramblings on how naughty the Iraq invasion is doesn't even fit into my discussion in this topic. The subject is whether or not people have a legitimate right to express ideas without being called some dumb@ss name.
Third, Bush is my lord? Dude... is it past your bedtime? Insulting requires humor or originality... slap yourself.
It's only an insult if you find Bush-worshipping offensive. Otherwise, it's merely an observation. Given your vocal support for virtually everything Bush, I'm inclined to believe your indignation is empty posturing.[/quote]
Well, it wouldn't be the first time you exposed yourself as a fool....
Forth, you CAN debate anything you'd like, that's exactly the point I was making about supertool's comment and the act of calling people "chickenhawks." I was being facetious with his comment... YES, we can all debate, so F@ck that chickenhawk BS, because I don't have to be in the military to advocate military action. Clear?
Of course not. You have freedom of speech. That doesn't preclude others from pointing out the hypocrisy of the chickenhawks who are so eager to send others to die when they, themselves, are unwilling to serve. Freedom of speech cuts both ways. Clear?[/quote]
You obviously don't understand the argument. You have it exactly ass-backwards: It's the anti-war crowd that throws around the term chickenhawk, and it's that term that stiffles free speech and quells open debate. You morons don't attack the ideas, instead you call idiodic names to hush their voices. You're a class act champ.
From the OP: "Moreover, we constantly make political demands on each other that don't affect us personally. We raise taxes that we ourselves don't pay. We pass environmental regulations that don't affect our businesses. We support novel educational policies while we send our own children to private school. So what? Do we demand that leftists form their own multinational conglomerates before protesting at WTC meetings? Do we require conservatives to date within their own sex before opposing same-sex marriages? Why have we singled out a pro-war stance as the one instance in which the mere possession of an opinion isn't good enough?"
Yeah... nobody is allowed to possess an opinion. They have to personally carry it out the action themselves to the maximum degree. :roll: :roll: :roll:
Facebook
Twitter