I'm glad we live in a free world and you are allowed to make choices. Generally though, in a free place, the choice is on to the individual as long as they don't effect others. I'm not sure how a law banning guns is a free concept but hay, if it helps you sleep at night, I'm glad you have that choice.
I understand what you are saying but I caution that situations like your home town district is also the result of random distribution and it may be impossible to otherwise shape the district because of population constrains.
I wish I could find the site which used the mathematical modeling. They ended up with a bunch of maps looking just like your district which was a result of attempting to keep the districts contiguous instead of breaking them up with gaps all over the place. Now I'm not saying that your situation isn't the result of political manipulation but sometimes if is very hard to avoid the appearance. Especially when you start getting into more rural communities with a less population density.
Those were reliable sources. Or are you going to put your head in the sand and ignore them because it doesn't fit your world view? Here is a hint, not considering all the facts generally means your assumptions are wrong or have a high potential of being so. Especially when the facts contradict them.
--Abu Musab al Zarqawi who did have links to Al Qeada before the 2003--\
I looked at your other links and they are not newer than 2002.
I suggest you go back and read all of the wikipedia page as well as the link I presented. You should also put your reading compregension hat on and pay fucking attention this time. The Wikki page clearly says "After the 2001 war in Afghanistan, Zarqawi appeared on a U.S. list of most-wanted al-Qaeda terrorists still at large in early 2002" I goes on to say "Zarqawi's group continued to received funding from Osama bin Laden and pursued "a largely distinct, if occasionally overlapping agenda," according to The Washington Post.[57] Counterterrorism experts told the Washington Post that while Zarqawi accepted al-Qaeda's financial help to set up a training camp in Afghanistan he ran it independently and while bin Laden was planning September 11, Zarqawi was busy developing a plot to topple the Jordanian monarchy and attack Israel.[58]"
But the link to Al Qeada is completely irrelevent as I mentioned previously. Zarqawi was a terrorist who set up a terrorist training camp in both Afghanistan and Iraq and Iraq gave him safe haven despite being told his location by Jordan officials. Even your inept ability to comprehend the wiki article doesn't refute that.
Maybe an air strike or two and some special forces would have been enough to take care of the other problems you mentioned with fewer deaths and money spent that an all out war would cost us.
It doesn't really matter. Again, I have not argued for any specific action just that the facts were there. I'm not sure why you want to turn this into a we should have done this or that debate while ignoring the plain and simple truth of the circumstances. About the best I can guess is that you are attempting to deflect from it in order to hide the truth and somehow think you can win the your argument in that way. well, it isn't working.
Trying to turn Iraq into a democracy is beyond naive. As far as my political leanings go, they tend to be based on facts rather than opinions. I don't an agenda one way or another.
So far, you have demonstrated your inability to see facts. But here is the problem that was/is a very real fact. We removed a government and no government instituted to replace it would be legitimate if it wasn't put in place by the people. That is why they went with a democracy- so the people would have put their own government in place and not the US. Iraq can go back to a dictatorship at any time as long as the people agree with it. Bush even said as much back in 2005 or 2006. Although he did add that he didn't want to see it go that way.
I don't an agenda one way or another. I'm like everyone else in the fact I don't like to be lied too.
Actually, you do have an agenda whether you want to admit it or not. You are ignoring facts as they were understood at the time in order to impress some other anthem which supports your idea of being lied to. The only way you were lied to is if you completely ignore the situation before Iraq and only consider what was known after the fact. People can say something that is wrong and it doesn't mean they lied. In fact, I believe you to be brainwashed and actually think you are telling the truth w
Your argument from the point of waste suffers from a number of fallacies in this case. If the government deduces that there is no possible conclusion reached through the bidding process than the one it has selected, then holding the bidding process will only add to government waste -- the very thing you are arguing to prevent.
Actually, no. My argument on waste is supported by numerous real life accounts of it actually happening as well as the main point- transparency to reinforce the idea to the public who is being taxed that the waste is not occurring. If the government deduces that there is no other possible conclusion from an open bidding process then there is no reason to hide that fact by not having one. The people, no matter what government, if they are taxed in order to do so, deserve nothing less then an open and public accounting of how their money is spend and the reasoning behind it. If the reasons are sound, they will accept any conclusion. If they are not, then the waste is proven or at least suspected. Remember, Cheapest does not mean makes the bid, there are other factors that can be at play but the fact you cannot refute is that unless there is an open and public biding process, you cannot be sure of any reasons or how those decisions are supported. Your entire comment to this point is mere speculation because of the lack of an open bid.
When the U.S. military started the off-the-shelf program and allowed less bidding and more self-determination, the days of the $300 hammer ended. Sometimes removing the bidding process is a good and logical thing.
Actually, no it did not. The days of the $300 hammer simply got accepted. This is because (if you were paying attention) the $300 hammer was a specialty hammer made of brass with a special core alloy compound to make it harder/heavier and more effective. It was used for working on certain machines like jet engines and compartment hatches and crap where explosive and highly flammable fluids and gasses were present and sparks from regular hammers presented a severe hazard. Often they had specialty tools built into one ends to cut down on tools needed.
The $800 step ladders were also accepted because they weren't plain step ladders. They had special cleats designed to be locked into the decking and rails on some of the smaller ships with safety tie down points for the operator so some repairs and maintenance work could be done underway which extended the duration of the usefulness of the ships. The smaller ships like the cutters and destroyers would pitch and role while underway and even while stopped with certain ocean conditions which made it very treacherous for a worker to be on them. The $800 ladders allowed this work to be done in the open ocean instead of needing to find a protected harbor that was friendly. It greatly increased our mobility and abilities and extended the usefulness of these ships to almost the point of one third of a separate ships because of the lack of rotation needed to keep them maintained.
You have shown zero compassion for the people that you and yours blow up during your mass murder policies. No wonder there are many people around the world that wish you harm. Can you blame them for wanting revenge when you and your country attacks and murders them? Yet when they seek their revenge against you you take deep offense but don't when you're the ones doing the killing on mass scales. Your hypocrisy is stunning.
What do you mean I show no compassion for those who were killed. You have no idea about the compassion I hold and I made no reference to it or the lack there of. All I said was that sometimes killing is necessary and not necessarily evil and can be good. I already said ten times that I was open to other solutions and even asked you to present some that hasn't already failed. But your cowardliness prevented you from taking a stand the might force you to realize that there isn't an easy or obvious answer to the current problems that result in killing.
I'm under no obligation to answer your questions even though I've answered many of them.
No you are not. However, your credibility leave just as fast as your ability to answer those questions. You should just give up now and go troll somewhere else. Your cowardliness has been shown, your inability to answer a few questions that would have supported your views if you were able to answer correctly has been demonstrated by yourself. You should just go and hid by your grandfathers grave and you both can be cowards together.
I did provide solutions, you've rejected them since you prefer mass murder as it's expedient and you can do it via remote control while cowering in a control room back at home.
No you did not. You said don't kill while ignoring all the reasons and problems resulting in the killing. You mentioned diplomacy as if it was some magical bullet but completely ignored it's failure and connections to the current wars. You offered nothing that has not already failed, nothing constructive, nothing but "don't kill" which is not a solution to anything when all else has already failed. Go ahead and be a coward, I know it's easier to be intellectually lazy and ignore the realities of life as long as you don't have to think about getting dirty. Your grandpa really taught you well.
Yes because you give yourself (I don't know if you are in the military or not) or your government the political permission to murder and kill and bring death to people you are directly giving those people permission to kill you and bring murder and death and destruction back to your country. Yes that is the way of the world especially in death and destruction.
The US government is in war as a reaction to aggression by others. We didn't give anyone political permision to kill, we expected them to defend ourselves and our allies from being killed, striped of basic human rights, and aggression from terrorist thugs who attempt to target innocent civilians because they are like you and are too cowardly to address their concerns with the military or civilian governments. All I can say if that the world will be a better place when those same people kill you if we don't get them first. But I'm sure that's ok with you because you wouldn't want to kill them before they killed you- would you? Oh yea, that's right, you aren't obligated to answer any questions, you are just a coward hell bent on keeping your world view in the fallacy you have created.
You forget that it was your country that has drawn first blood. 911 was in response to USA aggressions for example. Naturally you can ignore that but if you look you'll see that there are a number of books and many excellent articles published with the facts of the long war between the USA Terrorists and the 911 Terrorists detailed. It's a matter of the factual historic record.
Way to ignore my questions. Am I supposed to guess what your cowardly actions would be or can I safely assume that you would be the worse kind of human and ignore the events leaving your family and loved ones to die as long as you are safe?
Lets see, you have ignored many questions in order to repeat your cowardly ramblings that don't hold up to the light of real life. You have failed to give alternatives to conflicts that have escalated into killing, you have failed to comment about your actions if your family or friends were in mortal danger, you are just a coward attempting to troll because your anonymity makes you feel more important then you really are.
In fact, you are currently claiming that because I gave my political will to my government or to myself to go and commit murder which somehow justifies them to kill me. I have made no indication that I did anything of the sorts. But what you are seriously ignorant of and purposely hiding from is the conditions that have caused the government to enter into war and kill people in the first place. They drew first blood which according to your statement means we are justified in our killing despite you attempting to claim otherwise. Face it, you are nothing but a coward who is willing to ignore the facts and watch people die as long as you can somehow wash your hands of it. This is rarely the case in real life but your cowardliness seems to make it so in your case. As I said before, go Troll somewhere else.
He is attempting to use the WSJ's model to build from. If you were to visit the Wall Street Journal's site, you will see that most of the coverage is free. The subscriptions give more of a value added then access appeal. There are some news stories held from the free parts of the site but they are very few in contrast. What the subscriptions give you is a 90 day categorically sorted history of articles that you can somewhat customize with access to the few stories withheld from the free content. You also get access to the sister publications in Europe and Asia.
This isn't really a pay site like with porn where they give you a teaser then request a login to see the important stuff. I would describe it as a value added subscription model that will appeal to a lot of people but probably not impact the majority of users.
I feel the same way, particularly with regards to the US Senate. Were it up to me we would repeal the 17th amendment.
I agree. The 17th amendment has allowed people to largely forget that the role of the federal government wasn't to govern over the states but to be a united front in state actions (as in foreign relations and affairs that traditionally are matters of state which is why the state department deals with foreign affairs instead of the states), resolve dispute between the states, and to provide for the defense of the states. Now people seem to think it's little more then a democracy where the federal government is a way to impose their will onto other states. Of course the purpose of the 17th amendment was to dispel appearances of the lack of democracy.
The problem with Gerrymandering or redistricting is that the basic concepts behind it is real and needed. It's just that it appears to have been hijacked and given a bad name. Populations grow, people move, and so on. This presents a problem every ten years when we count the population in which one congressional district will end up disproportionally representing people over another. It's back to the old taxation without representation ordeal. If district A now has 10 times as many people and district B now has less people, then the people in A are under represented and the people in B are over represented. Changing district borders around is the way to deal with it but there is no way to do so without appearing to be acting in self interests. If you cannot redraw the two districts to equal an acceptable representation between the two, you now have to include several others to maintain even distribution of representations. If you change nothing in the political spectrum of the districts, you are protecting the status quo, if the districts are another political representation, it could be the population has changed enough to warrant it but you are then either benefiting your own party or another party.
It's a necessary but a no win condition. There was a site a while back which used mathematical modeling to redraw district lines as populations moved around. It was able to do so without regard to political objectives but it was impossible to remove the accusations of political biases when the political leanings were examined. This leads me to believe that the impression is more important to some then the actual factors involved. Some people seem to want to set the boundaries in stone which does result in severely under represented populations. For instance, In Ohio, the last time the districts were moved, we had one district with 5 times as many people as the neighboring district and one district that had about one third as many people as the average.
I hope you don't think that video proves anything.
Both of the words discussed were used in valid ways. They talked about Libby's convictions and sentencing and the process of both. You instead present an openly liberal perspective that claims Fox News was Biased because their reporting didn't rise to their expectations ans then inferred that some secret mandate ordering that action existed.
Now the first comment where it refered to the investigation instead of a crime is actually more informative the just saying crime because it describes exactly what the crime was, obstructing and investigation, as well as talks about the severity of the investigation in which he obstructed.
The second reference is also in the same light. The liberal view makes the mistake that someone has to be convicted of a crime before being pardoned. This is not the case as was with Nixon who was never convicted of anything and pardoned. However, the spokes person said pardon for the entire trial which means a pardon for all 4 convictions and not just the one giving 30 months imprisonment.
Aslo the liberal view presents the incorrect assumption that Libby's conviction places a burden on Wilson and Plame. This is incorrect, he was never convicted of any association with that. That was always known to have been the work of Robert Novack and Richard Armatage. Libby's convictions were about order of events that didn't match with certain reporters statements and the underlying investigation produced no crime being investigated. It's like the Martha Stewart conviction for lying to investigators when no crime happened except Libby didn't deny the events, he placed them in a different order.
I suspect you were convinced of something else but your evidence doesn't exactly qualify as evidence. It is little more then opinion from an openly biased person who was attempting to pollute the situation with incorrect and fallacious information.
I don't think the correlation to that can be easily drawn. Of course the recommendations of the Government's IT departments would have in impact on the requirements but without an open bid, they do no know what is availible from who that could meet those requirements.
The open bid process is supposed to make sure that governments using public monies usually derived from taxes are not squandered, wasted, or used to benefit someone's outside interest. There is no assurance of this no matter how intelligent or unintelligent you believe the government IT departments to be without an open and public bidding process. You are inferring that their judgment is proper and it should play a role in the process but for all we know, the decision could be because someone wants to see their MS stock rise before they sell it. You are making a leap in claiming their competence and meeting criteria more so then the inference that they are ignorant of alternatives. You have no idea what the motivations are and at least with an open and public bidding process, they will have to justify their decisions with sound and verifiable facts. OF course this doesn't limit the benefit someone might see from a jump in stock prices or some kickback scheme hiding somewhere but it will how strong the justifications are that will both increase competition in the future as well as point to potential conflicts when the sole justification can be "we will have to educate out techs if we go with something else" or "i like the ribbon in MS office".
I generally push the idea that it isn't the duty of our elected leaders to do what the people want. Their duty is to their office and what it covers which also covers but isn't limited to the people or what the people want.
However, as it has become more and more apparent that they are doing neither and just protecting their own futures, I don't think I can disagree with the sentiment of what you have said. I especially agree with a government arguing among itself. Some of our most productive and profitable years in recent times was when the congress had to jettison it's more extreme wings of the parties and find a way to cooperate with the administration in order to get any objective done. I'm all for a republican majority in the house and senate and a democrat president or vice verse.
As for the third parties. Sadly this will never be a reality because they do not want it to be. There are a few problems they refuse to tackle. One is where they main body of ideas are so similar to existing party lines that it is impossible to tell the differences except for a small few of them. Then when the major parties see the popularity of them, they simple adopt it as their own leaving the third party with no credit for the ideas. The second is that the major parties have the grass roots infrastructure in place from the local community up to the higher levels of politics. The third parties seem to not be interested in playing that role. This present a very uncomfortable view that people who are unfamiliar with the parties will not vote for them. They instead will vote for who they are comfortable with, the democrats or republicans who govern their country board or state governments. They know where the differences are with them on a local level which isn't always left and right.
With third parties and this approach, you have two main problems. The first is as I said, people won't trust them and see much of a difference outside a few major points that will likely be absorbed by one if not both of the major parties and more importantly, that any elected leader will need the support of other members of the same parties to work their agenda though. Carter found this out when his absolute failure as a president came from the lack of support of his own party who dominated both houses of congress at the time. Further more, in the house and senate where seniority seems to be in charge of the positions of power, without a support of fellow party members, there is no reason for the major parties to cooperate with the third parties.
Until they get a grass roots effort going with local and intermediate politicians in place, their chances of changing anything are slim to none unless you count making a position popular enough that another part picks it up and puts their spin on it.
So letting someone rape and murder your mom or sister because you can't see a difference between killing and murder is perfectly fine with you? So getting killed yourself because killing your attacker (in either situation) even though you were just attempting to make them stop is unacceptable to you.
So tell me, if a group of terrorist were planning to blow up a crowded shopping mall with a bunch of your friends and family in it, and the attempt to stop them resulted in the terrorist shooting at you, would you support killing them before they can blow up your friends or are they just collateral damage because you can't tell the difference between killing and murder or that it isn't always bad.
You are a fucking coward who knows nothing about real life and purposely ignores it so to not have to deal with the very real issues it presents. Go put your head back in the sand and troll somewhere else. An elementary level of thinking skills is all that is required and you obviously lack that.
Go to the wall street journal's site and see what you can get without paying right now. The subscription offers access to features and the few stories they don't freely reproduce.
I guess the real question might be what will you gain by getting a subscription. As it stands, it seems that the WSJ's model they are looking to implement is more of a value added service then a traditional pay site that give part of the story then asks you to log in for the rest. I'm not terribly impressed with the idea but I'm not unimpressed with the WSJ's implementation to date.
When you look at the WSJ's pay model, you don't see what we traditionally think of as a pay site. It doesn't just give you headlines and request a login to see the rest of the stories (like Porn sites do). In fact, about 90% of the days news stories are freely availible that day with a few being availible for a couple days. The subscription covers some other articles that they didn't make availible, access to 90 days history of articles sorted in a categorical index that you can customize and access to the Europe and Asia editions in full. If you do have a subscription, try viewing the site without loging in.
Fox news sites aren't different from most other network news. The biggest problems there are that people cannot seem to separate the opinions from the news shows from the news being presented by the network. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they never make mistakes but they correct their mistakes as a news network should and in the same ways that ever other network does (they make mistakes too). Now too many people think that Hanity's program or that O'Reily's program are the same as anchor news desks like the CBS Evening News or CNN's headline news. They are not, they are the equivalent of op-ed pieces in the newspaper where people comment on the news and say what they think it means. This is a prime reason why they have guests on to present their opinions which may differ. The Fox Network News simply reports the facts and doesn't attempt to say what it means except when they have to explain some term or something.
Now I will admit that I haven't watched Fox news channels in the past couple years outside of passing as I got rid of cable a long time ago. They could have changed dramatically since I viewed it regularly but the comments against them haven't so I see no reason to believe they have changed.
It he is modeling the sites after the Wall Street Journal's pay scheme, then he wouldn't have gotten a penny anyways from you. The WSJ is mostly free as it stands. The subscriptions give you access to catagory indexing of older articles, a list of articles going back 90 days, access to the Europe and Asia versions and so on. Most all of the major political and international news stories are and will be free for a limited time if the WJS model is implemented.
Actually, you are partially right. Many of the WSJ articles are freeley availible for a limited amount of time. It's more of a hybrid pay site with more free access then when it was a complete pay site. You can go there right now and browse most all current stories. What the subscription does is give detailed access and historical content and access to some storied which they decided wasn't free. You also get access to the WSJ europe and Asia additions in the same respect.
There is a lot of free content on the WSJ which is why all these other people claiming that he will go under are clueless about the situation. It looks like there are enough articles availible freely that people will become interested in visiting and pay to get more.
I also think this will have some sort of cross site subscription model (like with the WSJ having access to the Europe and Asia editions also). Perhaps a yearly subscription would give you access to all regional news site holdings or something.
You don't need to be old in order to see worse after bad. It's not an age thing, it's a looking around, thinking about the information you gathered and forming an opinion thing. You can start that at any time.
The worse thing about it, the dems were campaigning against the republicans on the basis of deficit spending and fiscal irresponsibility. They got control of all three branched of the government and immediately forgot what they claimed was important. Some people think that Obama's current positions as they stand today would create a complete and separate person capable of running against Obama during the elections. This indicates that either Obama and the dems were completely lieing when making campaign promises or that they were clueless to the problems we face and still are struggling to play catchup.
Even today Obama is making claims about his cap and tax and government health care programs that can be refuted by simply referencing the actual bills he is championing in congress. I don't think he has even taken the time to read the legislation floating around in his name to promote his agenda or that his so called constitutional lawyer qualifications even allow him to understand the legislation being presented. It should surprise no one that congress was attempting to push it through with no public input, limited or missing congressional input, safeguards against wrecking what is left of the economy, time to read and understand the bills, or anything that would resemble traditional congressional actions. Of course this comes as no surprise seeing how the tarp legislation allowed massive payout in bonuses with federal monies despite the outcries from the congress critter responsible for the language being in the laws who pretended to not know anything about it. If they aren't even paying enough attention to see if their amendments were accepted and made into law, then how can anyone feel comfortable about the other complex issues before us.
I find it simply amazing that people are willing to ignore that and that people like you think you need to be old in order to care. The problem with that is that by the time you start caring, you will have already been damaged with little hope of reversing it.
Yea, as long as the left can control the media for those left without access, any lie can be told uncontested and opinions will be shaped regardless of the truth.
That means the thing as killing for the greater good. The dead people certainly wouldn't think it was for the greater good dumb ass.
No it does not mean that. It means exactly what it means, that there is a fucking difference between killing and murder and not all killing is bad.
You can deny the facts about my grandfather all you want. That just shows that you deny objective reality. No doubt you are a god freak thinking that jesus is going to save you from death by taking you to the mythical heaven. Every time you eat meat you eat the proof that jesus the man could not rise from the dead as he was a biological being that stays dead when dead.
I know nothing about any facts of your grandfather. All I know is what you have said and you have a big problem with reality. Here you have all the sudden inferred Jesus and heaven into the conversation as if your delusions actually have a basis in reality. Your grandfather was probably a nazi sympathizer who turned queers and jews into the SS for all I know. Judging from your grasp on reality so far, that seems way more plausible then what you have actually claimed.
I have no intention of attacking anyone except with words. It's not you that I attack either sum dumb ass... it's your murderous policies that result in the deaths of millions around the world...
And you are showing how fucking stupid you are. First of all, I don't set any policies. Only two people have died by my hands and they were both legally justified. Second, you are attempting to blame the actions of the entire country on my ability to see the issues surrounding the situations. So how is it that I am supposed to be responsible for other people's actions when all I have done is looked and saw what drove the conflict and who drew fist blood. Hell, you couldn't even comprehend these complexities back when I was asking you to give an alternative to the killing that hasn't already been tried and failed. You couldn't then, There is probably no way you will understand or be capably of intellectually processing it now.
My ancestors did their part in fighting the Nazi's, more than you ever did dumb ass.
Now you just got finished claiming your grandfather helped jews run and hide before doing it himself. Now which is it, was he on the front line fighting the enemy or was he abandoning his country and preparing to run and hide?
Oh, I'm the worst kind of human, that wants to preserve life even the life of sum dumb ass like you? That makes me the worst kind of human? Ok, I'll accept being that kind of worst human that honors life over killing innocents indiscriminately. At least I'm not a mass murdering dumb ass like you.
Yes, you are the worst kind of human. You want to preserve life (mainly your own) so much that you will ignore the actions of others and not take the life of people who are actually slaughtering and mass murdering others who are innocent. You are the coward who wants to complain that life sucks when you have done absolutely nothing to make it better for yourself or anyone else. You are the idiot who can't even be bothered to look at the conflict in order to understand the drivers of it in order to offer a workable alternative to the killing. You are sitting there saying "wasn't me" while blaming every one else and doing absolutely nothing but making the problems worse.
Specifically your methods with all power over other grubbing groups is the use of death, killing and murder justified for whatever you want; and of course it's always in the name of "the greater good" that the killings are justified. The Nazi's thought they were killing for the greater good of their fatherland. You thing that you're killing for the greater good as you've said in your comments. Same thing, killing is the result, not just the killing of someone who is personally attacking you, but the mass murders of huge numbers of people in the name of your greater good. That is what makes you as evil as any despicable despot in history. Killing to support your political cause is murder and evil.
What a load of bullshit. First of all, I don't set policy that kills other people. Second, I never said that killing for the greater good was acceptable. That is something your delusional mind has inferred on it's own. I said that killing isn't the same as murder and not all killing is bad. Nothing more nothing less. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth or travel down your imaginary roads outside of the context I made.
My grandfather helped many escape out of the Nazi death machine in Hungary including jews and homosexuals before the Nazi's came after him; fortunately he escaped out the back of the apartment building.
This is doubtful unless your grandfather lived in one of the occupied countries and fled without defending it. Maybe there is a long line of cowardliness in your family. That would explain a lot.
Face it sumdumass you're just like any other mass murdering killer out there, willing to kill to justify your sense of being right in killing and murdering people, bringing them death from the sky, obliterating people you've never even met, people you don't know anything about. Indiscriminate death from Predators whispering through the heavens dolling out death and destruction and devastation to unsuspecting people; cowardly sneak attacks that murder innocents along with your targets. People you seek vengeance on for 911 even though they had nothing to do with that and zero justice is served; in fact the justice that needs to be served is those that kill in the name of revenge, as you do, need to be the ones locked away for life for murder.
And here your delusions and cowardliness rise again. I don't support killing but I am not so stupid that I can't understand how conflict ends up in it and how that result is justified in the defense of the people. Just because you cannot fathom that concept does not make it wrong. In fact, it makes you an idiot when you suggest not killing without any alternatives to resolve the conflict.
You're just a dumb ass mass murderer with your politics sumdumass. You reap what you sow. If I was following your policies I'd make sure I had a strong defense as you'll likely need it against those who seek revenge against your murderous actions in the world.
The strong defense isn't the problem. Attacking us or our allies are. You cannot and will not do that unfettered. And no matter how hard you wish it not to be, you will end up bringing death upon yourself when you try. In both wars we have now, it was the result of either the US directly being attacked or one of our allies in which we came to their defense. Your comment right here signifies that you just do not have a clue.
Fortunately I don't support murderers like you, bush, obama, castro, harper, putin, thatcher, stalin, hitler, pol pot, chavez, che, or the rest of the mass murdering despicables in history who get their way by murdering people for their political aims. If you can't achieve your political goals without murder you are inherently evil and are a war criminal committing crimes against humanity.
No, you just bury your head in the sand like your cowar
The European governments, particularly France and Germany thought Saddam didn't have WMDs. Or did you forget all that rhetoric about "Old Europe" and "Freedom Fries" spewed out by Bush and co when they didn't co-operate?
Way to ignore reality just to supplement your own. France and Germany's non-cooperation says nothing to their reasoning idiot. As I already stated before, France was protecting it's secret and illegal oil deals and Germany thought Iraq was contained and didn't pose a threat large enough warranting war. France ended up echoing that sentiment claiming that inspectors could achieve the same goals as war. They both thought it was likely he had WMDs still and was not in compliance with Iraq's obligations under UN resolutions pertaining to the 1990 armistice. Quite rewriting history to suit your own world view.
In the UK there was a huge scandal after it was revealed that their intelligence reports that were used as the justification for their involvement in Iraq were "Sexed up". There was no evidence of WMDs and any mention of WMDs in the reports were our of date or doubtful intelligence that had been passed off as fact.
And when was that realized? Oh yea, after the fucking invasion which means that before the invasion, the UK thought Iraq had WMDs and wasn't in compliance with their obligations. And yes, the scandal resulted in support for the war by an overstatement of the intelligence, not a change in the information presented.
The entire fucking UN thought Iraq had WMDs and weren't in compliance with their disarmament obligations. Hell, Hans Blix who claimed later the Iraq had nothing as his anti war statements became more prevalent said in January of 2003 (2 months before the invasion) that Iraq couldn't explain where 6,500 chemical weapon bombs got off to or some 1000 tonnes of chemical agents, Claimed that they found new documents relating to laser enrichment of Uranium and a nuclear weapons program in a scientists home and adding "we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.". Blix also stated "Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."
And yes, France's then president Jacques Chirac said in an interview for Time Magazine that ran in the Feb. 24, 2003 issue (interview taking place feb 16 before) (again, 1 month before the invasion) "Are there nuclear arms in Iraq? I don't think so. Are there other weapons of mass destruction? That's probable. We have to find and destroy them. In its current situation, does Iraq-controlled and inspected as it is-pose a clear and present danger to the region? I don't believe so. Given that, I prefer to continue along the path laid out by the Security Council. Then we'll see." How in the world can you remotely claim that France didn't think Iraq had WMDs when their fucking president said they did.
Russia also claimed Iraq had links to terrorism as reported in the Washington post Saturday, June 19, 2004; Page A11 Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Sad
The links do not matter whether they are conservative or not. And you are an idiot if you think Al Qeada is the only terrorist group out there. I didn't say Al Qeada and Al Qeada not being included is not a disqualifies. Support for terrorist or terrorism is just that regardless of what name the terrorist take. If you are willing to ignore information because it didn't come from your favorite source, then will will always remain ignorant. If you are willing to supplant what was said with your own ideology leaning, you will remain stupid.
You can also find information at wikipedia which is cited by looking for Abu Musab al Zarqawi who did have links to Al Qeada before the 2003 invasion of Iraq and was also offered and received safe haven while recuperating from injuries received in Afghanistan.
Hamas pays its bombers' survivors a permanent pension of $300 to $600 a month in addition to bankrolling the family's health care and the education of the bomber's children. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein also funds a one-time $20,000 payment for the families--increased from $10,000 about six months ago in a show of solidarity.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people are idiots by choice.
I'm glad we live in a free world and you are allowed to make choices. Generally though, in a free place, the choice is on to the individual as long as they don't effect others. I'm not sure how a law banning guns is a free concept but hay, if it helps you sleep at night, I'm glad you have that choice.
Yea, like the coward is going to tell me what to do.
Like I said, go troll somewhere else.
I understand what you are saying but I caution that situations like your home town district is also the result of random distribution and it may be impossible to otherwise shape the district because of population constrains.
I wish I could find the site which used the mathematical modeling. They ended up with a bunch of maps looking just like your district which was a result of attempting to keep the districts contiguous instead of breaking them up with gaps all over the place. Now I'm not saying that your situation isn't the result of political manipulation but sometimes if is very hard to avoid the appearance. Especially when you start getting into more rural communities with a less population density.
Those were reliable sources. Or are you going to put your head in the sand and ignore them because it doesn't fit your world view? Here is a hint, not considering all the facts generally means your assumptions are wrong or have a high potential of being so. Especially when the facts contradict them.
I suggest you go back and read all of the wikipedia page as well as the link I presented. You should also put your reading compregension hat on and pay fucking attention this time. The Wikki page clearly says "After the 2001 war in Afghanistan, Zarqawi appeared on a U.S. list of most-wanted al-Qaeda terrorists still at large in early 2002" I goes on to say "Zarqawi's group continued to received funding from Osama bin Laden and pursued "a largely distinct, if occasionally overlapping agenda," according to The Washington Post.[57] Counterterrorism experts told the Washington Post that while Zarqawi accepted al-Qaeda's financial help to set up a training camp in Afghanistan he ran it independently and while bin Laden was planning September 11, Zarqawi was busy developing a plot to topple the Jordanian monarchy and attack Israel.[58]"
But the link to Al Qeada is completely irrelevent as I mentioned previously. Zarqawi was a terrorist who set up a terrorist training camp in both Afghanistan and Iraq and Iraq gave him safe haven despite being told his location by Jordan officials. Even your inept ability to comprehend the wiki article doesn't refute that.
It doesn't really matter. Again, I have not argued for any specific action just that the facts were there. I'm not sure why you want to turn this into a we should have done this or that debate while ignoring the plain and simple truth of the circumstances. About the best I can guess is that you are attempting to deflect from it in order to hide the truth and somehow think you can win the your argument in that way. well, it isn't working.
So far, you have demonstrated your inability to see facts. But here is the problem that was/is a very real fact. We removed a government and no government instituted to replace it would be legitimate if it wasn't put in place by the people. That is why they went with a democracy- so the people would have put their own government in place and not the US. Iraq can go back to a dictatorship at any time as long as the people agree with it. Bush even said as much back in 2005 or 2006. Although he did add that he didn't want to see it go that way.
Actually, you do have an agenda whether you want to admit it or not. You are ignoring facts as they were understood at the time in order to impress some other anthem which supports your idea of being lied to. The only way you were lied to is if you completely ignore the situation before Iraq and only consider what was known after the fact. People can say something that is wrong and it doesn't mean they lied. In fact, I believe you to be brainwashed and actually think you are telling the truth w
Actually, no. My argument on waste is supported by numerous real life accounts of it actually happening as well as the main point- transparency to reinforce the idea to the public who is being taxed that the waste is not occurring. If the government deduces that there is no other possible conclusion from an open bidding process then there is no reason to hide that fact by not having one. The people, no matter what government, if they are taxed in order to do so, deserve nothing less then an open and public accounting of how their money is spend and the reasoning behind it. If the reasons are sound, they will accept any conclusion. If they are not, then the waste is proven or at least suspected. Remember, Cheapest does not mean makes the bid, there are other factors that can be at play but the fact you cannot refute is that unless there is an open and public biding process, you cannot be sure of any reasons or how those decisions are supported. Your entire comment to this point is mere speculation because of the lack of an open bid.
Actually, no it did not. The days of the $300 hammer simply got accepted. This is because (if you were paying attention) the $300 hammer was a specialty hammer made of brass with a special core alloy compound to make it harder/heavier and more effective. It was used for working on certain machines like jet engines and compartment hatches and crap where explosive and highly flammable fluids and gasses were present and sparks from regular hammers presented a severe hazard. Often they had specialty tools built into one ends to cut down on tools needed.
The $800 step ladders were also accepted because they weren't plain step ladders. They had special cleats designed to be locked into the decking and rails on some of the smaller ships with safety tie down points for the operator so some repairs and maintenance work could be done underway which extended the duration of the usefulness of the ships. The smaller ships like the cutters and destroyers would pitch and role while underway and even while stopped with certain ocean conditions which made it very treacherous for a worker to be on them. The $800 ladders allowed this work to be done in the open ocean instead of needing to find a protected harbor that was friendly. It greatly increased our mobility and abilities and extended the usefulness of these ships to almost the point of one third of a separate ships because of the lack of rotation needed to keep them maintained.
What do you mean I show no compassion for those who were killed. You have no idea about the compassion I hold and I made no reference to it or the lack there of. All I said was that sometimes killing is necessary and not necessarily evil and can be good. I already said ten times that I was open to other solutions and even asked you to present some that hasn't already failed. But your cowardliness prevented you from taking a stand the might force you to realize that there isn't an easy or obvious answer to the current problems that result in killing.
No you are not. However, your credibility leave just as fast as your ability to answer those questions. You should just give up now and go troll somewhere else. Your cowardliness has been shown, your inability to answer a few questions that would have supported your views if you were able to answer correctly has been demonstrated by yourself. You should just go and hid by your grandfathers grave and you both can be cowards together.
No you did not. You said don't kill while ignoring all the reasons and problems resulting in the killing. You mentioned diplomacy as if it was some magical bullet but completely ignored it's failure and connections to the current wars. You offered nothing that has not already failed, nothing constructive, nothing but "don't kill" which is not a solution to anything when all else has already failed. Go ahead and be a coward, I know it's easier to be intellectually lazy and ignore the realities of life as long as you don't have to think about getting dirty. Your grandpa really taught you well.
The US government is in war as a reaction to aggression by others. We didn't give anyone political permision to kill, we expected them to defend ourselves and our allies from being killed, striped of basic human rights, and aggression from terrorist thugs who attempt to target innocent civilians because they are like you and are too cowardly to address their concerns with the military or civilian governments. All I can say if that the world will be a better place when those same people kill you if we don't get them first. But I'm sure that's ok with you because you wouldn't want to kill them before they killed you- would you? Oh yea, that's right, you aren't obligated to answer any questions, you are just a coward hell bent on keeping your world view in the fallacy you have created.
I was sort of thinking the same things.
Now I'm wondering if the things I hate about Flash wasn't the actual software but what people were doing with it.
Way to ignore my questions. Am I supposed to guess what your cowardly actions would be or can I safely assume that you would be the worse kind of human and ignore the events leaving your family and loved ones to die as long as you are safe?
Lets see, you have ignored many questions in order to repeat your cowardly ramblings that don't hold up to the light of real life. You have failed to give alternatives to conflicts that have escalated into killing, you have failed to comment about your actions if your family or friends were in mortal danger, you are just a coward attempting to troll because your anonymity makes you feel more important then you really are.
In fact, you are currently claiming that because I gave my political will to my government or to myself to go and commit murder which somehow justifies them to kill me. I have made no indication that I did anything of the sorts. But what you are seriously ignorant of and purposely hiding from is the conditions that have caused the government to enter into war and kill people in the first place. They drew first blood which according to your statement means we are justified in our killing despite you attempting to claim otherwise. Face it, you are nothing but a coward who is willing to ignore the facts and watch people die as long as you can somehow wash your hands of it. This is rarely the case in real life but your cowardliness seems to make it so in your case. As I said before, go Troll somewhere else.
I don't think it will backfire.
He is attempting to use the WSJ's model to build from. If you were to visit the Wall Street Journal's site, you will see that most of the coverage is free. The subscriptions give more of a value added then access appeal. There are some news stories held from the free parts of the site but they are very few in contrast. What the subscriptions give you is a 90 day categorically sorted history of articles that you can somewhat customize with access to the few stories withheld from the free content. You also get access to the sister publications in Europe and Asia.
This isn't really a pay site like with porn where they give you a teaser then request a login to see the important stuff. I would describe it as a value added subscription model that will appeal to a lot of people but probably not impact the majority of users.
I agree. The 17th amendment has allowed people to largely forget that the role of the federal government wasn't to govern over the states but to be a united front in state actions (as in foreign relations and affairs that traditionally are matters of state which is why the state department deals with foreign affairs instead of the states), resolve dispute between the states, and to provide for the defense of the states. Now people seem to think it's little more then a democracy where the federal government is a way to impose their will onto other states. Of course the purpose of the 17th amendment was to dispel appearances of the lack of democracy.
The problem with Gerrymandering or redistricting is that the basic concepts behind it is real and needed. It's just that it appears to have been hijacked and given a bad name. Populations grow, people move, and so on. This presents a problem every ten years when we count the population in which one congressional district will end up disproportionally representing people over another. It's back to the old taxation without representation ordeal. If district A now has 10 times as many people and district B now has less people, then the people in A are under represented and the people in B are over represented. Changing district borders around is the way to deal with it but there is no way to do so without appearing to be acting in self interests. If you cannot redraw the two districts to equal an acceptable representation between the two, you now have to include several others to maintain even distribution of representations. If you change nothing in the political spectrum of the districts, you are protecting the status quo, if the districts are another political representation, it could be the population has changed enough to warrant it but you are then either benefiting your own party or another party.
It's a necessary but a no win condition. There was a site a while back which used mathematical modeling to redraw district lines as populations moved around. It was able to do so without regard to political objectives but it was impossible to remove the accusations of political biases when the political leanings were examined. This leads me to believe that the impression is more important to some then the actual factors involved. Some people seem to want to set the boundaries in stone which does result in severely under represented populations. For instance, In Ohio, the last time the districts were moved, we had one district with 5 times as many people as the neighboring district and one district that had about one third as many people as the average.
I hope you don't think that video proves anything.
Both of the words discussed were used in valid ways. They talked about Libby's convictions and sentencing and the process of both. You instead present an openly liberal perspective that claims Fox News was Biased because their reporting didn't rise to their expectations ans then inferred that some secret mandate ordering that action existed.
Now the first comment where it refered to the investigation instead of a crime is actually more informative the just saying crime because it describes exactly what the crime was, obstructing and investigation, as well as talks about the severity of the investigation in which he obstructed.
The second reference is also in the same light. The liberal view makes the mistake that someone has to be convicted of a crime before being pardoned. This is not the case as was with Nixon who was never convicted of anything and pardoned. However, the spokes person said pardon for the entire trial which means a pardon for all 4 convictions and not just the one giving 30 months imprisonment.
Aslo the liberal view presents the incorrect assumption that Libby's conviction places a burden on Wilson and Plame. This is incorrect, he was never convicted of any association with that. That was always known to have been the work of Robert Novack and Richard Armatage. Libby's convictions were about order of events that didn't match with certain reporters statements and the underlying investigation produced no crime being investigated. It's like the Martha Stewart conviction for lying to investigators when no crime happened except Libby didn't deny the events, he placed them in a different order.
I suspect you were convinced of something else but your evidence doesn't exactly qualify as evidence. It is little more then opinion from an openly biased person who was attempting to pollute the situation with incorrect and fallacious information.
I don't think the correlation to that can be easily drawn. Of course the recommendations of the Government's IT departments would have in impact on the requirements but without an open bid, they do no know what is availible from who that could meet those requirements.
The open bid process is supposed to make sure that governments using public monies usually derived from taxes are not squandered, wasted, or used to benefit someone's outside interest. There is no assurance of this no matter how intelligent or unintelligent you believe the government IT departments to be without an open and public bidding process. You are inferring that their judgment is proper and it should play a role in the process but for all we know, the decision could be because someone wants to see their MS stock rise before they sell it. You are making a leap in claiming their competence and meeting criteria more so then the inference that they are ignorant of alternatives. You have no idea what the motivations are and at least with an open and public bidding process, they will have to justify their decisions with sound and verifiable facts. OF course this doesn't limit the benefit someone might see from a jump in stock prices or some kickback scheme hiding somewhere but it will how strong the justifications are that will both increase competition in the future as well as point to potential conflicts when the sole justification can be "we will have to educate out techs if we go with something else" or "i like the ribbon in MS office".
I generally push the idea that it isn't the duty of our elected leaders to do what the people want. Their duty is to their office and what it covers which also covers but isn't limited to the people or what the people want.
However, as it has become more and more apparent that they are doing neither and just protecting their own futures, I don't think I can disagree with the sentiment of what you have said. I especially agree with a government arguing among itself. Some of our most productive and profitable years in recent times was when the congress had to jettison it's more extreme wings of the parties and find a way to cooperate with the administration in order to get any objective done. I'm all for a republican majority in the house and senate and a democrat president or vice verse.
As for the third parties. Sadly this will never be a reality because they do not want it to be. There are a few problems they refuse to tackle. One is where they main body of ideas are so similar to existing party lines that it is impossible to tell the differences except for a small few of them. Then when the major parties see the popularity of them, they simple adopt it as their own leaving the third party with no credit for the ideas. The second is that the major parties have the grass roots infrastructure in place from the local community up to the higher levels of politics. The third parties seem to not be interested in playing that role. This present a very uncomfortable view that people who are unfamiliar with the parties will not vote for them. They instead will vote for who they are comfortable with, the democrats or republicans who govern their country board or state governments. They know where the differences are with them on a local level which isn't always left and right.
With third parties and this approach, you have two main problems. The first is as I said, people won't trust them and see much of a difference outside a few major points that will likely be absorbed by one if not both of the major parties and more importantly, that any elected leader will need the support of other members of the same parties to work their agenda though. Carter found this out when his absolute failure as a president came from the lack of support of his own party who dominated both houses of congress at the time. Further more, in the house and senate where seniority seems to be in charge of the positions of power, without a support of fellow party members, there is no reason for the major parties to cooperate with the third parties.
Until they get a grass roots effort going with local and intermediate politicians in place, their chances of changing anything are slim to none unless you count making a position popular enough that another part picks it up and puts their spin on it.
So letting someone rape and murder your mom or sister because you can't see a difference between killing and murder is perfectly fine with you? So getting killed yourself because killing your attacker (in either situation) even though you were just attempting to make them stop is unacceptable to you.
So tell me, if a group of terrorist were planning to blow up a crowded shopping mall with a bunch of your friends and family in it, and the attempt to stop them resulted in the terrorist shooting at you, would you support killing them before they can blow up your friends or are they just collateral damage because you can't tell the difference between killing and murder or that it isn't always bad.
You are a fucking coward who knows nothing about real life and purposely ignores it so to not have to deal with the very real issues it presents. Go put your head back in the sand and troll somewhere else. An elementary level of thinking skills is all that is required and you obviously lack that.
Go to the wall street journal's site and see what you can get without paying right now. The subscription offers access to features and the few stories they don't freely reproduce.
I guess the real question might be what will you gain by getting a subscription. As it stands, it seems that the WSJ's model they are looking to implement is more of a value added service then a traditional pay site that give part of the story then asks you to log in for the rest. I'm not terribly impressed with the idea but I'm not unimpressed with the WSJ's implementation to date.
When you look at the WSJ's pay model, you don't see what we traditionally think of as a pay site. It doesn't just give you headlines and request a login to see the rest of the stories (like Porn sites do). In fact, about 90% of the days news stories are freely availible that day with a few being availible for a couple days. The subscription covers some other articles that they didn't make availible, access to 90 days history of articles sorted in a categorical index that you can customize and access to the Europe and Asia editions in full. If you do have a subscription, try viewing the site without loging in.
Fox news sites aren't different from most other network news. The biggest problems there are that people cannot seem to separate the opinions from the news shows from the news being presented by the network. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they never make mistakes but they correct their mistakes as a news network should and in the same ways that ever other network does (they make mistakes too). Now too many people think that Hanity's program or that O'Reily's program are the same as anchor news desks like the CBS Evening News or CNN's headline news. They are not, they are the equivalent of op-ed pieces in the newspaper where people comment on the news and say what they think it means. This is a prime reason why they have guests on to present their opinions which may differ. The Fox Network News simply reports the facts and doesn't attempt to say what it means except when they have to explain some term or something.
Now I will admit that I haven't watched Fox news channels in the past couple years outside of passing as I got rid of cable a long time ago. They could have changed dramatically since I viewed it regularly but the comments against them haven't so I see no reason to believe they have changed.
It he is modeling the sites after the Wall Street Journal's pay scheme, then he wouldn't have gotten a penny anyways from you. The WSJ is mostly free as it stands. The subscriptions give you access to catagory indexing of older articles, a list of articles going back 90 days, access to the Europe and Asia versions and so on. Most all of the major political and international news stories are and will be free for a limited time if the WJS model is implemented.
Actually, you are partially right. Many of the WSJ articles are freeley availible for a limited amount of time. It's more of a hybrid pay site with more free access then when it was a complete pay site. You can go there right now and browse most all current stories. What the subscription does is give detailed access and historical content and access to some storied which they decided wasn't free. You also get access to the WSJ europe and Asia additions in the same respect.
There is a lot of free content on the WSJ which is why all these other people claiming that he will go under are clueless about the situation. It looks like there are enough articles availible freely that people will become interested in visiting and pay to get more.
I also think this will have some sort of cross site subscription model (like with the WSJ having access to the Europe and Asia editions also). Perhaps a yearly subscription would give you access to all regional news site holdings or something.
You don't need to be old in order to see worse after bad. It's not an age thing, it's a looking around, thinking about the information you gathered and forming an opinion thing. You can start that at any time.
The worse thing about it, the dems were campaigning against the republicans on the basis of deficit spending and fiscal irresponsibility. They got control of all three branched of the government and immediately forgot what they claimed was important. Some people think that Obama's current positions as they stand today would create a complete and separate person capable of running against Obama during the elections. This indicates that either Obama and the dems were completely lieing when making campaign promises or that they were clueless to the problems we face and still are struggling to play catchup.
Even today Obama is making claims about his cap and tax and government health care programs that can be refuted by simply referencing the actual bills he is championing in congress. I don't think he has even taken the time to read the legislation floating around in his name to promote his agenda or that his so called constitutional lawyer qualifications even allow him to understand the legislation being presented. It should surprise no one that congress was attempting to push it through with no public input, limited or missing congressional input, safeguards against wrecking what is left of the economy, time to read and understand the bills, or anything that would resemble traditional congressional actions. Of course this comes as no surprise seeing how the tarp legislation allowed massive payout in bonuses with federal monies despite the outcries from the congress critter responsible for the language being in the laws who pretended to not know anything about it. If they aren't even paying enough attention to see if their amendments were accepted and made into law, then how can anyone feel comfortable about the other complex issues before us.
I find it simply amazing that people are willing to ignore that and that people like you think you need to be old in order to care. The problem with that is that by the time you start caring, you will have already been damaged with little hope of reversing it.
Yea, as long as the left can control the media for those left without access, any lie can be told uncontested and opinions will be shaped regardless of the truth.
No it does not mean that. It means exactly what it means, that there is a fucking difference between killing and murder and not all killing is bad.
I know nothing about any facts of your grandfather. All I know is what you have said and you have a big problem with reality. Here you have all the sudden inferred Jesus and heaven into the conversation as if your delusions actually have a basis in reality. Your grandfather was probably a nazi sympathizer who turned queers and jews into the SS for all I know. Judging from your grasp on reality so far, that seems way more plausible then what you have actually claimed.
And you are showing how fucking stupid you are. First of all, I don't set any policies. Only two people have died by my hands and they were both legally justified. Second, you are attempting to blame the actions of the entire country on my ability to see the issues surrounding the situations. So how is it that I am supposed to be responsible for other people's actions when all I have done is looked and saw what drove the conflict and who drew fist blood. Hell, you couldn't even comprehend these complexities back when I was asking you to give an alternative to the killing that hasn't already been tried and failed. You couldn't then, There is probably no way you will understand or be capably of intellectually processing it now.
Now you just got finished claiming your grandfather helped jews run and hide before doing it himself. Now which is it, was he on the front line fighting the enemy or was he abandoning his country and preparing to run and hide?
Yes, you are the worst kind of human. You want to preserve life (mainly your own) so much that you will ignore the actions of others and not take the life of people who are actually slaughtering and mass murdering others who are innocent. You are the coward who wants to complain that life sucks when you have done absolutely nothing to make it better for yourself or anyone else. You are the idiot who can't even be bothered to look at the conflict in order to understand the drivers of it in order to offer a workable alternative to the killing. You are sitting there saying "wasn't me" while blaming every one else and doing absolutely nothing but making the problems worse.
The world will be done a favor when you shut up.
Go troll somewhere else. You are nothing but an idiot blinded by your cowardliness.
What a load of bullshit. First of all, I don't set policy that kills other people. Second, I never said that killing for the greater good was acceptable. That is something your delusional mind has inferred on it's own. I said that killing isn't the same as murder and not all killing is bad. Nothing more nothing less. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth or travel down your imaginary roads outside of the context I made.
This is doubtful unless your grandfather lived in one of the occupied countries and fled without defending it. Maybe there is a long line of cowardliness in your family. That would explain a lot.
And here your delusions and cowardliness rise again. I don't support killing but I am not so stupid that I can't understand how conflict ends up in it and how that result is justified in the defense of the people. Just because you cannot fathom that concept does not make it wrong. In fact, it makes you an idiot when you suggest not killing without any alternatives to resolve the conflict.
The strong defense isn't the problem. Attacking us or our allies are. You cannot and will not do that unfettered. And no matter how hard you wish it not to be, you will end up bringing death upon yourself when you try. In both wars we have now, it was the result of either the US directly being attacked or one of our allies in which we came to their defense. Your comment right here signifies that you just do not have a clue.
No, you just bury your head in the sand like your cowar
That's right, you are repeating bullshit.
Way to ignore reality just to supplement your own. France and Germany's non-cooperation says nothing to their reasoning idiot. As I already stated before, France was protecting it's secret and illegal oil deals and Germany thought Iraq was contained and didn't pose a threat large enough warranting war. France ended up echoing that sentiment claiming that inspectors could achieve the same goals as war. They both thought it was likely he had WMDs still and was not in compliance with Iraq's obligations under UN resolutions pertaining to the 1990 armistice. Quite rewriting history to suit your own world view.
And when was that realized? Oh yea, after the fucking invasion which means that before the invasion, the UK thought Iraq had WMDs and wasn't in compliance with their obligations. And yes, the scandal resulted in support for the war by an overstatement of the intelligence, not a change in the information presented.
The entire fucking UN thought Iraq had WMDs and weren't in compliance with their disarmament obligations. Hell, Hans Blix who claimed later the Iraq had nothing as his anti war statements became more prevalent said in January of 2003 (2 months before the invasion) that Iraq couldn't explain where 6,500 chemical weapon bombs got off to or some 1000 tonnes of chemical agents, Claimed that they found new documents relating to laser enrichment of Uranium and a nuclear weapons program in a scientists home and adding "we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.". Blix also stated "Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."
And yes, France's then president Jacques Chirac said in an interview for Time Magazine that ran in the Feb. 24, 2003 issue (interview taking place feb 16 before) (again, 1 month before the invasion) "Are there nuclear arms in Iraq? I don't think so. Are there other weapons of mass destruction? That's probable. We have to find and destroy them. In its current situation, does Iraq-controlled and inspected as it is-pose a clear and present danger to the region? I don't believe so. Given that, I prefer to continue along the path laid out by the Security Council. Then we'll see." How in the world can you remotely claim that France didn't think Iraq had WMDs when their fucking president said they did.
Russia also claimed Iraq had links to terrorism as reported in the Washington post Saturday, June 19, 2004; Page A11
Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Sad
The links do not matter whether they are conservative or not. And you are an idiot if you think Al Qeada is the only terrorist group out there. I didn't say Al Qeada and Al Qeada not being included is not a disqualifies. Support for terrorist or terrorism is just that regardless of what name the terrorist take. If you are willing to ignore information because it didn't come from your favorite source, then will will always remain ignorant. If you are willing to supplant what was said with your own ideology leaning, you will remain stupid.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070605111535/http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec12.pdf Read the next two pages.
You can also find information at wikipedia which is cited by looking for Abu Musab al Zarqawi who did have links to Al Qeada before the 2003 invasion of Iraq and was also offered and received safe haven while recuperating from injuries received in Afghanistan.
Hamas pays its bombers' survivors a permanent pension of $300 to $600 a month in addition to bankrolling the family's health care and the education of the bomber's children. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein also funds a one-time $20,000 payment for the families--increased from $10,000 about six months ago in a show of solidarity.