Political Ass-Handing-To
Every now and again I engage the members of the Rulers of the Sky Unreal Clan members in political discussion. You may remember them as the people trying to creat a rap song to talk about how badass they are, but let's please discard that memory for a second. Since almost all of them are pro-Bush, it almost always ends in me having to stomp their faces in. For example:
(Please note that I am Cleric)
Cannon Fodder:Yes cleric, let's give it to kerry to fuck up worse! Also, France and Germany???? Are you serious? you're talking about the master race and the frog eaters! You seriously have a couple of screws loose if you think that they really matter in the grand scheme of things.
Cleric: And you KNOW for a fact Kerry will fuck it up because he's had four years in office already, right? Oh wait, you don't, so you must be talking out of your ass. Especially after the following comment. It's fucking idiots like you that make the world hate us. And by the way, one of the Admins here is German.
Of course, he responds. And then I do. He's in bold.
[ROTS]Cannon_Fodder wrote:
OK, for a positive in the war effort. We have a lot less to worry about from Bin Laden, even though they haven't caught him.
Bin Laden was Afghanistan. I'm not talking about Afghanistan.
Quote:
Saddam is no longer in a position to threaten the world! And if you think for one minute that he wasn't just look at the things he did to his own people.
Yes, because his own people suffering somehow affects the whole world. IT ISN'T OUR BUSINESS. Yes, Saddam was horrible. Yes, he deserved to be ousted. But have you bothered to look at say, half of fucking South America? They are much closer to the US and a much bigger threat, but you NEVER hear about Colombia. Why? Because there aren't any fucking Arabs there. It's nice and good to care about people, but if you are, at least pretend to care about all of them.
Quote:
Plus look at the fact that in the Gulf war he lit all those oil wells on fire. Greatly contributing to global warming! Plus dumped millions of gallons of oil into the gulf. What do you suppose that did to help the world? killing fish and birds and contamination the water, etc.
Are you saying because he's a threat to the environment that it justifies us occupying his country and killing everyone we deem "terrorists"? Do you even hear yourself here? What's the next step in this logic, dropping a nuke on France because it has a lot of graffitti? Give me a fucking break.
Quote:
But, hell, this is after all just my opinion, I'm not being an idiot. I'm just highly opinionated!
Indeed.
Quote:
Then there are the remarks about bush's campaign commercials, etc. As for what I have read about those is that Bush has said that those were not authorized by his camp. It has been said that indepemdant groups of his supporters have been doing that. Could be a lie but I don't know.
I think if anyone's been paying attention these last four years they will realize that what Bush says and what Bush does are two very different things.
Quote:
And also when has there ever been a presidential election in recent history where there was no mud slinging? half truths and exagerations rule in this arena. As I said before I just think Bush is the lesser of the two EVILS. I would welcome another candidate that would convince me that they would be better.I say that if policing the world has to fall to us then SO BE IT! Someone has to have the balls to say NO MORE!
Of course there will be mud slinging. There will always be mudslinging. I'm not worried about that directly; it's just a lesser of the many things about our president that I hate. John Kerry evil? Give me a break. He might be an idiot, and he definitely might be numb to the will of the common people because money is such a great anesthetic, but evil? He has not cost us three thousand American lives. Bottom line. The world is not ours to police. Just because we are a super power does NOT mean we own the world, and we are it's guardian.
Then I get to tussle with the two ladies of the forum, Claudine and Zelse. Again, they will be bold.
[ROTS]Zelse wrote:
South America wasn't the responsible party in 9/11. I am not saying that 9/11 was the only terrorist incident, I am saying that it was the straw that broke the camel's back. This was the last punch that America was willing to take peacefully. We started in Afghanistan because of 9/11. We moved to Iraq because of previous treaty violations and hostile acts. I can guarantee you that if Bush is re-elected, that we will move to Colombia. We will move to Iran. We will move to North Korea. We will not move to China however, but that is beside the point. If in Bush's subsequent term he does not get around to these countries (not to make it sound trivial), then if a conservative leader with the same ideals as Bush is elected 4 years from now, then these places will be approached, warned, and taken out.
Iraq was not the responsible party in 9/11. Saddam was not the responsible party in 9/11. We've tried dealing with Colombia, but it is much harder than it sounds.
Quote:
Actually this is a bin laden thing. Intelligence reports stated that Saddam was bin laden friendly. When the war on terrorism started the targets were those countries that harbored and helped terrorists.
Really? Because I've seen on the news on more than one occasion that there are NO TANGIBLE TIES between the two. Show me some evidence and I'll assume you're right.
Quote:
It is our business because they brought it here. And as the wrold hegemon shouldn't we have some peacekeeping responsibilities? We are overextended - I don't deny that. We also cannot help any and every country. There are other reasons why we don't intervene in Colombia. There is something the world runs on called hegemonic stability theory. THat states that there is a country with the most economic and millitary power (the hegemon) and because of that country the global economy runs smoothly. If that country falters things go haywire all around. If you doubt it look at other economies post 9/11.
Again, no they didn't. Al Quaeda (sp?) did. Don't mix the two, because they are separate. Perhaps the economies faltered, and this is just a guess, because the TRADE CENTERS were just that: centers of trade. We don't have the right to play God, period.
Quote:
Graffiti doesnt cause global warming. Also it doesn't cause increased prices in crude oil.
No, but you're ignoring what I said. Also, burning oil doesn't increase prices. It's a stock market issue. The people who buy the oil decide how much it costs, not Saddam and all of the Molotovs in the world.
Quote:
Read above about hegemonic stability theory. As the most powerful country it is partly our responsibility. Not because it's right but because it is expected.
Expected by whom? Certainly not Iraq. Certainly not by France, Germany, or most of the UN for that matter. And please don't fall back on the "Well that's because the UN don't have no balls har har" arguement, because that is really stale. It's expected by us and Israel (and only because it suits them) alone.
If you're getting ansy because of what I said about oil prices, don't worry, the following is about to qualify it, since they got ansy too. Again with Cannon Fodder in bold:
[ROTS]Cannon_Fodder wrote:
ok, my turn. South America isn't in the nuclear arms race so that keeps them slightly safer than some (Saddam for instance). We do have the war on drugs. And they don't pose a terrorist threat.
Last time I checked, the Twin Towers weren't nuked. Don't think they aren't a threat just because you can't imagine what they would do.
Quote:
Bin laden was part of the war effort. And Saddam is no better than Bin Laden. He damaged the ecology during the gulf war with what he did. but since it isn't affecting you directly it doesn't matter. I think it does.
Your opinion and the law are NOT SYNONYMOUS. There are NO TIES between the two. That's like saying "this guy wrecked my bike, and this guy's an asshole, so I'll kill them both." It doesn't work that way, whether you want it to or not.
Quote:
Bin Laden and Saddam are two peas in a pod. I do not doubt for one minute that Saddam would have used nuclear weapons on us if he had them.
If. IF. If. If I had nuclear bombs, I'd bomb Oakland. Does that mean you should occupy Alameda and kill all my friends and relatives?
Quote:
He cares for nothing more than himself.
Irrelevant!
Quote:
those two are evil personified in my book.
IRRELEVANT!
Quote:
Playing GOD? Just what do you think those two were doing? Bin Laden in 9\11, Saddam in Kuwait, hell with his own people for that matter.
So you admit him playing God is wrong, and your solution is WE play God? Think about that.
Quote:
The people SELLING the oil set the prices, don't know where you get your information from.
A better source than you.
Why Does Gas Cost So Damn Much?
The short answer: "Traders get nervous, so they raise their bids to secure supplies for the future," says Rayola Dougher, an analyst with the American Petroleum Institute. The less-short answer: OPEC, the 11 nation cartel that controls most of the world's oil spigots, tries to pump just enough to keep the per-barrel price between 22 and 28 dollars. Any lower and they're giving it away, any higher and the Griswolds start rethinking their summer road trip, lowering demand. In the past year, demand skyrocketed thanks to improving economies in Asia and the US, while terrorist bombings and beheadings rocked key oil-producing nations. Fearing Middle East oil would stop flowing, traders raised their bids. The per-barrel price of crude was $26; a year later, it peaked at $42.
Source: Maxim
Quote:
As far as the "lesser of two evils" thing. Cleric, it's called an ANALOGY.
I know what an analogy is. Thing is, I haven't seen any proof that Kerry is evil aside from "Well, he's wishy washy. That's practically as bad, right?"
Quote:
What exactly in your book says that Saddam wasn't a threat to the world?
He was just the same as Hitler only smaller. Think of it this way. If the guy 3 doors down from your house was running around in his yard with a gun and some hand grenades, wouldn't you want someone come and disarm him and stop him from harming someone? And if noone else would and you could stop him from hurting someone, don't you feel it would be your responsibility to do something? I know I would. Therefore, I agree with the war effort. I agree with the decision to oust Saddam.
Saddam wasn't next door, he was thousands of miles away. Hitler had the power. Saddam did not. Hitler had the PEOPLE BEHIND HIM. Saddam did not. For someone who feels the need to explain what analogies are, you sure are bad at making accurate ones. Just because you soak up all the hero bullshit from all the movies you see does not mean that you can act on your urges.
Quote:
Kerry wasn't a war hero, or a patriot in my book. Four months in Vietnam isn't anything to brag about. Most spent more time, like a year or more there on the front lines, more directly in harms way. Then comes home to campaign against the effort in Vietnam. Some patriot he was.
How many fucking months did you spend in Vietnam? Just because he wasn't eating napalm doesn't mean what he did doesn't count for anything. This double standard bullshit with promoting the troops and dissing Kerry is ridiculous. I don't care how irrelevant his war record is to presidency (because it is irrelevant), to try to put down the fact that he survived a war that took over 30,000 Americans is the sign of a true douchebag.
Quote:
Also, it is truly interesting EVERY time someone talks about positive things that bush has done in his tenure that you just completely dismiss them
I don't dismiss them. But the good doesn't outweigh the bad.
Obviously, this will carry on and on until the other side submits, for I can go on like this for months. I hope this was entertaining for at least some of you. Now you have an idea of where I stand politically.
(Please note that I am Cleric)
Cannon Fodder:Yes cleric, let's give it to kerry to fuck up worse! Also, France and Germany???? Are you serious? you're talking about the master race and the frog eaters! You seriously have a couple of screws loose if you think that they really matter in the grand scheme of things.
Cleric: And you KNOW for a fact Kerry will fuck it up because he's had four years in office already, right? Oh wait, you don't, so you must be talking out of your ass. Especially after the following comment. It's fucking idiots like you that make the world hate us. And by the way, one of the Admins here is German.
Of course, he responds. And then I do. He's in bold.
[ROTS]Cannon_Fodder wrote:
OK, for a positive in the war effort. We have a lot less to worry about from Bin Laden, even though they haven't caught him.
Bin Laden was Afghanistan. I'm not talking about Afghanistan.
Quote:
Saddam is no longer in a position to threaten the world! And if you think for one minute that he wasn't just look at the things he did to his own people.
Yes, because his own people suffering somehow affects the whole world. IT ISN'T OUR BUSINESS. Yes, Saddam was horrible. Yes, he deserved to be ousted. But have you bothered to look at say, half of fucking South America? They are much closer to the US and a much bigger threat, but you NEVER hear about Colombia. Why? Because there aren't any fucking Arabs there. It's nice and good to care about people, but if you are, at least pretend to care about all of them.
Quote:
Plus look at the fact that in the Gulf war he lit all those oil wells on fire. Greatly contributing to global warming! Plus dumped millions of gallons of oil into the gulf. What do you suppose that did to help the world? killing fish and birds and contamination the water, etc.
Are you saying because he's a threat to the environment that it justifies us occupying his country and killing everyone we deem "terrorists"? Do you even hear yourself here? What's the next step in this logic, dropping a nuke on France because it has a lot of graffitti? Give me a fucking break.
Quote:
But, hell, this is after all just my opinion, I'm not being an idiot. I'm just highly opinionated!
Indeed.
Quote:
Then there are the remarks about bush's campaign commercials, etc. As for what I have read about those is that Bush has said that those were not authorized by his camp. It has been said that indepemdant groups of his supporters have been doing that. Could be a lie but I don't know.
I think if anyone's been paying attention these last four years they will realize that what Bush says and what Bush does are two very different things.
Quote:
And also when has there ever been a presidential election in recent history where there was no mud slinging? half truths and exagerations rule in this arena. As I said before I just think Bush is the lesser of the two EVILS. I would welcome another candidate that would convince me that they would be better.I say that if policing the world has to fall to us then SO BE IT! Someone has to have the balls to say NO MORE!
Of course there will be mud slinging. There will always be mudslinging. I'm not worried about that directly; it's just a lesser of the many things about our president that I hate. John Kerry evil? Give me a break. He might be an idiot, and he definitely might be numb to the will of the common people because money is such a great anesthetic, but evil? He has not cost us three thousand American lives. Bottom line. The world is not ours to police. Just because we are a super power does NOT mean we own the world, and we are it's guardian.
Then I get to tussle with the two ladies of the forum, Claudine and Zelse. Again, they will be bold.
[ROTS]Zelse wrote:
South America wasn't the responsible party in 9/11. I am not saying that 9/11 was the only terrorist incident, I am saying that it was the straw that broke the camel's back. This was the last punch that America was willing to take peacefully. We started in Afghanistan because of 9/11. We moved to Iraq because of previous treaty violations and hostile acts. I can guarantee you that if Bush is re-elected, that we will move to Colombia. We will move to Iran. We will move to North Korea. We will not move to China however, but that is beside the point. If in Bush's subsequent term he does not get around to these countries (not to make it sound trivial), then if a conservative leader with the same ideals as Bush is elected 4 years from now, then these places will be approached, warned, and taken out.
Iraq was not the responsible party in 9/11. Saddam was not the responsible party in 9/11. We've tried dealing with Colombia, but it is much harder than it sounds.
Quote:
Actually this is a bin laden thing. Intelligence reports stated that Saddam was bin laden friendly. When the war on terrorism started the targets were those countries that harbored and helped terrorists.
Really? Because I've seen on the news on more than one occasion that there are NO TANGIBLE TIES between the two. Show me some evidence and I'll assume you're right.
Quote:
It is our business because they brought it here. And as the wrold hegemon shouldn't we have some peacekeeping responsibilities? We are overextended - I don't deny that. We also cannot help any and every country. There are other reasons why we don't intervene in Colombia. There is something the world runs on called hegemonic stability theory. THat states that there is a country with the most economic and millitary power (the hegemon) and because of that country the global economy runs smoothly. If that country falters things go haywire all around. If you doubt it look at other economies post 9/11.
Again, no they didn't. Al Quaeda (sp?) did. Don't mix the two, because they are separate. Perhaps the economies faltered, and this is just a guess, because the TRADE CENTERS were just that: centers of trade. We don't have the right to play God, period.
Quote:
Graffiti doesnt cause global warming. Also it doesn't cause increased prices in crude oil.
No, but you're ignoring what I said. Also, burning oil doesn't increase prices. It's a stock market issue. The people who buy the oil decide how much it costs, not Saddam and all of the Molotovs in the world.
Quote:
Read above about hegemonic stability theory. As the most powerful country it is partly our responsibility. Not because it's right but because it is expected.
Expected by whom? Certainly not Iraq. Certainly not by France, Germany, or most of the UN for that matter. And please don't fall back on the "Well that's because the UN don't have no balls har har" arguement, because that is really stale. It's expected by us and Israel (and only because it suits them) alone.
If you're getting ansy because of what I said about oil prices, don't worry, the following is about to qualify it, since they got ansy too. Again with Cannon Fodder in bold:
[ROTS]Cannon_Fodder wrote:
ok, my turn. South America isn't in the nuclear arms race so that keeps them slightly safer than some (Saddam for instance). We do have the war on drugs. And they don't pose a terrorist threat.
Last time I checked, the Twin Towers weren't nuked. Don't think they aren't a threat just because you can't imagine what they would do.
Quote:
Bin laden was part of the war effort. And Saddam is no better than Bin Laden. He damaged the ecology during the gulf war with what he did. but since it isn't affecting you directly it doesn't matter. I think it does.
Your opinion and the law are NOT SYNONYMOUS. There are NO TIES between the two. That's like saying "this guy wrecked my bike, and this guy's an asshole, so I'll kill them both." It doesn't work that way, whether you want it to or not.
Quote:
Bin Laden and Saddam are two peas in a pod. I do not doubt for one minute that Saddam would have used nuclear weapons on us if he had them.
If. IF. If. If I had nuclear bombs, I'd bomb Oakland. Does that mean you should occupy Alameda and kill all my friends and relatives?
Quote:
He cares for nothing more than himself.
Irrelevant!
Quote:
those two are evil personified in my book.
IRRELEVANT!
Quote:
Playing GOD? Just what do you think those two were doing? Bin Laden in 9\11, Saddam in Kuwait, hell with his own people for that matter.
So you admit him playing God is wrong, and your solution is WE play God? Think about that.
Quote:
The people SELLING the oil set the prices, don't know where you get your information from.
A better source than you.
Why Does Gas Cost So Damn Much?
The short answer: "Traders get nervous, so they raise their bids to secure supplies for the future," says Rayola Dougher, an analyst with the American Petroleum Institute. The less-short answer: OPEC, the 11 nation cartel that controls most of the world's oil spigots, tries to pump just enough to keep the per-barrel price between 22 and 28 dollars. Any lower and they're giving it away, any higher and the Griswolds start rethinking their summer road trip, lowering demand. In the past year, demand skyrocketed thanks to improving economies in Asia and the US, while terrorist bombings and beheadings rocked key oil-producing nations. Fearing Middle East oil would stop flowing, traders raised their bids. The per-barrel price of crude was $26; a year later, it peaked at $42.
Source: Maxim
Quote:
As far as the "lesser of two evils" thing. Cleric, it's called an ANALOGY.
I know what an analogy is. Thing is, I haven't seen any proof that Kerry is evil aside from "Well, he's wishy washy. That's practically as bad, right?"
Quote:
What exactly in your book says that Saddam wasn't a threat to the world?
He was just the same as Hitler only smaller. Think of it this way. If the guy 3 doors down from your house was running around in his yard with a gun and some hand grenades, wouldn't you want someone come and disarm him and stop him from harming someone? And if noone else would and you could stop him from hurting someone, don't you feel it would be your responsibility to do something? I know I would. Therefore, I agree with the war effort. I agree with the decision to oust Saddam.
Saddam wasn't next door, he was thousands of miles away. Hitler had the power. Saddam did not. Hitler had the PEOPLE BEHIND HIM. Saddam did not. For someone who feels the need to explain what analogies are, you sure are bad at making accurate ones. Just because you soak up all the hero bullshit from all the movies you see does not mean that you can act on your urges.
Quote:
Kerry wasn't a war hero, or a patriot in my book. Four months in Vietnam isn't anything to brag about. Most spent more time, like a year or more there on the front lines, more directly in harms way. Then comes home to campaign against the effort in Vietnam. Some patriot he was.
How many fucking months did you spend in Vietnam? Just because he wasn't eating napalm doesn't mean what he did doesn't count for anything. This double standard bullshit with promoting the troops and dissing Kerry is ridiculous. I don't care how irrelevant his war record is to presidency (because it is irrelevant), to try to put down the fact that he survived a war that took over 30,000 Americans is the sign of a true douchebag.
Quote:
Also, it is truly interesting EVERY time someone talks about positive things that bush has done in his tenure that you just completely dismiss them
I don't dismiss them. But the good doesn't outweigh the bad.
Obviously, this will carry on and on until the other side submits, for I can go on like this for months. I hope this was entertaining for at least some of you. Now you have an idea of where I stand politically.
Comments