Lebanon wasn't destroyed, albeit it was pretty badly wrecked. Palestine is not a country.
From what I saw...I'm sticking with destroyed.
And of course Palestine isn'ta country....but Israel, of course, is. How dare anyone say Israel doesn't have a right to exist and how easy these same people can do exactly that with Palestine.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And of course Palestine isn'ta country....but Israel, of course, is. How dare anyone say Israel doesn't have a right to exist and how easy these same people can do exactly that with Palestine.
Palestine is to terrorists what the laundry shop was to 1930's mobsters. Obviously. :rolleyes:
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
And of course Palestine isn'ta country....but Israel, of course, is. How dare anyone say Israel doesn't have a right to exist and how easy these same people can do exactly that with Palestine.
Lebanon were not saints in that conflict even if Israel crossed the line. And I do think the Palistinians and Israel should both be countries. I hope they can eventually figure out a border that works for both of them. I'm not holding my breath on that however.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Lebanon were not saints in that conflict even if Israel crossed the line. And I do think the Palistinians and Israel should both be countries. I hope they can eventually figure out a border that works for both of them. I'm not holding my breath on that however.
Lebanon did not attack Israel.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And that makes so much sense!!! If I were Iran that's exactly what I'd do, too! I'd attack a country with a stockpile of nukes and various other weapons that also has a history of completely destroying other countries when they felt like it and is always 100% backed by the world's only superpower who also happens to be armed to the teeth while me being Iran doesn't even have 1 nuke to my name!!!!!!
Perfect logic there!
Cut off Fox News sometime.
Didn't you once post that Bush and his administration purposely fucked up countless times for the 8 years that he was in office in order to cover up the inside job on 9/11 and make everyone think he was too incompetent to pull it off?
I respect your opinion and all, but that logic is about as bad as it gets.
Didn't you once post that Bush and his administration purposely fucked up countless times for the 8 years that he was in office in order to cover up the inside job on 9/11 and make everyone think he was too incompetent to pull it off?
I respect your opinion and all, but that logic is about as bad as it gets.
No, I don't think that's quite how I articulated that line of thinking. I said they play dumb whenever their decisions seem to be in direct conflict with the interests of the American people...when actually these decisions have gotten them exactly what they wanted in the first place (to make them and their cronies richer and more powerful). And I've went on to add that they use this whole perception of incompetence to their advantage and it's working like a charm actually.
Where's the flaw in this logic? Even if you don't agree with it, I don't see any bad logic.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
No, I don't think that's quite how I articulated that line of thinking. I said they play dumb whenever their decisions seem to be in direct conflict with the interests of the American people...when actually these decisions have gotten them exactly what they wanted in the first place (to make them and their cronies richer and more powerful). And I've went on to add that they use this whole perception of incompetence to their advantage and it's working like a charm actually.
Where's the flaw in this logic? Even if you don't agree with it, I don't see any bad logic.
It's possible, but not with the current administration. They've fucked up everything they've touched, started an unncesseary war that will inevitably go down as the greatest foreign policy blunder in history, yet they could somehow manage to pull off 9/11 and not plant the WMD's. It's illogicial at best. Think of all that Bush and co has fucked up and mismanaged during their 8 years, and please tell me why you think they were somehow able to pull off 9/11, but not follow through with simply planting WMDs. Please think this over. .
I think could very well be a brilliant approach to have the public believe this admin is simply 'feeble' and 'incapable'. They have, afterall, accomplished everything they set out to do. Keeping this war a fiasco and neverending mess keeps us over there indefinitely. Which in turns keeps the funding pouring in for the war machine, defense contractors and profiteers. How have they not gotten what they set out to do?
So let me get this straight. You think the Bush administration fucked up for 8 years to brilliantly show their ineptitude and make an inside 9/11 job seem unfeasible? That is absolutely ludicrous.
I think there is plenty of logic in what I said. Just proclaiming how ludicrous you think it is doesn't really tell me anything about why. This is why I don't like these discussions. People start acting like their view can be the only one possible and shut their ears to anything else. I'm open...if you can give me a reply that is substantial instead of remarks on how crazy you think it is. All you need to do is civilly tell me why you disagree and we can go from there. If you've got the market cornered on logic then you should have no problems carrying about a discussion on this with a level head.
How have they failed at getting what they set out to do?
Why is it ludicrous to think they would manipulate the public into thinking they are a bunch of inept morons?
Hasn't this perpetual war worked out well for the Bush cronies?
So, to clarify, you don't think that Bush fucked up for 8 years as a brilliant plan to act incompetent and make an inside 9/11 job seem unfeasible?
I think the whole 'incompetent' shtick is to make the admin seem less corrupt, dishonest and criminal and more like dumbasses, instead. They want it to seem like they just fucked up but really they have achieved exactly what they set out to without regard to the consequences it would cause. They really don't care.
...where's the contradiction?
and why is that such a stretch, anyway? You act like you've never seen a person play dumb when they are busted doing something they shouldn't be.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I would love to hear Nader explain how he would have avoided War when the South seceded, when Pearl Harbor was attacked and Jews were being slaughtered, after 3000 Americans died on 9/11. At all of those points a certain amount of force was necessary like it or not. Iraq is what was never necessary and is why Bush is the worst President of all time.
My guess is that Nader would act aggressively if we were attacked or threatened. If not then he's as much of a failure as Bush because the number one job as president is to protect the people and the country. If we were attacked with no response then what would prevent us from being attacked again???
Nader would send in his cavalry of hippies riding on unicorns to dispatch the enemies with tofu farts.
Then why call one a country and act like the people who lived there before do not qualify?
I'm glad to hear you believe in a two-state solution, btw.
Because I find language to the effect of "Israel destroyed Palestine" to be too strong ... There was no Palestine, and no one has been destroyed (albeit many have been killed). There needs to be a Palestinian state NOW, for various reasons. Not the least of which is a basic need to separate two sides who won't stop fighting.
Because I find language to the effect of "Israel destroyed Palestine" to be too strong ... There was no Palestine, and no one has been destroyed (albeit many have been killed). There needs to be a Palestinian state NOW, for various reasons. Not the least of which is a basic need to separate two sides who won't stop fighting.
If you want to say that they didn't destroy an 'official' country with established borders and recognition...fine.
But I think the bigger point is that Israel destroyed the Palestinian's home, where they lived, their complete way of life...pushed them aside as 'undeserving' of this land they had been living on and made it a country for them to have instead. They disregarded them and treated them like animals in the way of their plans.
Official country or not....it doesn't excuse their actions in my eyes. It only changes the terminology.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
We all know how vocal EV is about political issues... Why has he not endorsed Obama? Maybe he saw this... http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036
And dont get me wrong. I dont want the US to be represented by either of the canidates. Just watch this front to back, and think about how much of an extremist Obama is...
I didn't say they will attack us. Which is why I don't think Obama will lead us to war with Iran. I think he will work to get diplomatically at gaining peace in the Middle East much like Clinton attempted to do. I don't know if it will be successful but that will be his attempt.
All I'm saying is that he has every right to leave war on the table if they develop nukes and threaten to use them on Israel or any other country. If they don't do that Obama won't go to war. Simple as that.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I think the whole 'incompetent' shtick is to make the admin seem less corrupt, dishonest and criminal and more like dumbasses, instead. They want it to seem like they just fucked up but really they have achieved exactly what they set out to without regard to the consequences it would cause. They really don't care.
...where's the contradiction?
and why is that such a stretch, anyway? You act like you've never seen a person play dumb when they are busted doing something they shouldn't be.
I think Bush is incompetent (just my opinion). But I agree with your opinion in regards to his staff, i.e. Cheney and especially Karl Rove - that man is just pure evil. To that point and yours, now that Rove is gone, I think the rest of the administration has to really play the incompetence card to try and cover up everything he pulled.
Hes campaigning in that video. No facts against Obama or Clinton or Edwards was used other then they would keep all options open. How does that not include diplomacay as one of the options?
Look Obama could lie and pander to the Left and say that we will never attack Iran but then if something happened and we were forced into action, Obama would be called out for lying in his campaign. Remember Bush 1 and his no new taxes line. He lost to Clinton in 1992 mostly because of that mistake.
He has stated numerous times and will work for diplomacy first and foremost. And if you are saying hes lying thats fine don't vote for him but there is NO evidence that he's a warmonger other then that hes not a total pacifist like Nader or Kucinich. I guess that would make Edwards and Clinton Warmongers too.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
We all know how vocal EV is about political issues... Why has he not endorsed Obama? Maybe he saw this... http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036
And dont get me wrong. I dont want the US to be represented by either of the canidates. Just watch this front to back, and think about how much of an extremist Obama is...
Um ... not to burst your bubble, but Ed HAS endorsed Obama. At least if you can call flying a big Obama banner at his solo shows as an endorsement.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Hes campaigning in that video. No facts against Obama or Clinton or Edwards was used other then they would keep all options open. How does that not include diplomacay as one of the options?
Look Obama could lie and pander to the Left and say that we will never attack Iran but then if something happened and we were forced into action, Obama would be called out for lying in his campaign. Remember Bush 1 and his no new taxes line. He lost to Clinton in 1992 mostly because of that mistake.
He has stated numerous times and will work for diplomacy first and foremost. And if you are saying hes lying thats fine don't vote for him but there is NO evidence that he's a warmonger other then that hes not a total pacifist like Nader or Kucinich. I guess that would make Edwards and Clinton Warmongers too.
I'd prefer to be able to take what Obama is saying as the truth and not have to guess which side he's lying to at the time. To me, that speaks to the kind of people we keep voting in office. People that will lie and say very different things to very different crowds just to get ahead. And that's dishonesty and it's a huge problem. It speaks to the kind of person he is. And we wonder why our gov't is so corrupt and useless! People with integrity don't change their stories as they go along.
There is evidence that he could have the same warmongering mentality as the
Reps.....his words!! And all you have is his other WORDS to back up this not being the case. You have just chosen what you're willing to believe out of the two stories he tells. I'm choosing to vote for someone that can keep one story straight so I don't have to guess who he's telling the truth to.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'd prefer to be able to take what Obama is saying as the truth and not have to guess which side he's lying to at the time. To me, that speaks to the kind of people we keep voting in office. People that will lie and say very different things to very different crowds just to get ahead. And that's dishonesty and it's a huge problem. It speaks to the kind of person he is. And we wonder why our gov't is so corrupt and useless! People with integrity don't change their stories as they go along.
There is evidence that he could have the same warmongering mentality as the
Reps.....his words!! And all you have is his other WORDS to back up this not being the case. You have just chosen what you're willing to believe out of the two stories he tells. I'm choosing to vote for someone that can keep one story straight so I don't have to guess who he's telling the truth to.
I disagree that he has said different things to different people. The thing is that even Nader thinks Obama is not that different then him. The only thing that Nader has attacked Obama on is his support or Israel. I did a simple Google Search of Nader Obama and that is all I could find from NADER himself.
How do Nader supporters find all of this Obama war mongering speech that can't be found any where. He has said troops will be out in majority within 16 months. Will there be some troops there longer? Yes to help keep security. Its not Obama's fault Bush started the war, but you can't leave Iraq without some sort of security back up. That would be worse then when we invaded the country. I'm sorry its not the answer that all want to hear but we will not be engaging in daily hand to hand combat within 16 months of his presidency. Its right on his website which I know you have looked at before.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I disagree that he has said different things to different people. The thing is that even Nader thinks Obama is not that different then him. The only thing that Nader has attacked Obama on is his support or Israel. I did a simple Google Search of Nader Obama and that is all I could find from NADER himself.
How do Nader supporters find all of this Obama war mongering speech that can't be found any where. He has said troops will be out in majority within 16 months. Will there be some troops there longer? Yes to help keep security. Its not Obama's fault Bush started the war, but you can't leave Iraq without some sort of security back up. That would be worse then when we invaded the country. I'm sorry its not the answer that all want to hear but we will not be engaging in daily hand to hand combat within 16 months of his presidency. Its right on his website which I know you have looked at before.
You just got through saying that what he was saying is just 'campaigning' so what did you mean by that exactly then?
Yeah, needless to say, I'm not impressed with his website, his support for using Blackwater, his lack of a commitment to have the troops out by 2013 and so....if that's okay for you then fine by me, vote for the guy. I'm just saying it is not acceptable for me.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Comments
Lebanon wasn't destroyed, albeit it was pretty badly wrecked. Palestine is not a country.
At least you've been consistent.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
There's a difference in believing in a peaceful solution and proving it verses leaving threats on the table...which are only there in fear.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
From what I saw...I'm sticking with destroyed.
And of course Palestine isn'ta country....but Israel, of course, is. How dare anyone say Israel doesn't have a right to exist and how easy these same people can do exactly that with Palestine.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Palestine is to terrorists what the laundry shop was to 1930's mobsters. Obviously. :rolleyes:
Lebanon were not saints in that conflict even if Israel crossed the line. And I do think the Palistinians and Israel should both be countries. I hope they can eventually figure out a border that works for both of them. I'm not holding my breath on that however.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Lebanon did not attack Israel.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Didn't you once post that Bush and his administration purposely fucked up countless times for the 8 years that he was in office in order to cover up the inside job on 9/11 and make everyone think he was too incompetent to pull it off?
I respect your opinion and all, but that logic is about as bad as it gets.
No, I don't think that's quite how I articulated that line of thinking. I said they play dumb whenever their decisions seem to be in direct conflict with the interests of the American people...when actually these decisions have gotten them exactly what they wanted in the first place (to make them and their cronies richer and more powerful). And I've went on to add that they use this whole perception of incompetence to their advantage and it's working like a charm actually.
Where's the flaw in this logic? Even if you don't agree with it, I don't see any bad logic.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Eye-Rolly McGee:
I am not one of those people that says Palestine should not be a country. I believe in a two-state solution.
Then why call one a country and act like the people who lived there before do not qualify?
I'm glad to hear you believe in a two-state solution, btw.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I think your memory is a little fuzzy.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=276094
Pages 4 and 5
Then I explained it better just now.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So, to clarify, you don't think that Bush fucked up for 8 years as a brilliant plan to act incompetent and make an inside 9/11 job seem unfeasible?
I think the whole 'incompetent' shtick is to make the admin seem less corrupt, dishonest and criminal and more like dumbasses, instead. They want it to seem like they just fucked up but really they have achieved exactly what they set out to without regard to the consequences it would cause. They really don't care.
...where's the contradiction?
and why is that such a stretch, anyway? You act like you've never seen a person play dumb when they are busted doing something they shouldn't be.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Nader would send in his cavalry of hippies riding on unicorns to dispatch the enemies with tofu farts.
You really need to work on some new material. Just a friendly tip.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Because I find language to the effect of "Israel destroyed Palestine" to be too strong ... There was no Palestine, and no one has been destroyed (albeit many have been killed). There needs to be a Palestinian state NOW, for various reasons. Not the least of which is a basic need to separate two sides who won't stop fighting.
If you want to say that they didn't destroy an 'official' country with established borders and recognition...fine.
But I think the bigger point is that Israel destroyed the Palestinian's home, where they lived, their complete way of life...pushed them aside as 'undeserving' of this land they had been living on and made it a country for them to have instead. They disregarded them and treated them like animals in the way of their plans.
Official country or not....it doesn't excuse their actions in my eyes. It only changes the terminology.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Thanks for caring sweety.
And dont get me wrong. I dont want the US to be represented by either of the canidates. Just watch this front to back, and think about how much of an extremist Obama is...
Oh, don't mention it! It's the least I could do.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JimbtqhdhXM
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I think Bush is incompetent (just my opinion). But I agree with your opinion in regards to his staff, i.e. Cheney and especially Karl Rove - that man is just pure evil. To that point and yours, now that Rove is gone, I think the rest of the administration has to really play the incompetence card to try and cover up everything he pulled.
Hes campaigning in that video. No facts against Obama or Clinton or Edwards was used other then they would keep all options open. How does that not include diplomacay as one of the options?
Look Obama could lie and pander to the Left and say that we will never attack Iran but then if something happened and we were forced into action, Obama would be called out for lying in his campaign. Remember Bush 1 and his no new taxes line. He lost to Clinton in 1992 mostly because of that mistake.
He has stated numerous times and will work for diplomacy first and foremost. And if you are saying hes lying thats fine don't vote for him but there is NO evidence that he's a warmonger other then that hes not a total pacifist like Nader or Kucinich. I guess that would make Edwards and Clinton Warmongers too.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Um ... not to burst your bubble, but Ed HAS endorsed Obama. At least if you can call flying a big Obama banner at his solo shows as an endorsement.
for the least they could possibly do
I'd prefer to be able to take what Obama is saying as the truth and not have to guess which side he's lying to at the time. To me, that speaks to the kind of people we keep voting in office. People that will lie and say very different things to very different crowds just to get ahead. And that's dishonesty and it's a huge problem. It speaks to the kind of person he is. And we wonder why our gov't is so corrupt and useless! People with integrity don't change their stories as they go along.
There is evidence that he could have the same warmongering mentality as the
Reps.....his words!! And all you have is his other WORDS to back up this not being the case. You have just chosen what you're willing to believe out of the two stories he tells. I'm choosing to vote for someone that can keep one story straight so I don't have to guess who he's telling the truth to.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I disagree that he has said different things to different people. The thing is that even Nader thinks Obama is not that different then him. The only thing that Nader has attacked Obama on is his support or Israel. I did a simple Google Search of Nader Obama and that is all I could find from NADER himself.
How do Nader supporters find all of this Obama war mongering speech that can't be found any where. He has said troops will be out in majority within 16 months. Will there be some troops there longer? Yes to help keep security. Its not Obama's fault Bush started the war, but you can't leave Iraq without some sort of security back up. That would be worse then when we invaded the country. I'm sorry its not the answer that all want to hear but we will not be engaging in daily hand to hand combat within 16 months of his presidency. Its right on his website which I know you have looked at before.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
You just got through saying that what he was saying is just 'campaigning' so what did you mean by that exactly then?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fUTkg-zt6S8
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5508672&postcount=28
Yeah, needless to say, I'm not impressed with his website, his support for using Blackwater, his lack of a commitment to have the troops out by 2013 and so....if that's okay for you then fine by me, vote for the guy. I'm just saying it is not acceptable for me.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde