Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > DONALD RUMSFLED'S CHRISTMAS CARD
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: DONALD RUMSFLED'S CHRISTMAS CARD Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Dec 28th, 2003 02:05 PM
Protoclown OH SNAP

YOU REALLY TWISTED THAT ONE AROUND

ZING!
Dec 27th, 2003 06:34 PM
The One and Only... I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids.I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids.I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids.I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids.
Dec 27th, 2003 06:33 PM
mburbank I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.
Dec 27th, 2003 04:29 PM
The One and Only... Mainly that only those who stongly oppose Bush on ideological grounds seem to care about the lies. In other words, that it doesn't bother the mass of people in the US.

It irks me, but not to the degree it has irked others on this board...
Dec 27th, 2003 12:08 PM
Zhukov I really wish you would.

Quote:
Define "liberalism." It is a very sketchy term these days
Then why use such a 'skechy' term to make a generaisation?

Quote:
I was just using liberalism as a catch-all term for political stances that favor radical action opposed to reactionary, conservative action.
Ugh, I didn't think we were being so 'deep'. Do you mind keeping to language us peons can understand?

So you are a 'Liberal', and you do care about lies, so what does the original sentence mean?
Dec 27th, 2003 11:34 AM
mburbank I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.
Dec 26th, 2003 04:07 PM
The One and Only... Define "liberalism." It is a very sketchy term these days. It used to mean a doctrine that supported a free society, but now it refers to the Left-Wing (which, ironically, is a little different from what it used to be as well).

I was just using liberalism as a catch-all term for political stances that favor radical action opposed to reactionary, conservative action.
Dec 26th, 2003 04:00 PM
Command Prompt
Quote:
Okay... if communism isn't a liberal political system, I don't know what is.
YEAH OK BUDDY
Dec 26th, 2003 03:48 PM
The One and Only...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov
Quote:
...which only liberals seem to care about.
You mean you don't mind the lies? I do, and I'm not liberal.
Okay... if communism isn't a liberal political system, I don't know what is.

I consider myself a liberal (ever hear of classical liberalism?).
Dec 26th, 2003 03:48 PM
kellychaos It IS hard to differentiate.
Dec 26th, 2003 03:45 PM
The One and Only... Who, Rumsfled?
Dec 26th, 2003 02:08 PM
kellychaos
Re: DONALD RUMSFLED'S CHRISTMAS CARD

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
We created a monster ... A MONSTER!
Dec 26th, 2003 01:53 PM
mburbank I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.
Dec 26th, 2003 09:19 AM
Zhukov
Quote:
...which only liberals seem to care about.
You mean you don't mind the lies? I do, and I'm not liberal.
Dec 26th, 2003 09:11 AM
The One and Only...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranxer
-reduction in respect etc. worldwide
Hardly. We never had any respect anyway.

Quote:
-a huge dept of lies to maintain
...which only liberals seem to care about.

Quote:
-monster presence to maintain that is still a gamble with many lives and violates many rules of a just society
What do you consider a "just society?" I ascribe to the Nozickian believe that justice goes with entitlement. In any case, is maintaining a presence in foreign countries bad for national security? It's not like our armed forces are running thin here.

Quote:
-which costs a ton
Not bad for national security.

Quote:
-involves many of our family members, coworkers etc. that
are being exposed to the hell of war. not to mention innocents and unwilling combatants.
You join the army to fight. Anyway, it's not bad for national security.

Quote:
-an increase in number of enemies, (defending what they see as attacks on thier homeland
Probably, but that will not offset the gains in security. It's more about how much money terrorist organizations have than how much people at this point.

Quote:
-a repeat of pre-emptive military imperialism that only the U.S. is allowed to do. reaffirming the notion that war solves problems etc
War does solve problems. Especially when you have a huge military. Again, not bad for national security.

Quote:
these long term problems created by the bush administration have driven a new spurt in a security police state economy but the cost will be coming in for many years. plus, part of this economic 'recovery' is a borrowing on the future that may backfire.
Not bad for national security.
Dec 25th, 2003 03:03 PM
mburbank I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.
Dec 23rd, 2003 10:42 PM
ranxer i guess we don't look at it the same way.
the results that outwheigh most any benefits you can name are things like a
-reduction in respect etc. worldwide,
-a huge dept of lies to maintain,
-monster presence to maintain that is still a gamble with many lives and violates many rules of a just society,
-which costs a ton
-involves many of our family members, coworkers etc. that
are being exposed to the hell of war. not to mention innocents and unwilling combatants.
-an increase in number of enemies, (defending what they see as attacks on thier homeland
-a repeat of pre-emptive military imperialism that only the U.S. is allowed to do. reaffirming the notion that war solves problems etc

these long term problems created by the bush administration have driven a new spurt in a security police state economy but the cost will be coming in for many years. plus, part of this economic 'recovery' is a borrowing on the future that may backfire.
Dec 23rd, 2003 09:40 PM
The One and Only... But Max, you are again talking about politics, not policy, which is what I care about.

Ranx, I doubt that ousting Saddam has been a bigger hindrance than help to national security. I just don't think that the cost of the war was worth the benefit.
Dec 23rd, 2003 05:32 PM
Zebra 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by sspadowsky
Yes, because I'm sure Rumsfeld was an innocent lamb 20 years ago, and had no idea what Hussein was all about.
The Reagan administration knew about Hussein using WMDs against Iran when Rumsfeld went over to Iraq to give good ol' Saddam a hardy handshake as pictured, and continued to champion Hussein's regime right until he invaded Kuwait.

But to be fair, although the US gov't was the most active, other countries also casted morality aside and traded with Hussein including the UK, France, Germany, Russia and my own country, Canada.

It's worth noting, then Canadian Minister Foreign Affairs Lloyd Axworthy has recently been on TV to admit Canada's involvement in dealing with Hussein, and mentioned that morality was never at play when dealing with the dictator's regime.
Dec 23rd, 2003 02:52 PM
ranxer
Quote:
We all realize that everything America does is in its favor, right?
lol you mean in americas favor??! damn, you sound like a Fox news devotee.

i think this cartoon sums it up in so many ways


as far as democracy the rumsfeld way .. i kinda like this as a christmas card too..
(1.2meg)http://www.capedmaskedandarmed.com/video/love.mov
Dec 23rd, 2003 01:19 PM
mburbank No. I am arguing that the shock and horror about what a monser Saddam was is hypocrisy. We always new exactly what kind of monster he was and as long as he was using WMD against our mutual enemies, it was fine with us. We only went to war with him when he invaded a country more valuable to us than he was, and we osuted him with extreme force not because of his evil nature, but because we could not control him.

If by 'diplomacy' you mean feeding a rabid dog your enemies, then yeah, sure. But I think that's a kind of sugary name for it.

I'm not arguing that America should act in it's own interests. I'm questioning what those interests are. Since I think we are currently ramping up the threat to America, I'm arguing the converse. I would amend your statement to read 'Everything America does attempts to favor the sliver of society it's current administration aligns itself with.'
Dec 23rd, 2003 12:58 PM
The One and Only... I'm not following your point. Diplomacy failed, we couldn't reshape Saddam after the Gulf War, so we went to war again.

We all realize that everything America does is in its favor, right? Are you arguing that it shouldn't be that way?
Dec 23rd, 2003 12:11 PM
mburbank OAO is right. I should have been clearer.

As VP W. was 'out of the loop' to the point of non existance. Rumsfeld himself was acting on orders and no role whatever in policy. He was also 'out of the loop', as were Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Baker, poindexter and popular radio host Oliver North, who was only following orders that came from someone but not Regan, who was Out of the Loop himself. During the time we supported Sadaam and winked at his use of poison gas, there actually was no administration. People in the current adminstration who served during that time in key positions acted under the assumption that there was in fact an adminstration and a policy, but you can't blame them or even ask wht they were thinking at the time and how it relates to what they are thinking now because no thinking was taking place and it isn't part of the canon and that's just a photoshop picture and even if it isn't it's old news and who cares.
Dec 23rd, 2003 12:00 PM
KevinTheOmnivore Yeah, se, technically speaking that was the second gulf war, but then again, with that region's history of violence, I guess it could've been the 119th gulf war, but I digress....

Point is, and I think this is what Max meant, George Bush was Reagan's VP. It was Rumsfeld, also a part of that administration, who normalized relations with the Butcher of Baghdad. These men, in no specific order, knew full well what this man HAD done, and what he was capable of.

And you're right, we DID fight him in the early 90s. Why? If he was so rotten, why did we leave Iraqi rebels out to dry and be executed and tortured (perhaps not in that order)??
Dec 23rd, 2003 11:46 AM
The One and Only... Umm... we FOUGHT Iraq during Daddy W's administration. Gulf War, anyone?
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:34 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.