Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Why are far more Republicans war hawks?

Why are far more Republicans war hawks? (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 07:05 PM
 
I think Doof has been consistently anti-everything. He just ran out of things to complain about at home so he's exporting his misanthropy to the states now
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 07:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
That's your real world example!
Is Monaco somehow not in the real world? Did I pass through some kind of inter-dimensional portal last time I visited there or something?

Fact: Monaco runs on old world principles.
Fact: Monaco hasn't been affected by the credit crunch.

This was merely to illustrate how ebuddy's assertion that the old school US system is the best form of governance isn't entirely accurate. That's all.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
ebuddy pegged it- you used to be a voice of reason around here, but lately you've gone very oddball-nationalistic, while pretending you're 'above it all'. When you come back down to some sort of earthbound *reality* please let us know.
No. What's actually happened, Crash, is that I've gone further right-wing* than you guys realise is possible (or are able to achieve yourselves, unless you surrender your citizenship). You appear to think that it's some kind of nationalism, while in reality it's the exact opposite of that. Perhaps this is because you guys can't get your head around someone not being tied to any one country. Or perhaps it's because I no longer see any merit in the US, and this doesn't tie in with your patriotic views.

(* Not including racism, which is a left-wing pastime anyway)
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 07:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I think Doof has been consistently anti-everything.
I'm not anti-boobies. I like boobies. And cake.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 07:34 PM
 
In what way could the opinions Doofy has expressed be characterized as "nationalistic"? He seems to hate every nation on the globe as far as I can tell.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 07:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
In what way could the opinions Doofy has expressed be characterized as "nationalistic"? He seems to hate almost every nation government on the globe as far as I can tell.
Fixed.

It's to do with the fact that governments are inevitably made up of politicians, all of whom are complete scum. The only good place for a politician is a golf course, since while he's there he can't be bothering the rest of us.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 08:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
In what way could the opinions Doofy has expressed be characterized as "nationalistic"? He seems to hate every nation on the globe as far as I can tell.
Except for doofy-ville. No taxes, no government, with no one living there except for doofy and 72 virgins.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 12:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
And this whole tact is rather ironic coming specifically from you, Mr. "in favor of limited government and separation of powers."

Not even that long ago I had a debate with you, revolving around just this subject. where I asked you: Would you rather every law be policed under one big federal police force, or would you rather have state and local police forces handling state and local issues, and federal police sticking to their own jurisdiction?

Your answer:
Sure, why not. If we are going to have one nationwide set of rules for something, why not have one nationwide agency enforcing them?

Before that, I recall you not even being aware that there are federal law enforcement agencies (There are of course, 8).
I will address all of this post in its entirety later but this point needs to be addressed right now.

You say I was "not aware that there are federal law enforcement agencies"? Care to point out in my post--the post YOU linked to--where I said I did not know there are "federal law enforcement agencies"?

Why don't you go back and read my post you linked to? It states quite clearly I was questioning your use of the term "police" in the context of a federal-level police force. Because, as I stated in my post, the United States does not have currently a federal-level police force even though you were making statements referring to a nationwide federal level police force as if such a police force actually existed.
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy
Before I answer your question I would like a clarification. You talk about "federal police sticking to their own jurisdiction" in the present-active voice as if we currently do have a federal-level police force. Did you mean to phrase your question that way--by implying the US currently has an active federal-level police force--or are you talking about the FBI and confusing a federal-level criminal investigation agency with a federal-level police force.
I was not questioning the existence of federal level law enforcement agencies, I was questioning your comment regarding a nationwide federal police force. See the difference? (Here's a hint? All police are law enforcement but not all law enforcement are police.) The United States does has a federal-level nationwide criminal investigation department, the FBI, but the US does not have at present a federal-level nationwide police force. Does it? No. And did I say it did? No.
(Oh. And if you follow the replies in that thread, you use again, even after I corrected you, the phrase "federal police sticking to their own jurisdiction" in the present-active voice as if we currently do have a federal-level police force. So, just for your clarification I will state again, loudly this time: THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HAVE A FEDERAL-LEVEL NATIONWIDE POLICE FORCE.)

So, in summary, the take-home lesson for you in all of this is as follows: If you are going to state someone said something, and then quote the post where you think the person said what you claim they said, you should at least check to make sure what you claim was said and what was actually said are the same thing.


Oh, one more thing. The United States government has way more than 8 federally licensed law enforcement agencies. Last I heard it was up somewhere in the 60-70 range. The ones I can think of off the top of my head that serve in DC, just from my time living in DC, are as follows. And remember, these are all federally licensed and authorized law enforcement agencies, some of them function as police forces, some of them function as investigative agencies, some of them provide both police and investigative functions.

United States Marshals
United States Park Police*
United States Capitol Police
United States Secret Service (Uniformed Division)
United States Secret Service (Protective Division)
Library of Congress Police
Smithsonian Police
Supreme Court Police
United States Mint Police
Federal Protective Service
Federal Bureau of Investigation (Investigative Agents)
Federal Bureau of Investigation (Police)
Drug Enforcement Administration (Investigative Agents)
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Police)
United States Border Patrol (Police)
Department of Agriculture (Investigative Agents)
National Park Service Ranger (Police)
Central Intelligence Agency Police
Fish and Wildlife Service Rangers (Police)
United States Forest Service Rangers (Police)
FAA Air Marshal Service (Police)
Transportation Security Administration (Police)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (Investigative Agents)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (Police)

These are just the various federal-level law enforcement agencies that I knew existed when I lived in DC. So, methinks you don't really know what you are talking about when you claim there are only 8. To learn more about the various federal law enforcement agencies that go through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) check out this link. You will find a whole lot of federal-level law enforcement agencies listed there that I did mention.

*The only federal-level law enforcement agency that could be considered anything like your local police force. And in fact, when they were founded by George Washington, they were established as a federal-level police force that functioned as local police as there were no separate DC police in the late 1700s.
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Feb 16, 2010 at 01:05 AM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 03:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Why don't you go back and read my post you linked to? It states quite clearly I was questioning your use of the term "police" in the context of a federal-level police force. Because, as I stated in my post, the United States does not have currently a federal-level police force even though you were making statements referring to a nationwide federal level police force as if such a police force actually existed.
This is the problem with you- you have no grasp of even the simplest of concepts, and require anyone to have to bring you up to speed on the most BASIC, elementary of concepts to even have a conversation with you. It's either part of your smokescreen, or you really need to brush up a bit before you dive into this stuff.

In that thread, I asked you: "Would you rather every law be policed under one big federal police force, or would you rather have state and local police forces handling state and local issues, and federal police sticking to their own jurisdiction?"

You then and now, seem to be quite ignorant of the fact that, yes, indeed there are both such things as federal police, and federal jurisdiction that they must operate under. (For example, any federal law-enforcement officer can arrest you for a FEDERAL offense, not a state or local offense. They are law-enforcement agencies and police officers in the same sense as any other, it's just that their jurisdiction and authority is at the federal level, not state and local. I mean really, you didn't know that? Really?

So your answer about the FBI was clueless on multiple levels -first, as if that's the only federal level law-enforcement agency, and secondly as if there's no such thing as a federal police officer or federal jurisdiction.

Beyond that- you answered my question in the affirmative- that you think having all law enforcement handled at the federal level would be a good thing. In light of your cluelessness about there actually being federal-level police, I take it you completely don't grasp that that would basically mean a service like the US Marshals would therefore handle ALL law-enforcement duties, state, local and federal, rather than have state and local matters handled by state and local police. (Wait, I'm ASSUMING here you are aware that there are state and local level police with state and local level jurisdictions? Right? I'm just checking, lest you post back with some ignorance smokescreen that attempts to deflect the conversation into a basic explanation of how that works as well.)


I was not questioning the existence of federal level law enforcement agencies, I was questioning your comment regarding a nationwide federal police force. See the difference? (Here's a hint? All police are law enforcement but not all law enforcement are police.) The United States does has a federal-level nationwide criminal investigation department, the FBI, but the US does not have at present a federal-level nationwide police force. Does it? No. And did I say it did? No.
Now you're really being stupid, because clearly you (purposefully?) misread and totally misunderstood the question I asked you, and so went on your usual cluelessness smokescreen. The question again:

"Would you rather every law be policed under one big federal police force, or would you rather have state and local police forces handling state and local issues, and federal police sticking to their own jurisdiction?"

Now, since everything has to be put to you in first-grader terms- there ARE state and local police forces that handle state and local issues, and there ARE federal police that have to stick to their own jurisdictions.

I asked YOU if you wanted there to be one big federal police force handling everything- not stated such a thing already existed. You have to be dense not to have read the question that way, and in fact I think you're just pretending otherwise as part of your smokescreen.

And on top of it- you actually ARE in favor of having one big federal police force according to your answer to my question!

Oh, one more thing. The United States government has way more than 8 federally licensed law enforcement agencies.
I was referring of course to OVERALL agencies- not every single sub-agency. For example, in your list many of those fall under the Department of Justice. To my knowledge, there are around 8 overall federal law enforcement agencies. But hey, glad you had something to nitpick and smokescreen over.

Maybe it will deflect from the fact that you've somewhat proven the original point about how people that don't care about or understand the US constitution, and the separation of state and federal powers it outlines, have a tendency to be in favor of things that lean on the side of tyranny more than freedom. You can spin it and smokescreen it all you want, but you're the one in favor of there being no separation of federal and state when it comes to law enforcement. I noticed in that thread that other leftists didn't bat an eyelash over that concept either. And then you guys turn around and gripe about the government spying on you? You're in favor of giving them nearly unlimited power to do just that and far worse, express it like it's a wonderful ideas, and don't even consider the implications!
( Last edited by CRASH HARDDRIVE; Feb 16, 2010 at 03:30 AM. )
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 03:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Is Monaco somehow not in the real world? Did I pass through some kind of inter-dimensional portal last time I visited there or something?
Real word Doof, meaning in this context- actually in any way, shape or form, relevant to most ordinary people.

You may as well have picked Vatican City as your 'real world' example. Hey, guess what, the Pope wasn't affected by the credit crunch either! Yipee hoo-ray! Let's all go move into the Vatican and crow on about how it must suck to be living anywhere else!


.... and then there's REALITY.

This was merely to illustrate how ebuddy's assertion that the old school US system is the best form of governance isn't entirely accurate. That's all.
Okay Grace Kelly. Monaco isn't relevant to anything ebuddy was talking about, and is a dismal example of any sort of typical form of governance that deals with large populations of citizens who live in REALITY. You come off like the kind of person who goes to a third world country and comes back raving that you can't fathom anyone has any worries there, because everything at Club Med was just peachy.

No. What's actually happened, Crash, is that I've gone further right-wing* than you guys realise is possible (or are able to achieve yourselves, unless you surrender your citizenship).
Just a heads up: the extreme poles of both left and right are generally known to converge on one location: Kookooville. Hopefully you'll get off the train at Amusinglynuttytown before you reach the end of the line.


You appear to think that it's some kind of nationalism, while in reality it's the exact opposite of that. Perhaps this is because you guys can't get your head around someone not being tied to any one country. Or perhaps it's because I no longer see any merit in the US, and this doesn't tie in with your patriotic views.
Ah yes, you've transcended the mere mortal plane and floated off into the Doofiverse. We got it.

Wasn't it you that insisted Emperor of Earth Obama was going to close all the tax havens like Monaco? What happened with that?
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 04:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Real word Doof, meaning in this context- actually in any way, shape or form, relevant to most ordinary people.
If you want to make the conversation US-centric (I assume that by "ordinary people" you mean Americans), then just come out and say so. Anyone outside the US and certain terrorist-support countries can grab themselves a Monegasque bank account and reap the benefits. The cause of the stability of these bank accounts is largely due to "old methods" of governance in the countries they're located.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Monaco isn't relevant to anything ebuddy was talking about, and is a dismal example of any sort of typical form of governance that deals with large populations of citizens who live in REALITY.
You have to stop confusing "reality" with "America". Last time I looked, Monaco was a real place populated by real people. If ebuddy wanted to discuss only forms of government which are relevant to the US, then he should have qualified his statement.

Besides which, you haven't provided any proof that said forms of government wouldn't scale.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Just a heads up: the extreme poles of both left and right are generally known to converge on one location: Kookooville. Hopefully you'll get off the train at Amusinglynuttytown before you reach the end of the line.
Nope. Got off at the end of the track. I like it there - less taxes.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Wasn't it you that insisted Emperor of Earth Obama was going to close all the tax havens like Monaco? What happened with that?
I believe his handlers had a word with him. You know, showed him footage of the JFK suicide from an angle he'd not seen before, etc., etc..

He turfed up in the UK a few months after for some kind of G20 meet. Brown was enthusiastic about the shutting havens down thing, but Barry just kind of muttered "ummm, no, let's not talk about that" under his breath. So, rather than shutting anything down (which was always going to be impossible), he's done what I expected him to do: make it extremely hard for Americans to bank offshore.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 09:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
This is the problem with you- you have no grasp of even the simplest of concepts, and require anyone to have to bring you up to speed on the most BASIC, elementary of concepts to even have a conversation with you. It's either part of your smokescreen, or you really need to brush up a bit before you dive into this stuff.
Keep attacking the person and not the topic will in no way win you any points in a debate. But, as in the airport security thread, you have shown your disdain for fundamentals of logic in a debate.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
In that thread, I asked you: "Would you rather every law be policed under one big federal police force, or would you rather have state and local police forces handling state and local issues, and federal police sticking to their own jurisdiction?"

You then and now, seem to be quite ignorant of the fact that, yes, indeed there are both such things as federal police, and federal jurisdiction that they must operate under. (For example, any federal law-enforcement officer can arrest you for a FEDERAL offense, not a state or local offense. They are law-enforcement agencies and police officers in the same sense as any other, it's just that their jurisdiction and authority is at the federal level, not state and local. I mean really, you didn't know that? Really?
So wrong. So very, very wrong.

Arresting people for only federal offenses and not state/local offense is NOT what makes a federal law enforcement official federal. For most federal law enforcement officers their area of operation, and hence authority, is nationwide. (Although you have to actually look at their credentials* to determine the scope of their legal and/or geographic jurisdiction.) So, what makes them federal is the fact their area of operation is/can be across parts of the country and not just located in one state.
*The little card that comes with the badge and specifies the card-holder is authorized to act in the capacity as a law enforcement officer; the badge is just the visible symbol of their power but it is the written credentials that gives an officer their power and delineates the scope of their power.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Beyond that- you answered my question in the affirmative- that you think having all law enforcement handled at the federal level would be a good thing. In light of your cluelessness about there actually being federal-level police, I take it you completely don't grasp that that would basically mean a service like the US Marshals would therefore handle ALL law-enforcement duties, state, local and federal, rather than have state and local matters handled by state and local police.
I answered your question in the affirmative with a big "if". In fact, I even pointed out in my reply the fact I capitalized, bolded, and italicized the "if" to emphasize the conjectural nature of my reply. And my conjectural affirmative answer was based on several hypothetical criteria being implemented before I would support a federal-level police force. So, I did not in any way offer blanket support for a federal-level police force. I offered support for a very specific, precise implementation of a federal level police force and my support was conditional upon all the specified criteria being met.

And no, if there was a federal-level police force replacing state and local police forces it would NOT "basically mean a service like the US Marshals". The US Marshals are the law enforcement arm of the US judiciary with their primary focus on supporting the work of the federal-level court system both in the court rooms and on the streets (apprehending criminals charged with federal crimes).

If there was a federal level police force replacing state and local police forces it would be more along the lines of the United States Park Police. While they have only a handful of geographic jurisdictions their law enforcement authority is specifically cited to cover federal, state, and local laws in the areas where they operate. They are specifically empowered to apprehend and arrest individuals for breaking state and local laws.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
I asked YOU if you wanted there to be one big federal police force handling everything- not stated such a thing already existed. You have to be dense not to have read the question that way, and in fact I think you're just pretending otherwise as part of your smokescreen.

And on top of it- you actually ARE in favor of having one big federal police force according to your answer to my question!
See above where I said
I answered your question in the affirmative with a big "if". In fact, I even pointed out in my reply the fact I capitalized, bolded, and italicized the "if" to emphasize the conjectural nature of my reply. And my conjectural affirmative answer was based on several hypothetical criteria being implemented before I would support a federal-level police force. So, I did not in any way offer blanket support for a federal-level police force. I offered support for a very specific, precise implementation of a federal level police force and my support was conditional upon all the specified criteria being met.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
I was referring of course to OVERALL agencies- not every single sub-agency. For example, in your list many of those fall under the Department of Justice. To my knowledge, there are around 8 overall federal law enforcement agencies. But hey, glad you had something to nitpick and smokescreen over.
Oh, of course you were referring to "8 OVERALL agencies". Silly me. Why didn't I know that? Hmm . . . maybe because you didn't say that. But here again, your knowledge is wrong on many levels. All you have to do is look at the link I posted to the FLETC website to see that there are way more than 8 umbrella agencies with law enforcement officers.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
You can spin it and smokescreen it all you want, but you're the one in favor of there being no separation of federal and state when it comes to law enforcement. I noticed in that thread that other leftists didn't bat an eyelash over that concept either. And then you guys turn around and gripe about the government spying on you? You're in favor of giving them nearly unlimited power to do just that and far worse, express it like it's a wonderful ideas, and don't even consider the implications!
Umm, do I really have to explain my answer to you a third time within the same post? Well, I guess I do. Here it is.

I answered your question in the affirmative with a big "if". In fact, I even pointed out in my reply the fact I capitalized, bolded, and italicized the "if" to emphasize the conjectural nature of my reply. And my conjectural affirmative answer was based on several hypothetical criteria being implemented before I would support a federal-level police force. So, I did not in any way offer blanket support for a federal-level police force. I offered support for a very specific, precise implementation of a federal level police force and my support was conditional upon all the specified criteria being met.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 11:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
In what way could the opinions Doofy has expressed be characterized as "nationalistic"? He seems to hate every nation on the globe as far as I can tell.
I agree with you Chuckit and in fact he used to provide a rallying call to those of us in the US opposed to perceived, burgeoning socialism. I'd say I'm probably in agreement with the guy about 95% of the time. He would often equate our system with the failed bodies he's more familiar with, but this is only acceptable as long as he is doing all the finger-pointing. He has taken a decisively antagonist and defensive posture when a finger is pointed in his direction. This, a most blaring example of nationalistic sensitivity that has reared its ugly head in the context of "my tough guys in kilts can beat up all your military" and "Monarchy better than Democracy". (Democracy of course being a reading comp problem in the first place when responding to my points.)

If I were being a defensive nationalist, I might say something asinine like; Ask anyone in Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska if they'd take your monarchy over their democracy! I mean, it's just entering the realm of the insane.
ebuddy
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 11:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I agree with you Chuckit and in fact he used to provide a rallying call to those of us in the US opposed to perceived, burgeoning socialism. I'd say I'm probably in agreement with the guy about 95% of the time. He would often equate our system with the failed bodies he's more familiar with, but this is only acceptable as long as he is doing all the finger-pointing. He has taken a decisively antagonist and defensive posture when a finger is pointed in his direction. This, a most blaring example of nationalistic sensitivity that has reared its ugly head in the context of "my tough guys in kilts can beat up all your military"
That was just my round-about way of saying that your military is, in general terms, crappier than you think it is.

If you remember you and the other socialists were defending your huge military budget (paid for with money stolen taxed from citizens) and somehow thinking that this gives you some kind of military edge.

You seem to have not noticed that a small bunch of losers riding around in the backs of Toyota Hiluxes are giving your mighty industrial/military complex a good run for your money. And then seem to think that you could waltz into the most violent country in the developed world without incident.

Now, I was merely mentioning this as a way of putting you straight in the hopes that you realise that Amerika "ain't all that". But you seem to have taken some kind of defensive stance and assumed that I'm actually being nationalist - as is usual for most Amerikans because you've been brainwashed from birth (what with all the standing around in classrooms with hand on heart and all that) to think that everyone loves their country.

So, let me set you straight:

Amerika is shit.
Britain is shit.
You're Amerika's property.
I'm a sovereign individual not aligned to any country.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
"Monarchy better than Democracy"
Which it is. Not the British monarchy, of course, because that's crap since it's more like a democracy than monarchy.

Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 12:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
That was just my round-about way of being a good, defensive little patriot.
fixed.

If you remember you and the other socialists were defending your huge military budget (paid for with money stolen taxed from citizens) and somehow thinking that this gives you some kind of military edge.
I wasn't defending sh!t. I was setting you straight on the meaningless platitudes you kept chest-pounding.

You seem to have not noticed that a small bunch of losers riding around in the backs of Toyota Hiluxes are giving your mighty industrial/military complex a good run for your money. And then seem to think that you could waltz into the most violent country in the developed world without incident.
Why do you keep using the term "you"? Do I need to give you a list of NATO members or something? You guessed it, they include blokes in tights or kilts or whatever. The only hope we'll have is the brakes failing or the gas pedal sticking on one of those Hiluxes.

Now, I was merely mentioning this as a way of putting you straight in the hopes that you realise that Amerika "ain't all that".
I never claimed it was. You went off into some defensive nationalist rant based on a reading comprehension problem. In short, you were arguing with yourself.

So, let me set you straight:
Amerika is shit.
Britain is shit.
You're Amerika's property.
How can you set someone straight who is in general agreement with you???

I'm a sovereign individual not aligned to any country.
You're just as foolish as anyone else who believed this before they were bought, sold, then bought again. You have about as much sovereignty as the common house pet.

i.e. Not near as free as the folks in Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska.
ebuddy
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 12:52 PM
 
Jeez, this Scotts Bluff County place is sounding pretty damn fantastic.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Jeez, this Scotts Bluff County place is sounding pretty damn fantastic.
There's no place like Scotts Bluff County, Monaco.
ebuddy
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
fixed.
Can't get past that little "everyone must be tied to a country" mindset you have, eh?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Why do you keep using the term "you"? Do I need to give you a list of NATO members or something? You guessed it, they include blokes in tights or kilts or whatever.
Funny. I seem to remember that the thread was full of you Amerikan nationalists banging on about how good the US military is because you spend so much money on it, and how poor everyone else's is because they don't spend as much. Hence the term "you".

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You're just as foolish as anyone else who believed this before they were bought, sold, then bought again. You have about as much sovereignty as the common house pet.
Sorry, wrong.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 04:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Sorry, wrong.
Wow, really?

I'll pay you $1000/mo if I can set up a massive marijuana growing operation in your sovereign backyard then.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 04:40 PM
 
Doof obviously resides on some trans-dimensional plane where all the stuff he complains so consistently about actually has no effect on him.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 09:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Wow, really?
Yes, really.

Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
I'll pay you $1000/mo if I can set up a massive marijuana growing operation in your sovereign backyard then.
Why would I want stoners on my property?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 09:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Doof obviously resides on some trans-dimensional plane where all the stuff he complains so consistently about actually has no effect on him.
It's true that it doesn't affect me. But I'm a sharing kind of guy - I want you guys to wake up to the point where it doesn't affect you either.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 10:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Why would I want stoners on my property?
It would be a growing operation, not a Phish concert. If you truly live outside of government influence I'd grow it dead sober just to make millions of dollars. Whaddya say? 50/50 profit split.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2010, 12:48 AM
 
Better question: why there are so many conservative Christian war hawks.

It's something that's always stupefied me personally. I see nothing in the New Testament that would support such a position... seems to be some sort of melding of Old/New Testament principles as far as I can determine. Interesting philosophical position though.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2010, 01:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Better question: why there are so many conservative Christian war hawks.

It's something that's always stupefied me personally. I see nothing in the New Testament that would support such a position... seems to be some sort of melding of Old/New Testament principles as far as I can determine. Interesting philosophical position though.

greg
My guess is because most conservative Christians forget that Jesus came to create/fulfill the new covenant between humanity and God. The old covenant was very much focused on avoiding God's wrath whereas the new covenant was focused on seeking God's love. (As exemplified in offering up His son to show His love for His children. You know, John 3:16.)

Anyway, I think most conservative Christians think Jesus came to be God's enforcer, as if he was going to be God's personal smiter. So, they see his role as merely an earthly continuation of God's bitch-slapping of humanity from the Old Testament when in fact Jesus' role was to be an enticer and exemplum.

Jesus was to show through his actions how awesome God was and how awesome it was to love God. AND--this is the important part--Jesus' life served as a real, tangible example of God's love for his people, of God's desire to bring his people into unity with Him. Jesus was a walking, talking, living example of this love. And while Jesus could be harsh at times his overarching message was one of love: for God and for one another.
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Feb 17, 2010 at 02:28 AM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2010, 07:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
My guess is because most conservative Christians forget that Jesus came to create/fulfill the new covenant between humanity and God. The old covenant was very much focused on avoiding God's wrath whereas the new covenant was focused on seeking God's love. (As exemplified in offering up His son to show His love for His children. You know, John 3:16.)

Anyway, I think most conservative Christians think Jesus came to be God's enforcer, as if he was going to be God's personal smiter. So, they see his role as merely an earthly continuation of God's bitch-slapping of humanity from the Old Testament when in fact Jesus' role was to be an enticer and exemplum.

Jesus was to show through his actions how awesome God was and how awesome it was to love God. AND--this is the important part--Jesus' life served as a real, tangible example of God's love for his people, of God's desire to bring his people into unity with Him. Jesus was a walking, talking, living example of this love. And while Jesus could be harsh at times his overarching message was one of love: for God and for one another.
So do we simply take the messages from the New Testament that demonstrates God's love for man or should we not include those that also indicate a time of war. i.e. God is still God. For example, You've provided John 3:16, but what also of Revelation 19:11-21? Is this where we pick and choose verses that support our position in order to indict a principle we may at odds with? Don't misunderstand, I detest war, but we live in a world that will eventually come to a head of ideals. Should a Christian stand as a pacifist to fall under the rule of those who would not allow one to worship as commanded? Is the Jesus in John 2:14-15 a pacifist? When traveling from city to city, was it a pacifist Jesus who demanded those without a sword to sell what they can to get one? No, it was one who accepted the fact that they would defend themselves against those who would rob them most likely. We are not under the laws of the just and righteous, but the laws of man. In short, there is little in Scripture to suggest that war is never necessary. What we consider a "just" war may vary and this is likely where the lion's share of disagreement would come from. Christians who would want "revenge on them towel heads" are indeed hypocrites, but a case might be made for seeking a "just cause". Suffice it to say, mankind will do what mankind has always done.

War is always the result of sin. Jesus did not come to abolish the laws of the Old Testament or eradicate the God of it, but to fulfill them. i.e. God is still God, man is still man.
ebuddy
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2010, 07:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
It would be a growing operation, not a Phish concert. If you truly live outside of government influence I'd grow it dead sober just to make millions of dollars. Whaddya say? 50/50 profit split.
You wouldn't make millions of dollars - you'd end up with loads of hippies stealing it before it was croppable (people who grow their own food here regularly find that someone's half-inched it in the night). Plus, how does one expect to grow herb with only about three days of sunlight per year?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2010, 07:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Better question: why there are so many conservative Christian war hawks.

It's something that's always stupefied me personally. I see nothing in the New Testament that would support such a position... seems to be some sort of melding of Old/New Testament principles as far as I can determine. Interesting philosophical position though.
Yep - North America is more Judaic than Christian.

And we must make the distinction between cultural Christians and real Christians. Most are cultural only, having been raised that way. Pop into your local church with your two wives to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2010, 03:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
You wouldn't make millions of dollars - you'd end up with loads of hippies stealing it before it was croppable (people who grow their own food here regularly find that someone's half-inched it in the night).
Three words: Double Barrel Shotgun
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:11 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,