Insanity Test

or Register to post new content in the forum

341 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Jul 23, 2007 12:03 pm

Aisle.


Thanks for doing the spell check.

Jul 23, 2007 12:04 pm

How many of you plan to make a career out of hating capitalism and working for "the common man?"

Jul 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Whomitmayconcer:

True that, because Gore didn't have the election stolen from him, the American People had it stolen from US.


See? What a wonderful time saver the "stolen election" test is. You could tell from the opening line there was no reason to read further. Now, find something useful to do with the time you saved. 

Jul 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Devil'sAdvocate:

How many of you plan to make a career out of hating capitalism and working for "the common man?"


What a sh*thead you are.

Jul 23, 2007 12:12 pm
mikebutler222:
Whomitmayconcer:

True that, because Gore didn't have the election stolen from him, the American People had it stolen from US.


See? What a wonderful time saver the "stolen election" test is. You could tell from the opening line there was no reason to read further. Now, find something useful to do with the time you saved. 



ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...............

Jul 23, 2007 12:13 pm
Whomitmayconcer:

Anybody who classifies all people with a contrary opinion to their own as "Obvious Idiots" is ... well, you know.



They're astute observers of humanity when the subject they're using as a basis to call others "obvious idiots" is the "stolen election". Or the Illuminati, or Chemtrails, or how 9/11 was an inside job. You see, an opposing point of view doesn't have value just because it's an opposing point of view. There has to be some factual, rational basis for it, and the "stolen election" has none.

Jul 23, 2007 12:20 pm
Whomitmayconcer:

Futher, when FDR started implimenting his reforms, the industrialists tried to buy the army to effect a coup d e'tat (Roosevelt was informed of this by one of the generals who saw his duty clear).



Got a source for this?


Whomitmayconcer:

Years later, after the threat had passed and the fear of Communism as a common foe (much like "terrorism" is now the common fear today and will one day be looked at as a popular hysteria) McCarthy had his hearings and ruined the lives of people who were only looking out for the common man.


I'm not sure which is funnier, the idea that opposition to Communism then, and terrorism today is "popular hysteria" (check that hole where the WTC used to be for details) of the idea that people who joined the Stalin funded US Communist party were "looking out for the common man"....



Whomitmayconcer:

Here's one thing about you that I understand, when someone calls themself the "Devil'sAdvocate" and then toe's the party line, they are a person who's brain processes aren't worth the toilet paper they're "written " on.




Hmm, and what do we say of someone who toes the party line while decrying someone else "toeing the party line"?

Jul 23, 2007 12:26 pm
Mandoman:

I think we would be safer today if we put efforts into securing our borders and ports, as well as if we initiated some of the other suggestions of the 9/11 Report. [q/uote]


Could you tell us what recommendations of the 9/11 Commission haven't already been put in place?


[quote=Mandoman]


I think we would be safer today by use of better diplomacy throughout the world. 


Could you tell us what sort of diplomacy could stop the Jihadists that have been attacking US interests around the world since 1980 or so?

Jul 23, 2007 12:33 pm
mikebutler222:
Whomitmayconcer:

True that, because Gore didn't have the election stolen from him, the American People had it stolen from US.


See? What a wonderful time saver the "stolen election" test is. You could tell from the opening line there was no reason to read further. Now, find something useful to do with the time you saved. 



Yep, because we would never want to know all the facts before making an informed decision.  We can just watch Faux News and get the "facts" fed to us, right?

Jul 23, 2007 12:40 pm
mikebutler222:
Mandoman:

I think we would be safer today if we put efforts into securing our borders and ports, as well as if we initiated some of the other suggestions of the 9/11 Report. [q/uote]


Could you tell us what recommendations of the 9/11 Commission haven't already been put in place?


[quote=Mandoman]


I think we would be safer today by use of better diplomacy throughout the world. 


Could you tell us what sort of diplomacy could stop the Jihadists that have been attacking US interests around the world since 1980 or so?



I think we were supposed to say pretty please and Muhammad may I while bending over to kiss our butts goodbye.....   At least that seems to be the Left's idea of being diplomatic.

Jul 23, 2007 12:44 pm

You'll focused on a tree when I asked a forest of questions. Let's try again...



If you had $380 Billion to spend - let's call it half than that - $190 Billion. Let's assume that we spent the other $190 Billion obliterating Al Qaeda. Would you have put the money towards



- Alternatives to oil dependency

- Finding cures to cancer

- Funding social security.

- Pushing problems with Medicare off.

- Provide universal pre-school for each child(which economists say has a positive economic result & payoff period of less than 20 yrs.)

- What else?



Why do you think if Bush hadn't won & hadn't gone out of his way to make a case for war in Iraq that we'd be in a worse place than we are now?

Jul 23, 2007 12:46 pm
pretzelhead:
mikebutler222:
Whomitmayconcer:

True that, because Gore didn't have the election stolen from him, the American People had it stolen from US.


See? What a wonderful time saver the "stolen election" test is. You could tell from the opening line there was no reason to read further. Now, find something useful to do with the time you saved. 



Yep, because we would never want to know all the facts before making an informed decision.  We can just watch Faux News and get the "facts" fed to us, right?




Hey, thanks for that. We were dicussing time saver #1, the "stolen election". You've done us a great favor by bringing up time saver #2, the "Faux News" gambit. It's often used when the speaker has no other ammuniton left. 

Jul 23, 2007 12:49 pm

 - Provide universal pre-school for each child(which economists say has a positive economic result & payoff period of less than 20 yrs.)


Why don't we just let the government start raising our kids at birth?


Jul 23, 2007 12:51 pm
Dust Bunny:
mikebutler222:
Mandoman:

I think we would be safer today if we put efforts into securing our borders and ports, as well as if we initiated some of the other suggestions of the 9/11 Report. [q/uote]


Could you tell us what recommendations of the 9/11 Commission haven't already been put in place?


[quote=Mandoman]


I think we would be safer today by use of better diplomacy throughout the world. 


Could you tell us what sort of diplomacy could stop the Jihadists that have been attacking US interests around the world since 1980 or so?



I think we were supposed to say pretty please and Muhammad may I while bending over to kiss our butts goodbye.....   At least that seems to be the Left's idea of being diplomatic.



It is rather amusing to watch members of the Left use their pet <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US foreign policy grievance list as if it’s the motivating force behind Jihadists. It’s almost as if the facts surrounding the religious motivations of the terrorists is just too much for them to understand, so, in order to grasp the situation, they try to overlay their own agenda. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Jul 23, 2007 1:00 pm
Ashland:

You'll focused on a tree when I asked a forest of questions. Let's try again...



No, what happened is you asked a foolish question and then had your head handed to you, so you want to change the question, and this time with a clairvoyant spin, like “What if Bush knew in advance that every intelligence agency in the world was wrong and that Saddam wasn’t hiding WMDs? What would you do with the money saved?”.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />


Well, if you’re interested in “what ifs”, here’s one for you. What if Kerry or Gore were president and they ignored what the CIA had told them about why Saddam refused to allow the weapons inspections he’d interfered with for 12 years?  Saddam was about to buy his way out of sanctions (see the UN oil for palaces scandal). THEN what would have happened?


If he hadn’t been already producing and hiding WMDs before sanctions ended, do you honestly believe he wouldn’t have returned to that endeavor? Are you willing to bet massive civilian casualties in the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US your faith that;


1) The CIA and every other intel agency had it wrong (see both Kerry and Gore’s comments about what THEY thought Saddam was up to dating back to 1998, they sure thought he had them).


2) That post sanctions Saddam wouldn’t have provided newly made WMDs to his terrorist allies? We already know the “Saddam would never work with Al Qaeda because the two were sworn enemies” thing to be fiction based intelligence gained post invasion  from Saddam’s government’s files.


Jul 23, 2007 1:03 pm
Ashland:

You'll focused on a tree when I asked a forest of questions. Let's try again...


Sounds pretty patronizing.


Jul 23, 2007 1:23 pm
mikebutler222:
Mandoman:

I think we would be safer today if we put efforts into securing our borders and ports, as well as if we initiated some of the other suggestions of the 9/11 Report. [q/uote]


Could you tell us what recommendations of the 9/11 Commission haven't already been put in place?


[quote=Mandoman]


I think we would be safer today by use of better diplomacy throughout the world. 


Could you tell us what sort of diplomacy could stop the Jihadists that have been attacking US interests around the world since 1980 or so?



No.  If it was that easy, then we probably wouldn't be in the mess that we are in at this time. 


However, we might consider reserving the "Bring them on!" comments as a start.  Arrogance is not getting us anywhere.

Jul 23, 2007 1:27 pm
Dust Bunny:

I think we were supposed to say pretty please and Muhammad may I while bending over to kiss our butts goodbye.....   At least that seems to be the Left's idea of being diplomatic.


...that's pretty catchy...not very politically correct, but catchy nonetheless...

Jul 23, 2007 1:35 pm
Mandoman:
mikebutler222:
Mandoman:

I think we would be safer today if we put efforts into securing our borders and ports, as well as if we initiated some of the other suggestions of the 9/11 Report. [q/uote]


Could you tell us what recommendations of the 9/11 Commission haven't already been put in place?


[quote=Mandoman]


I think we would be safer today by use of better diplomacy throughout the world. 


Could you tell us what sort of diplomacy could stop the Jihadists that have been attacking US interests around the world since 1980 or so?



No.  If it was that easy, then we probably wouldn't be in the mess that we are in at this time. 


However, we might consider reserving the "Bring them on!" comments as a start.  Arrogance is not getting us anywhere.



I'm sorry to be the one bringing you the bad news, but the Jihadi's really don't care about your views on US foreign policy, they don't care about diplomacy, they don't care about what you call arrogance. All they care about is their twisted version of Islam, reestablishing it, Islamic government and Shir’a law across the old Caliphate map, and killing non-believers. They’re not just a group of misunderstood “Patriots” who happen to have every view in common with the average NPR listener except the how to change the course of US policies.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />


You don't have to believe me, simply read what they've said themselves. And, if after you're read their words, if it still bothers you to accept the world as it is, please have the courtesy to step aside and let others who don’t shrink back from the grisly nature of our enemy do what needs to be done keep you and the other sheep safe from it.


No offense.


Jul 23, 2007 2:10 pm
mikebutler222:

I'm sorry to be the one bringing you the bad news, but the Jihadi's really don't care about your views on US foreign policy, they don't care about diplomacy, they don't care about what you call arrogance. All they care about is their twisted version of Islam, reestablishing it, Islamic government and Shir’a law across the old Caliphate map, and killing non-believers. They’re not just a group of misunderstood “Patriots” who happen to have every view in common with the average NPR listener except the how to change the course of US policies.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />


You don't have to believe me, simply read what they've said themselves. And, if after you're read their words, if it still bothers you to accept the world as it is, please have the courtesy to step aside and let others who don’t shrink back from the grisly nature of our enemy do what needs to be done keep you and the other sheep safe from it.


No offense.





You asked, so I answered.  You asked and Jihadi's don't care what I think.... So, how long have you been a Jihadi?


What does the Natural Products Report (NPR) have to do with any of this????  You Jihadis are very confusing, always diverting attention elsewhere.


Was Sadaam a Jihadi?  I thought he was a cultural nationalist.


Let me be the first to inform you, we are working on kicking your Jihadi ass.  Eventually, you will come to the table.