DukeNukeEm

Saddam did use chemical weapons against the Kurds. We know this as fact. He was however smart enough to not use them against Americans. Also, you are clearly taking a position when you advocate bombing them. That's the line in the sand here, pal.

Going through the effort of destroying people to prevent the destruction of people doesn't make sense. Especially when there's a very high likelihood that the people you are destroying will probably be destroyed anyways whether you destroy them or not. Or you could have a moral problem with wiping these savages off the face of the earth, like oh I dunno IRAQ. The about-face from liberals who couldn't find enough ways to call George W Bush a war mongerer but now support unilateral military action because of the EXACT SAME REASONS WE WENT IRAQ.

Wat You're saying the primary function of a police force is to kill people and suggesting anything to the contrary is ludicrous.

Change is not always a good thing. Legislative attempts at forcing change are almost exclusively bad unless its like freeing the slaves or giving people more rights.

If these people are just going to kill each other for free why should we pay to do the same work for them?

Yes its legal. At this point I'm familiar enough with liberal horses*** to know "jobs" means "excuses why I don't have one" and equality means "more free s*** please." So I wouldn't expected anyone with any dignity to show up for the Rally for Handouts and Laziness.

"I'd like to know why well-educated idiots keep apologizing for lazy and complaining people who think the word owes them something. "

Every ruler of every country dreams they could control and oppress their people the way North Korea does. I'd say its one hell of a catalyst that many governments want to emulate.

I don't give a flying crap about his legacy. Nor should you, he's a public official elected to serve not worry about his legacy. Goddamn get his nits out of your mouth. These people are not similar to us. If you need evidence look no further than their charred remains of a country. They are nothing like us, and the assertion that they even could be is insulting. Are humans like pigs? I guess a little, we're both mammals and both eat just about anything... but one is a filthy disgusting animal that's real purpose is slaughter while the other has figured out how to go to the moon. Syrians and Americans are not equals, we don't "share" anything. They are an inferior culture. You have to understand that to understand why all the freedom and choice they've already been exposed to has just made them more and more savage. They're only hope is to be controlled, but that's an expensive proposition and its not like we really get anything out of it anyways.

He feels better

Yeah I don't really value them at all. I guess biologically they are human beings but they aren't really people they way we think of people here in the civilized world. They're mostly just savages who enjoy killing each other almost as much as they enjoy killing people from the civilized parts of this planet. I'd rather we not indulge them in the opportunity, let them slaughter each other because anything else would be keeping them from doing what they love. In the West we generally aren't like this, sure we have bad elements but we don't just have all out war in the streets for fun. We have values other than violence. They don't, and we cannot fathom why but we assume they want the same things we do. But they aren't the same as us, they want to kill each other. Let them. I'm not appalled, shocked or outraged chemical weapons were used (I actually predicted it in this thread). I expect this from savages, and while I think its an awful way of life (or more accurately: death) I don't hate them for being what they are.

In other auto related news I got my first load as an OTR trucker today. Gary, IN to Bethlehem, PA... kind of a cool historical link to tie together a load I think.

Look around online, get an idea for what a slightly used Nissan Altima goes for and shoot for ~$500 below that. At that point anything you get in that $500 range is gravy.

THE LIBERAL HANDBOOK (2013 EDITION) Chapter IV: Dealing with Dissent Section A: Easy Rebuttals excerpt: Is the candidate someone who can claim minority status and/or be considered a victim of white male privilege? (If "yes" continue, if "no" refer to Section B: So You're Already Losing...) "How can you not support [individual], are you [racist/sexist/homophobic etc.]?"

The Ozzie/MJ ticket.

Some choice quotes that just made me laugh out loud. "He had made his career as a diversity consultant" /giggle He made his career as a member of the corporate bureaucracy, adding nothing really of value just providing lawsuit insurance against inevitable accusations of racism whenever the company he consulted had to fire a minority. "Hey guys, we aren't racist, we can prove it because this diversity consultant does a power point that all of our middle management guys sleep through!" lol, I dont fault the guy for it, everyone's got a mortgage, but that is one of the sadder excuses for a job I've ever heard. "This is post-Obama" Not yet, unfortunately. "A lazy (N-word)" about a half a page up CNN gets all edgy on us with the... "These stories are honest and frank discussions of race. They may be upsetting to some" How HONEST and FRANK to censor out a word that everyone reads aloud in their head as n*****. They call this f***ing journalism? Either put it in [expletive] if the word breaks decorum or spit it out. This pisses me off the more I think about it, you want an honest (possibly disturbing) discussion on race? Make it so! Dont shelter the reader. f***ing CNN. '"someone who's brown -- that doesn't make them a terrorist." The teacher obviously meant to help her students be more culturally sensitive, but the speech had the effect of making Chakrabarty feel alienated.' Yup, this is basically how it works. Black History Month might as well be retitled You Aint One Of Us And Never Will Be Month. Any kid with half a brain immediately wonders what the other 11 months are for. Once he figures it out one of two things happen: If he's white he thinks he's better than the blacks and if he's black he already feels inferior. I saw this happen, its liberal do-goodery that winds up doing more harm than nothing at all. "Scarpulla began to notice that her brood was attracting "bizarre looks"" Might want to choose a word other than brood. lol. "He says battling those stereotypes has helped him to find his purpose: Writing about social justice." Now we know where diversity consultants come from. ---- I didnt take any of this s*** seriously. Its hard to when its so f***ing bad.

The policies that enabled the drone problem are not limited to the Patriot Act. They go back a very long time. The funny thing is back in the days of the OSS/earlier CIA they kind just did whatever they wanted and nobody knew about it. Then people found out and got pissed so they just passed a bunch of laws enabling them to do a lot of the same s*** but this time with legislative approval. I dont know which I'd prefer, a complicit government or an ignorant one?

Candidate B is only a slightly hyperbolic depiction of a two term president.

This is purely hypothetical for the purpose of avoiding what would otherwise be a meaningful conversation on actual contenders in 2016 (lol). Candidate A: I will curtail the drone program. Their use on American soil will be prohibited and abroad there will be more oversight. I'll also repeal the Patriot Act, dissolve the NSA (which at this point is too rotten to be saved) and repeal the controversial aspects of the 2013 NDAA. But my religion is against gay marriage so there will be no progress at the federal level in that arena during my presidency Candidate B: I will be a champion of gay marriage, oh by the way I've got this great idea to give drones to State PD's which they can use to blow people up who are involved in high speed pursuits or if we have reason to believe they are trafficking drugs on the interstates.

There is a massive chasm between our use of drones internationally and the proposal of using them domestically within our borders that you just kind of shrug off. But the bigger issue here is that you'll support a side you know is going to erode your rights because to you they're marginally better than the alternative. I mean the least you could do is be less enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton, who of all the potential candidates for 2016 is by far the most likely to make zero effort in curtailing governments intrusion into our rights.

Yeah the democrats really went out and reversed those policies. You know, as much as I loathe the Patriot Act and all the bulls*** that's associated with it at least in the aftermath of 9/11 you could somehow make the argument that like when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus we actually needed a temporary suspension of some rights because the intelligence community had been so thoroughly gutted after the Cold War ended that they were incapable of protecting the country from an external threat. Now that they've gotten their s*** together again they really shouldn't have these broad powers that exist outside the constitutional realm anymore, but for some mysterious reason the current administration seems intent on expanding these programs instead of phasing them out. I'm half playing devil's advocate here. I really dont believe the Patriot Act was necessary to protect the country, I'm just saying.

Yup so XYZ judge who the president can trot out to the country for his progressive and tolerant stance on homosexuality can turn around and burn the constitution and let his Administration start killing Americans with drones! #RightSideofHistory

I think were done here.

My philosophy in general is if (1) it doesn't violate someone's right as dictated by the Constitution or (2) doesn't violate someone's property rights there doesn't need to be a law about it. I've been pretty clear on this, I dont think the state should be in charge of almost anything. You're the one who needs your beloved government/deity hybrid to validate your beliefs by legislating your political stance into a universal reality for everyone.

A little taste here and there. Enough to keep people interested and enough to claim they've made progress. Also the end of DOMA basically cemented the idea that the federal government cant do anything to regulate or deregulate marriage anyways so taking this issue into account when voting for president, your senator and house rep is really only self-serving "at least I'm part of the solution not problem XDDDDD" egoism so you can claim to be on the right side of history. Earlier somebody said they want to return us to the confederacy. I wonder if he meant the South (which were never really "in" since they lost their war of secession) or a country that is largely governed by the states with a federal government only there to ensure free commerce between the states and a unified defense against foreign aggression.