troublemaker_42

HAhahaha...guess we're going back and forth debunking each other today, eh? If the "one bad apple" applies here, it too applies in the Palin thread where you posted a story which speaks of the Palin book ban myth as a piece of factual information.

__________________
Ted Nugent: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."


If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?

shibshib

Realistically it does nothing to the other facts, but yes, for me personally I stray away from sources which sprinkle myth on top of fact. Or, in the case of your list, just list complete fallacies with no regard to integrity lol.

__________________
Q: Does weed make you smarter, ShibShib?
A: No, it just focuses me. ADHD is like having a bunch of TVs in your head, all running different programs, and having no ability to control them. Marijuana not only appears to give me a remote, it also allows me to shut off all the other TVs sucking up the juice... which makes the TV I'm watching a bit brighter.

troublemaker_42

though its no excuse, i didn't read a whole lot of that before I posted it. After having done so, I admit its not worth the space it resides in out in cyberspace, as in completely useless LOL

shibshib

This is why I have some respect for Obama... while McCain is putting out ads completely--and blatantly--misrepresenting things Obama has done (such as the bill to protect kids from molestors, or his tax stuff)... obama puts out an ad like this focusing on things McCain has said that shows he is a dumbass.

leprechaunstoner

^Win!

On a side note Republican attack ads have been even more bogus this year!

Jack0

I have a problem with Barack Obama, because though he supports troop withdrawal from Iraq, he supports redirecting our military efforts to Afghanistan.

troublemaker_42

Thats one of the few things I'd agree with Obama on. Why NOT concentrate on the orignal enemy rather than a country our leaders had to mislead our country into taking action against? Whetehr you want to believe it or not, there actually are people out tehre that would like nothing more than to see 9/11 happen again, or worse. What approach DO you support taking against theese groups? Just leave them be, until they find another way to bring us to our knees? ignore them, and let them rebuild and regroup? Compromise with them, and simply give into their demands so they have no reason to attack us? I'm not a big fan of the war in Iraq myself. However, its naive to believe that simply pulling out all our forces completely from both Afghanistan and Iraq would be in the best interest of our country. While the war on terror has given us many reasons to be bitter and question our leaders, the original intent was, in my opinion, a solid one. Do you suggest we simply become reactive instead of proactive, only responding to terrorist activity after an attack rather than working to prevent such attacks? Theres not a whole lot I see eye to eye with Obama on, but concentrating our military efforts where we actually have enemies (as opposed to those we created with our presence, like in Iraq) makes perfect sense to me. Do you honestly think completely abandoning the ENTIRE war on terror is going to result in universal happiness?

Jack0

No. Nothing anyone does ever, will result in what you refer to as universal happiness, unless we are all given soma.

The parallels between "homeland security" and "the war on terror" are strikingly similar to "containment" and "the cold war". The terms have simply been switched out for newer, trendier ones.

The only difference between U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is: We went into Iraq under false pretenses, and we're STAYING in Afghanistan under false pretenses.

I would feel no more fear for a potential bearded foe with a boxcutter, if U.S. troops were to withdraw from Afghanistan, than if they stay. It makes no difference. All I know is that no man, bearded or not...carrying a bible, quran, book of mormon, or a copy of maxim, is ever going to intimidate me enough to feel that our presence in a foreign land is necessary to find him. This is asymetrical warfare, and it's useless trying to play Dog the Bounty Hunter...that is not the job of a conventional warfighting machine...it's more suited for, well, Dog the Bounter Hunter.

When the shit hits the fan, stop people from throwing shit in the fan. Don't try to hunt down every piece of shit that could potentially be thrown in a fan.

And I can guarantee you, that if a terrorist ever came to my neck of the woods, I would have no problem morally or logistically, turning his head into pink mist.

troublemaker_42

So, rather than being proactive, you perfer a reactive approach instead, as I previously suggested. Take action after they've already done their damage and made their point? Isn't that a bit too late, espeically if its you or your loved ones that had to die before anyone felt those who attacked you were worthy of attention? I understand we'll never "eliminate terror" or make the world somehow utopian. However, on the same note, I don't believe we should just ignore the potential threats until their plans have been carried out. If you need an explanation as to why knee-jerk reactions aren't the best way of handling things, takle a look back over the last 7 years or so. The Patriot Act-- Knee Jerk Legislation The War in Iraq? A knee-jerk invasion. Everyting you hate about our current state of affairs is because of precisely bwhat you are suggesting we do now--wait and react. Had the Clinton administration taken Bin laden when he was offered up to them, maybe we wouldn't be here today in the current state of affairs. Instead, we waited until he pulled off his crowning achievement, 9/11. Our reaction? Piss poor legislation granting far too many governmental powers and a war we have no real strategy for winning. Givingf our politicans an open book to react to tragedy basically up-ended our government to the core. I don't pretend to know the ultimate solution here, but while I think the War on Terror has its time and place, I think the way its carried out certainly needs to be reevaluated and reorganized from the top down. I don't believe we should simply react, but being proactive could be done, IMO, much more efficently than it currently is

Jack0

I was simply talking about stopping guys with boxcutters from crashing a plane into some buildings. There's no need to invade some countries over that...what there is a need for, however, is for someone to stop people with boxcutters from crashing a plane into some buildings, instead of just let them do it.

Everything was blown out of proportion, and my reaction to a potential terrorist threat is not to poke hot coals to a bear's ass by occupying a country and telling people what time they have to be inside their homes at night.

I might be a jerk, but am in no way shape or form, advocating any knee-jerking.

As for the "before it's too late" and "me or my loved ones"...that's along the lines of an emotional reaction. Emotions cloud judgement, and are responsible for the creation of patriotic country songs.