Bernie Sanders. Worse than Isis?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

I didn't see your post regarding 'threats', the verbal kind.

So now we're down to verbal comments, LMAO. So calling the U.S. the great Satan is acceptable, or merely political rhetoric?
How many times has China threatened the U.S. with war? More than NK!!

Both are rhetoric and NOT grounds for war.

In case you may have forgotten, the U.S. pressure on Iran have been financial, not military. We are not at war with Iran, are not threatening to go to war with them either.

We SHOULD have taught then a lesson, at the least, for supplying Iraqi insurgents with IEDs and the like. They are directly responsible for multiple U.S. deaths and casualties.

Don't like it? TOUGH!

Are you that obtuse?


Honestly I should of taken from the op your a moron and there is no getting sense through to you!


I never said verbal threats ALONE would constitute ground for a war......

If you were even semi capable of reading that suggestion of a amendment did not say "if a ally of the USA is verbally threatend the US must go to war" only that it would be a consideration!





But derp derp derp derp derp

No wonder the US constitution is a failed piece of paper today

Seems most Americans cant even read let alone comprehend subtle diffrences in word



Can see why most Americans are bible bashers too!

Least the simple ten commandments are just about within there intellectual grasp!

But hell another generation of American education and even they will be hard to understand.

You know what? The stupidity on this thread has got to much.

Im off before I lose any more of my IQ points.

And to be honnest im amazed anyone thats buys the op even has enough IQ points to breath....

a reply to: crazyewok

Jesus loves you.....

a reply to: crazyewok

Oh, "brilliant One", I bow to your wisdom....

Get yourself elected PM and send some Vanguards down that way and fix NK yourself.

You semantical dissections are what has plagued the Constitution as it stands now.

The mores of don't attack unless attacked has proven no longer valid. To wit, 9/11.

The fear of retaliation diminishes when confronted with an enemy that feels death will be a reward. Fear of consequence is now trumped by fear of pre-emption. No like attacks since the U.S. response.

We will keep the right of pre-emption thank you very much, oh biased one...oops sorry , oh , brilliant one....

a reply to: nwtrucker

You semantical dissections are what has plagued the Constitution as it stands now.

He's from England so why whine about what is happening to the Constitution to him and imply he is somehow involved? Actually people like you are far more of a threat to the Constitution than people like him.

The mores of don't attack unless attacked has proven no longer valid. To wit, 9/11.

Wrong no nation attacked America on 9/11. We have no right invading a nation that hasn't attacked America. People that support actions like this spit on the Constitution.

The fear of retaliation diminishes when confronted with an enemy that feels death will be a reward. Fear of consequence is now trumped by fear of pre-emption. No like attacks since the U.S. response.

No attacks just goes to prove 9/11 was a false flag. It was an event that was used to get America fighting wars that were not ours to fight.

We will keep the right of pre-emption thank you very much, oh biased one.

Right of preemption is just another way of saying we can start a war whenever and with whomever we want. People that support these ideas should be impeached from office because this nation would be a far better place without these people in power.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a
We will keep the right of pre-emption thank you very much, oh biased one...oops sorry , oh , brilliant one....

The dont bitch when the rest of the world finds people like you and your nation repugnant and amoral.

To me people like you are little better than ISIS or Putin

a reply to: buster2010

I should let your post speak for itself. It is a joke.

As no nation can be named, therefore, nothing can be done? Your delusional. The left jumped on the bandwagon as fast it could after 9/11. They even bitched that the U.S. didn't move soon enough in Afghanistan.

When the dust settled, then the left started bailing. As far as 9/11 being a false flag, the why did the commission, largely left appointed lawyers, who'd dearly love to take down Bush, not 'expose' the false flag then??


Bulls**t

originally posted by: nwtrucker

I should let your post speak for itself. It is a joke.

Says the one who created this entire thread!



Derp Derp derp!

a reply to: crazyewok

Now who's the "moral authority"? Pure Hubris.

a reply to: crazyewok

Perhaps you could convince Buster2010 to visit you. A 'relationship' might develop and you could live in blissful harmony for ever after....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

Now who's the "moral authority"? Pure Hubris.

Pleased enlighten me on the difference between say Putin who thinks he has the right to preemptive strikes where he likes or a typical US chicken hawk who thinks he can strike were he likes?


I actually struggling to see a difference...

a reply to: crazyewok

Please name me a country that doesn't have a 'right' to pre-emptively strike? Or the option to? Every war in history has some form of pre-emptive action, some initiator, be it declared or some military action.

Even if one could institute the amendments you propose, do you really believe those wouldn't be ignored given sufficient perceived motivation?

I believe you over-intellectualize and your empirical awareness suffers as a result.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
a reply to: nwtrucker

Won't lie, love Bernie and trump. Love anyone throwing a monkey wrench in the political works, not enough to vote for them. Don't really agree with much of what he says or anyone running for that matter. Think he would be an economic disaster for the country. Appreciate he is honest about his views though.

I can see the point being made, a bit of a stretch to me , more for sensentional and shock value than anything. It's politics though. We have our Nazis, racists, Mao and pol clones, Marxist, communist manifesto lovers, and so on. Just another label. It is what it is.

I think I agree.

I'm not shocked by the OP. I can see what he's saying, but he's stretching it so far he's understandably losing most of the posters.

People in the past were lots of bad things. Things like racists, woman haters, religious zealots, gay haters and so on. They were ignorant snobbish fools, by and large. They weren't all equally bad, of course. They were people, like us. We shouldn't forget that. But I think we often do. The effect is we inflate our ego and underestimate our flaws, leaving it up to future generations to fill the gap. They certainly will. Unfortunately, they'll fall prey to the same false sense of superiority.

They were good things too. They had some good ideas. It's unwise to throw all of that away just because they had some dirt. This is why precisely why it's so easy to destroy a person: Just find some dirt. Even if it's ultimately not much, it only takes a little to kill their credibility.

I guess I have the same attitude on a lot of old things. Old things often don't work right or are outdated. So young people (or people removed from the time/place) frequently disparage it. Yet just because something is old doesn't mean it's worthless junk--even today.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I should let your post speak for itself. It is a joke.

Too complex for you? Bush received warnings six months before it happened and did nothing because Al-Qæda represented no nation and still doesn't represent any nation.

As no nation can be named, therefore, nothing can be done? Your delusional.

No you're delusional to think that just because we were attacked we can just pick a nation and attack them.

The left jumped on the bandwagon as fast it could after 9/11. They even bitched that the U.S. didn't move soon enough in Afghanistan.

Sure they did because they were fed the same lies that the public was fed.

When the dust settled, then the left started bailing. As far as 9/11 being a false flag, the why did the commission, largely left appointed lawyers, who'd dearly love to take down Bush, not 'expose' the false flag then??

Why is it that Bush repeatedly attacked anyone that tried to do any investigation of the attack? Why is it that Bush and Cheney would only testify in private and not under oath? The answer to that is simple because they did nothing but lie about what happened.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Every war in history has some form of pre-emptive action, some initiator, be it declared or some military action.

And everyone who has taken part has gone down as the villains in history!

British preemptive strike at Lexington and Concord = Villion.

USA preemptive strike on Canada in 1812 = Villains (at least to the rest of the world)

UK preemptive strikes in India? = Villains

US preemptive strikes against native Americans? = Villains

German Preemptive strike on Belgium,France, UK and Russia in WWI ? Villains

Germany's Preemptive strike on Poland in WW2? Villains

Japans preemptive strike on the USA in WW2? Villains

North Korea preemptive strikes on south Korea? Villains

Saddam's Preemptive strike on Kuwait? Villains

Al qudea Preemptive strike on USA? Villains

Bush a Blair Preemptive strike on Iraq? Both Villains

Putin Preemptive strike on Georgia? Villains

Obama and Camrons strikes on Libya? VILLAINS

Putin Preemptive strike on Ukraine? Villeins!



From that list its seems who ever took the preemptive strike went down in history as the wrong doer.....

a reply to: buster2010
Nevermind. I was thinking about your quote in the signature and made hte mistake of posting it rather than posting something worthwhile.

I think all you're saying is if you're oppressed by X then try to do -X as a rebellion. Like oppose a proton with an anti-proton.

I guess one thing which inspired my string of thought was.... what happens to a person when every hope is squashed and they're swallowed up by a mountain of inescapable oppression. Insanity? Or rebellion? Or I'd suggest blind support of the very thing which harms you. (link below)
* - www.psychologicalscience.o rg - Why Do People Defend Unjust, Inept, and Corrupt Systems?...

We will support life irregardless of its free or unfree state if we cannot escape it easily, have low personal control, high dependence on it and it's threatened frequently. This is assuming life can be compared to systems like government or leadership--which is a big leap and not dissimilar to the OP's leap when he compared Sanders to Isis.

a reply to: crazyewok

Hmm, interesting, you left Saddam off the list. I wonder why?

That started the whole thing off.

As usual when you spin a thread, it's always back to good old Iraq and Iran. You have investments down that way?

Gulf war one and two are inseparable. Bush 40 should have taken Saddam out. A cease-fire was signed. Saddam violated it in multiple ways. You know it, yet you spin it.

You seem to think your the voice of world opinion. When you get into this subject, you come across as if you were a shill or a troll.

Oh, by the way, the was no such thing as "Canada" in 1812. It was part of the Empire and was treated as such. The first act to begin that fracas anew was British ships seizing and indenturing sailors...We call that slavery, these days...that were new American citizens. Still, manifest destiny was a mistake and both sides ended up more or less in a draw.

Yet again, you leave out your endorsement of taking out the NK regime. Doesn't that one also fall in your cubby-hole of Villain?

How do you reconcile that one....

a reply to: nwtrucker



No i did not leave him off tge list. Again showing your lack of ability to read and skim over data for your own twisted ends.


O and guess what if your reading skills were even up to the level of a ten year old you would see I mentioned NK attack as a evil pre emptive strike too!


Seems to me you saw he insult your beloved hero Bush and got all full of rage and missed everything else I said.

Your so easy to predict and wind up.


More duh duh derp derp from you.

a reply to: crazyewok

Any thread and you end up on Iraq and Iran. you go off topic and I allow myself to get sucked in.

You have personal issues in this area. seek help.

NK hasn't attacked anyone since the early 50s.

No more on Iraq, Iran and NK. it's off topic and you get very childish.