My two freakin' cents

Hello all. I'm back from christmas/newyears vacation.

Anyway, down to business. I've been reading some of the threads I missed while I was gone...very interesting.

Such as,

Colonel
I've been hurt by the right wing? HELL, YEAH! Repugnants are the party of the segregationist, the dixiecrats, the suppressor of women's rights. In fact, I find your repugnant party INHERENTLY racist and mysogynist!

YEAH, I SAID IT! If someone doesn't look like a blond haired and blue-eyed male Nazi, then you try to keep 'em down. THAT IS YOUR HISTORY. So, don't tell me I'm "arrogant" (read as uppity negro) cause that slavemaster lingo is played out like Chicken George in Roots.

Colonel, first of all, you need an MRI. I think you must've taken a helluva fall when you were a kid. I can tell you right now that you're generalizing. It's just like when people call libs 'fag-loving tree-huggers', or some other ridiculous name. Me, a nazi? I don't #in think so. I am all for equal rights, but when I have to pay for somthing my family did,(no matter if I was alive or not) I get pissed off. All people with blonde hair and blue eyes are nazis? Or are nazis only blonde with blue eyes, I don't get what you're hitting at. Better keep them right-wing nazi #ers down, or your kids might not ever get into college.

And

flix
So are you saying that's not true? I think even conservatives, if they're honest, will admit that the capturing of Saddam doesn't make someone in Crapsville, USA any safer.

You're kidding right? Who the # said it did? If anything, it makes them more pissed off. What we did was capture a symbol. We showed them that we can do what we came there to do.(or at least one part) Don't even think about mentioning WMD's, we're not done yet. We cut the head off the proverbial snake, the body might die now, but it will take some time. They're already a disorganized, ragged-looking bunch. The capture of Saddam certainly raised troop moral, and the moral of many worried citizens. Anyway, it's a step forward in the war on terror, and operation Iraqi freedom.

These were just a couple of things I found interesting. Seems the ignorance still clouds the minds of some ATSers.

In addition,

What the hell is with people saying things like, "since the war ended", "after we won the war"--Last time I checked, the combat operation was still underway in Afghanistan and Iraq. Did you expect this to be a drive-by operation? Take a look at Bosnia, how long was that supposed to take? And we're still there.

Something has gone to your heads. I think all the partisan politics is playing it's role nicely. (ever hear of divide and conquor)

I'd also like to point out, in relation to the war in Iraq, this:

Chicago homicides last year: 599

New York City homicides last year: 597

Total count of US deaths in the WAR in Iraq: 485

That's a pretty good point. Iraq is a hostile area. For those of you who don't know, there is a war in Iraq.(really)

485 people? C'mon! You're crying about 485 people? Sure it's sad that they died, but it is a WAR. I can't explain it any better. People die in war. How many Americans died in the first two months of WW1 and WW2? How about Vietnam? Korea? People neen to wake the # up. Quit being blind.

I think the point is 485 people died in a war with shady terms to it. I don't get how anybody can whole heartedly support this war. We haven't done "yet" what we went there to do. You say don't rely on WMDs argument, but it was the reason that spin doctors of this GWB's administration. Our goal wasn't to eliminate some madman living in a palace and eventually in a spiderhole somewhere in Iraq. Our goal wasn't the "liberation" of the people of Iraq. This administration has LIED to us. They told us that Iraq HAS WMDs and these are facts and you cannot question it. Skip to nine months later, where the hell are the little buggers. Many believe they don't exist. The rest believe they are still being carted around on a wagon pulled by a camel somewhere in the desert. The only time this "regime" had any type of WMDs, was WHEN WE GAVE IT TO THEM. Hell, here, let me post part of one of his interviews. It is from the one with Diane Sawyer:

"In an interview on Dec. 16, television anchorwoman Diane Sawyer pressed Bush on the fact that no unconventional weapons had been found in Iraq some nine months after the search had begun.

Bush kept interjecting: "Yet."

Sawyer persisted, asking about the administration's flat statements that Saddam had such weapons versus the mere possibility that he could acquire them.

An exasperated Bush replied: "So, what's the difference?"

Do we really have to explain?"

That is dangerous. And I am surprised that this is not a larger issue than what it is. WMDs are a lie. I would love to see you tell the people whose babies are being brought back home in a body bag to "C'mon it's WAR! It's war revolved around a lie, but still WAR!" And how can I claim it is "revolved around a lie"? Simple, it is the main point this Bush administration used as a reason to go in and kill! If this was Clinton, you would all be crying for his head on a pole.

Originally posted by joehayner
In addition,

What the hell is with people saying things like, "since the war ended", "after we won the war"--Last time I checked, the combat operation was still underway in Afghanistan and Iraq. Did you expect this to be a drive-by operation? Take a look at Bosnia, how long was that supposed to take? And we're still there.

Folk are just going off what the president announced. He said major combat was over...maybe you should blame the president for his mission accomplished banner and speech that went along with it..there is a reason for this misconception. The president excepted this to be a driveby operation as he stated three weeks after the war began...now we're in a long hard slog but you wouldn't know that from his comments. Point your rage in the right direction.

Originally posted by joehayner
Hello all. I'm back from christmas/newyears vacation.

Anyway, down to business. I've been reading some of the threads I missed while I was gone...very interesting.

Such as,

Colonel
I've been hurt by the right wing? HELL, YEAH! Repugnants are the party of the segregationist, the dixiecrats, the suppressor of women's rights. In fact, I find your repugnant party INHERENTLY racist and mysogynist!

YEAH, I SAID IT! If someone doesn't look like a blond haired and blue-eyed male Nazi, then you try to keep 'em down. THAT IS YOUR HISTORY. So, don't tell me I'm "arrogant" (read as uppity negro) cause that slavemaster lingo is played out like Chicken George in Roots.

Colonel, first of all, you need an MRI. I think you must've taken a helluva fall when you were a kid. I can tell you right now that you're generalizing. It's just like when people call libs 'fag-loving tree-huggers', or some other ridiculous name. Me, a nazi? I don't #in think so. I am all for equal rights, but when I have to pay for somthing my family did,(no matter if I was alive or not) I get pissed off. All people with blonde hair and blue eyes are nazis? Or are nazis only blonde with blue eyes, I don't get what you're hitting at. Better keep them right-wing nazi #ers down, or your kids might not ever get into college.

And

flix
So are you saying that's not true? I think even conservatives, if they're honest, will admit that the capturing of Saddam doesn't make someone in Crapsville, USA any safer.

You're kidding right? Who the # said it did? If anything, it makes them more pissed off. What we did was capture a symbol. We showed them that we can do what we came there to do.(or at least one part) Don't even think about mentioning WMD's, we're not done yet. We cut the head off the proverbial snake, the body might die now, but it will take some time. They're already a disorganized, ragged-looking bunch. The capture of Saddam certainly raised troop moral, and the moral of many worried citizens. Anyway, it's a step forward in the war on terror, and operation Iraqi freedom.

These were just a couple of things I found interesting. Seems the ignorance still clouds the minds of some ATSers.

He's a racist, too. Can you believe a Liberal can be racist? Amazing.

You tell 'im VeeTwin.

You didn't deny it. I figured you'd deny it, even though it is true.

I can't believe I'm saying this... but, I actually gained a tiny bit of respect for you today. Not because you're a racist, but because you at least a little honest.

I see sarcasm is beyond you.

OXmanK,
I never said I didn't rely on the WMD argument. The reason we went in there was NOT for WMD, though it was in relation to it. The reason we went in is because of noncompliance to a UN resolution to present them with all their WMD. The UN didn't seem to want to do anything, someone had to. We were not just going after them for the WMD, but also to remove a regime that was murderous, genocidal, and didn't listen to us. If they had the power, they would have launched a Bio or Chem bomb right in our backyard. You're only concentrating on one reason, look at the rest. Thank you for your reply

Now Saphronia,
The President was right. That was the end of major combat. It was the end of organized fighting on their part. That mission was accomplished, there is now a new mission. The new mission was to continue to occupy Iraq, rebuild, and begin humanitarian aide. But I guess you people didn't see that. You ASSUMED that he meant the combat was totally over in Iraq. He, in fact, never said that it was. I don't believe Bush thought it would be an 'in and out' operation. No war has ever been that way. My rage is pointed exactly where it needs to be. Thank you for your reply.

And VeeTwin,
You say Colonel is racist. You're absolutly right. He can only see things in race. I take people for what they are. Before I even knew he was black, I thought he was an egotistical, racist, dumbass. And my feelings haven't changed. Thank you for your reply.

Colonel(my favorite)
Seems to me that sarcasm was what his first post was. You should be put wherever the rest of the racists go when they die.(along with Malcom X, Gen. Lee, Custer, and Hitler) Get a clue. Open your eyes, racist. Oh yeah, and thanks.

Originally posted by joehayner

Colonel(my favorite)
Seems to me that sarcasm was what his first post was. You should be put wherever the rest of the racists go when they die.(along with Malcom X, Gen. Lee, Custer, and Hitler) Get a clue. Open your eyes, racist. Oh yeah, and thanks.

Look at this doublespeak. The Colonel who is black is a racist against repugnants. Heh-HEH! Unfortuantely for you, I say thee nay. There are many white dems and liberals who I consider friends (Flinx, DirtyDevil, Nerdling, etc).

I just hate the neo-nazis on the repugnant side and I treat them with the disdain that's required. (Yu realize that;s what you are) See, its because you need to treat the repugnants that way. That's all they understand. They have no scruples. So, those who would play fair (as normal) with a repugnant are askin to be bent over and violated and they would desrve it.

That's why I treat the repugnants the way I do. I fight dirty...just like them. So, play that victim role and call me a racist.

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by Colonel]

Originally posted by joehayner
Seems the ignorance still clouds the minds of some ATSers.

Saddam had no ties to terrorism we are no safer without him in power, but we wasted a lot of tax dollars in the effort. Bush declared an end to combat operations on an air craft carrier not Colonel. There is still the issue of all the false information served up to the public to support the Iraq war. So your sentence does sum up the ignorance of our right wing friends hear at ATS very well. But in all fairness there are right wing people here that support the war and know about the lies and feel it�s ok because they love war. They are not ignorant just war mongers and that�s fine by me, everyone has a right to his or her opinion no matter how whacked it is.

Originally posted by Colonel
I see sarcasm is beyond you.

Actually, the joke's on you.

And by the way... calling you racist has nothing to do with political views. I'm basing it on some of your posts I've read in here.

What doublespeak? A black man can't be racist? And how can someone be racist against a political party? Doesn't make sense. I don't see any doublespeak... just dumbassspeak.

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by VeeTwin]

Originally posted by VeeTwin

And by the way... calling you racist has nothing to do with political views. I'm basing it on some of your posts I've read in here.

What doublespeak? A black man can't be racist? And how can someone be racist against a political party? [Edited on 6-1-2004 by VeeTwin]

Sorry, no black man in America can be racist.

Originally posted by Colonel
Sorry, no black man in America can be racist.

Erm...That statement its self is racist...

Webster's definition of racism:
Main Entry: rac�ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
Date: 1936
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Racial prejudice. That would be prejudice related to one's race, right? Let's find out what prejudice means...

Main Entry: 1prej�u�dice
Pronunciation: 'pre-j&-d&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment -- more at JUDICIAL
Date: 13th century
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics


an opinion or leaning formed without just grounds. In relation to race. A racial opinion or leaning formed without just grounds.

"Sorry, no black man "

Ok, here is the race segment.

"in America" (huh? Why just here?)

"can be racist"

an opinion or leaning formed without just grounds.

Someone going around saying they hate all whites, if they're black isn't racist, but a white person going around saying they hate all blacks is? How does this double standard work?

[Edited on 1-6-2004 by junglejake]

Ahem....Let's go over that again:


Webster's definition of racism:
Main Entry: rac�ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
Date: 1936
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

What black man or ANY minority in America thought he was of superior breed in America? I mean, seriously, I think most of us were just trying to make it to the next day! Now, on the ohter hand, what race in America exhibited the qualities described in the definiton? You know the answer.


I rest my case

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by Colonel]

I just hate the neo-nazis on the repugnant side and I treat them with the disdain that's required. (Yu realize that;s what you are) See, its because you need to treat the repugnants that way. That's all they understand. They have no scruples. So, those who would play fair (as normal) with a repugnant are askin to be bent over and violated and they would desrve it.

Would this not be a prejudiced statement?

I never said I wasn't prejudiced. I am prejudiced against repugnants. I think we all know that. I'mnot hiding anything. I mean, what does "I hate repugnants" mean to you?

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by Colonel]

Originally posted by junglejake
Main Entry: 1prej�u�dice
Pronunciation: 'pre-j&-d&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment -- more at JUDICIAL
Date: 13th century
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

Aargh... I told myself I would avoid this section of the site... anyway, here goes...

Using junglejake's (and since you seem to agree with it) your definition of prejudice, you seem to have the same prejudice as racists have against other races, only instead of being directed at a race, it is directed at a political party. You call republicans "neo-nazis" when I and the majority of republicans have NO TIES with ANY nazi terrorist group and DO NOT share the same ideals? What's wrong with you??? Most people (including me) take that as a personal insult when you accuse someone of being a part of a terrorist group.

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by gravriderX]