just think if you were a terrorists and seen this?

[max420thc]

It must be very hard for our enemies to fully understand American liberals.




Try to put yourself in their shoes for a moment:

First, you are captured on the battlefield where you are trying to kill U.S. soldiers.




Then, you are imprisoned at GITMO and immediately provided expert medical attention and better nutrition than you've ever had before.




Soon, lawyers from some of Washington 's most prestigious law firms offer to represent you free of charge.




Then, a president is elected who went to a "church" for 20 years whose "pastor" loved to shout "God D--- America" from the pulpit.




Finally, you are told that the president intends to release you inside the country you dream will be destroyed some day,




and the




Director of National Intelligence wants you to be paid a stipend by those dreadful infidel taxpayers so that you can adjust to your new life.




And just last week,




that same president was floating the idea of taking away some health benefits from the soldiers who captured you and began talking about those same soldiers being potential terrorists!




​

 

[Rob Roy]

I think the root cause is often overlooked, so I'll shamelessly paraphrase Ron Paul here... If we had a non interventionist foreign policy we wouldn't have alot of the issues that have come about from our attempts to police the world.
The United States spends about the same amount of money on "defense" as the rest of the world combined. The United States has over 700 bases abroad. I wouldn't like it if foreign soldiers were patrolling streets here in the USA, I'd probably violently resist that action. What justification do we have to invade other countries pre-emptively or occupy them militarily? There are still troops U.S. in Europe and Japan over 60 years after WWII ended, why?

What is the monetary cost to maintain all that meddling in other countries? We attacked two countries under the nationalistic fervor ignited by 9/11. Innocent people died, thousands, maybe millions. Viet Nam was wrong, most people now acknowledge that...Iraq and Afghanistan are wrong someday that too will be acknowledged.

No, I'm not a liberal, no I don't think Obama is the messiah. I just don't think blind Patriotism and an attitude that the United States can never be wrong is conducive to world peace. We should stay the fuck out of occupying other countries even if they have a shitload of oil or at least change the military uniforms to read "Exxon or Mobil Oil."

 

[medicineman]

that same president was floating the idea of taking away some health benefits from the soldiers who captured you and began talking about those same soldiers being potential terrorists!


Please explain what health benefits Obama was talking about taking away. As far as I know, it was Bush that wanted to take away benefits from the troops.

 

[Dankdude]

It must be very hard for our enemies to fully understand American liberals.



Try to put yourself in their shoes for a moment:

First, you are captured on the battlefield where you are trying to kill U.S. soldiers.




Then, you are imprisoned at GITMO and immediately provided expert medical attention and better nutrition than you've ever had before.



Soon, lawyers from some of Washington 's most prestigious law firms offer to represent you free of charge. ​

Because Most of them know the US Constitution better than most Americans, They know that anyone who is jailed and imprisoned within the US and US teriroties are entitled to Due Process, so they would think nothing of it.

Then, a president is elected who went to a "church" for 20 years whose "pastor" loved to shout "God D--- America" from the pulpit.

Remember that during the election he renounced that pastor, so that accusation doesn't fly.

Finally, you are told that the president intends to release you inside the country you dream will be destroyed some day,

Gitmo isn't needed, we have pleanty of Maximum Security Federal Prisons within the United States. These prisoners won't be released like you think, if you think they will then your an idiot.

Director of National Intelligence wants you to be paid a stipend by those dreadful infidel taxpayers so that you can adjust to your new life.

Where are you getting your information? I have both the news and C-Span all day and there hasn't been any mention of this on the news or in the halls of congress. You gotta quit listening to the propaghanda that the right wing pundants keep spewing, because it just isn't true.

And just last week,


that same president was floating the idea of taking away some health benefits from the soldiers who captured you and began talking about those same soldiers being potential terrorists!

​

I would also like to know Which ones Obama was wanting to take away too.
Med is correct, your old buddy Bush was wanting to take benefits away.
You really need to quit smoking so much of your own product guy, your short term memory is suffering.

your too easy.

 

[NarrowEye]

too much foxnews max....

 

[ilkhan]

Preach on Rob!

 

[tapone]

I don`t need to put myself their shoes boots ...and I`m not shure they got any.
LoL ... I hate terrorists .

 

[jrh72582]

Oh Max...

You truly are ridiculous.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

I think the root cause is often overlooked, so I'll shamelessly paraphrase Ron Paul here... If we had a non interventionist foreign policy we wouldn't have alot of the issues that have come about from our attempts to police the world.
The United States spends about the same amount of money on "defense" as the rest of the world combined. The United States has over 700 bases abroad. I wouldn't like it if foreign soldiers were patrolling streets here in the USA, I'd probably violently resist that action. What justification do we have to invade other countries pre-emptively or occupy them militarily? There are still troops U.S. in Europe and Japan over 60 years after WWII ended, why?

What is the monetary cost to maintain all that meddling in other countries? We attacked two countries under the nationalistic fervor ignited by 9/11. Innocent people died, thousands, maybe millions. Viet Nam was wrong, most people now acknowledge that...Iraq and Afghanistan are wrong someday that too will be acknowledged.

No, I'm not a liberal, no I don't think Obama is the messiah. I just don't think blind Patriotism and an attitude that the United States can never be wrong is conducive to world peace. We should stay the fuck out of occupying other countries even if they have a shitload of oil or at least change the military uniforms to read "Exxon or Mobil Oil."

This war in the Middle East brought to you by

ExxonMobil
Boeing Corporation
The Coca-Cola Company
Shell/BP Aggression PAC
and hundreds of other corporations like these.



Headlines tonight:

Exxon Mobile Troops have seized Baghdad and are demanding access to Iraqi Oil Fields.

The Coca-Cola Company has seized the town of Faluja and is now erecting a Cola Plant to produce their product locally...

And in Afghanistan the soldiers from Johnson & Johnson have shown that they do not work for "the family company" in that they have ruthlessly slaughtered the wives and children of enemy non-combatants right in front of their eyes.

Mean while in Riyadh the Royalist Supporters of Saudi Arabian Oil Co have hung another woman charging her with public indecency after she was marching with a sign stating that the King must die.

In Iran a Fatwa has been issued against Pepsi as Iran has confirmed that it is a nation of Coca-Cola Drinkers.

 

[medicineman]

This war in the Middle East brought to you by

ExxonMobil
Boeing Corporation
The Coca-Cola Company
Shell/BP Aggression PAC
and hundreds of other corporations like these.



Headlines tonight:

Exxon Mobile Troops have seized Baghdad and are demanding access to Iraqi Oil Fields.

The Coca-Cola Company has seized the town of Faluja and is now erecting a Cola Plant to produce their product locally...

And in Afghanistan the soldiers from Johnson & Johnson have shown that they do not work for "the family company" in that they have ruthlessly slaughtered the wives and children of enemy non-combatants right in front of their eyes.

Mean while in Riyadh the Royalist Supporters of Saudi Arabian Oil Co have hung another woman charging her with public indecency after she was marching with a sign stating that the King must die.

In Iran a Fatwa has been issued against Pepsi as Iran has confirmed that it is a nation of Coca-Cola Drinkers.

Geeze Brutal, if I didn't know you are being facetious, i'd have to say you get it. Uniforms with the monikers of corporate masters seem like the right thing to do. At least there would be truth in war. War is fought for profits, period. All the hype is used to appease the masses, I mean how would Mrs. middle class feel if she saw uniforms with GE, Haliburton, Mamoth chemical, etc emblazoned accross the front and back of our military personel. At least she might see what the whole charade is all about.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Geeze Brutal, if I didn't know you are being facetious, i'd have to say you get it. Uniforms with the monikers of corporate masters seem like the right thing to do. At least there would be truth in war. War is fought for profits, period. All the hype is used to appease the masses, I mean how would Mrs. middle class feel if she saw uniforms with GE, Haliburton, Mamoth chemical, etc emblazoned accross the front and back of our military personel. At least she might see what the whole charade is all about.

Well not all wars are for profits.

but War is armed robbery writ large.

They have it, we want it...



and yes I was being facetious, seeing as how it is the Democrats who have consistently voted to continue authorize funding for the War since 2006 despite continuously stating in public that they were against the war.

Democrats, Republicans, Rinos and Dinos, all the same fucking thing, corporate bitches.

However, I am not of the belief that corporations are evil, they are however like two year olds, and the government, instead of acting like a liberal parent and empowering them needs to act like a mature adult and keep them in their place.

Rejecting Socialism does not mean that I am for corporation. Though my experience is that for the most part corporations are benevolent tyrannies, exempting perhaps the Fortune 500, which are

What is that wonderful phrase OBama used, "Too big to fail."

So let me paraphrase that, "Too big to be moral."

But morality of course is something the liberals reject when they reject God.

Of course they also reject the meaning of the world liberal (more open, more free, less restrictive) every time they approve government regulating the lives of individuals more.

Typically at the same time they are taking bribes, err contributions, from corporations to loosen regulation on corporations. (Funny how in public they preach the opposite.)

Oh, and when is Obama going to bring our soldiers home from Iraq? What happened to the immediate withdrawal? Not that I believed his empty campaign rhetoric full of falsehoods and impossible promises.

Reverend Wright was right, but he left out the part where he added, "with Obama" so his correct phrase should have been Gd America with Obama.

Not that McCain would have been any better, just more honest, and less inclined to the typical Democrat behavior of stabbing their supporters in the back.

Republicans know what we vote for, but apparently Democrats are like two year olds. They still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Campaign Promises.

 

[john.roberts85]

Well not all wars are for profits.

but War is armed robbery writ large.

They have it, we want it...



and yes I was being facetious, seeing as how it is the Democrats who have consistently voted to continue authorize funding for the War since 2006 despite continuously stating in public that they were against the war.

Democrats, Republicans, Rinos and Dinos, all the same fucking thing, corporate bitches.

However, I am not of the belief that corporations are evil, they are however like two year olds, and the government, instead of acting like a liberal parent and empowering them needs to act like a mature adult and keep them in their place.

Rejecting Socialism does not mean that I am for corporation. Though my experience is that for the most part corporations are benevolent tyrannies, exempting perhaps the Fortune 500, which are

What is that wonderful phrase OBama used, "Too big to fail."

So let me paraphrase that, "Too big to be moral."

But morality of course is something the liberals reject when they reject God.

Of course they also reject the meaning of the world liberal (more open, more free, less restrictive) every time they approve government regulating the lives of individuals more.

Typically at the same time they are taking bribes, err contributions, from corporations to loosen regulation on corporations. (Funny how in public they preach the opposite.)

Oh, and when is Obama going to bring our soldiers home from Iraq? What happened to the immediate withdrawal? Not that I believed his empty campaign rhetoric full of falsehoods and impossible promises.

Reverend Wright was right, but he left out the part where he added, "with Obama" so his correct phrase should have been Gd America with Obama.

Not that McCain would have been any better, just more honest, and less inclined to the typical Democrat behavior of stabbing their supporters in the back.

Republicans know what we vote for, but apparently Democrats are like two year olds. They still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Campaign Promises.

This will be fun.

So in your experience the most tyrannical structure in our sociiety, the corporation, is benevolent, huh? Would you mind listing the vast number of benevolent actions undertaken on behalf of corporations? Good luck with that.

Too big to be moral? You do realize that Too Big to Fail (TBTF) and Too Interconnected to Fail (TITF) aren't purely catch phrases used by Obama; they're ingrained in the field of finance and are systemic risk measures. Ever heard of the HHI? Of course not.

The modern field of ethics has virtually nothing to do with a belief in a deity or what not. Your statement suggests that you believe all liberals to be moral skeptics or moral nihilists. Why? What makes Singer and hundreds of other liberal ethicists amoral or unmoral?

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

This will be fun.

So in your experience the most tyrannical structure in our sociiety, the corporation, is benevolent, huh? Would you mind listing the vast number of benevolent actions undertaken on behalf of corporations? Good luck with that.

Too big to be moral? You do realize that Too Big to Fail (TBTF) and Too Interconnected to Fail (TITF) aren't purely catch phrases used by Obama; they're ingrained in the field of finance and are systemic risk measures. Ever heard of the HHI? Of course not.

The modern field of ethics has virtually nothing to do with a belief in a deity or what not. Your statement suggests that you believe all liberals to be moral skeptics or moral nihilists. Why? What makes Singer and hundreds of other liberal ethicists amoral or unmoral?

Institutionalized Belief that it is okay to benefit from your neighbors being robbed as long as you aren't the one holding the gun to their head.

 

[john.roberts85]

Institutionalized Belief that it is okay to benefit from your neighbors being robbed as long as you aren't the one holding the gun to their head.

Way to avoid all my questions. I didn't expect anything less. Thanks.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Way to avoid all my questions. I didn't expect anything less. Thanks.

I answered your question, you asked what makes liberals immoral or amoral, and I gave you the answer. The fact that they believe that as long as they aren't holding the gun their support of immoral behavior is okay.

 

[john.roberts85]

I answered your question, you asked what makes liberals immoral or amoral, and I gave you the answer. The fact that they believe that as long as they aren't holding the gun their support of immoral behavior is okay.

First off, that wasn't my only question, hence why I said "questions". Secondly, that wasn't my question at all. I asked what made these ethicists amoral or unmoral. Those terms aren't synonymous with immoral within ethical theory. I'm really glad that you started in with ad hominem attacks by calling me a piece of shit, because only a fucking idiot would think that amoral and immoral somehow equate.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

This will be fun.

So in your experience the most tyrannical structure in our sociiety, the corporation, is benevolent, huh? Would you mind listing the vast number of benevolent actions undertaken on behalf of corporations? Good luck with that.

Too big to be moral? You do realize that Too Big to Fail (TBTF) and Too Interconnected to Fail (TITF) aren't purely catch phrases used by Obama; they're ingrained in the field of finance and are systemic risk measures. Ever heard of the HHI? Of course not.

The modern field of ethics has virtually nothing to do with a belief in a deity or what not. Your statement suggests that you believe all liberals to be moral skeptics or moral nihilists. Why? What makes Singer and hundreds of other liberal ethicists amoral or unmoral?

If the financial institutions are truly to big too fail then they are too big to exist.

In either case TBTF and TITF have catch-phrases of your flawed theory regarding economic existence.

A monopoly is still a monopoly regardless of whether or not it is interconnected.

Ironically, you are probably the kind of imbecile that would rail against the Zaibatsu of Japan and here you are defending the same kind of interconnected corporations that they had.

Too big too fail, the markets are not static, and nature abhors a vacuum. Their competitors would fill that vacuum.

Oh, and if you're going to pretend to be a Socialist perhaps you should stop supporting corporations, especially those supported by the state. As history would show, after government guaranteed corporations are the most abusive entity out there.

Perhaps you should look at Indian History and determine how well they were treated at the hands of the government controlled monopoly that was the East India Trading Company.

You might have specialized knowledge, but it is so specialized that you KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT NOTHING, and thus are incapable of synthesizing it into an effective model of the real world.

Your Ivory Tower is an Obsidian Prison that has locked your miniscule mind inside of it.

 

[ilkhan]

I have to Agree, If its to big to fail then it probably should fail.
No single private corperation should be in a position of that much power.
Let it fail and three more will pop up to fight over the scraps.
They will be competitive and hungery for your buisness.
That is what we should all want.

 

[medicineman]

I guess most of us bought into the fear and hype that was shoved down our throats over the economic crash, IE if we don't bail out these financial entities, the whole economy will implode, so we bailed them out and it imploded. What happened? I really don't know, but here's a couple of guesses. The big boys grabbed a few million for themselves, stashed it away in a caymen islands account, or swiss, etc. The creeps all recieved their bonuses for destroying the economy and hardly anyone was fired, good job boys, and basically it was back to business as usual, except, the people that need the cash the most, were passed over. Get the fuck out of your house so we can re-sell it seems to be the trend of the day.

 

[CaRNiFReeK]

I think that the benefits that Obama was considering taking from the Veterans had to do with a motion that Gave the VA the ability to charge for medical care against the Veterans personal insurance as a primary, making the VA insurance the secondary. But alas, I have nothing to cite it is just something I remember reading somewhere. My thought is that it is part of the bailout deal that AIG made with the government as a way to generate payback at the expense of the American Veteran. Since I haven't heard much about it, I assume that they are keeping it all hush hush. I'm not a kook, I just don't have enough real facts to go on.