Not at all. But I reserve the right to do so.
I wish old eyeball would find someone else to troll and bait. I'm more into hunting and fishing than I am personal protection, but the 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with hunting.
cjhsa wrote:Not at all. But I reserve the right to do so.
And that obviously irritates or frustrates Cyclops ....
Irritated? Frustrated? Hardly! I find the whole situation funny.
You may recall, cjhsa, that we were having a perfectly normal, non-flaming conversation before you showed up with a predictably inflamatory, empty post bashing the Democrats...
I don't have a problem at all with the 2nd amendment, or guns even; just gun nuts such as yourself who think they know something about politics, but should stick to polishing barrels, and apparently hunting and fishing.
Cycloptichorn
OK, since I don't know anything, I'm waiting for eyeball to explain to me what we would be doing in Iraq right now (or Afghanistan, or wherever), if that uberschmuck Kerry had gotten elected.
As far as the title of the thread is concerned, the way to destroy America is to let it become more like Europe. Which is something endorsed by the democrats. Continue.
It's a false question, because it is completely unknowable how events would have taken place differently given different factors. Your hatred and fear of your Democratic Betters aside, there is simply no way to tell where we would be right now (though I suspect more focus would have been spent on catching Osama Bin Laden, our true enemy).
Any first-year philosophy student could explain why such a question is unapplicable...
Cycloptichorn
BTW I have a good friend who is a political science major from Cal Poly, and very left leaning. When we get together, I try to keep the conversation towards food, sports, kids, foraging...anything but politics.
If you happen to get into politics with this guy, the first thing you'll know is that he is the expert on the subject. A few hours later, he will have explained to you how socialism, anarchy, and chaos would be preferable to the existing republic.
Cycloptichorn wrote:It's a false question, because it is completely unknowable how events would have taken place differently given different factors. Your hatred and fear of your Democratic Betters aside, there is simply no way to tell where we would be right now (though I suspect more focus would have been spent on catching Osama Bin Laden, our true enemy).
Any first-year philosophy student could explain why such a question is unapplicable...
Cycloptichorn
Translation: Eyeball, like the dems, doesn't have any clue either.
You have to feel for them, the Republicans, really, they are in a terrible dilemma. They know they need to find the means to defend this country against more terrorist attacks, but finding those means takes money (read that as taxes) and they react to the word taxes like vampires to the word sunshine. Here they are in control of the government of the most powerful nation in the world and what they want to do, or wanted before 9-11, is reduce that government down to a shell of itself so as to not get in the way of the powerful people making money.
Of course, they can't do that now, they need to create some kind of intelligence structure, they need to administer the protection of the vital assets like chemical plants, rail lines and ports, but that means calling up some of their buddies who helped Dick Cheney write the National Energy Policy (now their testimony is officially sealed) and telling them to spend some of their money on security. The silence on the phone must be deafening.
Meanwhile, they are trying to find something else to scare us so we can't tell they are not doing their job. Oo, I know. Let's tell everybody how scary Mexicans are. That way we'll get a National ID card. It won't secure a single chemical tank, won't provide any real measure of security but they can foist the costs off onto the States.
Joe(No talking about domestic terrorists, just activist judges)Nation
