O/U: how many times

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I wish the following states(and portions of states) would unite to form their own conservative country of "NASCARTONIA." Just let them go(like that Iglesias guy finally did with that mole he had.)Gotta be a way to make that happen.

TEXAS,OKLAHOMA,ARKANSAS,LOUISIANA,MISSISS.,BAMA,.. ......both Carolinas,Georgia,Tenn.,and Northern Florida.

you are aware, aren't you, that arkansas traditionally votes democrat? we have a dem gov, and two dem senators.
huck(who i do NOT care for) was a very liberal minded republican, which is how he got in office.
boy, you know all about that 'uniting' yoursel, with all of your broad generalizations...coming from a guy living in a state with ahnold as gov. what a hoot.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Danzig

huck(who i do NOT care for) was a very liberal minded republican, which is how he got in office.

He's a social conservative and is otherwise a populist.

Populisim and what goes for conservatisim these days really don't mix well - so while Huck is far from conservative outside of most social issues - he's not exactly anything too close to what goes for "liberal minded" these days either.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

He said that the US is partially to blame for 9/11 because of our foreign policy. I nearly fell out of my chair.

If you read the full version of bin Laden's '96 Fatwa - which I believe was titled something like 'Declaration of War against the Americans for occupying the land of the two holy places' - it becomes painfully obvious that the entire basis for declaring war by bin Laden's network was because of the United States foreign policy. His case was built around that and only that.

The Fatwa was very widely circulated - in fact, it was something I had read long before 9/11. I was in high school at the time, and my sociology teacher (who had recently retired from the US Military) had something of a bin Laden obsession. He was convinced that the guy was no joke - and was something of a calculating political genius who was probably capable of low tech, high concept attacks, designed to bait or trap.

I remember on the old AOL horse board before 9/11 - I'd like to mix in a few Osama bin Laden references, jokes, and just drop his name into my posts - mostly because almost everyone there had no idea who the hell I was talking about. There are a few who post here now who remember those old gems of mine from way back in the day.

I don't blame Ron Paul at all for saying what almost made you fall out of your chair. Why, exactly, did we need our military stationed in other lands? Just because the governments there are friendly and the people are fanatical?

Our foreign policy has long been a joke - we ought to focus on our own peace and prosperity instead of trying to get involved in everyone elses business. Giving huge handouts and aid away to those governments who want to be our pals (even if said gov is evil or corrupt) - and rattling cages of all governments who don't want to be our pals.

I think Paul's point was that if we focused on just our own peace and prosperity - and not tried to be the policeman of the entire world, getting involved in everyones business - there would have been no 9/11, no Iraq war, and the Al Qadia network would have either been a non-entity or an entity who ultimately would have declared war against an Arab government. We are fighting everyone elses battles.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

If you read the full version of bin Laden's '96 Fatwa - which I believe was titled something like 'Declaration of War against the Americans for occupying the land of the two holy places' - it becomes painfully obvious that the entire basis for declaring war by bin Laden's network was because of the United States foreign policy. His case was built around that and only that.

The Fatwa was very widely circulated - in fact, it was something I had read long before 9/11. I was in high school at the time, and my sociology teacher (who had recently retired from the US Military) had something of a bin Laden obsession. He was convinced that the guy was no joke - and was something of a calculating political genius who was probably capable of low tech, high concept attacks, designed to bait or trap.

I remember on the old AOL horse board before 9/11 - I'd like to mix in a few Osama bin Laden references, jokes, and just drop his name into my posts - mostly because almost everyone there had no idea who the hell I was talking about. There are a few who post here now who remember those old gems of mine from way back in the day.

I don't blame Ron Paul at all for saying what almost made you fall out of your chair. Why, exactly, did we need our military stationed in other lands? Just because the governments there are friendly and the people are fanatical?

Our foreign policy has long been a joke - we ought to focus on our own peace and prosperity instead of trying to get involved in everyone elses business. Giving huge handouts and aid away to those governments who want to be our pals (even if said gov is evil or corrupt) - and rattling cages of all governments who don't want to be our pals.

I think Paul's point was that if we focused on just our own peace and prosperity - and not tried to be the policeman of the entire world, getting involved in everyones business - there would have been no 9/11, no Iraq war, and the Al Qadia network would have either been a non-entity or an entity who ultimately would have declared war against an Arab government. We are fighting everyone elses battles.

Al Qadea was originally formed back in the 1980s to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Once they reached their goal, they didn't disband and retire. These guys are terrorists. They are cold-blooded killers and that's what they will always be. Our behavior was not responsible for 9/11. They will kill anyone that they can't control. How do you explain them putting bombs in shopping malls in Iraq? Did the shoppers at the malls do something bad to Al Qadea? There is no justification for Al Qadea's behavior. To think that most of their terrorist behavior is rational and justified is crazy. Al Qadea wants to control people through intimidation. Let's just suppose that they got everything that they claim that they want. Let's say that we left the Middle East. Let's say that Al Qadea overthrew the government in both Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Do you think they would be satisfied at that point? Do you think that Bin Laden would retire and become a family man? Of course not. He would set his sights on something else. They would start killing all the Muslims who don't practice the same brand of Islam as Al Qadea. They are already doing this right now in Iraq. They would probably try to overthrow some of the European governments through acts of terror.

I think it is a huge mistake to think that Al Qadea is a totally rational group with limited goals. It is also a huge mistake to think that most of the victims that are murdered by Al Qadea, are partially responsible because of their behavior. The truth of the matter is that they will murder anyone that does not practice their brand of Islam. Just sitting back and minding your own business, will in no way mean that Al Qadea will leave you alone.

Being an isolationist country would by no means guarantee our safety. I think we learned that lesson in World War II. I'm not saying that we shouldn't reevaluate our foreing aid and foreign policy, but I think it would be naive and shortsighted to think that we would be safer and that the world would be a safer place if we simply became an isolationist country. Quite to the contary, I think there could be some devastating consequences.

If a country is an active player on the world stage, they are not going to make everybody happy. You will certanly make some enemies. You just have to live with that because the alternative of being an isolationist country is not a viable alternative.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Being an isolationist country would by no means guarantee our safety. I think we learned that lesson in World War II. I'm not saying that we shouldn't reevaluate our foreing aid and foreign policy, but I think it would be naive and shortsighted to think that we would be safer and that the world would be a safer place if we simply became an isolationist country. Quite to the contary, I think there could be some devastating consequences.

If a country is an active player on the world stage, they are not going to make everybody happy. You will certanly make some enemies. You just have to live with that because the alternative of being an isolationist country is not a viable alternative.

I wanted to type something very much like
the above concerning foreign affairs.

We also must remember the tremendous number
of groups in this country that go out purely for
humanitarian reasons with no poliltical agenda.

Doctors without borders, and a number of religious
groups that make it illegal to "spread the word of
God" while doing charity work abroad. There are so
many groups in this country with nothing but good
intentions for starving and disease ridden areas outside
our country. You just dont hear about them. But I know
some of these Doctors and others of good will that make
these journeys into very tough situations.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think it is a huge mistake to think that Al Qadea is a totally rational group with limited goals.

Of course they don't have limited goals - and there leadership is obviously very rational and competent when it comes to fighting the way they have since they openly declared war on us.

The top two guys in their orginization have done a masterful job of outmaneuvering us and trapping us all along.

If they really anticipated that by executing the 9/11 attacks, they could bait our government into an invasion of both Afghanistan in Iraq - with Iraq being the primary focus - I think that must have been like hitting an inside straight and showing unthinkable tactical brilliance.

I remember in the days after 9/11 when an overwhelming amount of people swore bin Laden would be captured and Al Qadea would be dismantled within just weeks. They would argue because they wildly underestimated bin Laden.

It goes without saying that you must make an ALL OUT effort to try and capture or kill bin Laden and Al-Zhuari.

Without Al Qadea - there are simply no such networks that are any threat to us. Anyone who believes there are also probably believes in the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Santa.

There are Al Qadea who have moved into Iraq and blended in since Suddam's government fell - these Al Qadea that are in Iraq now are the sh!t eating, low-IQ, crazed extremist recruits. They are there to cautiously raise hell - and they are most of all planted there to keep us in Iraq for as long as possible.

If we leave Iraq - you will see a spastic amount of violence from this group, they will also declare victory over us - but that would be the single biggest blow to Al Qadea's ultimate goal.

You need not even know who they are what they are about - if you simply just read what bin Laden wrote in his declaration of War against us - you will know that Al Qadea desperately wants us and needs us in Iraq.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Of course they don't have limited goals - and there leadership is obviously very rational and competent when it comes to fighting the way they have since they openly declared war on us.

The top two guys in their orginization have done a masterful job of outmaneuvering us and trapping us all along.

If they really anticipated that by executing the 9/11 attacks, they could bait our government into an invasion of both Afghanistan in Iraq - with Iraq being the primary focus - I think that must have been like hitting an inside straight and showing unthinkable tactical brilliance.

I remember in the days after 9/11 when an overwhelming amount of people swore bin Laden would be captured and Al Qadea would be dismantled within just weeks. They would argue because they wildly underestimated bin Laden.

It goes without saying that you must make an ALL OUT effort to try and capture or kill bin Laden and Al-Zhuari.

Without Al Qadea - there are simply no such networks that are any threat to us. Anyone who believes there are also probably believes in the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Santa.

There are Al Qadea who have moved into Iraq and blended in since Suddam's government fell - these Al Qadea that are in Iraq now are the sh!t eating, low-IQ, crazed extremist recruits. They are there to cautiously raise hell - and they are most of all planted there to keep us in Iraq for as long as possible.

If we leave Iraq - you will see a spastic amount of violence from this group, they will also declare victory over us - but that would be the single biggest blow to Al Qadea's ultimate goal.

You need not even know who they are what they are about - if you simply just read what bin Laden wrote in his declaration of War against us - you will know that Al Qadea desperately wants us and needs us in Iraq.

I don't know how you can debate effectively with someone when they choose to ignore the facts and take everything our government says as the truth. Here is alot of evidence to prove that you are right and to show how completely ridiculous our current foreign policy. I already posted a link to the origins on Al-Qaeda in another post to support the argument that we (mostly you) are making because I don't think the other messages got through. At the end are videos that I think every American should watch. WAKE UP AMERICA, and start thinking!

You are right. Osama bin Laden is a very soft-spoken man. Also, we have been engaged in more wars since we have established our intervention foreign policy than we ever did when we had the non-intervention foreign policy. In addition, the Pearl Harbor argument is weak because our intervention-based foreign policy obviously didn't stop 9/11 from occurring. On the contrary...

bin Laden on why he attacked the U.S. The correct translation that the government doesn't want you to see...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dls5JTD-uG0

Here is something that the U.S. government would have never let you seen on TV. Thank you youtube. Benazir Bhutta saying that Osama bin Laden was murdered in Pakistan just before she was assassinated. Notice how the reporter in England doesn't question her on what she said. Does the rest of the world know something that Americans don't?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg

And here is the Wikipedia article on our joke of a foreign policy called PNAC which calls for a NWO. Notice that Bill Kristol is the founder. Yes, that is Bill Kristol from Fox News. Whoever doesn't think that the government has control of the media is living in a fantasy world. Notice how it would be very easy for our civil liberties to be infringed upon based on this foreign policy, not to even mention trying the fact that it does really sound like the government is trying to rule the world based on this document. Also, notice very carefully that PNAC "couldn't have been accomplished in a short amount of time unless a new Pearl Harbor occurred". A new study finds that at 60% of Americans find that the government was at least negligent throughout 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project...erican_Century

And people have the audacity to wonder why Ron Paul does have quite a few supporters. He is the the only one in the GOP race that has any damn sense concerning foreign policy.

Here is some other evidence to think about concerning 9/11. The Japanese Parliament on January 10, 2008 stated that 9/11 was definitely allowed to occur or an inside job. They present stock trading evidence to support this claim, in addition to tons of other evidence. Yet, why weren't we told of this? Shouldn't this story about the Japanese Parliament's testimonies be circulating in the MSM? Just throwing it out there as it is something to think about.... I haven't come to a final conclusion on these findings yet.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=A43IxJcFJEw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t-dZiNE9NI&NR=1

You can find all of the other videos of this discussion made by the Japanese Parliament on youtube.

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

And people have the audacity to wonder why Ron Paul does have quite a few supporters. He is the the only one in the GOP race that has any damn sense concerning foreign policy.

This man is one of the biggest racists
in Texas. Jeez Louise... Take a look at
his past. He has quite a few supporters
because he SAYS some things that make
sense. But actions say otherwise.

Take a look and find out what this
man said about pickpocketing in
DC. You just dont take what a man
says right now and forget everything else.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

You can find all of the other videos of this discussion made by the Japanese Parliament on youtube.

The world is in trouble when our college students are extensively quoting and using as a basis of fact youtube videos and Wikipedia. You do understand that Youtube and Wikipedia are not exactly credibile sources of information and are full of hidden agendas? I understand that you obviously are a typical university liberal who simply see what you want to see and is enamored into thinking that your intellect is so far superior to "mainstream" America that you have disdain for it. So Bin Laden's version is the "truth" and a Japanese politician who doesnt even understand puts and calls is credibile but our govt is corrupt? The reason that David Frost didnt respond to Bhutto's assertions that Bin Laden was murdered wasnt some vast western coverup but engaging her on it reduces her credibility and makes her look like a fool. Kind of like you.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you are aware, aren't you, that arkansas traditionally votes democrat? we have a dem gov, and two dem senators.
huck(who i do NOT care for) was a very liberal minded republican, which is how he got in office.
boy, you know all about that 'uniting' yoursel, with all of your broad generalizations...coming from a guy living in a state with ahnold as gov. what a hoot.

John Daly's home state...Walmart headquarters.....People in the main University in the state wear pig attire,and make pig sounds.Also,I don't want a jagged northern horizontal border for this Redneck dominated Republic of NASCARTONIA!!!!!!!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

John Daly's home state...Walmart headquarters.....People in the main University in the state wear pig attire,and make pig sounds.Also,I don't want a jagged northern horizontal border for this Redneck dominated Republic of NASCARTONIA!!!!!!!

so....how many nascar races held in california now?

i just don't agree with people who make generalizations about whole groups of people. that would be like me saying all californians think they're smarter and better than the rest of the country based on reading your posts.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so....how many nascar races held in california now?

i just don't agree with people who make generalizations about whole groups of people. that would be like me saying all californians think they're smarter and better than the rest of the country based on reading your posts.

Too many.When you got this many millions of people,your gunna fill some seats.It's in an area called the Inland Empire.It's inland,but it's a lesser area.Smoking rate has to be huge out there.I don't particularly appreciate the fact that the necks out number you there,either.Fact is it's winner take all in the Presidential race,and that means you have no say.It's Hee Haw all the way,and until they change it,you're always be dominated by the HEE HAW social conservatives there.The only way to get reasonable people's votes to count is to add up every American's vote.The Hee Haw politicians will never vote for that change...........PGRDN,Texas gunna be a red state until Jesus comes back....Cannon,I got a dog smarter than GEEDUBBYA.She cries (as if in pain) if a person or another dog beats her to the top of the stairs.Bitch is still smarter than that fool.

[pdrift1]

my question is how much will the pres election be effected by non minority white males refuseing to vote for a black man or a woman come hell or high water?

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by pdrift1

my question is how much will the pres election be effected by non minority white males refuseing to vote for a black man or a woman come hell or high water?

My refusal to vote for Obama and Hillary has nothing to do with color or gender. My question is how many centuries will need to go by before the race issue quits being brought into EVERYTHING?

[pdrift1]

[quote=Cajungator26]My refusal to vote for Obama and Hillary has nothing to do with color or gender. My question is how many centuries will need to go by before the race issue quits being brought into EVERYTHING?[/QUOTE

cause if you don't believe it exists your kidding yourself

[Mortimer]

Brother.

Talk about your unfriendly types.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Mortimer

Brother.

Talk about your unfriendly types.

I got tired trying to solve my mobius strip. Sorry.

[Rupert Pupkin]

To clarify my last post, I should have used the term non-interventionism. That was what I meant. I did not mean isolationism.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you are aware, aren't you, that arkansas traditionally votes democrat? we have a dem gov, and two dem senators.
huck(who i do NOT care for) was a very liberal minded republican, which is how he got in office.
boy, you know all about that 'uniting' yoursel, with all of your broad generalizations...coming from a guy living in a state with ahnold as gov. what a hoot.

You're not gunna tell me that the majority of people in these states would be against forming the Redneck Empire...Are you? I'm not suggesting anything that's not mutually desired here..right? Don't you think the majority in OKLA.,TEX.,LOUIS., ARK., TENN.,MISSISS.,BAMA,GEORGIA, BOTH CAROLINAS,AND NORTHERN FLORIDA would vote to do this? I'm just saying that since Presidential elections in these states are majority rules,and they do tend to vote together as a block(a chunk of cinderblock,) then it would make a nice "country collection." I think it would be a popular choice on a ballot(if they had a vote to do it.) Like Earl Woods once said, "Dream Hi."

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

You're not gunna tell me that the majority of people in these states would be against forming the Redneck Empire...Are you? I'm not suggesting anything that's not mutually desired here..right? Don't you think the majority in OKLA.,TEX.,LOUIS., ARK., TENN.,MISSISS.,BAMA,GEORGIA, BOTH CAROLINAS,AND NORTHERN FLORIDA would vote to do this? I'm just saying that since Presidential elections in these states are majority rules,and they do tend to vote together as a block(a chunk of cinderblock,) then it would make a nice "country collection." I think it would be a popular choice on a ballot(if they had a vote to do it.) Like Earl Woods once said, "Dream Hi."

Scuds.
Texas is nowhere near a part of the deep south.
Texas was barely getting started as a state at the time
of the Civil War. Texas also has a very large Democratic
population in the Hispanic vote. Texas will in the not to
distance future, elect a democratic Senator again, a democratic
governor again, and vote democratic in most of the House.
All that would have to happen for Texas to have a big
say in the democratic party would be for the Hispanic population
to actually get out and vote.
You got this state very messed up.