TheBigHurt35

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 18, 2005 -> 07:34 PM) You still have yet to explain why its so hard for France to put a terrorist orgainzation on a terrorist group list thusly preventing them from raising money in France which, by the way, was the whole point of this thread. Because liberals like to argue that it's infringing on their "right to be neutral." Turning a blind eye to organizations in your country that fund terrorists is simply veiled support for them.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Feb 18, 2005 -> 07:23 PM) You know, I get tired of debunking posts point by point to prove my intelligence "Intelligence?" :finger (Oh, wait, that might be construed as a "personal attack.") Perhaps this is a better solution... You have chosen to ignore Cerbaho-WG. View this post · Un-ignore Cerbaho-WG

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 18, 2005 -> 07:19 PM) Looking back, Cerb suggested that your insinuating that he thought ignoring Muslim extremists was an ignorant statement. There is a difference between that and a personal attack. On the other hand, Cerb, let's not escalate, eh? Calling me "completely ignorant of the situation at hand" isn't exactly a nice thing to say, either. And if replying by calling someone "Mullet Boy" is considered a "personal attack," I think that we all need to grow some testicles here, boys. QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Feb 18, 2005 -> 07:10 PM) Once again, take a history course and lose the simple minded insults if you want to argue. You just make yourself look like an ultra-conservative, militaristic, ignorant, jingoistic who knows close to nothing. Yeah, Cerb, let's not escalate. :rolly

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 18, 2005 -> 06:56 PM) I said I hadn't gone back over the thread, but what I recalled was that Cerb's attacks merely suggested a component of ignorance on the part of the opposing voices, without direct name calling. On top of Nuke's 'moron' your comment seemed to be piling on - I'd have left it be on it's own (and yes, I realize it was inspired by his avatar). Trying to call me out for making reference to someone's avatar is a real stretch - and, may I add, a seemingly partisan one. It's OK for someone to call another "ignorant," but the other party can't respond by making a benign reference to the other's avatar? That's a bunch of BS. FWIW, I'm not interested in making personal attacks. But I'm not going to allow another to talk down to me, either.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 18, 2005 -> 06:48 PM) Nuke and Hurt, Cerb - like others here - has posted in disagreement with you. I haven't gone back over this thread with a fine-toothed comb, but I didn't see him calling you "Moron", "Mullet Head" or other equivalent. I didn't realize that the term "Mullet Boy" is regarded as a personal attack (check out his avatar), especially after being called "ignorant" several times. Let's have a "fair and balanced" analysis, shall we?

QUOTE(winodj @ Feb 18, 2005 -> 05:18 PM) Yes. He claimed to have won two peabody awards for his work on Inside Edition. I've never heard him claim that, so I can't really respond to the validity of the claim. I'm sure that O'Reilly has made his share of journalistic mistakes and am not under the impression that he's God's gift to mankind. Then again, we also know that CBS completely fabricated a story about Bush to give Kerry the edge in the election and that the New York Times routinely fabricates their poll results with a liberal slant, so those "trusted news sources" are anything but trustworthy. But this thread was about Chirac and I still haven't heard a reasonable justification from you regarding his veiled support for Hezbollah.

QUOTE(winodj @ Feb 18, 2005 -> 06:28 PM) If you knew about Algerian/French history, you'd know that France has been dealing with acts of terrorism for 50+ years now. Hey, it was their decision to invade and occupy those nations. They have to deal with the consequences. But their predicament doesn't justify turning a blind eye towards terrorism.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Feb 18, 2005 -> 04:41 PM) Here's an idea, it's a grand concept, read my entire post. You obviously lack any sort of understanding towards Algieria and more specifically the Battle of Algiers which is heavily influencing the French opinion here. I also never implied that ignoring Muslim extermists would make them go away, What is your obsession with Algeria? Did you just study that in school? I know about Algeria, as well as Morocco, Libya, and Syria. I also know that approximately 4 million Muslims live in France. Are you saying that France's significant Arab population gives them a morally-justified excuse to turn a blind eye torwards terrorism? That's just stupid. Who are you? Charles DeGaulle's ghost? So, they should just adopt France's "appeasement" philosophy and give into the terrorists? Because, hey, once they say "no," terrorist attacks will increase! Brilliant strategy! :rolly It took that horrible massacre in Belsan for Putin to take serious action. And, it's also known that these Chechen rebels are affiliated with al Qaeda (Link). So why were Russia and Spain so adamantly against assisting in the overthrow of Saddam, who has financially sponsored the families of Palestinian suicide bombers? Were they hoping that the Muslim extremists will give them a "pass" when they attempt global domination? QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 18, 2005 -> 05:29 PM) Maybe you should read up on your history smartass. Maybe you'd have read that in 1937 and 1938 Hitler was planning on backing down if the European powers had confronted him and how dumbstruck he was when they sat idly by as he annexed Sudedentland (sp) and then the whole of Czechoslovakia. Maybe then you'd read about Nelville Chamberlain waving the Munich accords over his head saying "War has been averted!" This happened 1 year before Poland was invaded and sacked and 2 years before the bombs started falling on London. Appeasement had a price and that price is more death and violence.......Moron. Good post. Too bad Mullet Boy doesn't understand anything outside of French/Algerian history.

If I were Merck, I'd be looking to bring in a new CEO. Gilmartin was a moron for pulling the drug off of the market in the first place. They could've easily kept it on the market and alerted the doctors and patients of these side effects (which were in only in a very small percentage of patients). And it's not like pulling the drug would've kept them safe from class-action lawsuits. All that could possibly accomplish was a hit to their bottom line and eventual layoffs.

QUOTE(winodj @ Feb 18, 2005 -> 03:00 PM) Bill O'Reilly is an asshat that makes s*** up. Do you have evidence of that, or are you just "making s*** up"? But this isn't about O'Reilly. It's about... Neither do I, as he did the same thing two and a half years ago. So, Chirac continues to allow French organizations to fund terrorist groups, and this is your response? Interesting... Unless you're speaking of a different case, it was Fox News that sued Stuart Smalley, not O'Reilly.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 18, 2005 -> 02:33 PM) It took WW2 for Britain to learn the price of appeasement, I wonder what horrible extreme it's going to take for the French to learn the price of ignoriong the threat posed by terrorists. If Hitler wasn't enough, I don't know what is.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Feb 18, 2005 -> 01:49 PM) Wouldn't this be considered an editorial and therefore not neccesarily supported, but accpeted by foxnews. Besides with the ratings that O'Reilly gets there is no way they ever wouldn't support him. Well, I didn't see a "The opinions of Bill O'Reilly don't necessarily reflect those of Fox News" disclaimer, so they certainly are being represented by Fox News. They could be held legally responsible for what he says. But, if you want to belive that he's not credible, go right ahead. I'll take his opinion over those of flat-our liars like Dan Rather and Mary Mapes any day. I wasn't aware that Canadian Liberals believe in God or know how to fight. They haven't shown much propensity for either lately. :finger No, it's more like immature and tasteless. Have fun with your anti-American blogging. Thankfully, I won't have to read it anymore... You have chosen to ignore KipWellsFan. View this post · Un-ignore KipWellsFan

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Feb 18, 2005 -> 11:51 AM) Also, there have been numerous terrorist attacks in France by Muslims, although minor, and desognating Hezbollah wouldn't help them. So, ignoring Muslim extremists will make them go away? Great strategy, especially for a country that's mostly made up of Christians and Atheists. At the very least, recognizing Hebzollah as a terrorist organization will help stop the flow of their funding from France. The French government needs to take a long, hard look at what's happened recently to other countries who have "turned the other cheek" towards terrorism (Spain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia). That strategy clearly does not work.

QUOTE(winodj @ Feb 18, 2005 -> 11:46 AM) Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points are never considered legitimate news stories. It is a rather poorly written column. If Fox News publishes them on their site, they're representing Fox News. Whatever you think of O'Reilly is a moot point. Fox News supports the story and there is precedent for Chirac's support of Hezbollah. Until someone debunks the claim, it should be considered legitimate.

QUOTE(winodj @ Feb 18, 2005 -> 10:57 AM) Do you have an actual news source for this? Or just Bill O'Reilly. Who Nuke constantly reminds us "is not news." I'm not saying that the dill-hole Chirac didn't say it. I just want a news source I can trust. Actually, the link is to Fox News, who are a legitimate source (despite what some Lefties claim). Although I am surprised that other sources haven't reported it. Then again, the other networks have ignored the Ward Churchill scandal as well. Click on the second link to find the Anti-Defamation League's criticism of Chirac's previous support for Hezbollah.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 04:01 PM) And supposedly Hussein gassed Iraqi Kurds at Halabja in March 1988 during the closing days of the Iran-Iraq war. But it isn't true. In 1990, the U.S. government found that the Kurds died by cyanide gas. It was the Iranians who used cyanide, while the Iraqis used mustard gas. This means it was the Iranians who accidentally killed the Kurds during battle. Hussein had nothing to do with it. (Source: Army War College, Stephen Pelletier & colleague) Oh, really? That sounds more like a theory than reality. I can give you at least one source that cites mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and VX being used at Halabja. And guess who received that chemical weapons technology from the US in the early '80s? I'll give you a hint: It wasn't Iran. And it sounds like your boy Pelletiere went back on his word: So, are Saddam's torture chambers and his part in the Oil-For-Food Scandal all lies from the "neo-cons" as well? :rolly

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 03:02 PM) According to Pentagon logic, they were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name. Funny, I don't recall Americans hijacking planes in Saudi Arabia and intentionally killing 3,000 civilians. So, no, your comparison is way off-base. At least that's how my naturalized friend from Ramallah sees it. He lived through this crap for years (including unwarranted arrests and torture at the hands of the Israeli police), and even he doesn't buy into your "America is evil" crap. He'd laugh at you and call you a "wannabe." I think that a closer comparison to 9/11 would be Saddam's chemical attack on the Kurds in the late '80s.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 01:59 PM) Its just another arbitrary day of crass commercialism and consumerism on which people are supposed to again buy into the mantra of "buying = loving". And no, I'm not a bitter romantic, I'm actually of the mind that romance etc. is based more on being spontaneous, surprising and unique instead of having a prescribed day on which its almost forced to do such things. Telling people you care about them should be any day instead of this one day thing without having to buy s*** to show affection /big fan of homemade dinners, haha And also, since its really a Catholic saint day, shouldn't we more accurately reflect the intentions of the Catholic Church and celebrate it with 8 year old boys? No, you're not bitter at all...

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 02:42 PM) Then our economics professor at the UIUC should be fired as well for calling Muslims "heathens" in a speech given about economics. As you said that's "insulting" and "flat out spitting in the faces" of Muslims. I won't disagree with that. No, there's no difference. This prof was only charged with cocaine possession. He was fired long before his court appearance. What these two incidents have in common is that both professors embarrassed the hell out of their respective universities, Churchill on a national scale. That's reason enough for dismissal from their respective faculty positions. What Churchill essentially said is that people who make a comfortable living are Nazis and that only those in the twin towers who were custodians or food service people were "innocent" (not like the terrorists bothered to differentiate). I understand his point (however wrong it is), but he's pissed off so many people that I just can't see him retaining his job at this point. Given that Colorado taxpayers support his salary, he should be fired.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 01:53 PM) Just because something is insulting, it does not mean that a person should lose their job over it -- especially if the utterance did not take place in their job setting. Saying something that could be construed as insulting and flat-out spitting in the faces of those who lost loved ones on 9/11 are two different things. What he said is beyond controversial... it's nothing short of hateful. There's no room for preaching hate on publically-funded college campuses, where taxpayers are supporting faculty salaries. And whether or not Churchill said what he said on campus or not is a moot point. Professors (even tenured ones) can easily be fired for off-campus behavior that is deemed detrimental to the college/university. I know of a biochemistry professor at a Big Ten school that was fired immediately after he was arrested (off campus) for cocaine possession a couple years ago. They didn't even wait until he had a chance to defend himself in court. Churchill will be dumped from Colorado soon, and rightfully so. He can take his hate speeches to a private school.

Do most of you hate this day? Not really. The only thing that I don't like is paying $50 for flowers that might last a week. Married? Yes, four months Plans? A dozen red roses, a card, a bottle of cabernet, and some sweet lovin'. We'll go out to dinner sometime next week when getting a table won't be such a pain.

Great article. I miss those old Chicago commercials (although Empire Carpet has apparently branched out now). My favorite were the Cellozi-Elltleson Chevrolet commercials. "Where you always save more money!"

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 11:05 AM) Who's to decide what's "lewd" -- and also how can a word be inherently "dirty"? If one asserts that there are "dirty" words then there must be a way to "clean" them up, right? What's "lewd" to one person could be downright hilarious to another person (see the obscenity trials of Lenny Bruce for further information) FWIW, I don't support Lieberman's crusade against the media. But, let me guess: You think it's OK for someone like Ward Churchill to insult the families of the 9/11 victims, right? I'm sorry, but freedom of speech doesn't equate to freedom from responsiblity. And I hope that terrorist-loving asshole Churchill gets fired.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 10:43 AM) Anything that gets Joe "We need to censor bands I don't like" Lieberman out of Congress. He's one of the idiots that thought Marilyn Manson's lyrics were behind the Columbine attacks. He, Clinton and Gore (who Tipper still has by the balls) even toyed around with the idea of setting up an advisory council to preview *live* concerts to make sure that they would not be what they considered "lewd" & if they were, then the band would not get a permit. Any band performing in a venue without an issued permit could be subject to arrest. f*** him. He's a jackbooted little thug. /hates Joe and his Joementum So, should Al Jazeera be allowed to get away with calling Bush a "Zionist" after he names Lieberman to his cabinet? Or would that infringe on their right to free speech? :rolly

Could someone copy and past the article here (I don't feel like signing up for the Washington Post's website).