samclemens

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 4, 2006 -> 12:49 AM) Okay, I concede, I don't really like Jews, or Israel. Homosexuals either, but that's beside the point. Blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blaaaaaah. I told you to tell me where I said something anti-Israel rather than anti-War. Either do that, or there's no reason for this to continue. You can call it as you see it all you'd like, but unless you have anything that a reasonable person would consider support of Islamic Facism, you're just looking at pink elephants. Blah, blah blah blah. are we having some trouble admitting hypocrisy? aww, so stubborn. its ok. how about when you quoted that crap study calling israel war criminals, and failed to include the findings on hezbollah? thats one example off the top of my head. yes, blah blah blah. your arguments in this thread have pretty much been shot down, and you should stop insulting people who have a different viewpoint than you. like how you talked to WCsox, there was no reason for that. and to top it off you put him on your ignore list so that you dont have to deal with other points of view. call it constructive criticism. you are going to find everyone confronting you if you argue this way. just try to act a little more mature.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 4, 2006 -> 12:33 AM) You've got a lot of nerve to imply that I am defending Islamic Fascism. Do point me where I did such a thing, because I'm not so simple as to believe that saying, "War with Iran isn't inevitable, let's not go nuts!" is the same as, "I hate Israel," or even, "I'm indifferent to Israel." President Truman's my personal favorite partly because of his courage with Israel, and so to accuse me of supporting "the other side" is bull. Hell, I even said that an attack on Israel would call for American internvention, but the facts don't matter much. Iran is a lock to destroy Israel, the only thing to do is War, and no in-between exists. About the all-caps comments: I was quite clearly satirizing the nature of Republican indignation. Sarcasm on the Internet doesn't have to be green. About the substance: I never said that funding terrorism was okay to begin with. I was merely pointing out the nuance of the issue, the fact that Iran isn't the only one and that its support of terrorist groups does not necessarily call for War. hey, thats really great that you like truman and he happened to support israel. truman's first name was harry, and i like dirty harry movies, and clint eastwood played dirty harry, and clint eastwood knew...kevin bacon. and no, i dont think i have a lot of nerve saying that to you. im only calling it like i see it. in this thread, you have been firmly anti-israel. AND you are a hypocrit, because earlier today you told me not to put words in your mouth, then you did it to me (was that before or after you called me son...). but, in another backtrack, its now been dubbed unmarked sarcasm by you, again after the fact. im being civil here but you are insulting everyone that disagrees with you. when debating, you ought to concentrate more on the content of your argument, and worry less about finding ways to subtly insult people. i cant wait to see your play on my words used in this last sentence in your reply. im sure it will be extra witty and dry-but-not-outright-insulting. and because you are so good, i wont even catch it.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 11:45 PM) Open Letter to WCSox: My response to you regarding the seventeen-year-old crack would get me suspended from SoxTalk, and so I'm simply going to say that I don't feel you add anything worth responding to, I think your points are usually bogus, and I don't particularly care what you have to say, considering. I am officially putting you on my ignore list because I don't like you and never have. Respectfully submitted, -Gregory Pratt I I'm stunned nobody's made a crack about my title ("Brokeback Pratt"), given the maturity level. No, since I don't drink or smoke weed, I haven't picked it up from there. And I never said that it's all right that Iran funds Hezbollah to begin with -- merely that there are mitigating circumstances that change things, one being that Iran isn't the sole sponsor of Hezbollah and that presenting its support of Hezbollah as evidence that we need to go to War with Iran to be foolhardy. But thanks for misrepresenting what I said. Go on, add a, "YOU DON'T WANT ISRAEL TO SUCCEED LOL WHY DON'T YOU SUPPORT THE JEWS!" while you're at it so we can go full circle. see the forest through the trees, pratt. im not implying you smoke weed or drink illegally; it was an example used to illustrate how infantile the line of reasoning was. the last time i honestly heard it was as a sophmore in high school in reference to weed. the argument just blows. you are qualifying your answer after the fact. instead of funding and arming known terrorists being ok, now its a "mitigating circumstance". then, to disguise your retreat, you throw in an all-caps (classy) comment about how i must be accusing you of wanting israel not to succeed. did you not tell me earlier to stop putting words in your mouth [pot calling kettle black]? i support israel in this fight because the other side happens to be terrorists. the same goes for many here, i would imagine. islamic fundamental facism and oppression is a plague to this world. you seem to spend a lot of time defending it.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 06:10 PM) That's not what I said. I'm not buying the notion that by funding Hezbollah Iran is at War with Israel or that it justifies us going to war with Iran or any of the stretch conclusions that can come from that. Sure they fund it, but everyone in the Middle East funds a terrorist group. ahh, the old "everyone else" arguement. since everyone else is funding and supporting terrorism, its ok for iran to? i recall the same argument from high school parties, it went something like this: everyone is drinking and smoking weed, so its alright. is that where you picked up this infinitely wise line of reasoning?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 02:32 PM) I think you're mischaracterizing what I said, but whether it be due to mistake or malice I know not. Hitler could've been checked by balls pre-Appeasement, I said. Where on Earth does that call for more appeasement? I was saying, quite obviously mind you, that Hitler couldn't have been stopped by appeasement, and that there should've been Balls in the approach of the World to him. Don't question my knowledge of history when you can't grasp a simple sentence, and don't put words in my mouth, Tiger. I did not say that WWII was the only necessary War. First: Quite clearly, I was speaking offhand. It wasn't a comprehensive guide to Wars and their Necessity, thanks, although I will say that there's a very good case to be made that WWI and the Civil War were not necessary. But besides, we're getting off the subject. You are asserting that I said that only one war in history was but necessary and I said nothing of the sort. sorry, i did misunderstand the balls sarcasm. my bad on that one. but you dont have to be a jackass. note in my post i called your statement about WW2 "qualified". this means i took into account that you said offhand, and was a extremely gross generalization. so perhaps it was you who was unable to grasp my sentence (but dont worry, the way you worded your insult to me made you sound really smart). that said, you apparently do have a poor recollection of history if the only "necessary" war you can think of offhand is WW2. just because you put the word "offhand" at the beginning of the sentence, that doesnt make it unattackable- it was still a rediculous statement.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 02:32 PM) I think you're mischaracterizing what I said, but whether it be due to mistake or malice I know not. Hitler could've been checked by balls pre-Appeasement, I said. Where on Earth does that call for more appeasement? I was saying, quite obviously mind you, that Hitler couldn't have been stopped by appeasement, and that there should've been Balls in the approach of the World to him. Don't question my knowledge of history when you can't grasp a simple sentence, and don't put words in my mouth, Tiger. I did not say that WWII was the only necessary War. First: Quite clearly, I was speaking offhand. It wasn't a comprehensive guide to Wars and their Necessity, thanks, although I will say that there's a very good case to be made that WWI and the Civil War were not necessary. But besides, we're getting off the subject. You are asserting that I said that only one war in history was but necessary and I said nothing of the sort. sorry, i did misunderstand the balls sarcasm. my bad on that one. but you dont have to be a jackass. note in my post i called your statement about WW2 "qualified". this means i took into account that you said offhand, and was a extremely gross generalization. so perhaps it was you who was unable to grasp my sentence (but dont worry, the way you worded your insult to me made you sound really smart). that said, you apparently do have a poor recollection of history if the only "necessary" war you can think of offhand is WW2. just because you put the word "offhand" at the beginning of the sentence, that doesnt make it unattackable- it was still a rediculous statement.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 02:30 PM) Haaretz paints a very different picture of that raid, just so you know. They suggest that the Israelis went into the hospital, which is actually funded by groups linked to Hezbollah, looking for a leader of that group, not that it was being used as a headquarters of any sort. its really pitiful how you just flat out ignore the questions people present to your arguments and continue to be a terrorist apologist when its convenient. are you even going to respond to any of the responses to your posts? or do you not have an answer, and you concede those points? and please, stop using garbage sources to support pro-terrorist claims.

seriously, how lame is rolling stone to still be talking about this? isnt there some musician who wants to talk about shooting heroin or about how much the president hates black people? that magazine is a fking joke. pop culture garbage.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 01:57 PM) Offhand, the only time in history where a War was absolutely necessary was in Germany, 1939, but that might've been checked by Balls pre-Appeasement. I see some shoddy diplomacy right now, but I don't see any appeasement, and I don't see an inevitable war, thanks. It's possible, but let's not act like the only solution is to blow up the Island. Curtis Lemay says hello! are you contending that adolf hitler could have been appeased by more concessions? theres a reason why neville chamberlin is now considered a poor diplomat. that appeasement was a major factor in encouraging hitler to continue to conquer europe. did you take any history in high school? as to your qualified statement that the only war in human history that was necessary was WWII, how about: - the american war for independence - the american civil war - WW1 - the korean war - the israeli war for independence and those are just off the top of my head. no offense, but step into reality, please!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 01:57 PM) So, you ask what my suggestion is. Yes, I would have suggested something like negotiations and trying to rebuild the Lebanese government. Do I have confidence it will work? Hardly. But I have no confidence at all in the alternative. But here's my question to you; Israel spent 18 years with its army occupying significant chunks of Lebanon, and it couldn't even scratch Hezbollah. So why exactly do you think that more invasions, more troops, and more bombing are going to make any difference now, when it couldn't do so for 2 decades? sorry man, your argument just sucks. hezbollah has made numerous PR statements saying they are not open to a diplomatic solution. why dont you examine the reason WHY israel was occupying the lebanese territory in the first place? let me know what you find once you actually research the basis for your opinion.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 01:36 PM) Ah, so finally I get you guys to start admitting it...you don't think that any of the rules of war should exist. So here's my question to anyone who agrees with him...why exactly do you think Saddam Hussein should be in prison? He was facing possible insurrections that threatened the lives of his army, the people in his regime, and his regime itself. He responded to that with whatever force he had available to him, whether it was collective punishment against large civilian populations, torture, random imprisonments, etc. You guys are sitting here arguing to me that Israel should have the right to do whatever it wants in fighting a campaign against folks you label terrorists, rules of war be damned. So why does that not apply to Hussein? Why did that not apply to Milosevic? are you seriously comparing the state of israel defending itself against terrorist attacks to ethnic cleansing by milosivic and, say, the systematic elimination of northern iraqi kurds? the comparison is so flawed that i wont even address it. your argument is getting rediculous. and for the record, i do not think that there should be no rules of war. i am saying that israel isnt violating them, and hezbollah is.

QUOTE(Pale Hose Jon @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 12:52 PM) God Bless Israel for handing back land that they illegally took. Why i appreciate it every time that a burgler returns items that he has stolen. They deserve great praise. The only reason that Israel gave back gaza was that they had to have 50,000 troops defending 8,000 settlers. The same time that they hand back gaza they increased settlement building in the West Bank. Whic was once again against intenational law. So yes we should totally praise Israel for violating international law and UN security council resolutions. OH Wait... Israel has violated more resolutions than Iraq, I wonder why we havent invaded them? you seem to be very astute on your israeli-arab conflict history. would you mind telling us all what led to the israelis taking the sinai peninsula? what led to them occupying all of the land outside of israel that they have occupied or are occupying? perhaps its because...they were attacked first? oops, i know, its easy to forget what actually caused the sinai occupation.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 12:41 PM) As usual, I immediately get the "It's ok, the other side does it too, and they're evil, so war crimes are ok!" argument. Since I expected this, I have the link handy, here is HRW's critique of Hezbollah's tactics, which they also say are war crimes. Here are HRW's calls to Syria and Iran asking those countries to use their influence to ask Hezbollah to follow the rules of war. im not rationalizing. israel does not target civilians, as opposed to hezbollah. shame on hezbollah for intentionally using lebanese civilians as human sheilds. every single one of the attacks has been at sites that were associated with hezbollah, including the bombing of the UN observers and the one where all the children died. thats tough spiff if hizbollah can dish it out but they cant take it- they have to go, for good. i know you are not so naive as to think that iran and syria are going to do anything to promote peace in the area, or that any kind of diplomatic solution will work with hezbollah. if that is what you are saying, give me a break. bottom line, hezbollah is a TERRORIST organization. israel is justified in destroying hezbollah. hezbollah started this war by crossing the israeli border and kidnapping soldiers. give credit where credit is due. ive yet to see you even admit hezbollah are terrorists. are you mark malloch brown posting in disguise or something?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 12:36 AM) Somehow, I doubt that 1 post at a random blog is going to "seal the Democrats' fate". As always, if you want to , you can find an ungodly amount of stupid bile fired out about anything if you go to the right spot. Sort of disappointing that it showed up at Huffpo, but there's a reason I barely ever visit that site. i wasnt saying that post would seal democrats fate- i was saying lieberman running as an indy might. im just wondering what people think.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 09:54 AM) No surprise at all on what their solution is. Here is something else to add to what Iran has possibly been doing. We all know that there are claims that Iran is supplying Hezbollah, but just how much is Iran involved in? Iran working with N. Korea to develop long range missiles. A note on this link is that it is from a South Korea source. So, I don't know how trustworthy something like that is. i saw that in the news this morning as well. i cant wait until israel kicks some ass.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 12:35 PM) HRW also came out with another interesting 50 page report yesterday taking a look at the Israeli assault and whether or not it was actually complying with the rules of war. They concluded that it clearly was not. Here's bits from their summary, the full report can be found at the link. as compared to the tactics of hezbollah? its not like hezbollah targets civilians or anything...

*yawn*

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 08:24 AM) Uhhh, what? I just think that guns and booze don't mix. And any sheriff who can't see that and orders his deputies to be armed 24/7 regardless of situation or context is pretty dumb. theres two serial killers on the loose in the same town. are you serious?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2006 -> 07:57 PM) Do you have any idea of how many munitions there were floating around Iraq, both in the Iraqi army, and outside the Iraqi army, before the war? The amounts are absolutely staggering. I'll give you a couple examples. In the middle of 2003, some NGO's, like HRW, were wandering around screaming to the coalition forces that there were huge ammo dumps that were going unguarded, not just the ones at Al-Qaqaa that we heard about during the 2004 campaign. HRW told the British about a stockpile of about 20 truckloads near where the British were headquartered. The British responded that they didn't have enough men to secure that area as well. Beyond that, the coalition/Iraqi military has been ungodly careless with its armaments. Here's one article about how 200,000 Kalashnikov's somehow managed to disappear as they were entering Iraq headed for the Iraqi army. The Iraqi army was armed to the teeth with weapons. Those weapons are now almost entirely in the hands of whoever got their hands on them during the looting spree. Literally thousands of tons of explosives, enough weapons to equip an entire army for 20 years, and so on. Do you really think that there are convoys with significant quantities of armaments capable of crossing the Iraqi border today? With multiple car bombs per day? That's a pretty remarkable claim on its face, and it really suggests that the people running that war have absolutely no idea what they're doing. ...and your proposed solution to the situation? thats what i thought.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Aug 2, 2006 -> 08:44 PM) There was this lovely post this morning of HuffPo about Lieberman from a Lamont supporter. It originally contained a lovely picture of Joe in blackface, which has since been removed. A shining example of the civility of some of Ned's most vocal supporters. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher...nt_b_26316.html And this is the picture that was removed. that picture is despicable. hey, if lieberman runs independant, that alone could seal democrats fate. like a ross perot type thing. does anyone see that happening?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 07:27 PM) 34 children die in Israeli Air Strike . Israel will slow down/halt operations in southern lebanon for 48 hours in response. i know this is a very pro-israeli news site, but check out the article in regards to this bombing. if anything, it may spark some discussion: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3283816,00.html#n

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 07:19 PM) Actually Arpaio blows through tons of taxpayer money (lawsuits, having to settle for millions multiple times out of court etc.) so his idea that he is cutting costs is pretty laughable. Not to mention also but the costs (financial, manpower, et al.) are monumental to pay to go after some guy with a bloody nose and some south of the border limpness because he chose to do some blow while watching SNL in the privacy of his own home. Wouldn't police resources be better spent actually stopping real crime rather than John Q. Public lighting up a doob on his back porch? Why should it matter to anybody else if a person decides to use a drug and use it in a responsible fashion without harming anyone else? I'll again forward you the idea of reading "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed" by Judge James Gray (a conservative former Republican who joined the Libertarian party) And taken from the noted socialist, commie loving liberal William F. Buckley, Jr. "Marijuana never kicks down your door in the middle of the night. Marijuana never locks up sick and dying people, does not suppress medical research, does not peek in bedroom windows. Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could." yes, lets legalize drugs, great idea. i've been reading all the posts in this thread and i have noticed that your criticisms of this sherrif have basically been whittled down to that he wastes taxpayer money. and that site you used was nothing but crap. i know a kid who worked at mcdonalds in high school and hated his manager. if that kid makes a web site about how much of a douche his manager is, then it would be "credible" by your standards, apparently. and the kiddie porn...come on man, what, did this guy rape your sister? that was crap too. whats with all these low blows? do you even live in that region of the country? (if you do then you are not completely baseless in those attacks) and thats great that you have some opinion books about how drug laws have failed and our society should just give in and legalize drugs. its not a very complex issue. when you use or possess illegal drugs, you are breaking the law, and everyone in this country knows it. its the same reason that even after prohibition was repealed, all those bootleggers in prison had to still serve out their sentences. its a law; you break it, be prepared to do the time.

First of all, yes, the government in Iraq will support Iran if it was attacked by Israel. The main parties of that government are hugely pro-Iran. Significant parties were housed by Iran, supplied by Iran, and trained by Iran during Saddam's Regime. An Israeli attack on Iran would throw Iraq into even more flames than what we've already seen. Secondly, it's worth noting that the condemnation of Hezbollah upon which you're hanging so much has basically come and gone. i think, here, that you are straght up wrong. iraq will support iran- with words at most. you honestly believe that the pro-american iraqi government is going to support iran militarily?? you know our gov. would never allow that. iraq needs us too much to do something stupid like that. not that iraq has a real military to support anyone with at this point. i agree, with the above posts- turkey, saudi arabia, etc. are not going to join iran militarily. they can sit around and condemn zionism all they want, but to suggest they will do anything more than that when israel and iran war is rediculous. so all iran basically has is syria. ive said this before- it will be interesting to see how many syrian and iranian pre-1990 soviet tanks it will take to take down a single abrams. my guess- at least 10. as for the condemnation, who cares? certainly not israel. the UN is the most worthless org. in the history of mankind, let them condemn anyone and everyone, and watch it make absolutely no difference.

suprise of the decade there

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 07:52 PM) I doubt you would be singing the same song if Syria, Iran, Eygpt, Jordan, and Lebannon all decided to fight back. im hoping they do. not only will the world finally have enough with islamofacism, but we will get to see israel kick some real ass.