The President is Protecting US, What More Do We Want?

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Is this defamation something that I should be concerned with, or are you just trying to get my goat?
 

pastafarian

Electoral Member
Oct 25, 2005
541
0
16
in the belly of the mouse
One was an extremely Islam fascist state bent on training terrorists to infuriated the west, even after we spared the country from the Soviets. The other was a Stalinist A hole, who didn't seem to care for his people, or his neighbors. He over threw the former government and threatened the security of the area and the balance of power in the area

Both of these conditions were the result of US foreign policy and CIA shenanigans. If the US hadn't been arming and training the Muslim extremists --who wanted to take Afghanistan from the Marxist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, which despite ties to the USSR had instituted a series of progressive decrees, many of which were viewed by conservatives as opposing Islam, including one declaring the equality of the sexes. Land reform was decreed, as was a prohibition on usury-- the Soviets wouldn't have invaded and the Taliban would probably never have been able to gain control of the country. (Thank you Zbigniew Brzezinski).

This history of Saddam's rise to power is similarly tied to US politicking.


The US is like a biker gang that supports extortion and prostitution outsdide their own neighbourhood by buying off the police and arming the local thugs, providing them with protection when they need it and taking their cut. When their local boys get out of hand, they walk into the house of a family who are being shaken down, kill the gangster (and the children with stray bullets), then force the family to pay them 75% of their income as thanks for saving them from criminnals they installed in the first place.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Reverend Blair said:
Is this defamation something that I should be concerned with, or are you just trying to get my goat?

You have a goat?

Even if I said I did have one, you would say it was someone else's.


The question still stands.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
The question still stands.

It does. You never said whether you have a goat or not.

I don't want your goat if do have one though. I'd like a goat or two to keep the mowing down, but it's winter right now so I'd have to buy feed for several months. If I do want a goat, I think I'll wait until spring. I'd also get one locally, not just because shipping live animals is expensive, but because it's important to support local goat farmers.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
"I don't want your goat"

I will take that as an answer to the question. I should be concerned...
 

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
RE: The President is Prot

Rev, you gonna have your goat's horns burned off or let it stay o'natural?

Cause I'd recommend O'natural. Keeps people in line. Great personal protection also. Being that goats are just vegetarian dogs.....

I want a goat...........
 

MMMike

Council Member
Mar 21, 2005
1,410
1
38
Toronto
Lets see your proof Rev that Jay is posting someone elses words. I assume you do have proof? Accusations like that should not be made lightly.
 

pastafarian

Electoral Member
Oct 25, 2005
541
0
16
in the belly of the mouse
We haven't had a 9/11 reoccurance since the crackdown following 9/11.

Reminds me of the old joke (Canadian version coming up):

A couple of Inuit meet out on the tundra, looking for caribou. They decide to hunt together. One notices the the other is always snapping his his fingers, but doesn't comment. Finally, after four days of finger-snapping the first Inuk says to the other, "Why are you always snapping your fingers, it's driving me nuts?" Second one says "I'm scared to death of saber-tooth tigers. It keeps saber-tooth tigers away." First one sighs and rolls his eyes :"There haven't been saber-tooth tigers here for 15,000 years!"
Says the other:"See, it works!"
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: The President is Prot

My evidence is his posting record, MMMike. It's available to everyone. Unless he's suddenly gone to school, he had a lot of help with the post in question.

I'd let the goat keep its horns, Twila.
 

MMMike

Council Member
Mar 21, 2005
1,410
1
38
Toronto
My evidence is his posting record, MMMike. It's available to everyone. Unless he's suddenly gone to school, he had a lot of help with the post in question.

So in other words, you have no proof. Layoff the personal attacks Rev. If you ever do post an intelligent comment, I won't stoop to accusing you of stealing somebody elses opinion. Thats low. If Jay says their his words, thats good enough for me.
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
Well that might good enough for you mike, but we don't have to agree with you on that. The rev simply made a observation and asked a question. As for Jays word, well don't even go there :roll:
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
pastafarian said:
One was an extremely Islam fascist state bent on training terrorists to infuriated the west, even after we spared the country from the Soviets. The other was a Stalinist A hole, who didn't seem to care for his people, or his neighbors. He over threw the former government and threatened the security of the area and the balance of power in the area

Both of these conditions were the result of US foreign policy and CIA shenanigans. If the US hadn't been arming and training the Muslim extremists --who wanted to take Afghanistan from the Marxist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, which despite ties to the USSR had instituted a series of progressive decrees, many of which were viewed by conservatives as opposing Islam, including one declaring the equality of the sexes. Land reform was decreed, as was a prohibition on usury-- the Soviets wouldn't have invaded and the Taliban would probably never have been able to gain control of the country. (Thank you Zbigniew Brzezinski).

This history of Saddam's rise to power is similarly tied to US politicking.

Now that Rev and Peapod are done poking me with a stick….


So we provoked the USSR into their own Vietnam, and now the menace is in its death throws leaving a vacuum in its wake.

Sure it was politicking, but the ends did justify the means in this case. The death of communism through the vehicle of Afghanistan was a brilliant scheme implemented, apparently, without the USSR even suspecting what we were really up to. Also, it saved Europe from USSR’s influence or worse.

Now the vacuum is trying to filled by Islamofascists hell bent on the destruction of the west, its ideals and influence. This, I suppose, isn't necessarily the best of situations, but it can be quelled by destroying the immature networks and governments that support this new movement so it will not find a way to homogenize itself with more, self respecting, facets of Islam.

This conflict is not about oil per say, but about damage control over the death of Soviet communism, and controlling the resources that could fund Islam fascism into being a far greater threat to peace than it already is. AKA, the war on terror. States that want to have some of the recourses we have managed to secure are going to have to play ball in the war on terror.

China knowing this, has decided to try other avenues to get the energy it needs to grow. That's why they are lending credence to Chavez. This might secure a supply of oil and antagonize America all in one shot.

With the Soviets out of the way....
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
MMMike said:
My evidence is his posting record, MMMike. It's available to everyone. Unless he's suddenly gone to school, he had a lot of help with the post in question.

So in other words, you have no proof. Layoff the personal attacks Rev. If you ever do post an intelligent comment, I won't stoop to accusing you of stealing somebody elses opinion. Thats low. If Jay says their his words, thats good enough for me.

Thanks Mike.

It would appear that the Rev is an expert writing style analysts :roll:. You learn something new each day. Thanks again.