TRANSMISSIONS FROM ARIZONA

[AFK]

Blasphemer!  Support Our Troops, who I now call the Centurions for obvious reasons.  Vote for me or Die!!!!!!


Not the puppy-hurlers though, we still have to have standards. 

[Pope Lecherous]

Alright, let's do the contradiction game.  You propose that a country has the right to attack other nations in order to maintain it's power and standard of living, with no other justification.

I then propose that under that idea, the terrorists have a right to blow us up in order to preserve *their* way of life, with no other justification than that it helps them.

There is no contradiction here.  All countries have the right to be powerful and independent nations.  It's a biological imperative to survive and enhance your own probability of surviving.  The right to self defense is always in place.  Attacking others is a result of them attempting to reduce the probability of our survival and prosperity as a nation.  It's a struggle to live and a struggle to live fat and happy.  If someone would take that away they can die, because i WILL defend myself.  If someone cuts my hand off, my life may or may not have been in danger, but my probability of survival in the long term has been decreased.

There are terrorist organizations all over the world that have no conflicts with America or our allies, and are therefore free to grow and expand as long as they don't attack us or our allies.  If they wanted to live they shouldnt have attacked us.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Alright, let's do the contradiction game.  You propose that a country has the right to attack other nations in order to maintain it's power and standard of living, with no other justification.

I then propose that under that idea, the terrorists have a right to blow us up in order to preserve *their* way of life, with no other justification than that it helps them.

There is no contradiction here.  All countries have the right to be powerful and independent nations.  It's a biological imperative to survive and enhance your own probability of surviving.  The right to self defense is always in place.  Attacking others is a result of them attempting to reduce the probability of our survival and prosperity as a nation.  It's a struggle to live and a struggle to live fat and happy.  If someone would take that away they can die, because i WILL defend myself.  If someone cuts my hand off, my life may or may not have been in danger, but my probability of survival in the long term has been decreased.

There are terrorist organizations all over the world that have no conflicts with America or our allies, and are therefore free to grow and expand as long as they don't attack us or our allies.  If they wanted to live they shouldnt have attacked us.

So ummm, what did Iraq do that threatened our standing as a nation?

[Payne]

Alright, let's do the contradiction game.  You propose that a country has the right to attack other nations in order to maintain it's power and standard of living, with no other justification.

I then propose that under that idea, the terrorists have a right to blow us up in order to preserve *their* way of life, with no other justification than that it helps them.

There is no contradiction here.  All countries have the right to be powerful and independent nations.  It's a biological imperative to survive and enhance your own probability of surviving.  The right to self defense is always in place.  Attacking others is a result of them attempting to reduce the probability of our survival and prosperity as a nation.  It's a struggle to live and a struggle to live fat and happy.  If someone would take that away they can die, because i WILL defend myself.  If someone cuts my hand off, my life may or may not have been in danger, but my probability of survival in the long term has been decreased.

There are terrorist organizations all over the world that have no conflicts with America or our allies, and are therefore free to grow and expand as long as they don't attack us or our allies.  If they wanted to live they shouldnt have attacked us.

So ummm, what did Iraq do that threatened our standing as a nation?

Only GWBush knows. Thats why we can't just condemn him out of hand. Or something.

I forget exactly where this stopped sounding like some kind of troll to everyone, and ya'll started taking PL seriously.

[Requia ☣]

Alright, let's do the contradiction game.  You propose that a country has the right to attack other nations in order to maintain it's power and standard of living, with no other justification.

I then propose that under that idea, the terrorists have a right to blow us up in order to preserve *their* way of life, with no other justification than that it helps them.

There is no contradiction here.  All countries have the right to be powerful and independent nations.  It's a biological imperative to survive and enhance your own probability of surviving.  The right to self defense is always in place.  Attacking others is a result of them attempting to reduce the probability of our survival and prosperity as a nation.  It's a struggle to live and a struggle to live fat and happy.  If someone would take that away they can die, because i WILL defend myself.  If someone cuts my hand off, my life may or may not have been in danger, but my probability of survival in the long term has been decreased.

There are terrorist organizations all over the world that have no conflicts with America or our allies, and are therefore free to grow and expand as long as they don't attack us or our allies.  If they wanted to live they shouldnt have attacked us.

You win points here, you may be a fascist, but at least you're intellectually honest.

[Nast]

Showing people that they have contradicted themselves is far easier than telling someone they are wrong.  For example, i told Pope Naughty Nasturtiums that he was wrong about something and he doesn't believe me.  When he responds, i will make him contradict himself since he refuses to believe me. In this case, i can do it nicely and without antagonizing.  Hopefully others will realize also, that they value things higher than human life... whatever it may be.

All right, have it at me.

[Jasper]

He still hasn't named anything he values more than life.  Plz to be providing examples. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

There are terrorist organizations all over the world that have no conflicts with America or our allies, and are therefore free to grow and expand as long as they don't attack us or our allies.  If they wanted to live they shouldnt have attacked us.

This is a dumb troll now that everyone knows Iraq didnt attack or threaten us in any way. Right now all we have to go on is the "But Saddam was a bad man!" pretense.

[Nast]

But him being a bad man threatens my way of life! 
And the only way to solve it is through unchecked, no questions-ask killing! So that you won't have to do the same.

Plus he threatens our way of life!

And it's the government's fault anyway, so blame them.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Suppose GW is doing the right thing, to save America in the long run.  I DONT KNOW AND NEITHER DO YOU. 

The ends do not justify the means.

That is all.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I am not one who cares about politics and that is what determines if the military gets employed correctly or incorrectly, justly or injustly. 

So you have no moral sense.

In this case, the military is being used correctly... as a tool to preserve American power. 

That is not the correct function of the military.  Please review your oath of service, and then punch yourself in the balls.

As for talking shit about tgrr, i did that out of spite to demonstrate something he brings to the site that is destructive,

Oh, crap.  There goes another irony meter.   

I made many assumptions about Roger that were baseless.

Yes.  Your first one was that your opinion would count, rather than simply attracting the ridicule you so richly deserve.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

There are terrorist organizations all over the world that have no conflicts with America or our allies, and are therefore free to grow and expand as long as they don't attack us or our allies.  If they wanted to live they shouldnt have attacked us.

So, exactly when did Iraq attack us?

[Cain]

There are terrorist organizations all over the world that have no conflicts with America or our allies, and are therefore free to grow and expand as long as they don't attack us or our allies.  If they wanted to live they shouldnt have attacked us.

So, exactly when did Iraq attack us?

Well, according to a Pentagon report to be released....today I think, maybe tomorrow, whatever...never is the answer.  This is an "exhaustive analysis" of documents seized from Hussein era of leadership, over 300,000 of them, which show Saddam supported terrorists that targeted Shi'ite dissidents, Kurds and exile groups such as that headed by Ahmed Chalabi, in which case killing them probably would have been a favour for the USA.  At least then the Pentagon wouldn't have paid Chalabi $400,000 a year to listen to him tell lies invented by his other paymasters in Tehran, lies that ended up giving Iranian hegemony to the region at the cost of none of their soldiers, and about 4000 US ones.

It also showed no operational links with Al-Qai'da.  I am shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU!

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

There are terrorist organizations all over the world that have no conflicts with America or our allies, and are therefore free to grow and expand as long as they don't attack us or our allies.  If they wanted to live they shouldnt have attacked us.

So, exactly when did Iraq attack us?

Well, according to a Pentagon report to be released....today I think, maybe tomorrow, whatever...never is the answer.  This is an "exhaustive analysis" of documents seized from Hussein era of leadership, over 300,000 of them, which show Saddam supported terrorists that targeted Shi'ite dissidents, Kurds and exile groups such as that headed by Ahmed Chalabi, in which case killing them probably would have been a favour for the USA.  At least then the Pentagon wouldn't have paid Chalabi $400,000 a year to listen to him tell lies invented by his other paymasters in Tehran, lies that ended up giving Iranian hegemony to the region at the cost of none of their soldiers, and about 4000 US ones.

It also showed no operational links with Al-Qai'da.  I am shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU!

Its all Liberal Lies!!!!! What next?  Are you gonna tell us that there is no proof for WMD's in all that documentation?

[LMNO]

Iraq attacked us a shortly after we invaded them.

So obviously, we had to defend ourselves.



LMNO
-running for office in 2012.