T1B

Interesting shit JSC thanks. But I think the U.S. military wins wars. The U.S. public at large, loses them.

Americans win wars because we learn from loss — this is a no brainer, but there have been, and are today, cultures that find shame and dishonor in admitting a mistake, and thus can’t fix it.

This ring a bell? Class? Bueller? Anyone?

US wins wars... link?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Americans win wars because we learn from loss — this is a no brainer, but there have been, and are today, cultures that find shame and dishonor in admitting a mistake, and thus can’t fix it.

This ring a bell? Class? Bueller? Anyone?

Yes it does. So why don't you finally come clean.

Tom In VA wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Americans win wars because we learn from loss — this is a no brainer, but there have been, and are today, cultures that find shame and dishonor in admitting a mistake, and thus can’t fix it.

This ring a bell? Class? Bueller? Anyone?

Yes it does. So why don't you finally come clean.

Oh, I've made plenty of mistakes in my life, but none of them have killed anyone. I'm referring to the current Administration, in case you didn't get it. Remember W saying that he hadn't made any mistakes during the 2004 debates?

Well, that makes two of us.

sin,
Willie Horton

Admitting a mistake might be a good start. He has yet to do that.

Bizzarofelice wrote:US wins wars... link?

Your wit kills me.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: This ring a bell? Class? Bueller? Anyone?

Yes it does. So why don't you finally come clean.

Oh, I've made plenty of mistakes in my life, but none of them have killed anyone. I'm referring to the current Administration, in case you didn't get it. Remember W saying that he hadn't made any mistakes during the 2004 debates?

Well how about that fuck off Wilson. "War to End All Wars" boy what a gaffe he made.

Or has been stated here before Huertgen Forest, or Market Garden to end WWII by Christmas.

The fact is, you want Bush up there ala Jimmy Swaggert in front of not only the country but the entire world, wringing his hands saying "I made mistakes". No it doesn't work that way. It's his team, they review their mistakes and they make "in-game" adjustments.

So really spare me your attempt at appearing "objective" and just wanting some sort of "non-partisan" soulful "healing" session.

Men have died in service to our country throughout ALL administrations.

More people were murdered in the U.S. last year, than died in Iraq anyway.

Tom In VA wrote:More people were murdered in the U.S. last year, than died in Iraq anyway.

More people were murdered in the US last year than have been killed by every terrorist group on earth in the last 20 years.

Yet we are putting billions of dollars and thousands of lives on the line in Iraq, which never had a damn thing to do with 9-11 to begin with.

I'd say that's a collosal fuck up.

More people were murdered in the U.S. last year, than died in Iraq anyway.

You're talking about Americans murdered in Iraq, right? Yes, that would be correct.

Not that we should seek to portray that number as acceptable, in some shape or form. There is no acceptably low number of Americans dead in Iraq.

BSmack wrote:Yet we are putting billions of dollars and thousands of lives on the line in Iraq, which never had a damn thing to do with 9-11 to begin with.

I'd say that's a collosal fuck up.

No the collossal fuck up came years prior to 9-11 that allowed 9-11 to be, 9-11.

This President, just as all those before him, had to make tough decisions, decisions based on the best interests of the country whose Constitution he is sworn to uphold. If you think any more or less than that is going on, than you are sorely mistaken and according to Terry .....

You should just admit rather than stew in your own culture that finds shame and dishonor in admitting a mistake, and thus can’t fix it.

Tom In VA wrote:The fact is, you want Bush up there ala Jimmy Swaggert in front of not only the country but the entire world, wringing his hands saying "I made mistakes".

No. But he was asked point-blank about his biggest mistake and he denied ever having made any. That doesn't strike you as hubristic? Certainly it does me. And even more certain is the fact that that statement has absolutely no credibility whatsoever, except perhaps for the right-wing dittosheep who hang on his every word.

No it doesn't work that way. It's his team, they review their mistakes and they make "in-game" adjustments.

From everything I've heard and read, there are plenty of generals who would beg to differ with you on that point.

More people were murdered in the U.S. last year, than died in Iraq anyway.

Nice try at a red herring.

PSUFAN wrote:

More people were murdered in the U.S. last year, than died in Iraq anyway.

You're talking about Americans murdered in Iraq, right? Yes, that would be correct.

Not that we should seek to portray that number as acceptable, in some shape or form. There is no acceptably low number of Americans dead in Iraq.

No I am not talking about your standard double speak and twisting of words. More Americans died on American soil than Americans in Iraq.

As for "acceptably low", the military does forecast potential casualties prior to an operation. It's all a part of the business they are in and they are far less squeamish and wobbly kneed than the people they have sworn to defend.

mvscal wrote:I said at the beginning this was a five year operation.

Thank God and god that rear admiral mvscal is on duty. Elsewise we'd all be wearing turbans and checking our ghusls for validity by now.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:No. But he was asked point-blank about his biggest mistake and he denied ever having made any. That doesn't strike you as hubristic? Certainly it does me.

We aren't privy to "behind the scenes". His denial didn't strike me as "hubristic" it struck me as self preservation. He's no dummy he knows there are jackals internal and more importantly external just waiting to pounce on him.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: From everything I've heard and read, there are plenty of generals who would beg to differ with you on that point.

They wouldn't need to beg to differ because I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground as it relates to strategy and tactics in Iraq. How about YOU admit the same ? The problem is, they "beg to differ" with their peers, people who do know about strategy and tactics. Of course, as per usual, we don't get the FULL picture. The appearance is of ignored brass. Nobody has mentioned the possibility AND probability this brass was refuted by their peers.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Nice try at a red herring.

Meets the minimum specs for a keeper.

Tom In VA wrote:No the collossal fuck up came years prior to 9-11 that allowed 9-11 to be, 9-11.

This President, just as all those before him, had to make tough decisions, decisions based on the best interests of the country whose Constitution he is sworn to uphold. If you think any more or less than that is going on, than you are sorely mistaken and according to Terry .....

You should just admit rather than stew in your own culture that finds shame and dishonor in admitting a mistake, and thus can’t fix it.

Over 60,000 Americans have been murdered since 9-11. Yet we're pouring billions of dollars and a thousands of casualties into making Iraq a fucking mideast paradise.

Sounds logical to me.

mvscal wrote:I said at the beginning this was a five year operation.

Now, if only Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. had said the same. Wouldn't chance what we're going through, but at least they would've been honest.

Tom In VA wrote:This President, just as all those before him, had to make tough decisions, decisions based on the best interests of the country whose Constitution he is sworn to uphold. If you think any more or less than that is going on, than you are sorely mistaken and according to Terry .....

You should just admit rather than stew in your own culture that finds shame and dishonor in admitting a mistake, and thus can’t fix it.

No, that came from the article JSC linked.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:No the collossal fuck up came years prior to 9-11 that allowed 9-11 to be, 9-11.

This President, just as all those before him, had to make tough decisions, decisions based on the best interests of the country whose Constitution he is sworn to uphold. If you think any more or less than that is going on, than you are sorely mistaken and according to Terry .....

You should just admit rather than stew in your own culture that finds shame and dishonor in admitting a mistake, and thus can’t fix it.

Over 60,000 Americans have been murdered since 9-11. Yet we're pouring billions of dollars and a thousands of casualties into making Iraq a fucking mideast paradise.

Sounds logical to me.

Maybe we should start expediting the execution of murderers? What do you say, liberal faggot?

I would say that the guys on death row aren't going to be committing any more murders anyway. The best they can hope for is a commutation to life w/o parole or a happy ending to a DNA test.

Got any ideas to actually reduce crime?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:This President, just as all those before him, had to make tough decisions, decisions based on the best interests of the country whose Constitution he is sworn to uphold. If you think any more or less than that is going on, than you are sorely mistaken and according to Terry .....

You should just admit rather than stew in your own culture that finds shame and dishonor in admitting a mistake, and thus can’t fix it.

No, that came from the article JSC linked.

I apologize for implying you were the source of it. My intent was more to lump you and BSmack into the same idealogical camp and suggest he follow your lead as that quote appealed to you.


My bad.

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote: Over 60,000 Americans have been murdered since 9-11. Yet we're pouring billions of dollars and a thousands of casualties into making Iraq a fucking mideast paradise.

Sounds logical to me.

Maybe we should start expediting the execution of murderers? What do you say, liberal faggot?

I would say that the guys on death row aren't going to be committing any more murders anyway. The best they can hope for is a commutation to life w/o parole or a happy ending to a DNA test.

Got any ideas to actually reduce crime?

How say you??? Why does the Right always haveo come up w/ ideas? So you and your commrades can shit on it?

mvscal wrote:You want to reduce crime? Kill criminals. It's that simple.

I'll take a flyer here and say that just maybe, the Constitution might have something to say about that.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote:You want to reduce crime? Kill criminals. It's that simple.

I'll take a flyer here and say that just maybe, the Constitution might have something to say about that.

Yes, it does. It says we can't kill them without due process of law.

I don't see any obstacle there.

You don't see an obstacle to killing petty thieves? People who commit DWI? Just for starters.

mvscal wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:

More people were murdered in the U.S. last year, than died in Iraq anyway.

You're talking about Americans murdered in Iraq, right? Yes, that would be correct.

No, he was talking about the 17,000 homicides in the US last year, idiot.

He was talking about the 17k homicides in the US and comparing it to the number of US dead in Iraq, you Rove-fellating gibbon.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:I would say that the guys on death row aren't going to be committing any more murders anyway. The best they can hope for is a commutation to life w/o parole or a happy ending to a DNA test.

Got any ideas to actually reduce crime?

A. It isn't true. Clarence Ray Allen had three people murdered from prison.

Not from Death Row. Allen was in Folsom Prison when he ordered those hits.

You want to reduce crime? Kill criminals. It's that simple.

How about something before the fact? Or are you just going to let the bowl overflow?

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:You don't see an obstacle to killing petty thieves? People who commit DWI? Just for starters.

Nope. We can make spitting on the sidewalk a capital crime if we want to.

You're wrong on that point.

The purpose of law is to serve the needs of society not vice versa. To that end, the law is whatever the fuck we want it to be.

Wrong again. The Constitution limits government's ability to make the law "whatever the fuck we want it to be."

In that regard, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that capital punishment for rape is unconstitutional. If that's the case, capital punishment for less serious crimes is definitely unconstitutional.

Even if we were to limit the discussion to murder alone, your argument fails. The Supreme Court has also ruled that a death penalty statute that mandates a death sentence for convicted murderers is unconstitutional. It's also been determined to be unconstitutional to execute certain classes of defendants convicted of murder, including the mentally retarded and those under the age of 18 at the time of commission of the offense.

mvscal wrote:You very clearly don't get it and never will. You are a mindless, unquestioning slave to law.

Sorry to have to break it to you, dumbfuck, but the Constitution is not set in stone. The Constitution can be amended.

The Constitution can be amended, but not easily. There have been only 17 amendments since the Bill of Rights. One of those was to negate a previous amendment. So, essentially, there have been only 15 amendments ratified since the Bill of Rights. Most of those deal either with the right to vote, the manner in which elections are conducted, or the manner in which the federal government operates.

New laws can be written.

But they must conform to the Constitution, or they are of no worth.

Precedents can be overturned.

This does happen, but not nearly as often as you think. And along those lines, even the Rehnquist Court -- arguably the most conservative Supreme Court in relatively recent times -- actually limited application of the death penalty (a few of the precedents I pointed out earlier came from the Rehnquist Court).

The Law is whatever we want it to be.

The mere fact that any Constitutional amendment requires a supermajority, not merely a majority, shows how wrong you are. How are the gay marriage and flag burning amendments turning out for your side?

mvscal wrote:Obviously we don't want flag burning or gay marriage amendments.

Good job kicking your own ass, idiot. You just confirmed everything I said.

Talk about moving the goalposts.

What part of a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority, and not a majority, don't you get?

mvscal wrote:Since you seem to be looking for some kind of Oprah-esqe confessional, now would be a good time to admit that liberal faggots like you would shit the bed if we took the gloves off.

RACK.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:What part of a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority, and not a majority, don't you get?

The part where that has anything to do with what I said?

It most certainly does. Your statement that "the law is whatever the fuck we want it to be" implies majority rule. A majority is not enough to amend the Constitution.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:What part of a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority, and not a majority, don't you get?

The part where that has anything to do with what I said?

It most certainly does. Your statement that "the law is whatever the fuck we want it to be" implies majority rule. A majority is not enough to amend the Constitution.

You-you-you :x .... "slave to the law"-you!

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: A majority is not enough to amend the Constitution.

I didn't say it was, dumbfuck.

You most certainly implied it when you said,

mvscal wrote:The law is whatever the fuck we want it to be.

BSmack wrote:Over 60,000 Americans have been murdered since 9-11. Yet we're pouring billions of dollars and a thousands of casualties into making Iraq a fucking mideast paradise.

Sounds logical to me.

It's been confirmed. You're a short-sighted dumbfuck without a clue.

Like the bitch that you are, you'd rather lie down and let Akmed and his bearded band of shitheads plug you and millions of others in the ass.

No no no, I mean we should spend the money on crime to save lives. *bleed* It's what really matters.

Left unchecked, these assholes will find a way to launch an attack whose bodycount will dwarf 9-11. But instead of stepping on this bug and crushing it, you'd rather let it grow into a more dangerous threat.

Good job dumbfuck. Proof again that dems are like driving in the fog. You can't see shit five feet in front of your windshield.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: A majority is not enough to amend the Constitution.

I didn't say it was, dumbfuck.

You most certainly implied it when you said,

mvscal wrote:The law is whatever the fuck we want it to be.

Let me get this straight. The best you can do is accuse the guy of implying something?

The boot lodged in your ass must be causing you some discomfort.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:Left unchecked, these assholes will find a way to launch an attack whose bodycount will dwarf 9-11. But instead of stepping on this bug and crushing it, you'd rather let it grow into a more dangerous threat.

Fucking A...I keep seeing references to this, but I COMPLETELY missed the news story about how the Iraqi Navy was heading across the Atlantic.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:Left unchecked, these assholes will find a way to launch an attack whose bodycount will dwarf 9-11. But instead of stepping on this bug and crushing it, you'd rather let it grow into a more dangerous threat.

So we invaded Iraq???

Jimmy Medalions wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote: I didn't say it was, dumbfuck.

You most certainly implied it when you said,

mvscal wrote:The law is whatever the fuck we want it to be.

Let me get this straight. The best you can do is accuse the guy of implying something?

The boot lodged in your ass must be causing you some discomfort.

Obviously your limited attention span is affecting your ability to understand what's going on. Your USC "education" at work.

Once again Terry brings a haymaker response.

BSmack wrote:

Jimmy Medalions wrote:Left unchecked, these assholes will find a way to launch an attack whose bodycount will dwarf 9-11. But instead of stepping on this bug and crushing it, you'd rather let it grow into a more dangerous threat.

So we invaded Iraq???

I forgot. Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda or any form of terrorism whatsoever. In fact, Hussein was a swell guy who was just misunderstood.

Windshield. Five feet. You're a dumbfuck.