Profile for Custer
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Displayed name | Custer |
| Member number | 3151 |
| Title | Bob's Big Date |
| Postcount | 2367 |
| Homepage | http://desperance.net |
| Registered | Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
Recent posts
Pages
| Author | Recent posts |
|---|---|
| Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day! in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Sunday, January 25 2004 10:36
Profile
Homepage
quote:I said both ought to be decisive factors, and I meant it. The black community is threatened with oblivion due to centuries of mistreatment; treating them as if they are already on an equal footing with the white community is a fast and sweet-tasting road back to the near-slavery they suffered under in the first half of the 20th century. I'm sorry for the well-off C student who is not going to be able to buy a Camaro to impress his white-trash girlfriend thanks to that goddamn Affirmative Action, I really am. But quite frankly, there are worse problems in the world than the white man's burden. JF: Saying that someone has to fight to gain equality to be respected is patently ridiculous if it can be gained without the bloodshed and the struggle. Fighting for a cause is a coward's way out; it puts the task of settling things peacefully on the next generation, who have enough things to worry about as is. [ Sunday, January 25, 2004 10:39: Message edited by: Custer Custer Revolution ] -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| WTF are we still in Iraq. in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Saturday, January 24 2004 20:47
Profile
Homepage
Defeatism is a lovely attitude to have, isn't it? I mean, nothing is your problem if you don't acknowledge anything can be fixed. _files/rolleyes.gif) -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day! in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Saturday, January 24 2004 18:28
Profile
Homepage
quote:Milu (is that your commonly-used name?), with affirmative action, you get the same problem - African Americans with less achievements than whites can get into college more easily. It's not the same as getting good grades with less achievements, of course, but it leads to the same thing. Anyway, why are we setting blacks appart as different, needing special priveleges? Many are downtrodden and discriminated against - how does setting them apart and making them more priveleged than other Americans stop that? I mean, I can understand why cripples would get aid, for instance - they can't do what non-cripples can do, and should not be held to the same expectations. But blacks - unless they're crippled or whatever, something that has nothing to do with the color of their skin - blacks can work just as well if not better than whites, and should really need no more aid than anyone else would get. Here's where your logic falls apart. Physically, this holds true. Mentally, many blacks are raised in poorer, less-educated environments; they typically receive worse schooling and have fewer opportunities to engage in extracirricular activities, which hurts their chances to receive higher education, which in turn hurts the next generation. It's a vicious cycle. For instance, I have a rich African American friend. He comes from a wealthy family, a good family, and is an intelligent person, and does well in school. He is not in as many advanced classes as I am, and I get slightly better grades than he does, generally. He also has considerably more money than I do, and could probably live off his parents' fortune, if he decided that he didn't want to do any work. And yet, even after all this, he is more likely to get into a college than I am. And why is this? Not because he is weak, or poor, or downtrodden, or smarter. It is because of the color of his skin. He is a representative of a general problem. In addition, if you're doing better than him, it's not you who will suffer for him getting into a college, it's the one at the bottom who would barely make the cut anyway. Now, listen, I understand that the percentage of African Americans living in poverty is higher than that of Caucasians. But if we are going to give anyone an advantage, it should be based on the poverty, not the race. If this results in a higher percentage of African Americans getting aid than Caucasians, then so be it. But nobody should be at an advantage, nor at a disadvantage, based on the color of their skin. I support both. I don't see any reason to free a people who have been hobbled for centuries and expect them to run a marathon a year later except indignant, greedy appeals to 'fair treatment' by whites who feel they are being cheated by the system. [/quote]Also, getting a black person to agree that AA is wrong doesn't make it wrong any more than my being for AA means that all white people are for it. [ Saturday, January 24, 2004 18:43: Message edited by: Custer Custer Revolution ] -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| HAPPY FUN MUSIC VIDEO POST-ALONG TIME!!! in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Saturday, January 24 2004 14:35
Profile
Homepage
Heard of a van that is loaded with weapons, packed up and ready to go  Heard of some gravesites out by the highway, a place where nobody knows  The sound of gunfire off in the distance, I'm getting used to it now  Lived in a brownstone, lived in a ghetto, I've been all over this town  This ain't no party, this ain't no disco  This ain't no fooling around  No time for dancing, or lovey-dovey  I ain't got time for that now  -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day! in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Saturday, January 24 2004 13:33
Profile
Homepage
AA counts as 'equalizing'. The black race is going to remain mired in poverty if we hold them up to the strict standards given to the majority. The majority gets by with the majority of its population undereducated and underpaid; the minority is already chained by poverty and ignorance, and can't afford to slip any farther. Then again, the suffering of those white, affluent C-average students who are pushed out of good colleges because of Affirmative Action must be causing Rev. King to turn over in his grave. -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day! in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Saturday, January 24 2004 13:07
Profile
Homepage
Actually, he's saying that the whites are confusing a demand for equalizing priveleges for a demand for unilateral favoritism. In other words, you completely misconstrued the meaning of that sentence in order to stuff words in MLKJ's mouth. [ Saturday, January 24, 2004 13:10: Message edited by: Custer Custer Revolution ] -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| I am not trying to sound persistent, but... in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Friday, January 23 2004 21:54
Profile
Homepage
It also leaves me out. I consider it abjectly awful. :P -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day! in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Friday, January 23 2004 16:37
Profile
Homepage
I'm perfectly aware there are black racists; I'm trying to say that it is all too common to assume that the desire for a distinct and unassailable cultural identity is assaulted too often as favoritism and racism. -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day! in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Friday, January 23 2004 14:39
Profile
Homepage
The difference is that white power groups are fighting for something they already have. 'Where's white history month?' Do Ben Franklin and George Washington not count as white history? 'Where's white culture week?' Do the Beatles and Johnny Cash not count as white culture? 'Where's the White Entertainment Television?' Is it not that nearly all of American television tailors itself towards the white majority? The simple fact is, blacks fighting for equality are fighting for something admirable; whites fighting for equality makes about as much sense as trying to train a horse to outrun an old tortoise. -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| WTF are we still in Iraq. in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Friday, January 23 2004 14:33
Profile
Homepage
quote:World War 2 was caused by World War 1. As a matter of fact, had America not intervened in WW1, both sides would have been thoroughgoingly crippled by general strikes; the Allied invasion of Soviet Russia wouldn't have happened (thus drastically decreasing the devastation of the civil war, and putting Trotsky rather than Stalin in a position to take over after Lenin's death); neither Weimar Germany nor the Nazi Party would have happened; the capital to create the bubble economy of the 20s wouldn't have happened, so the Great Depression wouldn't have happened. The world would have been taught the lessons of WW1 without having to learn them through the terrors of WW2, the Soviets wouldn't have been anywhere near as brutal and heavy-handed -- nor as diplomatically isolated -- as they became under Stalin, and Germany would still be, as it was before the loss of the first war, one of the best places in the world to be a Jew. Yeah, there's a case where 'peaceful methods' would have solved nothing.[/quote]Uh... right. First of all, if we hadn't intervened in WW2, the war would have continued on for a long time, considering we are one of the people who helped settle a peace. I'll admit that punishing the Germans so harsly after the war (they lost all of their colonies, basically had to pay for the war by themselves, had to disarm) caused them to become angry enough to start WW2. The war would have lasted, yes. But please do deign to consider that perhaps a few thousand more casualties and a few million more dollars loss are a fair tradeoff weighed against a war more destructive than the majority of human military history, the Holocaust, and the Cold War. The Allies have never invaded Russia, so I don't know where you were going with that, Stalin probably would have still had taken over, considering he was Lenin's right hand man and the fact he became extremely powerful. He removed anyone who would had opposed him right after Lenin died. Lenin opposed him; Trotsky's faction fell out of favor during the Counterrevolution (in which the Allies did indeed invade Soviet Russia), and Stalin started to be favored by the military. Had the soviet civil war not been exacerbated by Allied aid to Whites, Stalin would never have gained the military momentum necessary to start the removal of enemies he became famous for. At this point, I'm beginning to doubt you're in any place to call people 'ignorant' with respect to history. Nazy Germany could have still happened because they were still power hungry and angry over their defeat in WW1. No it wouldn't have, you damn fool. As for the Great Depression, it still would have happened. Some newer things were introduced into economics around this time, such as inflation and credit. WW1 wasn't a direct cause. WW1 was indeed a cause -- do you even have any idea how much $9,000,000,000 would inflate an unready economy? It lead to one big boom and one big bust, as opposed to many little booms and busts found before the reparations and the war. Without the reparations, the postwar depression would have lasted until the late 20s, from which we'd get Keynes and such. I'm sorry, but you do not have any idea what you're talking about. Your assuming that WW2 wouldn't happen, but it was waiting to happen due to the fact THAT Germany had allied itself with Japan, who were very imperialistic at the time and also drew us into the war through pearl harbor. The Soviets weren't brutal, Stalin was. Okay, replace references to Soviet brutality with Stalinist brutality and you're still heavy dozens of millions of lives. WWI was caused due to the many alliances that countries had formed, and caused by an assassination. I never claimed that we could have prevented WW1. I claimed it was an amoral war and entering it was wrong, and lead to WW2, arguably this century's only moral war. Next page... I'll agree that the media is really stupid nowadays and we'd probably be doing better moral wise if idiots worrying about ratings didn't show all the bad about Iraq and some of the good. In other words, you wish that they'd be even more overstuffed with conservative lapdogs. Ugh. Pulling out of Iraq would be foolish considering they'd hate us more because we totalled their country and then left again, leaving a void for a Islamic Fundamentalistic country to form. Just what we need, another Iran. And how did we solve Iran? Backing Saddam Hussein, of course! Why not create a secular dictator in some neighboring country and use them to check Iraq while it's convenient, then dispose them to much good propaganda later? I agree that we need to stay in Iraq. The conservative tide is against it. I agree with desert about Germany pulling their troops from the Eastern front and moving them to the Western front. Wouldn't have decided the war. The problem with winning WW1 wasn't about warm bodies, it was about morale. The American entry into the war provided fresh, highly effective troops, which boosted French-British morale significantly and lead to a decisive victory, which lead to brutal terms at Versailles rather than more peaceful terms somewhere like Rotterdam or Boston. In short, I know WW1 history and you most obviously do not. You are obviously fighting out of your depth; I could continue to present more damning historical analogy to the current situation proving that, in fact, it's impossible to cause a diplomatically unresolvable situation except through war, or you could perhaps move into a different arguement. Were I in your shoes, I'd go with the latter. All that crap about 9/11 being preventable is just crap the media is sturring up as people look for someone to blame over 9/11 beside the terrorists that caused it. We weren't prepared for a terrorist attack of that magnitude. Were Gore in office, the media would still be blaming him for 9/11 constantly. [/quote] Uh-uh. Not only do we still have men in Afganistan, but Germany was a militristic, autocratic society up until the end of WWI, after which a weak republic was formed. They had a strong parliament beforehand; they essentially ran everything in Germany except foreign policy, making them stronger in some areas than even our Congress. Hitler took over in the early 1930's, and turned Germany into a militristic, autocratic society once again. Disagreed. Hitler came into power through the will of the German people; if they still had elections in the 40s, he would probably have kept winning them well into 1945. Iraq was once part of the Ottoman Empire, until the end of WWI, where the British, French, and other Allies thought it'd be a great idea to carve the area up like they did to Africa, wich is why we have multiple groups in Iraq vying for power. It was once a monarchy, an arm of the Ottoman, then it was carved up by the Allies and became another weak republic, which was eventually taken over by, (i think), some general, and then Saddam Hussien. No. An artificial monarchy was installed, which continued until replaced by Hussein's US-backed government. I do not believe Iraq has ever been anything except a colonial dependency or an effective autocracy. And the whole thing with arming guys who then turn against us was our parents' way of fighting the Communists without blame, and a sad way, at that. We didn't intentionally train terrorists and the like so we could have "a game of creating terrorists and dictators so we can remove them and have the glory of the liberation army." That's sick. No; instead, we destroyed the futures of a billion innocent, helpless people in the third world as part of a massive power game against an essentially inferior enemy with delusions of grandeur. This is not 'sick' at all, I gather. EDIT: (oh boy) WWI had many causes, but this isn't history class. World War 2 is called that for a reason. There's not a sane historian that won't tell you that it wasn't a leftover from WWI. The colonies were wrong anyway. He was talking about the Russian Revolution that put Lenin into power, instead of Leon (is it Leon?) Trotsky. Watch Animal Farm. (Not Animal House.) Actually, Leon Trotsky still had a good chance of succeeding Lenin in spite of differing belief systems, but Trotsky's chances were pretty much shattered by his support of a strong Duma, which the war caused Lenin to disfavor; the war also necessitated a General Secretary to control the Communist party, a position Stalin was given as a way to reduce the amount of harm he could do, from which he took utter power of the Soviet Union. The CIA doesn't work to glorify America, it works to protect it. Supposed to, anyway. And as I said, many (regrettable) things were done that were a direct cause of America's fear of Soviets and Communism. Entirely unfounded, really. What would the world look like if the US had tried to build a working relationship with the Soviets instead of using them as puppets in WW2 and discarding them when necessary? Perhaps Nikita K. had something to do with it, saying:"We will bury you," or something mean like that. Or perhaps Ike E. had something to do with it, too, having threatened every small country which looked at capitalism funny with nuclear war until the Soviets could do something about it. _files/tongue.gif) -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| WTF are we still in Iraq. in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Friday, January 23 2004 07:15
Profile
Homepage
I sincerely doubt Bush planned to stay there for the long haul. Either he was horribly naïve -- I continue to believe he is a rather intelligent person; he is certainly articulate when he talks about killing things -- or he and his administration planned to replace one dictator with another. Sure, there'll be a vote or two, but eventually, whoever wins them will go the way of S.H., with the only difference being that, due to the dictator being US-friendly, we won't feel the need to go on and on about their atrocities against mankind, nor to remove them from their ill-gotten office. As long as he's loyal to the American oil industry, we're going to be fast friends with him, as a matter of fact. As I said earlier, Bush's motivation is not personal but tangential greed; his friends and allies run much of American industry, and he's basically giving his constituents what they want. It violates the interests of the American people? Pssh. The American people's opinions are an extension of the media's. (Tell a lie once, and it's a horrible mistruth. Tell it twice, it's a little white lie. Tell it three times, and it's the gospel truth.) And the Republicans dominate the media. I think we ought to give the GOP a pat on the back and our most sincere congratulations for winning their eighty-year struggle with American democracy and get to Scandinavia while the getting's good. -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| Troglodytes, the other dark meat in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Thursday, January 22 2004 19:14
Profile
Homepage
Jeff isn't as good at retcons as he thinks he is. -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| WTF are we still in Iraq. in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Thursday, January 22 2004 19:01
Profile
Homepage
Rhetorical practice, of course. And maybe in the short run it's just putting your bags on the table and pointing at them and shouting, but in the long run, people's opinions DO change. -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| WTF are we still in Iraq. in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Thursday, January 22 2004 18:10
Profile
Homepage
quote: -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| WTF are we still in Iraq. in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Thursday, January 22 2004 15:07
Profile
Homepage
Hitler was caused by an amoral war, as I said. Generally, moral wars only happen as a result of amoral wars. -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| Hayo I'm damn happy! in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Thursday, January 22 2004 12:36
Profile
Homepage
ALL OF THE FERAN BELONGS TO ANGST -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| Hayo I'm damn happy! in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Thursday, January 22 2004 12:35
Profile
Homepage
ALL OF THE RIIBU BELONGS TO TOMORROW -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| WTF are we still in Iraq. in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Thursday, January 22 2004 12:27
Profile
Homepage
quote:We should've stayed as long as we planned, and we're being hypocrites by not taking the same stance against other monarchies (dictatorships) in the world. (i.e. N. Korea and Cuba)[/quote]We aren't being hypocrites. It's not possible to take on 3 countries at once. We're still not done in Afganistan. Bush is hoping that a democratic nation in the Middle East will help stabilize the region. As for us dying by the 1000's everyday, what are you talking about? Are you watching the same news as me? We've lost less than 1000 troops for the duration of the whole war. (I'd have to check the numbers on that.) I hate the fact that people think that 100% of the time you can rely on peaceful purposes to resolve things. It's not possible. Look at WW2 and how Britain and France initially let Germany take over countries because they wanted to avoid war. Sometimes, war is justified.[/quote]World War 2 was caused by World War 1. As a matter of fact, had America not intervened in WW1, both sides would have been thoroughgoingly crippled by general strikes; the Allied invasion of Soviet Russia wouldn't have happened (thus drastically decreasing the devastation of the civil war, and putting Trotsky rather than Stalin in a position to take over after Lenin's death); neither Weimar Germany nor the Nazi Party would have happened; the capital to create the bubble economy of the 20s wouldn't have happened, so the Great Depression wouldn't have happened. The world would have been taught the lessons of WW1 without having to learn them through the terrors of WW2, the Soviets wouldn't have been anywhere near as brutal and heavy-handed -- nor as diplomatically isolated -- as they became under Stalin, and Germany would still be, as it was before the loss of the first war, one of the best places in the world to be a Jew. Yeah, there's a case where 'peaceful methods' would have solved nothing. -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| Nephilim in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Thursday, January 22 2004 08:37
Profile
Homepage
How about 'empire'? perhaps 'golem'? :P -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| WTF are we still in Iraq. in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Thursday, January 22 2004 08:35
Profile
Homepage
quote:I'd prefer we intervene, too. If we're going to fight wars of imperialism, we might as well be the world's policemen. However, we need the UN's backing to do anythng of the sort -- which, thanks mostly to Bush's blustering, we have been firmly unable to get. If we can save millions of lives by sending in troops to make sure people get fed, or even by passing legislature forbidding the kind of corporate abuses that go on in third-world sweatshops, why don't we do that? Why do we, instead, send in the troops to avenge genocide? Iraq was most definitely not an anti-dictatorial or an anti-genocidal war. We killed thousands of people immediately, and thanks to American intervention, hundreds of thousands are going to die due to the infrastructure of Iraq being disrupted. (Pop quiz: Half of Iraq is more fertile than it knows what to do with. The other half lives in a desert where getting water is a problem. We bomb the roads. What happens to the other half? That's right: they die screaming.) I would not have nearly as much a problem with Iraq if it had been one in a chain of wars against dictatorship in the third world, or if it had been accompanied by ending civil wars in Africa or Asia or South America, or by sending in the troops and carpet-bombing the southern African countryside with care packages. It wasn't: it was a unilateral, vengeful war of corporate imperialism. As evinced by Bush's attempts to get the hell out of the country as soon as possible, we aren't even trying to establish a democracy there. So, David, question: If we haven't found WMDs and we haven't installed a democracy, what, exactly, have we done there? What, exactly, have dozens of Americans and thousands of Iraqis died for there? Ever wondered why so many overpadded development contracts went to Halliburton, to which Dick Cheney has undeniable connections? Welcome to the American Syndicate Republic. I hope you enjoy your stay. -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| WTF are we still in Iraq. in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Wednesday, January 21 2004 22:05
Profile
Homepage
No, plenty of people didn't think he had WMDs, David, except those fooled by Bush. He released such lies and propaganda to support Hussein having WMDs that it couldn't have been otherwise. And if he DID, what would have starting a war with him accomplished? Given nukes to the terrorists? That's a wonderful thing to start a war for. You want mass graves? Go to Columbia, where the mass graves were caused by US troops attacking innocent civilians (you will be surprised to learn that the majority of minor Columbian villagers are not, in fact, related to drug lords). You won't find them in Chile -- the people the US-backed dictator killed there disappeared into the night without a trace. How about staunch US ally Turkey? You're sure to find mass Kurdish graves there, and they're a democracy. How about the US? Wait, I forgot. The 30-60 million natives killed by European diseases and weapons upon which the United States of America is built don't rate a 'mass grave'. I'm tired of black-and-white conservative drivel about saving the world from mass murderers where it's convenient. Yeah, Saddam Hussein killed millions. So do countless tinpot African leaders who the US would never dream of attacking; so do civil wars that the US could stop in weeks by minor intervention. Zaire, for example; or perhaps Ethiopia. While we're in Africa, do people killed by starvation in the 21st century -- a century where half of the people whine about being on dialup and the other half will never see a telephone -- for no better reason but Western/corporate apathy rate 'mass graves'? I suppose most of them are too young to, to be fair, and with a lot of them famine and easily-curable disease are inextricable in cause of death, so I can see where they wouldn't be. I'm sorry about my anti-corporate drivel, Sir David. As evinced by even the slightest US presence in oil-barren Africa, the motivations of the Bush administration must have been an altrustic effort to free people from tyrrany and genocide. I guess I'll just have to have a closer look at the facts next time, won't I? [ Thursday, January 22, 2004 08:24: Message edited by: General Secretary Custer ] -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| Nephilim in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Wednesday, January 21 2004 17:07
Profile
Homepage
...if you knew about this, why did you elect to create a topic questioning it? >_< -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| WTF are we still in Iraq. in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Wednesday, January 21 2004 14:56
Profile
Homepage
I personally think that taking out powerful monarchs should be our #1 priority. Dictators rule by a corruption of the will of the people; if they piss too many people off, they're bound not to be dictators for much longer. Monarchs just rule by whim and tradition. I feel that America ought to stay in Iraq until we're done rebuilding it, and creating a modern, humanitarian state out of it. I also think that Bush's motivation was neo-colonialism, not any kind of altruism. (Remember the speech he gave to the people of Iraq? 'Don't burn your oil wells', saying nothing of the priceless archaeological treasures that were lost after the fighting?) I don't think we should have started it, but now we have, I think we ought to finish it. And many of the proponents of the war are now demanding that we withdraw from Iraq -- shoot-and-scoot corporate imperialism, not establishment of democracy. They oughtn't trust the right wing with starting wars; if you look at their track record, it's mostly been pretty stupid ones (Korea, the Gulf Wars, and so on). -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| Avernum Story in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Wednesday, January 21 2004 14:48
Profile
Homepage
Coming by 2005: The People's History of Avernum. :P -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
| OMG WTF in General | |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Wednesday, January 21 2004 06:11
Profile
Homepage
I found 'Nephilim' in the Bible. Do you think they stole them from Jeff????????????????? ANSWAR FAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111 (coudant) [ Wednesday, January 21, 2004 06:12: Message edited by: General Secretary Custer ] -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |