If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Christian Science Monitor)   Joe Biden: If you ignore that whole shutting down the Internet and blocking cell phones to stifle free speech thing, Mubarak is totally not a dictator   (csmonitor.com) divider line 186
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

868 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jan 2011 at 4:49 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



186 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-01-28 08:45:50 AM
liam76: I am fully aware that the US has backed some farked up regimes but it appears in your head that they have done so solely in opposition to freedom loving democracies.

No, not "farked up regimes", Dictatorial, murderous regimes. The worst of the worst. And they never do so solely to oppose democracie, nor did I claim that.

But it's been my experience that, worldwide, the actual POPULATION of a country under brutal military rule is often opposed to the government, and power is only maintained by force of arms and international diplomatic cover (vetos at the UN, footdragging, paying off allies to support resolutions, etc).

Without that cover and that military force, eventually the population organizes itself and overthrows the regime. UNLESS you have the most powerful country in the world PAYING the dictator with weapons, training, and intelligence so that he can hold on to power because it beneifits the superpower to do so, but decidely not the actual population struggling to survive.

If your litmus test for being a dictator has more to do with does the US back them than what kind of policies they are enacting you need to grow up.

No, it's not. Those are all words that YOU'VE attributed to me, but that I didn't say.

But that's totally your game, and you never ever switch it up, so it's pretty easy at this point to identify. Try harder, man.
 
2011-01-28 08:48:51 AM
Nicaragua (The Somozas)"The Marines invaded Nicaragua in 1912 and stayed until 1933, fighting but never defeating the revolutionary Augusto Sandino. They created the Nicaraguan National Guard and installed Anastasio Somoza Garcia in power. Then Sandino, who had signed a truce and put down his arms, was assassinated by Somoza. In 1935, General Smedley Butler, who led the Marines into Nicaragua, said: "[I was] a high class muscle man for big business, for Wall Street and for the banks. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism - I helped purify Nicaragua for [an] international banking house." President Franklin Delano Roosevelt put it another way. "Somoza may be a son of a biatch, but he's our son of a biatch."

Somoza, one of the worst dictators in the area, and definitely the worst that Nicaragua had to suffer under.

http://wais.stanford.edu/USA/us_supportforladictators8303.html

Farking Stanford fascists, huh?
 
2011-01-28 08:51:08 AM

liam76: jakomo002: Do you know how I know Chavez ISN'T a dictator?

This is where you go off the deep end.

I am fully aware that the US has backed some farked up regimes but it appears in your head that they have done so solely in opposition to freedom loving democracies.

If your litmus test for being a dictator has more to do with does the US back them than what kind of policies they are enacting you need to grow up.


Strawman.

In essence he's talking about this

Duane Clarridge (new window)
 
2011-01-28 08:52:47 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: badhatharry: He will have a fair trial and be in jail until he is an old man.

I don't doubt that he'll be in jail until he's an old man, but I know the trial will be unfair. They're trying to make him crack psychologically with abnormal treatment in his prison, that's already unfair, and will certainly affect the trial.


I do agree that all prisoners need to be treated humanely.
 
2011-01-28 08:54:15 AM
Honduras (Roberto Suazo Cordova)Honduras was the original "Banana Republic," its history inextricably intertwined with that of the U.S.-based United Fruit Company, but in 1979, when Anastasio Somoza was overthrown in Nicaragua (see card 7), Honduras got a new nickname: "The Pentagon Republic." In 1978 Honduras received $16.2 million in U.S. aid; by 1985 it was getting $231.1 million, primarily because President Suazo Cordova, working with U.S. Ambassador John Dmitri Negroponte and Honduran General Gustava Alvarez, allowed Honduras to become a training center for U.S. funded Nicaraguan contras. General Alvarez, who according to Newsweek, "doesn't care if officers are thieves, as long as they are virulent anti-communists," assisted in training programs and founded a special "hit squad," the Cobras. Victims of the Cobras were stripped, bound, thrown into pits and tortured. The Reagan Administration claimed ignorance of these human rights violations, but U.S. advisors have admitted knowledge"

Last one was the 30's, this one is that late 80's. It shows some pretty remarkable continuity.

It's all out there, especially the stuff from the 80's and 90's. There's been a lot of time for declassifying documents and investigative journalism to uncover all this stuff.

It helps to have a historical reference for discussions about America's support of the dictator Mubarak.
 
2011-01-28 08:55:12 AM
Silly, subby, they're not dictators when they're on our side. That's why Saudi Arabia and China are A-OK.
 
2011-01-28 08:58:29 AM

jakomo002: No, not "farked up regimes", Dictatorial, murderous regimes. The worst of the worst.


So you wouldn't say a "dictatorial, murderous regime" is farked up?

jakomo002: And they never do so solely to oppose democracie, nor did I claim that.


No but you implies they always opposed something better, which isn't always the case.

jakomo002: No, it's not. Those are all words that YOU'VE attributed to me, but that I didn't say.

But that's totally your game, and you never ever switch it up, so it's pretty easy at this point to identify. Try harder, man.


You just said you know Chavez isn't a dictator because the US isn't backing him.

That means your litmus test for a regime being a dictatorship hinges on if the US supports them.

I am sorry you don't understand the implications of your own words.
 
2011-01-28 09:00:11 AM
We've ALWAYS propped up harsh dictators in the Middle East, given them money to repress the population so we can have relative stability for ease of extraction and export of our oil that's under their sand.

These rock throwing incidents in Iran, Tunisia and Egypt are nothing but young people with smart phones thinking they can overturn military dictatorships and fundamentalist clerics backed by the military.

I don't see this changing anytime soon.
 
2011-01-28 09:00:37 AM

DarnoKonrad: wolvernova: DarnoKonrad: wolvernova: What's your definition of "propping up"

Do you have any idea how much aid we send to Egypt each year? And the Muslim brotherhood doesn't see it as humanitarian development, they see it as a subside to the government that actively suppresses them.

That's "propping up."

Read the portion I quoted. I was challenging his list of tyrants he said we're propping up, not talking about Egypt. Or you can just mind your own business.



I am minding my own business on a public forum. It's not your private email account.

Egypt is typical of those places is the point. And you're not challenging anything, just drawing attention to your ignorance of American foreign policy.


I asked the dude what his definition was. Not yours. I was asking in reference to his bullshiat claim that we propped Pol Pot. You had to threadshiat with your opinions. That's not minding one's business.
 
2011-01-28 09:01:12 AM

tical: Strawman.


So when someone says they know Chavez isn't a dictator because the US doesn't support them That doesn't imply that US support is required to be a dictator?
 
2011-01-28 09:01:26 AM
Look, nobody likes supporting blood-thirsty dictators. But you have to understand: better dead than Red. The Soviets want nothing more than to completely destroy our way of life, and one way they do that is to take over satellite nations, convert them to Communism with false promises and gifts, and then BAM- the Soviets come in and rule the country with an iron fist.

Better. Dead. Than. Red. Maybe once the Soviet Union has collapsed, and the greatest threat to freedom in the history of the world is over, we can all hold hands and prance through a field of tulips, but until then anyone who opposes the Soviets is our ally.
 
2011-01-28 09:03:36 AM

wolvernova: DarnoKonrad: wolvernova: DarnoKonrad: wolvernova: What's your definition of "propping up"

Do you have any idea how much aid we send to Egypt each year? And the Muslim brotherhood doesn't see it as humanitarian development, they see it as a subside to the government that actively suppresses them.

That's "propping up."

Read the portion I quoted. I was challenging his list of tyrants he said we're propping up, not talking about Egypt. Or you can just mind your own business.



I am minding my own business on a public forum. It's not your private email account.

Egypt is typical of those places is the point. And you're not challenging anything, just drawing attention to your ignorance of American foreign policy.

I asked the dude what his definition was. Not yours. I was asking in reference to his bullshiat claim that we propped Pol Pot. You had to threadshiat with your opinions. That's not minding one's business.




No I stayed on topic. Egypt. Unlike you're farking whining.
 
2011-01-28 09:09:41 AM

liam76: jakomo002: Pinochet, Suharto, Pol Pot, the Duvaliers, Saddam Hussein, the enitre Saud royal family, etc.

?


cinemafanatic.files.wordpress.com

Forget it, he's rolling.
 
2011-01-28 09:12:05 AM
Official State Department statement on Egypt^

Sounds like our official position is that we're not taking sides on this issue and just seeing how things develop -- why the hell is Joe opening his big trap?
 
2011-01-28 09:14:49 AM

DarnoKonrad: No I stayed on topic. Egypt. Unlike you're farking whining.


Perhaps you need to re-read the chain of posts to see how your interjection was unsolicited and off-topic. I've told that you are shiatting on a conversation that wasn't about Egypt, but for some reason you persist. Now fark off, jackass.
 
2011-01-28 09:16:57 AM

Arkanaut: Official State Department statement on Egypt^

Sounds like our official position is that we're not taking sides on this issue and just seeing how things develop -- why the hell is Joe opening his big trap?


I think that can be applied to just about anything he says.

I think the US "taking sides" in any direction woudlbe a mistake.
 
2011-01-28 09:17:08 AM

Arkanaut: Official State Department statement on Egypt^

Sounds like our official position is that we're not taking sides on this issue and just seeing how things develop -- why the hell is Joe opening his big trap?


Because that's what Joe does.
 
2011-01-28 09:18:45 AM

wolvernova: DarnoKonrad: No I stayed on topic. Egypt. Unlike you're farking whining.

Perhaps you need to re-read the chain of posts to see how your interjection was unsolicited and off-topic. I've told that you are shiatting on a conversation that wasn't about Egypt, but for some reason you persist. Now fark off, jackass.



No, you need to re-read. I stayed on topic, and you keep talking about your petty personal resentment.

You don't get to decide who solicits replies in public forum. If you don't like it, don't reply.
 
2011-01-28 09:23:53 AM
We should be on the side of the will of the people.
 
2011-01-28 09:24:12 AM
A favorite anecdote that describes how they roll in Egypt: (Mind you, this is in response to an assassination attempt, but brutal retribution nonetheless.)

"To deal with Zawahiri, Egyptian intelligence agents devised a fiendish plan. They lured a thirteen-year-old boy, Ahmed, into an apartment with the promise of juice and videos. Ahmed was the son of Mohammed Sharraf, a well-known Egyptian fundamentalist and a senior member of al-Jihad. The boy was drugged and sodomized; when he awakened, he was confronted with photographs of the homosexual activity and threatened with the prospect of having them shown to his father. For the child, the consequences of such a disclosure were overwhelming. 'It could even be that the father would kill him,' a source close to Zawahiri admitted.

Egyptian intelligence forced him to recruit another child, Mus'ab, whose father, Abu al-Faraj was also in al-Jihad and served as the treasurer for al-Qaeda. Mus'ab endured the same humiliating initiation of drugs and sexual abuse and was forced to turn against his family. The agents taught the boys how to plant microphones in their own homes and photograph documents. A number of arrests followed because of the information produced by the boy spies."
(quoted from The Looming Tower)

And what happened to the boys? After they were forced to confess, Zawahiri had them charged in a Sharia court with sodomy & treason and executed. An execution he videotaped and distributed as a warning to other potential traitors of Al-Jihad.
 
2011-01-28 09:27:55 AM

Arkanaut: why the hell is Joe opening his big trap?


Joe suffers from Foot in mouth disease, complicated with verbal incontenence.

it's a disease. he can't help it
 
2011-01-28 09:28:01 AM

badhatharry: We should be on the side of the will of the people.


And if the will of the people is to string up anyone who offends Islam by being too westernized?

It's really too early to be judging much of anything. If the Egyptian government holds on, it needs to reform badly. If it falls, many bad things could happen -- and that may even be the most likely scenario.
 
2011-01-28 09:29:26 AM

DarnoKonrad: No, you need to re-read. I stayed on topic, and you keep talking about your petty personal resentment.

You don't get to decide who solicits replies in public forum. If you don't like it, don't reply.


Just pointing out what a trolling jackass you are. Like I said, if you bothered to read upthread to the point where you shat upon it in response to my questions about Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein, this would be obvious. Whining about this being a public forum doesn't take away from your unsolicited and unrelated injection of an opinion that I wasn't even contesting or arguing with.

In other words, I don't disagree that we've propped up Egypt, which would have been obvious if you read my post, which I asked you to do and you didn't. So go take your fight somewhere else, dumbass.
 
2011-01-28 09:30:55 AM

Arkanaut: Sounds like our official position is that we're not taking sides on this issue and just seeing how things develop -- why the hell is Joe opening his big trap?


Saying "I wouldn't refer to him as a dictator" isn't really "taking a side" IMHO.
 
2011-01-28 09:32:22 AM

bobbette: Looking at the live view on Al Jazeera, it seems like a revolution is going down in Egypt.


Watching it as well, it has been one of the most interesting things I've seen in a long time.

And holy fark, did that armored truck just run someone over?
 
2011-01-28 09:34:36 AM
liam76: So you wouldn't say a "dictatorial, murderous regime" is farked up?

Worse, I was correcting you. You said "farked up regime" and I made it more specific. Farked up is not descriptive enough, Charlie Sheen is farked up, but he's no Pol Pot.

No but you implies they always opposed something better, which isn't always the case.

Who opposed something better, the US? Better for whom? The US or the population of the country in question. Be specific.

You just said you know Chavez isn't a dictator because the US isn't backing him.That means your litmus test for a regime being a dictatorship hinges on if the US supports them.

One of them, yes. Like I said and have PROVEN, historicaly the USA has backed a whole cadre of terrible, murderous dictators (Somoza, Pinochet, Cordova, Noriega, Cerezo, Cristiani, and that's JUST IN THE REGION), . While never ever ever once having "brought democracy" to a country.

In fact, I can think of two specific democratic governments that they OVERTHREW and installed their own guy. Iran in 1953 and then in Chile in 1973.

I am sorry you don't understand the implications of your own words.

I'm sorry YOU don't understand the implications of my words. Sorry for your p*ss-poor education, too.
 
2011-01-28 09:37:23 AM

wolvernova: DarnoKonrad: No, you need to re-read. I stayed on topic, and you keep talking about your petty personal resentment.

You don't get to decide who solicits replies in public forum. If you don't like it, don't reply.

Just pointing out what a trolling jackass you are. Like I said, if you bothered to read upthread to the point where you shat upon it in response to my questions about Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein, this would be obvious. Whining about this being a public forum doesn't take away from your unsolicited and unrelated injection of an opinion that I wasn't even contesting or arguing with.

In other words, I don't disagree that we've propped up Egypt, which would have been obvious if you read my post, which I asked you to do and you didn't. So go take your fight somewhere else, dumbass.




The context was and is Egypt, and how past policy mirrors the current situation.

And yet you continue to whine about your petty personal resentment with ever longer rationalizations.
 
2011-01-28 09:38:28 AM
And what's this with no Tatsuma thread in honor of these brave Egyptians, aching for freedom and democracy?

Could it be that it is not in Israel's best interests whatsoever if Egypt's government falls, because Egypt has been getting paid off handsomely by the Americans in order to toe the U.S./Israeli line (keep Gaza borders shut, etc).
 
2011-01-28 09:40:55 AM

DarnoKonrad: badhatharry: We should be on the side of the will of the people.

And if the will of the people is to string up anyone who offends Islam by being too westernized?

It's really too early to be judging much of anything. If the Egyptian government holds on, it needs to reform badly. If it falls, many bad things could happen -- and that may even be the most likely scenario.


Islamic fundamentalists are a powerful group. It is up to the people of Egypt to accept it or oppose it. They are going to have a struggle. Unfortunately, it seems they will probably reject any further "assistance" from the US.
 
2011-01-28 09:44:22 AM

liam76: I think the US "taking sides" in any direction woudlbe a mistake.


I hate that crap. If we're supposed to be the 'beacon of liberty' etc we should take sides. That doesn't mean supplying arms or money, etc, but the US President should publically support freedom/democracy whenever possible.

President MugzyBrown stated today: While the United States does not wish to see more bloodshed in Egypt, we do understand the desire of a people to be free from oppression. Wherever there is a struggle of the people against opression, the United States will support those people.


I may need a speechwriter, but you get the idea.
 
2011-01-28 09:49:43 AM

DarnoKonrad: The context was and is Egypt, and how past policy mirrors the current situation.

And yet you continue to whine about your petty personal resentment with ever longer rationalizations.


You just wanted to pick a fight with me because a) you don't like me and b) you thought I was talking about Egypt.

You're pathetic. Any rational person could read up the chain of posts and realize what a trolling asshole you are.
 
2011-01-28 09:50:37 AM

jakomo002: And what's this with no Tatsuma thread in honor of these brave Egyptians, aching for freedom and democracy?

Could it be that it is not in Israel's best interests whatsoever if Egypt's government falls, because Egypt has been getting paid off handsomely by the Americans in order to toe the U.S./Israeli line (keep Gaza borders shut, etc).


This
 
2011-01-28 09:56:38 AM

jakomo002: One of them, yes. Like I said and have PROVEN, historicaly the USA has backed a whole cadre of terrible, murderous dictators (Somoza, Pinochet, Cordova, Noriega, Cerezo, Cristiani, and that's JUST IN THE REGION), .


Then you are a moron.

Just because the US has backed dictators doesn't mean you have to be backed by the US to be a dictator. That is logic 101.

I was hoping you were maybe exaggerating but it seems you really think you have to be supported by the US to be a dicator.

jakomo002: While never ever ever once having "brought democracy" to a country.


Japan, Germany, Iraq...

jakomo002: I'm sorry YOU don't understand the implications of my words. Sorry for your p*ss-poor education, too


The guy who thinks you have to be backed by the US to be a dictator is questioning my education?
 
2011-01-28 09:57:44 AM
ilambiquated: The interesting thing is who are the people going to rally around? Mubarak's son is just as much a target as Mubarak. Mubarak Sr is 82, and people were thinking his son was being groomed for the post. There were reports of the police pulling down posters of his son in the poor districts so that people wouldn't deface them or get violent around them.

I don't know if El Baradei will be a viable candidate either. The Americans farking hate him because of his stand-up work at the IAEA (he refused to go along with the idea that Iran had nukes and more importantly, in 2003, he was pretty vocally opposed to the Iraq War -- and later won the Nobel Prize, which HAD to be a kind of tip of the hat to him and his outspokenness).

And for now it's nationalism. No real Islamist movements have popped their heads out the crowd, it's all nationalist pro-Egypt demonstrations. Who knows.

30% of Egypt's population of 80 million is below the age of 20, so who the fark knows what they're capable of. I'm hoping for the best,
 
2011-01-28 09:58:23 AM

wolvernova: You just wanted to pick a fight with me


No, I had a point to make about American foreign policy. You have pathological projection problem that's bore out by your numerous digressions into banal name calling and other irrelevant verbiage that serves no purpose but to poison the debate.

Like this:

wolvernova: You're pathetic.


and this:

wolvernova: dumbass.


and this:

wolvernova: , jackass.

 
2011-01-28 09:59:56 AM

MugzyBrown: I hate that crap. If we're supposed to be the 'beacon of liberty' etc we should take sides. That doesn't mean supplying arms or money, etc, but the US President should publically support freedom/democracy whenever possible.


If I was confident that publicly taking the side fo the proterstors would help push egypt into a more democratic society, I woudl agree, but I am nto sure that is the case.
 
2011-01-28 10:06:12 AM
liam76 : Just because the US has backed dictators doesn't mean you have to be backed by the US to be a dictator. That is logic 101.

Once more, your tried and true tactic, huh, liam? I said no such thing. I said ONE OF the litmus tests for a government being a dictatorship is "is it backed by the USA".

There's a whole vast field of far more obvious hints. Single party rule? Military rule? Lack of elections? Rampant suppression? I mean, it's usually GLARINGLY obvious to any informed, educated person what a dictatorship looks like. Not a whole lot left in the world.

Some good examples are Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two of the top three recipients of American military and economic aid in the region, to the tune of many billions of dollars per year. Some huge sales of military hardware too (didn't the Saudis just buy up about 80 American fighter jets?)..

In those countries, if you speak out against your government in public, you are going to get shot or disappeared (hint #1).

The guy who thinks you have to be backed by the US to be a dictator is questioning my education?

Dude, mix it up. Again with the putting words in my mouth. If I call you on it, try to knock it off for AT LEAST a post or two.

/there ARE dictatorships around the world that the US doesn't support. Doesn't invade either, mind you, but definitely doesn't support.
 
2011-01-28 10:09:03 AM
And liam76, when the United States of America annually GIVES billions of dollars in military aid to a country that is not involved in any kind of war or widescale military conflict, who exactly do you think the weapons are being used against?
 
2011-01-28 10:12:03 AM

DarnoKonrad: No, I had a point to make about American foreign policy.


As I said, I don't disagree with you at all on this point. One needn't look further than 9/11 to see how our support of dictators can hurt us down the road.

You have pathological projection problem that's bore out by your numerous digressions into banal name calling and other irrelevant verbiage that serves no purpose but to poison the debate.

The name-calling was started by you calling me ignorant based on a false assumption that my questioning of the other farker's comment was directly linked to Egypt. My rebuttals asked that you read the comment I wrote and the name-calling (from my end) that followed was due to your stubbornness to not realize this. You want to talk about pathological? You were picking a fight with me for no reason at all (other than presumably not liking me), and were completely unwilling to re-read the preceding posts to illustrate my point. You're only serving to validate the names you've been called.
 
2011-01-28 10:17:59 AM

jakomo002: Once more, your tried and true tactic, huh, liam? I said no such thing. I said ONE OF the litmus tests for a government being a dictatorship is "is it backed by the USA".


Do you not understand a "litmus" test?

It doesn't matter if it is only "one of" them if you fail the test soemthing than you aren't it.


jakomo002: There's a whole vast field of far more obvious hints. Single party rule? Military rule? Lack of elections? Rampant suppression? I mean, it's usually GLARINGLY obvious to any informed, educated person what a dictatorship looks like. Not a whole lot left in the world.


You are the one that said you know that Chavez isn't a dictator because he wasn't backed by the US.

That implies you must be backed by the US to be a dictator.

jakomo002: Dude, mix it up. Again with the putting words in my mouth. If I call you on it, try to knock it off for AT LEAST a post or two.


/there ARE dictatorships around the world that the US doesn't support.


I am not putting words in your mouth.


Make up your mind. This goes against your initial Chavez post and all the subsequent ones to this point.
 
2011-01-28 10:19:31 AM

jakomo002: I mean, it's usually GLARINGLY obvious to any informed, educated person what a dictatorship looks like. Not a whole lot left in the world.


You obviously aren't in that crowd if you think one of the Litmus tests is backing of the US.
 
2011-01-28 10:29:29 AM

t3knomanser: Look, nobody likes supporting blood-thirsty dictators. But you have to understand: better dead than Red. The Soviets want nothing more than to completely destroy our way of life, and one way they do that is to take over satellite nations, convert them to Communism with false promises and gifts, and then BAM- the Soviets come in and rule the country with an iron fist.

Better. Dead. Than. Red. Maybe once the Soviet Union has collapsed, and the greatest threat to freedom in the history of the world is over, we can all hold hands and prance through a field of tulips, but until then anyone who opposes the Soviets is our ally.


www.realcrash.com

Nazi if serious...
 
2011-01-28 10:29:43 AM
liam76: Make up your mind. This goes against your initial Chavez post and all the subsequent ones to this point.

Oh my, how dramatic. That would mean that Somoza and Pinochet and Noriega were NOT fully supported by the Americans. Omigod I've changed history by one single statement about Chavez.

If I had known you were some kind of junior chemist, liam, I would have used a different term than litmus, but at least you're not jumping all over the place like some crazy lab monkey over one word out of 400.

How's "dictatorship checklist"? Are you an accountant or actuary? Cashier?
 
2011-01-28 10:30:12 AM

wolvernova: As I said, I don't disagree with you at all on this point.


Yea, I know. And yet it can't end or start with that. It turns into this nonsense where you tell me what I think about you personally.

wolvernova: You were picking a fight (other than presumably not liking me)


Wrong. I have no problem with you. I replied to you, and you went off on some bullshiat about how I need to mind my own business and then you started on the name calling.

Any time you want to stick to the topic at hand and leave your personal projections at the door, you will find I reciprocate in kind.

shiat you're doing now? Pointless.
 
2011-01-28 10:36:22 AM

DarnoKonrad: wolvernova: As I said, I don't disagree with you at all on this point.

Yea, I know. And yet it can't end or start with that. It turns into this nonsense where you tell me what I think about you personally.

wolvernova: You were picking a fight (other than presumably not liking me)

Wrong. I have no problem with you. I replied to you, and you went off on some bullshiat about how I need to mind my own business and then you started on the name calling.

Any time you want to stick to the topic at hand and leave your personal projections at the door, you will find I reciprocate in kind.

shiat you're doing now? Pointless.


If your problem is that it went off topic, take it up with the guy that was blaming the U.S. for propping up Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein. Wait, that's what I was doing before you jumped in. Hence, I asked you to mind your own business. If you were paying attention to the posts, you wouldn't have jumped in like a [insert previous names you've been called].
 
2011-01-28 10:38:59 AM
i362.photobucket.com

/don't blame me, I voted for blue Mubarak
 
2011-01-28 10:44:02 AM

wolvernova: If your problem is that it went off topic, take it up with the guy that was blaming the U.S. for propping up Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein.


That's was on topic too, and the context is clear to anyone who draws the parallel between how we've supported Egypt and other regimes that have very little political freedom as well.

Pre-1979 Iran is another example.

wolvernova: [insert previous names you've been called].



And this is why when you call other people trolls, it's unintentionally ironic to the point of parody.
 
2011-01-28 10:44:13 AM

jakomo002: Oh my, how dramatic. That would mean that Somoza and Pinochet and Noriega were NOT fully supported by the Americans. Omigod I've changed history by one single statement about Chavez.


You haven't changed history, you have displayed your ignorance and anti-american bias.

jakomo002: If I had known you were some kind of junior chemist, liam, I would have used a different term than litmus, but at least you're not jumping all over the place like some crazy lab monkey over one word out of 400.


Litmus test is a common political term you not understanding it doesn't make me a junior chemist.

I am not jumping all over the place over one word I am pointing out how profoundly stupid it was to go off on a rant about Chavez not possible being a dictator since the Us doesn't back him.

jakomo002: How's "dictatorship checklist"? Are you an accountant or actuary? Cashier


That is still wrong you simpleton. I can't believe that after 10+ posts you are still arguing that being a dictator is in some way connected to being supported by the US.
 
2011-01-28 10:45:21 AM
 
2011-01-28 10:47:34 AM

DarnoKonrad: wolvernova: If your problem is that it went off topic, take it up with the guy that was blaming the U.S. for propping up Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein.

That's was on topic too, and the context is clear to anyone who draws the parallel between how we've supported Egypt and other regimes that have very little political freedom as well.

Pre-1979 Iran is another example.

wolvernova: [insert previous names you've been called].


And this is why when you call other people trolls, it's unintentionally ironic to the point of parody.


Wasn't there a guiding book that was written in the late 1970's that basically made the argument "right wing authoritarians-good, left wing authoritarians-bad"?
 
Displayed 50 of 186 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report