Gas Bandit's Political Thread

[Armadillo]

1. Name the war crimes. Be specific.

Well, I don't have all the time in the world, so I'll just go through one war crime: waterboarding.

*snipped for length*

Hmm. I'll admit, there's material for chewing on there. Thanks for the reply.

The rest of you who replied after Dieb: that sort of attitude is why liberals are strapped with the stereotype of being elitist and arrogant. You come off as exasperated that you just can't for the life of you get the savages to see the light. It's not that people just have differing opinions than you, right? Of course not, they're just REALLY stupid. :eyeroll:

Also, if you think THIS board is bad for political discussion, I'll gladly put up a couple of links to places that are FAR worse.

 

[JCM]

*snip*....that sort of attitude is why liberals are strapped.....*snip*

LIIIBS!
LIIIBS!

LIIIBS!
LIIIBS!


Heh, thats another funny thing about the far-right (and supporters), anyone that isnt a far-right lunatic, disagrees with the Iraq Invasion/ torture, USA behaving like the countries it tries to have moral superiority over is automatically a *GASP!* LIBUHRAL!!!

I'm a centrist who wouldn't mind a voted dictator and nation-wide voting by the people on important issues (like we had in Brazil on gun laws, the people chose, not the government), military service (whether the army, or helping with emergency community service) in exchange for voting rights, so please assume elsewhere, thank you.Also, if you think

THIS board is bad for political discussion, I'll gladly put up a couple of links to places that are FAR worse.

Just because some places (like FARK) are full of shite, doesn't mean forumites who have been for years here can' t mention the odd poop that appears on the carpet (no, not you JacobPooP, sit down), thankfully moderation here has been great.

 

[Troll]

1. Name the war crimes. Be specific.

Well, I don't have all the time in the world, so I'll just go through one war crime: waterboarding.

*snipped for length*

The rest of you who replied after Dieb: that sort of attitude is why liberals are strapped with the stereotype of being elitist and arrogant. You come off as exasperated that you just can't for the life of you get the savages to see the light. It's not that people just have differing opinions than you, right? Of course not, they're just REALLY stupid. :eyeroll:

Wha? I make a lighthearted joke about the nature of this board (while complimenting Dieb for a well written post), some people discuss PETA, JCM responds to Dieb, and suddenly we're all evil liberals who are elitist and arrogant? I'm really not seeing what you're talking about, except MAYBE a response to JCM's post.

I knew the internet was serious business, but I didn't realize it was THAT serious.

 

[JCM]

I knew the internet was serious business, but I didn't realize it was THAT serious.

Welcome to the net circa after 2000, Troll.

 

[ElJuski]

Troll, this is what I'm gonna tell ya:

The ambiguity of your adherence to the Troll name is what causes all this confusion. Either play your alt like made or drop it. It's like if I registered as Racist Prick and played it all PC, but one day I make a satircal non-PC joke. Things get kinda wonky.

I do think that everyone has their panties up in a bunch, though. Although I do agree that the Conserv's get butt plucked a bit more. Usually I agree with the plucking, but sometimes y'all do make rational sense. Even if I don't necessarily agree, it's not like you guys are all retarded dandies.

 

[Armadillo]

Now see, I made my point as a libertarian, not a conservative. Uber-conservatives have a way of pissing me off in a variety of ways, but so far I haven't seen a radical right-wing post worth picking off. My point was that JCM and Troll came off as arrogant and derisive in their opinions of conservatives, not that I hate all liberals or I believe that the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Most Holy will smite mine enemies because I am just and you are wicked or anything like that. Liberals have quite a few good ideas, as do conservatives. Both sides also have incredibly terrible ideas. Again, the ATTITUDE is what I took issue with. That's all.

You're all homos. THAT'S how you troll, Troll.

 

[Troll]

Now see, I made my point as a libertarian, not a conservative. Uber-conservatives have a way of pissing me off in a variety of ways, but so far I haven't seen a radical right-wing post worth picking off. My point was that JCM and Troll came off as arrogant and derisive in their opinions of conservatives, not that I hate all liberals or I believe that the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Most Holy will smite mine enemies because I am just and you are wicked or anything like that. Liberals have quite a few good ideas, as do conservatives. Both sides also have incredibly terrible ideas. Again, the ATTITUDE is what I took issue with. That's all.

You're all homos. THAT'S how you troll, Troll.

Well, my apologies. I wasn't trying to say that consevatives don't make good points. I just found Dieb's post to be exceptionally well written and organized well, regardless of political affiliation. Thus my joke wasn't meant to really pass judgement on one side or the other, just take a jab at JCM and GB going back and forth.

But hey, apparently it's my fault for not trolling enough. Or too much. I'm still not clear on that part, since it depends on who you ask, the time of day, direction of the wind, etc.

 

[Armadillo]

Now see, I made my point as a libertarian, not a conservative. Uber-conservatives have a way of pissing me off in a variety of ways, but so far I haven't seen a radical right-wing post worth picking off. My point was that JCM and Troll came off as arrogant and derisive in their opinions of conservatives, not that I hate all liberals or I believe that the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Most Holy will smite mine enemies because I am just and you are wicked or anything like that. Liberals have quite a few good ideas, as do conservatives. Both sides also have incredibly terrible ideas. Again, the ATTITUDE is what I took issue with. That's all.

You're all homos. THAT'S how you troll, Troll.

Well, my apologies. I wasn't trying to say that consevatives don't make good points. I just found Dieb's post to be exceptionally well written and organized well, regardless of political affiliation. Thus my joke wasn't meant to really pass judgement on one side or the other, just take a jab at JCM and GB going back and forth.

But hey, apparently it's my fault for not trolling enough. Or too much. I'm still not clear on that part, since it depends on who you ask, the time of day, direction of the wind, etc.

I agree. Dieb's post was excellent, and hopefully they contribute more around here. Political boards need more people like that.

Now Troll, does the STYLE of trolling differ when the weather changes? Does dew point and wind chill factor in any way?

 

[Espy]

:teeth:

He got espy.

Congrats, sir - I think you just levelled up.

Edit: unless that was some really subtle humour on your part, O smoking baby.

You know, for a troll he has no history of trolling so until it's proved otherwise I just take him at face value. I thought I was being aggressive but apparently not enough.
If he was truly trolling then I tip my hat to him and give him one internet cookie.

It's true, I'm usually not trying to troll, but with Espy I just couldn't resist. :teeth:

Anyone who goes back in this thread on the 23rd will find an exchange where Espy got me hook, line, and sinker. I've been trying for a bit to pay him back, but he's wily. I think I may have just succeeded.

He got espy? I've can't let my guard down now.

You should like, post this in the epic win thread.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1074&start=35

Watch your backs. I have a dull and rusty butter knife and a hunger for revenge.

 

[Dieb]

Hey, my post managed to start a discussion! Of course, it was a discussion about the evils of liberals and conservatives and trolling, not torture, but hey, I'll take what I can get.

Anyway, thanks for the compliments from various people, it took be about an hour to research the whole damn thing, but it was totally worth it. I myself had been calling waterboarding and the other examples of torture by this administration war crimes without knowing the legal justifications for that. It's both satisfying (turns out there are pretty damn good reasons to think it is) and completely horrifying (THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MIGHT BE GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES! Yea, I find that horrifying.)

 

[JCM]

Did armadillo avoid saying "liberals" again, even knowing Im a centrist and Troll is just a troll?

Now see, I made my point as a libertarian, not a conservative... *snip* LIBERALS!!
LIIIBS!
LIIIBS!

LIIIBS!
LIIIBS![/size]

Libertarian, like Invader and Gasbandit and the far-right in FARK?

Try talking one post without channeling Invader talking about liberals. Cmon, its not that hard, I have nothing against the rest of your post, but that "liberals' shtick was tired when pvponline was still a freeboards forum 7 years ago, and didn't improve when Janissary wore it out in the image forums 5 years ago.

Hey, my post managed to start a discussion! Of course, it was a discussion about the evils of liberals and conservatives and trolling, not torture, but hey, I'll take what I can get.

Anyway, thanks for the compliments from various people, it took be about an hour to research the whole damn thing, but it was totally worth it. I myself had been calling waterboarding and the other examples of torture by this administration war crimes without knowing the legal justifications for that. It's both satisfying (turns out there are pretty damn good reasons to think it is) and completely horrifying (THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MIGHT BE GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES! Yea, I find that horrifying.)

For what matters, I agree, although just be ready, as soon as Gasbandit comes back to work (he only posts from work, hurray for libertarian ideals) he'll probably ignore all the points and repeat something you've heard before in O'Reilly's show, to be fair I do rabble on the right, but thats just to poke fun on the vocal right, as the left has kept to themselves without absurdities in these forums, so there's nothing to make fun of.

Just do what we do, dont take him seriously, oh, and get back to roleplaying a troll.

 

[Armadillo]

Did armadillo avoid saying "liberals" again, even knowing Im a centrist and Troll is just a troll?

Now see, I made my point as a libertarian, not a conservative... *snip* LIBERALS!!
LIIIBS!
LIIIBS!

LIIIBS!
LIIIBS![/size]

Libertarian, like Invader and Gasbandit and the far-right in FARK?

Try talking one post without channeling Invader talking about liberals. Cmon, its not that hard, I have nothing against the rest of your post, but that "liberals' shtick was tired when pvponline was still a freeboards forum 7 years ago, and didn't improve when Janissary wore it out in the image forums 5 years ago.

Did you even READ my last post, or did you stop the second the word "liberal" appeared? Hey, thanks for the pigeonholing! I wasn't aware that I was a member of the far right, what with my agnosticism, pro-gay marriage and pro-drug-legalization stances. Huh, you learn something new every day! :roll:

 

[JCM]

Well, using "Libertarian" to complain about "liberals" again does pidgeonhole you in that rather entertaining group, especially seeing that Im centrist. Troll is a troll, but now I guess you see how nicely you react when assumptions like your are used against you?

Mind you, Im saying this from being in this forum for long, and many others, and seeing the behavior of those who declare themselves libertarians, and claim no interest in knowing anything about them after seeing most of their numbers dedicate hours to complaining about "liberals" :slywink:

Anyway, I grow tired of playing, nighty night

 

[Iaculus]

Did armadillo avoid saying "liberals" again, even knowing Im a centrist and Troll is just a troll?

Now see, I made my point as a libertarian, not a conservative... *snip* LIBERALS!!
LIIIBS!
LIIIBS!

LIIIBS!
LIIIBS![/size]

Libertarian, like Invader and Gasbandit and the far-right in FARK?

Try talking one post without channeling Invader talking about liberals. Cmon, its not that hard, I have nothing against the rest of your post, but that "liberals' shtick was tired when pvponline was still a freeboards forum 7 years ago, and didn't improve when Janissary wore it out in the image forums 5 years ago.

Did you even READ my last post, or did you stop the second the word "liberal" appeared? Hey, thanks for the pigeonholing! I wasn't aware that I was a member of the far right, what with my agnosticism, pro-gay marriage and pro-drug-legalization stances. Huh, you learn something new every day! :roll:

Well, it rather depends what version of 'left versus right' we're playing today. It's either liberals versus conservatives or socialists versus libertarians. Most confusing.

I think what JCM's foaming about in his usual rabid manner is that your post came across as oddly muddled. Why bring up liberals at all? Unless they're as screamingly blatant as, say, Invader, it's not a good idea to classify people as 'liberals' or 'conservatives' based on their responses to a single political debate.

 

[JCM]

I prefer rabid hammering sourced facts past bias from years of living as bitches to two political parties, to the heads of anonymous people who take the Internet too seriously, otherwise polite talk to the others thank you.

 

[Iaculus]

I prefer rabid hammering sourced facts past bias from years of living as bitches to two political parties, to the heads of anonymous people who take the Internet too seriously, otherwise polite talk to the others thank you.

Oh, come on, are you saying that there isn't one iota of foam there?

Some of us have to clean up afterwards, you know.

 

[Armadillo]

Well, it rather depends what version of 'left versus right' we're playing today. It's either liberals versus conservatives or socialists versus libertarians. Most confusing.

I think what JCM's foaming about in his usual rabid manner is that your post came across as oddly muddled. Why bring up liberals at all? Unless they're as screamingly blatant as, say, Invader, it's not a good idea to classify people as 'liberals' or 'conservatives' based on their responses to a single political debate.

Fair enough, and I apologize for being too simplistic in my definitions.

Speaking of which, I always looked at the "left vs. right" thing as more of a "control vs. freedom" loop. People on the fringes of both sides want to exert control over other people's lives, either because they believe they know better than others, because their moral sensibilities are offended, or some other vague reason. For some reason, libertarians are often lumped in with the right-wingers, meaning people see us as siding with those who would make porn, alcohol, and other vices illegal in the name of moral purity. That's probably why we tend to attack "liberals" more often than we attack "conservatives." It's more rare to be called a left-winger, which would be just as inaccurate.

Note: this post was dealing in generalities, and was not aimed at any other posters.

 

[ElJuski]

The Tribune makes a good point about the Cubs fan Mayor and the Sox fan president-elect:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ba ... 284.column

 

[JCM]

Well, it rather depends what version of 'left versus right' we're playing today. It's either liberals versus conservatives or socialists versus libertarians. Most confusing.

I think what JCM's foaming about in his usual rabid manner is that your post came across as oddly muddled. Why bring up liberals at all? Unless they're as screamingly blatant as, say, Invader, it's not a good idea to classify people as 'liberals' or 'conservatives' based on their responses to a single political debate.

Fair enough, and I apologize for being too simplistic in my definitions.

Speaking of which, I always looked at the "left vs. right" thing as more of a "control vs. freedom" loop. People on the fringes of both sides want to exert control over other people's lives, either because they believe they know better than others, because their moral sensibilities are offended, or some other vague reason. For some reason, libertarians are often lumped in with the right-wingers, meaning people see us as siding with those who would make porn, alcohol, and other vices illegal in the name of moral purity. That's probably why we tend to attack "liberals" more often than we attack "conservatives." It's more rare to be called a left-winger, which would be just as inaccurate.

Note: this post was dealing in generalities, and was not aimed at any other posters.

Fair enough, and I apologize for the snarkiness and rather crude reply, seems that I was mistaken and you are one of the sane ones. guys.

I prefer rabid hammering sourced facts past bias from years of living as bitches to two political parties, to the heads of anonymous people who take the Internet too seriously, otherwise polite talk to the others thank you.

Oh, come on, are you saying that there isn't one iota of foam there?

Some of us have to clean up afterwards, you know.

Nah, I havent been drinking enough to produce foam, so I'd suggest you stop wiping that white liquid.

 

[Mr_Chaz]

The left has kept to themselves without absurdities in these forums, so there's nothing to make fun of.

*bows*

I call myself left wing. And to an American I'd be considered a liberal. But I wouldn't describe my opinions personally as "exert control over other people's lives," more just being a nice person and wanting to help others
/troll
:teeth:

Nah, I'm left wing, I prefer to think that humanity can generally spread the love to the population.

 

[Armadillo]

The left has kept to themselves without absurdities in these forums, so there's nothing to make fun of.

*bows*

I call myself left wing. And to an American I'd be considered a liberal. But I wouldn't describe my opinions personally as "exert control over other people's lives," more just being a nice person and wanting to help others
/troll
:teeth:

Nah, I'm left wing, I prefer to think that humanity can generally spread the love to the population.

Ah, but human compassion is not a left/right deal...the argument more often comes down to what extent the government should be involved in enforcing said compassion.

Fair enough, and I apologize for the snarkiness and rather crude reply, seems that I was mistaken and you are one of the sane ones. guys.

I'm sane! I'M SANE!!!! :aaahhh: :aaahhh: :aaahhh:

 

[JCM]

The left has kept to themselves without absurdities in these forums, so there's nothing to make fun of.

*bows*

I call myself left wing. And to an American I'd be considered a liberal. But I wouldn't describe my opinions personally as "exert control over other people's lives," more just being a nice person and wanting to help others
/troll
:teeth:

Nah, I'm left wing, I prefer to think that humanity can generally spread the love to the population.

Ah, but human compassion is not a left/right deal...the argument more often comes down to what extent the government should be involved in enforcing said compassion.

And also just how much power that said government should have. Basically the right wants the government to have authority, the left wants the government to be a nanny.

 

[Mr_Chaz]

The left has kept to themselves without absurdities in these forums, so there's nothing to make fun of.

*bows*

I call myself left wing. And to an American I'd be considered a liberal. But I wouldn't describe my opinions personally as "exert control over other people's lives," more just being a nice person and wanting to help others
/troll
:teeth:

Nah, I'm left wing, I prefer to think that humanity can generally spread the love to the population.

Ah, but human compassion is not a left/right deal...the argument more often comes down to what extent the government should be involved in enforcing said compassion.

Fair enough, and I apologize for the snarkiness and rather crude reply, seems that I was mistaken and you are one of the sane ones. guys.

I'm sane! I'M SANE!!!! :aaahhh: :aaahhh: :aaahhh:

Yeah I spent ages trying to find a way to word it that didn't make the right sound like cruel bastards, didn't quite make it. Almost mind

Perhaps slightly clearer: I don't think the population as a whole would be organised enough to help everyone out, so I think we need a central body to help.

 

[Armadillo]

Yeah I spent ages trying to find a way to word it that didn't make the right sound like cruel bastards, didn't quite make it. Almost mind

Perhaps slightly clearer: I don't think the population as a whole would be organised enough to help everyone out, so I think we need a central body to help.

Since you called yourself "left-wing," I feel comfortable assuming your political stance. :teeth:

The problem with a more collectivist mindset is that ultimately, there is no greater incentive to improve your position in life than being uncomfortable. I'm not saying that we should let people starve in the streets with no way to survive if their situation is dire, but if society starts to provide a comfortable life for its citizens, there is no real impulse to go out and get a better job, more education, etc.

I'll put my own life up as an example: My wife is from a small town in central Wisconsin, where the main employer is a hospital. If you have a medical degree you're set, but there's nowhere within 120 miles to get that degree. So, if you stay in this town after high school, your options are very limited: go to a local tech school to learn a trade, grab a job at the print shop or cabinet maker's, or most often, work at the clinic in a non-medical role (clerical, insurance office). My wife left town and came up to the Twin Cities to go to school for Chemical Engineering. Nine years after graduation, her career is doing quite well, and it's all because she took the initiative to improve her life because she didn't want to be stuck in that small town the rest of her life.

Myself, I have a Culinary Arts degree and a Management degree, but last year I decided that the job prospects in those fields were unsatisfactory for where I want to be in terms of comfortability, and also that we wouldn't be able to give our daughter the best life we felt we could. So, I decided to go back to school for Food Science, which is a big industry in this part of the country, and would open many more doors than my other degrees would. It's been a difficult transition, but it'll be so worth it when I graduate in two years.

My point is, the way a society best raises the standard of life for its citizens isn't by simply giving people money, a house, or a job; it's by ensuring equal opportunities for all to succeed. The actual decision-making and work is up to the individual.

Does my rambling diatribe make sense to everybody? :teeth:

 

[GasBandit]

I prefer crying for moderators to lock the thread when somebody actually starts showing the infospam I deluge a thread with actually doesn't back up my claim whatsoever thank you.

FTFY. Seriously, that was a new low there JCM. Guess you just don't have the staying power you used to.

As for the Geneva conventions, the whole point of the Geneva convention was to set out the definition that if you are a soldier you MUST wear a uniform, as well as other requirements. By intentionally not wearing uniforms in order to blend in with civilian populations, non-uniformed combatants by definition do not have claim to the rights of protection of uniformed soldiers under the Geneva convention.

To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly.

So much for that argument.


Moving on to today's links -

Everybody had to put up with 8 years of comparing Bush to Hitler, get ready folks, for 4 to 8 years of comparing Obama to Hitler. And no, this ain't the Ben Stein bit from the convention.

Obama has made Clinton EPA head Carol Browner an advisor. That's right, good ol' "global warming is gonna kill us all tomorrow," Audubon society chair, was-but-suddenly-now-isn't-a-socialist Carol Browner.

Speaking of global warming, if you search google you're warming the planet. Also, European governments are finalizing their plans to regulate the size of "energy-guzzling" flatscreen plasma televisions. Yes, folks .. the government will be deciding how large of a plasma TV you should be allowed to buy.

Here's a must-read article from the Wall Street Journal explaining how we are living the real-life version of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." Whatever you do don't pay attention.

President Bush said that he refused to bailout the Republican Party by withdrawing from Iraq. The Republicans have a lot more than just Iraq to worry about. Complete abandonment of their party identity and convictions, for starters.

The producers and entrepreneurs are fleeing California at record rates. I'll give you one guess as to why ...... taxes.

England's government is launching an investigation as to why only 10 government school teachers have been fired for being incompetent in the last eight years.

 

[ElJuski]

Makes total sense to me.

The problem with politics is, no matter which side you aim for, politics are ideals. Every group has their ideal of how things are going to go, and which could probably work.

However, since they are ideals, and far from practical measures, they usually fall flat. Not to mention most people don't factor in various things about politics, like greed. Conservatism allows companies to greed and glut on the people just as much as Liberalism allows the people to greed and glut on the system.

That's why I think the most important structure this country needs to build is education. We teach people to be self reliant and suddenly we don't need those safety nets anymore.

 

[Mr_Chaz]

Yeah I spent ages trying to find a way to word it that didn't make the right sound like cruel bastards, didn't quite make it. Almost mind

Perhaps slightly clearer: I don't think the population as a whole would be organised enough to help everyone out, so I think we need a central body to help.

Since you called yourself "left-wing," I feel comfortable assuming your political stance. :teeth:

The problem with a more collectivist mindset is that ultimately, there is no greater incentive to improve your position in life than being uncomfortable. I'm not saying that we should let people starve in the streets with no way to survive if their situation is dire, but if society starts to provide a comfortable life for its citizens, there is no real impulse to go out and get a better job, more education, etc.

I'll put my own life up as an example: My wife is from a small town in central Wisconsin, where the main employer is a hospital. If you have a medical degree you're set, but there's nowhere within 120 miles to get that degree. So, if you stay in this town after high school, your options are very limited: go to a local tech school to learn a trade, grab a job at the print shop or cabinet maker's, or most often, work at the clinic in a non-medical role (clerical, insurance office). My wife left town and came up to the Twin Cities to go to school for Chemical Engineering. Nine years after graduation, her career is doing quite well, and it's all because she took the initiative to improve her life because she didn't want to be stuck in that small town the rest of her life.

Myself, I have a Culinary Arts degree and a Management degree, but last year I decided that the job prospects in those fields were unsatisfactory for where I want to be in terms of comfortability, and also that we wouldn't be able to give our daughter the best life we felt we could. So, I decided to go back to school for Food Science, which is a big industry in this part of the country, and would open many more doors than my other degrees would. It's been a difficult transition, but it'll be so worth it when I graduate in two years.

My point is, the way a society best raises the standard of life for its citizens isn't by simply giving people money, a house, or a job; it's by ensuring equal opportunities for all to succeed. The actual decision-making and work is up to the individual.

Does my rambling diatribe make sense to everybody? :teeth:

Interestingly I actually agree with most of that. I guess the difference is probably more in what we define as a comfortable life. I don't think the government should be providing a comfortable life, but I think it can get us closer whilst still improving society.

And I liked to define my terms of reference for left-wing just to make sure the US/UK definition is close enough to apply :teeth:

 

[zero]

Here's a must-read article from the Wall Street Journal explaining how we are living the real-life version of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."

Ah! The often quoted miss Rosembaum's book... See, I find it perfectly understandable that a Russian-born kid that came to EUA to flee the Bolsheviks developed a libertarianism obsession and very little literary style in English (the rape fetishism, on the other hand, eludes me a bit... any psychoanalyst here?). What I don't get is why there's such a fuss about the crap she writes in the States...

 

[JCM]

I prefer telling moderators to lock a thread when the last pages were just me reposting the same posts while some anonymous guy keeps closing his eyes and saying "nu-uh" thank you.

FTFY. Seriously, that was a new low there JCM. Guess you just have a life, instead of having to repost the same post over and over for my entertainment

:slywink:
Sorry, I dont have time to play with you anymore.

As for the Geneva conventions, the whole point of the Geneva convention was to set out the definition that if you are a soldier you MUST wear a uniform, as well as other requirements. By intentionally not wearing uniforms in order to blend in with civilian populations, non-uniformed combatants by definition do not have claim to the rights of protection of uniformed soldiers under the Geneva convention.

Mind you, some of the captured were combatants in war, wearing the Taliban uniform, which were light brown Pakistani vests and pants, yellowish green jacket and the pitch-black thick Turban, which in Afghanistan was only used by the Taliban, and was actually their mark of honor, always worn when in battle and when carrying out official duty.

Heck, the afghan people used to cower at the sight of the black Turban, and seeing that members of another militant groups were easily captured in Malaysia IN THE MIDDLE of the end of Ramashan celebrations in a crowded city in malaysia (Al-arquam, who used a dark-green cloth around the sholders, and dark-colored turbans with a green stripe running along it), it makes me wonder how the US "intelligent" army would survive without its superior weaponry with the low IQ of soldiers/local especialists.

For untravelled dumbasses who cant distiguish a Sunni from a Shiite, I may suggest reading books talking about Afghanistan during the time of Taliban, like "the Kite runner", "The Women of Afghanistan Under the Taliban" and "Taliban". Of course some retards living in a fantasy world where some uniform recognizable by several Muslim groups and used to scare the populace somehow "isnt" a uniform, but thats because its easier than to admit that their country didnt learn enough about the enemy to say something like "aim for the black turbans sticking out in the crowd"

EDIT:Seeing you pulled your article from wiki, how about one on the Taliban uniform?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geo_S ... an_uniform

Perhaps slightly clearer: I don't think the population as a whole would be organised enough to help everyone out, so I think we need a central body to help.

I agree on that, but I doubt a corrupt body like the government can do anything without making us pay more for a good % to be stolen by corrupt officials.

 

[Armadillo]

Interestingly I actually agree with most of that. I guess the difference is probably more in what we define as a comfortable life. I don't think the government should be providing a comfortable life, but I think it can get us closer whilst still improving society.

And I liked to define my terms of reference for left-wing just to make sure the US/UK definition is close enough to apply :teeth:

I'm willing to bet that the American definition of "left-wing" is more conservative than the European/British definition. We're a bit more right-leaning on this side of the pond. Could you tell? :teeth:

If you believe the government can "get us closer" to a more comfortable life, the question then becomes how that is accomplished. Since the government doesn't generate income beyond taxation, then by definition you have to take money in the form of taxes from one group of people and distribute it to another group, which is edging up on socialism. Personally, I'm not a big fan of socialism, since in my mind it can stifle innovation and take away incentives to perform. I believe you reap the benefits of your hard work, and take the risk of failure if you conduct business poorly or if a gamble doesn't pay off. As such, I have a MAJOR problem with bailing out Wall Street and giving "tax cuts" to people who didn't pay taxes in the first place, but apparently a lot of people in this country disagree with me, since we've recently elected people in the form of senators, representatives, and even a President who are willing to spend like it's going out of style, even if it means racking up $1.2 TRILLION of debt. :aaahhh:

Not that the current/soon-to-be-previous President was much better.

 

[Troll]

Everybody had to put up with 8 years of comparing Bush to Hitler, get ready folks, for 4 to 8 years of comparing Obama to Hitler. And no, this ain't the Ben Stein bit from the convention.

Wow. What a pompous dipshit. Reading that made my brain hurt.

The producers and entrepreneurs are fleeing California at record rates. I'll give you one guess as to why ...... taxes.

And our good Guvernator just laid out a plan to jack up taxes even more! My favorite is bumping up the sales tax to around 10% (it would be more than 10 in my county, actually), and then making more things eligible for sales tax. Ass.

 

[GasBandit]

Mind you, some of the captured were combatants in war, wearing the Taliban uniform, which were light brown Pakistani vests and pants, yellowish green jacket and the pitch-black thick Turban, which in Afghanistan was only used by the Taliban, and was actually their mark of honor, always worn when in battle and when carrying out official duty.

That's not the people who were in question. All the "bush war crimes" nonsense came from Iraq, not Afghanistan.

 

[Armadillo]

Everybody had to put up with 8 years of comparing Bush to Hitler, get ready folks, for 4 to 8 years of comparing Obama to Hitler.

Hoo boy...Dude claims to be with the Founders and a strict Constitutionalist, but he's not. Not even freaking close. Nothing chaps me faster than some nutbar trying to use the Constitution to justify their bigotry and narrow worldview.

EDIT: Me no use quote funcshun gud!

 

[GasBandit]

And how about a nice political joke today?


What happens when a fly falls into a coffee cup?

The Italian throws the cup, breaks it, and walks away in a fit of rage.

The German carefully washes the cup, sterilizes it and makes a new cup of coffee.

The Frenchman takes out the fly, and drinks the coffee.

The Chinese eats the fly and throws away the coffee.

The Russian drinks the coffee with the fly, since it was extra with no charge.

The Israeli sells the coffee to the Frenchman, the fly to the Chinese, makes a cup of tea for himself and uses the extra money to invent a device that prevents flies from falling into cups.

The Palestinian blames the Israeli for the fly falling in his coffee, protests the act of aggression to the UN, takes a loan from the European Union to buy a new cup of coffee, uses the money to purchase explosives and then blows up the coffee house where the Italian, the Frenchman, the Chinese, the German and the Russian are all trying to explain to the Israeli that he should give away his cup of tea to the Palestinian.

 

[Covar]

I lol'd