"War on Terror" Renamed

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

What difference does it make what it's called?

Guido said that it was a "sacred right to kill babies". I corrected him by letting him know that medical definitions provide that it is a fetus until birth, not a baby.

I wouldn't have chimed in if he had instead said that it was a "sacred right to kill fetuses".

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

What difference does it make what it's called?

Guido said that it was a "sacred right to kill babies". I corrected him by letting him know that medical definitions provide that it is a fetus until birth, not a baby.

I wouldn't have chimed in if he had instead said that it was a "sacred right to kill fetuses".

I appreciate your point, believe me. My statement was specifically addressed to PM. We are polar opposites on this issue.

As to the medical definition of baby and fetus; who really cares. There is a 100% chance (absent abortion or fetal demise) that this "fetus" will eventually become a human being.  

CF:  What's the matter with you? The only point I was making with the photo is that this "fetus" has very human or "baby" features in an effort to blur what many believe is a very bright demarcation line between fetus and baby. You sometimes look for a fight where there isn't one. []

[Gaspar]

I like it.  

Sometimes challenges require carpet bombing.

We are experiencing some challenges with the auto industry aren't we?

Hmmm?

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Did you see that he signed the order for tax payer-funded abortion?

No, he did not.  He signed the executive order that reversed the global gag order that prohibited any funding that went to any organization that even offered information about abortion.  He didn't sign anything for "tax payer-funded abortions."  Please.

So none of these places perform abortions or use federal funding?

Conan said that he signed an order for tax payer-funded abortions.  No money goes to performing an abortion.  Period.  It is for family planning and health, including aids prevention and sex education.  The gag order prohibited money from going to any organization that even mentioned abortion.  So, under Bush's rule, if a patients asks where can I get an abortion, and the organization answers the patient's question, they would lose all of their funding.

Whatever your thoughts on abortion, if it is legal, then a doctor should be able to answer that question without going out of business.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by guido911


CF:  What's the matter with you? The only point I was making with the photo is that this "fetus" has very human or "baby" features in an effort to blur what many believe is a very bright demarcation line between fetus and baby. You sometimes look for a fight where there isn't one. []

I'm flat out in a pissy mood.  Tons of [stuff] piled up on my desk that I would far rather deal with than the item which I HAVE to get done this evening because I'm an idiot and said I would.  Which is why I am still at work and will be for a good long while.

I told my secretary earlier today that I wasn't taking calls (to try and get this done) and some [jerk] client demanded to speak with me.  That didn't help.  I hate people.

Starting Monday I'm going on a lawsuit rampage.  My firm has a backlog of small BS cases to clean out and I'm going to spend next week just suing the crap out of people.  It will put me further in the hole on the rest of my world, but it will sure make me feel good about myself.

/vent and back to work.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

I like it.  

Sometimes challenges require carpet bombing.

We are experiencing some challenges with the auto industry aren't we?

Hmmm?

Are you suggesting that we carpet bomb Detroit? []

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by guido911


CF:  What's the matter with you? The only point I was making with the photo is that this "fetus" has very human or "baby" features in an effort to blur what many believe is a very bright demarcation line between fetus and baby. You sometimes look for a fight where there isn't one. []

Starting Monday I'm going on a lawsuit rampage.  My firm has a backlog of small BS cases to clean out and I'm going to spend next week just suing the crap out of people.  It will put me further in the hole on the rest of my world, but it will sure make me feel good about myself.

/vent and back to work.

If there is any general or professional liability cases, see ya in court counselor. Remember, the statute of limitations for all personal injury cases is three years not two years--so take your time. (just kidding)

[Hawkins]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

Did we win the "war on drugs?"

A "war on poverty?"

The term "War on Terror" was vague, lacked a clear cut strategy, and showed the incompetence of the former administration's handling of 9/11.

The British dropped the term over a year ago.

Terrorism is a Police/FBI matter anyway. Going to "war" over terrorist attacks does not present a straightforward path to any victory, and it successfully blurs the lines between military and police, criminal justice and military tribunals.

I'm thankful we now have confident, fresh leadership that can help restore America's hope and reputation as we move forward.

--

Calling the war on terror "challenges" should really make a difference then. After all, what's most important is the name of the mission and not it's successful completion.

BTW, terrorism is a police/FBI matter? How do you plan on serving indictments on these terrorists living in foreign countries? I bet the Taliban would have arrested Osama and turned him over if we just would have asked. If it is a police matter, should the terrorists get Miranda warnings? Can they "take the Fifth"? How about search warrants; should the arresting officer in a foreign land be required to show probable cause? If so, do they make the showing to a U.S. judge or the host nation's judge? How about issuing witness subpoenas. Should the FBI or our soldiers go knocking on cave doors to serve them? These people have no problem with strapping bombs to themselves or their children to kill innocent people in huge numbers. They are not criminals, they are terrorists.

Your myopic and BDS-driven take on this issue is both sad and laughable. Please take this as intended, you should never, ever again go full retard:

http://www.joblo.com/video/joblo/player.php?video=tropic-retard

Well if you're going to get all worked up about it and throw stupid movie clips in there, watch the first few minutes of "Team America: World Police."

That is the global reputation Bush gave us. Obama has a lot of repair work to do.

My biggest gripe with the "war on terror," however, is how it threatened U.S. citizens. Its amazing how successful the 9/11 attack was at destroying our constitutional liberties, thanks to the narrow minded vision of the Bush White House.

The Patriot Acts, illegal wiretaps, Guantanomo Bay, this kind of crap is disgusting and unAmerican.

Someday a church could be labeled a "terrorist organization" and all of its members--U.S. Citizens no less--could be held without legal representation!! That is the slippery road the "War on Terror" has put us on.

You know, terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. The FBI handled it.

We did ask the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden. They didn't. Our military went in. I am still in favor of this decision, however the operation was handled poorly, and we didn't have enough of our own men on the field at Tora Bora, and Bin Laden escaped. Good job, Bush. And it is HIS FAULT, as Commander-in-chief, he botched the capture of Bin Laden by relying to heavily on local militia instead of our own troops.

Then this totally "retarded," (to use you're own terminology) 'War on Terror' declaration served NO PURPOSE and was doomed from day one to be forgotten at a later date (Kind of like that STUPID RETARDED color-coded terror alert system they cooked up).

And now that date has arrived.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

Did we win the "war on drugs?"

A "war on poverty?"

The term "War on Terror" was vague, lacked a clear cut strategy, and showed the incompetence of the former administration's handling of 9/11.

The British dropped the term over a year ago.

Terrorism is a Police/FBI matter anyway. Going to "war" over terrorist attacks does not present a straightforward path to any victory, and it successfully blurs the lines between military and police, criminal justice and military tribunals.

I'm thankful we now have confident, fresh leadership that can help restore America's hope and reputation as we move forward.

--

Calling the war on terror "challenges" should really make a difference then. After all, what's most important is the name of the mission and not it's successful completion.

BTW, terrorism is a police/FBI matter? How do you plan on serving indictments on these terrorists living in foreign countries? I bet the Taliban would have arrested Osama and turned him over if we just would have asked. If it is a police matter, should the terrorists get Miranda warnings? Can they "take the Fifth"? How about search warrants; should the arresting officer in a foreign land be required to show probable cause? If so, do they make the showing to a U.S. judge or the host nation's judge? How about issuing witness subpoenas. Should the FBI or our soldiers go knocking on cave doors to serve them? These people have no problem with strapping bombs to themselves or their children to kill innocent people in huge numbers. They are not criminals, they are terrorists.

Your myopic and BDS-driven take on this issue is both sad and laughable. Please take this as intended, you should never, ever again go full retard:

http://www.joblo.com/video/joblo/player.php?video=tropic-retard

Well if you're going to get all worked up about it and throw stupid movie clips in there, watch the first few minutes of "Team America: World Police."

That is the global reputation Bush gave us. Obama has a lot of repair work to do.

My biggest gripe with the "war on terror," however, is how it threatened U.S. citizens. Its amazing how successful the 9/11 attack was at destroying our constitutional liberties, thanks to the narrow minded vision of the Bush White House.

The Patriot Acts, illegal wiretaps, Guantanomo Bay, this kind of crap is disgusting and unAmerican.

Someday a church could be labeled a "terrorist organization" and all of its members--U.S. Citizens no less--could be held without legal representation!! That is the slippery road the "War on Terror" has put us on.

You know, terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. The FBI handled it.

We did ask the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden. They didn't. Our military went in. I am still in favor of this decision, however the operation was handled poorly, and we didn't have enough of our own men on the field at Tora Bora, and Bin Laden escaped. Good job, Bush. And it is HIS FAULT, as Commander-in-chief, he botched the capture of Bin Laden by relying to heavily on local militia instead of our own troops.

Then this totally "retarded," (to use you're own terminology) 'War on Terror' declaration served NO PURPOSE and was doomed from day one to be forgotten at a later date (Kind of like that STUPID RETARDED color-coded terror alert system they cooked up).

And now that date has arrived.

Just wow. You managed to spew all that, yet cleverly omit that this country has had no terrorist attacks since 9/11. Bush's ineptitude I guess.

Illegal wiretaps; pray tell what you are talking about? The Patriot Acts? You mean the statute that Obama voted to extend. How about those illegal wiretaps. I guess you just forgot that Obama voted in favor of FISA and telecom immunity. As far as Gitmo goes, where do you think the terrorists plucked from the battlefield should be held? How about right here in Tulsa--maybe your neighborhood?

Also, how about answering the meat and potatoes of my response to your post about terrorism being a police/FBI matter. Interesting that when confronted with legal realities about that pre-9/11 mentality you chose to either ignore them or punt.

Unfortunately for you (and now us because we have to deal with you), your BDS has obviously resulted in historical revisionism. Please, get the facts straight before you run your mouth. It's kinda embarrassing.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

Did we win the "war on drugs?"

A "war on poverty?"

The term "War on Terror" was vague, lacked a clear cut strategy, and showed the incompetence of the former administration's handling of 9/11.

The British dropped the term over a year ago.

Terrorism is a Police/FBI matter anyway. Going to "war" over terrorist attacks does not present a straightforward path to any victory, and it successfully blurs the lines between military and police, criminal justice and military tribunals.

I'm thankful we now have confident, fresh leadership that can help restore America's hope and reputation as we move forward.

--

Calling the war on terror "challenges" should really make a difference then. After all, what's most important is the name of the mission and not it's successful completion.

BTW, terrorism is a police/FBI matter? How do you plan on serving indictments on these terrorists living in foreign countries? I bet the Taliban would have arrested Osama and turned him over if we just would have asked. If it is a police matter, should the terrorists get Miranda warnings? Can they "take the Fifth"? How about search warrants; should the arresting officer in a foreign land be required to show probable cause? If so, do they make the showing to a U.S. judge or the host nation's judge? How about issuing witness subpoenas. Should the FBI or our soldiers go knocking on cave doors to serve them? These people have no problem with strapping bombs to themselves or their children to kill innocent people in huge numbers. They are not criminals, they are terrorists.

Your myopic and BDS-driven take on this issue is both sad and laughable. Please take this as intended, you should never, ever again go full retard:

http://www.joblo.com/video/joblo/player.php?video=tropic-retard

Well if you're going to get all worked up about it and throw stupid movie clips in there, watch the first few minutes of "Team America: World Police."

That is the global reputation Bush gave us. Obama has a lot of repair work to do.

My biggest gripe with the "war on terror," however, is how it threatened U.S. citizens. Its amazing how successful the 9/11 attack was at destroying our constitutional liberties, thanks to the narrow minded vision of the Bush White House.

The Patriot Acts, illegal wiretaps, Guantanomo Bay, this kind of crap is disgusting and unAmerican.

Someday a church could be labeled a "terrorist organization" and all of its members--U.S. Citizens no less--could be held without legal representation!! That is the slippery road the "War on Terror" has put us on.

You know, terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. The FBI handled it.

We did ask the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden. They didn't. Our military went in. I am still in favor of this decision, however the operation was handled poorly, and we didn't have enough of our own men on the field at Tora Bora, and Bin Laden escaped. Good job, Bush. And it is HIS FAULT, as Commander-in-chief, he botched the capture of Bin Laden by relying to heavily on local militia instead of our own troops.

Then this totally "retarded," (to use you're own terminology) 'War on Terror' declaration served NO PURPOSE and was doomed from day one to be forgotten at a later date (Kind of like that STUPID RETARDED color-coded terror alert system they cooked up).

And now that date has arrived.

Just wow. You managed to spew all that, yet cleverly omit that this country has had no terrorist attacks since 9/11.

The anthrax attacks after 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack?

I guess you have a weird criteria for such a term.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

Did we win the "war on drugs?"

A "war on poverty?"

The term "War on Terror" was vague, lacked a clear cut strategy, and showed the incompetence of the former administration's handling of 9/11.

The British dropped the term over a year ago.

Terrorism is a Police/FBI matter anyway. Going to "war" over terrorist attacks does not present a straightforward path to any victory, and it successfully blurs the lines between military and police, criminal justice and military tribunals.

I'm thankful we now have confident, fresh leadership that can help restore America's hope and reputation as we move forward.

--

Calling the war on terror "challenges" should really make a difference then. After all, what's most important is the name of the mission and not it's successful completion.

BTW, terrorism is a police/FBI matter? How do you plan on serving indictments on these terrorists living in foreign countries? I bet the Taliban would have arrested Osama and turned him over if we just would have asked. If it is a police matter, should the terrorists get Miranda warnings? Can they "take the Fifth"? How about search warrants; should the arresting officer in a foreign land be required to show probable cause? If so, do they make the showing to a U.S. judge or the host nation's judge? How about issuing witness subpoenas. Should the FBI or our soldiers go knocking on cave doors to serve them? These people have no problem with strapping bombs to themselves or their children to kill innocent people in huge numbers. They are not criminals, they are terrorists.

Your myopic and BDS-driven take on this issue is both sad and laughable. Please take this as intended, you should never, ever again go full retard:

http://www.joblo.com/video/joblo/player.php?video=tropic-retard

Well if you're going to get all worked up about it and throw stupid movie clips in there, watch the first few minutes of "Team America: World Police."

That is the global reputation Bush gave us. Obama has a lot of repair work to do.

My biggest gripe with the "war on terror," however, is how it threatened U.S. citizens. Its amazing how successful the 9/11 attack was at destroying our constitutional liberties, thanks to the narrow minded vision of the Bush White House.

The Patriot Acts, illegal wiretaps, Guantanomo Bay, this kind of crap is disgusting and unAmerican.

Someday a church could be labeled a "terrorist organization" and all of its members--U.S. Citizens no less--could be held without legal representation!! That is the slippery road the "War on Terror" has put us on.

You know, terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. The FBI handled it.

We did ask the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden. They didn't. Our military went in. I am still in favor of this decision, however the operation was handled poorly, and we didn't have enough of our own men on the field at Tora Bora, and Bin Laden escaped. Good job, Bush. And it is HIS FAULT, as Commander-in-chief, he botched the capture of Bin Laden by relying to heavily on local militia instead of our own troops.

Then this totally "retarded," (to use you're own terminology) 'War on Terror' declaration served NO PURPOSE and was doomed from day one to be forgotten at a later date (Kind of like that STUPID RETARDED color-coded terror alert system they cooked up).

And now that date has arrived.

Just wow. You managed to spew all that, yet cleverly omit that this country has had no terrorist attacks since 9/11.

The anthrax attacks after 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack?

I guess you have a weird criteria for such a term.

Okay, Who farted in here?

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

Did we win the "war on drugs?"

A "war on poverty?"

The term "War on Terror" was vague, lacked a clear cut strategy, and showed the incompetence of the former administration's handling of 9/11.

The British dropped the term over a year ago.

Terrorism is a Police/FBI matter anyway. Going to "war" over terrorist attacks does not present a straightforward path to any victory, and it successfully blurs the lines between military and police, criminal justice and military tribunals.

I'm thankful we now have confident, fresh leadership that can help restore America's hope and reputation as we move forward.

--

Calling the war on terror "challenges" should really make a difference then. After all, what's most important is the name of the mission and not it's successful completion.

BTW, terrorism is a police/FBI matter? How do you plan on serving indictments on these terrorists living in foreign countries? I bet the Taliban would have arrested Osama and turned him over if we just would have asked. If it is a police matter, should the terrorists get Miranda warnings? Can they "take the Fifth"? How about search warrants; should the arresting officer in a foreign land be required to show probable cause? If so, do they make the showing to a U.S. judge or the host nation's judge? How about issuing witness subpoenas. Should the FBI or our soldiers go knocking on cave doors to serve them? These people have no problem with strapping bombs to themselves or their children to kill innocent people in huge numbers. They are not criminals, they are terrorists.

Your myopic and BDS-driven take on this issue is both sad and laughable. Please take this as intended, you should never, ever again go full retard:

http://www.joblo.com/video/joblo/player.php?video=tropic-retard

Well if you're going to get all worked up about it and throw stupid movie clips in there, watch the first few minutes of "Team America: World Police."

That is the global reputation Bush gave us. Obama has a lot of repair work to do.

My biggest gripe with the "war on terror," however, is how it threatened U.S. citizens. Its amazing how successful the 9/11 attack was at destroying our constitutional liberties, thanks to the narrow minded vision of the Bush White House.

The Patriot Acts, illegal wiretaps, Guantanomo Bay, this kind of crap is disgusting and unAmerican.

Someday a church could be labeled a "terrorist organization" and all of its members--U.S. Citizens no less--could be held without legal representation!! That is the slippery road the "War on Terror" has put us on.

You know, terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. The FBI handled it.

We did ask the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden. They didn't. Our military went in. I am still in favor of this decision, however the operation was handled poorly, and we didn't have enough of our own men on the field at Tora Bora, and Bin Laden escaped. Good job, Bush. And it is HIS FAULT, as Commander-in-chief, he botched the capture of Bin Laden by relying to heavily on local militia instead of our own troops.

Then this totally "retarded," (to use you're own terminology) 'War on Terror' declaration served NO PURPOSE and was doomed from day one to be forgotten at a later date (Kind of like that STUPID RETARDED color-coded terror alert system they cooked up).

And now that date has arrived.

Just wow. You managed to spew all that, yet cleverly omit that this country has had no terrorist attacks since 9/11.

The anthrax attacks after 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack?

I guess you have a weird criteria for such a term.

Okay, Who farted in here?

So ...

You don't answer my question. Instead, you toss out an immature retort.

I'm disappointed. You're a fairly smart guy; you can do better than that.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins


I'm thankful we now have confident, fresh leadership that can help restore America's hope and reputation as we move forward.

--

Is this the sort of reputation improving action you are referring to; Obama wanting a waiver to his own ethics rule?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziUW5G6n054&eurl=http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/24/brown-bashes-obama-dont-make-ethics-rules-you-wont-follow

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

Did we win the "war on drugs?"

A "war on poverty?"

The term "War on Terror" was vague, lacked a clear cut strategy, and showed the incompetence of the former administration's handling of 9/11.

The British dropped the term over a year ago.

Terrorism is a Police/FBI matter anyway. Going to "war" over terrorist attacks does not present a straightforward path to any victory, and it successfully blurs the lines between military and police, criminal justice and military tribunals.

I'm thankful we now have confident, fresh leadership that can help restore America's hope and reputation as we move forward.

--

Calling the war on terror "challenges" should really make a difference then. After all, what's most important is the name of the mission and not it's successful completion.

BTW, terrorism is a police/FBI matter? How do you plan on serving indictments on these terrorists living in foreign countries? I bet the Taliban would have arrested Osama and turned him over if we just would have asked. If it is a police matter, should the terrorists get Miranda warnings? Can they "take the Fifth"? How about search warrants; should the arresting officer in a foreign land be required to show probable cause? If so, do they make the showing to a U.S. judge or the host nation's judge? How about issuing witness subpoenas. Should the FBI or our soldiers go knocking on cave doors to serve them? These people have no problem with strapping bombs to themselves or their children to kill innocent people in huge numbers. They are not criminals, they are terrorists.

Your myopic and BDS-driven take on this issue is both sad and laughable. Please take this as intended, you should never, ever again go full retard:

http://www.joblo.com/video/joblo/player.php?video=tropic-retard

Well if you're going to get all worked up about it and throw stupid movie clips in there, watch the first few minutes of "Team America: World Police."

That is the global reputation Bush gave us. Obama has a lot of repair work to do.

My biggest gripe with the "war on terror," however, is how it threatened U.S. citizens. Its amazing how successful the 9/11 attack was at destroying our constitutional liberties, thanks to the narrow minded vision of the Bush White House.

The Patriot Acts, illegal wiretaps, Guantanomo Bay, this kind of crap is disgusting and unAmerican.

Someday a church could be labeled a "terrorist organization" and all of its members--U.S. Citizens no less--could be held without legal representation!! That is the slippery road the "War on Terror" has put us on.

You know, terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. The FBI handled it.

We did ask the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden. They didn't. Our military went in. I am still in favor of this decision, however the operation was handled poorly, and we didn't have enough of our own men on the field at Tora Bora, and Bin Laden escaped. Good job, Bush. And it is HIS FAULT, as Commander-in-chief, he botched the capture of Bin Laden by relying to heavily on local militia instead of our own troops.

Then this totally "retarded," (to use you're own terminology) 'War on Terror' declaration served NO PURPOSE and was doomed from day one to be forgotten at a later date (Kind of like that STUPID RETARDED color-coded terror alert system they cooked up).

And now that date has arrived.

Just wow. You managed to spew all that, yet cleverly omit that this country has had no terrorist attacks since 9/11.

The anthrax attacks after 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack?

I guess you have a weird criteria for such a term.

Okay, Who farted in here?

So ...

You don't answer my question. Instead, you toss out an immature retort.

I'm disappointed. You're a fairly smart guy; you can do better than that.

No RW, it was not a terrorist attack. The anthrax attacks were perpetrated by Bruce Ivins, a now-deceased bio scientist, not al Qaeda or any other middle eastern terrorist organization that is the subject of the war on terror. If you label Ivins' anthrax attacks as terrorism (and in the context of this "war on terror" name  change), then heck, let's throw in the DC sniper and that idiot OU student that blew himself up in 2005 as terrorism too.

[Wrinkle]

It's being reported BO now favors the 'super wedgie' as opposed to Tickle-Torture. But, this rankled many of his base since most of them were once subjected to this form of 'torture' when they were in school.