Lol Fox News You So Funny

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Given that so many of our military are giving the ultimate sacrifice in AfPak, given just how important AfPak is to our security, particularly “Pashtunistan,” and given how important India is to this region, it’s pretty hard to argue against a presidential visit, even if that visit is “expensive.”[/quote]

What?

Americans need to pay gazillions for people who pay the “ultimate sacrifice” for their naivete and gullibility or lack of other employment opportunities?

Cant they just do the decent thing and jump in front of a train or get a job flipping burgers?
[/quote]

lol. I think the “gazillions” are for the people still living. And isn’t the “ultimate sacrifice” part of the price? (maybe you don’t understand what “ultimate sacrifice” means?)

I’ll give you a 2/10 since I actually responded…pretty weak though.

If you want to make any real arguments or address any of my actual points instead of just throwing up “witty” strawmen, be my guest. You can repeat your “dogmas” too if you feel the need, I guess. [/quote]

Here is one of my dogmas:

Forcing other people to live the way you see fit is bad mkay?

If you get shot doing that, it really is unfortunate, isnt it?

[/quote]

Your dogmas are very nuanced.

42

[quote]orion wrote:
Does not change that I refuse to mourn for dumbasses who died for “God and country”.

[/quote]

And for you. Guess you don’t think you were worth dying for and I’m sure most here will agree with you on that.

43

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Does not change that I refuse to mourn for dumbasses who died for “God and country”.

[/quote]

And for you. Guess you don’t think you were worth dying for and I’m sure most here will agree with you on that. [/quote]

See?

We agree.

They are dumbasses.

Or rather, were.

44

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
who is rachel maddow and why should we care?[/quote]

The fuck have you been?[/quote]

working way too much - lol. how you been? I see the crazines continues here

45

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
both anarchism and libertarianism have multiple and often contradictory stances on these issues.

feel free to replace “dismantled their army, destroyed their oh-so-expensive-and-unnecessary weapons and been invaded by a random foreign nation” by “privatized their army and became the subjects of a neofeudal corporation” if it fit your dogmas better. [/quote]

I am more of a Jeffersonian minarchist.

I think th�¡t arnies are necessary and one of the few justifications for its existence a government actually has.

Does not change that I refuse to mourn for dumbasses who died for “God and country”.

That is just natural selection taking its course.

[/quote]

Please do not call yourself a Jeffersonian anything, if you are not going to show respect to our fallen heroes in the military.

46

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
both anarchism and libertarianism have multiple and often contradictory stances on these issues.

feel free to replace “dismantled their army, destroyed their oh-so-expensive-and-unnecessary weapons and been invaded by a random foreign nation” by “privatized their army and became the subjects of a neofeudal corporation” if it fit your dogmas better. [/quote]

I am more of a Jeffersonian minarchist.

I think th�??�?�¡t arnies are necessary and one of the few justifications for its existence a government actually has.

Does not change that I refuse to mourn for dumbasses who died for “God and country”.

That is just natural selection taking its course.

[/quote]

Please do not call yourself a Jeffersonian anything, if you are not going to show respect to our fallen heroes in the military.[/quote]

Oh please, just read some Jefferson, will you?

47

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
both anarchism and libertarianism have multiple and often contradictory stances on these issues.

feel free to replace “dismantled their army, destroyed their oh-so-expensive-and-unnecessary weapons and been invaded by a random foreign nation” by “privatized their army and became the subjects of a neofeudal corporation” if it fit your dogmas better. [/quote]

I am more of a Jeffersonian minarchist.

I think th�??�??�?�¡t arnies are necessary and one of the few justifications for its existence a government actually has.

Does not change that I refuse to mourn for dumbasses who died for “God and country”.

That is just natural selection taking its course.

[/quote]

Please do not call yourself a Jeffersonian anything, if you are not going to show respect to our fallen heroes in the military.[/quote]

Oh please, just read some Jefferson, will you?

[/quote]

Why don’t you? here is one example, and if that is not enough, I can post all day long.

Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America’s minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, “I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro’ the medium of war.” Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: "The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . .

48

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
both anarchism and libertarianism have multiple and often contradictory stances on these issues.

feel free to replace “dismantled their army, destroyed their oh-so-expensive-and-unnecessary weapons and been invaded by a random foreign nation” by “privatized their army and became the subjects of a neofeudal corporation” if it fit your dogmas better. [/quote]

I am more of a Jeffersonian minarchist.

I think th�??�??�??�?�¡t arnies are necessary and one of the few justifications for its existence a government actually has.

Does not change that I refuse to mourn for dumbasses who died for “God and country”.

That is just natural selection taking its course.

[/quote]

Please do not call yourself a Jeffersonian anything, if you are not going to show respect to our fallen heroes in the military.[/quote]

Oh please, just read some Jefferson, will you?

[/quote]

Why don’t you? here is one example, and if that is not enough, I can post all day long.

Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America’s minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, “I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro’ the medium of war.” Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: "The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . [/quote]

“There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.” --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789.

Bazinga!

49

Orion, I do not think you get what I meant. Jefferson no doubt respected God and Country. He also respected the armed forces, so by calling your self a Jeffersonian anything would be a slap in the face to him if you follow it with what you did.

Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson

50

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
Orion, I do not think you get what I meant. Jefferson no doubt respected God and Country. He also respected the armed forces, so by calling your self a Jeffersonian anything would be a slap in the face to him if you follow it with what you did.

Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson[/quote]

He was warning against standing armies over and over and over again.

What part of this escapes you?

51

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
Orion, I do not think you get what I meant. Jefferson no doubt respected God and Country. He also respected the armed forces, so by calling your self a Jeffersonian anything would be a slap in the face to him if you follow it with what you did.

Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson[/quote]

He was warning against standing armies over and over and over again.

What part of this escapes you?

[/quote]

Yes he was, but if he were alive today, i believe he would say that you were not Jeffersonian.

52

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
Orion, I do not think you get what I meant. Jefferson no doubt respected God and Country. He also respected the armed forces, so by calling your self a Jeffersonian anything would be a slap in the face to him if you follow it with what you did.

Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson[/quote]

He was warning against standing armies over and over and over again.

What part of this escapes you?

[/quote]

Yes he was, but if he were alive today, i believe he would say that you were not Jeffersonian.
[/quote]

Mebbe.

Mebbe not.

53

Addendum:

He would however club the average tea-party member with his musket.

He would not even load it, just kill them with the butt of his musket.

Bazinga.

54

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Given that so many of our military are giving the ultimate sacrifice in AfPak, given just how important AfPak is to our security, particularly “Pashtunistan,” and given how important India is to this region, it’s pretty hard to argue against a presidential visit, even if that visit is “expensive.”[/quote]

What?

Americans need to pay gazillions for people who pay the “ultimate sacrifice” for their naivete and gullibility or lack of other employment opportunities?

Cant they just do the decent thing and jump in front of a train or get a job flipping burgers?
[/quote]

lol. I think the “gazillions” are for the people still living. And isn’t the “ultimate sacrifice” part of the price? (maybe you don’t understand what “ultimate sacrifice” means?)

I’ll give you a 2/10 since I actually responded…pretty weak though.

If you want to make any real arguments or address any of my actual points instead of just throwing up “witty” strawmen, be my guest. You can repeat your “dogmas” too if you feel the need, I guess. [/quote]

Here is one of my dogmas:

Forcing other people to live the way you see fit is bad mkay?

If you get shot doing that, it really is unfortunate, isnt it?

[/quote]

Your dogmas are very nuanced. [/quote]

Yeah well…

If I have to be dogmatic I might as well work out a system.

55

on the subject of fox, even o’reilly thinks beck is loony.

56

[quote]siouxperman wrote:
on the subject of fox, even o’reilly thinks beck is loony.

[/quote]

That’s funny, I did not hear loony, crazy, or anything like that. If he thought that, why would he be on tour with him?

57

[quote]orion wrote:
Addendum:

He would however club the average tea-party member with his musket.

He would not even load it, just kill them with the butt of his musket.

Bazinga.

[/quote]

doubtful

58

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

That’s funny, I did not hear loony, crazy, or anything like that. If he thought that, why would he be on tour with him?[/quote]

I realize that you are a simple fellow, but you must understand that something doesn’t necessarily need to be vocalized to be apparent. Does o’reilly’s overt skepticism (almost condescension) not come through to you? And it’s beck’s attitude and demeanor more than anything that get me. It’s as if he doesn’t even believe what he is saying. He can barely contain his giddiness when talking about this stuff, almost as if he’s wondering how much crazy he can push before it gets pushed back

And do you really have to ask that question? There are a number of very simple reasons as to why they would be on tour together.

59

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

And it’s beck’s attitude and demeanor more than anything that get me. It’s as if he doesn’t even believe what he is saying. He can barely contain his giddiness when talking about this stuff, almost as if he’s wondering how much crazy he can push before it gets pushed back

[/quote]

And it’s Maddow’s attitude and demeanor more than anything that get me. It’s as if she doesn’t even believe what she is saying. SHe can barely contain her giddiness when talking about this stuff, almost as if she’s wondering how much crazy she can push before it gets pushed back

It works both ways too.

60

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

And it’s beck’s attitude and demeanor more than anything that get me. It’s as if he doesn’t even believe what he is saying. He can barely contain his giddiness when talking about this stuff, almost as if he’s wondering how much crazy he can push before it gets pushed back

[/quote]

And it’s Maddow’s attitude and demeanor more than anything that get me. It’s as if she doesn’t even believe what she is saying. SHe can barely contain her giddiness when talking about this stuff, almost as if she’s wondering how much crazy she can push before it gets pushed back

It works both ways too.[/quote]

Funny, except I’m not a maddow fan and have never claimed to be. I don’t like the way she comes off either.