25 Feb 2011, 10:02 pm
25 Feb 2011, 10:16 pm
25 Feb 2011, 10:17 pm
AceOfSpades wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Not jumping the gun on a violent situation with a guy willing to sponsor international terrorism is the best course of action for now, unless you want the strhtf
That would maybe have merit if it wasn't for the fact we don't even have a military ship in the Mediteranean for the first time in 30 years...
So? There are other countries that are there to police the Mediterranean that are US allies who actually border the Mediterranean. Outside of the World Wars and the Barbary War there is no reason for US ships to be there unless invited anyway. The US getting involved directly would be like Obama taking America's collective wang and putting it right back into the hornets nest that your country is slowly pulling out of
Uh international waters as long as the ship is in International waters, a country really can't complain too much about it.
Furthermore a military vessel could evacuate people a lot faster than the boat or boats Obama hired to do the job.
Uh you mumble when you type
So in other words you have nothing to add. btw it's not mumbling, it's called an expression.
@ Inuyasha: What boats are Obama sending in place of the military ships?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... grows.html
I think the boat is in one of the pictures and it isn't the big one, the Chinese had that.
25 Feb 2011, 11:04 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Not jumping the gun on a violent situation with a guy willing to sponsor international terrorism is the best course of action for now, unless you want the strhtf
That would maybe have merit if it wasn't for the fact we don't even have a military ship in the Mediteranean for the first time in 30 years...
So? There are other countries that are there to police the Mediterranean that are US allies who actually border the Mediterranean. Outside of the World Wars and the Barbary War there is no reason for US ships to be there unless invited anyway. The US getting involved directly would be like Obama taking America's collective wang and putting it right back into the hornets nest that your country is slowly pulling out of
Uh international waters as long as the ship is in International waters, a country really can't complain too much about it.
Furthermore a military vessel could evacuate people a lot faster than the boat or boats Obama hired to do the job.
Uh you mumble when you type
So in other words you have nothing to add. btw it's not mumbling, it's called an expression.
@ Inuyasha: What boats are Obama sending in place of the military ships?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... grows.html
I think the boat is in one of the pictures and it isn't the big one, the Chinese had that.
would a military boat be better? or seen as a threat of american invasion?
I agree on the issue of dropping the ball on getting people out.
before things even got rough in egypt there were already planes set up.
what are americans doing in Libya in the first place?
other than anthropoid fossils I don't see a reason to vacation there.
-Jake
-Jake
25 Feb 2011, 11:42 pm
26 Feb 2011, 12:34 am
NeantHumain wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
s...they've overcome the semantic boundary to where they can have proactively racist action by opposing much of the social programs that provide lifelines to impoverished (normally) minority areas.
Before Nixon and Reagan kicked off the Southern Strategy, Northeast Republicans still preferred a leaner, meaner government because they were the party of business even back then. That plank happens to align conveniently with the bigotries of the more reactionary elements of the Right.
Sure whatever.
26 Feb 2011, 1:07 am
Inuyasha wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
s...they've overcome the semantic boundary to where they can have proactively racist action by opposing much of the social programs that provide lifelines to impoverished (normally) minority areas.
Before Nixon and Reagan (3) kicked off the Southern Strategy, Northeast Republicans still preferred a leaner, meaner government because they were the party of business even back then. That plank happens to align conveniently with the bigotries(5) of the more reactionary elements of the Right.
Sure whatever(1).
(2)(1) assuming bad faith
(2) emotional non argument
athough
(3) I could be wrong but I think Goldwater came up with it or at least did it first.
(4) NeantHumain seems to be assuming the bad faith of the republican party
but qualifies his claims with the language of non-intention.
this is the model of history as I understand it
1. Southern democrats split with Democratic party over issues of intergration
2. Republican as strict constructionists are pro-states rights.
3. this aligns them with the Southern
4. Republicans took advantage of this fact and the south becomes Republican.
look at how electoral vote maps change from 1930 to 1990 the south switches from blue to red.
not exactly conspiracy theory.
26 Feb 2011, 9:08 am
LKL wrote:
ikorack wrote:
LKL wrote:
wrt the OP, it's funny: I'm employed, I pay my taxes, and recently lived with a woman who was 'disabled' and bent on gaming the system for every last red cent she could extract, whether she needed it or not (for example, she had one of those chairs advertised on TV as being 'completely paid for by medicare' despite being perfectly able to walk), and regularly lied through her teeth; I am a flaming liberal, and she was as conservative as they come - up to and including loving every last thing Palin ever uttered. She was a classic believer in 'keeping the Government's filthy hands off of her medicare,' and was constantly whining about 'freeloaders' and 'illegals' taking handouts.
Did you report her?
no. She was very good at extracting sympathy - very excellent at manipulating people - all of the neighbors, for instance, were convinced that she was a kindly, poor, old disabled woman and that I was a cold, unfeeling b***h because I was openly contemptuous and wouldn't help her out. Hell, even I fell for it when I invited her to be my housemate. I found a new place to live and got the hell out; she owes me about $250 for a chair and ottoman that her dogs (which she claimed not to have before she moved in, and then claimed were housetrained, and then claimed that she would train...) ruined, but I'm counting it as the cost I have to pay to never deal with her again. If I took her to small claims court, I guarantee that she'd show up in that electric chair that she never uses for any other purpose, looking weak and frail, and talk about how she couldn't afford her medicines if she were forced to pay me back. Only people who have known her for some time start to realize what a horrible person she is, and court is not biased in that direction. I, on the other hand, would show up with my aspie blank affect, monotone stating of the facts, and lack of eye contact. Regardless of the facts, which of us do you think would win?
This is all irrelevant, I didn't ask if you recovered damages I asked if you reported her to the authorities. You assumed that they would ignore her and failed to report a crime because of it. Even if there was a chance of her getting away with this that is no reason not to report a crime.
EDIT: The most safe thing I can think of is send a message to Libya that we are picking up our citizens, and that if they refuse or harm said citizens we will f**k them up. This is an apt use of the big stick I think. Send military vessels to escort the ferries, park them in international waters, send ferries to pick up citizens, maybe outline this for the Libyan government. Perhaps arrange for Libya to escort the Americans?
EDIT2: And by ferry I mean something that can be used as a ferry, would likely need something much larger than a regular ferry.
26 Feb 2011, 3:31 pm
ikorack wrote:
LKL wrote:
ikorack wrote:
LKL wrote:
wrt the OP, it's funny: I'm employed, I pay my taxes, and recently lived with a woman who was 'disabled' and bent on gaming the system for every last red cent she could extract, whether she needed it or not (for example, she had one of those chairs advertised on TV as being 'completely paid for by medicare' despite being perfectly able to walk), and regularly lied through her teeth; I am a flaming liberal, and she was as conservative as they come - up to and including loving every last thing Palin ever uttered. She was a classic believer in 'keeping the Government's filthy hands off of her medicare,' and was constantly whining about 'freeloaders' and 'illegals' taking handouts.
Did you report her?
no. She was very good at extracting sympathy - very excellent at manipulating people - all of the neighbors, for instance, were convinced that she was a kindly, poor, old disabled woman and that I was a cold, unfeeling b***h because I was openly contemptuous and wouldn't help her out. Hell, even I fell for it when I invited her to be my housemate. I found a new place to live and got the hell out; she owes me about $250 for a chair and ottoman that her dogs (which she claimed not to have before she moved in, and then claimed were housetrained, and then claimed that she would train...) ruined, but I'm counting it as the cost I have to pay to never deal with her again. If I took her to small claims court, I guarantee that she'd show up in that electric chair that she never uses for any other purpose, looking weak and frail, and talk about how she couldn't afford her medicines if she were forced to pay me back. Only people who have known her for some time start to realize what a horrible person she is, and court is not biased in that direction. I, on the other hand, would show up with my aspie blank affect, monotone stating of the facts, and lack of eye contact. Regardless of the facts, which of us do you think would win?
This is all irrelevant, I didn't ask if you recovered damages I asked if you reported her to the authorities. You assumed that they would ignore her and failed to report a crime because of it. Even if there was a chance of her getting away with this that is no reason not to report a crime.
No, I don't 'think' there's a chance that she would get away with it; I am positive of it. I didn't post what would happen if I took her to court in order to make anyone feel sorry for me, but to demonstrate what would happen if she were taken to court and to illustrate that I believe it so strongly that I'm taking a financial hit myself. She knows exactly which hoops to jump through to make herself seem genuinely handicapped; she has probably a couple of dozen 'friends' on the internet, with whom she has been communicating for years about how weak and feeble and sick she is, who would back her up, as well as all of the neighbors who didn't have to live with her and her dogs and see how quickly she could turn the sobbing on and off. She does genuinely have problems (possibly including hypochondria) - just not as extreme as she portrays them to be. I would probably be literally the only person saying that she was a fraud unless the prosecution ordered a psych eval, but since she's not over-exploiting psychiatric resources there's no reason for them to do so.
26 Feb 2011, 3:53 pm
