(ot) HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY AMERICANS!

[robtronik]

There is a connection to Al Q. in Iraq. Again, I'm not going to do the homework for you. Saddam created a safe harbor for Zarqawi before we invaded. Why do you think he went there?

Man, you are lost... there is no proof there. There was no connection to Al Q in Iraq before the US invaded. There is no such thing as Al Q, if you go back further in this thread, you'll find it. I think you've lost it... you really don't have the ability to think for yourself, beyond the spoonfed dribble they feed you. If you trully care, you need to stop flagwaving, stop whatever you're doing, and reresearch your flawed sources.

LOL at no such thing as Al Q. I'm sure Osama would be surprised to hear this is the case.

Again, if you think there is no proof, then you don't understand what you are talking about. I think it would be worthwhile to help you understand, but I doubt it.

Others reading this thread might be interested to find out though. Secondly, I am happy to be completely and utterly wrong about Al Q being in Iraq before we invaded, and still know that it does nothing to change or invalidate the pre-war decision to go in. I betcha you haven't read the congressional resolution authorizing the action have you?

I think you must be 12 years old. LOL.

rob.

[robtronik]

please SPELL it out for all of us IGNORANT souls!!!!

and, define what a progressive liberal is, in your world. Do us a favor.. show us how intelligent you really are.

1) eliminate states that train and harbor terrorsts. Afghanistan & The Taliban
2) elimiate states that are a sworn enemy of the U.S. and who have the capacity and history of using Weapons of Mass Desctruction. Exit Saddam.
3) Institute democratic and economically viable governments in place of those that we were forced to remove so that the people of the region will be less likely to be radicalized
4) Create more opportunities for shared economic wealth in these destitute regions that make BILLIONS off of oil so that people will have better lifestyles and less apt to be radicalized.
5) Create allies in this region that will put more pressure on radicalized countries like Iran, Syria to change.
6) Make a strong statement in the region through the above actions that we support free people, democratically elected leaders, and economic prosperity for these people.

Since you are too lazy to look up the terms for liberal progressive, here they are:

Liberal:

lib·er·al P Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

Progressive

pro·gres·sive P Pronunciation Key (pr-grsv)
adj.
Moving forward; advancing.
Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924.
Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school.
Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax.
Pathology. Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis.
Grammar. Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress.

n.
A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.
Progressive A member or supporter of a Progressive Party.
Grammar. A progressive verb form.

I bolded the parts that were most pertinent. You can thank me later for not calling you jackass earlier in this discussion. But now you deserve it. LOL - okay, there it is in black and white.

again, I'm using standard definitions for these terms. You cannot deny that Bush is a progressive liberal who is willing, by any means necessary, to change the environments in the middle east by spreading liberal democratic ideals by removing said fascist governments and replacing them with the beginnings of a democratically elected leadership.

Finally, the 6 goals above were right off the top of my head. If you expect to be taken seriously in your arguments against the policies, you should at least know what you are arguing against. I don't want to promote the idea that you are above your head in such matters, but it's pretty apparent you are.

and again, .02 and a ,

rob.

[stinky]

ok, i'll bite...

1) eliminate states that train and harbor terrorsts. Afghanistan & The Taliban

Again, you're picking and choosing, and the term terrorists is broad. One mans terrorist, is another mans freedom fighter. Our founding fathers were considered "terrorists". It's shameful that such a broad use of the term can be used to group all kinds of "subversive" elements. Don't forget, the US trained our friend Osama to fight the Ruskies, and now he's coming to home to roost. Thanks to Reagan, and Bush I.

2) elimiate states that are a sworn enemy of the U.S. and who have the capacity and history of using Weapons of Mass Desctruction. Exit Saddam.

So, you're enforcing a policy of genocide? Off the top of your head, right? That's great.. When are U running for president?

3) Institute democratic and economically viable governments in place of those that we were forced to remove so that the people of the region will be less likely to be radicalized

It's so wonderful how you can impose your will on others and expect that wil to just metastasize, like Democracy is medicine you just hand out, and all of a sudden everybody's cured. It worked so well in Vietnam and Korea, and Sudan, and Nicaragua. It's funny, i was watching Apocalypse Now recently... it brings to mind Brando's allegory about dispensing polio vaccines to the villager's children, and upon return, seeing every child vaccinated missing an arm... a huge pile of arms burning. I think it's fitting to bring that up here.

4) Create more opportunities for shared economic wealth in these destitute regions that make BILLIONS off of oil so that people will have better lifestyles and less apt to be radicalized.

That's nice. That's rather utopian of you. You actually are foolish enough to believe these people will be better off, and receive money from their oil? That worked with oil-for-food scam. Oh, but that was during saddam's reign, you say...? Well, why do you think venezuala recently took back their oil? You think that having oil is a blessing for the people in the region's area? Oligarchs and oil barons profit, but that trickle down economy just doesn't work. I think you should educate here:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oi ... esigns.htm


Those people will not benefit from oil in their region. Especially when US companies like Halliburton are in charge. Halliburton ripped off their own government.. the VP of the US was former CEO of Halliburton. Do you think these companies will think twice about ripping these people off, when they rip their own country off?

5) Create allies in this region that will put more pressure on radicalized countries like Iran, Syria to change.

Oh yeah.. this one ROCKS!! We're making tons of friends over there. Here's a challenge.. why don't you go over there and see how many people actually cozy up to you with your arrogant platitudes and "greater than thou" manner. People are doing that right now.. and they're getting killed for it. If anything, these countries are radicalised because of the US and the failed British Empire. IRAN's revolution was against the Shah. If the US cares about Democracy so much, why do we continue to support Dictators and Despots? There are holes in every portion of your arguments, and you merely sound like parrot.

6) Make a strong statement in the region through the above actions that we support free people, democratically elected leaders, and economic prosperity for these people.

The only statement that the US is making is "Do as we say, not as we DO." That doesn't sound very democratic to me. What happened to these people greeting us with flowers. It's all fucking show, and your sitting there with popcorn eating that shit up.

Since you are too lazy to look up the terms for liberal progressive, here they are:

I'm not lazy.. i just find your needless superlatives unadulteratingly useless. THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE, and you admittedly knew that people would find fault with your statement, but you went ahead anyways.. ignorantly. For whatever reason, i can only assume, hoping that you wouldn't get called out, and making yourself look more intelligent than you actually are.

It's funny how you put 2 words together, that individually don't mean what you want them to mean... and when you put them together, they still don't mean what you want them to mean.

So, let's just start a the beginning. Progressive-Liberal. When you do a search on google, like you suggested, comes up with this party:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Liberal_Party

Yay, go Bahamas. There's also a party in Britain by that name, but they want to legalize cannabis.:

http://www.raf.cwc.net/aims.htm

So, what exactly is a Progressive Liberal? If you mean a Liberal Progressive, well here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal-Progressive

But, i think you really don't know what you mean. Liberal's started using the term Progressive to connote that their "moving on" from their more offensive "liberal" standings, because being a liberal in the eyes of the press is not a good thing... it's almost like being a terrorist. But, that's not going to fool anybody. You can wrap a piece a shit up in a box, with a little bow tie, and hand it to someone as a present, but it's still going to be a piece of shit in a box.

And, i think George Bush would be just as insulted by your calling him Progressive, or Liberal anything, much less using the two terms together to make them sound better, as you think Osama would be insulted by me saying there's no such thing as Al-Queda. But since you hijacked the thread with your ignorance, i'll just point you to this page:

http://www.ableton.com/forum/viewtopic. ... &start=135

where another one of your fellow americans states plainly:

There is no such thing as Al Qaeda.

- smutek

and i explain why i find that funny here:

It's funny that you say that.. most people don't realize that it was just a name given to "them" by the CIA so they could call "them" something. Al-Qaeda means "The Base". It never meant shit to Bin Laden or Zawahiri. In fact, "Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet". Use of the word “Al-Qaeda” in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl. So when Zarqawi pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004, he actually pledged allegiance to "the Toilet Bowl". I'm sure alot of you are familiar with that after a hard night's drink.

But, i digress. Going back to your Progressive Liberal nonsense:

You can just take a portion of a definition out of context and make it your own. You make yourself sound truly idiotic by doing that. So, let's go back to what is a liberal and what is a progressive:

Liberal:

Quote:
lib·er·al P Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

I like this one first:

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas

This guy is a fucking religious freak who makes decisions based on what the Almighty tells him. He doesn't give two shits about the constitution. He is limited to what his religious right tells him to do... He's very authoritarian, and uses his power to border on wartime dictatorian values... like wiretapping the average Joe? WTF.

But let's go to your portion of the definition... "tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others" YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!!!! The phrase "your either with us, or your against us" comes to mind. Besides that, we know his stance on gay marriage.. that's truly tolerant. On what planet is this guy even remotely a fucking liberal?

how about this one "open to new ideas for progress"... oh yeah.. he loves stem cell research and warms up to greenhouse legislature (veery punny)

Let's keep it going... "broad-minded".. this is the same George Bush we're talking about? Man, you really fucked up, and showed us how you really are. You picked the right quotes off that definition.. Let's go to the other one:

Progressive

Quote:
pro·gres·sive P Pronunciation Key (pr-grsv)
adj.
Moving forward; advancing.
Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924.
Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school.
Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax.
Pathology. Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis.
Grammar. Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress.

n.
A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.
Progressive A member or supporter of a Progressive Party.
Grammar. A progressive verb form.

And you picked these portions of that definition:

Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership

A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.

You're on a fucking other planet. Somewhere in Beetleguise... "Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions" for who, the oil companies? For me and you? WHAT by giving you a tax break? Man, you know that shit doesn't do fuck all for you, but to the rich, it's a fuckload of money. Repealing the death tax? And where are these "new policies, ideas, or methods" that he's promoted? Please, point them out...

"A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government. " Again, I think the people of New Orleans will surely disagree with you.

But, i choose to go to Wikipedia for my final 'piece de resistance'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value

Liberty huh? This man tramples on our constitutional rights every chance he gets

Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are protected.

Limitations on Power? Government? Religion? I don't see that in any Bush Doctrine. How about the "rule of law"? Only of the subject of interpretation is ruled in his favor, otherwise he admittedly will do anything unilaterally.

transparent system of government

Yeah right.. this has been THE most secretive administration in the history of America.

government in which the rights of minorities are protected.

Yep, Bush is definitely a champion of the rights of minorities. NO will again be right there by your side on that one.

You're a joke... a fool and parrot.. you know jack shit about absolute shit. You're right i'm way outta my league here. I would never embarrass myself so diligently, as you have, sir.

Bush is a Progressive Liberal. Man, that's the fucking joke of the year.

Here:

http://blamebush.typepad.com/

[noisetonepause]

Qaa'ida, pl qawaa'id

Foundation, groundwork; basis; fundament; base (geom, mil); support, base, socle, foot, pedestal; chassis, undercarriage; precept, rule, principle, maxim, formula; method, manner, mode; model, pattern.

(Hans Wehr's Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic)

As a euphemism for toilet, it's probably a slightly different form, as another word based on the same three radicals can mean a place to sit. Or it's a dialect thing. But I digress...

As far as I'm informed al-Qa'ida was at some point an actual network of veterans of the Afghan freedom fight against the Soviets - but anyone who's in the know will agree that this network never numbered more than a few thousand members and was never any form of heterogenous group. It has also all but lost its importance as an actual network since the Sept 11, 2001 attacks. Why do you think the CIA has just disbanded its CATCH OSAMA unit?

Because this isn't true anymore: Pay close attention to some of those last definitions of Al-Qa'ida: Principle, method, model. Whilst it might now have been in the 'founders'' minds at the time, it still describes the phenomenon: It's gone from being al-Qa'ida the base where all the money came from and everything was organised, to al-Qa'ida the movement and ideology.

Incidentally, this is what makes it The Perfect Threat (even better than communism). It does not die until we stop talking about it; even if no people in the world adhered to al-Qa'ida as a principle anymore, it would still hold enormous power through our own fear of it. A fear that can be used to justify substantial changes to Western society, and even bring about changes in our mentalities.

I basically see Al-Qa'ida as (on top of currently being a real if overstated threat of small, hard-to-discover-until-it's-too-late cells of mainly disenfranchised and disillusioned youths, obviously) the Emmanuel Goldstein of the West's current political and media climate. And then concerns me more than the tiny risk of being blown up, if I may be so frank.

-Paws

[eyeknow]

think I'll leave it there....we're reading from different books

LOL!!! i had the exact same thought, forge...

clearly, however, mine doesn't take into account personal feelings. I just lay it out as it is.

[eyeknow]

Those are exactly the kind of statements and sentiments that make people hate Americans. We don't "own" shit.

Well, on paper, iraq has unconditionally surrendered. Not saddam can do whatever he wants/burn/torture/kill anyone he wants......., it was UNCONDITIONAL. On paper, it means we own. Too bad, so sad......
Why not look it up? Maybe you'll learn something.

IT'S THE MIDDLE EAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And they do not threaten just the us.......in case you were not aware, they take out frustrations anywhere they seem fit.

Is it any wonder? Their lands have been convetted for oil for the entire last century.

Oh.....I'm sorry, my bad. I didn't realize that it's ok for these sob's to randomly kill/mame/torture at will...............again, my bad....carry on....

before there ever was a us, for thousands and thousands of years, the middle east has been at war. With everyone, all the time......

That's a very shallow and misguided statement. If you're referring to the Crusades, the Christians in Europe picked the fight. But, to group all the people from the middle east as a whole is bordering on retarded. Muslims have only been around for less than 1400 years, that's not thousands of years. Not all arabs are muslim. After the Persian Empire was defeated by Alexander the great, there wasn't really much going on in that part of the world, besides being conquered by others, until Mohammed showed up. If you're talking about the Ottoman Empire, than they're Turkish and they also conquered the middle east. They've been conquered and reconquered for a number of different reasons throughout history (most recently because of oil), but mainly because of trade routes between the east and the west.

Stinky, please, you are embarrasing yourself, there was no oil issue until the last 100 or so years. Please check your history. What part of thousands of years don't you understand.? Do you get your info from micheal moore?

How would you feel if people were constantly picking fights with you?

Idiot. First off, they do. And they have. I've been picked on my whole life, and continue to be.....again.......read your history......thousands and thousands of years........there was no us, no oil, no blogs......etc.

And last time I checked......they were doing the bullying.........

Sometimes, there are truces.....they don't last. They war. It's not an opinion, it's simply a statement of fact.

please, save your platitudes and diatribes; they're unbecoming without valid sources. Where are your so called facts?

Um, again, umm....maybe do a little research. It's clear that if GOD told you the truth, you'd just deny it.

We (the hated americans) don't feel very safe right now...

And they feel safe? At least you don't have foreign troops on your soil. Can you even fathom what's its like to live under occupation? Constant curfews? Humiliation by your so called saviors? Americans are not there treating these people humanely. If you discount that, just consider that every single soldier there considers every arab (Man, woman or child) to be a possible militant (terrorist, or whatever you want to call them). What would you be doing if someone was on your land telling you what to do, where to go, when to do it? Would you be fighting for your "freedom". Just to be clear, i don't think alot of the "terrorists" are necessarily fighting for their "freedom", but for control. But, that's going to happen anywhere you have this happening. Before the US went in there, everyone was warned that there would be a power vacuum and this would happen.

Um, they aren't safe when people are not invading countries. With very few exceptiong, the "king rules/everyone else is a slave" mentality is the real problem. No, it's not limited to the middle east......but that has been the hot spot.

And please, no more lame oil/usa started it crap.........you are embarrasing yourself.

Britain was doing that way before there was a us

And also banned the practice waaayyy before us. And, actually enforced it for that matter.

Again, idiot. wasn't Nelson Rolihlahla MANDELA released just couple of decades ago from negro suppression in africa? How the fuck was the us involved in that? Please, again, maybe do a little research? Don't try and tell me that other people are so damned perfect and we are the suppressors........get real.

Australia? You are pretty damn young there son.........younger than us. Besides how can I trust the opinion of people who were started by a penal colony?

Ha, that's like a 2nd grader talking to a 1st grader.

it was a joke, and a rather clever one.....in case you didn't get it. Oh.....is that because you don't know any history about OZ? again.....the research thing.....

[stinky]

it was a joke, and a rather clever one.....in case you didn't get it. Oh.....is that because you don't know any history about OZ? again.....the research thing.....

Man, you're thick, of course i know my history. I was referring to the fact that the US doesn't really have much place telling Australia that they're young... who's the thick one, dopehead.. i've probably got a better understanding of history that most of the jokers around here..

[robtronik]

ok, i'll bite...

1) eliminate states that train and harbor terrorsts. Afghanistan & The Taliban

Again, you're picking and choosing, and the term terrorists is broad. One mans terrorist, is another mans freedom fighter. Our founding fathers were considered "terrorists". It's shameful that such a broad use of the term can be used to group all kinds of "subversive" elements. Don't forget, the US trained our friend Osama to fight the Ruskies, and now he's coming to home to roost. Thanks to Reagan, and Bush I.

2) elimiate states that are a sworn enemy of the U.S. and who have the capacity and history of using Weapons of Mass Desctruction. Exit Saddam.

So, you're enforcing a policy of genocide? Off the top of your head, right? That's great.. When are U running for president?

3) Institute democratic and economically viable governments in place of those that we were forced to remove so that the people of the region will be less likely to be radicalized

It's so wonderful how you can impose your will on others and expect that wil to just metastasize, like Democracy is medicine you just hand out, and all of a sudden everybody's cured. It worked so well in Vietnam and Korea, and Sudan, and Nicaragua. It's funny, i was watching Apocalypse Now recently... it brings to mind Brando's allegory about dispensing polio vaccines to the villager's children, and upon return, seeing every child vaccinated missing an arm... a huge pile of arms burning. I think it's fitting to bring that up here.

4) Create more opportunities for shared economic wealth in these destitute regions that make BILLIONS off of oil so that people will have better lifestyles and less apt to be radicalized.

That's nice. That's rather utopian of you. You actually are foolish enough to believe these people will be better off, and receive money from their oil? That worked with oil-for-food scam. Oh, but that was during saddam's reign, you say...? Well, why do you think venezuala recently took back their oil? You think that having oil is a blessing for the people in the region's area? Oligarchs and oil barons profit, but that trickle down economy just doesn't work. I think you should educate here:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oi ... esigns.htm


Those people will not benefit from oil in their region. Especially when US companies like Halliburton are in charge. Halliburton ripped off their own government.. the VP of the US was former CEO of Halliburton. Do you think these companies will think twice about ripping these people off, when they rip their own country off?

5) Create allies in this region that will put more pressure on radicalized countries like Iran, Syria to change.

Oh yeah.. this one ROCKS!! We're making tons of friends over there. Here's a challenge.. why don't you go over there and see how many people actually cozy up to you with your arrogant platitudes and "greater than thou" manner. People are doing that right now.. and they're getting killed for it. If anything, these countries are radicalised because of the US and the failed British Empire. IRAN's revolution was against the Shah. If the US cares about Democracy so much, why do we continue to support Dictators and Despots? There are holes in every portion of your arguments, and you merely sound like parrot.

6) Make a strong statement in the region through the above actions that we support free people, democratically elected leaders, and economic prosperity for these people.

The only statement that the US is making is "Do as we say, not as we DO." That doesn't sound very democratic to me. What happened to these people greeting us with flowers. It's all fucking show, and your sitting there with popcorn eating that shit up.

Since you are too lazy to look up the terms for liberal progressive, here they are:

I'm not lazy.. i just find your needless superlatives unadulteratingly useless. THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE, and you admittedly knew that people would find fault with your statement, but you went ahead anyways.. ignorantly. For whatever reason, i can only assume, hoping that you wouldn't get called out, and making yourself look more intelligent than you actually are.

It's funny how you put 2 words together, that individually don't mean what you want them to mean... and when you put them together, they still don't mean what you want them to mean.

So, let's just start a the beginning. Progressive-Liberal. When you do a search on google, like you suggested, comes up with this party:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Liberal_Party

Yay, go Bahamas. There's also a party in Britain by that name, but they want to legalize cannabis.:

http://www.raf.cwc.net/aims.htm

So, what exactly is a Progressive Liberal? If you mean a Liberal Progressive, well here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal-Progressive

But, i think you really don't know what you mean. Liberal's started using the term Progressive to connote that their "moving on" from their more offensive "liberal" standings, because being a liberal in the eyes of the press is not a good thing... it's almost like being a terrorist. But, that's not going to fool anybody. You can wrap a piece a shit up in a box, with a little bow tie, and hand it to someone as a present, but it's still going to be a piece of shit in a box.

And, i think George Bush would be just as insulted by your calling him Progressive, or Liberal anything, much less using the two terms together to make them sound better, as you think Osama would be insulted by me saying there's no such thing as Al-Queda. But since you hijacked the thread with your ignorance, i'll just point you to this page:

http://www.ableton.com/forum/viewtopic. ... &start=135

where another one of your fellow americans states plainly:

There is no such thing as Al Qaeda.

- smutek

and i explain why i find that funny here:

It's funny that you say that.. most people don't realize that it was just a name given to "them" by the CIA so they could call "them" something. Al-Qaeda means "The Base". It never meant shit to Bin Laden or Zawahiri. In fact, "Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet". Use of the word “Al-Qaeda” in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl. So when Zarqawi pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004, he actually pledged allegiance to "the Toilet Bowl". I'm sure alot of you are familiar with that after a hard night's drink.

But, i digress. Going back to your Progressive Liberal nonsense:

You can just take a portion of a definition out of context and make it your own. You make yourself sound truly idiotic by doing that. So, let's go back to what is a liberal and what is a progressive:

Liberal:

Quote:
lib·er·al P Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

I like this one first:

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas

This guy is a fucking religious freak who makes decisions based on what the Almighty tells him. He doesn't give two shits about the constitution. He is limited to what his religious right tells him to do... He's very authoritarian, and uses his power to border on wartime dictatorian values... like wiretapping the average Joe? WTF.

But let's go to your portion of the definition... "tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others" YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!!!! The phrase "your either with us, or your against us" comes to mind. Besides that, we know his stance on gay marriage.. that's truly tolerant. On what planet is this guy even remotely a fucking liberal?

how about this one "open to new ideas for progress"... oh yeah.. he loves stem cell research and warms up to greenhouse legislature (veery punny)

Let's keep it going... "broad-minded".. this is the same George Bush we're talking about? Man, you really fucked up, and showed us how you really are. You picked the right quotes off that definition.. Let's go to the other one:

Progressive

Quote:
pro·gres·sive P Pronunciation Key (pr-grsv)
adj.
Moving forward; advancing.
Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924.
Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school.
Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax.
Pathology. Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis.
Grammar. Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress.

n.
A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.
Progressive A member or supporter of a Progressive Party.
Grammar. A progressive verb form.

And you picked these portions of that definition:

Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership

A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.

You're on a fucking other planet. Somewhere in Beetleguise... "Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions" for who, the oil companies? For me and you? WHAT by giving you a tax break? Man, you know that shit doesn't do fuck all for you, but to the rich, it's a fuckload of money. Repealing the death tax? And where are these "new policies, ideas, or methods" that he's promoted? Please, point them out...

"A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government. " Again, I think the people of New Orleans will surely disagree with you.

But, i choose to go to Wikipedia for my final 'piece de resistance'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value

Liberty huh? This man tramples on our constitutional rights every chance he gets

Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are protected.

Limitations on Power? Government? Religion? I don't see that in any Bush Doctrine. How about the "rule of law"? Only of the subject of interpretation is ruled in his favor, otherwise he admittedly will do anything unilaterally.

transparent system of government

Yeah right.. this has been THE most secretive administration in the history of America.

government in which the rights of minorities are protected.

Yep, Bush is definitely a champion of the rights of minorities. NO will again be right there by your side on that one.

You're a joke... a fool and parrot.. you know jack shit about absolute shit. You're right i'm way outta my league here. I would never embarrass myself so diligently, as you have, sir.

Bush is a Progressive Liberal. Man, that's the fucking joke of the year.

Here:

http://blamebush.typepad.com/

LOL. Okay - you are so in command of the arguments!

I'll let your rebuttal stand without challenging it because it is really a work of someone who wants to believe they are so right. My arguments stand.

If you want me to rebuke you I will, but I doubt it will matter.

LOL at these things in particular:

Our founding fathers were considered "terrorists".

its almost as though you want to support the terrorists by your definitions! I sort of can't remember our founding fathers kllling british citizens with bombs in marketplaces or in modern terms, flying jets into building, but hey, whatever allows you to somehow NOT CONCEDE a point. LOL.

So, you're enforcing a policy of genocide? Off the top of your head, right? That's great.. When are U running for president?

This is ignorance of hte highest order. Genocide is killing a race or a people in total. Illiminating a state means the government who makes up that ruling order. They don't have to be killed moron, only removed. Notice even Saddam is still alive.

Hello.

It's so wonderful how you can impose your will on others and expect that wil to just metastasize, like Democracy is medicine you just hand out, and all of a sudden everybody's cured. It worked so well in Vietnam and Korea, and Sudan, and Nicaragua. It's funny, i was watching Apocalypse Now recently... it brings to mind Brando's allegory about dispensing polio vaccines to the villager's children, and upon return, seeing every child vaccinated missing an arm... a huge pile of arms burning. I think it's fitting to bring that up here.

Right, and how about Japan or Germany. Those were total failures, right?

I bring you the facts of two elections in Iraq, supported by more people than vote in the U.S. percentage wise, and you bring me Apocalypse Now story quotes?

Is this a discussion on the merits or your purusal of Entertainment Weekly?

That's nice. That's rather utopian of you. You actually are foolish enough to believe these people will be better off, and receive money from their oil? That worked with oil-for-food scam. Oh, but that was during saddam's reign, you say...? Well, why do you think venezuala recently took back their oil? You think that having oil is a blessing for the people in the region's area? Oligarchs and oil barons profit, but that trickle down economy just doesn't work.

its called having an economy. If you don't the difference between building a state with revenue for resources for its citizenry (through taxation as well), then you really have no clue.

In fact, I'm going to stop here, because aside from impressiveness with trying to rebute everything I say, your responses are moronic in their substance.

This reminds me of a good saying I ran across that really does apply to people like you:

"the greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge."

But thanks... I think. LOL.

BTW, I really enjoyed my fourth of july.

rob.

[djshiva]

colonizers always see their roles as "helping" to educate the poor, stupid heathens. what they fail to realize is that no one asked them for their damn help, and that self-determination will result in a stronger effort than forced "democracy". and historically, those being "helped" are usually just "helped" to death and those who live end up driving their "helpers" right the fuck out of their country. sound familiar?

this mindset has played itself out over and over and over throughout history. and yet countries still keep thinking the results will be different.

bah! read a frickin history book. the playbook is right there and no one bothers to read it.

[robtronik]

colonizers always see their roles as "helping" to educate the poor, stupid heathens. what they fail to realize is that no one asked them for their damn help, and that self-determination will result in a stronger effort than forced "democracy". and historically, those being "helped" are usually just "helped" to death and those who live end up driving their "helpers" right the fuck out of their country. sound familiar?

this mindset has played itself out over and over and over throughout history. and yet countries still keep thinking the results will be different.

bah! read a frickin history book. the playbook is right there and no one bothers to read it.

right, how is our Japanese and Germany colony going? I'm sure they would agree that they are colonized by the U.S. because of our WWII occupation and the helping set up of their new governments.

Again, read a book too. Maybe you might see that we aren't the british in the 17th and 18th century.

rob.

[stinky]

This is ignorance of hte highest order. Genocide is killing a race or a people in total. Illiminating a state means the government who makes up that ruling order. They don't have to be killed moron, only removed. Notice even Saddam is still alive.

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-bt270305.htm

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/380/1/61

http://www.antiwar.com/wanniski/?articleid=3926

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/20 ... to-it.html

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqatrocities.html

[djshiva]

colonizers always see their roles as "helping" to educate the poor, stupid heathens. what they fail to realize is that no one asked them for their damn help, and that self-determination will result in a stronger effort than forced "democracy". and historically, those being "helped" are usually just "helped" to death and those who live end up driving their "helpers" right the fuck out of their country. sound familiar?

this mindset has played itself out over and over and over throughout history. and yet countries still keep thinking the results will be different.

bah! read a frickin history book. the playbook is right there and no one bothers to read it.

right, how is our Japanese and Germany colony going? I'm sure they would agree that they are colonized by the U.S. because of our WWII occupation and the helping set up of their new governments.

Again, read a book too. Maybe you might see that we aren't the british in the 17th and 18th century.

rob.

no we're not the british, but the mindset hasnt changed.

[stinky]

Right, and how about Japan or Germany. Those were total failures, right?

I fail to see how anyone can compare invading Iraq with WWII.. that's pure idiocy.

[robtronik]

This is ignorance of hte highest order. Genocide is killing a race or a people in total. Illiminating a state means the government who makes up that ruling order. They don't have to be killed moron, only removed. Notice even Saddam is still alive.

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-bt270305.htm

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/380/1/61

http://www.antiwar.com/wanniski/?articleid=3926

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/20 ... to-it.html

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqatrocities.html

and again, how are we practicing genocide when I say removing the state?

DO you even know what it means when someone says "state"? It doesn't necessarily mean people.

Do I need to give you a history in political science now too? LOL.

Secondly, if we were practicing genocide, I'd love to see the millions dead and the ovens we've constructed a la the holocaust to kill off the civilian populations in either country. You are twisted beyond belief if that is what you thought I meant.

But then after getting into this discussion with you now, I can't say I'm surprised.

BTW, I'd love to know. How old are you, what is your education, and have you ever served in the military and/or held public office of any type? It'd be interesting to know one's demographic and political experience and how they form their opinions.

I'll tell you mine. I'm 37, married and have a 4 year old. I graduated with a degree in Political Philosophy from CSUS in 96. I was a life long democrat until 9/11 and I saw what needed to be done but saw the eroding support from the democratic base on the need to change things in the middle east lest we suffer more from that region based on how it currently is. I've never served in the military, but have worked for my congressman (Democrat) and Lieutenant Governor of the state of California in his office. I've travelled the world and been to every continent except for australia - spending more time in Europe lately due to my job.

I read everything. Left, right, crazy wing party blogs, newspapers, and have a television but don't have cable. I don't watch TV except to watch movies on DVD. I live in Los Angeles CA and DJ and do events and hang around nothing but lefty people who adamently disagree with a lot of my political viewpoints described above. I feel the same way about their viewpoints (particularly if they are defended in the way that they have been defended in this thread).

What about all of you? What is your experience that leads you to believe what you believe?

rob.

[robtronik]

colonizers always see their roles as "helping" to educate the poor, stupid heathens. what they fail to realize is that no one asked them for their damn help, and that self-determination will result in a stronger effort than forced "democracy". and historically, those being "helped" are usually just "helped" to death and those who live end up driving their "helpers" right the fuck out of their country. sound familiar?

this mindset has played itself out over and over and over throughout history. and yet countries still keep thinking the results will be different.

bah! read a frickin history book. the playbook is right there and no one bothers to read it.

right, how is our Japanese and Germany colony going? I'm sure they would agree that they are colonized by the U.S. because of our WWII occupation and the helping set up of their new governments.

Again, read a book too. Maybe you might see that we aren't the british in the 17th and 18th century.

rob.

no we're not the british, but the mindset hasnt changed.

if the mindset hasn't changed then how did we leave those countries and how is that we are doing nothing but talking about how to extract our military from Iraq?

I'm not getting your logic. I think you mean the impulse appears to be the same, but the application is not. We've evolved. Again, colonization is not something the U.S. practices.

rob.