Galloway pwnd Colemans ass, it was classic!! I would even wager that to this day the word Galloway will fill Coleman with dread.
I can give you this one, albeit reluctantly. Still two different entities. Would be like saying I am my son. I could come up with realistic numbers put out by responsible non-agenda driven groups. But would it really matter? My take is, you want the worst possible numbers to portray America with and have no issue in using debunked numbers to do so. In fact, you might say that you've gone out of your way to prove that already. Heh! Yeah, listening to galloway can sure cause deep dark depression. Good night to you too! Death to Israel, Death to America and all that stuff.
I loved that video. I hope you got to watch the one I posted for you. Galloway is a flawed man, but brilliant like a lot of other flawed men throughout history. How long do you think GWB would last at "Question Time"? Galloway was a monster on there. We need that in America. Our elected officials, our civil servants, to get in front of the nation and answer questions each and every week from citizens. It might weed out some of the guys who don't know who the leader of Pakistan is. Btw, the best part of Galloway destroying Coleman was that it was all on the record for the hearing, and he ripped his heart out for all to see, to become a matter of record. My only disappointment was that he was hostile to Levin, who is a bit of an agitator in his own right.
Thanks. I knew you were the bigger man. No way, Galloway should be required political viewing for anyone with a sense of humor and a love for the truth. I'd like to see Israel prosper and flourish, and America to stand tall, proud and mature after 220 years of the best contract between the people and the government in the history of mankind. We've got a lot of work to do tomorrow on that issue, so sleep well and have a wonderful evening.
I have never argued to kill thousands of people (is that a personal attack) however i have seen you argue that thousands of people should be killed for your privacy on the phone. Out of context? it was gist of your argument though? Skittish, i wanted you to make yourself look stupid but you did that anyway. So you are willing to kill thousands for my privacy but not my safety (my life)? I don't condone what's going on in Iraq, i don't desire a defeat or deaths and fully support the mission & troops (i don't support deaths of innocents & never have)
galloway's style is hostile. he launches a repeated tirade of infactual bullshit, one after another after another in succession, never giving anyone time to respond. he's very good at it too. Of course, when you factor honesty into what he says, a turd dressed in a tuxedo is still a turd. A lie is still a lie. There's a debating style for this type. I forget the name, but it's a known style.
Are you going to report it and try to get me banned? This "personal attack" reporting stuff is coming from one side of the debate, and it's getting a little ridiculous that not only can't the pro-war folks hold their own defending their position, but now they have to request assistance in the debate by removing their opponents on imagined technicalities. Talk to me like a man, make strong points, with proof where possible and conviction at all times, and maybe both of us can learn something. But it's intellectually dishonest in the debate to throw out your opponent because he makes points you do not want to answer. I wrote a long and detailed response. I don't feel I wasted any words in making my position and the reasoning behind it known. You shortened it to a couple words. Is this a personal attack? Are you saying that my opinions are stupid? If you weren't skittish, I don't understand why you would not reply once I gave my guarantee I would reply? What was all of the jockeying for getting my answer first? Is that what you consider debating in good faith? I'm not killing thousands. Unless your question was meant to be, "If you are a terrorist planning to kill thousands, do you think you still have the right to privacy?" But that wasn't the question. You proposed it, was that the question? The mission is killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and making millions into refugees. I'm curious to know how you can reconcile supporting the war, but not the consequences of the war.
I believe it is called, "Brilliant!" Take care, and nice to have you back. I hope to see you on the Ron Paul Revolution bandwagon soon. I'm saving you a seat right next to me. Front of the bus.
I did, and it was a classic. He took some time to get them on his own level (as in he's a Brit and they were not) but he told it exactly how it is. Just the same way he did to Coleman and that other fool in the Senate. (The chubby bespecticled fool, can't remember his name.) GWB wouldn't even make it onto question time, the idiot cannot even think for himself, it would be a disaster, just like Bush himself.
I don't like that Labour toady with the spectacles, the black guy. He's a brainwashed little neocon marxist and a party liner. Another chickenhawk who probably couldn't load a gun if his life depended on it. I'm serious about needing Question Time here. What we have is Dana Perino getting trotted out, spewing half truths with plausible deny-ability or just claiming she "doesn't know" which only works because she's accepted as a mouthpiece, and not someone involved in policy or planning.
Question time is an excellent UK program and would be an excellent addition weekly in the US in my opinion. The problem is that the Question Time we have in the UK is on a non-commercial channel, the BBC that doesn't have adverts. The Yank version would probably be hosted by some guy in a gimp suit (Hannity? O'Reilly?) with a five minute commercial break every 10 minutes. It would detract from the essense of the show. Also the audience would probably be planted with some neocon shills, a bit like DP P&R.
Haven't been following the thread, but I noticed GTech said Paul has issues with blacks. Besides the fact that the only thing they have to back that up was debunked a long time ago (the ghostwriter fiasco), why does he have the black vote then? http://reason.com/blog/show/122900.html
and how exactly did america help those people by killing hundreds of thousands more people and driving even more to leave their homes to avoid the conflict areas? so you're saying america's foreign policy is an "agenda driven blame America first delusion" ?
That's what he's calling Ron Paul's foreign policy. Apparently actually speaking the reasons that the 9/11 commission gave, the reasons people in the government who studied bin Laden (like Michael Scheuer) gave, and the words bin Laden actually said for why he attacked us on 9/11 are "blaming America first". If someone punches you, and you put that person in the hospital with a severe beating, you're in the wrong and you've probably overreacted. At the same time, that person can't go "why oh why did that happen?", if I say "well you DID punch him in the face...", am I wrong? I know it sounds ridiculous to some, but sometimes both sides of an argument can be wrong. One may be more wrong, but that doesn't cancel out the actions of the other one.
The first problem with an empire, is the dearth of intellectuals. People stop thinking for themselves, more concerned with money, power or survival. That's where the rhetoric comes from. GTech is a smart guy, but he's so heavily invested in "defending American against terists" that he doesn't have time to listen to the arguments and make a conscious and informed decision on their validity. Instead, they are dismissed outright. And that's what the establishment wants. No one should ask why. No one should stop being afraid long enough to feel remorse for the dead. It's control, though apathy and paranoia. Policy is an inconvenience. Change is defeat. Peace is weakness. History is terist propaganda. These are all things that happen in an empire during wartime.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials Still one of my favorite quotes ever.
I don't report members at all besides those members who i know have reported my posts & i don't believe you do. Privacy on the phone is not just granted to you, it's granted to terrorists too, so yes your privacy on the phone would be costing lives, whether that happens right away or after years it will no doubt cost lives. War is never a nice thing, however sometimes needed. Nobody is claiming war is great, it's not.