t0nythelover Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 Speaking from a historical perspective, I think the events of today are going to lead to irreconcilable differences that will only be able to be resolved with civil war. The Bush policy is about as historically significant as the Dred Scott case, in the way that Bush set the law against itself. U.S. citizens will not tolerate the US patriot act or any of the other over reaching constituiton smashing policies of bush. Once bad law is put into play there has to be a return of legitimacy, which usually only comes through violence since those in power won't give it up. Bush stole the presidency and is not a legitimate president, so fuck all this we should back the president in a time of war bs. btw this is not a time of war, congress never declared war, and secondly im not backing the pres in a time of war if hes the one starting it. i think its time for a revolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted March 16 Report Share Posted March 16 :lol3: Words alone can never express this collection of uneducated babble that are devoid of fact, baked in significant stupidity, show a clear lack of intellect, severe mental retardation, and a shining example of why some should never reproduceWow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normalnoises Posted March 16 Report Share Posted March 16 Originally posted by t0nythelover Speaking from a historical perspective, I think the events of today are going to lead to irreconcilable differences that will only be able to be resolved with civil war. The Bush policy is about as historically significant as the Dred Scott case, in the way that Bush set the law against itself. U.S. citizens will not tolerate the US patriot act or any of the other over reaching constituiton smashing policies of bush. Once bad law is put into play there has to be a return of legitimacy, which usually only comes through violence since those in power won't give it up. Bush stole the presidency and is not a legitimate president, so fuck all this we should back the president in a time of war bs. btw this is not a time of war, congress never declared war, and secondly im not backing the pres in a time of war if hes the one starting it. i think its time for a revolution. I'm all for it!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t0nythelover Posted March 16 Author Report Share Posted March 16 Let me try to explain then since you don't understand. Legally the Dred Scott case led to the necesity for civil war. The Dred Scott case said that blacks had no standing in court basically, but it went against a previous case, the Somerset v Sanders case which said it was illegal to do that. These two cases made the law conflict with each other in a way that only the civil war could settle. Today half the country hates bush and thinks hes illegitimate. In addition hes radicallly changed the government (creating a cabinet level department, destroying INS, getting rid of probable cause rules etc.) I'm just saying that today's government is one that does not represent 100 percent of the people, and eventually the rift may continue and lead to a civil war. BUt youll probably tell me how foolish and stupid I am because Amerikkka is the greatest country ever (and youve probably never travelled to another country) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Originally posted by t0nythelover Let me try to explain then since you don't understand. Legally the Dred Scott case led to the necesity for civil war. The Dred Scott case said that blacks had no standing in court basically, but it went against a previous case, the Somerset v Sanders case which said it was illegal to do that. These two cases made the law conflict with each other in a way that only the civil war could settle. Today half the country hates bush and thinks hes illegitimate. In addition hes radicallly changed the government (creating a cabinet level department, destroying INS, getting rid of probable cause rules etc.) I'm just saying that today's government is one that does not represent 100 percent of the people, and eventually the rift may continue and lead to a civil war. BUt youll probably tell me how foolish and stupid I am because Amerikkka is the greatest country ever (and youve probably never travelled to another country) Wow again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 don't waste your time tony...you should know by now that poor igloo rarely responds with a rebuttal of the facts...mostly with misdirected ad-homenims... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Originally posted by t0nythelover Let me try to explain then since you don't understand. Legally the Dred Scott case led to the necesity for civil war. ...u cannot be serious...its funny, look at some of the "anti-war" people on this board now calling for civil war..u guys are toooooooo much...i would love to hang with u clowns in bar while intoxicated, i will truly shit in my pants from laughter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underwater Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Originally posted by t0nythelover congress never declared war, and secondly im not backing the pres in a time of war if hes the one starting it. Congress backed the President to make this decision. From what I have read its is 100% legal for him to declare war. He's not the only one starting it. 18/26 European nations support our efforts. If you can't read through the France/German/Russian push to put US power in check and the protection of their oil contracts and Iraqi debt I feel for you. France is now starting to try to slide in there and claim that they will support the US with the reconstruction of Iraq. Your statement is very narrow in focus and fails to take in the entire spectrum of the globe. Today half the country hates bush and thinks hes illegitimate. 70% of the nation is supporting the war....2 days into it the # will spike to over 80%....I'm just saying that today's government is one that does not represent 100 percent of the people No US government will represent 100% of the people. Its not a perfect system and never will be.eventually the rift may continue and lead to a civil war Thats a little far fetched. If Bush is really that bad the system will correct itself and vote a more suitable president into office next term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Originally posted by bigpoppanils don't waste your time tony...you should know by now that poor igloo rarely responds with a rebuttal of the facts...mostly with misdirected ad-homenims... Really?...are you sure about that???You made yourself look dumb since it is completely false...For example, I enjoy good debates with raver since he always presents his views with substance...even Sassa (sometimes)tonythelover and abnormalnoises present nothing but bullshit...As for you, look in the mirror---you never provide anything meaningful...except one sentence bullshit drivels...Moron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Originally posted by t0nythelover Speaking from a historical perspective, I think the events of today are going to lead to irreconcilable differences that will only be able to be resolved with civil war. The Bush policy is about as historically significant as the Dred Scott case, in the way that Bush set the law against itself. U.S. citizens will not tolerate the US patriot act or any of the other over reaching constituiton smashing policies of bush. Once bad law is put into play there has to be a return of legitimacy, which usually only comes through violence since those in power won't give it up. Bush stole the presidency and is not a legitimate president, so fuck all this we should back the president in a time of war bs. btw this is not a time of war, congress never declared war, and secondly im not backing the pres in a time of war if hes the one starting it. i think its time for a revolution. You have some serious issues bro, this is probably one of the stupidest things I have ever read, mind you I have read normalnoises posts, that says alot...... By the way I wanted to point out the fact that you are willing to fight a civil war against your own goverment, yet you will not back up our troops in a war against a tyrant..... what does that say about you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhouse Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Hate to say it, but I have to agree with Igloo on this one....The difference between the previous civil war and this situation is that there's no geographical lines here. That, and I highly doubt that the biggest opponents of Bush are the highly trained and lovable members of the Michigan militia.Instead, if there's such a huge rift, why not trying this one out for size: VOTE! It's been quite a while since the Constitution was amended to lower the voting age to 18, but the 18-24 age group still consistently has the lowest voter turnout. That's why Bush (and the polls) aren't listening to the youth, who I would guess are on average opposed to the war (if someone can find a poll with age ranges to prove this wrong, I'll be happy to see it). This could be the first opportunity for young people to actually mobilize and make their vote count on something other than TRL. We could be a force to be reckoned with, we just haven't figured it out yet.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t0nythelover Posted March 17 Author Report Share Posted March 17 igloo- how can you say i never bring facts to the table? that really hurts me...im sure the americans that lived in the 1800's thought there wouldnt be a civil war either. and just so you know this thread was based on a discussion started by my american legal history professor who has a law degree and probably knows more than you igloo. anyway it looks like bush is declaring war today so well see what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underwater Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 college professors are pussies that carry very little weight in the real world....i would not put to much faith into what they spew....knowledge does not take the place of common sense and the ability to deal with real issues vs. theory.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Originally posted by t0nythelover im sure the americans that lived in the 1800's thought there wouldnt be a civil war either. and just so you know this thread was based on a discussion started by my american legal history professor who has a law degree and probably knows more than you igloo. anyway it looks like bush is declaring war today so well see what happens. ..u continue to amaze me, in a bad way...:1. about ur professor: so what if he is a law degree...that doesnt mean caca...the Civil War was not only about slavery, but was mostly about the South wanting to cede from the Union...u know what they say about college professors? Those that cant perform in the their chosen fields, teach....comparing what is happening now to the possible Iraq invasion, is reaching.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t0nythelover Posted March 17 Author Report Share Posted March 17 Originally posted by mrmatas2277 ..u continue to amaze me, in a bad way...:1. about ur professor: so what if he is a law degree...that doesnt mean caca...the Civil War was not only about slavery, but was mostly about the South wanting to cede from the Union...u know what they say about college professors? Those that cant perform in the their chosen fields, teach....comparing what is happening now to the possible Iraq invasion, is reaching.... there is no doubt that there are many arguments for the cause of the civil war, i was just stating that this particular professor argued that the dred scott case led to the inevitablility of the civil war. i think that a parallel can be drawn from the laws being passed today. the fact that he has a law degree does not "mean caca", it means hes studied law and been certified. its easy to say an idea is idiocy, but can you still say that when the person making the argument has had more education than yourself? id like to see you guys tell professors that they are idiots for having different ideas. the whole point of scholarship is to expand your horizons and be open to different perspectives. if my oppinions amaze you im glad, it means i haven't fallen to the level of ignorancy and prideful arrogance that most americans have.and the phrase you were looking for is "those who can do, those who can't teach" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underwater Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Originally posted by t0nythelover id like to see you guys tell professors that they are idiots for having different ideas. post his email address....i'd be happy to let him know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Originally posted by t0nythelover id like to see you guys tell professors that they are idiots for having different ideas. and the phrase you were looking for is "those who can do, those who can't teach" thanks for the REAL QUOTE, Mr. Webster's Dictionary of Quotes ...but its exactly what i said...and i have gone against professors many times when i was in university, during class and def. after class...whats ur point? just b/c u dont have the stomach to question what a man states, thats ur problem...if ur at an institution of higher learning to expand ur horizon, u should "attempt to expand ur horizons" by challenging ur professors...but i am sure u agreed with the load of crap ur professor was saying...dont get me wrong, i had professors that did the samething at my university...i am attending law school in the fall too, so when i pass the bar and become an attorney, will u lick my shoes and believe everything that i say as FACT?btw- its "opinions" not oppinions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Originally posted by underwater post his email address....i'd be happy to let him know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underwater Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Originally posted by mrmatas2277 btw- its "opinions" not oppinions on the rag today... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Originally posted by underwater post his email address....i'd be happy to let him know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Originally posted by underwater on the rag today... YES!!! i feel bloated and my nipples hurt... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Originally posted by underwater post his email address....i'd be happy to let him know... Send the professor this:I would feel much more sympathetic to the antiwar movement if they would offer me rigorous answers to a few straightforward questions: 1) Do you honestly believe, after 12 years of failure, that U.N. inspections can disarm Saddam Hussein? If your reply is "Yes!" or if you refuse to believe the evidence that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction, wants more of them, and intends to use them, proceed to question 2. 2) Should we simply turn our backs on the Iraqi people and allow Saddam to continue to torment and murder them? Should we, thereafter, allow one of his homicidal sons to succeed him? Don't the people of Iraq, who have been gassed, tortured, raped, shot and starved (while Saddam builds dozens of vast palaces for himself), deserve liberation? Or is freedom only for educated white people and the Botox brigade? 3) What would you do, in practical terms, to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and their eventual use by terrorists against us? No generalities, please - specific answers are required. Until our anti-war activists, with their presumed monopoly on virtue, can answer those questions, I shall remain unconvinced that they know whereof they shout. It is not enough to oppose, if you cannot offer convincing alternatives. Progress and security demand a sense of responsibility. It is always satisfying to complain, but far harder to forge solutions. It is, above all, the dishonesty and the moral capriciousness of the antiwar movement that disappoints me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t0nythelover Posted March 18 Author Report Share Posted March 18 since when does being in agreement with someone mean that you beleive everything they say? i didnt say id like to see you disagree with a professor, i said id like to see you guys call your professors idiots. the difference is that whenever someone says something that doesnt go with your beliefs you feel that their opionion is invalid. thats bs. unlike igloo i respect all your opinions whether they agree with mine or not, if im wrong id like you to prove me wrong and correct me, if im right maybe i can enlighten you. the truth is i dont lose anything by expressing my beliefs on this board and being open to yours, but your missing out on alot by being so closeminded. just because you disagree with something doesnt mean you cant talk about it. btw thanx for correcting the spelling of opinion, but i know how to spell, i just choose to type as fast as possible and not correct mistakes because i assume you got the point. are u going to tell me now that im not using caps too? or maybe i should indent.and as for the quote i wasnt being an ass about it, i just wanted to tell you what the quote was for your edification. you guys need to lighten up.back to the point of the thread. from a perspective of legal history (hey wheres the guy whos going to law school) it can be argued that the dred scott case made the civil war inevitable. i think there may be a possible parallel today. if you disagree please tell me why and not how stupid i am. igloo, ill be sure to bring up your points with my professor next time im in class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t0nythelover Posted March 18 Author Report Share Posted March 18 oh btw igloo the professor never said he was against war in iraq i dunno why this thread had to go back to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djjoshuacarl1 Posted March 18 Report Share Posted March 18 so:*for war on our own soil, against ourselves.*against war a tyranical government & its groups that killed so many of their own & ours?yeah, that makes alot of senseif your goin to be anti-war..... you should oppose it in all fashions or else your just being a hypocrite.(its wrong unless its done the way I think is right attitude)Support our boys that will put their lives on the line to ensure the world is a safer place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.