legacycentral bbs

I heard he tried to put up a brief fight before they hung him but I don't know if that's accurate or not. I'm sure the video will be all over the internet soon

I heard on the radio he was to be hanged? Ha, Justice is served.

I read that he put up a fight when the US handed him over to Iraqi officials, but once he was in Iraqi custody, he calmed down.

For liberals who have a problem with state execution of a convicted murderer, columnist Ann Coulter has the answer:

"Just think of it as very late term abortion".

Subtle wrote:For liberals who have a problem with state execution of a convicted murderer, columnist Ann Coulter has the answer:

"Just think of it as very late term abortion".

Columnist Ann Coulter is a douchebag.

I'm glad Saddam is dead. We can stop wasting time trying to put him on trial. Not that his death is going to affect anything in Iraq anyways. That place has gone to hell and there isn't anything we can do about it.

Manarius wrote:Columnist Ann Coulter is a douchebag.

+1

A music video for Saddam? Weird, I want to see a translation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQWtsH4D ... ed&search=

"ad hominem" means to attack the person--not their main point or argument.

"Douchebag" is such a persuasive argument

All liberals are against capital punishment, and all republicans are for it.

I'm all for killing people that kill massive amounts of other people.

Splinter wrote:All liberals are against capital punishment, and all republicans are for it.

That is a very innaccurate statement.

Imprezive wrote:I'm all for killing people that kill massive amounts of other people.

+1

Saddam was the real douchebag.

Richard wrote:That is a very innaccurate statement.

Thank you for explaining my statement to the sarcastically inept.

Yeah, MAN Coulter is the worst example of a pundit filled with hot air. Rush Limbaugh ties her followed by Sean Hannity and a few others. It's not that I agree with 'liberal' points of view so much as I dislike mudslinging which is what the neoamerican taliban like to do. I'm a registered republican but I don't like what the republican party has become.

In the latest Congress there was v. little difference between Dems and Republicans--both are intoxicated in spending other peoples money.

At some point Peter will react against being robbed to pay Paul. Especially when the apparatus of government takes so much out of the scam on the way through.

I can agree with that last statement. Right now I'm bothered with the Iraq war spending. We're into the trillions now and to me, it's a waste of money. In the end they'll hate us or like us despite how much or little money we spend on them. That money would be better spent fixing our HUGE current account defecit and/or the health and social security problems.

Not to get to far into this but I think social security is a good thing and there's NO excuse as to why it's going defunct. I'm sure that the trillions we're spending over there could fix the problems we have over here. Money doesn't fix all things but in this case the issue is money and money will fix it or at least help it. The real problem is over regulation, too many laws and frivolous law suits that screw things up for everyone.

Rant off sorry about the derail.

For a long while the US spent some 6% of GDP on defense. For the past 15 years it's been around only 3.5%.

Getting back to normal would greatly assist defeating those who wage war against the US.

Subtle wrote:For a long while the US spent some 6% of GDP on defense. For the past 15 years it's been around only 3.5%.

Getting back to normal would greatly assist defeating those who wage war against the US.

Who? The infidels? hahaha just kiddin'.

I think both Democrats and Republicans are full of shit...that is why I am a Libertarian.

Politics is a dirty, stupid game that I generally prefer not to immerse myself in...

But, Saddam was bad news bear and he is dead...which is most likely good for all parties...and now, we need to get the FUCK out of the Middle East, and take care of all the shit that is happening in this country while all of our money is being used to fund a war that has already acheived its "objectives"

As far as all of those political commentators and radio personalities (Limbaugh, et al) I like what I heard Tom Leykis say last summer:

"Talk radio is just a pimple on the ass of America; it doesn't get anything done and just pisses people off"


[/end rant]

I would give everything to have a pre-Hitler style of society. Mind our business, keep to what needs to get done, and add a little more class to what we do as individuals.

I am so tired of the filth of society ruining everything and getting away with it. The rapists, thugs, murderers, thieves, chesters - you name it. Not specifically any particular group, just all the douchebags f__king up society. I wish this world could have a little innocence again. A little more faith would help alot too.

Here we are with huge amounts of influence over the globe. Bases here, embassies there, shitbags of capital invested all over the damn globe and enough nukes to blow it all up twenty times. Our country rolls out the bandwagon for everyone else and for every reason. Huge amounts of aid for Africa. The tsunami relief. Funding militias like the Northern Alliance. Rebuilding really far away countries. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of cash we pour into other countries. We could easily fix our budget by cutting alot of this influence and foreign aid and worrying about ourselves. I understand the importance and benefits of doing some of these things but for Pete's sake I wish we could forget all of that and keep to ourselves and be fine.

I wish our society was a little more polite and friendly. It would be nice to have more time to enjoy ourselves and others around us. A little less slutty too. Get rid of the utter filth on TV and stop promoting the gangbangers and thugs. We should be enjoying a family-friendly environment without having to keep the good from the bad. Trim off the crap from society. I'm not suggesting we all become prudes. Have your indulgences/vices in your own privacy and have others mind their own damn business. What the hell should I care as long as I don't have to hear/deal with it? I definitely wouldn't care to see our flag burning while a drunk guy urinates in public and thirteen-year-olds in way too revealing Nazi uniforms perform mock sexual acts. Yet all of this and then some is shoved down our throats every day and we're told to respect and tolerate it. It's my fault that what the f__ked up 2% of society considers okay isn't cool.

Politics would be so much nicer if it were a gentleman's job again. None of this partisan fighting and cockblocking. No more of these stupid scandals that don't contribute to anything good. Maybe a little more common sense and less double talk. The Hypocrats and the Republicrooks. Both need a square kick in the pants. (Side note - every libertarian I've met, while we agreed on many ideals, was completely and utterly insane. Big issues upstairs. Seriously.) Let's figure out what we have to do to function as a nation and cut out all that pork. Every single facet of government has gross amounts of waste and it just keeps getting worse because there's the "it's not my money" attitude present at every level.

I could just keep going on but I have to help a friend "detain" a squirrel Dick Cheney style.

It's funny how the people who claim to be the biggest defenders of freedom and national pride are the ones who want to strike down the most personal freedoms (freedom of expression, for instance)

I'm just saying that it would be nice to have a pre-1940 situation. All to ourselves and the like.

I strongly disagree. America, for the first time since its conception, is starting to realize its part of the rest of the world, and what it does has an effect on everyone else. Isolationism is a very dangerous thing. You guys are going at interactions with the rest of the world in a totally ass backwards way, but at least you're interacting. It's like you're finally breaking out of the sullen pre-teen stage, and into the angsty pubescent stage.

If you can get through that without slitting your wrists, the world might see an enlightened, mature empire for the first time in a few centuries.

Really? I always figured they'd find fun and exciting ways to tax us by then. Like the smile tax. Or the breathing tax.

We could still get ourselves out of the hole by calling in all our debts and cutting off funding. I'm surely not in a position to pay my neighbor's rent when I'm pretty short myself.

Splinter wrote: I strongly disagree. America, for the first time since its conception, is starting to realize its part of the rest of the world, and what it does has an effect on everyone else.

Are you serious? America does have a part in the world, I do agree with that but if you believe that what we've been doing lately is realizing for the first time that what we do in the world is significant then you may want to look at WWII and what those people did. We've known we were important for many years and I would agrue that that kind of arrogance is what is hurting this country the most. It's the reason why we missed the bus on 9/11 (underestimating our enemy) and the reason we're being mauled internationally. it's not an awakening at all. An awakening would be for us to realize that we can't just reshape the world to our fancy by aggressive militaristic attacks and have everyone love us for it. It's the opposite in my opinion. Have you watched the frontline that was on last night about the CIA and the run-up to the Iraq war? Have you heard of the Abramoff scandal? The whole system failed right under our noses.

Splinter wrote: Isolationism is a very dangerous thing. You guys are going at interactions with the rest of the world in a totally ass backwards way, but at least you're interacting. It's like you're finally breaking out of the sullen pre-teen stage, and into the angsty pubescent stage.

It can be argued that our period of 'isolationism' (a word that carries a lot of weight in High School classrooms) before WWI produced a much kinder gentler and productive America than does the preemptive 'we're right and you're wrong' attitude that we seem to have today. It's pretty insulting and ignorant of the truth for you to say that those who disagree with you are immature. You can be elitist if you like but don't think for a minute that to be angry about what's going on in politics is somehow immature or wrong. Our foreign policy is but one brick in the wall.[/quote]

Splinter wrote: If you can get through that without slitting your wrists, the world might see an enlightened, mature empire for the first time in a few centuries.

There is no such thing as an enligntened empire. The US will NEVER be an empire. The primary reason for this is that there will never be a Emporer of America as long as there is a constitution.

Peace out

If it looks like an empire and acts like an empire, it doesnt really matter what the name of the leader is.


And no such thing as an enlightened empire? Ever heard of the greeks?

The concept of "empire" in the modern world, while still present politically, has begun to lose cohesion semantically. The only remaining country nominally ruled by an Emperor, Japan, comprises a constitutional monarchy with a population of approximately 99% ethnic Japanese. Just as absolute monarchies (as opposed to constitutional monarchies) have largely fallen out of favor in modern times, the term "empire" itself may now become somewhat of an anachronism.

The former Soviet Union had many of the criteria of an empire, but nevertheless did not claim to be one, nor was it ruled by a traditional hereditary "emperor" (see Soviet Empire). Nevertheless, historians still occasionally classify it as an empire, if only because of its similarities to empires of the past and its sway over a large multi-ethnic bloc of Eurasia.

Most modern multi-ethnic states see themselves as voluntary federations (Switzerland, for example, or Belgium) or as unions (United Kingdom, European Union), and not as empires. Most have democratic structures, and operate under systems which share power through multiple levels of government that differentiate between areas of federal and provincial/state jurisdiction. Where separatist groups exist, internal and external observers may disagree on whether state action against them represents legitimate law-enforcement against a violent or non-violent fringe group, or state violence to control a broadly unwilling population. A list of multi-ethnic states with ongoing violence by and against separatists might swamp this article, although China, Russia, Indonesia and India distinguish themselves by sheer size.

You can be patronizing all you want, it doesn't make you right. As far as the concept of an enlightened empire goes, I'm not sure what you mean by that since 'enlightened' can mean different things to different people. From what I've read, empire consists of a centralized authority that has overseas colonies or property accquried through imperialism. the United States hasn't been expanding since the 50th state was added.