[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

Judging by the "theories" in this thread, Pakistan and North Korea are trustworthy enough not to use their nukes or give them to terrorists, since they haven't done so, but SA isn't.

It's a lot more likely, with Ted Cruz or some other ultra-right GOP neanderthal at the switch, that the USA would be the one to launch a nuke than Pakistan, SA, Iran or any other filthy Islamic country with the bomb.

[Thanos]

What does it count as when American politicians do nothing, except attack a different uninvolved country (see Iraq 2003, Iran 2018), after the Saudis commit terrorism against the United States? Patriotism? Treason? Business as usual? Following the wishes of important campaign contributors? The natural consequence of a criminally awful education system that's designed to only produce gullible retards?

Ah, well. When a 20-megatonner goes off over Tehran one day, in retaliation for something that was plotted in a palace back-room in Riyadh, at least Halliburton and Raytheon stocks will go through the roof again, which will probably be the entire point of the whole exercise anyway. The ginchier parts of the stock market always respond quite well to loud and messy explosions.

[BRAH]

The Mullahs in Iran have no intention of using Nuclear Weapons against the United States whether it be a direct attack or supplying Terrroists because they know they would be wiped off the face of the Earth by a couple of ballistic missle submarines. It's about becoming the ultimate power player in the region ensuring no one would dare invade them.

[2Cdo]

Lemmy Lemmy:

andyt andyt:

Judging by the "theories" in this thread, Pakistan and North Korea are trustworthy enough not to use their nukes or give them to terrorists, since they haven't done so, but SA isn't.

It's a lot more likely, with Ted Cruz or some other ultra-right GOP neanderthal at the switch, that the USA would be the one to launch a nuke than Pakistan, SA, Iran or any other filthy Islamic country with the bomb.

Well, after 9/11 Bush didn't nuke anyone.

In fact the only political party to use nukes has been the DEMOCRATS.

The ultra-left neanderthal at the switch named Truman.

[Lemmy]

Truman was a leftist, eh?

[N_Fiddledog]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Truman was a leftist, eh?

He was a democrat. He was briefly FDR's VP and considered part of the left.

However the American public at the time of his rise up the ladder was becoming disillusioned with democrat control of the party by Progressives and their tendency to ally themselves with communists. The DNC therefore decided to shift power to a more centrist Democrat like Truman. You can be "not a communist" and still be on the left. Technically that's where Democrat Truman sat.

I suggest 2cdo is using hyperbole, in reaction to your exaggeration of Cruz as "ultra-right GOP neanderthal".

And BTW don't you claim to be a Libertarian? When did they become so anti-Republican and pro-Democrat?

[Lemmy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And BTW don't you claim to be a Libertarian? When did they become so anti-Republican and pro-Democrat?

When the loonies infiltrated the camp.

[N_Fiddledog]

Thanos Thanos:

The Saudis are major shareholders in NewsCorp, which owns FOX, and that's all anyone needs to know why FOX never criticizes the Saudis. And, in turn, it also explains why in 2002 and 2003 that FOX led the rush to war on Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing at all to do with the Sept 11 attacks but the Saudis had everything to do with the Sept 11 attacks.

But see there's the problem. You find some little factoid and it becomes the overwhelming truth for you for all things, all the time.

Yes, Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bought into Fox. I think he's at 7% now. I even agree with you that he's affected editorial policy. I like to think I've noticed it.

However if you tell us his buying into Fox in 2005 affected what Fox was doing in 2002 and 2003 there's a rationality problem there. It doesn't make sense.

In fact if your telling us Alwaleed proves your wider conspiracy of the House of Saud controlling American politics, and if you want to tell us little factoids prove every thing all the time. Explain this one.

$1:

Alwaleed is best known for going to Ground Zero after the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks and personally handing then-mayor Rudolph Giuliani a check for $10 million to help finance relief efforts. Afterwards, Alwaleed released a statement blaming the attacks not on the Saudi airline hijackers, but on U.S. policies in the middle east. As a result, Giuliani returned the prince's donation, gaining him praise from Fox News for doing so.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Alwaleed_bin_Talal

[BRAH]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Lemmy Lemmy:

andyt andyt:

Judging by the "theories" in this thread, Pakistan and North Korea are trustworthy enough not to use their nukes or give them to terrorists, since they haven't done so, but SA isn't.

It's a lot more likely, with Ted Cruz or some other ultra-right GOP neanderthal at the switch, that the USA would be the one to launch a nuke than Pakistan, SA, Iran or any other filthy Islamic country with the bomb.

Well, after 9/11 Bush didn't nuke anyone.

In fact the only political party to use nukes has been the DEMOCRATS.

The ultra-left neanderthal at the switch named Truman.

Well 9/11 was an act of War and possibly justified a Nuclear response which probably would have solved a lot of problems so who knows.

[N_Fiddledog]

Lemmy Lemmy:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And BTW don't you claim to be a Libertarian? When did they become so anti-Republican and pro-Democrat?

When the loonies infiltrated the camp.

You mean the libertarians? Yeah I noticed that. I call them Progatarians. It's more an attempted hijacking of the movement by the Progressives than the movement itself though. Some progressives just started calling themselves Libertarians and somehow made themselves believe nobody noticed.

[Lemmy]

Libertarians have always been progressives. Friedman was as progressive as one could be. It wasn't until the social conservatives and bigots jumped on ship that the ship became a ship of fools.

[N_Fiddledog]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Libertarians have always been progressives. Friedman was as progressive as one could be. It wasn't until the social conservatives and bigots jumped on ship that the ship became a ship of fools.

Really? So this guy:

"“I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible.”
― Milton Friedman"

is the same as these guys:

"More customers and higher consumer spending advance American businesses, not tax cuts and relaxed regulations. The People’s Budget..."

Explain that one to me professor. How is not cutting taxes the same as cutting taxes.

Come to think of it when the Progressive Caucus was explaining its platform above it also pooh poohed the idea of relaxing government regulations. Progressives like government regulations.

Are you telling me that's the same as...



But if you're a Progressive just say it. Don't come up with some cockamamey theory that doesn't make any sense like Libertarians are the same thing as Progressives.

[Lemmy]

When did I say anything about taxation? Progressive means changing for the better. Libertarians would say cutting taxes/government is progressive. Jesus, you clowns like to twist the nomenclature, don't you? Same with liberal. Friedman was also a liberal (he called himself one all the time). Then the term got twisted to mean something other than its root: liberty. Remember when the conservatives' party was the called the PCs? What did the "P" stand for? Probably raise taxes?

Google "what is a progressive?":

$1:

noun
1. a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
synonyms: innovator, reformer, reformist, liberal, libertarian

hmmm....

[Thanos]

The trap of reading too much into party labels and of ideological associations is usually adequate in generating some amusing results.

[Lemmy]

Yeah, well Randall Graves wanted to take back "porch monkey". I'm fucking taking "progressive" back from the shithead.