Lizard_King wrote:

I need clarification wrote:


Yes. Using the example of our straw men proves you need straw men to make your argument, idiots!!

Also:

1. "Kill a sufficient number of terror providers to keep the supply of anti-american attack to a low hum" is the most self-contradictory statement in the history of the Bush II administration, which is saying something. The fact you can write something like that without any evidence of irony or even self-awareness indicates you not only buy Rumsfeld's drivel whole cloth, you have trouble formulating opinions during the respite between White House talking points releases.

Nice ad hominem attack. Yet you do not at any point state why it is contradictory or absurd. As usual, your statement is predicated on the other party being offended and correspondingly silenced, rather than, say, "wrong".

I need clarification wrote:


Wait a minute. Because Rumsfeld was appointed by an unelected president means his cracked vision of American foreign policy (invade! invade! invade!) is more legitimate than anyone else's? Get the fuck out of my country, fag. I'm talking about you, Lizard_King. If you're willing to subject your life and everyone else's to the whim of these idiots, that's your prerogative. But trying to win an argument you've already helped yourself lose by saying only those in charge get a say in how things are done goes against everything this country stands for, and I won't have traitorous bastards in this country. At least not in shackles. Please escort yourself to the nearest border or coast and keep walking.

Thanks!

Lizard_King wrote:

1. It is really, really tiresome to hear this tired canard of Bush being unelected again and again. Have you nothing better in your pitiable little arsenal? The US is a republic, NOT a fucking democracy. That means our electoral process is designed to balance population against location, so that it will not be a simple matter of NY, CA, and TX telling the rest of the country what to do. What's more, if you would bother to read any news besides that which comes from sources that agree with you directly, you would have found out that Bush did, in fact, win the Florida recount as performed by various media groups and released a year after the election. So shut the fuck up, already.

Lizard_King wrote:

2. Are you suggesting that somehow democracy is inherently legitimizing? So if 99 out of 100 villagers elect to kill the 100th villager and take his possessions, that would no doubt be completely legitimate in your view, since it was not only democratic, but overwhelmingly so. I would expect nothing less from someone like yourself...
Democratic process is but one (important) part of a constitutional republic such as the United States, which is designed both to be reasonably responsive to the people's desires and restrain their worst impulses. IE, should Al Sharpton get elected President, the other branches of government would be able to minimize the more radical elements of his agenda.

Lizard_King wrote:

3. If you think strong foreign policy stands against everything our country is based on, I suggest you take a closer look at the history of this century, you fucking idiot.