Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 601 To 610 Of 657 Comments
sounds like you spent all your Good Karma points on this one -- no lottery tickets for you for quite a while.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.08.2007 @ 23:29
Congrats on dodging the bullet.
My thoughts are with you, Mr. Moran.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 24.08.2007 @ 22:47
IRAQ IS NOT LIKE VIET NAM EXCEPT WHEN IT IS
@Rick:
"The last 150,000 were brought out in 6 months. That is precipitously, yes."
I just moved across country -- moving all the boxes from my apartment took 3 days. The last box took five minutes. Closing the door on my old apartment took less than five seconds. When people ask me how long it took to move, I don't use the five seconds mark, or the five minute mark . . . I use the three day mark.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.08.2007 @ 12:58
9/11 TRUTHERS GUT PUNCHED BY HISTORY CHANNEL
To the Truthers:
As someone who passionately hates our current administration in the US, I have no problem believing that they are amoral enough to do such a thing as kill Americans (Righties feel free to accuse me of Treason). The Truthers miss the one glaring problem with the CT -- the Administration are idiots.
I find it incredible (as in "not credible") to think they were so ninja-like in their planning to pull off such a fantastic plot, presumably to drive America into war, but then apparently didn't plan 5 minutes past 9/11. You Truthers have been following the war, haven't you? What have you seen since 9/11 that leads you to believe the Administration is competent enough to tie their shoes, let alone secretly plan and run the most complex controlled demolition / hijacking / false identity ring in the history of the world?
btw, "controlled demolition" -- why? If the "plot" was to murder and outrage, why worry about how it collapsed? Why not just topple the towers? They were willing to murder 3,000 people, but the extra 200-300 in the neighboring building would have been overkill?
WTC -- why? why not hit Miss Liberty? Easier to destroy, more symbolic, and keeps the Admins business buddies rolling along. Doesn't make sense to target WTC if you're a conspiracy theorist.
Pentagon -- why? why attack the one building you're gonna need after you pull off the conspiracy? No other targets in D.C. would suffice?
The Truthers can debate how many degrees Kelvin it takes to collapse the towers, but if you can't give me a coherent, believable plan you just sound like paranoid nimrods, and undermine legitimate criticism of The W Crew.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.08.2007 @ 15:02
@r4d20:
"Me: 'I saw the plane crash into the building with my own eyes. '"I'm sorry you had to be there to see that, but thank you for providing me with the first credible (to me) eye witness account of the Pentagon strike. Just based on your comments at this site, if you say you saw it, I believe you, and I can quit thinking about it.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.08.2007 @ 00:38
Good article Mr. Moran (as usual).
I didn't get to see the special, but hopefully they'll re-broadcast it. I've never respected the Truthers, but the only point they raised that I couldn't flatly reject with certitude was the apparent lack of plane wreckage at the Pentagon. I look forward to seeing the show and finally putting the Truthers in the same circular filing cabinet with the Flat Earthers (although to be fair, the Flat Earthers are far more humorous).
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 21.08.2007 @ 16:33
IS THE UNITED STATES AN IMPERIALIST POWER AND DOES IT MATTER?
@ Shaun:
"Pointing out why our interventions are done, that we voluntarily vacate other territories, that the spread of our culture is based on the choices of the people IMPORTING said culture – those all point to America not being imperial."
lets take these one at a time . . .
1)why our interventions are done
"And in each intervention I listed, US motives for using military power COULD [emphasis added] be defended as a response to chaos, tyranny, or despotism." -- Could means that there is a possible explanation that isn't imperialistic, but also acknowledges an explanation exists that IS imperialistic. We could have invaded Iraq to free the huddled masses, we could have invaded Iraq because we felt threatened . . . or we could have invaded because we wanted to reshape the Mideast into mini-America.2)we voluntarily vacate other territiories
Yes, we pulled out of Europe after World War II. Yes, thats not classically imperialistic behavior. But notice how he began that section of the post:
"For most of our existence, we ignored our potential to dominate world affairs – even though we could have done so easily from the turn of the 20th century on"
Past tense implies that the US ignoring its potential to dominazte world affairs has stopped. I could say that for the past few hundred years, Great Britian cpaitalized on their potential to dominate world affairs. That made them Imperialist. Do you conclude from that GB is still Imperialist? Things change, and the fact that we wern't militarily imperialistic in the late 1940s has nothing to do with whether we are imperialistic now.3)people choose to import our culture
Interesting. The fact that we produce so many goods does not necessarily mean that other societies CHOOSE to import our culture. We import more from China than we export -- are we as America choosing to absorb Chineese society, or is it simply that they make the cheapest goods so we can get what we want from them and save a few bucks? Some countries certainly do want to absorb our culture -- some do not. Its how we react to those that reject us that shapes the definiton of Imperialist.The point I was making was that the post is two-faced: we aren't imperialistic because we can't help rule the planet and any attempt to stop doing so would be disastrous for us and the globe. Essentially, we're not imperialistic because we don't want to run the world, its just that sort of onerous burden that is thrust upon our unwilling shoulders.
Mabye reading comprehension isn't your strong suit either?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 21.08.2007 @ 17:15
Wow. Way to completely dodge the question you pose to yourself.
"Are we an imperialist power? The only people who seem to care are those who wish to call us “imperialists.†For the rest of the world, the US is a fact of life, a force of nature. And, I might add, a welcome sight when the boogyman is knocking at the door or Mother nature goes on a bender."
So . . . we are? We aren't? We are but thats a good thing? We aren't but remain (or were) the sole global superpower?
If you wern't going to answer the question, why did you bother with the post in the first place?
Additionally, I'm sure you realize the difference between Imperialism and being a Superpower. Nice job rolling the two together.
I await your response completely ignoring my comments and attacking me personally with baited breath.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 20.08.2007 @ 15:23
MY TOP TEN MOVIE LINES OF ALL TIME
As embarassing as it is to admit this:
Wolverines!!!
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.08.2007 @ 20:28
(C. Thomas Howell in Red Dawn)
CONSERVATIVES TO BUSH: "KEEP YOUR GRUBBY PAWS OUT OF OUR PRIVATE SPACES!"
@Rick:
You're right -- Reagan never said that. In fact, he stood for the exact opposite -- a point I was tring to make that apparently didn't come through. As the previous poster I assume is a Conservative, and seems to be advocating unfetterd Governmental intrusion into private citizen's lives, I was trying to illustrate that the two postions are traditionally incompatable.
If my sarcasm was too subtle, my apologies. Given how obvious it appeared to me that such a statement was the opposite of Conservative ethos, I thought it was pretty clear.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.08.2007 @ 09:45
