America's role, PART 2!!

[Lotharr]

Good points above....

Here's the break down.....

Jaguar and Dredd believe in America.and want to protect our people and the ideals they see as making us great....they are wrong of course but at least they care.

Unfortunately they call it the help of those who don't ..who use compassion as a tool...DL and Litvyak...who are basically laissez-faire throwbacks without a ounce of morality to share between them ....who were probably neglected in their youth or something....

This is a mini reality of the mainstream Republican position....

The majority of whom are honest, hardworking Americans who have mistakenly allied themselves with people (biologically speaking) who would use these people's traditionalist ideals of the free market, Christian compassion, and minimized government to further their own selfish goals at the expense of everything else...from their own supporters, to this nations moral supremacy (that we earned in blood)...to possibly the world...it is sad to see...

Jesus only became violent once...when he dealt with the money lovers in the market....

Blood for oil is the call....if you listen close you can hear it.....

[Lotharr]

ÔÇ£If to-day [the president] should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,--ÔÇÿI see no probability of the British invading usÔÇÖ; but he will say to you, ÔÇÿBe silent: I see it, if you don't.ÔÇÖÔÇØ ÔÇô Abraham Lincoln

[Raven]

quote:

---

My only problem is the idea that non-parents have to pay for the children of parents. Why should I pay for the baby factory on welfare that wants to send her 13 kids to school? Privatize education and make the parents pay the costs, don't hand them vouchers at the expense of taxpayers.

---

Thirteen children? Women actually do this to themselves for money? ThatÔÇÖs just disgusting.

quote:

---

Tough. Life ain't fair.

---

Ok, so your objection to nepotism is that it isnÔÇÖt fair (thatÔÇÖs the only objection I have ever herd anyway), yet you dismiss the flaws in your plan to get rid of nepotism by saying ÔÇ£Tough. Life ainÔÇÖt fairÔÇØ. I donÔÇÖt suppose it would be too much to ask for Lothar to yell at you about hypocrisy? I donÔÇÖt have any ground to stand on in that area.

quote:

---

Dumbest thing I have ever heard.

---

I refuse to believe that.

quote:

---

The government is not going to let go one one red cent it has already wrangled out of the populace.

---

Good, then we can expect welfare to be permanently discontinued.

quote:

---

Who sets the standards?

---

The States do.

quote:

---

Unfortunately they call it the help of those who don't ..who use compassion as a tool...DL and Litvyak...who are basically laissez-faire throwbacks without a ounce of morality to share between them

---

I should hope not, if Litvyak has any compassion he has to keep it, I donÔÇÖt want any ÔÇ£sharedÔÇØ with me. As for being a throwback, well darling, I always have had rather dated ideals, at least about some things, but IÔÇÖm hardly a throwback.

quote:

---

....who were probably neglected in their youth or something....

---

Untrue. I donÔÇÖt know about Litvyak, but I never suffered any neglect as a child. A little isolated, be not neglected.

quote:

---

This is a mini reality of the mainstream Republican position....

The majority of whom are honest, hardworking Americans who have mistakenly allied themselves with people (biologically speaking) who would use these people's traditionalist ideals of the free market, Christian compassion, and minimized government to further their own selfish goals at the expense of everything else...from their own supporters, to this nations moral supremacy (that we earned in blood)...to possibly the world...it is sad to see...

---

Nice dichotomy, we have the good-but-misguided republicans and the evil-money-grubbing-parasite republicans. Now all we need is a few sentences on the wise-and-noble democrats and we will have the beginnings of the plot for a rather shallow novel. Gag me with a spoon.

I donÔÇÖt see the world in such a one dimensionally manner, and I should hope that neither do you. Your writing has been getting rather shallow of late, with lots of accusations and claims, but not much support (lots of stilted pauses too, but thatÔÇÖs another issue entirely).

quote:

---

Blood for oil is the call....if you listen close you can hear it.....

---

This is to be a bit much darling, even for you (though it makes my previous point nicely).

quote:

---

ÔÇ£If to-day [the president] should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,--ÔÇÿI see no probability of the British invading usÔÇÖ; but he will say to you, ÔÇÿBe silent: I see it, if you don't.ÔÇÖÔÇØ ÔÇô Abraham Lincoln

---

Oh, yea, I almost forgot about the ill-fitting quotes that are supposed to be self-explanatory, my apologies.

[ 10-15-2002, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

wise-and-noble democrats

---

Assumptions make an a*s out of you and who?

quote:

---

Untrue.

---

Not gonna dig...

quote:

---

one dimensionally manner

---

I know..you are so advanced...yet retro...or something.....

quote:

---

my apologies.

---

Don't fret.....I've come to expect them darling....

[Raven]

Ok, I said your posts were getting shallower, but isnÔÇÖt this taking it overboard?

[Guest]

quote:

---

The BEST way to improve education is to privatize it, PERIOD.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dumbest thing I have ever heard

---

It worked for most of civilization, public schools have been around for this century only, before that, they were ALL private.

Fact of the matter is, COMPETITION is what will create a decent school system, and the only way to get schools to compete is to privatise them and make them teach.

If a school is failing, the parents will pull their children out and put them in a school that actually teaches, the bad school will close, just like a business. Parents EXPECT their childrens education to be paid for by the government now, the only way to change it is to slowly remove them from the government Teat. So every year, you bring down the voucher, and at the same time lower their property taxes, that way THEY have the money for schooling on their own.

Those that do NOT own property would have to be helped I am afraid, but education is too important for the future NOT to have it.

Again, Charles, PRIVATISE education, that's what will create educated children, because the system we have in place now, DOES NOT WORK.

[AWells]

quote:

---

Unfortunately they call it the help of those who don't ..who use compassion as a tool...DL and Litvyak...who are basically laissez-faire throwbacks without a ounce of morality to share between them ....who were probably neglected in their youth or something....

---

I'd say I have plenty of morality, though my moral code doesn't corrospond anywhere near 100% with what society views as morals. For instance I don't sleep around and I don't use drugs, both ideals that follow the mainstream society. I won't hesitate to admit that I gladly use compassion as a tool, however. As for being neglected as a child... I recall having clothing, plenty of food, and all the toys I could ever want... I fail to see how I was neglected. I've never been much of a socialite, however, even as a child so I spent more time keeping myself entertained than I did playing with friends, partly because I live in the middle of no where. I don't think of that as a bad thing, however, since I find myself fairly independent these days in the fact that I don't need other people around.

[Guest $iLk]

Picked this up from Newsmax, I've put all the main factors in Bush's speech that this guy debunks.

quote:

---

A Case Against Attacking Iraq?

Donn W. Fletcher

Sunday, Oct. 13, 2002

The case President Bush has articulated for attacking Iraq is as follows:

[*]

Saddam Hussein is an "evil" and "murderous tyrant."

[*]

He has "used weapons of mass destruction against his own people" and his enemies.

[*]

He is actively "seeking to acquire" nuclear technology.

[*]

He has ties "to al-Qaeda" and is harboring its members in Iraq.

[*]

He "supports terrorism" and may provide weapons and technology "to terrorists."

[*]

He harbored "Abu Nidal," who Bush said is responsible for the 1985 Achille Lauro killing.

[*]

He has "violated U.N. sanctions for eleven years."

[*]

Bush desires to bring "democracy" and freedom to the "oppressed" people of Iraq.

[*]

Saddam Hussein "poses an imminent threat" to the safety of America and its citizens.

Let's look at each of these assertions by President Bush as grounds for "a regime change" and the elimination of the head of state of a sovereign nation in the context of overall U.S. policy, how the U.S. pre-emptively attacking Iraq may be viewed by other citizens of the world, and the impact it may have on the U.S. and Americans.

Saddam Is Evil

The U.S. has a history of supporting "evil" and "murderous" tyrants, including Saddam Hussein. Stalin, with whom the U.S. allied during WWII, was one of the worst. The Clinton administration used the U.S. military to shore up Aristide in Haiti. The U.S. has financed and supported evil, murderous tyrants in Africa for the last 30 years. The U.S. did nothing about Pol Pot, one of the worst murderers of the 20th century. U.S. ally Marcos, of the Philippines, was an "evil" suppressor and exploiter of "his own people." Clinton even had the U.S. military provide protection for Aidid in Somalia.

It is doubtful that the means used to kill the citizens of a country is much of a consideration to those killed. However, from where the "murderous tyrant" receives support and the fact of his actions are important. Thus, U.S. policy in this regard has earned the enmity of many of the world's people. This assertion as reason to attack Iraq is a non-starter that will be recognized by most as the hypocrisy it represents, earning even more enmity and increasing risks for Americans.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

That Saddam has "used weapons of mass destruction against his own people" is technically untrue. Iraq is the least ethnically and religiously homogeneous of the Middle Eastern oil-producing states. The Shiites represent two-thirds of the population. The other third is divided between the Kurds and the non-Kurdish, smaller population of Sunni Muslims, of which Saddam is a member. He has used chemical weapons against the other two groups, which are technically not "his own people."

Saddam also used these weapons against the Iranians without the U.S. protesting or taking action, because he was an ally and recipient of U.S. military aid while the Iranians were considered the enemy. Thus, for the U.S. to base an attack against Saddam on his use of these weapons is not supportable and will be seen as the hypocrisy it represents.

Nuclear Technology

That Saddam is actively "seeking to acquire" nuclear technology is probably true. It is also nothing new. And the U.S. government knows where the technology is available as well as who is selling it. The Chinese and the North Koreans are purveyors of this and other military technology to terrorist states in the Middle East. But what has the U.S. done regarding these terrorist-supporting states?

Under Clinton, the U.S. helped the North Koreans build their nuclear power assets. With Republicans in control of Congress, the U.S. bestowed permanent favored nation trading status on China. And the U.S. has, recently, chosen a very low profile in its differences with North Korea over arms and technology sales to enemies of America.

Therefore, using the "seeking to acquire" concept as a reason to attack Iraq is the equivalent of putting the buyers of drugs in jail while giving the known importers and dealers a "pass."

That Bush's intended action against Iraq is being based on this concept demonstrates weakness on the part of the U.S. and will confirm the contention of many that the U.S. is an international bully. It is willing to give the only other real international military power and its satellite communist state a "pass" on supplying U.S. enemies with weapons technology because of their size and power, but it is willing to attack the small, relatively weak purchaser. This action will serve to further weaken U.S. prestige and will "open the gate" for others to "bully" smaller states as they desire.

Ties to al-Qaeda

If Bush desires to oust Saddam because he has ties "to al-Qaeda" and is harboring its members, fairness and consistency demand that he also oust the regimes of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan and even the new U.S.-backed interim government of Afghanistan that is setting Taliban and al-Qaeda members free as fast as the U.S. military captures them.

The Saudis are the source of the lion's share of al-Qaeda and have told the U.S. it is "out of the question" for the U.S. to question members within Saudi Arabia. Iran has admitted that al-Qaeda is seeking refuge from the U.S. military in Afghanistan. Ditto Pakistan. Yemen is home to terrorists, including al-Qaeda.

Failure to target these regimes also will raise questions about the real reasons behind an attack on Iraq and will present U.S. policy as duplicitous and hypocritical.

Saddam Supports Terrorism

If Bush acts against Saddam because he "supports terrorism" and supplies weapons "to terrorists," for the sake of policy consistency and U.S. credibility he also must act against the Saudis and the Iranians. The Saudis have provided more money to families of terrorists than Iraq has, and the Iranians shipped a boatload of weapons to terrorists in Israel.

Saddam Harbored Abu Nidal

In his speech on Oct. 7, Bush attempted to tie Saddam to the terrorist killing of American citizens by Abu Nidal in the Mediterranean years ago. This was disingenuous on the part of Bush because he has provided support for Yasser Arafat even though the U.S. government is aware of Arafat's role in similar terrorist acts, including his involvement in the Achille Lauro incident.

Saddam Has Violated U.N. Sanctions

Bush offering that Saddam has "violated U.N. sanctions for 11 years" as a reason to attack Iraq just doesn't "wash." Is the U.S. the enforcer for the U.N.? If the U.S. is to undertake the worldwide enforcement of U.N. sanctions that are currently being violated, its military needs to be greatly increased.

Bringing Democracy to Iraq

Bush's contention of being "a friend" to the "oppressed" people of Iraq and bringing "democracy" to them through the ouster of Saddam has a noble sound to it. But what are the facts? Who is oppressed? Where can "democracy" be found in the Middle East?

Iraq is the only Middle East nation, other than Israel, that has a non-Islamic, secular government. Except those bent on overthrowing Saddam, the citizens of Iraq are probably less oppressed than those in the other nations with Islamic governments.

This is particularly true for women. In the other Islamic countries they are deprived of many rights afforded male citizens, including education. In Iraq they are educated participants in government and society. What would be the status of anyone attempting to oust the royal family of Saudi Arabia, the ayatollahs of Iran or the kings of the other countries?

Iraq has a higher per capita GNP than Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Bahrain, Syria and Yemen. It is over four times greater than that of U.S. ally Egypt. Iraq also provides health-care services and education.

So, if Bush is being genuine about enforcing "democracy" in the Middle East, the facts indicate that he should begin in any country other than Iraq. Egypt would be a good place to begin this effort. Or maybe Saudi Arabia.

Saddam 'Poses an Imminent Threat' to America

Bush has failed to present the case that Saddam's regime "poses an imminent threat" to America. He has also failed to substantiate this claim to the intelligence committees of Congress. Highly placed government officials have refuted Bush's assertions and presented contradictory testimony to congressional committees.

The No. 2 executive of the CIA, speaking for the director before Congress on Oct. 2, stated that the probability of an attack by Saddam against U.S. interests in the foreseeable future is "low."

The CIA, which is charged with the responsibility of knowing about such things, has gone on record warning that attacking Iraq could increase terror. It would put Saddam in a position of having nothing to lose, and he would probably attempt to cause as much damage as possible if he knows he is going out.

Bush's assertion that Saddam "stands alone" as an imminent threat was contradicted by the secretary of defense, who told Congress earlier this year, "Syria, Libya, Iraq and Iran are developing weapons of terror and giving them to terrorists." The ex-director of the FBI recently told Congress that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism.

President Bush's Real Agenda

Should not everyone question why the president of the United States is assiduously pursuing a war on the basis of assertions that are not substantiated and are actually refuted by the secretary of defense and the head of the Central Intelligence Agency? It is not unpatriotic to ask this question. There is a good reason for it.

Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a strong proclivity for this most basic of human characteristics: self-preservation. He has been rationally brutal in his use of any weapons at his disposal to ensure his power and longevity. He has also demonstrated this rationality by choosing not to use certain weapons against U.S. forces or Israel during the Gulf War because their use would have resulted in the opposite of self-preservation.

Why, then, would this man suddenly decide to act in a way he knows would result in self-destruction? Logic argues he would not.

Therefore, to determine why President Bush is rushing into a war that may cause more, rather than less, peril for Americans, possibly result in thousands of American military dead, tens of thousands of Iraqi dead, cost as much as $200 billion, possibly put the entire Middle East in conflict, drive the price of oil to heights disastrous for the U.S. economy, and result in the U.S. being in a Middle Eastern quagmire for decades, it is necessary to look beyond the president's assertions.

The Oil Connection

It is necessary to look at U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil and at a map of the Middle East and its recent history and current trends.

The U.S. imports over 60 percent of the oil it consumes. Nine percent of it comes from Iraq. Saudi Arabia has 25 percent of known world reserves under its sands. Militant Islam is sweeping the Middle East. Over 80 percent of Kuwait citizens say they hate America and think it got what it deserved on Sept. 11, 2001. A super majority of Saudi citizens have the same opinion.

Iraq is strategically located, surrounded by Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait. It has the largest conventional military that has threatening potential for its neighbors, which is threatening to the U.S. because of oil dependence that is much worse after eight years of Bill Clinton's policies.

Is it possible the concern is about the potential disruption of oil supplies by militant Islamic influence, coupled with the decline of corrupt, suppressionist regimes such as that of the Saudis and the potential of the region's only military power, Iraq, to seize on the opportunities that might be presented to it as a result? Certainly!

Bush is beating the drums of war not to deter further terrorism, as he says, but to insure the U.S. supply of oil. Apparently, a decision has been made that the threat to the U.S. economy of the resulting increase in the price of oil and the potential negative impact of the war is much less an evil than the potential devastation of the U.S. economy that could result from control of Middle Eastern oil by Saddam's regime or, worse, yet, that control allied with militant, anti-Western Islamic terrorist regimes.

Why Not Containment?

What about containment? After all, the U.S. and the rest of the West contained the Soviet Union for almost five decades. Why not have a policy of containment toward Iraq, militant Islam and the potential disruption of oil flows?

The U.S. and other Western economies were not dependent upon anything from the Soviet Union, and militant Islam cares more about its religious cause than it does about its prosperity, or the oil on which the West they hate is dependent. In fact, destruction of Western economies is its goal.

Thus, given its demonstrated nature, it is doubtful a well-armed Islam, especially with weapons of mass destruction, could be sufficiently contained to ensure the continued flow of oil. So, Bush is leading the U.S. to war not to prevent terrorism, but for self-preservation, preservation of the U.S. economy, which is tantamount to preservation of the United States of America.

Why the Hurry?

The answer is also self-preservation. The Middle East situation is like a fast-growing cancer. It is not known how long it might take it to metastasize into consumption of the flow of oil that is precious to the U.S. economy. It would be unacceptable to the administration for this to happen during the Bush "watch." It would also be disastrous to Bush's chances for a second term.

Thus, Bush is faced with the prospects of a declining economy over which he has little control, plus terrorism, or war that will probably negatively affect the economy and exacerbate terrorism in the short run but may be the only choice for the long term.

Therefore, rather than going into the 2004 election with a terrible economy and the potential disaster in the Middle East and having done nothing about either, Bush appears to have chosen to attempt to forestall the impending disaster during his "watch" and increase his chances of electoral success.

Fortunately, the interests of the presidency and those of the United States are in concert. It could be different with other people with another agenda.

Too bad oil has such a bad name that Bush believes he cannot "level" with the American public about this war. He should. For young Americans to die without them or their families knowing what they are really dying for is terrible.

Copyright ┬® 2002 by Donn W. Fletcher. All rights reserved.

---

I'm stuck again...

[Kevin Trotter]

Very interesting find $ilk. Again, I agree that Saddam has to be dealt with but if what this gentleman asserts is true,why the difficulty of the Administration in admitting it? A more apt question might be ,why have we allowed our dependence on a declining resource such as oil continue for so long without serious research for alternative energy sources? Could PROFIT be a motive?

I've also read in previous posts that working on the economy and education is "too hard" and it was even suggested that I should provide a solution. Well I didn't run for office on those platforms and don't have the resources we provide our president to do those very things. Too hard?

I think the fact that we elected Bush to office would seem to indicate the job doesn't require much intellectual muscle or at least that is what some would have us beleive. Some thought it was more important to have a guy who wasn't doing his intern and was a "moral"man. Now expecting him to do the things he was elected to do is "too hard"

I too am stuck on this one.

[Guest $iLk]

Personally I don't believe it is the Federal Governments responsibility to regulate education. It should be left up to the states, more specifically the communities to educate the children.

Education isn't accomplised by throwing away money at teachers that suck.

Fire all teachers who can't teach, screw the unions, hire people that actually care and actually try to teach.

[AWells]

quote:

---

Fire all teachers who can't teach, screw the unions, hire people that actually care and actually try to teach.

---

Honestly, this is so appropriate today. I had a composition class this morning where half the class didn't show up to begin and large portion, including myself, walked out. Why? Because the teacher sucks... she wasted a huge portion of class time having a discussion with a student about crime statistics and minorities which was further off topic for class than this post is for this thread. When another student asked her if we would bring the class discussion back on topic or go for a break, she blew up. Yes, the teacher has had numerous complaints (I had her last semester, too), and the only reason she still has a job is because she's in the union.

[Charles Lindsey]

From the bottom up:

Litvyak; that's gotta be disaapointing. I would register yet another complaint.

$ilk; I can agree with that. People think teaching is such an honorable profession (it should be) but every once in a while you run across (or hear about) a survey where one of the big reasons for choosing teaching was summers off.

Race; Something fishy going on.

$ilk again; I liked that article. Almost point for point Dredd's argument and point for point my response. Scary.

Jaguar's post; $ilk mentioned the union before I did. That was part of the thought in my response. You're gonna have a hard time displacing all those civil service workers.

So far as public schools being around for only a century I think that was the point. Educate everyone, not just the rich and the rest are illiterate. Unfortunately that means government must get involved to set standards and such.

I am glad you are willing to help some people. That was my main reason for citing the current system. Those without the means use the voucher for basic, those with the will and able to pay for extra use the voucher for extra. Maybe some grants or corporate sponsorship for exceptionally bright children from families without much means.

If you will allow, call it a hybrid system.

quote:

---

Again, Charles, PRIVATISE education, that's what will create educated children, because the system we have in place now, DOES NOT WORK.

---

What? Everyone is an idiot now? Come now. I'm very impressed with Dredd and others on this board. It may not be the best and it may be faltering but it does work.

Tell you what. THat $5000 voucher you mentioned? Since I have no kids and am not burdening the system yet still pay the taxes for schools, and I do not get the tax deduction for the things, give me my $5000 back in cash (check will be fine) and I'll listen. Better yet, if it means they'll get off my front porch selling candy, greeting cards, calendars, or what not and I'll listen very closely.

But I still have visions "SCHOOLCORP" and all the advertising that would go along with it.

Dragon Lady;

quote:

---

wise-and-noble democrats

---

No dear, far from it. Democrats are traditionally tax and spend. That's not nice either.

quote:

---

The States do.(set standards)

---

In this instance I would almost prefer national (federal standards) for exit exams and such.

quote:

---

Good, then we can expect welfare to be permanently discontinued.

---

Did you see any of it back till this year? I don't remember any tax reduction. It was funnelled elsewhere. Work for Welfare has been in place a while now. I agree with that program. I don't mind helping the truly destitute but those that can, need to work for a living. Some people may never be able to do anything more than be a cashier so a little extra help for them I don't mind much either. But I didn't get any back.

quote:

---

I refuse to believe that.

---

Perhaps I should have qualified my statement better with something like "in a long time"?

quote:

---

Ok, so your objection to nepotism is that it isnÔÇÖt fair (thatÔÇÖs the only objection I have ever herd anyway), yet you dismiss the flaws in your plan to get rid of nepotism by saying ÔÇ£Tough. Life ainÔÇÖt fairÔÇØ. I donÔÇÖt suppose it would be too much to ask for Lothar to yell at you about hypocrisy? I donÔÇÖt have any ground to stand on in that area.

---

No dear, you have it utterly backwards. Dredd pulled the fair card first, not I. Now, extrapolate from my "tough" statement and add everything I have said before and you may see my point.

Why should we be "fair" to my six ficticious people when the potential for harm is so great for millions? I wonder what extra help or benefits FL is getting 'cause Bro is in the white house.

Now, what is the flaw in my plan? Seems simple enough to me. Disallow nepotism at the national electoral level by not allowing relatives comparable federal positions. It is already against the rules for most corporations. It is already against the law concerning presidential (and lower) appointments I beleive. Why should it be allowed at the highest levels of governance? That dear, is called a double standard and is the height of hypocrisy.

But I've already admitted it's my own personal gripe and I highly doubt my ranting on this board is going to start a national movement so you shouldn't worry overmuch about it.

[AWells]

quote:

---

Litvyak; that's gotta be disaapointing. I would register yet another complaint.

---

Bah... my main complaint is with the student she was chit chatting with and wasting our money. Real winner... like 50 year old guy coming back to school that goes on and on about his stories of being in the Navy. Last week he was a Navy Medic, this week he was claiming to have been a Navy SEAL when we almost got into a physical altercation, and not 30 minutes later it appears he used to be Military Police (or so he claims... does the Navy even have MPs?) as he was rambling on about how black people commit 87% of crime. The guy makes me sick.

[Charles Lindsey]

Ewwwwwwwwww. Just avoid him. One in every crowd.

But I forgot to post one thing. It's an posting I saw on the yahoo! message boards. Seems like the guy wrote it himself but he coulda stole it so I will host it myself. But's it's very funny and I think you will enjoy it.

Modernized ant and the grasshopper parable

[AWells]

ROTFLMAO!!

That was good

[Lotharr]

He forgot to mention how when all the grasshoppers moved in it scared away all the ants that had previously used the grasshoppers to carry their bread crumbs....since the grasshoppers only knew how to carry the crumbs they couldn't find any other kinds of jobs...not that there were any other jobs to be found anyway because the ants took most of them when they left (those that remained were considered ant only industries becasue of long standing Ant superiority complex)...but somehow the Grasshoppers could find ant guns and ant drugs in large quantities and some crazy "liberal" ants even suggested that these were supplied by a covert wing of the Ant government for extra funding....so the father grasshoppers that watched their little hoppers starve and suffer fell into despair and used the guns and drugs surrounding them....it was just too easy.everything pointed to that answerwithout much support many of the mother ants also fell into despair as well.

So the mostly parentless little hoppers, in a colony that resented them, managed to survive. Many of them acted self destructively...some did not....with the support of a few brave ants they have struggled against an entire colony to end their destruction and death....their battle continues to this day.....

God bless America

[Charles Lindsey]

Lotharr, dude, even I can see the humour in that. That's why I posted it.

It's a parody, Democrat's ideals carried to the extreme. It's funny.

{edit in} By "you" I meant the collective posters on this thread. Anyone is free to go to that link.

[ 10-15-2002, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Charles Lindsey ]

[Raven]

Lotharr, darling, it sounds like your getting a wee bit too caught up in what weÔÇÖre all arguing about. I donÔÇÖt want to come off as rude, but you should take a break from the forum for a few days, youÔÇÖll be better for it when you come back.

[Guest $iLk]

Always tryin' to keep da green grasshoppa down...

Lotharr.... WTF?!?

No seriously...

WTF?!?

Anyways, night fellas, and ladies

[Lotharr]

Hee Hee....

Sorry, I thought some would think that was funny....never mind...

So I guess no one wants to hear the about the great worker ant uprising?

[Kevin Trotter]

quote:

---

Always tryin to keep da green grasshopper down

---

That's too close $ilk I'm watching you.

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

Sorry, I thought some would think that was funny

---

I see the humor now. Sorry.

quote:

---

So I guess no one wants to hear the about the great worker ant uprising?

---

Now that's funny. Hehe.

[Guest $iLk]

Hey guys, here is a letter from the white house to those people who write the White House complaining about the treatment of detainees in Cuba:

quote:

---

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC

Dear Concerned Citizen

Thank you for your recent letter roundly criticizing our treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. My administration takes these matters seriously, and your opinion was heard and heeded here in Washington.

You will be please to learn that, thanks to the concerns of citizens like you, I will be announcing today the creation of a new division of the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called ÔÇ£Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers,ÔÇØ or LARK.

In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to place one Al Qaeda terrorist under your personal care. Your very own personal terrorist detainee has already been selected and will be arriving at your home under heavy armed guard next Monday. His name is Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud, but you can just call him Ahmed. He is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of admonishment to my office.

It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant caretakers. We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those standards you so strongly recommended in your letter.

AhmedÔÇÖs meal requirements are simple, but we strongly suggest serving meals that do not require utensils, particularly knives and forks. Also, these should be ÔÇ£one-handedÔÇØ foods; Ahmed will not eat with his left hand since he uses that hand to wipe himself after purging his bowels (which he will do in your yard). But look on the bright side .. no increased toilet paper expenses.

Ahmed generally bathes quarterly with the change of seasons, assuming that it rains, and he washes his clothes simultaneously. This should help with your water bill. Also, your own personal detainee has a terribly bad case of body lice that we have been unable to completely remedy.

Please heed the large orange notice attached to your detaineeÔÇÖs portable cage: ÔÇ£Does not play well with others.ÔÇØ Although Ahmed is a sociopath and extremely violent, we hope that your liberal sensitivity to what you described as his ÔÇ£attitudinal problemÔÇØ will help him overcome these antisocial character flaws. Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences.

Ahmed will, given a chance, bit you. We have included a copy of his latest rabies test, which showed negative results.

We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling. Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish a human life with simple household items such as a pencil or nail clippers. We suggest that you refrain from asking him to demonstrate these skills for your morning coffee klatch.

Ahmed is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.

Ahmed will not wish to interact with your wife or daughters (except sexually) since he views females as a subhuman form of property. However, he will be eager to assist with the education of your sons. To facilitate this education you may wish to have several copies of the QÔÇÖuran available for his use.

Oh ÔÇô and rest assured that Ahmed absolutely loves animals, especially cats and dogs. Roasted will be fine, but dog-kabob works perfectly well.

Thanks again for your letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you, who know so much, keep us informed of the proper way to do our job. We think that watching over each otherÔÇÖs shoulder is such a good way for people to interact. So, we will be sending a team of federal officials with expertise in your line of work to your place of business in the next few days, just to help you do your job better.

Please, donÔÇÖt be concerned that our federal observation team has the power to close your business, seize your property and arrest you for any violation of 4,850,750 laws, codes, regulations and rules that apply to your profession. They are really there to help and to make sure you do everything in the proper way.

Thanks again for this opportunity to interact with such a valued and compassionate member of the American family. You take good hear of Ahmed, you hear? And let us know when you think he is ready to be released into American society.

Very truly yours,

George W. Bush.

---

[Raven]

LMAO!!

That is too rich, truly.

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

I see the humor now. Sorry.

---

I should have been clear....I thought DL and crew would think that was funny.....it is a horrible bit of truth.....I wasn't trying to set you up....but I guess it is funny in some less controversial ways...but who cares....

[ 10-17-2002, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]