[QUOTE="The_Lipscomb"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Love the hypocrisy of OT. Bakery doesn't want to work for a gay wedding....they deserve to be run out of business. Teen gets thrown out of store for body size and it's okay. Man people suck.PSP107
Lol.. people switching their opinions on similar matters. At least try to stay somewhat consistent with your opinions people. We don't want to be like politicians. What people reactions to the Oprah Winfrey story where she was told she couldn't afford a handbag or something. What?
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Yea...our closest ally isn't even with us and thinks a strike is stupid. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10278355/Syria-crisis-Britain-will-play-active-role-in-military-action-despite-vote-defeat.html Really neat but they are unwilling to strike with us. Again, major alarm bells should be going off. I feel really bad for all the countries we drag into this.
Also, that's the stores policies .. and they have the right.. but still.. That was kind of mean and not neccessary.. and it going to hurt their sales now.. So they can deal with the consuquences of their actions.
Love the hypocrisy of OT. Bakery doesn't want to work for a gay wedding....they deserve to be run out of business. Teen gets thrown out of store for body size and it's okay. Man people suck.LJS9502_basic
Lol.. people switching their opinions on similar matters. At least try to stay somewhat consistent with your opinions people. We don't want to be like politicians.
Obama authorized the fire bombing of Qadaffis home.
Qadaffi wasn't even there . . . but his grandchildren were.
They burned to death.
So according to liberals - obama can set children on fire and burn them to death, but Assad can't use chemical weapons.
Why is it okay for obama to kill civilians, but it's not okay for Assad?
Person0
Look up the word intent. Now looks at different intentions between the two. Intent doesn't care. Who gets **** .. get's ****.. Same thing to me.. Still Ruthless.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="The_Lipscomb"][QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]Haven't you read the thread? People suggested bombing the country altogether, as opposed to military sites. Ironically, they were vehemently anti-war not too long ago. I get that it's anger pouring in, but it's not consistent, is childish, offensive, and downright lacking in principle. It's genocidal to suggest indiscriminately leveling an entire country with all its citizenry. As if it being war-battered not enough. You make a great point.. This is what is sad.. People changing their viewpoints to hold interest with others. If your seriously anti war.. It takes a lot for you to admit that we need to go to war or strike another country.. If syria used a huge chemical weapon, that was seeping into other countries and the world..Then that's when I would start to become concerned. They use chemical weapons once (shorter radius )..and we start banging the war/drone strikes drums, and don't even really know who even caused it.I'm not against wars but I am against really stupid wars. Obama's little strike is purely symbolic and will be used as propaganda and a victory by Assad. That's what I'm saying.. I'm not against war either.. If we're going to war, or are going to strike.. it seriously needs to be a good reason.. World War 2 was the last war that we got attacked hard, a countries were trying to take over the world, and were threatning our self defense... That was a necessary war.
Between the Republicans and Democrats loving war.. Anyone feel like the Obama administration has been planning to attack for years now, and were just waiting for an excuse like iraq? Now that Syris used a chemical weapon, they thought, this may be the best excuse we're going to get to go over there... This situation sounds awfully familiar.. and stinks to the high heavens.
[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]Apologies, I always forget how hundreds of thousands of civillian casualties are irrelevant because it's not teh systematic. :roll:Victorious_Fize
This isn't Iraq...Haven't you read the thread? People suggested bombing the country altogether, as opposed to military sites. Ironically, they were vehemently anti-war not too long ago. I get that it's anger pouring in, but it's not consistent, is childish, offensive, and downright lacking in principle. It's genocidal to suggest indiscriminately leveling an entire country with all its citizenry. As if it being war-battered not enough. You make a great point.. This is what is sad.. People changing their viewpoints to hold interest with others. If you're seriously anti war.. It takes a lot for you to admit that we need to go to war or strike another country.. If syria used a huge chemical weapon, that was seeping into other countries and the world..Then that's when I would start to become concerned and feel hey, youre know threatning our country, we now have a problem type of deal. They use chemical weapons once (shorter radius )..and we start banging the war/drone strikes drums, and don't even really know who even caused it.
Log in to comment