Idiots
- Thread starter markjs
- Start date
Squiggy
ThunderDick
Gonz said:
Damn, gonz...
I'm trying to get to bed and i have to find a post like that on my last read...That was NEVER the reason they gave for the war. And thats because Saddam had our blessings, hand delivered by Rumsfeld hisself when it happened. Your smoke is settling and your mirrors are broken. You can't keep up the charade anymore...
chcr
Too cute for words
Once again you deliberately (I hope) misconstrue the point. The Constitution does not specifically provide for freedom of religion, yet it is the defacto standard. It does not specifically allow for gay marriage, yet equal fredom for all citizens is clearly the defacto standard. You clearly believe that freedom only applies to that which doesn't offend your delicate sensibilities. As for a living document, a lot of the framers owned slaves, didn't they? This discussion belongs in the other thread now, but it is OTC afer all. I don't mean to lose patience Gonz, but I have a very low tolerance for being preached at.Gonz said:
As I say, never mind. It's probably not going to be important in the near future anyway.
chcr
Too cute for words
freako104 said:
No, freako, I think they completely understood that society would evolve and the constitution was deliberately written so that it might be interpreted. I think this was the intent. This is largely what the Supreme Court is for (interpreting the constitution as applied to current society). This is why there is an amendment process. They knew what they were doing, they just framed it in the language usage of their time, and some people will always try to use that to misinterpret the intent. The only problem I have with introducing an amendment banning gay marriage is that it singles out a group of Americans to limit their rights, and that is patently unamerican.
freako104
Well-Known Member
very true. i did mention that it is vague for interpertation 
. but you are right about the rest of it. however there is one thing that a lot of right wingers(particularly the Christian right) which is we are a Christian nation and were founded as such. and to not be to them is UnAmerican. but I agree with your stance on the ban being unamerican in and of itself as it singles a group out. Natalie said it best in here earlier. the old bullshit of Separate but Equal. was certainly separate but damn sure not equal
. but you are right about the rest of it. however there is one thing that a lot of right wingers(particularly the Christian right) which is we are a Christian nation and were founded as such. and to not be to them is UnAmerican. but I agree with your stance on the ban being unamerican in and of itself as it singles a group out. Natalie said it best in here earlier. the old bullshit of Separate but Equal. was certainly separate but damn sure not equal
thats a unique way of putting it 
AlladinSane
Well-Known Member
Well you are plain wrong, because I don't hate you, but I'm pissed at your president.drkavnger99 said:Not everyone just the ppl who don't like us! And this is what I offer them
As for your cup, hmmmmm, NO!
A.B.Normal
New Member
After "Desert Storm" the UN destroyed almost all of the Shells containing "Mustard gas" ,Sarin and VX used in weapons have a short shelf life,even under IDEAL conditions of manufacture and storage their shelf life is around 10yrs ,if its put into weapons its several weeks.The sarin Saddam was producing was 40% pure meaning its Shelf life was much shorter,UNSCOM never found any production of VX,but even if Saddam was producing it, its Shelf-life would be very limited too.
There is ample evidence to prove that the UN Sanctions were working and Saddam wasn't able to acquire anything "new" after the Gulf War ,so even if we "Know" he had and used them prior to '88 .Any such weapons would pose more of a threat to the environment because of disposal methods, necessitated by their shelf-life,than him ever be able to use them.At the most he had a few mustard gas shells and after twelve years these would have been more dangerous to the "user" than the "target" .
There is ample evidence to prove that the UN Sanctions were working and Saddam wasn't able to acquire anything "new" after the Gulf War ,so even if we "Know" he had and used them prior to '88 .Any such weapons would pose more of a threat to the environment because of disposal methods, necessitated by their shelf-life,than him ever be able to use them.At the most he had a few mustard gas shells and after twelve years these would have been more dangerous to the "user" than the "target" .