RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute...

RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

RottenJohnny -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 2:44:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx What you consider disingenuous, bullshit, or stupid is irrelevant to me. But it seems that any discussion involving provocation is precisely about who did what first. My point is that in all the wars that the u.s. has been in we have been the aggressor. Nothing in the constitution supports this sort of behavior. To continue to claim to be the victim is not supported by history. Do you consider the attack on Ft. Sumter to be the result of U.S aggression. If so, why? Since both sides of that conflict were americans the answer is a resounding yes...duuuhhh But didn't that occur after South Carolina left the union?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 2:47:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Guess it was kinda like this one - not something to go to war over. [image]local://upfiles/1352141/B5F2553A023B4E228E15D239615F13D6.jpg[/image] Most scholars are aware of the fact that the u.s. was aware ,in advance, of the timing of the pearl harbor attack. Google could be a friend here...it sometimes keeps ignorant people from getting both feet in their mouth at the same time. Otoh those who rely on john wayne movies and the history chanel to educate them will only be embarrased when they repeat that ignorant shit in educated company. Because we knew in advance that there was going to be an attack on Pearl Harbor, we were the aggressor? How does that work?

RottenJohnny -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 2:56:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Most scholars are aware of the fact that the u.s. was aware ,in advance, of the timing of the pearl harbor attack. Google could be a friend here...it sometimes keeps ignorant people from getting both feet in their mouth at the same time. Otoh those who rely on john wayne movies and the history chanel to educate them will only be embarrased when they repeat that ignorant shit in educated company. So is it your opinion that simply knowing an attack might occur and waiting to see what happens constitutes an act of aggression? (Sorry, DS. Didn't catch your post prior to mine.)

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 2:57:13 PM)
But didn't that occur after South Carolina left the union? So the confederacy ceased being american[8\|]

RottenJohnny -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 3:02:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx But didn't that occur after South Carolina left the union? So the confederacy ceased being american[8\|] That was the point of the CSA, wasn't it? To not be part of the U.S.?

mnottertail -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 3:02:29 PM)
It was not an issue of whether or not south carolina left the union. They left December 20, 1860, and we started what? February of 1861? They forgot to give our federal reservation back and all up in the bedrooms, digging thru our cupboards, and whatnot acting the fool like they owned it. We was all good friends till they did that shit.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 3:04:50 PM)
Because we knew in advance that there was going to be an attack on Pearl Harbor, we were the aggressor? How does that work? Would you like to join this discussion? If so, perhaps one should acquaint themselves with the particulars of that conflict before they seek to discuss it. Are you aware of the the embargos placed by the u.s. and it's allies against japan? Were you aware that there are many legal scholars who will agree that an embargo is an act of war? Since you are aware of the fact that the u.s. knew in advance of the attack and it's timing how should we discribe the failure to sink the japanese fleet while it's planes were on their way to p/h? If you are unaware of the particulars wouldn't you think it prudent to educate yourself before embarassing yourself?

Phydeaux -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 3:10:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Because we knew in advance that there was going to be an attack on Pearl Harbor, we were the aggressor? How does that work? Would you like to join this discussion? If so, perhaps one should acquaint themselves with the particulars of that conflict before they seek to discuss it. Are you aware of the the embargos placed by the u.s. and it's allies against japan? Were you aware that there are many legal scholars who will agree that an embargo is an act of war? Since you are aware of the fact that the u.s. knew in advance of the attack and it's timing how should we discribe the failure to sink the japanese fleet while it's planes were on their way to p/h? If you are unaware of the particulars wouldn't you think it prudent to educate yourself before embarassing yourself? Completely avoiding the question. But I do I have found my signature line: The US: Aggressors in WWII.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 3:10:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx But didn't that occur after South Carolina left the union? So the confederacy ceased being american[8\|] That was the point of the CSA, wasn't it? To not be part of the U.S.? Young man please do not try that "walk around the shit house" with me. My statement was and is that both sides were american...put any kind of lipstick on that pig that will fit and it is still a pig. Perhaps a quick refresher as to the causes of the american civil war would be helpful in disabusing the ignorance of your post.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 3:11:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Because we knew in advance that there was going to be an attack on Pearl Harbor, we were the aggressor? How does that work? Would you like to join this discussion? If so, perhaps one should acquaint themselves with the particulars of that conflict before they seek to discuss it. Are you aware of the the embargos placed by the u.s. and it's allies against japan? Were you aware that there are many legal scholars who will agree that an embargo is an act of war? Since you are aware of the fact that the u.s. knew in advance of the attack and it's timing how should we discribe the failure to sink the japanese fleet while it's planes were on their way to p/h? If you are unaware of the particulars wouldn't you think it prudent to educate yourself before embarassing yourself? LMAO!! Someone brings up Pearl Harbor as an example of us not getting into WWII (or declaring war on Japan) as the aggressor, and you reply that the US "was aware ,in advance, of the timing of the pearl harbor attack. " That was it. That was your proof that we were the aggressors. I find it difficult to comprehend how our not sinking their ships makes us the aggressors, too. That's another stretch that is beyond me. Why did we issue an embargo on Japan?

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 3:14:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Most scholars are aware of the fact that the u.s. was aware ,in advance, of the timing of the pearl harbor attack. Google could be a friend here...it sometimes keeps ignorant people from getting both feet in their mouth at the same time. Otoh those who rely on john wayne movies and the history chanel to educate them will only be embarrased when they repeat that ignorant shit in educated company. So is it your opinion that simply knowing an attack might occur and waiting to see what happens constitutes an act of aggression? For fucks sake that is not what I said. The record is quite clear that the u.s. knew in advance of the timing of the p/h incident. It was not a question that an attack might occure. If one is unaware of the facts in a situation why do they feel compelled to add their ignorant opinions?

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 3:16:31 PM)
Why did we issue an embargo on Japan? Would you like to join this discussion? If so, perhaps one should acquaint themselves with the particulars of that conflict before they seek to discuss it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 3:18:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Why did we issue an embargo on Japan? Would you like to join this discussion? If so, perhaps one should acquaint themselves with the particulars of that conflict before they seek to discuss it. No discussion, then, eh? Nicely played. Enjoy.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 3:18:30 PM)
Someone brings up Pearl Harbor as an example of us not getting into WWII (or declaring war on Japan) as the aggressor, and you reply that the US "was aware ,in advance, of the timing of the pearl harbor attack. " That was it. That was your proof that we were the aggressors. Would you like to join this discussion? If so, perhaps one should acquaint themselves with the particulars of that conflict before they seek to discuss it.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 3:25:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Why did we issue an embargo on Japan? Would you like to join this discussion? If so, perhaps one should acquaint themselves with the particulars of that conflict before they seek to discuss it. No discussion, then, eh? Nicely played. Enjoy. How can we have a discussion when I am the only one who seems to know why the u.s. and their allies embargoed japan. When you wish to discuss something I am here. I am not here to teach the fundamentals of ww2. I am not here for you to send me running errands...do your own mother fucking research. If I make a statent I can back it up. If you do not agree that the u.s. knew about the attack in advance that is a bit of information that is ubiquitous. What the "enumerated powers" are is rather murkey and they are not ubiquitous. Thus my desire for you to enucniate what you believe them to be. As I said before: Any time baby.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 3:30:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Because we knew in advance that there was going to be an attack on Pearl Harbor, we were the aggressor? How does that work? Would you like to join this discussion? If so, perhaps one should acquaint themselves with the particulars of that conflict before they seek to discuss it. Are you aware of the the embargos placed by the u.s. and it's allies against japan? Were you aware that there are many legal scholars who will agree that an embargo is an act of war? Since you are aware of the fact that the u.s. knew in advance of the attack and it's timing how should we discribe the failure to sink the japanese fleet while it's planes were on their way to p/h? If you are unaware of the particulars wouldn't you think it prudent to educate yourself before embarassing yourself? Completely avoiding the question. Really???what was the question? But I do I have found my signature line: The US: Aggressors in WWII. You were aware that the u.s. navy was attacking german subs in the atlantic before dec 7 1941? Hmmm not at war but using the navy to attack someone we are not at war with?????

DesideriScuri -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 3:46:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Why did we issue an embargo on Japan? Would you like to join this discussion? If so, perhaps one should acquaint themselves with the particulars of that conflict before they seek to discuss it. No discussion, then, eh? Nicely played. Enjoy. How can we have a discussion when I am the only one who seems to know why the u.s. and their allies embargoed japan. When you wish to discuss something I am here. I am not here to teach the fundamentals of ww2. I am not here for you to send me running errands...do your own mother fucking research. If I make a statent I can back it up. If you do not agree that the u.s. knew about the attack in advance that is a bit of information that is ubiquitous. I did not challenge your assertion that we knew in advance of the attack. I did ask how that made us the aggressor. quote: What the "enumerated powers" are is rather murkey and they are not ubiquitous. Thus my desire for you to enucniate what you believe them to be. For someone who sends people to read the US Constitution, you don't seem to know that much about it. Perhaps your reading the US Constitution would help you to find the enumerated powers of the Federal Government. If not, then, there isn't anything I can do to help you with that. quote: As I said before: Any time baby. Thanks, but you're not my type. [8D]

RottenJohnny -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 3:49:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Young man please do not try that "walk around the shit house" with me. Why not? I'm having a blast. [:D] And just for the record, the "I'm older than you therefore I know better" attitude does not impress me. quote: My statement was and is that both sides were american. But your comment was in regard to U.S. aggression. South Carolina was not part of the union. quote: ...put any kind of lipstick on that pig that will fit and it is still a pig. That goes both ways.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 3:57:06 PM)
I did not challenge your assertion that we knew in advance of the attack. I did ask how that made us the aggressor. I pointed out the embargoes and I get this coy shit about "why did the u.s. embargo japan? If you don't fucking know why continue this discussion until you go find out. If you do know then lets discuss it instead of playing coy. Like I said: Would you like to join this discussion? If so, perhaps one should acquaint themselves with the particulars of that conflict before they seek to discuss it.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 4:03:42 PM)
What the "enumerated powers" are is rather murkey and they are not ubiquitous. Thus my desire for you to enucniate what you believe them to be. For someone who sends people to read the US Constitution, you don't seem to know that much about it. I know enough that you refuse to enunciate what you feel are the "enumerated powers" Perhaps your reading the US Constitution would help you to find the enumerated powers of the Federal Government. If not, then, there isn't anything I can do to help you with that. That would be because this bullshit about "enumerated powers" is a fiction of someone's mind. If they exist then one ought to be able to list them. So far that has not been done. Thus prima facia evidence that no effort is being made towards discussion. Is that list so fragil that it cannot stand the scrutiny of open discussion?

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875