So let's totally ignore everything that has to do with Islamists going around converting people at the sword.

Yeah, and Christians never did that neither!

not recently, no.

Yeah, good thing we stopped those Islamists from spreading their faith by the sword in Iraq. Now who wants some democracy?

Why, just the other day I was at the mall and this raghead came in and was all CONVERT OR DIE HEATHEN WHITE PIGDOGS and I was like WHOA! ISLAMISM REALLY IS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT!

"Not recently" means "not since the Philippenes," right?

Or, you know, Srebrenica...

So now we're comparing Islam and Christianity on the same scale, regardless of time differences? It doesn't matter what Christianity DID when they're not doing it anymore and Islam still is. It's as if you guys expect me to drop my attacks on Islam because "OH THE CHRISTIANS DID IT TOO A LONG TIME AGO."

And by the way, now we're considering an isolated, PAST experience like the Philipines the same thing as, oh, Islamic militants killing people all over the globe today? You liberals've gotta be fuckin' kidding me. Stop trying to compare the two, because they're apples and oranges, and you all KNOW you'd rather deal with Pat Robertson than Ahmedinejad. And if you wouldn't, you need to get the fuck outta this country.

Billy, kill yourself and I will send your beneficiaries a Dale Earnhardt collectors plate.

Billy, Srebrenica happened less than fifteen years ago.

Eh, thanks for something to read about, but it was fifteen years ago and an isolated case. I mean, it's really tough to back your case with "well, this small group of people in a place nobody's ever actually heard of went kinda crazy." I'll read up on that one though, just so I can know what was going on, so thanks for the info.

Well, you've also got the Christian Serbs committing ethnic and religious cleansing against the Islamic Kosovars within the last decade. But that's besides the point.

If America starts a war to spread an ideology, even democracy, we're no better than Islamists, militant Christians, or Communists. And we are, so we shouldn't.

AND PS

Stopholes, just because I disagree doesn't mean I don't think you're intelligent or respectable. Your decision to reply the way you did wins you kudos in my book, and I appreciate the honest and kindly different response.

WTF Japan, I agree with you to a point. I mean, it's not our place in the world to determine how other populations want to govern themselves or whether they want to do business with us, but I think we have a duty to uphold democratic civilization, and that sometimes means trampling a few feet.

My dad always told me that he didn't know why he was in Vietnam until he saw the northerners' tanks rolling over the border and killing people, and it was then that he decided that if we DIDN'T do something, other ideological warriors would trample all over us. Because even if we sit back and act peacefully, I guarantee you that someone else won't, and it's our job to keep them from getting too far.

It's a game, WTF Japan. A brutal game, but a game we've got to take part in it at times, for all the reasons in the world.

First of all, war should not be a game to a principled democracy. It is simply a sad necessity. You don't seek to spread your ideology, nor do you attack a country in order to prevent them from attacking you in the distant future. You are allowed to make a *preemptive* attack, but there is a major distinction between a preventive and preemptive attack. Unfortunately, this is something the Bush administration has consistently overlooked.

All is not fair in war, and if a nation wants to claim any kind of moral superiority, it has to follow the rules. The war in Iraq is an unjust war for a multitude of reasons, and that is simply inexcusable. We should acknowledge what we've done, the current administration should be reproached, and we should do our best to clean up after ourselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_2001 -2003

Thanks for posting a link provign that Iraq was innocent of the two major accusations against it. Now for your point.

Oh, you're totally right. If we hadn't invaded, Saddam would've just given up and things would be peachy-keen.

Actually, you know what? Fuck it. The whole Iraq War is confusing, and I keep going back and forth about whether or not we should've invaded. Right now it kinda looks as though Saddam kept messing with us until the last possible moment, and then he got screwed.

Sad story, either way.

You have to understand that Saddam wasn't so much "messing with us" as he was "trying to look strong given that he was surrounded on all sides by countries that would love to start rolling tanks into Baghdad if he showed any sign of weakness."

Sometimes, things don't entirely revolve around the USA. Shocking, I know, but true.

Minimalist: good point. I'll accept that for right now, but I've got to stew on it for a bit.

We're all the same, so yeah... kinda.

wrong conversation

Billy, how the fuck does the position of islamic extremists justify anyone else's?

Fox News just hired Karl Rove.

Your history beard is a mighty beard indeed, but I've gotta mention that the left consistently attacks Bush for being stupid, which I don't actually believe that he is. He's not a genius, either, but I don't think he's totally retarded.

I mean, your comment just shows how entrenched people are in their ways... someone can't even say something positive about the guy without you mocking him. I realize he says goofy things a lot, but give the guy a break. He's on camera all the time.

Lincoln was a great president and Bush was a shitty one, but Lincoln DID oversee some of the greatest destruction of American civil liberties in our history

And for that I pronounce them the same person!

Lincoln's one of few Presidents I can really dig; the legend's well deserved. Standing up to Polk over the American-Mexican War took balls (he lost his seat over it). Not only that, but the man was a brilliant administrator and speechwriter. Plus, he was six foot four inches and had a dick made out of DIAMOND-STUDDED TITANIUM ALLOY.

But any comparison to Bush is BS. Lincoln was mostly pragmatic. He walked into office facing more shit on his plate than every President behind him--COMBINED. And when he left, the mother-fucker not only left that plate sparkling clean but included a gift-wrapped plan for KEEPING that plate clean (Johnson, being a stupid fuckwit, lacked the administrative skills to put it into practice).

Bush? He put the shit on that plate himself. Plus, here we are in his second term, and--surprise!--he's still squatting on the dinner table, shitting away.

Out of all the Presidents, I can think of no other who is so diametrically opposed to Bush. Now Polk, on the other hand... They're like long-lost twins!

Keep in mind, all this is coming from a guy who treats most of the 'revered' historical Americans (especially Presidents) with nothing but seething contempt.

Lincoln totally deserves the reputation of ass-kicker. If it had been anyone else, we wouldn't be living in the United States today--and if he hadn't got his ass killed, the southern reconstruction would have gone *much* smoother.

He almost qualifies as the Greatest American Ever--but he's yet to wrestle the belt out of the iron deathgrip of Benjamin "I-Pork-More-Frenchies-Then-France-Has-Wines" Franklin.

To be fair, Franklin probably never had sex with anyone in France. Sure he doted on the ladies, but he was 70 years old when he got there and

Billy, when you say you're half Hispanic, would I be far off in guessing that that half is Cuban? Just curious.

We're all the same, so yeah... kinda. I mean, add a sombrero here, subtract a llama there... either way the women all have to shave their mustaches daily.

Haha!

Comment's actually pretty funny, unless you consider that most of the democratic party honestly believes that black people are still oppressed and can't do shit on their own. Kinda sad, in that light.

Billy. You want to defend Bush, Jack Chick, and fundamentalist conservatism, thats fine. I mean its wrong, but whatever.

Just try not to expose yourself as a complete idiot by accusing others of being unfair and reactionary and then saying "most of the democratic party honestly believes that black people can't do shit on their own"

I agree with you. Bush isn't an idiot.

But hey, Bill--while we're sharing this precious moment of digitized serendipity, holding hands as we drive out to a Massachusetts chapel in our fuschia-painted Love Bug, let's get one thing straight: Bush is not an eloquent speaker. Verbal clarity flees from this man's presence like a vampire flees from sunlight--hissing with primordial loathing at it's hated nemesis.

Out of all the things Fox News could have focused on, they chose THIS. Are they really that stupid?

God damn it. This comment belongs under my *previous* comment.

So, uh, yeah. We still on for the chapel at 3, Billy?

I'll bring my fuzzy cuffs if you promise to bring the matching riding crop.

Irish Whiskey: you know, you're kinda right about me going over the edge and accusing the members of the Democratic party for ALL thinking that way, but from what I've seen, the Democratic leaders get a LOT of votes by using rhetoric that causes people to feel oppressed, like they need government intervention to make it in a world of oppressors. As a half-Hispanic guy, I get offended by this kind of bs all the time, so I notice it a lot more because it's really degrading.

The Great Hippo: yeah, no bs there... the guy can't talk straight half the time, and it's kinda bad for a president to be that way, but hey-- I'm just saying what I said because people are too quick to call him an idiot, and that's what the left does a lot of the time. They did it with Reagan too, but people knew better.

And Fox News sucks. It's watered down, inflammatory conservatism made for ratings, and it makes well-read conservatives look REALLY bad. Shame on them. And by the way, no, we cannot get married. I'm sorry. It's not you. It's me.

"but from what I've seen, the Democratic leaders get a LOT of votes by using rhetoric that causes people to feel oppressed, like they need government intervention to make it in a world of oppressors."

Whereas the current administration just dropped the "oppression" angle and continually tries to convince us that if we don't give up our civil liberties (which we find out they're trying to take away AFTER the fact) that instead of oppression it's decimation?

Which is worse, a perceived image of oppression or fearmongering?

You know, pointing out the problems in the opposing team doesn't necessarily make your side any less wrong.

Billy, do you honestly think that if we left things completely to the discretion of the rich, white men that run this country, they would act in the best interest of any minorities? The Democrats use that rhetoric because it's true.

Oh, and I would point your comment, "You know, pointing out the problems in the opposing team doesn't necessarily make your side any less wrong." to the threat about Islamic extremism. Pointing out the problems of Islamic terrorism doesn't mean the USA gets a free pass to do whatever they want, whenever they want.

Senator, with all due respect, the purpose of government is not to make everyone successful and feel good. This is a white country. If you want to make all the brown people successful, you can, but you have to force white people to let brownies have stuff that isn't theirs, and that's wrong.

I have nothing against a guy having preference for who he gives his money to. It's an inalienable right, and I think that working against that right only causes more problems monetarily and racially as well.

"This is a white country." That sums you up more than you know, Billy.

America is comprised mostly of white people. Putting them at a disadvantage for any reason using the tools meant to serve our entire citizenry is wrong, and you're right: I am wholeheartedly against that.

I especially liked how they provided a montage of his greatest speeches oh wait I guess that's tomorrow that they'll do that.

What exactly have they contributed, though? I mean, aside from their cazungas.

"I don't want someone to think that I'm Lincoln"

Oh, I don't think you have to worry about that.

"There's no such thing as short term history"

How is this a good thing for you?

Good thing he believes in freeing people from tyranny, like how he freed all those people in the North Korean concentration camps who are slaves. That was a great moment.

Not only that, but he was convinced that the 'negro' was inferior to the white man and it would be impossible for them to live together side-by-side in peace and prosperity.

Lincoln gets a free pass on this though: he later rethought this opinion after learning about heroism performed by the United States Colored Troops. In addition, it wasn't such a crazy leap of logic back then; they didn't know what we know today about genetics and race.

Spitting on someone for being racist in history is like spitting on someone for hating the Jews in history--EVERYONE hated the Jews. Fuck, the JEWS hated the jews. You can do it, but you're gonna end up running out of spit.