A question about Dungy

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In Response to Re: A question about Dungy:
    I'm not impartial, I'm just trying to guess what a neutral observer would think.  And 347, that neutral observer may very well see the motive of the Iraqis and Afghanis as self-defense - we are the ones occupying their lands, not vice versa....
    Posted by themightypatriots

    Mighty
    We went into Afganistan to remove the Taliban, a group of Saudi Sunnis that practice Wahhabism, an extreme form of Islam.  We were not fighting against Afgannis, we were there to free them from an occupying force.
    And as far as Iraq goes, we were there to free them from a wacked out dictator that killed and tortured many of his own people.  I posted a picture a while back of dead Kurds who were gassed (egads-WMD!) by Sadaam.  If we were only there for oil, why does Iraq only account for 13% of our imported oil?  Why are gas prices so high?  We are not taking advantage of the Iraqi oil fields, even though I feel we have a right to.

    Killa
    Prosecuting a war costs billions.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    347,

    Step back a moment and look at the nature of your argument.  You are attempting to justify an action by what the actor says he hoped to accomplish.  Every action would be justified under that standard.  You and I both know that none of us will be judged by that standard, so don't cut the US any slack.

    I will get more data on oil when I get the time (all should feel free to post all the data on oil they can, that is what this all comes down to), but (1) Iraqi oil exports have only now just reached pre-war levels, (2) 13% is significant, (3) you can't just look at oil distribution today, you have to look long-term at what is likely to happen as high production states such as the US, Russia and Saudi Arabia dry up, and low production states with higher reserves such as Iraq, Iran and Kuwait increase drilling and production, and (4) it really doesn't matter how much of Iraq's oil comes to the US - until the world starts to actually fight for oil, increasing oil supply to any area of the world satisfies global demand and thus lowers the price the US has to pay for oil from other sources. 

    "Prosecuting war costs billions"  I don't understand how any of you can talk about the financial cost of war as our young soldiers out there are getting blown to bits along with the civilians they are supposedly there to liberate.  I knew Obama was full of $h!t in his debate with McCain where he talked about the financial cost of the war before he mentioned the number of US deaths, and he didn't even mention the number of Iraqis killed.  Anyone who cares about money more than human lives is a ... ragamuffin. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I do believe they have the right to go to war about what they "think" is going to happen. Especially when that points to a madman like Saddam getting access to weapons that could potentially wipe out millions. He had already stated (just like Bin Laden) that he had plans for the destruction of Israel. He had already invaded Kuwait. These are called preventative measures. Why wait until Iraq was armed to the teeth and we could "prove" it before we acted? They had evidence that he had the facilities and some of the materials to build such weapons, and I'm sorry if you don't approve, but that's enough for me. And my thoughts on what could bring a decisive victory does not include nuclear weapons. But it would involve thousands of civilian casualties, pretty much wiping Iraq off the face of the earth. This (IMO) is the only way they could be sure that the insurgents would not get a foothold...leave nothing. I'm not saying I approve of such a plan either, simply that that is what it would take. But the main objective was to remove Saddam, and eliminate his sons. That was a justifiable cause, IMO. Trying to impose democracy on them when they're not willing to fight for it themselves is foolish, IMO. And what I was referring to as "propoganda" was only your claim that the sole reason for going into Iraq was to "steal their oil". You have every right to oppose it, as a matter of fact, beyond deposing Saddam I oppose it myself. I also don't go for the bickering between the political parties, and both agree and disagree with both on their policies. As far as a new "generation of terrorists" goes, I believe that they will emerge whatsoever we do. Don't forget, they hated us and our values long before we went to war. Like I've said before, if I had the answers to this mess I'd run for president. Unfortunately, there are no real answers. As long as the human race populates the globe there will be wars. It's a sad fact, but inevitable. In any case, my biggest issue with your posts was you calling all these people "murderers" and likening them to truly evil men like Saddam and Hitler. I believe Bush and Johnson both were doing what they thought was right, not what they thought would make them the most money or give them the most power. Nixon is a harder case to argue. He had too much ambition and bitterness over past losses to truly play it straight. Means aside, that is what I think separates these men. Hitler and Saddam were evil, and can justifiably be called murderers. But I don't think you can call any of our presidents the same. Just my opinion. There's nothing I would like better than to see our men (and women) come home from Iraq. I doubt they can do much more there, and when Bush foolishly claimed the war was over, it really should have been.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Bub I think you are mixing me up with Mighty, I never called anyone a murderers and i never compeered them to Hitler or Sadam that was all mighty. I will respond to your post further when I have a second.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In Response to Re: A question about Dungy:
    Bub I think you are mixing me up with Mighty, I never called anyone a murderers and i never compeered them to Hitler or Sadam that was all mighty. I will respond to your post further when I have a second.
    Posted by MVPkilla


    Actually, it was Mighty's post I was replying to. It just happened to follow yours.

    On a side note, we've sure evolved this thread way beyond Tony Dungy, haven't we?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    HahHa yes we have, silly things happen when there is no football to talk about haha

    Well then if you get the time Bub you should reply to my post as well seeing as I didnt go way over board and start calling people murderers and all that. Plus I respect what you have to say so I would love to see what you have to say.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In Response to Re: A question about Dungy:
    Hey, LBJ, Nixon, Bush, Clinton, W, Obama (probably Ford, Carter and Reagan) all intentionally killed people without justification other than some made up excuse about freedom or democracy blah blah blah.  That's no better reason to kill people than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam or any one else had. 
    Posted by themightypatriots


    Isn't making those tough decisions part of the job? Using that logic all our boys over in Iraq and Afghanistan are murderers, even moreso than any president, as it's them who are pulling the triggers! Agree with it or not, war and murder are two completely different things. You get upset when someone calls you a left wing extremist, yet here you are basically saying anyone who participates in any war is a criminal! That's a bit hypocritical, IMO. Ask the families of the Kurds who were gassed if removing Saddam is a "made up excuse". We all saw the film of the mass graves. Do you think those were Hollywood soundstages? The Taliban in Afghanistan were harboring Bin Laden and his cohorts, who were responsible for killing thousands of Americans right here in the US. Ask the families of the 9-11 victims if that was "made up". I agree there is a lot of BS thrown around in DC, but it's not like George W woke up with a hair across his a s s one day and decided to kill a bunch of Arabs! There are a lot of considerations taken before embarking on any military action. And as far as Saddam goes, he was dodging and playing games with the UN security council for over ten years! If he was truly "innocent" and had nothing to hide (as you seem to be suggesting), why didn't he just cooperate? Life would have been so much simpler for him had he done so. You might not buy into all the details (to tell you the truth, neither do I), but there were some very valid reasons for taking action against Saddam. Just because someone embellished it doesn't make the whole thing a lie.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "killed people without justification other than some made up excuse about freedom or democracy"

    You don't care about freedom.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In Response to Re: A question about Dungy:
    I dont agree with everything Mighty has said, most of what he has said sounds like he is about go join up with soem anti American extreamist group or something. However he makes a good point, if all the people who didnt agree with this country or its goverment were forced to shut their mouths or leave teh country the only ones left would be the flag waving red neck morons who say stupid sh*t like "bomb them all! bomb the entire middle east" which is a re tarded way to look at it. This is (for now) a free country where people whether we agree with them or not are allowed to speak there minds (for now) even if the right wing wants to paint all these people as anti Americans or loonys or whatever the he ll they deem fit at the time they still have a right to say what they. I dont agree with everything Mighty has said but he has a right to say it. Mighty I do agree with you that we had no good reason what so ever to go into Iraq, am I happy that we took out Sadam and his sons? Yes I am but we didnt have a reason to go to war, we pretty much made up a reason and went in and did what we wanted to do whether we ahd proof or not. But the US going into Afghanistan was a different situation. After 9/11 we told teh entire world that anyone found harboring terrorist or Bin Laden to be more specific would have to answer to the US and we had a lot of evidence if memory serves that Osama Bin Ladan was not only hiding out in Afghanistan but they were harboring him and people like him. So we 100% had good reason to go in and do what we did. I dont think we needed to dig in for teh long haul the way we did but going in and making our stand as people who would not stand by and let the Bin Laden's of the world attack us and kill innocent Americans was importent. But Iraq was BS, if we were truely having a war on terror there were plenty of other places we could have made a real difference instead of this giant cluster f*ck that Bush got us into in Iraq.
    Posted by MVPkilla


    For the most part I agree with you. But I think there was cause to go into Iraq, and that was to remove Saddam, and prevent him from stockpiling weapons. Though he didn't have an aresnal (at least on hand), he was trying to build one. And his first strike would probably been against Israel. Had that happened the world may have been in greater peril, as they have nukes, and are more likely to use them than we are. Deposing Saddam (and getting rid of his sons, who were even worse, IMO) was enough cause for Iraq, I think. But you (and Mighty) are right, it has been dragged out too far. They didn't have an exit strategy, and their larger goals (setting up a democracy) were simply not feasable. It's been far too long, and they needed to let the Iraqis step up and manage their own affairs. In one sense Mighty is correct, in that by occupying Iraq they have given reason for terrorists to become invested there. But that may well have happened even had we pulled out after Saddam was captured. It's a sticky situation, as any strife with religious beliefs at the root is pretty much a no-win situation. And I fear we are heading towards a similar confrontation with North Korea. There are risks and advantages to both passivism and aggression. These issues are never black and white. I know I wouldn't want the responsibility to have to make such hard decisions, especially when either choice will lead to people dying needlessly. I find myself sympathizing with Rodney King..."Why can't we all just get along?"
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Hey you can call me a left wing extremist all you want, I take it as a complement cause most people I know think I'm a right wing extremist -that's what you get for having quasi libertarian views.

    Yes, our troops are murderers.  There I said it.  They had no right to go to Iraq or Afghanistan.  Orders are no excuse.  If Hitler's army had told him "F*** You", a lot of innocent lives would have been saved.  But you and I and every other American are also murderers because this country is a democracy and we keep electing the same a**hole war lovers over and over again.  I mean Obama talked about how much he loved the war in Afghanistan and we elected him anyway, so all Americans are responsible for these murders and deserve whatever happens to us.

    Now that I've pi$$ed everyone off and no one will read the rest of my post, I'll engage in polite dialogue.  Basically Bub it sounds like you really believe Saddam and the Taliban were a threat to the US.  Before I get to that, aren't there better ways of dealing with potential threats than by starting an all out war that will get lots of poor people killed while the rich sit back and smoke their cigars?  For example, if Saddam Hussein really was planning on attacking the US, why not just put a bounty of say, $10 billion on his head?  The entire Republican Guard would have dropped him off for our troops on the Kuwait border for that money.  Ditto for Bin Laden.  All his devout followers would have been killing each other for the chance to turn him in.

    All that aside, what reason do you have to believe that Saddam Hussein was going to attack the US, or even Israel?  He was not a religious fanatic.  His was the only non-Islamic state in the Mideast before our invasion.  The CIA helped his B'aath party get into power.  We supported him during his war against Iraq.  He only became Public Enemy #1 after he had the nerve to attack our beloved friends in Kuwait.  He bombed Israel during that war to provoke a response so the other Arab states would turn against us.  Saddam was a cold, cutthroat leader who wanted to control Iraq and his region.  He understood Mideast politics but not American politics - he had no idea how threatening he looked to Americans with that mustache and military outfit.  He thought he could bully the UN out of Iraq so they would leave him alone and he could continue in power undisturbed. 

    He gassed the Kurds to quell an uprising.  It was murder, but dictators all over the world murder their own people all the time to stay in power.  And if you think all you have to do is kill the dictator to stop the murders you're kidding yourself - Saddam is a dime a dozen.  We will be very lucky not to have an even more murderous dictator replace him.

    But the fundamental question is why terrorists want to attack the US, and the answer is obvious - Israel.  We kicked the Palestinians out of their land and have supported Israel without waiver since the end of WWII, and the entire Mideast is pi$$ed about it.  And to add insult to injury we interfere in their countries' internal affairs through political and economic policy and try to set up puppet governments and support whatever harsh regime will sell us the most oil (e.g. Saudi Arabia).  And now most recently we go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  If we had never stuck our nose into their business in the first place they wouldn't give a rat's a** about the US but it's too late now so the best thing we can do is withdraw our troops and operatives completely from the region, focus on defending our own country, and tell Israel good luck. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Yes, our troops are murderers.  There I said it.  They had no right to go to Iraq or Afghanistan.  Orders are no excuse.  If Hitler's army had told him "F*** You", a lot of innocent lives would have been saved. 

    Many of our troops feel it is their duty to serve their country, and would brand you worse than a left wing fanatic for this first comment. As far as the Germans go, those who refused would have been killed themselves. You are honestly telling me that you would do this, risk your life (and probably those of your family) because you believed your government was wrong?

    But you and I and every other American are also murderers because this country is a democracy and we keep electing the same a**hole war lovers over and over again.

    Does this mean you simply do not vote, or do you write in Mr. Rogers on your ballot?

    Basically Bub it sounds like you really believe Saddam and the Taliban were a threat to the US.  Before I get to that, aren't there better ways of dealing with potential threats than by starting an all out war that will get lots of poor people killed while the rich sit back and smoke their cigars?

    I believe Saddam was a threat to world peace. He had already threatened Israel, and an attack on Tel Aviv could bring about drastic consequences. That would indirectly threaten the US. Also, had he been allowed to obtain his goals of nuclear weapons, who knows who he would have sold them to? The Taliban were indeed a threat, as they were harboring Bin Laden. Thousands of American did in fact die because of him. To my mind we had every right to go into Afghanistan. And what are your "better ways"?

    For example, if Saddam Hussein really was planning on attacking the US, why not just put a bounty of say, $10 billion on his head?

    Had they done this, you would then dub them as "crimelords". Isn't contracting murder basically the same as doing it yourself? It is in the eyes of our laws at least. Not to mention the backlash from the global community as a whole.

    Ditto for Bin Laden.  All his devout followers would have been killing each other for the chance to turn him in.

    This I don't buy. Maybe the Iraqis could be "hired", but Bin Ladens followers are religious fanatics. They value their principals more than money. Besides, none of them would probably believe they'd ever really be able to collect the bounty.

    On a side note, you are condemning these leaders as being "murderers", yet you are advocating murder yourself in these statements. Hypocritical, I should say.

    Saddam was a cold, cutthroat leader who wanted to control Iraq and his region.

    Like any other power hungry madman, Iraq or "the region" would not have sated his hunger. Guys like that want to rule the world. Each conquest only fuels this desire and makes them more ruthless. That makes him a threat to everyone everywhere.

    He gassed the Kurds to quell an uprising.  It was murder, but dictators all over the world murder their own people all the time to stay in power.  And if you think all you have to do is kill the dictator to stop the murders you're kidding yourself - Saddam is a dime a dozen.  We will be very lucky not to have an even more murderous dictator replace him.

    My own post acknowledged this fact. There is no "endgame" that can be assured to work out how they wish it to be. What you are suggesting is isolationism. And with the global economy that simply won't work. Even the US is not in a position to thrive without help and trade from other nations. And if you let the wolves roam the forest freely, eventually they wind up at your door, despite your efforts not to p i s s them off.

    But the fundamental question is why terrorists want to attack the US, and the answer is obvious - Israel.

    That is part of it, but not all. Islamic extremists believe anyone who doesn't believe in their god is an infidel. And the only thing any infidel deserves is death. So while we are trying to push democracy, they are trying to push their way of life...on the whole world. Looking at the two options I'd say we were the more "righteous" of the two policies. You may see it another way. The problem is, neither side can concede and simply keep their distance. And the fact remains, the majority of the people do not agree with the terrorists views. I understand your point about "minding our own business", but that contradicts the core beliefs of those who founded this country.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "You are honestly telling me that you would do this, risk your life (and probably those of your family) because you believed your government was wrong?"

    Probably not, unless I was in a bad mood that day.  But what is right has nothing to do with what I would do.

    Does this mean you simply do not vote, or do you write in Mr. Rogers on your ballot?    Ron Paul baby!

    Isn't contracting murder basically the same as doing it yourself?  Let me clarify - a bounty for them live.

    "but Bin Ladens followers are religious fanatics. They value their principals more than money."  You claim to know a lot about these people, but how do you know their values and motivations?  Maybe they are like lots of other people who claim to be religious but are really just in it for the money.  Osama bin Laden is from one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia with close ties to the government there and here.  Is he really a religious fanatic, or is he using that as  a cover to hide another agenda?  The bottom line is you don't know anything
    about those people, so it in no way justifies our nation's murders. 

    "Like any other power hungry madman, Iraq or "the region" would not have sated his hunger. Guys like that want to rule the world. Each conquest only fuels this desire and makes them more ruthless. That makes him a threat to everyone everywhere."  Again, you are just speculating.  You are buying into the media's portrayal of Saddam.  How many countries did he try to conquer besides Kuwait?  If you study his life, he clearly looks more like a national thug trying to exert his power on his region, like a dozen other petty dictators in Africa, Asia and South America (unlike the petty dictators in the US who try to rule the world!)

    What you are suggesting is isolationism. And with the global economy that simply won't work. Even the US is not in a position to thrive without help and trade from other nations.  I never suggested isolationism.  I believe in free trade and open borders.  If we need to impose some tariffs and duties to raise revenue to fund national defense, fine, better than an income tax.  But let in anyone in the world who wants to come here. 

    That is part of it, but not all. Islamic extremists believe anyone who doesn't believe in their god is an infidel. And the only thing any infidel deserves is death. So while we are trying to push democracy, they are trying to push their way of life...on the whole world.  Again, you have no idea what these people believe or want, you are just speculating. Many, many die hard Muslims have said repeatedly that they don't want to impose their values on anyone.  And if they really do, why aren't they?  I mean, shouldn't all those Islamic extremists be attacking the whole world every day to impose their way of life on it?  These sporadic terrorist attacks are supposed to be an example of that?  Come on.  They aren't bombing switzerland.  Or Canada or France or Germany.  You are just stereotyping an undefined group of people to justify the US basically doing the same thing - trying to rule the whole world (NATO, Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan). 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Telling me that you voted for Ron Paul is all I need to know about you Mighty. You could not post again for months and still knowing you voted for that guy is enough for me to not take you seriously.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "You are honestly telling me that you would do this, risk your life (and probably those of your family) because you believed your government was wrong?"

    Probably not, unless I was in a bad mood that day.  But what is right has nothing to do with what I would do.

    So you are basically admitting you are as guilty as the rest of the "murderers" you abhorr?

    Ron Paul baby!

    Your perrogative. Myself, I wouldn't bother wasting my time voting for one of those "independent" or third party candidates. I'd simply just leave it up to everyone else and not vote at all.

    Osama bin Laden is from one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia with close ties to the government there and here.  Is he really a religious fanatic, or is he using that as  a cover to hide another agenda?

    If he comes from money and isn't a fanatic, why is he out there living in caves? What possible "other agenda" would that serve? While I may not personally know the guy, common sense suggests he's a fanatic if he forgoes luxury to become an outlaw. Either that or he's just plain crazy! In that case, too, he'd also be dangerous!

    Again, you are just speculating.  You are buying into the media's portrayal of Saddam.  How many countries did he try to conquer besides Kuwait?  If you study his life, he clearly looks more like a national thug trying to exert his power on his region, like a dozen other petty dictators in Africa, Asia and South America (unlike the petty dictators in the US who try to rule the world!)

    All this is speculating. It's not like these guys are going to publish a book clearly stating all their ambitions. I'm simply taking history into consideration. Though he may have only invaded Kuwait, that doesn't mean he wasn't biding his time and gathering his strngth for other ventures. And unlike the third world dictators you refer to, he had a lot more resources and revenue to put into whatever plans he has. But still, power corrupts, and even though they may not possess the means, I'd bet most of these idiots indeed have aspirations to rule the world...however far fetched it may actually be.

    I never suggested isolationism.  I believe in free trade and open borders.  If we need to impose some tariffs and duties to raise revenue to fund national defense, fine, better than an income tax.  But let in anyone in the world who wants to come here. 

    If you don't help out your tading partners they are less likely to engage in free trade with you. The same with tarriffs. They are a deterrent to free trade, and that's why they have been abolished worldwide. Also, if you let anyone in, you are inviting the rif-raff of the world. That's how we wound up with the disasters of 9-11!

    Again, you have no idea what these people believe or want, you are just speculating. Many, many die hard Muslims have said repeatedly that they don't want to impose their values on anyone.

    No speculation here. I wasn't referring to the entire Muslim faith. Only to those extremists. Many of them have come outright and claimed the very statement I made...all "infidels" deserve death, and it is their duty to acheive it, without consideration of their own lives.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I already said I'm guilty as a murderer because I'm an American and I pay taxes to fund these murders.  But I don't get why you have to make this personal - we're discussing broad, global policies, not each other.

    "If he comes from money and isn't a fanatic, why is he out there living in caves?"  We don't know that he's living in caves.  If we knew where he was, why haven't we found him?  For all we know, he's in a mansion in Saudi Arabia.

    "I'd bet most of these idiots indeed have aspirations to rule the world...however far fetched it may actually be."   Everybody wants to rule the world, but no one ever succeeds.  We are quite capable of defending our own country. 

    "If you don't help out your tading partners they are less likely to engage in free trade with you. The same with tarriffs. They are a deterrent to free trade, and that's why they have been abolished worldwide."    Free trade is between individuals and companies, not countries.  So military "helping out" doesn't affect it.  Nobody cares that Germany isn't sending them soldiers when they buy BMWs.  Tariffs have not been abolished worldwide, they have been cut back but are still in place.  I advocate low tariffs that would not significantly affect world trade but would just raise enough revenue to support a small military.  This worked fine in the 19th century.

    "if you let anyone in, you are inviting the rif-raff of the world."  Who is rif-raff?  Weren't most people who came here rif-raff, poor people who couldn't make it in their countries?  Give us your tired, your poor ...

    "That's how we wound up with the disasters of 9-11!"  That's right, blame the immigrants. 

    "Many of them have come outright and claimed the very statement I made...all "infidels" deserve death, and it is their duty to acheive it, without consideration of their own lives."  Ok, let me ask you, how many Muslim terrorist attacks were there on the US before World War II?  Zero.  Islam has been around for more than 1500 years, but from the 1571 to 1945, there were no Muslim attacks on the West.  What changed in 1946?  We both know the answer.  If the US leaves Israel to fend for itself and withdraws its military and operatives from the rest of the world, our nation would be at its safest level since the Russians got the bomb. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Well Mighty the people who flew the plains into teh towers were infact immigrants, they were none American's you cant deny that. I am not saying we should blame all immigrants but there is deffently reason to to background checks on anyone trying to move to the U.S. and there is nothing wrong with double checking someone background before allowing thme to come into our country and enjoy the freedoms we enjoy. And when he says riff raffs we all know who he is reffering to so stop being thick headed because you clearly know what he means when he says that. If you are going to sit there and pretend that there are not people out there who want to move here and then hurt Americans then you are just trying to get a rise out of people because clearly there are people in this world who want to move to teh U.S. for bad bad reasons and that is who he means when he says riff raffs. He was not talking about the poor, heck if the person is a good person with good intentions then by all means let them in being poor has ntohing to do with it. you know what he meant by riff raffs so cut the sh*t.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Honestly Taz "rif-raff" did not strike me as meaning terrorist.  Rif-Raff to me just sounds like he means people he doesn't like.  Taz you know there are lots of people in this country who don't want poor people moving here because they are afraid they will take their jobs or be a burden or whatever so stop being thick headed. 

    And you can't keep terrorists out of the country, even if you set up the Berlin Wall around the whole place and made every tourist sit in Gitmo for a month while you did a background check on them.  If someone wants to come here and kill Americans there is nothing we can do about it.  Heck, we can't even stop Americans from kiling Americans.  Turn on the evening news. The government is never going to be some all powerful security force than can prevent all violence.  The best security we can get is to stop pi$$ing off the rest of the world. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=riff-raff

    riff-raff:

    1.  Un-savory people in our society. People you do not want to be associated with.
    2.  generally people of a lower class, in most cases people that don't carry an Amex Centurion Card.
    3.  Unworthy plebeians who lack the elegance and civility to mingle in high society.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I cant respond right now, i am in teh middle of a deadline but I will get back to you soon Mighty.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    It's not so much the riff-raff that bothers me . . .



    What we really need to watch out for is Simon Barr-Sinister.






     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Is that Kim Jong Il's evil twin???
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    We don't know that he's living in caves.  If we knew where he was, why haven't we found him?  For all we know, he's in a mansion in Saudi Arabia.

    They don't want him in Saudi Arabia, either. He is an outlaw in his own country. I'm merely going on the last sighting. He sure hasn't checked into the Ramada Inn anywhere, though!

    Everybody wants to rule the world, but no one ever succeeds.

    That's exactly what I stated! And a crazy person doesn't need guarantees his madness will acheive his goals, but that doesn't stop him from trying.

    This worked fine in the 19th century.

    So did stagecoaches. And kerosene lamps instead of electricity. The problem is other governments can put pressure on the businesses in their countries to discourage trade to whom they want to. The US is not the only country who buys BMWs!

    Who is rif-raff?  Weren't most people who came here rif-raff, poor people who couldn't make it in their countries?  Give us your tired, your poor ...

    Don't be obtuse. You know who I was referring to...or should have. As you say, total security is basically impossible. So why just open the door to everyone? It's impossible for me to kill every fire ant in my yard, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sit by and let them overrun it!

    That's right, blame the immigrants.

    It sure wasn't middle class white folks from the US suburbs who hijacked those planes! I suppose we should blame the victims for wanting to live in a free society !

    Ok, let me ask you, how many Muslim terrorist attacks were there on the US before World War II? 

    That is irrelevant. They didn't have the technology and the networking they do now. If, as you suggest, Israel becoming an independent state is the sole reason for these types of activities, why didn't they start bombing us back in the 50s?


    Well, I'm getting bored with discussing this subject. We are at a stalemate, and neither will convince the other to see it from their point of view. We both have the right to our own opinions, at least we should be able to agree that is a good point to being American! All governments have their bad points. You seem to like to dwell on the things you disapprove of, and read sinister motives behind them. To me that seems bordering on paranoia. At least we don't have presidents gassing entire states simply because they didn't vote for him. And they don't throw dissenters into prison and torture them and go out and kill their families. To me that makes them (at the least) the "lesser of two evils". There are a lot of policies here in the US that I think are wrong, but I'm still glad I live here rather than somewhere like Iraq or North Korea. There is no "utopia" here on this planet, yet us Americans have it a lot better than most others. If we have to live with a few questionable plicies, so be it.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Ok but let me dwell on this tariff point because I'm really paranoid about it ... I am not die hard in favor of tariffs.  Sales tax or VAT would be fine as well.  I am simply offering low tariffs as an alternative to an income tax.  I don't think they would interfere significantly with trade.  The important thing is that we repeal the 16th Amendment ... and stop murdering babies in the third world. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "To me that seems bordering on paranoia." - Bub

    Are you telling me that the same guy who admitted to voting for Ron Paul is paranoid? noooooooooo......lol
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "Yes, our troops are murderers."

    At first I thought this comment was so low, that it was not worth my time to respond to.

    But then I thought of all the brave men and women in uniform who give of themselves to ensure you have the freedom to make such foolish remarks, and I decided to not say anything might be seen as justification for what you said.

    First, you do not know of which you speak.
    Second, you have no appreciation for the freedoms you have or what the costs of those freedoms are.
    Third, you have no respect for those in uniform who give of themselves for the greater good of the country they love. This is a sacrifice you don't understand because you either 1) don't love your country or 2) don't have the guts or 3) both. You don't deserve to sit on the same toilet as these great people, yet you take advatage of what they give you. Sad.

    The fact of the matter is these great people you called murderers are better humans than you, and you owe them so much. It is sickening that you would spit on them. You should be ashamed of yourself, really.

    There, I said it.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share