DVDizzy Forum

pap64 wrote:Fuddonna will forever haunt my nightmares...

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/juFZh92MUOY?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/juFZh92MUOY?fs ... n_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Also:

pap64 wrote:That said, I don't condone her appearance on Sesame Street. I thought the scene was rather cute!

To quote Inigo Montoya (The Princess Bride): "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."


The whole thing about Katy Perry is silly!

Parents: "I don't want my kid to see that!"

To see what? A clothed woman singing with Elmo? No 4-6 year old kid is going to think anything of it (other than "Wow, she's a bad singer!")

Actually, I'm reminded of the scene in "Look Who's Talking" where John Travolta and the kid (Mikey?) see a woman in a tight shirt or something, John goes "I bet you're thinking the same thing I am!", and the kid goes "Yeah, LUNCH!"

Um, what word exactly?

Well, if you don't condone something, you would be against it. But then you said it was cute, like you didn't see anything wrong with it... I'm confused!

Disney's Divinity wrote:I thought everybody knew that from the beginning...

Knew what? That UD wouldn't care?

Goliath wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote:I thought everybody knew that from the beginning...

Knew what? That UD wouldn't care?

A lack of commenting doesn't mean there's a lack of care. I tend to stay out of those discussions in a place like this.

enigmawing wrote:A lack of commenting doesn't mean there's a lack of care. I tend to stay out of those discussions in a place like this.

That's soooo not my kind of attitude.

Goliath wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote:I thought everybody knew that from the beginning...

Knew what? That UD wouldn't care?

That the Bush Administration used 9/11 as an excuse for a war that was really about oil, greed, etc.

I mean, really? A "War on Terror"? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I mean, really? A "War on Terror"? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Yeah, declaring war on a small group of extremists as an excuse to invade an entire country/s. It's stupid. Just us being over there has given them more propaganda to recruit new terrorist then if we would've never got involved.

Disney's Divinity wrote:That the Bush Administration used 9/11 as an excuse for a war that was really about oil, greed, etc.

Well, it's a bit different now. These are official, declassified documents that now prove that the Bush team was planning to invade Iraq even before 9/11. Of course we know that Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld already wanted that in the 1990's, when they were working for PNAC and wrote to president Clinton, advising an invasion...

What's maybe even more shocking, is that the mainstream 'news media' aren't covering this.

Somehow I doubt that reporting such news would be in their best interest.

Goliath wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote:That the Bush Administration used 9/11 as an excuse for a war that was really about oil, greed, etc.

Well, it's a bit different now. These are official, declassified documents that now prove that the Bush team was planning to invade Iraq even before 9/11. Of course we know that Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld already wanted that in the 1990's, when they were working for PNAC and wrote to president Clinton, advising an invasion...

What's maybe even more shocking, is that the mainstream 'news media' aren't covering this.

If you read your own links, the documents are AFTER 9/11, which took place almost a year after he took office.

Hey, here's an idea, you can vote AGAINST Bush and his team, and get them out of office!

Oh, wait, you don't even live in the USA, do you?

Well, you can urge people you know to vote him out of office!

Wait... He's been out for almost 2 years now...


BTW, again, if you read your own links, the aluminum tubes were identified as centrifuge components by a CIA officer, and his superiors agreed with him. The White House team went with what those "experts" told them.


Anyway, it was Clinton that signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, and if you can remember back that far, he authorized missile strikes on the eve of his impeachment hearings, causing them to be postponed...



It seems some of these political posts lately have been just about as much troll-bait as the heated discussions (coming from both sides) that caused the religion thread to be closed...

@ Littlefuzzy:

Despite you're "you don't live here, so you have to shut the fuck up" kneejerk reaction, I'm still going to answer to you, because this subject is too important to let slide...

From the first article I quoted: "Declassified documents have reveled that advisors to former US president George W. Bush had focused on justifying a new war on Iraq as soon as he took office." Focus on that last part of the sentence. Maybe you have trouble reading, but it really says what I was saying.

And here's the letter from Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz I was referring to. That's from 1998, 3 solid years before 9/11:

In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

What kind of an attitude is this "it's been 2 years, so let it rest"? Does the fact that it's been 2 years since he left office change the fact that over 4,000 American soldiers have died? Does it change the fact that over 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have died? Does it change the fact that the war has cost over $749 billion?

http://www.costofwar.com/

And does the fact that it was 2 years since he left office change the fact that he lied the country into war, for his campaign contributors to profit?

Does it?!

The aliminimum tubes story was bogus, as it turned out. And Clinton didn't invade Iraq. But conservatives never pass an opportunity to blame somebody else for their fuck-ups.

littlefuzzy wrote:It seems some of these political posts lately have been just about as much troll-bait

Oh? You consider yourself a troll?

Goliath wrote:@ Littlefuzzy:

You know what, screw it... I had some stuff typed out, but I'm not going to bother.
Questionable source = Press TV is state-funded and is a division of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB).

Iraq was a trouble spot ever since the end of the Gulf War. They weren't complying with UN inspections, and intelligence from many other countries was showing signs of WMD potential. Saddam was violating human rights left and right, massacres of Kurds and other groups, the invasion of Iran, and so on - hundreds of thousands to more than a million dead. It would only make sense to have plans ready, even if they weren't used.

Anyway, have a nice life... Someone who falls for troll-bait is a sucker, not a troll. I guess I'm a sucker... Oh well...

littlefuzzy wrote:Well, if you don't condone something, you would be against it. But then you said it was cute, like you didn't see anything wrong with it... I'm confused!

I'm...confused as well.

I was under the impression that condone meant to be AGAINST or disapprove. So when I said "I don't condone it", I meant that I see no issue in the skit and that it shouldn't be banned.

Does that answer your question or are you still confused?

Oh and talk about breaking an awkward and tense topic .

Goliath wrote:Does the fact that it's been 2 years since he left office change the fact that over 4,000 American soldiers have died?

And they are the only ones now, I feel, who can actually make a dent in this debate. I don't hear of many soldiers speaking out, one way or another. Until they do, a huge (if not majority) opinion in America will sadly fall in Little Fuzzy's camp.

I got involved in this talk before and that is actually what got me banned. So today, I'll keep light on this issue and remind everyone that if the troops aren't talking about this that means they probably aren't being allowed. And there is nothing under the sun related to this entire topic more questionable than that.

littlefuzzy wrote:You know what, screw it... I had some stuff typed out, but I'm not going to bother.

I believe the correct all-American term for it is... owned!

littlefuzzy wrote:Questionable source = Press TV is state-funded and is a division of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB).

Shooting (only one of the) messenger(s). Typically for people with no answers.

littlefuzzy wrote:Iraq was a trouble spot ever since the end of the Gulf War.

Iraq was a trouble spot ever since Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush helped him to get into power, and provided him with enough moolah and weapons to wage war with Iran (1981-1989).

littlefuzzy wrote:They weren't complying with UN inspections,

Israël ignored 69 UN resolutions. Next on the target list?

littlefuzzy wrote:and intelligence from many other countries was showing signs of WMD potential.

Nonsense. Other countries were parrotting American forged 'intelligence' (particularly the UK).

littlefuzzy wrote:Saddam was violating human rights left and right,

The same goes for America's good friends in China, Saudi-Arabia, Columbia, Honduras and two dozen other countries where the US aided ruthless dictators in the past.

littlefuzzy wrote:massacres of Kurds and other groups, the invasion of Iran, and so on - hundreds of thousands to more than a million dead.

Made possible by the USA. And they didn't bat an eye when Hussein started the war with Iran. On the contrary, they sold him the neccesary weapons to attack Iran. Of course, in secret, the Reagan-administration also secretly provided weapons to Iran as well. They needed the money to sponsor right-wing terrorist death squads against the Sandanista government in Nicaragua. You might recall that story as 'Iran-Contra'.

All the reasons you're giving above weren't used by the Bush administration to justify the Iraq War. Because not only wouldn't it hold up legally (under international law), but also the American public couldn't care less about all that. They needed to rile up the public with bogus claims about non-existing weapons of mass destruction and outright lies about non-existing connections between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

littlefuzzy wrote:Anyway, have a nice life... Someone who falls for troll-bait is a sucker, not a troll. I guess I'm a sucker... Oh well...

I guess you're one of the people who can be "fooled again", to quote Junior. I can only compliment on your excellent self-knowledge. Have a nice life yourself and enjoy your daily dose of kool-aid.

Lazario wrote:And they are the only ones now, I feel, who can actually make a dent in this debate. I don't hear of many soldiers speaking out, one way or another. Until they do, a huge (if not majority) opinion in America will sadly fall in Little Fuzzy's camp.

Not true. Soldiers are never allowed to speak out against their missions. They're not trained to think critically and question authority. They're trained to obey whomever is giving the orders. If they didn't do that, the army would fall apart.

Goliath wrote:

Lazario wrote:And they are the only ones now, I feel, who can actually make a dent in this debate. I don't hear of many soldiers speaking out, one way or another. Until they do, a huge (if not majority) opinion in America will sadly fall in Little Fuzzy's camp.

Not true. Soldiers are never allowed to speak out against their missions. They're not trained to think critically and question authority. They're trained to obey whomever is giving the orders. If they didn't do that, the army would fall apart.

You might as well just say the soldiers are stupid. Which is definitely one thing you could never get away with in America.

I've heard things like some kind of contractual type obligation forces soldiers to keep silent. But nobody much brings that up anymore.

Lazario wrote:You might as well just say the soldiers are stupid.

Those are your words, not mine. Let's seperate that very clearly here. And whatever words you want to put in my mouth, I'm not gonna swallow it. Not this time.

I said they're not trained for critical thinking. Which they aren't. They're trained to obey orders. Which they are. If you can't grasp that, you don't understand how the military works (or is supposed to work).

It would be cool if Buffy St. Marie's 'Universal soldier' really came true and soldiers did speak out, but that's not realistic.

Honduran Regime Targets Musicians

Cafe Guancasco, a favorite of the Honduran coup resistance movement, sees concert attacked by police and military. Real News speaks with two of the musicians attacked while performing. Not only musicians fall victim to this murderous regime. Journalists, union leaders and even nurses are being targeted as well.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/cglpj ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/cglpj ... 1&hl=nl_NL" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

This one's rather cute :


Big gaps in Americans' religious knowledge
About half of Catholics and Protestants flubbed key questions about their own faiths in a survey.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rel_relig ... eracy_poll