Jump to content

Photo

Destroying The Pyramids


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 Jimmy Leeds

Jimmy Leeds

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,382 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 10:42 AM

Moderates I'm Sure

Well, now that Barry has basically handed over an ally to the whackos, the calls to detroy the pyramids are coming.
  • 0
I DRINK LOU-AID
Posted Image

Posted Image

Kill Mumia

#2 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,281 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:04 AM

Ah must be "judge all the Muslims by the most extreme and fringe segments" season again. Nice how that time of year lines up with a presidential election.

What the hell I'll play along with the blame Obama for crap he has no control over...If we didn't elect Obama we wouldn't have lost Parise to the wild, fvck that guy.

Edited by squishyx, 10 July 2012 - 11:04 AM.

  • 0

#3 devilsadvoc8

devilsadvoc8

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,822 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:37 AM

The people in Egypt are responsible for their own idiocy, not the US. Religion is the problem here: ignorant, hateful, repressive, controlling religion.
  • 0
Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

#4 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,761 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 12:02 PM

Ah must be "judge all the Muslims by the most extreme and fringe segments" season again. Nice how that time of year lines up with a presidential election.

What the hell I'll play along with the blame Obama for crap he has no control over...If we didn't elect Obama we wouldn't have lost Parise to the wild, fvck that guy.



The Muslims are the ones putting the most extreme and fringe segments into power. They are then all responsible.

Ayatolla's running Iran, Hamas running Gaza, and now Muslim Brotherhood running Egypt.
  • 0

#5 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,281 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 12:24 PM

The Muslims are the ones putting the most extreme and fringe segments into power. They are then all responsible.

Ayatolla's running Iran, Hamas running Gaza, and now Muslim Brotherhood running Egypt.

I think you mean, "the denizens of Egypt are putting people into power, a few of which have recommended destroying pyramids because they are hateful idiots". The people of Egypt share some of that blame, yes, not Muslims as a whole.
  • 0

#6 Jimmy Leeds

Jimmy Leeds

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,382 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 12:26 PM

I think you mean, "the denizens of Egypt are putting people into power, a few of which have recommended destroying pyramids because they are hateful idiots". The people of Egypt share some of that blame, yes, not Muslims as a whole.

Then how about these guys.............More "Few" Islamists.......what's the excuse now?



How about these guys.........."a fraction"

Edited by Jimmy Leeds, 10 July 2012 - 12:27 PM.

  • 0
I DRINK LOU-AID
Posted Image

Posted Image

Kill Mumia

#7 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,281 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 12:37 PM

Then how about these guys.............More "Few" Islamists.......what's the excuse now?



How about these guys.........."a fraction"

Yes, those are extremists factions. How many times do we have to have this same stupid argument, there are some billion+ Mulsims on the planet, of which maybe 100,000 are actually interested in terrorism and bringing the world to it's knees. A dangerous faction yes, an extreme faction, a faction that must be watched, and at times dealt with by force. But they do not represent the billions of other practitioners of the faith.

How can you be so ignorant on this issue? The Westboro Baptist "Church" isn't a microcosm for the rest of Christianity, the Catholic child abuse scandals certainly doesn't mean all Catholics rape little boys, The Jewish Rabbi's who were caught selling organs on the black market doesn't mean all Jew's harvest people for money. It means that as it turns out there is a certain percent of humans who are just fvcked up in the head and there's no need to label the rest of the group based on the few a$$holes who get the headlines.
  • 0

#8 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,761 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 12:48 PM

Yes, those are extremists factions. How many times do we have to have this same stupid argument, there are some billion+ Mulsims on the planet, of which maybe 100,000 are actually interested in terrorism and bringing the world to it's knees. A dangerous faction yes, an extreme faction, a faction that must be watched, and at times dealt with by force. But they do not represent the billions of other practitioners of the faith.

How can you be so ignorant on this issue? The Westboro Baptist "Church" isn't a microcosm for the rest of Christianity, the Catholic child abuse scandals certainly doesn't mean all Catholics rape little boys, The Jewish Rabbi's who were caught selling organs on the black market doesn't mean all Jew's harvest people for money. It means that as it turns out there is a certain percent of humans who are just fvcked up in the head and there's no need to label the rest of the group based on the few a$$holes who get the headlines.


The Westboro people and the rabbis you mentioned have not and probably never will be elected into positions of political power that also has authority over a military.

The Muslim brotherhood now has authority over Egypts military and that scares me.
  • 0

#9 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,158 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 12:58 PM

The Westboro people and the rabbis you mentioned have not and probably never will be elected into positions of political power that also has authority over a military.

The Muslim brotherhood now has authority over Egypts military and that scares me.


We had Santorum run for president, that's basically the same thing. Egypt has every right to elect anyone they want into power. I don't care if they elected a three legged dog, it's their country. I know that Mubarak was an "ally" to the US, but maintaining an "ally" is not worth the oppression of an entire population of people. If Egypt wants to vote in extremist religious politicians, so be it, it's their problem, not ours.

I seriously don't understand why this country is so obsessed with terrorism and how it's a threat to the US. In the past 10 years, how many people in the US were killed by terrorists? Probably the same amount that were killed by falling pianos. We spend more money on the military than any one country could ever possible need to and we're still paranoid that, oh dear, a few people might be killed. I'm much more willing to run the risk of being killed by terrorists than I am to allow the PATRIOT Act to exist or Guantanamo Bay or to see this country flush cash down the military toilet as regular folk struggle to make ends meet.
  • 0

#10 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,761 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 01:06 PM

We had Santorum run for president, that's basically the same thing. Egypt has every right to elect anyone they want into power. I don't care if they elected a three legged dog, it's their country. I know that Mubarak was an "ally" to the US, but maintaining an "ally" is not worth the oppression of an entire population of people. If Egypt wants to vote in extremist religious politicians, so be it, it's their problem, not ours.

I seriously don't understand why this country is so obsessed with terrorism and how it's a threat to the US. In the past 10 years, how many people in the US were killed by terrorists? Probably the same amount that were killed by falling pianos. We spend more money on the military than any one country could ever possible need to and we're still paranoid that, oh dear, a few people might be killed. I'm much more willing to run the risk of being killed by terrorists than I am to allow the PATRIOT Act to exist or Guantanamo Bay or to see this country flush cash down the military toilet as regular folk struggle to make ends meet.


Then please run for president when you turn 35 and dismantle the military and see how that turns out.

The world is full of looney leaders who make even the most "extreme" of our candidates look tame. They do not have any concept of diplomacy and wish to destroy the united states as well as their other enemies.

What the left doesn't understand is that the world has and will always be filled with wackos and evil and not by understanding people who want to get together to sing Cumbya. It took the largest and deadliest war in world history to defeat evil manifested as hitler and nazi Germany. It took over fifty years and many proxy wars but we defeated the soviet union by basically outspending the soviet union to death ( though the liberals will give you varying reasons, I have had the fortune of interviewing several CIA and smaller political leaders during a college project about the cold war and they all say this was the reason why we won). Either way we won because of our military complex.
  • 1

#11 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,599 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 01:56 PM

I suppose one could quibble about Obama's diplomatic subtleties in dealing with events in Egypt, but ultimately, what do you expect him to do about it? Send in the marines to prop up a thug like Mubarak?

Don't get me wrong, I think the Muslim Brotherhood are bad guys, and I fault self-appointed "experts" who have claimed they are "moderate." And yeah, I'd take Mubarak over those thugs any day. But unfortunately this is the way the world works, and we have to make the best out of bad situation.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#12 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,158 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:17 PM

Then please run for president when you turn 35 and dismantle the military and see how that turns out.

The world is full of looney leaders who make even the most "extreme" of our candidates look tame. They do not have any concept of diplomacy and wish to destroy the united states as well as their other enemies.

What the left doesn't understand is that the world has and will always be filled with wackos and evil and not by understanding people who want to get together to sing Cumbya. It took the largest and deadliest war in world history to defeat evil manifested as hitler and nazi Germany. It took over fifty years and many proxy wars but we defeated the soviet union by basically outspending the soviet union to death ( though the liberals will give you varying reasons, I have had the fortune of interviewing several CIA and smaller political leaders during a college project about the cold war and they all say this was the reason why we won). Either way we won because of our military complex.


Please tell me where I said we should dismantle the military?

My point was that spending more than the next 25-26 countries combined, is unnecessary. We could just outspend everyone. We'd still be #1 in military spending, just not by some retardedly large amount of money. Just like our nuclear arsenal, I don't see the point in having enough to blow the world up 100X over. Isn't being able to blow it up once enough?

I'm not going to argue whether we won the Cold war via spending more money, but even if that is true, it's irrelevant now. We're not fighting a large organized sovereign state. We're fighting a small contingent of under-armed and under-funded guerilla fighters. I'm going to oversimplify here, but we don't need a hammer to win here, we need the precision of a knife. We do not need to spend the amount of money we do on the military/DHS to be safe, that's ridiculous. We could probably cut the military and DHS budget by 50% and be no less safe than we are now.

I know you're gonna bring up the cold war again, so I'll relate that way now. What was the point of overthrowing a fascist regime, only to adopt it's tactics to govern ourselves now?
  • 1

#13 devilsadvoc8

devilsadvoc8

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,822 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 09:40 AM

Hey look everyone is doing it so we should to!!!!

Just because Western Europe has become so dependant on our support that their own military strength can barely deal with anything larger than an OWS mob, doesn't mean we should do it too. As for spending more than the next 25-26 countries, is this just a made up point or is it grounded in some fact? I am no military spending expert but I would imagine that China and Russia spend quite a bit on military.

Unfortunately due to the fact that everyone else can barely control a bunch of unemployed professional protestors, someone has to be able to do something with effectiveness when you have lunatics in power which is not specific to any one region although the ME certainly has more than their fair share of dumbass fanatics in power.

As for out national security, who else has the border size in the same class as we do? Due to being a relatively free society, we have relatively free borders, add their immense size and our problem is different then lets say Germany or Japan or even NK. I think you have grossly oversimplified the issue.

The other issue is hate. The fanatics demand utter control over their people in order to stay in control. For the most part we are the opposite of that. Our existence in the world undermines the house of cards the fundies depend on so we are a target whether we are invovled in ME or not.
  • 0
Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

#14 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,281 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 10:02 AM

The US has the largest economy in the world, so as often is the case, we "spend the most" then lots of other countries combined on all kinds of things. We dwarf them. In fact we are almost as big as the entire European union. Even though his statement is true, looking at the raw physical amount of spending of defense is silly. A "better way" to look at how much we spend relative to GDP if we are going to compare countries.

https://www.cia.gov/...r/2034rank.html

That put's us 23 overall.

Now I put "better way" in quotes because I don't really think you can just compare one country to the next on an issue like this just looking at numbers. Every countries needs are going to be different, the middle eastern countries dominate the top of the list, but is anyone really surprised?

Edit: http://chartsbin.com/view/e3m A neat map (same data set as best I can tell) of the highest military spenders (in terms of GDP)

Edited by squishyx, 13 July 2012 - 10:07 AM.

  • 0

#15 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,599 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 11:23 AM

Hey look everyone is doing it so we should to!!!!

Just because Western Europe has become so dependant on our support that their own military strength can barely deal with anything larger than an OWS mob, doesn't mean we should do it too. As for spending more than the next 25-26 countries, is this just a made up point or is it grounded in some fact? I am no military spending expert but I would imagine that China and Russia spend quite a bit on military.

Unfortunately due to the fact that everyone else can barely control a bunch of unemployed professional protestors, someone has to be able to do something with effectiveness when you have lunatics in power which is not specific to any one region although the ME certainly has more than their fair share of dumbass fanatics in power.

As for out national security, who else has the border size in the same class as we do? Due to being a relatively free society, we have relatively free borders, add their immense size and our problem is different then lets say Germany or Japan or even NK. I think you have grossly oversimplified the issue.

The other issue is hate. The fanatics demand utter control over their people in order to stay in control. For the most part we are the opposite of that. Our existence in the world undermines the house of cards the fundies depend on so we are a target whether we are invovled in ME or not.


How much one country should spend on its military should not be measured by how much other countries spend on their military. Rather, it should be based soley on strategic goals, and the types of conflicts you can theoretically expect in the future. One can only guess what those might be, but at the very least, I like the idea, and am willing to pay for, a vastly superior navy. It has assured relatively peaceful trade which benefits the entire world and allows, if necessary, for the ability to project some military power anywhere in the world. If we can confine ourselves to those objectives, I think you could cut military spending significantly. Of course, I likely have no idea what I'm talking about, which is why I'm only spewing these thoughts on a hockey message board.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#16 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,900 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 03:15 PM

Yes, those are extremists factions. How many times do we have to have this same stupid argument, there are some billion+ Mulsims on the planet, of which maybe 100,000 are actually interested in terrorism and bringing the world to it's knees. A dangerous faction yes, an extreme faction, a faction that must be watched, and at times dealt with by force. But they do not represent the billions of other practitioners of the faith.

How can you be so ignorant on this issue? The Westboro Baptist "Church" isn't a microcosm for the rest of Christianity, the Catholic child abuse scandals certainly doesn't mean all Catholics rape little boys, The Jewish Rabbi's who were caught selling organs on the black market doesn't mean all Jew's harvest people for money. It means that as it turns out there is a certain percent of humans who are just fvcked up in the head and there's no need to label the rest of the group based on the few a$$holes who get the headlines.


You seriously underestimate who the enemy is, but that is a common liberal weakness. While you're "counting" the terrorists vs. the non-terrorists (as if you know, ha!), an Islamic government has risen to power in Egypt. The most Westernized Arab countries, Morocco and Tunisia, have elected Islamic governments, although Islamists don't have a lot of power there (but note who the Muslims have chosen to represent them in those countries ... Arab spring, my ass.). What will happen when Syria falls from Assad's grip? Yeah, Islamic rule is a good bet ... people in power whose goal is to destroy Israel and wage jihad against the West. I don't know how many "innocent" Muslims there are, but I honestly don't care. Look who is gaining power and what their intentions are. Stop being ignorant on this issue.
  • 0

#17 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,281 posts

Posted 17 July 2012 - 08:43 AM

I don't know how many "innocent" Muslims there are, but I honestly don't care.

This sentence basically sums up everything. There is no room to have discussion with people who have such extreme views. May this inert hatred towards people who talk and dress differently then you, die with your generation.
  • 0

#18 Devils Dose

Devils Dose

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts

Posted 17 July 2012 - 10:05 AM

The sense I have gotten is that many (a majority of?) Egyptians are not thrilled that their choice came down to the military's candidates and islamists, but they don't see a more inclusive, freer third party to agree upon. So they're stuck choosing between the two sides that they don't really love. Shows you how far behind US they are. :whistling:
  • 0
Season Ticket Holder since Jan.2009
Section 226 Row 2 Seats 15-16

#19 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,900 posts

Posted 17 July 2012 - 11:40 AM

This sentence basically sums up everything. There is no room to have discussion with people who have such extreme views. May this inert hatred towards people who talk and dress differently then you, die with your generation.


I'm talking about dealing with Islamic governments who hate the United States and hate individual liberty, and you're playing identity politics. If you can't or won't see the threat of political Islam, then you're right, there's no room for discussion.
  • 0

#20 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,599 posts

Posted 17 July 2012 - 12:28 PM

The sense I have gotten is that many (a majority of?) Egyptians are not thrilled that their choice came down to the military's candidates and islamists, but they don't see a more inclusive, freer third party to agree upon. So they're stuck choosing between the two sides that they don't really love. Shows you how far behind US they are. :whistling:


Actually Egypt has a multi-party system, which includes a liberal bloc. To the extent those parties are fractured, they can form a coalition government. Enough Egyptians seem to be ok with the Islamists, and, what do you know, they get the most votes.

Basically, you're comparison is the equivalent of equating Eisenhower with Hitler because both helped to create a nationwide integrated system of roads (Eisenhower, the interstate highway system, and Hitler, the autobahn). Intellectually lazy argument designed to make a cheap point.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users