British pub in NYC violates civil rights by hiring a British bartender

[meazza]

Got your back on this one OC.

 

Are you going to be using more emoticons from now on?

Edited May 8, 2013 by meazza

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Got your back on this one OC.

 

Considering the ease with which your posting devolves into homosexual propaganda this is the last thing anyone would ever want to hear from you.

[OCinBuffalo]

Are you going to be using more emoticons from now on?

Considering the ease with which your posting devolves into homosexual propaganda this is the last thing anyone would ever want to hear from you.

I wrote something...but then I thought: better to see what comes of it, as it has a chance to be funny.

 

Meh. What I wrote was funnier. The homo thing was a sure bet, so, meh.

 

It's hysterical that the emoticon thing is still relevant after all these years of doing this. I thought that gag would die in 2007. Instead, it has provided years of haze. Death, Taxes, and the surety that some tool is going to say something about emoticons, without realizing that it has nothing to do with me, and is actually just an eternal haze of another poster...it's almost comforting really.

[3rdnlng]

Are you going to be using more emoticons from now on?

 

No, OC made a sensible post. He's at least temporarily dropped the emoticons. My referencce to "having OC's back" in this one instance has gotten Fatty all excited. "Having ones back" in our world is not like what it is in yours, Fatty.

[OCinBuffalo]

No, OC made a sensible post. He's at least temporarily dropped the emoticons. My referencce to "having OC's back" in this one instance has gotten Fatty all excited. "Having ones back" in our world is not like what it is in yours, Fatty.

I will NEVER drop the emoticons. Not until a certain poster publicly acknowledges that they demanded more of them from me, and even set a standard, apparently only for me, as to how many were acceptable per size of post. See why? That alone is hilarious.

 

It's just that using emoticons, in a post where we are talking about emoticon usage, is counter productive. I will also NEVER stop dropping book-like posts on the deserving, or, refrain from them because they twist panties. In fact, the more they twist panties, the more likely I am to do them.

 

But, talking about all of this, and alerting the unsuspecting, is also counterproductive. So, I have to wait...for a while...

[Juror#8]

I don't believe Reagan was the liar you make him out to be. (Certainly not on the level as Obama) Bush ll was more competent than many think and Eisenhower was competent and pretty honest.

 

It's funny how we create justifications in our mind to insulate the ones whom we like from the criticism that, if directed at the ones whom we don't like, we'd support.

 

I'm not an expert on Iran Contra, but from what I can remember, the US was funding Contras who were basically raping, pillaging, plundering, and terrorizing anyone that they suspected as enemies. The Reagan administration was complicit in aiding terrorists.

 

If Obama did the exact same thing right now, I have a sneaking suspicion that you would find an angle to criticize him. It's just like the criticism of the Obama administration for the drone stuff on US soil. If that would have been Bush II, many here would wax poetic about taking necessary precautions an being diligent to ensure that we weren't infilitrated by cells that could perpetrate another attack of 9/11 scale.

 

But that was back when the line of attack and talking point against Dems was that they couldn't keep the country safe cause they wouldn't do what it takes from a national security standpoint.

 

So disingenuous.

 

And remember Reagan's efforts to stop the scourge of Soviet incursion by funding those mujahideen folks in Afghanistan. You know, when Reagan significantly expanded Carter's comparatively small program to supply mujahideen rebels with guns, ammo, and other resources to combat the Soviets.

 

The problem with that, as I understand it, is that the program provided weapons that Taliban forces used against our own troops years later, AND, since we were using Pakistan as the go-between to the mujahideen (so as not to get our hands dirty), a strategic and diplomatic link was created between Islamic extremists and the Pakistani government which exist to this day. We were funding and arming many of the same native Afghan rebels that comprised some of the Taliban fighting force that we encountered in 2001-2003.

 

And that's why we had a weapons "buy back" program because the Reagan administration KNEW that many of the resources were going to extremists who might turn our own weapons against us at a later date. It was forseeable but it was an acceptable risk in their estimation.

 

That was a profoundly short-sighted calculation.

 

Seriously, read about Hekmatyar, our support for him, and his connection with Bin Laden. Read about Operation Tornado.

 

I didn't know about many of these links until I watched "Charlie Wilson's War" and then did some following up reading.

 

I do believe that many of these programs led to the successful downfall of the Soviets, but at what cost...

 

If Obama were president at that time, and made the same decisions, you would be as relentlessly critical of him, as you are an apologist for Reagan.

 

You can see it now.....

 

"O administration sold guns to terrorists"

 

"O administration is indirectly responsible for 9/11..."

 

"They should have known that this would have happened!!!"

 

BS.

 

So I renew my point, Reagan was disingenous, and actually, like most every other president (and human beings in general), light-weight unprepared in some respects. But you're willing to give him a pass because of this: ( R )

 

Remember, they're presidents but they're also human beings; ergo they're fallible.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Juror#8

[3rdnlng]

It's funny how we create justifications in our mind to insulate the ones whom we like from the criticism that, if directed at the ones whom we don't like, we'd support.

 

I'm not an expert on Iran Contra, but from what I can remember, the US was funding Contras who were basically raping, pillaging, plundering, and terrorizing anyone that they suspected as enemies. The Reagan administration was complicit in aiding terrorists.

 

If Obama did the exact same thing right now, I have a sneaking suspicion that you would find an angle to criticize him. It's just like the criticism of the Obama administration for the drone stuff on US soil. If that would have been Bush II, many here would wax poetic about taking necessary precautions an being diligent to ensure that we weren't infilitrated by cells that could perpetrate another attack of 9/11 scale.

 

But that was back when the line of attack and talking point against Dems was that they couldn't keep the country safe cause they wouldn't do what it takes from a national security standpoint.

 

So disingenuous.

 

And remember Reagan's efforts to stop the scourge of Soviet incursion by funding those mujahideen folks in Afghanistan. You know, when Reagan significantly expanded Carter's comparatively small program to supply mujahideen rebels with guns, ammo, and other resources to combat the Soviets.

 

The problem with that, as I understand it, is that the program provided weapons that Taliban forces used against our own troops years later, AND, since we were using Pakistan as the go-between to the mujahideen (so as not to get our hands dirty), a strategic and diplomatic link was created between Islamic extremists and the Pakistani government which exist to this day. We were funding and arming many of the same native Afghan rebels that comprised some of the Taliban fighting force that we encountered in 2001-2003.

 

And that's why we had a weapons "buy back" program because the Reagan administration KNEW that many of the resources were going to extremists who might turn our own weapons against us at a later date. It was forseeable but it was an acceptable risk in their estimation.

 

That was a profoundly short-sighted calculation.

 

Seriously, read about Hekmatyar, our support for him, and his connection with Bin Laden. Read about Operation Tornado.

 

I didn't know about many of these links until I watched "Charlie Wilson's War" and then did some following up reading.

 

I do believe that many of these programs led to the successful downfall of the Soviets, but at what cost...

 

If Obama were president at that time, and made the same decisions, you would be as relentlessly critical of him, as you are an apologist for Reagan.

 

You can see it now.....

 

"O administration sold guns to terrorists"

 

"O administration is indirectly responsible for 9/11..."

 

"They should have known that this would have happened!!!"

 

BS.

 

So I renew my point, Reagan was disingenous, and actually, like most every other president (and human beings in general), light-weight unprepared in some respects. But you're willing to give him a pass because of this: ( R )

 

Remember, they're presidents but they're also human beings; ergo they're fallible.

 

Wow, you've certainly jumped to conclusions there. Let me settle this with one simple question. If you had a million dollars in cash and you had to trust either Reagan or Obama to hold it for you, who would you choose?

[Juror#8]

Wow, you've certainly jumped to conclusions there. Let me settle this with one simple question. If you had a million dollars in cash and you had to trust either Reagan or Obama to hold it for you, who would you choose?

 

I think that my facts are right on my points. I'll admit, though, that I jumped to some conclusions on how you would have responded.

 

But it's based on how you dismissed Reagan's Iran Contra involvement as basically a means to an end.

 

But as for your question, I guess that I'd trust both the same. I think that Reagan was, and Obama is, a decent, honest public servant who is doing a difficult and thankless job.

 

If you were to ask me who would I trust more to invest my million, I'd say Reagan. If I wanted to donate it and wanted to choose the best person to give it to the most needy and most deserving, I'd choose Obama.

 

I like them both as people. I just can't comprehend how anyone thinks that the only president(s) who makes mistakes, displays incompetence, or who is disingenuous, has a (D) after their name.

 

Cause for my dollar, I think that the blow back that we've had, that find their origins within the penumbras of the Reagan doctrine, FAR supercede anything Obama has been able to screw up.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Juror#8

[3rdnlng]

I think that my facts are right on my points. I'll admit, though, that I jumped to some conclusions on how you would have responded.

 

But it's based on how you dismissed Reagan's Iran Contra involvement as basically a means to an end.

 

But as for your question, I guess that I'd trust both the same. I think that Reagan was, and Obama is, a decent, honest public servant who is doing a difficult and thankless job.

 

If you were to ask me who would I trust more to invest my million, I'd say Reagan. If I wanted to donate it and wanted to choose the best person to give it to the most needy and most deserving, I'd choose Obama.

 

I like them both as people. I just can't comprehend how anyone thinks that the only president(s) who makes mistakes, displays incompetence, or who is disingenuous, has a (D) after their name.

 

Cause for my dollar, I think that the blow back that we've had, that find their origins within the penumbras of the Reagan doctrine, FAR supercede anything Obama has been able to screw up.

 

Stating that I only think that politicians with a (D) after their name are the bad guys and then repeating it doesn't make it true.

 

Reagan may or may not have done something illegal but it was not done for his personal political gain. Obama and his administration lie all the time for their own personal political gain.

 

So, you would trust Obama to give your money to the most needy and deserving? Who, Solyndra? Unions? White House tour guides?

[Juror#8]

Stating that I only think that politicians with a (D) after their name are the bad guys and then repeating it doesn't make it true.

 

Reagan may or may not have done something illegal but it was not done for his personal political gain. Obama and his administration lie all the time for their own personal political gain.

 

So, you would trust Obama to give your money to the most needy and deserving? Who, Solyndra? Unions? White House tour guides?

 

I agree that it doesn't make it true. I even acknowledged that I'm making a lot of assumptions about your beliefs.

 

I just know that I have NEVER seen you post, with the same ire, anything about an ( R ) that you have about a (D). Even though many of the instances that you bring up are equally attributable to ( R )presidents, you discuss them as though they're one off cicrumstances in history attributable to that (D) president or others similarly politically situated.

 

Even in closing, you try to ameliorate the impact of Reagan's folly by presupposing some laudable motivation that was undoubtedly selfless and patriotic.

 

Whereas with Obama, the "lesser" level of "scandal" has to have nefarious, deeply personal, and selfish origins.

 

You don't know Reagan. You don't know why he did what he did. I did't say that Reagan's actions were "illegal." They were just strategically short-sighted, bone-headed, and incompetent. However, they were probably "illegal" too.

 

My point is that you can't bring yourself to write that about Reagan because he has an ( R ) after his name. Although, if one were to give the same fact pattern attributable to the Reagan doctrine, but in the context of an Obama administration effort, you'd be effusive if your criticism.

 

And there is nothing wrong with that. We can root for politicians just like we root for sports teams I guess. But you shouldn't even feign objectivity or that you're able to look at the political landscape squarely or dispassionately.

 

It's my opinion but I believe it to be true.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Juror#8

[3rdnlng]

I agree that it doesn't make it true. I even acknowledged that I'm making a lot of assumptions about your beliefs.

 

I just know that I have NEVER seen you post, with the same ire, anything about an ( R ) that you have about a (D). Even though many of the instances that you bring up are equally attributable to ( R )presidents, you discuss them as though they're one off cicrumstances in history attributable to that (D) president or others similarly politically situated.

 

Even in closing, you try to ameliorate the impact of Reagan's folly by presupposing some laudable motivation that was undoubtedly selfless and patriotic.

 

Whereas with Obama, the "lesser" level of "scandal" has to have nefarious, deeply personal, and selfish origins.

 

You don't know Reagan. You don't know why he did what he did. I did't say that Reagan's actions were "illegal." They were just strategically short-sighted, bone-headed, and incompetent. However, they were probably "illegal" too.

 

My point is that you can't bring yourself to write that about Reagan because he has an ( R ) after his name. Although, if one were to give the same fact pattern attributable to the Reagan doctrine, but in the context of an Obama administration effort, you'd be effusive if your criticism.

 

And there is nothing wrong with that. We can root for politicians just like we root for sports teams I guess. But you shouldn't even feign objectivity or that you're able to look at the political landscape squarely or dispassionately.

 

It's my opinion but I believe it to be true.

 

I don't want to turn this thread into another Benghazi thread, so maybe you could tell me what you think of Obama's and Clinton's actions and statements concerning the attack and subsequent killings at our consulate properties over in that thread.

[DC Tom]

I'm not an expert on Iran Contra, but from what I can remember, the US was funding Contras who were basically raping, pillaging, plundering, and terrorizing anyone that they suspected as enemies. The Reagan administration was complicit in aiding terrorists.

 

Nope. We were funding the Contras who were patriotic freedom fighters fighting against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. You're confusing them with those OTHER Contras in El Salvador, who were terrorists...fighting against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

[Juror#8]

Nope. We were funding the Contras who were patriotic freedom fighters fighting against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. You're confusing them with those OTHER Contras in El Salvador, who were terrorists...fighting against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

 

I had to read that 3 times for it to make sense. That probably has more to do with my reading comprehension.

 

Anyway, I believe that you're right and I haven't had to time to check my facts. I was hoping that someone with more knowledge on the subject would check my memory.

 

Was I was accurate on the points about the Reagan doctrine and the Reagan administration's funding of the mujahideen?

 

I don't want to turn this thread into another Benghazi thread, so maybe you could tell me what you think of Obama's and Clinton's actions and statements concerning the attack and subsequent killings at our consulate properties over in that thread.

 

Ok and I will.

[DC Tom]

I had to read that 3 times for it to make sense. That probably has more to do with my reading comprehension.

 

Anyway, I believe that you're right and I haven't had to time to check my facts. I was hoping that someone with more knowledge on the subject would check my memory.

 

No, it had more to do with it making little sense. We were "for' the same people in Nicaragua that we were "against' in El Salvador. But it's Central America...what makes sense? The US Marines have spent more time serving Chiquita Banana's interests in Central America than they have US interests.

 

Was I was accurate on the points about the Reagan doctrine and the Reagan administration's funding of the mujahideen?

 

Mostly. It's actually more complex and ambiguous, though - the key point is that what aid we gave was distributed BY the ISI. We didn't really get a say in who got what aid, we just poured money into the trough. We certainly didn't create the Taliban...that was all the ISI, organizing guys out of madrassas as convoy escorts for smuggling.

 

Hell, if there's any moral to that whole story, it's: Don't trust the ISI. Ever. They used to buy old guns from the Pakistani Army and sell them to the CIA at a markup, who would turn around and sell them BACK to the ISI at a discount.