Are you serious?
My statement was not a moral one, but one of legal fact.let me get this straight. Spending to ensure every american has healthcare is not ok. but spending to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is ok in your book?
no wonder the Republican party is in such shambles with this way of thinking.
Sense of morality cannot overrule our highest law. If you don't like the cons ution, put forth the effort to change it.
good to know. if slavery were still legal you would still support it.
Killing hundred of thousands of iraqi civilians is legal? I thought international treaties the US has signed say otherwise.
Wow...
What a deranged mind you have to make such assumptions.
well you are siding with the law rather than your morals aren't you? makes me assume you do that often.
Have anything credible to respond to?
First of all, there have always been undesired casualties of war. War isn't pretty. War isn't moral. It's just the less evil of options.
Hundreds of thousands. Bull . Too many who are counted a civilians simply had they weapons removed by their allies.
Now I agree it's a sad thing that casualties of war happen. How dare you cheer on the propaganda though?
Understanding and siding with? I am not using the law to satisfy some evil intent. I am only acknowledging that bad things happen and that sometimes the best course of action is to do equally bad things.
You can be a -less pacifist if you want. Myself, I will fight to the end.
there we go with the insults. throwing insults via internet. yeah, you a real man's man
you are obviously backing the Iraq war, while critizicing the spending on social programs which you are against. You have made your point clear. now, stop backtracking...
and yes, fighting a war vs. a immensely weaker enemy is a real feat.
Seriously, how old are you that you can ask that question with a straight face?
at the complete unraveling of WC's attempts to even appear sane in this thread.
Have you not read his posts about minimum wages? He obviously does support slavery.
Also, I have never taken a cent of welfare, unlike you WC, you ing hypocrite re .
To summarize WC's stance:
Government handout to Lockheed = good
Government doing a goddamn thing to protect its citizens = royally ed up
How many non working youths were part of this report that don't work because of financial security provided by mom and dad or other?
It's easy to skew numbers.
But let me speak from a small business owner view.
I don't know about all small business but in my small business...I could not afford to hire a 16 - 24 year old and expect the same as I would get from an experienced person. Even hiring them at minimum wage (which I would pay more) because of their inexperience would eventually cost me the more as if paying somebody one and a half that amount to produce the same or better quality and dependability.
Just from experience alone in hiring youth...I have found it unreliable with regards to the sovereignty of my customer base. Business and customer base is crucial to any business large or small and in today's market...extremely compe ive. Hiring youth without experience, dependability and work ethic is not a chance many business owners are willing nor can afford to take at this time.
Just wondering if all those factors were part of this report?
I think that even worse than unemployment is under-employment. It seems like the days of 40 hrs a week hourly employees is over. It looks like everyone is afraid of whatever new mandates may come down the pipe from the Feds and they just want to hire "part time" workers so they don't get stung.
How many of those were from Americans?
SHould have known a little sitting at home, enjoying all the great freedoms the US military preserves for you, would seriously believe a bull liberal lie.
You sick s wonder why everyone thinks liberals hate America or the military. This type of Rosie Odonnel bull . A rough estimate that doesn't include who's to blame for the death. American troops will arrest their own for war crimes, not the other way around.Definition of Casualty:
The word "casualties" in its most general sense includes the injured as well as the dead. Accounts of the number of coalition wounded vary widely, partly because it is not obvious what should be counted: should only those injuries serious enough to put a soldier out of commission be included? Do illnesses or injuries caused by accidents count, or should the focus be restricted to wounds caused by hostile engagement? Sources using different definitions may arrive at very different numbers, and sometimes the precise definition is not clearly specified. As for the Iraqis, where even the death toll has only been very roughly estimated, it appears that no one has attempted to count the wounded.
Your question was this:Your answer is this:
and this:
You're an idiot.
Wasn't the thread about the unemployment amongst young Americans?
When did I take any welfare?
Unemployment insurance is INSURANCE! Employers have a fee deducted to pay for it.
No wonder you lib s are so ed up. You cannot properly parse the truth.
So you took the public option.
Duly noted.
I wonder if it takes into account how many jobs are filled by illegal aliens that youth would normally do?
It was a response to his claim about iraqi civilians. therefore the context wasn't the quote by itself. You are an idiot.Your question was this:Your answer is this:
and this:
You're an idiot.
Are you saying that the bombs hit Japanese "civilians"?
Your question was this:I took "American history" to mean American history. There was indeed a time in American history when our military killed that many civilians. Next time, I'll just assume you don't mean anything you post because you completely failed to articulate yourself here.
Yes. I am saying the bombs killed Japanese civilians.Are you saying that the bombs hit Japanese "civilians"?
Are you saying they didn't?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
