If You Were Going to Start A Revolution ....

[ImnoMensa]

This country is pretty much evenly divided between those who love Socialism and their entitlements and those who have to pay for those entitlements and want a free capitalist nation.

Those who sit on their ass and get a check and those who want to work for what they get.

Those who want a strong country with a strong military and those who naively think they can deal with terrorism by kissing the terrorists asses.

Those who want to work for the American dream and those who want it handed to them.

Those who will plan ahead and work and pay for their health care and those who think they will be healthy all their lives and if they arent the government ought to pay for it.

Those who believe in life and those who would kill their babies.

Those who believe we should kill all industry and businesses , and economically ruin the country to clean the environment, and those smart enough to know we have to live and prosper while keeping the environment as clean as possible.


Many other differences, but still a division that is pretty even. There will be no Revolutionary war without a Civil war. One side or the other must become dominant in order to make the change. Hopefully those not on the side of a prosperous America will come to their senses without the destruction of peace and prosperity, but it's questionable. The mentality of letting the Government run our lives is growing, and our politicians seem to be all for it.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

• Vote for McCain solely because he has an R next to his name (even though he's the farthest thing from what she claims she believes)

Actually, I think Obama was the farthest. McCain was the only one who could win who wasn't the farthest.

• Her "recall" from the Republican debate where she swears she heard Ron Paul say we deserved 9/11, when that was nothing more than Rudy's interpretation of Pauls remark.

REP. PAUL: ...Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East...

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it,



Sounds a lot like he's saying they attacked us for our actions - thus suggesting we deserved it.

[ylexot (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

Sounds a lot like he's saying they attacked us for our actions - thus suggesting we deserved it.

"Attacking us for our actions" DOES NOT EQUAL "we deserved it". If you think it does, learn English.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by ylexot

"Attacking us for our actions" DOES NOT EQUAL "we deserved it". If you think it does, learn English.

So, what are the consequences for actions?

Most people say that the consequences are deserved to the person doing the action. Thus, if Mr. Paul believes our actions caused the attack, he's suggesting we deserved those consequences. The implication is that if we hand't performed the action, there wouldn't have been the consequences.

Not that he agreed we should have been attacked, but that it was reasonable to assume we'd be attacked for our actions, and thus got our just rewards. Our "chickens had come home to roost", I heard on American pastor say.

[PsyOps]

We need a music revolution. More JAZZ!

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by ylexot

"Attacking us for our actions" DOES NOT EQUAL "we deserved it". If you think it does, learn English.

Why don't you tell me what it means, then?

[ylexot (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Why don't you tell me what it means, then?

It means exactly what it says. These are the reasons they cite for attacking us. There is no judgment of right or wrong.

How about this...if I say we should look at the reasons that the economy is collapsing, do you think that I'm saying that we deserve to have the economy collapse?

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Why don't you tell me what it means, then?

More along the lines of "we provoked it". Subtle but distinctly different from "we deserved it".

And I don't buy it either. It's the same rationale that says a provocatively dressed woman caused someone to beat and rape her. Same stupid argument. "He made me do it" is a childish defense.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

More along the lines of "we provoked it". Subtle but distinctly different from "we deserved it".

And I don't buy it either. It's the same rationale that says a provocatively dressed woman caused someone to beat and rape her. Same stupid argument. "He made me do it" is a childish defense.

I think this is where the confusion is coming in....

No one is suggesting it's a valid defense, nor that we actually deserved it.

The suggestion is that Paul was saying our attackers believed we deserved it because of our actions. Paul was suggesting our actions were wrong, and they provoked the reaction, and the people doing the reacting believed we deserved what we got for our actions.

A scantily clad woman is clearly not provoking anything.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by This_person

A scantily clad woman is clearly not provoking anything.

She is if she's doing it right.