Forums dot lukpac.org

God, Patrick...that place is a cesspool. If anybody disagrees with the *incredibly* right-wing assertions everyone makes, it's immediately:

a) Are you young? Are you in the army?
b) Are you a fag?
c) Go to Canada
d) Go to France
e) Go to Quebec (a combination of C and D)

There's currently a thread on a picture of Bush hugging some girl whose dad died in 911...everyone's calling it a "real, heartfelt moment" and the one guy who implied that it might be a little bit of publicity/spin--you know, cause, uh, Bush is a politician running for reelection--is getting reamed in all of the above manners.

Oh, and not to mention...the instant anybody brings up a criticism of Rumsfeld/Bush/Limbaugh, there's an instant barrage of "Well, what about KERRY/CLINTON/CARVILLE?"

http://wildcatfaithful.com/vbulletin/sh ... adid=50135

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa

I've been posting there a little bit recently, but have to agree with you re: the general reactions of the conservatives there. As such, I've been intentionally guarded in the positions I've taken, cause I know as soon as my leanings are clear, I'll be forever painted as a dem/lib Clinton lover and any meaningful discussion will be over. To me, even more irritating than the insane positions many of them take is the fact that most of them can't spell their way out of a paper bag. It's hard to take someone serious when they're (or there as they'd spell it) can't spell words you ought to be able to spell with a grade school education...

http://wildcatfaithful.com/vbulletin/sh ... adid=50135

This might be the stupidest thing I've read online in a while. And that's saying something. Welcome to the living nightmare I call home.

Ryan

McGoodwin, I had no idea you were a fan. So, do you think the addition of 3 McD's All Americans will be the push they need to make it out of the 2nd round next year?

Hmph. Don't mock, Patrick...this is solidly your fault. And to think, I thought afa.net was the end of my masochistic exploration of the less pleasant sides of the internet.

Xenu wrote:Hmph. Don't mock, Patrick...this is solidly your fault.

Not so. I never even heard of the site till it was posted here.

TSmithPage wrote:For those fellow Kentuckians interested, you should peruse the political postings at wildcatfaithful.com for an example of how nuts some of our fellow citizens are on this particular subject. While a few attempt to do so, it is simply impossible to reason with some of these folks.

What can I say? I like to stir things up!

And speaking of stirring things up, I have to admit I posted this thread over at wildcatfaithful. Not surprisingly, they'd like me to provide a link here. So, anyone interested in the radical right descending upon us?

***********************
http://www.wildcatfaithful.com/vbulleti ... post370009

Would you care to provide....
a link to this board.......


__________________


"The fundamental difference in this election will be between President Bush's steady leadership in the war on terror and John Kerry's consistent political opportunism on the war on terror."--Steve Schmidt, Bush campaign
***********************************

8_8

I don't know if that's exactly what this place needs. After all, this isn't primarily a political board...!

http://www.wildcatfaithful.com/vbulleti ... adid=50512


AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Even worse, if possible.

And as an aside, I really hate the whole "They won't stop until all Americans are dead" assertion. That isn't what this is. Look, terrorism has an agenda. Most terrorist campaigns are organized, and almost *all* suicide campaigns are. While the rank and file might believe that they're engaged in a war to "kill all Americans," those in power--those at the top, those who recruit, those who plan and command--probably have something a little less all-encompassing in mind. IIRC, most of these groups were formed to get US troops out of the Middle East. They *want* something; the way they're going about it is reprehensible in most cases, but it's foolish to pretend that they're animalistic killers who're just lashing out randomly. That isn't how it works.

That's always been my problem with September 11th, really. I don't quite see what Al Q thought they were going to accomplish by attacking the US in that fashion; in that particular case, it might've been ambition winning out over sense. For example, if terrorists were ever to use nuclear weapons, it would be game over for their cause, as nobody will stand by after that occurs.
(this, of course, ignores the possibility that September 11th was designed to draw the US into expensive, dead-end conflicts in the Middle East, thus inciting rage against us by the residents of the region both Muslim and secular...in which case I guess it succeeded, but I'm unsure of whether I can lend anybody that clarity of foresight).

(this, of course, ignores the possibility that September 11th was designed to draw the US into expensive, dead-end conflicts in the Middle East, thus inciting rage against us by the residents of the region both Muslim and secular...in which case I guess it succeeded, but I'm unsure of whether I can lend anybody that clarity of foresight).

I think this is *exactly* what al Qaeda had in mind with 9/11. Their whole goal from day one has been, as you say, to get the US troops out of the Middle East (particularly the bases in Saudi Arabia remaining after the Gulf War), and, more largely, to end the cultural/political/social influence of the West on Islamic countries.

9/11, I think, was a way to force the issue. If they brought the wrath of the US down on the Islamic world, they gambled that most Muslims would react the way al Qaeda wanted them to -- rise up against the West and kick them out.

While Bush has definitely played into their hands by occupying Iraq, I'm not sure if al Qaeda didn't overestimate the typical Muslim's appetite for blood. Obviously a good number of them are more than willing to grab an AK-47 for the cause, but whether the critical mass needed to actually evict the West from the region will rise up remains to be seen.

Ryan

This is a good one:

http://www.wildcatfaithful.com/vbulleti ... adid=50587

"If the terrorists have their way and Kerry wins (God help us) the Secretary of Defense would only be a figure head. A man of action in that position would appall a card carrying liberal Democrat. Can anyone even remember Clinton's SOD?"

The terrorists are officially endorsing Kerry now?

Then, w.r.t. what Clinton's SOD did while in office:

"cut our military to the bone."

That's right! What was the defense budget under Clinton? About $250, I think.

Lastly, the liberal media is giving Kerry free face time:

"'We’re doing just terrific,' Kerry said. 'The fact is that I am running stronger against an incumbent president than any challenger in history, and we’re going to win this race.'

If John boy was so great, he'd be up by 50 points with all the free face-time he's getting. The fact alone that he is not up should be reason enough for swing voters to re-elect Bush."

The logic here boggles the mind.

How about:

"Kerry will let the UN protect the United States. If we count on them, get ready for your wife's and daughter's to cover their face because the UN without a strong US and UK military will lay down like a whipped dog and give in to these terrorists pigs."

Boy, they're constructing some mighty impressive straw men over there. At least it's keeping them busy and off the streets.

Ryan