O'Reilly vs. Moore video

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
In retrospect, I would feel it not only crude but also ignorant to proclaim one as the all out winner if that was one?s goal. Both attempted to present well-rounded arguments, yet again and again, both fell short.
As someone stated, politics manages to bring out the worst in us because it attempts to have us ?pick sides.? In this case we have a choice between Moore and O?Reilly, both of which we see constantly in the press, and both products of the press and the American people.

I view Moore as a liberal-leaning individual who has said something that I have agreed with on many occasions. Unfortunately, I find that he habitually defaults to posing a single unanswered and rhetorical question in his debates in an attempt to create drama or irony. In my opinion, this serves no positive debate-related purpose except to give the simple-minded folks more of the partisan rhetoric they crave.

I view O?Rielley as a conservative-leaning individual who has said something that I have disagreed with on many occasions. Unfortunately, I find that he habitually defaults to posing a single and rhetorical unanswered question in his debates in an attempt to create drama or irony. In my opinion, this serves no positive debate-related purpose except to give the simple-minded folks more of the partisan rhetoric they crave.

Similar, isn?t it?

Both have a habit of including weak arguments for the sake of attention and drama. This serves not only to weaken their overall argument, but to enthrall the ignorant masses. Without these habitual ?shortcomings,? as we see them, they would never get airtime. Still, I see dozens and dozens of responses from people who have somehow made themselves oblivious to this.

For Moore, the ?Fallujah/?death of your child? ? argument that he continually brought up is a recent example. Quite obvious should be the fact that he is on TV, posing a worst-case scenario in an attempt to damage O?Reilley?s immediate credibility and come out on top. He may have had a point concerning how it is easier to question the welfare of others compared with our own, but that was just a consequence of his wording which I must say he failed to take advantage of properly. In addition, he may have started to address the underlying issue of the consequences and sacrifices of the war based on misjudgment or even alleged misconduct, but he defaulted to a pandering O?Reilley?s credibility instead of completing his argument. He was indeed after credibility with that line of questioning, and not in search of enlightenment as the simpleminded tend to believe. Still, I find it troubling that only a few of those who saw the video understand this, especially by their own voluntary admission.


However, it is not impossible to see the points that he began to argue but failed to follow through with.


Those who argue on the side of O?Reilley are no better. While he is certainly no ?Ann Coulter? in terms of outright aggressiveness and having a lack of sensibility, he continually champions the ?fair and balanced,? habitually attempting to denounce anything that he disagrees with, only to replace it with bias personal opinion and conservative rhetoric. His constant generalizations serve to ENTRALL more than to inform, and from my chair, serve only to diminish the potency of his arguments as a whole. For the most part, I find that his arguments are at most one rebuttal deep.


My thoughts concerning the issues:


Position and accountability
a. Bush may have received faulty intelligence, but that does NOT ABSOLVE him of accountability for his ACTIONS. He was elected to command, and did so knowing that he would have to take on the responsibility and accountability that came with the job. He made the decision, acted on it, and should not be immune from the liability that he has to his constituents.
b. The President not only alleged, but paraded as true the idea that Iraq had WMD. In fact, it seems as if this was not fact, but an allegation that has yet to be verified. Whether or not WMD exist in Iraq to the extent that the President alluded to, it is quite reasonable for doubt to arise concerning evidence that was spoken of as if in hand. Those who say otherwise are either defending their party to nonsensical ends, or know something which most of us do not. There may very well be a massive stockpile of WMD in Iraq, but with so much time passing without reaffirmation, the people have a duty to question his motives during a time when our troops are fighting to the death to defend reasoning which until now, still remains educated speculation at best.
c. Saddam, although perhaps a supporter of terrorism, is not by any means the man we were after, if justice was truly our intention. Accusing him of supporting terrorism while failing to accuse farther into the Middle East is not just short sided, but provides a plausible pretense for a subversive act. This is not an accusation of conspiracy aimed at the President and/or his staff and/or the military. This is merely an attempt to show how weak and questionable their argument is.


Preemption vs. prudence vs. recklessness
a. The President government may use the excuse of preemption for his decisive action, but that in no way invalidates the benefits of prudence. Prudence however, is generally of greater importance [with exception] when compared to preemption when it comes to intelligent international diplomacy in our time. We, as developed nations, have a duty to remain prudent for the sake of prolonging peace, a state of existence that humanity has suffered for so long to momentarily achieve. We have a right, and, by the demands of our own American heritage, a propensity to question decisive action that threatens peace. This is not meant to be an accusation of fault on behalf of the present administration or its head, but merely justification for questioning its actions. If actions were taken that serve to demonstrate not only haste and carelessness, but intentional abuse by this administration, then the defense of preemption should certainly be challenged. Settling solely on preemption as the basis for a war has proven to result in even more dead citizens, which is why the issue of adequate justification becomes even more controversial. As Moore hinted at but did not elaborate, how do you expect to justify more death to achieve peace without irrefutable evidence?

Let us remember that it is irrefutable fact that United States did indeed lose 3000 or so souls on September 11th 2001, just as it should be an irrefutable fact that it was necessary that thousands more die in retribution.



P.S.

I know that I did not discuss every point that I feel they attempted to make, but I felt that these were the most important arguments that were not made.

:beer:

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer


:beer:

 

[ForThePeople]

Yeah, Hitler did. He wrote a very famous book entitled "Mein Kampf" while imprisoned for attempting to take over the Weimar (pre-Hitler, post-WWI) government.

In Mein Kampf he argued for Aryan world domination with a strong German country, the annihilation of all Jews, etc... basically every act for which he is now remembered. As a young man he stormed a Bavarian Beer Hall in what is now known as the "Beer Hall Putsch" and attempted to imprison the regional government, for which he was sentenced to prison.

There were many causes for World War II but they can be boiled down to a few:

1) German subjugation - France and England used the Treaty of Versaille, the treaty which ended the war, to punish Germany and force heavy war retributions. Germany suffered but was manageable until the American stock market collapse, and resulting world wide "Great Depression," which furthered German misery when American banks called in German debts which would otherwise have remained solvent. This destroyed the German economy and unleashed a wave of massive inflation (a good example would be for a loaf of bread to go from $1 to $100, then $1000, then $30,000 within a week - can you afford $30,000 to buy bread?).

End result: Total and complete German misery which caused them to cling to any hope, even a crazy Austrian (not German) son of a pensioner. This would be like Americans finding salvation in a Candian, or to really push the point a Mexican.

2) Increasing American Isolation - at the end of the war President Wilson offered his famous "14 Points" defining the role that America should take as an emerging superpower. Wilson argued for the League of Nations, the "first" UN, but America involvement in global politics was unwelcomed and the Senate did not allow us to enter. America retreated to an isolationist stance, refusing to become involved in global politics, and enjoyed the roaring 20's until the collapse.

As a side note you should know that Wilson is considered one of the the, if not the, smartest presidents to have ever held office. His notions of American involvement to stabilize the world were ahead of their time and he regretted our failure to intervene in the European crisis (England and France against Germany), the continued demise of the Ottoman Empire and withdrawl of English support (which led to our current Mid-East instability), or our involvement in helping Europe to withdraw from its colonies (which led to the post-colonial problems which currently cripple South America and Africa).

The basic point is this: if America had intervened earlier to stop either of those two serious problems we could have relegated Hitler to a historical footnote about a crazy man who stormed a Beer Hall. By failing to engage the world and act as agents of stability (mainly, if not entirely, economic measures - no army, no guns, etc) we were indirectly responsible for the rise of Hitler as Messiah to a broken people.

The results of this can be best be illustrated with what became future American policy, namely the Marshall Plan. This was the exact opposite: America would now engage the world and provide massive resource to rebuild Europe (thus preventing the subjugation of a future people, and in turn their need for a Messiah of any form), creating the UN (to both prevent future European wars and fight the growing Soviet threat), and in general to embrace economic aid and nation-building rather than non-involved, disinterested isolationism.

So, in short, Moore argued for these effects. This was Teddy Roosevelt brand politics, "speak softly but carry a big stick," not a presumptive war against an imminent dictator.

That is the problem in America - people just run their mouthes without any idea of the truth. Only in America can an ignorant fool consider himself equal to a learned "expert," our very own American anti-intellectualism which gave rise to some of the quagmires in which we find ourselves.

You should not be proud of your ignorance, you should wear it like a badge of shame and seek to eradicate it with real knowledge in the place of feel good ignorance.

Suggested Sources:

Wikipedia
The Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich: Memoire of Albert Speer
The Final Days by Hugh Travis-Roper

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Yeah, Hitler did.

That is the problem in America - people just run their mouthes without any idea of the truth. Only in America can an ignorant fool consider himself equal to a learned "expert," our very own American anti-intellectualism which gave rise to some of the quagmires in which we find ourselves.

You should not be proud of your ignorance, you should wear it like a badge of shame and seek to eradicate it with real knowledge in the place of feel good ignorance.

Suggested Sources:

Wikipedia
The Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich: Memoire of Albert Speer
The Final Days by Hugh Travis-Roper

There are so many things wrong with the above post not even worth replying to any of the NeoCon drivel.

 

[ForThePeople]

There are so many things wrong with the above post not even worth replying to any of the NeoCon drivel.

Um, I am not a neo-con. I am, in fact, liberal. One of those "scary" northeast liberals like Howard Dean. I want Bush gone, I want the neo-cons defeated, I want my country back.

More to the point... this has nothing to do with contemporary American politics. Neo-con and liberal seem to only apply to our current politics. How you can look at a discussion about World War I- WW II and import "neo-con" agenda strikes me as funny, especially becuase both FDR and Truman were great Democratic Presidents who oozed liberal values (does the "New Deal" mean anything to you?)

This was in response to only one thing, the comment:

So this is going to turn into a history lesson? I thought this was about Moore vs. O'Reilly? I thought this was about Moore saying that removing any government is wrong unless it is a threat to the US and then turning around and saying he would have never let Hitler get to power. Did anyone knoe what Hilter was going to do before he did it? So congrats, you know more then me about WW1/2. But the fact remains the same, Moore contradicted himself as he does so often. So I am not going to argue with you if you have no grasp of fact, it;s not worth my time as well.

I am, in fact, defending Moore but pointing out that his argument was the right argument. Only a neo-con would equate "American involvement" with "military action," and thus draw the conclusion that Moore meant he would stop Hitler with militaristic force. Moore meant that he would have stopped Hitler by addressing the conditions which led to Hitler.

This is what I mean by an idiot vs. a person who can think: you read that and drew the wrong conclusions.

Let me put it into simple words: MOORE RIGHT, O'REILLY WRONG, NEO-CONS DANGEROUS.

Back to sound bite politics for the small minded, I see.

I urge you to re-read my original post and re-evaluate it in light of the knowledge that it absolutely defends Moore.

Name calling is easy - cogent political thought which is consistent is not. And apparently neither is reading comprehension.

 

[Excelsior]

You think neo-cons are dangerous and Moore is right?


Sh!t dude, YOU are dangerous.


Edit: I think anyone who is extreme left or right is fvcked up. I consider myself a Libertarian, and..very moderate. I also dislike people who believe politicians blindly.

 

[ForThePeople]

No, I am addressing only one question:

Could Hitler have been prevented, and if so, how?

The answer is yes if those problems which I outlined above are addressed - if we had worked to end the subjugation of the German people or we had become more involved internationally then Hitler would not have risen to power.

This could have been done in the way that Moore said so, yes, Moore is right (about that point) and O'Reilly is wrong.

More generally the neo-con slash and burn politics is dangerous. Just as Wilson argued for involvement so Kerry has the right idea, as history has shown us. W and his cadre are just beyond help and, at this point, both incredibly dangerous, incredibly smug, and deserve to be run out of town.

My overall aim is to heighten the political process beyond "my side right, your side wrong, you are an idiot!" like all of these posts.

It wouldn't hurt to think a little, and if you are not informed about an issue you should not even discuss it.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Yeah, Hitler did. He wrote a very famous book entitled "Mein Kampf" while imprisoned for attempting to take over the Weimar (pre-Hitler, post-WWI) government.
.....

That is the problem in America - people just run their mouthes without any idea of the truth. Only in America can an ignorant fool consider himself equal to a learned "expert," our very own American anti-intellectualism which gave rise to some of the quagmires in which we find ourselves.

You should not be proud of your ignorance, you should wear it like a badge of shame and seek to eradicate it with real knowledge in the place of feel good ignorance.

Suggested Sources:

Wikipedia
The Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich: Memoire of Albert Speer
The Final Days by Hugh Travis-Roper

Good post man and welcome to the boards. :beer:
I had been staying out of this banter (until now ) but I think you and others have made some good points. IMO neither "won" the debate, but I do think Moore had a good opportunity to make a strong arguement, but failed by insisting on his lame "send your child to Fallujah" point. O'Reilly opened himself up with the equally rediculus Hitler question, and Moore could have more effectively used that (as you pointed out above) to show that Saddam could have been dealt with with a "war last" strategy, using international pressure and diplomacy to spur the fall of Saddam. He started to do that with the SA and others comparison (to which O'Reilly had a weak retort) but got sidetracked. Its this point which I fault Bush's strategy (and conversely don't condemn Kerry's vote.)

O'Reilly (and others like him) operate under the assumption that the military is the only option with which we can exert force and cause change on the international level.
Hence the "if you were in power Saddam still would be," and "you wouldn't have attacked Hitler" arguements. The Iraq strategy could have worked (IMO) had we, a.) still passed the UN res condemning Saddam and calling for renewed inspections, b.) Stood strong and united at home (the Kerry vote fits here)(Saddam must know we are serious) c.) Use that threat to force compliance. Others may disagree, but Saddam was begining to show compliance. We could have used the threat of violence to force continued cooperation. Leave the inspectors in there (which would have placated allies,) and force highly intrusive inspections and turn Iraq upside down looking for WMD. With his hand behind his back, Saddam would submit (and he was begrudgingly beginning to do.) If he really failed to submit, we would have been able to claim moral superiority and be justified with mil intervention. This didn't happen however.

Mistakes: 1.)Our "threat of inspections/peace" were never credible. I had no doubt that once Bush started talking about Iraq and WMD and war, it would only end in war. I find it hard to believe anyone else thought different. Peace was never a credible option, so Saddam could only plan for war (thus not try compliance.) 2.)The inspections were never really given a chance. (This ties to the above point.) We were too impatient and inflexible with the inspections process. I'm not talking Saddam's timetable here, but the inspectors. We never gave them the backing and thus credibility to let them do their jobs. We were just itching for them to fail and give us a reason to invade. In other words, we never cooperated with the inspectors 3.) Our failures on the previous points caused our loss of moral authority and thus the unity with our allies. Done the right way, we could have found our position like the first Gulf War with widespread interanational (and v. importantly) Middle Eastern support, Instead we grew inpatient, fled the diplomacy table and isolated ourselves with and ill-concieved invasion strategy. We had lost before the war had even started because we were hellbent on invasion at whatever the cost. These are the mistakes of GWB. This is why he is unfit to be commander-in-cheif and lead the war on terror.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Yeah, Hitler did.

That is the problem in America - people just run their mouthes without any idea of the truth. Only in America can an ignorant fool consider himself equal to a learned "expert," our very own American anti-intellectualism which gave rise to some of the quagmires in which we find ourselves.

You should not be proud of your ignorance, you should wear it like a badge of shame and seek to eradicate it with real knowledge in the place of feel good ignorance.

Suggested Sources:

Wikipedia
The Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich: Memoire of Albert Speer
The Final Days by Hugh Travis-Roper

There are so many things wrong with the above post not even worth replying to any of the NeoCon drivel.

On the contrary I think ForThePeople was responding to MoFunk who displayed his ignorance a few posts up.

 

[Bonesdad]

but it's so EASY to own O'Really...he is clueless.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Bonesdad
but it's so EASY to own O'Really...he is clueless.

He is the only one who is clueless? Who do you think watches his TV show? We may see his shortcomings in terms of being 'fair and balanced' as he preaches daily, but so many more do not.

 

[Goosemaster]

A number of interesting and important points were addressed in this thread and it remained civil even though the issue itself is quite volitile.

<----Surprised that it has gone this well

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
O'Reilly got pwned.

I like O'Reilly, but he got pretty well handled. The question would he send his own child really spoke volumes of his true feelings. Its easy to support what the President does when it doesn't affect your child. But when the question was concerning his own child it was no answer.

I can understand why you like O'Reilly. Anyone who loves discriminatory politics loves him.

First of all, genius, O'Reilly is a republican. Anyone here will quickly tell you I am anything but a supporter of republicans. But Bill is a pretty good news person and seems to be a respectable person. He really does bring out both sides of the story a lot of times. He is not a blind right winger like Hannity or Limbaugh. So you can **ow me

How do you know O'Reilly is a Republican? He's a registered Independent.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
if you are not informed about an issue you should not even discuss it.

On the contrary, I say it's good for you to discuss it, so long as you are willing to listen to opposing viewpoints (including occassional facts). If you can then make an informed decision on what you've discussed and what you've seen/read/heard, all the better

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Mill

No, Louisiana passed a Law this year that you must be 21 to buy Cigarettes, they card you.

You are 100% wrong. I just looked at LA's laws, and searched Google News. Any proof?

Louisiana Tobacco Laws
Welcome to our Internet discount Cigarettes shop, Our business is delivering great products, exceptional wholesale prices and the best Customer Service, to smokers just like you. Check out the ... Kansas $ 0.24. 32. Louisiana $ 0.24. 32 ... Welcome To. Buy Wholesale Cigarettes. At wholesale-smokes.com You Will ... be21 years of ageto buy (and or) become a ...

www.buywholesalecigarettes.com/ - 165k - Cached
Buy Tax Free Smokes Online cigarette Web links Directory
... be 21 years of age to join or buy tax free cigarettes online. Proof of age required. ... Serving our Louisiana users.Louisiana ads online. COST: FREE FOR 30 DAYS ...
www.buytaxfreesmokes.com/links.html - 48k - Cached

Right... Dave, most of those online retailers do that. That's not LA specific. Go READ their actual law, it is 18.

That may be the Law but the Gas/Convenience store on the corner will not sell Cigarettes to anyone under 18.[/quote]

No fvcking sh!t! That's what I've been trying to say. It is 18 in LA. Since when did we start allowing 17 year olds in the military?

 

[MoFunk]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
[
On the contrary I think ForThePeople was responding to MoFunk who displayed his ignorance a few posts up.

Oh crap, you are so right, what a dumbass of me. See I read the title of the post the says O'Reilly vs. Moore and totally did not even realize that it was actually a history discussion about Hilter. Damn, stupid me. I suppose the next time I debate a liberal, I will have to brush up on my history so that when the topic gets re-directed and turned around, I wont be so ignorant.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: MoFunk

Originally posted by: konichiwa
[
On the contrary I think ForThePeople was responding to MoFunk who displayed his ignorance a few posts up.

Oh crap, you are so right, what a dumbass of me. See I read the title of the post the says O'Reilly vs. Moore and totally did not even realize that it was actually a history discussion about Hilter. Damn, stupid me. I suppose the next time I debate a liberal, I will have to brush up on my history so that when the topic gets re-directed and turned around, I wont be so ignorant.

It would behoove you to prepare regardless of whom you are debating with. Political celebrities on all sides have the habit of ignorning the past in their disscusions and in turn proliferating that ignorance via their supporters.

I will even go as far as to recommend that you refrain from all political disscussion if you are not willing to discuss, and perhaps learn from, the past.

by definition, politics is: The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs. Just as with any science, without its foundations, it is meaningless.

 

[MoFunk]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: MoFunk

Originally posted by: konichiwa
[
On the contrary I think ForThePeople was responding to MoFunk who displayed his ignorance a few posts up.

Oh crap, you are so right, what a dumbass of me. See I read the title of the post the says O'Reilly vs. Moore and totally did not even realize that it was actually a history discussion about Hilter. Damn, stupid me. I suppose the next time I debate a liberal, I will have to brush up on my history so that when the topic gets re-directed and turned around, I wont be so ignorant.

It would behoove you to prepare regardless of whom you are debating with. Political celebrities on all sides have the habit of ignorning the past in their disscusions and in turn proliferating that ignorance via their supporters.

I will even go as far as to recommend that you refrain from all political disscussion if you are not willing to discuss, and perhaps learn from, the past.

by definition, politics is: The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs. Just as with any science, without its foundations, it is meaningless.

:roll:

No problem, I will go educate myself before I come back. I think I saw a book somewhere titled What Liberals Say and What They Really Mean. I should read that. I think also I will take a history class at my local JC so I can keep up with all of you. Oh, since 75% of the posts here are just basic insults, I think that I will also start watching comedy central to brush up on my crack backs.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: MoFunk

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: MoFunk

Originally posted by: konichiwa
[
On the contrary I think ForThePeople was responding to MoFunk who displayed his ignorance a few posts up.

Oh crap, you are so right, what a dumbass of me. See I read the title of the post the says O'Reilly vs. Moore and totally did not even realize that it was actually a history discussion about Hilter. Damn, stupid me. I suppose the next time I debate a liberal, I will have to brush up on my history so that when the topic gets re-directed and turned around, I wont be so ignorant.

It would behoove you to prepare regardless of whom you are debating with. Political celebrities on all sides have the habit of ignorning the past in their disscusions and in turn proliferating that ignorance via their supporters.

I will even go as far as to recommend that you refrain from all political disscussion if you are not willing to discuss, and perhaps learn from, the past.

by definition, politics is: The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs. Just as with any science, without its foundations, it is meaningless.

:roll:

No problem, I will go educate myself before I come back. I think I saw a book somewhere titled What Liberals Say and What They Really Mean. I should read that. I think also I will take a history class at my local JC so I can keep up with all of you. Oh, since 75% of the posts here are just basic insults, I think that I will also start watching comedy central to brush up on my crack backs.

Question: Did you find my posts insulting?

I believe I criticized Moore and O'Reilley for being sloppy deabaters, and the current administration for being inconsistent.

As for last comment, it was not partisan in nature at all. Face it, if you are not willing to challenge the decisions of the past and learn from them, there is no point in disscussion. This goes for every party or affiliation. Ignorance is so common these days that I find it hard to believe that it could be directed at only a single party and not all.

Oh and cute lines like

think I saw a book somewhere titled What Liberals Say and What They Really Mean. I should read that.

only serve to hurt whatever cause you are championing because we begin to question why we should take it seriously if you aren;t doing the same. I am definitely sure you know this as it is common knowledge.

Am I bashing you? Am I insulting you? I sure as hell am not and will not unless you continue.

This is why I hate politics. People feel that rhetoric or the snide or a dash of sarcasm helps their cause while ignoring their own intellectual capacities. Then perhaps legitimate and inciteful discussion fades into agrandized ignorance the likes of which I cannot stand. There has been a great deal of adaquate and even in depth debating in this thread compared with the usual crap, so please contribute or get the fvck out.

 

[MoFunk]

Not insulted at all thanks.

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: AKhandyman
You are only assuming that your points have been proven wrong. There is still possibilities that WMD exist, Iraq was a threat to the US via monies being laundered to terrorist groups and they did attack Kuwait. You just don't like an administration that decided not to be pushed around anymore by the likes of the UN. I for one sure as hell don't want to hear you screaming bloody murder, should, God Forbid, Kerry steal this election, and then the terrorists come over here and start killing Americans and destroying our economy left and right. It will happen if Kerry and the Dems hoodwink this election.

lol... i don't know what's more threatening to this countries prosperity... terrorists... or people who have the same mindset as you. the more conservative responses i hve the misfortune of reading, the more i realize how necessary it is to have warning labels like "this cup of coffee may be hot." some of you guys have the audacity to believe ANYTHING....and stick with it no matter how powerful the evidence is which proves you people wrong. You guys have the same amount of blind faith in your politicians as you do with your God. Being pushed around by the likes of the UN? puhleeze man...

edit: btw, by your definition of a terrorist...bush is probably public enemy number 1. he's done more harm to our economy than any islamic cleric could ever pray for.

 

[T2T III]

In related news, Kuwait has banned the showing of F-9/11 because there were some parts of it that portrayed Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in a bad light. I heard this information on C-Span this morning. Maybe, this news will show up in other publications and the day progresses.

 

[Rogue]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Mill

No, Louisiana passed a Law this year that you must be 21 to buy Cigarettes, they card you.

You are 100% wrong. I just looked at LA's laws, and searched Google News. Any proof?

Louisiana Tobacco Laws
Welcome to our Internet discount Cigarettes shop, Our business is delivering great products, exceptional wholesale prices and the best Customer Service, to smokers just like you. Check out the ... Kansas $ 0.24. 32. Louisiana $ 0.24. 32 ... Welcome To. Buy Wholesale Cigarettes. At wholesale-smokes.com You Will ... be21 years of ageto buy (and or) become a ...

www.buywholesalecigarettes.com/ - 165k - Cached
Buy Tax Free Smokes Online cigarette Web links Directory
... be 21 years of age to join or buy tax free cigarettes online. Proof of age required. ... Serving our Louisiana users.Louisiana ads online. COST: FREE FOR 30 DAYS ...
www.buytaxfreesmokes.com/links.html - 48k - Cached

Right... Dave, most of those online retailers do that. That's not LA specific. Go READ their actual law, it is 18.

That may be the Law but the Gas/Convenience store on the corner will not sell Cigarettes to anyone under 18.

No fvcking sh!t! That's what I've been trying to say. It is 18 in LA. Since when did we start allowing 17 year olds in the military?[/quote]

17 year olds are permitted to go to Basic Training with parental consent waiver. This usually happens during what's called a split op, where they go to Basic during their summer vacation before their senior year in high school. It does happen though.

Also, no dm. They do not buck the law to sell tobacco to soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines on military installations. The bases usually follow the state laws whenever that law is more stringent than a UCMJ one or the law is not defined within the UCMJ itself.