From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
and why are we so pro 2nd ammendment here, and so anti 2nd ammendment there?
Published on April 27, 2007 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In War on Terror
"The key to Iraq is the sharing of the oil revenues" is a line we hear about the political solutions of the country. And I don't doubt that necessarily. I am no nation builder, and defer to people more knowledgeable on the subject, like Joe Biden, who's plan calls for such a move.

Of course, he is not alone. virtually every expert on Iraq concurs. Iraq concurs. But what puzzles me, is why the right wing capatalist uber-alles types concurring?

Sharing the revenue of the nation's oil is something similar to what we have done in Alaska, where oil revenue sharing is a hot political topic. And from where I sit, I can see the benefits of such an operation.

But it is a "socialist" policy. Not only that, it is downright communist. Aren't capatalists usually against such things?

Shouldn't the "capatalist" policy towards Iraq's oil business be that whomever could afford to buy them and run them should do so? Then they can determine (not the government) what wage they pay. Then those owners and/or stockholders will enjoy the profits, of course, pouring them into the Iraqi economy, causing other businesses to flourish, providing more jobs and revenue and trickling down to every man, woman and child in Iraq!!! Why does the administration support a socialist policy over a Reaganesque "trickle down" model?

Just like our capatalists uber-alles experts preach.

Why are we trying to disarm everyone?

Isn't the foundation of our second amendment our "right" to bear arms, as the government can. The second ammendment was founded on the people's distrust of the government, not their right to hunt buck in the mountains. Our forefathers and our NRA cardmembers preach that the only way any nation can be truly safe is if everyone is armed. Why is that our inherent, God given right, and not theirs?


Just some questions....
"

Comments (Page 1)
on Apr 28, 2007

Why are we trying to disarm everyone?

Isn't the foundation of our second amendment our "right" to bear arms, as the government can. The second ammendment was founded on the people's distrust of the government, not their right to hunt buck in the mountains. Our forefathers and our NRA cardmembers preach that the only way any nation can be truly safe is if everyone is armed. Why is that our inherent, God given right, and not theirs?


Because we don't go around killing people just because they aren't of our religion.
on Apr 30, 2007
Because we don't go around killing people just because they aren't of our religion.


yeah, our country has no history of that or anything similar...lmfao!
on Apr 30, 2007
yeah, our country has no history of that or anything similar...lmfao!


Okay smart mouth, name ONE where the US killed a bunch of people because they weren't of our religion. Now "before" you start, think for a moment This is a country that has Jewish, about a dozen or so Christian type religons, Catholics, Muslems, etc,etc. So which religon did we kill for? And which one did we kill?


ROTFLMAO! Just waiting to hear this one.
on Apr 30, 2007
Okay smart mouth, name ONE where the US killed a bunch of people


i'm not talking bout the govt.

we're arming their govt. we're trying to disarm their citizenry. their citezenry, that is following our 2nd ammendment, to the letter...for the purposes of a well organized malitia.

on Apr 30, 2007
And which one did we kill?


I don't want to get really involved in this thread but I will point out that in the US, the only religion that had an extermination order against them was the Mormons.
on Apr 30, 2007
I don't want to get really involved in this thread but I will point out that in the US, the only religion that had an extermination order against them was the Mormons.


I hate to say this...but you're wrong. "If" such an order had been given, then why are there still mormon's living in Utah?


Okay smart mouth, name ONE where the US killed a bunch of people


i'm not talking bout the govt.

we're arming their govt. we're trying to disarm their citizenry. their citezenry, that is following our 2nd ammendment, to the letter...for the purposes of a well organized malitia.


And btw... we WERE talking about the US government.

Because we don't go around killing people just because they aren't of our religion.


My first reply.

Because we don't go around killing people just because they aren't of our religion.


yeah, our country has no history of that or anything similar...lmfao!


Your reply

yeah, our country has no history of that or anything similar...lmfao!


Okay smart mouth, name ONE where the US killed a bunch of people because they weren't of our religion. Now "before" you start, think for a moment This is a country that has Jewish, about a dozen or so Christian type religons, Catholics, Muslems, etc,etc. So which religon did we kill for? And which one did we kill?


ROTFLMAO! Just waiting to hear this one.


So from the first 2 quotes, anyone with an itelligence level above zero "knows" we were talking about the government.
on Apr 30, 2007
So from the first 2 quotes, anyone with an itelligence level above zero "knows" we were talking about the government.


you pompous little ass...where the f*ck do you get off telling ME what I am talking about on MY BLOG!!!!

GET THE F*CK OUT OF HERE YOU TWIT..you are b/l'ed again as you still haven't learned.

in my article...i ask why we are trying to disarm the iraq people. YOU brought up the government killing people in your 2nd reply. i corrected you and informed you that we were talking about the people, not the govt.

in your 1st reply saying "we" hardly implies anything. "we" to me meant "we" as in our people, not our govt. obviously as that's how i replied. you again insist on me answering some question I NEVER ASKED DIPSH*T!!!!

i also resisted retaliating on yer name calling,,,but as you repect no one else and are a little self centered twit with absolutely no sense whatsoever...that courtesy is over.

buh-bye.

on Apr 30, 2007
I hate to say this...but you're wrong. "If" such an order had been given, then why are there still mormon's living in Utah?


Sorry Miller, but you're full of bullshit on this one. How about you look here, or here.

n00b. Do a little googling once in a while before spouting off at the mouth . . .
on May 01, 2007
Just call me the spelling-nazi.


you are, but titles should be spelled properly. from there i guess i had a brain block or somethin...ugh...if i get time, i'll at least correct the title.

btw, you are still officially b/l'ed, tho i'm not gonna make a big thing of it.


but it is ironic that both yourself and brandie couldn't resist posting on my blog after throwing such a hissy fit last month when i wanted to explain myself. both of you felt entitled to backdoor the b/l to make your petty points of spelling in your case and gratuitously piling on lil danny boy in hers.

you asked me the other day if your b/l was listed since i answered you on another post. i apologize for not answering sooner, and if that has caused any confusion on your part, again, i apologize. but the answer is no. your posts are still subject to deletion and the b/l is still on. that doesn't mean that i will bother with deleting them all. how you choose to behave is up to you. like i said before, i'm not looking to make a big thing out out of it.

but your b/l will be lifted when i get a full, unqualified apology for your lack of taste, lack of decency and behavior towards me over the past month or so.

brandie's will be lifted when she actually allows me to explain the following..."that i was sorry for coming off to her as "pompous and arrogant" in our discussions on parenting. that i did have great respect for her as a parent and got some great insight into my own parenting from reading her stuff on the matter. i have a style of challenging others in discussions but most of the time, the only intent is to learn more, not to personally hurt the other. it's obvious that i did , and i apologize. in the future, i will try to remember that on your blog, you require a "friendlier" style of discussion and i should be mindful of that. i certainly wasn't in the past. if you would allow me to participate in future discussions, i would be more than happy to see you participating in my spot here. if not, i certainly do respect your space and as you might have noticed, i have steered clear of your site for well over a month now. i would expect you to mutually respect mine."

that's all.

i have respected both of your spaces and have steered 100% clear of them. in turn, i haven't gotten the same from either of you. and in addition, i have been pretty decent about not complaining about that lack of respect. i think it is pretty safe to say that the same wouldn't happen if the shoe was on the other foot and i dared set foot on tex's site for any reason whatsoever.

as it has been,,,the ball is in your court.

on May 01, 2007
Sean. My opinions are no less valid than yours, (regardless of what you think)


it's not your opinions i have a problem with. "shitting" on my birthday is not an opinion. it's a childish exercize in frustration and hate directed at me. it's an unwarranted lack of respect towards me. hurling profanities at me aren't opinions. they are the cowardly acts of a lil immature girl who lacks any self control.

sue you? funny... hardly... just cease posting here if you cannot play by my rules. prove me wrong. show that you actually aren't a lil immature girl who can't control herself.

or, you can prove me right...again.

on May 01, 2007
just cease posting here if you cannot play by my rules. prove me wrong. show that you actually aren't a lil immature girl who can't control herself.

or, you can prove me right...again.


thanks  
on May 01, 2007
and now to take care of the misrepresentations....

from whip's post...All of this information is readily available on the internet and to wonder why we aren't supporting certain amendments to OUR Constitution in Iraq is just idiotic. They've written and ratified their own, we're honor bound to abide by it, even if we find it lacking in some of the freedoms we as Americans have come to enjoy.

well, the problem with that is that we have been hellbent on disarming every iraqi citizen since day 1. their constitution didn't exist when we began our hunt to take away every iraqi citiaen of the only protection they have against the forces that threaten their nation.

also, the oil sharing is our idea. they still haven't approved it. it's our idea, not theirs and existed well before their constitution.

and i think the oil sharing is beneficial to them. just as it has been in alaska. my question was why do people who claim that capitalism is the cure for every country, every economy. they claim their rules of economics are constant.

gun owners see the right to bear arms as an inherent right, not one exclusive to any country. they constantly criticize other nations for not allowing the unfettered flow of assault weapons in their nation. to them "guns = freedom." why the opposite approach there? and again, we've been disarming them since we arrived in 2003. it has nothing to do with their constitution.

from her replying to herself...By the way, I wonder what sort of fits Sean would be having if he knew that one of the provisions of the Iraqi constitution is that all citizens be provided work, healthcare, housing, and a 'decent living' as well as all sorts other goodies that some Americans do without?

i am familiar with their constitution and am well aware of those provisions. i have no problem with them, as you said, they voted on them. they won't mean much after the malaki govt. falls, however.

my questions have to do with the attitudes and actions of us since we got there. debating the merits of their constitution is another discussion. and changing the subject to only discuss the merits of the constitution in your replies is certainly a clever lil tact, but has nothing to do wit hthe questions i asked and only serve your over inflated ego that can't apparantly comprehend or understand what she reads as her whole article is evidence of.

the posturing is cute...but really doesn't mean anything in relation to the questions i asked.

btw,,,anyone notice that a SUNNI iraqi MALITIA took down the al quaeda leader yesterday. it wasn't the USA, it wasn't the Iraq Security Force or anyone else. these people could take care of themselves if we'd get out of their way and give them an opportunity for some breathing room if we could only get our greedy claws out of their ass.

the al quaeda kill and elimination of that particular threat (the man, not the organization) was a direct result of the iraqi's doing what people do when their right to bear arms is not infringed and their govt. (or occupying force in this case) cannot protect them. the shiite govt would just as soon have al quaeda weaken their enemies in their internal civil war, and the sunni's were left on their own to defend themselves. ronald reagan would have called these militia men who killed al quaeda's iraq point man a "freedom fighter."



on May 01, 2007
You're welcome to defend yourself there, if you wish


no thanks. you live your life, i'll live mine.


and btw, our relationship isn't "love - hate" as you misrepresented. it isn't either. there is no relationship. whatever feelings you concocted in your head in regards to me simply don't exist. i simply don't give a damn about you. i don't even know you. nor do you know me. but, i'm not going to allow my name to be trashed without a response...but that is my only interest. you, as a person or anything, don't even fall into the equation. i am content to put any of my responses to any charge on my own site where either i am not welcome (like tex) or have no interest in feeding a troll's ego (like you). it may or not be read by the appropriate people, but that is irrelevant to me.


your posts are subject to deletion (yes, at my whim). if you don't want to be subject to deletion, then you know what is required. but at this point, with your multiple admissions of purposefully and maliciously violating the terms of service while i have respected those terms..it's obvious that you simply aren't intellectually capable of being an adult.

and not only that, you are b/l here and should, at this point have the basic sense of decency to not go where your presence or participation is neither wanted or needed. you know as well as i, that the only reason you haven't been further disciplined is because i have restrained myself from "making a big thing out of it." and your public admissions of knowingly violating the terms of use for malicious purposes towards me could easily be used against you if my enjoyment of this site is hampered in any way. so far, it hasn't...despite your desires. but like anyone,,,my patience is limited.

run along now...you don't need to prove me right ,,,again.
on May 01, 2007
run along now...you don't need to prove me right ,,,again.


and again...
on May 01, 2007

just cease posting here if you cannot play by my rules

I could say the same for you in relation to JU.  Just delete people that you don't agree with and BL them.  It's against the TOU to personally attack people.

And, yes, they say things to you, too.  But, you are *far* from innocent, as is demonstrated in just this article alone:

GET THE F*CK OUT OF HERE YOU TWIT
are a little self centered twit
you pompous little ass...where the f*ck do you get off telling ME what I am talking about on MY BLOG!!!!
a lil immature girl who lacks any self control.

As a side note: ieSpell could be your friend

Meta
Views
» 1343
Comments
» 16
Category
Sponsored Links