Libya wins!

[Mega]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...afi-to-go.html

Mega's thoughts:-
These Western assh*les thought they could just "Knock over" Libya like a gang Scumbag Gangsters........19Th centry rather than 21st. Well Fu*kers looks like it didn't pan out..........i wonder if China made the "Call" & informed you to piss off.

Mike

[D-Mack]

Re: Libya wins!

Gaddafi got the Jackpot, some Apache squadrons...

British, French attack helicopters en route to Libya

The helicopters will be more precise than fighter jets and may carry out attacks targeting Moammar Kadafi's regime separate from NATO's auspices. Their deployment represents an escalation by some Western governments.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,3739155.story

[Scot]

Re: Libya wins!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...afi-to-go.html

Mega's thoughts:-
These Western assh*les thought they could just "Knock over" Libya like a gang Scumbag Gangsters........19Th centry rather than 21st. Well Fu*kers looks like it didn't pan out..........i wonder if China made the "Call" & informed you to piss off.

Mike

If the West were as villainous as its opponents write, its opponents wouldn't be allowed to write about it (or be fed by it, or sheltered by it, or given medical assistance by it).

[den111]

Re: Libya wins!

If the West were as villainous as its opponents write, its opponents wouldn't be allowed to write about it (or be fed by it, or sheltered by it, or given medical assistance by it).

You must suck at the teet of Big Gov to get all that.

[charliebrown]

Re: Libya wins!

Are these suseptible to stinger missiles or some other shoulder launched sam device?
Does Ghadaffi have these? It could be welcome to my parlor said the spider to the fly?

[jtabeb]

Re: Libya wins!

You must suck at the teet of Big Gov to get all that.

Just another example that proves that when you can't formulate a viable argument, you can always go ad hominem.

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

2. Person A makes claim X.
3. Person B makes an attack on person A.
4. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

2. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
   Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
   Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
   Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

[den111]

Re: Libya wins!

Just another example that proves that when you can't formulate a viable argument, you can always go ad hominem.

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

2. Person A makes claim X.
3. Person B makes an attack on person A.
4. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

2. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
   Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
   Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
   Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Don't want to argue. Just wondering.

I imply that he must work for the government to receive a food, housing and healthcare - "... be fed by it, or sheltered by it, or given medical assistance by it".

I could be wrong. He might receive welfare, disability, or a cushy retirement check from a civil service job.

Anyway, don't mean to be a troll. Or passive aggressive. Just a slow 2-finger typist with nothing as deep to add as I read on this site.

[oddlots]

Re: Libya wins!

Always a useful chart:

[D-Mack]

Re: Libya wins!

If the West were as villainous as its opponents write, its opponents wouldn't be allowed to write about it (or be fed by it, or sheltered by it, or given medical assistance by it).

Your Gov. is working overtime, just wait a bit.

There’s a Secret Patriot Act, Senator Says


You may think you understand how the Patriot Act allows the government to spy on its citizens. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) says it’s worse than you’ve heard.
Congress is set to reauthorize three controversial provisions of the surveillance law as early as Thursday. But Wyden says that what Congress will renew is a mere fig leaf for a far broader legal interpretation of the Patriot Act that the government keeps to itself — entirely in secret. Worse, there are hints that the government uses this secret interpretation to gather what one Patriot-watcher calls a “dragnet” for massive amounts of information on private citizens; the government portrays its data-collection efforts much differently.



http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...t-patriot-act/

Paul, Reid Run Circles Around Each Other on PATRIOT Act



Demands by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) for amendment votes on the USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization legislation are threatening to derail the extension.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, seeking to circumvent Paul’s opposition, used parliamentary tactics Tuesday evening in an effort to save time and pass the extension before some of the law’s provisions expire Friday. But it remains unclear whether the Nevada Democrat will be successful.
In order to meet the deadline, the bill must pass in the Senate and House and be enrolled by Wednesday night, after which it must be flown and delivered to President Barack Obama in Paris for his signature no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT Thursday. Obama is on a trip through Europe.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/rand_pa...obileView=true


Harry Reid Pushes Patriot Act Past Rand Paul

With very little time left on the clock to save the Patriot Act from expiring on Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had to work some procedural gymnastics to get past Sen. Rand Paul's many objections (and amendments), as well as a number of members in his own party.
Sen. Reid basically killed his current bill and and opted to take up a House small business bill (it's in a form that's considered filibuster-proof as far as starting debate goes). Neither Rand Paul nor anyone else can object to this. Reid then amended the House bill with the entire text of the Patriot Act extension.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...#ixzz1NRJBNJg2

[Shakespear]

Re: Libya wins!

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

Yes, in Theory. When it suits the situation it is used by authority to argue all sort of actions all the time !!! One just needs to be more observant of its use. Something most are not used to doing as they have no idea about these tricks.

Also good to understand is "Cognitive dissonance".

[den111]

Re: Libya wins!

Always a useful chart:

Example:

"If the West were as villainous as its opponents write, its opponents wouldn't be allowed to write about it (or be fed by it, or sheltered by it, or given medical assistance by it)."

[jtabeb]

Re: Libya wins!

Example:

"If the West were as villainous as its opponents write, its opponents wouldn't be allowed to write about it (or be fed by it, or sheltered by it, or given medical assistance by it)."

Now that was a great point.

[BlackVoid]

Re: Libya wins!

"If the West were as villainous as its opponents write, its opponents wouldn't be allowed to write about it (or be fed by it, or sheltered by it, or given medical assistance by it)."

The "West" has a "weakness", it has to maintain the illusion of democracy. If free speech is banned, then the game is up: no more moral high ground. So far minority opinion is being allowed to be expressed. But with the onset of the next phase of the crisis (debt, peak oil, climate change), the population will totally lose confidence in the elite. Thats why you see the calls to introduce internet censorship. Also expect more wars: to unite the population for a common goal, it is best to have a fight with an outside enemy.