[spam]

Flint killed them with the candlestick in the conservatory.

> TheBigOne wrote:

> ‎"Success! The realm of Osama Bin Ladin has been reduced to dust!

+1 internets for you!

> twosidedeath wrote:

> i can see it getting shot down easy with the "its against the whole idea of capitalism" or "socialism ftw"

I wasn't even going to get into that...

Remind me to post on this one over the weekend.

Then you might want to explain this to the person who sued McDonald's over the coffee incident. 

> twosidedeath wrote:

> WAR ON TERRORISM!!!!!! BAH lets rekindle this fire. i ahve a question for yall. how is it that comapnies can ahve record highs and gains over the last 10 years while america falls into such debt!! hmm tax evasion!! but how do you prove it? ya cant sue em like a person.

We can't sue businesses?  Better tell that to the people filing the class-action against Walmart!

Spain tried it about 600 years ago already.

> Justinian I wrote:

> So, we should take out Ghadaffi because:

1. His style of rule violates our western ideals.
2. He has committed terrorism in the past.

Really now? First, 1 is an intellectually deficient reason to invade a country. There are dictators in less relevant countries much more ruthless than Ghadaffi is. And if we were to apply this principle everywhere, we would be bankrupt. The second reason is irrelevant, because Ghadaffi's acts of terrorism were more characteristic of his younger years as dictator. For the past few decades, he has been quiet and even cooperative with the west against terrorism.

The error with everyone's reasoning stems from false beliefs about government and the causes for the problems in the middle east. According to you, "democratic" countries are not run by an elite (LOL?), and the revolts in the middle east represent a wave of the people rising up against tyranny to form a democracy that defends the human rights and freedoms every person is rightly entitled to. Really now. Are you all seriously this naive?

How about this, then, as justification:

We should take out Ghadaffi because:
1: His style of rule violates the wishes of a popular, yet undermanned, representation of his people which have organized against him.
2: He has committed terrorism against Western interests in the past, therefore representing a threat to the West.  This can be further justified by the fact that he barred Western journalists from entering the country.
3: The international community, even including the Arab League, has asked that we help oust this guy, so it's a nice diplomatic overture.
4: The instability in Libya helps to drive oil prices up.

Do those justifications sound utilitarian enough to suit you, Justinian?

> EmoHotPocket wrote:

> and if we really want to win Islamic opinion. we should outlaw the burning of the Koran by nut job Floridian pastors...

We can't ban flag burning... so why Korans?

EDIT: Actually, some speech can be barred as "fighting words" (inciting violence through its use).  Koran burning could easily be banned under the same constitutional principle.

> twosidedeath wrote:

> lol you dont need a majority to philibuster... ya only need one person

A 60-vote majority in the Senate can vote on a cloture, limiting debate to 24 more hours before a vote.  The Dems had 60 votes as of 2008, and could have then blocked a filibuster.

Short answer... you're wrong.