Originally Posted by The Rani

Did you even read the paper?

Yes, until it became obvious that it was an opinion piece from a highly partisan source ... which is fine. I just don't agree about that particular point. We are approaching a low point in corporate bootlicking, which is not sustainable in a democracy. We will either cease to be a democracy or move back the other way. We've been down this exact road before. Where's Upton Sinclair when we really need him.

I think that the folks most willing to back measures like this are also the ones most likely to throw a hissy fit over similar measures when they affect them persnoally. Good for you for not going along. I'm assuming the judiciary is not so pliant either. Mayvbe that's unjustified optimism.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The First Amendment would not cover such an activity as releasing animals, destroying cages, or taking away fur pelts. Such is not free speech. Exposing the nastiness of decisions made by a firm?

What is next? Would someone be prosecuted for statements that might be 'detrimental to business'? Was Ralph Nader a criminal for publishing Unsafe at Any Speed? Would a nutrition expert who debunks the idea that the super-size meal at the usual fast food eatery is a disaster for health be an offender based on some concept of "crimes against prosperity"? Would someone be subject for prosecution for denying global-warming denial? Or disparaging the labor-management relations on behalf of strikers? Would exposing the "collateral damage" of airstrikes?

Censorship on behalf of "profit" might be good for business, but it would destroy freedom.

Never give the authorities a justification for changing the narrative. Look at the PATCO strike, when Reagan fired the air trafic controllers. They were striking first and foremost for additional staff, because they were overworked and afraid that they would get people killed. Did that ever come out? No. They got pilloried for being greedy, because they also asked for a raise.

If they had stuck to the safety issues, they would have won.

The same applies here. Don't give anyone the excuse to make you the bad guy. Stealing and destroying property only works if you are fully prepared to go to jail for your beliefs ... and even then it can backfire.

This is Political Action 101.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It's not twisting to derive a standard and attempt to apply it consistently. That is, after all, what "standard" means both as word and as concept. If it looks twisted to you, you might want to have your vision checked.

You're twisting by doing what you did as stated, stating your view as I see it and then incorporating me as being in with your views and then calling it a standard. As you say... 'Not Good'

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Indeed. I bumped very firmly up against that point above, when I mentioned how we're not a particularly good people. Holding hypocritical self-serving views that permit the irresponsible intentional harming of innocents is a sort of defining characteristic of 'not good'.

Bumping up against someone who cared about the victims of 9/11, cares about the victims of the Boston Marathon Bombing and cares enough about the people and the victims of war over there that he does not support mass slaughter or wide spread bombing of civilians is a you say....'Not Good'.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

They quite clearly and openly did apply standards. Standards of their own (much like you apply standards purely of your own making and on-the-fly revision). They aimed at concrete targets which were directly and indirectly responsible for having caused harm -- the Pentagon requires, I'm certain you can agree, absolutely no explanation at all on that count; while Mike expanded quite a bit as regards the towers. They directed very specifically-aimed strikes at those concrete targets (say what you might, sitting in the pilot's seat to steer all the way to the moment of impact is a damn strong means of precision-targeting). Those who were killed were, with relatively few exceptions, either the targets themselves or close associates and other fellow travelers of the targets.
It's textbook drone-strike-justification -- except that the cowards who pilot the drones don't have to actually put their own asses on the line (or even on the same side of the planet as the line).

Being alright with this as it states make you as you say... 'Not Good'. Did you cheer on 9/11 or did 9/11 upset you? Did you agree with the views of Ward Churchill and Obama's preacher? Do you think I care what happens to all those who interally or externally cheered at home and abroad on 9/11? Do you think I'd want to be associated with them at all, accept being associated with them or accept being forced to be associated with them and share their? Do you think I care who destroys them or how they're destroyed or how much time it takes to destroy them or simply make them all just disappear?

As you say...'Not Good'.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

And to wrap it up, you repeat the ludicrous claim of 'accepting responsibility'. Here's a hint: accepting responsibility for hurting an innocent person means accepting either punishment or retribution for the wrongful act, and beyond that, admitting openly that it was a wrongful act, intentionally chosen with full knowledge that it was wrong. Point to the first example you find of that. I'll wait; I've got another 40-50 years to go, easy, and I'm in no rush.

We've got plenty of time and patience too. And we'll only be getting better and better at targeting and removing as you say...'Not Good'.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Indeed. I bumped very firmly up against that point above, when I mentioned how we're not a particularly good people. Holding hypocritical self-serving views that permit the irresponsible intentional harming of innocents is a sort of defining characteristic of 'not good'.

Bumping up against someone who cared about the victims of 9/11, cares about the victims of the Boston Marathon Bombing and cares enough about the people and the victims of war over there that he does not support mass slaughter or wide spread bombing of civilians is a you say....'Not Good'.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

They quite clearly and openly did apply standards. Standards of their own (much like you apply standards purely of your own making and on-the-fly revision). They aimed at concrete targets which were directly and indirectly responsible for having caused harm -- the Pentagon requires, I'm certain you can agree, absolutely no explanation at all on that count; while Mike expanded quite a bit as regards the towers. They directed very specifically-aimed strikes at those concrete targets (say what you might, sitting in the pilot's seat to steer all the way to the moment of impact is a damn strong means of precision-targeting). Those who were killed were, with relatively few exceptions, either the targets themselves or close associates and other fellow travelers of the targets.
It's textbook drone-strike-justification -- except that the cowards who pilot the drones don't have to actually put their own asses on the line (or even on the same side of the planet as the line).

Being alright with this states that you are is as you say... 'Not Good' Did you cheer on 9/11 or did 9/11 upset you? Did you agree with the views of Ward Churchill and Obama's preacher? Do you think I care what happens to all those who cheered at home and abroad on 9/11? Do you think I'd want to be associated with them at all, accept being associated with them or accept being forced to be associated with them? Do you I care who destroys them or how they're destroyed or how much time it takes to destroy them or make them all just disappear?

As you say...'Not Good'.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

And to wrap it up, you repeat the ludicrous claim of 'accepting responsibility'. Here's a hint: accepting responsibility for hurting an innocent person means accepting either punishment or retribution for the wrongful act, and beyond that, admitting openly that it was a wrongful act, intentionally chosen with full knowledge that it was wrong. Point to the first example you find of that. I'll wait; I've got another 40-50 years to go, easy, and I'm in no rush.

We've got plenty of time and patience too. And we'll only be getting better and better at targeting and removing as you say...'Not Good'.

I was torn as to where to post the following. It applies to our economy and terrorism.

America: The World’s Number One Sponsor Of Terrorism

The CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier both to Soviet expansion and to the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported the Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia and the Jamaat-e-Islami against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least there is Al-Qaeda. Lest we forget, Bin Laden was trained, armed and funded by the CIA. Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook admitted that “Al-Qaeda, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of Mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.” America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group, typically with drones. American anti-terrorist operations and drones are reported to have killed at least 4700 people over the last decade, the vast majority of whom were innocent men, women and children. For every innocent civilian killed by an American drone strike, there are hundreds of grieving relatives that will inevitably resent America, any number of whom may turn to militant Islam and terrorism. Truth is, American anti-terrorist operations are only creating more anti-American terrorists. The best that force can do is impose order. It can never elicit harmony. Therefore, a "war on terror" is flawed in theory and disastrous in practice. The war on terror has made Al Qaeda much stronger than it was on 9/11. In fact, the more Washington emphasizes war and confrontation, the more it silences moderate voices in the Muslim world who want to speak up for cooperation. Quite aside from creating more terrorists than it kills, America’s war on terror also has the unintended consequence of slowly but surely bankrupting the nation. Terrorist attacks on US soil embolden the right wing elements of the military industrial complex and the resulting military actions by these right wing elements embolden terrorists further. It is this vicious cycle of war and terror that future historians may well consider to be one of the key elements that precipitated the decline of the great capitalist American Empire. Adam Smith, the grandfather of capitalism was a staunch anti-imperialist. He argued that imperialism is costly and eventually bankrupts the country. In fact, one year of the US military budget is equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. The monumental expansion of US military bases across the globe, in the name of counter-terrorism, illustrates the degree to which America’s treasury is being overstretched by the military industrial elite who commandeer the purse strings.

And just because we have brought soldiers home from Iraq, doesn't mean that the bases and money for their upkeep and personnel, is somehow magically paying for itself.

In conclusion:

The monumental expansion of US military bases across the globe, in the name of counter-terrorism, illustrates the degree to which America’s treasury is being overstretched by the military industrial elite who commandeer the purse strings.

As Will Blum has pointed out, following the bombing of Iraq, the US wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Following the bombing of Yugoslavia, the US wound up with military bases in Hungary, Macedonia, Bosnia and Croatia, Kosovo and Albania. Following the recent bombing of Afghanistan, the US is now winding up with bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

Much like late stage ancient Rome and the barbarians, Washington is over-stretching and over-extending itself in the name of terrorists. Like Rome, the hubris of Washington’s politicians and the gung-ho nature of its generals are threatening the empire. The three interconnected forces that destroy empires – lack of money, military over-reach and the catastrophic loss of self-confidence that stems from the other two – seem to have coalesced around America with astonishing speed since the Twin Towers tragically fell.

Entire article:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle34710.htm

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Yes, until it became obvious that it was an opinion piece from a highly partisan source ... which is fine. I just don't agree about that particular point. We are approaching a low point in corporate bootlicking, which is not sustainable in a democracy. We will either cease to be a democracy or move back the other way. We've been down this exact road before. Where's Upton Sinclair when we really need him.

I think that the folks most willing to back measures like this are also the ones most likely to throw a hissy fit over similar measures when they affect them persnoally. Good for you for not going along. I'm assuming the judiciary is not so pliant either. Mayvbe that's unjustified optimism.

Do you think political bootlicking and the mass bribing that is going on and being used on the left, is going to do better for sustaining our democracy? Mexico is OK to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

Originally Posted by The Rani

The only consolation for me personally is that the alleged turd is a white kid with a backwards baseball cap, not a dark-skinned towel head.
If you white people want to go crazy, take it out on each other!

And the numbers game is a good point. Too bad they can't send drones to kill hurricanes and tornadoes.

I thought race wasn't an issue with us.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Would it have been regrettable-but-unavoidable if you had chucked a grenade at him in the cafeteria during lunchtime? Would there have been any difference between doing that and carefully sticking a grenade down the back of his pants (you know, precision targeting and all that) before it went off?

And if you got away with it, and the next day said "Yes, I did it; I take responsibility for it"... would those words be sufficient in themselves? If it ended there, did you actually take responsibility for anything at all?

And if the next week, you chucked another grenade in the cafeteria at another guy that you had (oh so carefully and certainly) determined was a 'nasty guy'? And again the week after that, and again the week after that -- each time saying "I accept responsibility" (not even: "I'm sorry" - that)?

This is the behavior of a bad person.

I'd prefer to hit him with a chair or stab him with a knife and punch him in the face or kick him in the balls or slam his head against the wall or shoot him at point blank range with a gun. You know, typical man to man stuff. Nasty guys are generally nasty guys. I'm a decent guy who can be just as nasty if its deemed necessary.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

From the paper:

These states efforts to protect animal enterprises culminated in federal legislation
to protect animal facilities. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006 (AETA) makes
it a crime to intentionally cause the loss of real or personal property of an animal
enterprise. Some scholars argue that undercover investigators could be prosecuted
under AETA because investigators fit its prohibition: they intentionally cause the loss of
property—goodwill and future profits—of an animal enterprise. Indeed, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation’s Joint Terrorism Task Force apparently took this position in a
2003 memorandum.

This latest "justification" for another knife-wound into the First Amendment is just assinine: since when are "future profits" or "goodwill" property?!? Profits aren't "property" until they are earned, and there is always risk that they won't be in the "free market". And "goodwill"--the sentiment of others--can never be considered property as it isn't even tangible (and at any rate, is also something to be earned... or disearned).

Originally Posted by The Rani

The only consolation for me personally is that the alleged turd is a white kid with a backwards baseball cap, not a dark-skinned towel head.

Well, white-ish anyway. Chechnya has the honor (or is that horror) of sitting right in between historically competing empires (Persia, Ottoman, Mongolian and Russian). So they are kind of white-yellow-brown folk whom sometimes wear towels but not always (if memory serves, they converted to Islam to gain favor with the Ottoman Empire against the Russians).

The recent history of ethnic Chechens is nearly as agonizing as Jewish peoples. The Soviets were very unkind to them.

Of course most of that misery (at least in modern times) has been laid upon them for the usual reason. Oil.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If you white people want to go crazy, take it out on each other!

That’s not really our thing anymore.

Originally Posted by The Rani

And the numbers game is a good point. Too bad they can't send drones to kill hurricanes and tornadoes.

Well… Depending on which conspiracy websites you subscribe to, we already can!

Originally Posted by Time Mage

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa! Dudes (and Dudette,) aren't you all supposed to be on the same page as Libertarian Xrs? You guys should be the Three Amigos at this forum, not attacking each other.

Errr of the three people you listed, only one (The Rani) could potentially be identified as "Libertarian" and I can't say that I have ever seen her self-identify as such. Really, Eric's beliefs to the contrary, there aren't very many Libertarians posting on this particular forum. In fact I am having a hard time coming up with any.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

How assinine: since when are "future profits" or "goodwill" property?!? Profits aren't "property" until they are earned, and there is always risk that they won't be in the "free market". And "goodwill"--the sentiment of others--can never be considered property as it isn't even tangible (and at any rate, is also something to be earned... or disearned).

Did you say free market?!? Where?!?

I do love me a good free market. Sadly I have been searching for one my entire life… Haven’t found one yet.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I don't see that argument playing in Federal court, though. That will be particularly true if the exposed practicies are heinous. On the other hand, destroying or removing real goods, inlcuding the animal feed or the the animals themselves, will not be treated as "journalism".

Question is, will branding it as "terrorism" mean that the suspects could be denied due process and simply disappeared somehow, given the legal weaseling pioneered by Dubya (and, sadly, it seems is being continued under Obama)?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Did you say free market?!? Where?!?

I do love me a good free market. Sadly I have been searching for one my entire life… Haven’t found one yet.

Apart from the matter of actually defining what that is (it means different things to different people)--you can bet that the same executives, ALEC folks, etc. that draw up these policies to be rubberstamped by the legislators in their pay, will defend their version of the "Free Market" (tm) when arguing against regulation of their activities in other instances.

And then there's that long-standing portrayal of corporate "masters of the universe" as noble risk-takers, people who deserve their rewards because they took risks--but apparently, if future profits are to be a given as "property" in the present, then there is to be no such thing as risk, at least that which cannot be blamed on someone else like some lowly activist rather than their own unsavory actions that activist may discover.

Originally Posted by Time Mage

Well I know the Rani was an authentic Libertarian (since 04') before the synthesis or creation of the Republican Libertarians around after 08'. I thought Justin identified himself as a Libertarian, although he was detached from American politics until he came back from oversees at least. CXr was like me when we came over here. We were both Neo-Cons. From what I know he switched over to the Libertarian under Rani's influence, (Pure or Republican I'm not sure)....

Yes, all those; and there was gianthogweed, and another recent poster who identified himself as such, but I don't remember the name; and Wallace88 pretty much qualifies, I think. And of course Galen, and Copperfield himself (although he also identifies as anarchist). And how can we forget the Prince of Cool? And others not active at the moment. Well, I'm sure this thread offers other examples.

Edit: add Seattleblue.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And how can we forget the Prince of Cool?

Yeah, you wouldn't want to forget me!
(giggle!)

So Eric, why do you seem to always have to label everything according to
some proprietary-metric(ie: Politics/Economics) based on it's relation to you?

I mean, whats up with that? Can't you just see everyone as
being unique-individuals instead of lumping people together?


Prince

PS: Maybe a "self-esteem" issue?
(I'm being serious here.)

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Yeah, you wouldn't want to forget me!
(giggle!)

So Eric, why do you seem to always have to label everything according to
some proprietary-metric(ie: Politics/Economics) based on it's relation to you?

I mean, whats up with that? Can't you just see everyone as
being unique-individuals instead of lumping people together?

No, I guess not! Sometimes, "shoes" can fit pretty well, as it does you in this case. I don't mind labels (as demonstrated by the fact that I use one for myself in my name here), as long as we remember they are only labels. No-one is exactly like someone else, or some archetype. I notice you are not denying the label, just labeling in general. So, if that's your opinion, how about if I label you a post-modernist

Originally Posted by Time Mage

Well I know the Rani was an authentic Libertarian (since 04') before the synthesis or creation of the Republican Libertarians around after 08'. I thought Justin identified himself as a Libertarian, although he was detached from American politics until he came back from oversees at least. CXr was like me when we came over here. We were both Neo-Cons. From what I know he switched over to the Liberatian under Rani's influence, (Pure or Republican I'm not sure). Meanwhile I became, well, something else.

I'm a R-libertarian and always have been.

Originally Posted by Time Mage

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa! Dudes (and Dudette,) aren't you all supposed to be on the same page as Libertarian Xrs? You guys should be the Three Amigos at this forum, not attacking each other.

I was just screwing around with Rani and standing my ground against an anarchist.

Originally Posted by Time Mage

That's right, I think you voiced support for the then Governor Ventura, a Reform party Libertarian. Just for clarification, what I call a "Pure Libertarian" is someone who belongs to the actual Libertarian Party. A Synthesized Libertarian might be a Republican or Reform member who votes for candidates with Libertarian values, like Paul Ryan.

During my partisan days before I moved to the Twilight Zone I was a Conservative Republican. Then at some point I came to the conclusion that labels don't matter. I believe Eric and Mark (you) have more in common via your convictions, then the schemes and hidden truths that drive civilization and human destiny behind the curtain. If the corruption that necessitates those schemes didn't threaten to destroy the result, I think you two, and a few others, could hammer out quite the Utopia.

I voted for Coleman but I wasn't opposed to Ventura getting elected. No disrespect but I'm not religious enough to be a Neo-Con. I was labelled a Neo-Con and lumped in with the Neo-Cons. It took a year for the progressives to figure out that they weren't dealing with the typical textbook Neo-Con.

Conviction wise, Eric and I are probably pretty close. As far as working together for the common good and a better world, ain't going to happen because he's to ideologically bound and politically influenced and stuck where he is due to lack of life's experiences that come together to form ones wisdom. You can't hammer out utopia's with ideologically bound and politically influenced and stuck where they are because they have aquired little as far as wisdom. Eric would have to grow up quite abit and become independant minded to earn a seat at the American table.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, I guess not! Sometimes, "shoes" can fit
pretty well, as it does you in this case.

Thanks Eric, but I'm seriously not that cool.

Originally Posted by Eric

I don't mind labels (as demonstrated by the fact that I use one
for myself in my name here), as long as we remember they are only labels.

So, does "Green" stand for Jealous and/or Not-Experienced?

For your consideration:
Judgement=measuring based on "right vs wrong".
Assessment=measuring w/o "indictment".
BTW, you appear to really be into "measuring",
IMO, Mr. Anti-Materialist!
(FWIW, this is an "assessment"(ie: observation),
not a "judgement" ).

Originally Posted by Eric

No-one is exactly like someone else, or some archetype.
I notice you are not denying the label, just labeling in general.

Why should I deny a label? I'm really not tied to how I'm perceived
(ie: labeled) by you. It's actually kinda fun to watch you appear so
certain i/r/t your labeling of me. I believe I could say that I don't think
of myself as being "Un-cool", but like I said already, the "Prince of Cool"
seems a little much, IMO(giggle!).


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Eric

So, if that's your opinion, how about
if I label you a post-modernist <snip ultra-smiley>

No problem(considering I don't even know what that means! )

Originally Posted by The Rani

George Carlin made a similar observation.

I think I probably used to be a maniac in my younger days,
but I'm pretty sure I'm now an idiot!


Prince

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I voted for Coleman but I wasn't opposed to Ventura getting elected. No disrespect but I'm not religious enough to be a Neo-Con. I was labelled a Neo-Con and lumped in with the Neo-Cons. It took a year for the progressives to figure out that they weren't dealing with the typical textbook Neo-Con.

Conviction wise, Eric and I are probably pretty close. As far as working together for the common good and a better world, ain't going to happen because he's to ideologically bound and politically influenced and stuck where he is due to lack of life's experiences that come together to form ones wisdom. You can't hammer out utopia's with ideologically bound and politically influenced and stuck where they are because they have aquired little as far as wisdom. Eric would have to grow up quite abit and become independant minded to earn a seat at the American table.

Since when is hyper-religiosity a necessary prerequisite for being a Neocon - when the prohibitive majority of Necons are nominally Reform Jews who have probably never set foot in a synagogue other than for a wedding or funeral since they were 13 years old?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Takes one to know one.

Yeah me too. Again, perhaps it takes one to know one.

No, no, M'Lady. Thou art "sugar and spice, and everything nice".
(Or is that, "peaches and cream, if you know what I mean"?)

Ok. Begin serious discussion(ie: "serious face").

Originally Posted by Rani

If they get away with non-Mirandizing #2, there is a real danger that applying the label of "terrorism" will now be used to send political activists to the gulag.
For example:
FBI Says Activists Who Investigate Factory Farms Can Be Prosecuted as Terrorists

I agree. This "labeling"-thing is extremely problematic, IMO.
(not only "terrorist", but "WMD").

I/r/t non-Mirandizing, I believe "remaining silent" might not
be the bigger issue, but instead, being denied an attorney
(Note: I am aware of the Public Safety-exemption).

End serious discussion(ie: ).


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Rani

I hope that people with the capacity for critical thinking are paying attention to this shit. (pun intended!)

The Right to "remain silent"=SBD!(ie: the new WMD!).
Remember this?

(gonna unite the two post-stings here, for the sake of... um... just because )

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I'd prefer to hit him with a chair or stab him with a knife and punch him in the face or kick him in the balls or slam his head against the wall or shoot him at point blank range with a gun. You know, typical man to man stuff.

"I'd prefer to" -- more weaseling. As if, although you would much rather take the ethical course, the cold cruel universe (and whoever else you want to point the finger at and whine "his fault! not mine!!") not only does not allow you to make the ethical move, but literally and factually forces you to do things that, had any person done them by choice, would make them a monster. Happily, for the remnants of your conscience, you have no more autonomy in the matter than does any other non-willed robot.
So you chuck the grenade into the cafeteria; shed a (truly felt -- no, really, your heart is simply rending) tear or two for the totally-unavoidable and totally-not-your-fault innocents whose lives are ended (oh, that passive voice! salve of many a guilty soul!); and make sure to keep your stock of grenades well-replenished for the next times. If you only had some sort of agency over your own actions!

As I said above, and bears constant repeating, such are not the foundations on which a healthy society is built or maintained.

You're twisting by doing what you did as stated, stating your view as I see it and then incorporating me as being in with your views and then calling it a standard.

Fine. In lieu of bitching and bobbing and weaving, please feel free to straighten out the confusion. By what standard do you come to conclude that the bombings in Boston and the WTC and Pentagon attacks were wrongful, while the bombings of Fallujah and Wana and Miranshah and Damadola and Makeen and Sanzalai and Datta Khel and Mir Ali and so on, were not equally wrongful.

Bumping up against someone who cared about the victims of 9/11, cares about the victims of the Boston Marathon Bombing and cares enough about the people and the victims of war over there that he does not support mass slaughter or wide spread bombing of civilians is a you say....

Your 'caring' is worth exactly as much as you 'accepting responsibility' -- which is to say, nothing at all, except in whatever value the CO2 and moisture you expelled is stuff a plant can use to grow.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Thanks Eric, but I'm seriously not that cool.

I thought your concern was that I labeled you a "libertarian."

You are the Prince of "Cats." "Cats" are considered "Cool." I assume that's why you chose the name, besides also that you like cats. But whatever, it's cool, man.

So, does "Green" stand for Jealous and/or Not-Experienced?

I'm sure. I'll have to remember, and own up to that!
And one of my favorite songs!

No problem(considering I don't even know what that means! )

Well, at least you know now that it refers to YOU! (and why)