Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Superman unamerican (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=574357)

  • May 3, 2011, 08:39 PM
    paraclete
    Superman unamerican
    Superman has resigned but has he left the country? The icon and epitamy of american manhood has resigned. No more will he fight for the american way, which is just as well, as the american way has become assassination of its political enemies, We can expect that the treatment handed out to OBL will just as easily be handed out to Gaddaffy and any other person who presents as a target.
    Superman renounces his US citizenship
    Born as a response to Nazi claims of superiority, Superman has taken a long time to understand what true political correctness is. For too long the rest of us have had to swallow the hook of the "american way", after all what is wrong with our way?
  • May 4, 2011, 06:31 AM
    tomder55

    He's an undocumented alien anyway .Where's his long form birth certificate ? Oh yeah... the files were destroyed when Krypton blew.But you had to be suspicious with his old man's name Jor-el and his birth name Kal-El .

    What's next ? Captain America taking on the Tea Party ?http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/201002...s/ynews_ts1129


    Seriously... What your article doesn't say is that he is rebelling against the Obot's policies regarding the protests in Iran. That's Obama's National Security Advisor he's speaking to in the illustration.
    The story line says that the Mahdi-hatter and the 12ers say that Supe is a zionist agent of American imperialism . He wants to support the protesters without that label.
  • May 4, 2011, 08:08 AM
    paraclete

    Yes zionist is a great label for him, the ultimate anti nazi. Perhaps america is becoming a little too national socialist for him with sanctioned assassinations on the agenda I've been supicious of his name for a long time with the el ending
  • May 4, 2011, 08:13 AM
    tomder55

    He was created by the great Jerry Siegel ; son of Jewish immigrants from Lithuania.
    Superman fights evil . In the 1930s evil's name was Hitler .2011 his name is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ;the Mahdi-hatter .
  • May 4, 2011, 03:41 PM
    paraclete

    I'd be unsure that you put the label on the right President there Tom. Ahamadjihad talks up a great line but with exception of his support of anti zionists like Hezbollah and Hamas pretty much stays at home. His rhetoric has toned down now the departure from Iraq draws close. I think you are saying superman has always fought for the jewish way but that seems to be diverting from the american way these days
  • May 4, 2011, 04:39 PM
    tomder55

    Quote:

    I think you are saying superman has always fought for the jewish way but that seems to be diverting from the american way these days
    I don't think I'm saying that at all. The reason the Mahdi-hatter is silent is because he has his own domestic issues... protesters to crush. He is facing an internal power struggle between himself and the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

    If you see him as solely an enemy of Israel you are being quite myopic. He has his sites on bigger things.

    His messianic rhetoric has more to do with the Shia Sunni divide than with Jews.In fact ;it goes even beyond that to a bizarre delusion about the return of the 12th Mahdi from the well he fell in.

    Yeah like any ME ruler the Jews are convenient foils to divert the people's anger.


    Outside his borders he is focusing on his nuclear program ;and the nation he sees as his rival in the Gulf... Saudi Arabia. He believes in a Persian empire restoration . That Bahrain thing can only be correctly viewed in the Iran Saudi power contest.
    Summer is coming... I expect he'll use this Ikhwan control of the Sinai and Gaza ;along with Hezzbollah's rearming ,to create more mischief this summer.

    This will happen because Ahmamadjihad is very concerned that Syria's Assad can't control his own population.He can't afford to lose Syria as a strategic ally.The diversion will be to attack Israel. That makes our interest to check him much bigger than our alliance with Israel.

    Superman if you bother to read the edition is acting in support of liberty for the Iranian people who have lived under the cleric jackboots far too long.
  • May 4, 2011, 05:05 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Superman if you bother to read the edition is acting in support of liberty for the Iranian people who have lived under the cleric jackboots far too long.

    Very convenient that after 80 years he is being used as tool of american propaganda once again. Great pity he does look at the needs of his "own" people
  • May 4, 2011, 05:15 PM
    tomder55

    The great thing about Superman is that there is a clear deliniation between good and evil . Superman is good. What's the matter ? Jealous that Superman only uses Australia as flyover country ?
  • May 4, 2011, 08:41 PM
    paraclete
    Seems as though answers are going missing again, sssh the thought police are about.

    Tom we have no need of hero's we have the one and only Krudd. But we could lend you the Little Red Fox to replace Superman, she can put terror into any heart, ably assisted by sidekick brownnose Bob Brown, of "save the Gordon below Franklin" fame, a dynamic duo guaranteed to bring any nation down with a single tax. The ban on export of Uranium is bound to stop ahamadjihad in his tracks
  • May 5, 2011, 06:03 AM
    tomder55

    Quote:

    seems as though answers are going missing again,
    What's missing ?

    Quote:

    The ban on export of Uranium is bound to stop ahamadjihad in his tracks
    Yeah export bans and sanctions always work .
  • May 5, 2011, 03:53 PM
    paraclete
    well of course they work, Tom, Saddam was sanctioned out of his WMD otherwise where did they go. Kim will be sanctioned out of his nuclear program and WMD and, of course, ahamadjihad will be sanctioned out of his. It's a lot cheaper than troops on the ground. Look the US imposed sanctions and the troops left Daraa in Syria. Sooner or later sanctions + air raids will move Daffy. Have a little faith in the decision makers
  • May 5, 2011, 06:01 PM
    tomder55

    I've answered this many times. Iraqi scientists went to Libya to continue their craft. Saddam retained what he could . He hid much of it... moved much of it to Syria pre-war ;and otherwise kept the ability to reconstitute his program once the sanction regime inevidibly collapsed .
  • May 5, 2011, 06:54 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    I've answered this many times. Iraqi scientists went to Libya to continue their craft. Saddam retained what he could . He hid much of it... moved much of it to Syria pre-war ;and otherwise kept the ability to reconstitute his program once the sanction regime inevidibly collapsed .

    You really don't understand sarcasm do you?
  • May 6, 2011, 02:14 AM
    tomder55

    Guess not... at least the Aussie version of it.
  • May 6, 2011, 04:07 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Guess not ....at least the Aussie version of it.

    It's easy, you just have to understand we are not serious about anything and we love cutting down tall poppys, no matter where they live. So recently we have cut down the american superman, pun intended, and the arab superman, urr supermen, someone is busy cutting down the libyan superman and I'm wondering which one is next, a nork or an Iranian.
  • May 10, 2011, 07:05 AM
    speechlesstx

    I don't know if he's un-American or not, apparently he was last seen in the situation room.

    http://a.yfrog.com/img611/8940/lctao.jpg
  • May 10, 2011, 07:35 AM
    tomder55

    Joe Biden as Flash?? I think not
  • May 10, 2011, 03:48 PM
    paraclete
    Don't you have them suited up wrong I would have expected BO as the dark knight not aquaman
  • May 10, 2011, 04:04 PM
    tomder55

    http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/wp-...rman_obama.jpg
  • May 10, 2011, 06:50 PM
    paraclete
    Yeah well every american boy's dream, there must be a deeper significance in displaying BO as aquaman, is he all wet?
  • May 11, 2011, 05:00 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    yeh well every american boy's dream, there must be a deeper significance in displaying BO as aquaman, is he all wet?

    Yes. While Texas is literally burning, he came to the state to talk about alligators and moats.

  • May 11, 2011, 05:24 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Yes. While Texas is literally burning, he came to the state to talk about alligators and moats.

    You guys should really secede!
  • May 11, 2011, 05:28 AM
    tomder55

    They can't... secession was never a Constitutional option. However ; the President has irresponsibly ignored the legitimate request of the state for a declaration of disaster .
  • May 11, 2011, 05:34 AM
    NeedKarma
    This all sounds so familiar...
  • May 11, 2011, 05:42 AM
    tomder55

    Not quite. President Bush was legally constrained from taking Federal measures until the Governor of Lousiana requested the aid. In this case Governor Perry has made the request.
  • May 11, 2011, 05:48 AM
    NeedKarma
    Looks like he hasn't been ignored lately.
    Quote:

    "Governor Perry's request is currently under review, and will continue our close coordination with the state as they work to protect their residents and communities," FEMA spokeswoman Rachel Racusen said.

    She said Texas has already received 22 grants to help pay fire management expenses this fire season, including 16 in April alone.
  • May 11, 2011, 06:07 AM
    tomder55

    Perry asked for a declaration of disaster . That the President hasn't done so yet is pure politics. This is the same garbage he used when hurricane Ike levelled Galveston. FEMA told Texas to use state funds and that the Feds would reimburse . That never happened .
    Texas fits the criteria for the declaration so a denial is vindictive.
    FEMA: Declaration Process Fact Sheet
  • May 11, 2011, 06:33 AM
    speechlesstx

    And, the idiot probably doesn't even know we already have a moat with alligators in Texas.
  • May 11, 2011, 07:08 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Yes. While Texas is literally burning, he came to the state to talk about alligators and moats

    Hello Steve:

    So, a BIG federal government is cool WHEN you want one, or even two of its services... But, when the federal money is for somebody else, perhaps a poor child, then it's time for SECESSION...

    Texas sucks.

    excon
  • May 11, 2011, 07:46 AM
    tomder55

    Executive declarations of 'states of emergencies' requiring Federal response are consistent with the Constitution. Article 1 Sec 9 paragraph 2 .
  • May 11, 2011, 07:54 AM
    speechlesstx

    Oh don't give me the poor child line, you can use that one on someone else because we do our part for poor children without the feds help... and I didn't mention secession, NK did.

    I'll let Ed Morrisey answer the resth:

    Quote:

    Critics might be tempted to point out that Texans like their 10th-Amendment independence, but Texans also fork over a lot of tax revenue that funds federal disaster relief, too. With over 2.2 million acres destroyed already — which equates to over 3400 square miles, or roughly seven times the size of Los Angeles, 50 times the size of DC, and three times the land area of Rhode Island — a federal declaration of disaster seems warranted, and the real question is why Barack Obama hasn’t acted.
    But then Texas is a pretty Republican state so why should we get any of that money back that we've forked over for just such an occasion.
  • May 11, 2011, 03:20 PM
    paraclete
    There's that getout clause again, the constitution
  • May 11, 2011, 04:32 PM
    tomder55

    Quote:

    there's that getout clause again, the constitution
    I dispute any contention that the Constitution can be nullified by the actions of a single State;or that a State can unilaterally or as a group of States secede . If they attempt to leave ,call it what it is ; a revolution.
  • May 11, 2011, 05:18 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    I dispute any contention that the Constitution can be nullified by the actions of a single State;or that a State can unilaterally or as a group of States secede . If they attempt to leave ,call it what it is ; a revolution.

    Yes Tom I have no doubt that for any part of the US to secede would be thought of as a revolution after all the last time anyone attempted it, it was what could be thought of as a bloody revolution and in fact some of participants thought of it as the second war of independence. But you should ask yourself. In a "democracy" why can't some of the people exercise their God given right of independence? Why must they be dominated by the majority? I think that it isn't as much of a democracy as it would like to think. I know there would be many considerations such as compensation for inferstructure, military forces, and so on but why couldn't it happen?
  • May 11, 2011, 05:51 PM
    tomder55

    I have a great quote from an under-rated autobiography... US Grant's. It addresses your comment about the right to rebel and replace the government . The Declaration of Independence deals with that possibility . The founders recognized the risk they took ,as the Libyan rebels do today. My point remains... there is no constitutional right for the States to secede .

    Quote:

    Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders. It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution. Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship--on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror--must be the result.
  • May 12, 2011, 07:37 PM
    paraclete
    Very much the I exist therefore I exist argument. Let me borrow from a movie script and an argument attributed to another civil war General

    "my analogy of a gentlemen's club
    Is fair enough. It's clear enough.


    Colonel, think on it now.

    Suppose that we all joined a club,
    A gentlemen's club.


    After a time, several of the members
    Began to intrude themselves...


    Into our private lives, our home lives.


    Began telling us
    What we could and couldn't do.


    Well, then, wouldn't any one of us
    Have the right to resign?


    I mean, just resign.


    That's what we did.


    That's what I did and now these people
    Are telling us we don't have that right.
  • May 13, 2011, 01:32 AM
    tomder55
    From the movie Gettysburg...
    Yea that was the position of the South . The fact is that with some new territories likely to enter the union as free states ;and the population of the North growing ;the Southern States feared for the continuation of their intollerable institutuion... slavery.

    That is why they bowed out . Gentleman's agreement? If they were gentlemen at all it was bought with a bull whip.
    All someone who believes that secession is legal and Constitutional need do is show me the clause that permits it.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:05 PM.