View Full Version : Proof Bush Stole the Election
SubSerpent
09-07-06, 09:17 AM
This makes me sick to my stomach. :nope:
What a rip off! :nope:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZl12jrdhU0
United States of America = One corrupt nation under God!
Wah wah sour grapes. If the Dems hadn't spent so much time trying recount only some counties instead of all of them while trying to get the thousands of military servicemen absentee ballots discounted maybe they would have won.
SkvyWvr
09-07-06, 01:00 PM
Wah wah sour grapes. If the Dems hadn't spent so much time trying recount only some counties instead of all of them while trying to get the thousands of military servicemen absentee ballots discounted maybe they would have won.
Exactly.
Wah wah sour grapes. If the Dems hadn't spent so much time trying recount only some counties instead of all of them while trying to get the thousands of military servicemen absentee ballots discounted maybe they would have won.
I really wouldn't care about the results of an election that happened six years ago, however, if it had gone the other way, America and the World would have been better off.
SubSerpent
09-07-06, 01:31 PM
* Bort']Wah wah sour grapes. If the Dems hadn't spent so much time trying recount only some counties instead of all of them while trying to get the thousands of military servicemen absentee ballots discounted maybe they would have won.
I really wouldn't care about the results of an election that happened six years ago, however, if it had gone the other way, America and the World would have been better off.
It's never too late to bring them up on charges! What a long list that would be. I hope the bastard gets found guilty on every count of corruption there is. He belongs in a cold, damp, prison cell right next to Bin Laden and Sadaam. :rock:
* Bort']Wah wah sour grapes. If the Dems hadn't spent so much time trying recount only some counties instead of all of them while trying to get the thousands of military servicemen absentee ballots discounted maybe they would have won. I really wouldn't care about the results of an election that happened six years ago, however, if it had gone the other way, America and the World would have been better off.
It's never too late to bring them up on charges! What a long list that would be. I hope the bastard gets found guilty on every count of corruption there is. He belongs in a cold, damp, prison cell right next to Bin Laden and Sadaam. :rock:
You can hope all you want but he isn't going to be charged since the election was completely valid.
The Avon Lady
09-07-06, 02:35 PM
http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/5872/1154067093ce72363a2mik5.jpg
* Bort']I really wouldn't care about the results of an election that happened six years ago, however, if it had gone the other way, America and the World would have been better off.
You really think so? The Democrats haven't successfully fought a war since WW2. What makes you believe they would have done any better now?
Sea Demon
09-07-06, 02:55 PM
* Bort']I really wouldn't care about the results of an election that happened six years ago, however, if it had gone the other way, America and the World would have been better off.
You really think so? The Democrats haven't successfully fought a war since WW2. What makes you believe they would have done any better now?
Exactly. And we see how the Democrats respond to terrorist attacks. They do nothing. And the threat builds. The WTC gets hit, the khobar towers get hit, the embassies get hit, the USS Cole gets hit.....and no response from the Democrats. Sit on your hands. :nope: Oh and don't forget about Jamie Gorelick tying the hands of intelligence agencies, not allowing for the sharing of information between agencies.
This video is a sham. Intended to ignite passions on false premises. How many times did they recount the votes?....and still Bush came out on top. 5 times IIRC. And then Bush gets more votes the second time around (2004)than any President in U.S. history. :lol: Wah, wah, wah. I can't believe people are still whining about this "election 2000" situation.
You really think so? The Democrats haven't successfully fought a war since WW2. What makes you believe they would have done any better now?
I would think that the fact that during both World Wars we were led by Democrats would be something that a Republican wouldn't want to bring up, nevertheless you have and therefore I must give you guys big props on Grenada, Panama, and the Gulf War- phew those were rough ones! Your record ain't that great with the other wars you've led, Nixon made the decision to leave Vietnam and so far you aren't doing so well with the current wars either, but boy, Grenada, bang up job there!:D
Sea Demon
09-07-06, 04:11 PM
* Bort']You really think so? The Democrats haven't successfully fought a war since WW2. What makes you believe they would have done any better now?
I would think that the fact that during both World Wars we were led by Democrats would be something that a Republican wouldn't want to bring up, nevertheless you have and therefore I must give you guys big props on Grenada, Panama, and the Gulf War- phew those were rough ones! Your record ain't that great with the other wars you've led, Nixon made the decision to leave Vietnam and so far you aren't doing so well with the current wars either, but boy, Grenada, bang up job there!:D
Ah. The Democrat Party today is nothing like the party of Roosevelt, Truman or Kennedy. Those were Democrats who would stand up to tyrants. Not appease them like today's Democratic Party. Or in some cases, helping our enemies like the editors at the New York Times who outlined how we were tracing the funding of some of the Islamic murderers. :nope:
And today's war would go alot better if the liberal establishment wouldn't hamper every effort to win it. The second we enter any conflict, there they are calling for an exit strategy. How about winning? Thank God today's Democratic Party wasn't around during WW2.
* Bort']You really think so? The Democrats haven't successfully fought a war since WW2. What makes you believe they would have done any better now?
I would think that the fact that during both World Wars we were led by Democrats would be something that a Republican wouldn't want to bring up, nevertheless you have and therefore I must give you guys big props on Grenada, Panama, and the Gulf War- phew those were rough ones! Your record ain't that great with the other wars you've led, Nixon made the decision to leave Vietnam and so far you aren't doing so well with the current wars either, but boy, Grenada, bang up job there!:D
Ah. The Democrat Party today is nothing like the party of Roosevelt, Truman or Kennedy. Those were Democrats who would stand up to tyrants. Not appease them like today's Democratic Party. Or in some cases, helping our enemies like the editors at the New York Times who outlined how we were tracing the funding of some of the Islamic murderers. :nope:
And today's war would go alot better if the liberal establishment wouldn't hamper every effort to win it. The second we enter any conflict, there they are calling for an exit strategy. How about winning? Thank God today's Democratic Party wasn't around during WW2.
I entirely disagree with the assertion that today's democratic party is somehow different than the donkeys of WW2. The party has changed, primarily by booting out the southern racists that were once a core part of its constituency, however those charming fellows have found a new home, in the Republican party. Indeed the GOP of today plays on their fear of minorities by claiming that illegal aliens are spilling over the borders to threaten their white bread society. They also claim that there are insidious elements seeking to destroy their ultra conservative christian way of life by bringing it into the 21st century. I'm glad that the party of Roosevelt has evolved to become an inclusive body seeking better quality of life and security for all Americans, as well as maintaining a respectful image for America abroad. How awful!
bradclark1
09-07-06, 05:05 PM
And today's war would go alot better if the liberal establishment wouldn't hamper every effort to win it. The second we enter any conflict, there they are calling for an exit strategy. How about winning?
Gimme a break. The fact is we could be there ten years from now irregardless of which party is in power and the only difference between today and then will be the calender date. Bush bit off more then "we" can chew. No WMD and the terror showed up after we liberated Iraq. The U.S. imported the terror to Iraq. Now Afganistan is heating up and we don't have the force to do much about it and that was the main reason we went over there in the first place. Are we dumb a$$es or what?
While Bush in Crawford grilling steaks with his good ole boy's our guys will still be dying. Isn't that swell?
Yahoshua
09-07-06, 05:26 PM
(eats popcorn)
Sea Demon
09-07-06, 05:47 PM
* Bort']
I entirely disagree with the assertion that today's democratic party is somehow different than the donkeys of WW2.
They are different. Today's Democrat Party are appeasers of the first degree. There was a time when Democrats stood up to tyranny. That is no longer true. The Democrat Party is making it alot easier for our enemies to operate, unfortunately. J.F. Kennedy was a tax-cutter and very pro private sector-growth. No they are not the same.
Indeed the GOP of today plays on their fear of minorities by claiming that illegal aliens are spilling over the borders to threaten their white bread society.
You would certainly be surprised if you looked at me and my skin color. ;)
Sea Demon
09-07-06, 05:56 PM
Gimme a break. The fact is we could be there ten years from now irregardless of which party is in power and the only difference between today and then will be the calender date.
Nope. Democrats have proven they have no will to fight terrorists. Their entire strategy now is to surrender and disgracefully leave before we have any stability in Iraq. That takes time, and the Democrat Party has shown they don't have the fortitude to do it.
No WMD and the terror showed up after we liberated Iraq.
Right. There was no 9/11. There was no Khobar Towers incident. There was no WTC attack in 1993. The USS Cole was never attacked. The Marine barracks were never attacked in Lebanon, etc., etc., etc. If you're talking about Iraq itself, it depends on how you describe terror. You might want to ask the Kurds about that one. And maybe the Israeli's about how their terrorist enemies were being payed by Saddam.
And only George Bush said anything regarding Saddams weapons programs before the Iraq invasion. :roll: Right.
BTW, have you bothered to read the Iraq War resolution? It doesn't look like you have. That might give you a clue why we went there. Internet liberal blogs leave alot to be desired.
* Bort']You really think so? The Democrats haven't successfully fought a war since WW2. What makes you believe they would have done any better now?
I would think that the fact that during both World Wars we were led by Democrats would be something that a Republican wouldn't want to bring up, nevertheless you have and therefore I must give you guys big props on Grenada, Panama, and the Gulf War- phew those were rough ones! Your record ain't that great with the other wars you've led, Nixon made the decision to leave Vietnam and so far you aren't doing so well with the current wars either, but boy, Grenada, bang up job there!:D
First off Bort, I'm not a Republican. FWIW my voting record since the Carter administration is pretty much evenly split between them and the Democrats, along with any half decent Independant i see on the ballot.
Second as for the World Wars, imo we shouldn't have gotten involved in the first one and shouldn't have had to step into the last one, though FDR did a pretty fine job of leading us through it, displaying a backbone not seen in any Democrat chief exec since with the possible exception of JFK.
However you're right, Grenada, Panama and Desert Storm, all relatively bloodless wins, especially compared with the massive Democrat screwups in Vietnam and Korea. Nor has their post 'Nam war record been any brighter with bungling from Iran to Somalia to Yugoslavia with little one could call success
Taken as a whole the modern Democrats are wishy-washy and quite willing to leave messes for their successors to deal with, and i'm including the WTC attacks in that.
So yeah given that war record i'd say i'm pretty glad the GoP was in the majority in this one. I don't agree with with everything they've done, but on the whole I believe they've done a pretty good job so far.
You would certainly be surprised if you looked at me and my skin color. ;)
Watch out man. You know how the Democrats won't tolerate anyone of color that doesn't tow their party line.
The Noob
09-07-06, 08:01 PM
This makes me sick to my stomach. :nope:
What a rip off! :nope:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZl12jrdhU0
United States of America = One corrupt nation under God!
HOLY MUCK!:huh:
Now you got your Proof that Bush is a Lair. Who lies once, can do it again. And Again!
A little thing i made up, if moderators find it too much Offensive Remove it.
I just think it fits good to this event.
To the Tune of "Der Fuehrers Face".
Americas National anthem, inofficial Version
When Bush says, "We ist der master race"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Bush's face
Not to love Georgie is a great disgrace
So we HEIL! HEIL! Right in Bush's face
When Condi says, "We own der world und space"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Frau Condolizas face
When Herr Rumsfeld says they'll never bomb this place
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Herr Rumsfeld's face
Are we not the supermen
American pure supermen
Ja we ist der supermen
Super-duper supermen
Ist this Turbo Capitalist land not good?
Would you leave it if you could?
Ja this Turbo Capitalist land is good!
We would not leave it if we could!
We bring the world to order
Heil Bush's world New Order
Everyone of foreign race will love Der Bush's face
When we bring to der world disorder
When Bush Says We Never will be Slaves! We HEIL! HEIL!
And Still we work like Slaves! When Bush Brags and Lies and Rants and Raves we HEIL! HEIL! and Work into our Graves!
When Herr Bush jells I gonna have more Shells! We HEIL! HEIL! For Him we make more Shells! If one little shell would Blow him right to hell we HEIL! HEIL! And wouldn't that be Swelled?
Are we not Republicans?
Patriot Republicans?
Ja, we ist Republicans!
Neo-con Republicans!
Ist Kalifornia not gut?
Would you leave it if you could?
Ja, Kalifornia is good!
We would not leave it if we could.
When Bush says, "We ist der master race"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Bush's face
Not to love Georgie is a great disgrace
So we HEIL! HEIL! Right in Bush face
:rotfl::rotfl:
bradclark1
09-07-06, 08:59 PM
Nope. Democrats have proven they have no will to fight terrorists. Their entire strategy now is to surrender and disgracefully leave before we have any stability in Iraq. That takes time, and the Democrat Party has shown they don't have the fortitude to do it.
Not one terrorist attack under the democrats was the magnitude of 9/11. Should we hang that on republicans? Then on top of that the given enemy was Afganistan. Now look what is happening, the Taliban is on a comeback and we can't do squat about it? Why? Because the republicans attacked Iraq on top of it before the work was finished in Afganistan and now we are tied down in Iraq. Yeah the republicans are doing a bang up job fighting terror. How many Iraqi's die a day since we liberated them?
So you want a standing U.S. army in Iraq? How long do you think it will fly? Another two or five or ten years? How many years is it worth? Think our all volunteer force is going to stay volunteer? How much can we afford? Our debt is going through the roof. How long can we financialy handle it. How long will voters stand for it?
Can the democrats do any better? I seriously doubt it. Nothing we do can stabilize the region. Our hands would have been more then full enough with Afganistan by itself.
Do I have an idea of what would work? No, I really don't and that's sad. There are no right choices.
Yahoshua
09-07-06, 09:13 PM
Pearl harbor happened under a Republicans' watch?
Onkel Neal
09-07-06, 09:17 PM
The Bush family remained strangely confident. Now why did George W. grin and ignore the exit polls?
That's where I stopped taking that crap seriously. People, when an election is that close, it's going to be hard if not impossible to say with certainty who had the most votes. It's almost like flipping a coin.
I go with Bush because if Gore could not carry his own HOME state, he's a loser.
Sea Demon
09-07-06, 09:33 PM
Not one terrorist attack under the democrats was the magnitude of 9/11. Should we hang that on republicans?
You can if you want. But there has been only one major terrorist attack on U.S. interests since Bush has been President. Unlike the multiple attacks under Clinton where the response was Zero. So you would have to give Republicans credit for at least addressing the issue rather than sitting on your hands and pretending there is no terrorist threat at all like the Democrat Party response. All the while allowing these murderers more time to flourish. There may not have been a 9/11 had Clinton approached the problem like Bush is doing now. And it doesn't help that the Clinton administration put handcuffs on domestic intelligence agencies from sharing information.
In addition, the Democrat Party actively tries to shutdown the very policies needed to catch these fanatics. The Republicans at least don't believe we're supposed to just sit , be passive, surrender our lives, and die.
Do I have an idea of what would work? No, I really don't and that's sad. There are no right choices.
Yes, it's difficult isn't it? But I find it interesting that those who critisize the Bush administration have no answers themselves. They do nothing but critisize and offer no alternatives short of full surrender. No Thanks.
Sea Demon
09-07-06, 09:52 PM
You would certainly be surprised if you looked at me and my skin color. ;)
Watch out man. You know how the Democrats won't tolerate anyone of color that doesn't tow their party line.
I know what you mean. I'm a liberal's worst nightmare. I'm a brown skin person who loves the USA, it's culture, and it's heritage. I believe in a strong military, border security, and national security as a priority. I've been called a "self-hater" by many that get infuriated that I don't blame 'whitey' for every economic challenge I confront in my life. I prefer to solve my own problems and blame no one.
I've totally frustrated liberals because I have brown skin, yet I'm NOT dependant on the government for my own sustinence. I've been hated by liberals because I have brown skin, yet I believe in economic freedom, low taxes, and pro-growth economic policies. It's true, there is nothing more dangerous politically to liberals than a conservative brown skin person. I've seen more hatred directed towards me by foul-mouthed liberals once they find out I have color in my skin and ancestry. I've actually experienced this. But I just laugh. :lol: I've actually been a little successful in convincing a few other "brown skin" people that they'll be better off not being a part of the Democrat Party Victim Group Program.
SubSerpent
09-07-06, 10:37 PM
The Bush family remained strangely confident. Now why did George W. grin and ignore the exit polls?
That's where I stopped taking that crap seriously. People, when an election is that close, it's going to be hard if not impossible to say with certainty who had the most votes. It's almost like flipping a coin.
I go with Bush because if Gore could not carry his own HOME state, he's a loser.
Not surprising that a Texan wouldn't stand with another Texan. :roll:
Maybe Bush grinned and ignored the exit polls because he new the election was fixed in Florida before the election even started. He was "guranteed" a win in Florida by his own brother after all!
Then that guy who declined for anymore interview and walked away from the reporter was caught by the reporter on paper as having used illegal money to pay off the third party company to count the ballads and chads in Bush's favor.
Why was their so many black people in Florida denied to cast a vote? 95,000 black people is quite a few and almost all of them voted for Gore. There votes didn't get counted because they were listed as being felons. That one black man Flordia got mixed up with a crime a white man did in another state. They fixed his name in the data base as not being allowed to vote because he had commited a crime in "2007" WTF?!?! Does the Bush administration have some sort of "Minority Report" mind reading crap going on? Do they know this guy is going to commit a crime on a specific day, at a specific time, in a specific year. He was robbed and cheated and the whole damn election was unfair.
Also, why was the woman (who just happened to be Bush's chairperson for his campaign) allowed to be the vote recount "official". That was unfair. Obviously she was a Republican so why wouldn't she have had something to do with cheating the Democrats out of their win for the benefit of herself and her future?
I'm sorry Neal, but that video does show that the Bush campaign and administration is nothing but a bunch of corrupt, lying, cheating, and stealing criminals.
SubSerpent
09-07-06, 10:43 PM
You would certainly be surprised if you looked at me and my skin color. ;)
Watch out man. You know how the Democrats won't tolerate anyone of color that doesn't tow their party line.
I know what you mean. I'm a liberal's worst nightmare. I'm a brown skin person who loves the USA, it's culture, and it's heritage. I believe in a strong military, border security, and national security as a priority. I've been called a "self-hater" by many that get infuriated that I don't blame 'whitey' for every economic challenge I confront in my life. I prefer to solve my own problems and blame no one.
I've totally frustrated liberals because I have brown skin, yet I'm NOT dependant on the government for my own sustinence. I've been hated by liberals because I have brown skin, yet I believe in economic freedom, low taxes, and pro-growth economic policies. It's true, there is nothing more dangerous politically to liberals than a conservative brown skin person. I've seen more hatred directed towards me by foul-mouthed liberals once they find out I have color in my skin and ancestry. I've actually experienced this. But I just laugh. :lol: I've actually been a little successful in convincing a few other "brown skin" people that they'll be better off not being a part of the Democrat Party Victim Group Program.
Funny how you say "brown" skin. Looks like you are trying to closer yourself to "Whitey". You must be the real Carlton! Last time I checked most African American's I know, proudly call themselves "Black" people.
nikimcbee
09-07-06, 10:45 PM
I have a song for all you democrats, I dedicate this to you:
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=28560
pick you version...:rock: :rock: :rock: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Sea Demon
09-07-06, 10:50 PM
Funny how you say "brown" skin. Looks like you are trying to closer yourself to "Whitey". You must be the real Carlton! Last time I checked most African American's I know, proudly call themselves "Black" people.
LOL. :lol: No. Actually I'm brown skinned because my maternal Grandmother came from Mexico. My maternal Grandfather came from Guatemala. I'm not "Black" or African-American. And I can actually dance, unlike Carlton. :D
As far as getting closer to "whitey', I use the term for obvious reasons. It's used to make a point. I have many frind of varying racial make-ups including white folks. I choose friends based on character. But I note that there is a concerted effort on the left to get white's to feel guilty about things they didn't personally do. Sins of the Father thing here....
SubSerpent
09-07-06, 10:57 PM
I have a song for all you democrats, I dedicate this to you:
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=28560
pick you version...:rock: :rock: :rock: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
That's just retarded that you would think that a Democrat would be closer to communism than a republican. Last time I checked, republicans were closer extremist to communism than Democrats by far. republicans want to control EVERYTHING! They tend to be made up of drunken red necks, the KKK, wife beaters, and major control freaks.
Way on the left side you have a Dictatorship. Way on the right you have communism. Neither one are good so that's why people tend to stick closer to the middle.
Remember, Democrat is left sided and republican is right sided which is closer to communism. Check your history and facts over!
Two MAJOR republicans...
Rush Limbaugh = Communist
Nute Gingrich = Communist
Sea Demon
09-07-06, 11:11 PM
That's just retarded that you would think that a Democrat would be closer to communism than a republican. Last time I checked, republicans were closer extremist to communism than Democrats by far. republicans want to control EVERYTHING! They tend to be made up of drunken red necks, the KKK, wife beaters, and major control freaks.
Way on the left side you have a Dictatorship. Way on the right you have communism.
Remember, Democrat is left sided and republican is right sided which is closer to communism. Check your history and facts over!
Uh. You got this wrong. When comparing the economic principles of the two party's, Democrats are actually aligned closer to Communist principles. Communism is the collective ownership of property and organization of labor for common advantages. Sound familiar? Nikimcbee got it right.
SubSerpent
09-07-06, 11:17 PM
That's just retarded that you would think that a Democrat would be closer to communism than a republican. Last time I checked, republicans were closer extremist to communism than Democrats by far. republicans want to control EVERYTHING! They tend to be made up of drunken red necks, the KKK, wife beaters, and major control freaks.
Way on the left side you have a Dictatorship. Way on the right you have communism.
Remember, Democrat is left sided and republican is right sided which is closer to communism. Check your history and facts over!
Uh. You got this wrong. When comparing the economic principles of the two party's, Democrats are actually aligned closer to Communist principles. Communism is the collective ownership of property and organization of labor for common advantages. Sound familiar? Nikimcbee got it right.
This has changed the opposite way since the cold war. Republicans are the ones squeezing every ounce out of the American worker for low wages and bent on world control. I'd say I'm right about this! Communism is about government controlling people. Look at the Bush approved wire taps, email taps, forum taps, etc. Look at the fact that min wage hasn't been raised in over a decade. It was the Clinton Administration that raised it the last time. Yet the republican congress has no problem giving themselves a nice fat raise every year as well as the military but not the common civilian worker. This is martial law and that is closer to communism - just like China. Wonder when Bush is gonna make us all go man the rice patties while his troops watch over our work with loaded rifles. "Anyone-stop-working-you-DIE!" - Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. All communistic.
Also, why would Kennedy (a democrat) want to go to war against Vietnam (a communist country) if their "principles" were the same?
Sea Demon
09-07-06, 11:23 PM
I'd say no. What you say doesn't define what a Communist is. It's nothing but frothing at the mouth rhetoric. Republicans have continually relieved pressure on the tax base and have stood up for private property rights, although not as much as they should. But Democrats are reknowned for increasing the burden on tax-payers, and are utterly silent in the area of private property rights. Nope, nikimcbee's right on target. :up:
Sea Demon
09-07-06, 11:31 PM
Yet the republican congress has no problem giving themselves a nice fat raise every year as well as the military but not the common civilian worker.
Thank you for proving my point for me. You think it's up to the government to set wages for people who work in the private sector. That, sir is as close to communism as they come.
SubSerpent
09-07-06, 11:51 PM
Yet the republican congress has no problem giving themselves a nice fat raise every year as well as the military but not the common civilian worker.
Thank you for proving my point for me. You think it's up to the government to set wages for people who work in the private sector. That, sir is as close to communism as they come.
Yeah! Me and all my Democratic friends are really communist. We want people to share their wealth to help feed the sick and elderly. We don't want people to hog money that they truely don't deserve so they can go out and buy another brand new $50,000 sports car that they don't need. Yeah, really big communist here pal! Meanwhile you and your side want to "control" the poorer population and kick them while they're down as you count your millions. It's those poor people that work their butts off for your companies so that people like you can live in a big fancy house, drive fancy cars, and not have to worry about retirement. The poor people are left with no choice but to join your military to fight your wars that you and your sides leader decides to start just so they can earn a desent paycheck and have desent medical care for themselves and their families.
It's the control that the republicans force upon the poor man that people like you love because you don't have to worry about spending that extra few cents a month off your paycheck to help the less fortunate out. You are a sick man Sea Demon and you and your party need to be a little less selfish and a lot more selfless. Maybe if that happened and the greed of most republicans came to an end this world we live in would be a better place.
Ishmael
09-07-06, 11:51 PM
With all of this administration's talk of Islamo-Fascism, here's a link to an article by Umberto Eco describing the 14 main characteristics of Fascism. Compare & contrast.
http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html (http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html)
scandium
09-07-06, 11:58 PM
Interesting to see how many champions of "democracy" from the US are here conceeding that at least one election was stolen, and thereby extension your El Presidente about as legitimate as Fidel Castro (only ole Fidel has far less blood on his hands... and the current US "President" has only been in power less than 6 years).... but "we won, you lost" and that's all that matters eh.
Seems the only thing y'all lost, some more willingly than others, are the supposed sacred constitutional rights your country was founded on. Amazing how many "patriots" are so quick to sell off that piece of paper and their civil liberties 'cuz their side "won"... won what? How are you better off now than you were 6 years ago?
Sea Demon
09-08-06, 12:03 AM
Well at least you have proven the point that you believe government should be in control to take from those who have, and redistribute to those who don't have. And that is communism. But you see SubSerpent, we live in a free society. And in a society such as that, there are choices one makesin order to determine their quality of life. Sometimes it doesn't always work out, but you do have the choice and freedom to make your life better. You also have the choice and freedom to help those around you in need. Me and my family donate to several causes each year. Including the Special Olympics, US Mission, Catholic Charities, and the Food Bank. Do you do the same? Or do you just whine about how your party is not in power to confiscate people's private property to redstribute as they see fit.
Your worldview is dangerous. Not because of your intentions. But because your worldview has been tried before, and it has always resulted in political persecution and lower standards of living. Despite your good intentions, your destruction of private property rights, which is the foundation of freedom, eventually kills off motivation and chokes innovation. You prefer everyone live in misery equally. My side says give people the freedom to use their God given talents to strive for a better life. And promote generosity as my family does annually. Not trying to toot my own horn, but it's true. But when you start talking of confiscating people's private property, you have proven my points more than I could hope for. Yes, the essence of that is communism.
Sea Demon
09-08-06, 12:06 AM
Interesting to see how many champions of "democracy" from the US are here conceeding that at least one election was stolen
Nobody here conceded that other than the hardcore lefties that'll believe anything in a Michael Moore flick or a leftist blog sponsored by International ANSWER.
The Avon Lady
09-08-06, 12:12 AM
Pearl harbor happened under a Republicans' watch?
Run outta popcorn?
SubSerpent
09-08-06, 12:21 AM
Yeah! Me and all my Democratic friends are really communist. We want people to share their wealth to help feed the sick and elderly. We don't want people to hog money that they truely don't deserve so they can go out and buy another brand new $50,000 sports car that they don't need. Yeah, really big communist here pal! Meanwhile you and your side want to "control" the poorer population and kick them while they're down as you count your millions. It's those poor people that work their butts off for your companies so that people like you can live in a big fancy house, drive fancy cars, and not have to worry about retirement. The poor people are left with no choice but to join your military to fight your wars that you and your sides leader decides to start just so they can earn a desent paycheck and have desent medical care for themselves and their families. It the control that the republicans force upon the poor man that people like you love because you don't have to worry about spending that extra few cents a month off your paycheck to help the less fortunate out. You are a sick man Sea Demon and you and your party need to be a little less selfish and a lot more selfless. Maybe if that happened and the greed of most republicans came to an end this world we live in would be a better place.
Well at least you have proven the point that you believe government should be in control to take from those who have, and redistribute to those who don't. And that is communism. But you see SubSerpent. We live in a free society. And in a society such as that, there are choices one makes in order to determine their quality of life. Sometimes it doesn't always work out, but you do have the choice and freedom to make your own life better. You also have the choice and freedom to help those in need around you. And me and my family donate to various causes each year. Including the Special Olympics, the US Mission, Catholic Charities, and the Food Bank. Do you do the same? Or do you just whine that your party is not in power to confiscate people's private property to redistribute around as they see fit.
Your world view is dangerous. Not because of your intentions. But because your world view has been tried before, and it always has resulted in political persecution and low standards of living. Despite your good intentions, your destruction of private property, which is the foundations of freedom, eventually kills off motivation and chokes innovation. You prefer everybody live in misery equally. My side says give people the freedom to use their talents to strive for a better life. And promote generosity as my family demonstrates annually. Not trying to toot my own horn but it's true. But when you start talking about confiscation of private property, you have proven my points more than I hoped to. Yes, the essence of that is communism.
I never said anything about taking away any property. I do agree that we should be paying more out of our paychecks though to give people low cost healthcare, better choices of schools and education, and a paycheck that is worth earning. Your party recklessly spends its money on crap! Why do we need anymore ships or submarines? We have hundreds of them that will never see combat, or the combat that your party wants them to see. The Marine Corps is pointless now! Why not get rid of that branch altogether. We already have an Army. The Navy and the Air Force have been the ones doing the "First in the fight" stuff that the Marine Corps used to brag about. Marines were used for beach landings. To attempt a beach landing today is nothing more than pure suicide and pointless when one missle could clear a beach and then some for the Army to come onto.
Your government is spending money faster than Micheal Jackson at a childerns lap dance contest, and this is money that could be going to much better and more noble causes. But No! Your party's greed doesn't care and you just admitted that in your post by saying that your party doesn't feel the need to give hand outs to people. It's your party that causes the poor and lower middle class to stop spending at your inflated prices - which leads to stock market crashes and depressions because the poor are finally going to say they aren't going to work for you and your company anymore. Once that happens you make no money, the rich make no money, the middle class make no money, and neither do the poor. Prices will then have to drop dramatically because the rich certainly aren't going to spend a lot of money on anything if they aren't making money off the poor people anymore.
You make your party sound more like a club of pompas arrogant jerks by saying you can't be a member unless you make it rich and wealthy somehow!
Sea Demon
09-08-06, 12:25 AM
Maybe if that happened and the greed of most republicans came to an end this world we live in would be a better place.
Do you do the same? Or do you just whine that your party is not in power to confiscate people's private property to redistribute around as they see fit.
Looks like this link answers some of this greed stuff.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/12/generosity_inde.html
Just in case you're lazy, this is a sourced generosity index. It's a study done of who gives to charities. 27 out of 30 of the most generous are Republican states. 17 out of 20 of the least generous states are Democrat Blue states.
They tend to be made up of drunken red necks, the KKK, wife beaters, and major control freaks.
Is this your scientific assessment professor? :roll:
SubSerpent
09-08-06, 12:42 AM
They tend to be made up of drunken red necks, the KKK, wife beaters, and major control freaks.
Is this your scientific assessment professor? :roll:
Well I think it's pretty accurate! So do most people opposed to those types of people! Blacks, women, etc. And the last time I looked, women outnumbered us men by nearly 7 to 1, so they must be right!
nikimcbee
09-08-06, 12:57 AM
I have a song for all you democrats, I dedicate this to you:
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=28560
pick you version...:rock: :rock: :rock: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
That's just retarded that you would think that a Democrat would be closer to communism than a republican. Last time I checked, republicans were closer extremist to communism than Democrats by far. republicans want to control EVERYTHING! They tend to be made up of drunken red necks, the KKK, wife beaters, and major control freaks.
Way on the left side you have a Dictatorship. Way on the right you have communism. Neither one are good so that's why people tend to stick closer to the middle.
Remember, Democrat is left sided and republican is right sided which is closer to communism. Check your history and facts over!
Two MAJOR republicans...
Rush Limbaugh = Communist
Nute Gingrich = Communist
:rotfl: :rotfl: You must drink A LOT of RED kool-aid:rock:
You must have picked the 1944 version of the Hymn, Comrade Stalin would be proud of you.:up: http://davno.ru/img/posters/collections/stalin/poster-12.jpg
BTW WALMART WILL CRUSH YOU:D :up:
SubSerpent
09-08-06, 01:13 AM
:rotfl: :rotfl: You must drink A LOT of RED kool-aid:rock:
You must have picked the 1944 version of the Hymn, Comrade Stalin would be proud of you.:up: http://davno.ru/img/posters/collections/stalin/poster-12.jpg
BTW WALMART WILL CRUSH YOU:D :up:
I DO! I love Kool-Aid! I drink it out of my "BILL CLINTON RULEZ" mug too...that I bought at Wal-Mart BTW! :rock:
http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/5872/1154067093ce72363a2mik5.jpg
This is good.:|\\
Sea Demon
09-08-06, 01:41 AM
I never said anything about taking away any property.
Yes you did. Earned money is property. The money in my wallet is my property. And you are openly advocating taking more, and spending as your party sees fit. You are advocating economic slavery.
I do agree that we should be paying more out of our paychecks though to give people
Then do it!
we should be paying more out of our paychecks though to give people low cost healthcare, better choices of schools and education, and a paycheck that is worth earning.
The government has not proven to be able to deliver any product cheaply. Healthcare will be no different. If you want better health care the private sector could do it better. You want better schools? Spending more money is not the answer. What's needed is standards. If only democrats would understand that schools are there to educate kids....not to be a jobs program for adult teachers. Gotta get rid of the teachers unions. And people's paychecks is none of my concern. That is between the employer and the prospective employee.
Your party recklessly spends its money on crap! Why do we need anymore ships or submarines?
And you wonder why the Democrats suck on national security issues. The party platform itself says this.
But No! Your party's greed doesn't care and you just admitted that in your post by saying that your party doesn't feel the need to give hand outs to people. It's your party that causes the poor and lower middle class to stop spending at your inflated prices - which leads to stock market crashes and depressions because the poor are finally going to say they aren't going to work for you and your company anymore. Once that happens you make no money, the rich make no money, the middle class make no money, and neither do the poor. Prices will then have to drop dramatically because the rich certainly aren't going to spend a lot of money on anything if they aren't making money off the poor people anymore.
Rubbish. 27 out of 30 of the most generous states are Republican in charitable giving. 17 out of the 20 least generous states are Democrat states. And no, I don't want to just give handouts to people. I'd rather create opportunities for people with a better performing economy. I'd rather raise people up to a better standard. Some people fall on hard times, true. I have myself at times. But in a free society you have the responsibility to get back up and pull your own weight.
And what are you talking about with "inflated prices"? Prices have never been lower on consumer goods. Even gasoline is coming down. You have never taken an economics course and it shows.
You make your party sound more like a club of pompas arrogant jerks by saying you can't be a member unless you make it rich and wealthy somehow!
Nope. Never said that. But it's nice to pursue better opportunities for yourself and your family. If you have a family, it's stupid and irresponsible not to.
nikimcbee
09-08-06, 01:53 AM
I never said anything about taking away any property.
Yes you did. Earned money is property. The money in my wallet is my property. And you are openly advocating taking more, and spending as your party sees fit. You are advocating economic slavery.
I do agree that we should be paying more out of our paychecks though to give people
Then do it!
we should be paying more out of our paychecks though to give people low cost healthcare, better choices of schools and education, and a paycheck that is worth earning.
The government has not proven to be able to deliver any product cheaply. Healthcare will be no different. If you want better health care the private sector could do it better. You want better schools? Spending more money is not the answer. What's needed is standards. If only democrats would understand that schools are there to educate kids....not to be a jobs program for adult teachers. Gotta get rid of the teachers unions. And people's paychecks is none of my concern. That is between the employer and the prospective employee.
Your party recklessly spends its money on crap! Why do we need anymore ships or submarines?
And you wonder why the Democrats suck on national security issues. The party platform itself says this.
But No! Your party's greed doesn't care and you just admitted that in your post by saying that your party doesn't feel the need to give hand outs to people. It's your party that causes the poor and lower middle class to stop spending at your inflated prices - which leads to stock market crashes and depressions because the poor are finally going to say they aren't going to work for you and your company anymore. Once that happens you make no money, the rich make no money, the middle class make no money, and neither do the poor. Prices will then have to drop dramatically because the rich certainly aren't going to spend a lot of money on anything if they aren't making money off the poor people anymore.
Rubbish. 27 out of 30 of the most generous states are Republican in charitable giving. 17 out of the 20 least generous states are Democrat states. And no, I don't want to just give handouts to people. I'd rather create opportunities for people with a better performing economy. I'd rather raise people up to a better standard. Some people fall on hard times, true. I have myself at times. But in a free society you have the responsibility to get back up and pull your own weight.
And what are you talking about with "inflated prices"? Prices have never been lower on consumer goods. Even gasoline is coming down. You have never taken an economics course and it shows.
You make your party sound more like a club of pompas arrogant jerks by saying you can't be a member unless you make it rich and wealthy somehow!
Nope. Never said that. But it's nice to pursue better opportunities for yourself and your family. If you have a family, it's stupid and irresponsible not to.
Nobody said the US school system was perfect.:|\\
nikimcbee
09-08-06, 01:57 AM
http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/5872/1154067093ce72363a2mik5.jpg
Avon Lady, you are my hero:|\\
Sea Demon
09-08-06, 01:58 AM
Nobody said the US school system was perfect.:|\\
Well, I'm not knocking it in it's entirety, but I have someone here spouting that he wants to open up my wallet to improve the public schools. And I'm saying the issue is not always money. There are of course excellent teachers and good public schools out there. :up: I was generalizing for the sake of brevity.
The Avon Lady
09-08-06, 02:26 AM
All one has to do is step back and take a good look at this thread and the nonsense spewed here to understand which direction the Democratic party has been and is heading to.
Suggested reading: The Shadow Party, Part I (http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=15392) and Part II (http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=15410&p=1).
Much is very similar to what has happened to Israel's leftist labor party, now a shell of it's former self, with much thanks to overseas leftists and their funding pols and agendas that the rest of us cannot stomach.
Yahoshua
09-08-06, 02:32 AM
(Eats popcorn)
Looks like one-liners don't make much impact on the overall scale here (referring to PH).
Looks like y'all did it again. THOU HAST ACTIVATED: THE RANT!!!
Rant ON :hulk:
@ SubSerpent:
I'm surprised you don't understand the importance of maintaining a standing army that would be ready for war at a moment's notice. More so after you've been in the service. We need Marines because they're crazy (read: Stupid) enough, and have enough balls to seize a beach head so the army can come onboard. Besides, we won't be getting rid of the army or Marines until the Navy boats grow legs and can take care of the job for us.
Communism may be gone in the regards to the USSR , but there are plenty of other dangers that are present. Our military needs to be kept at it's peak, especially since the Chinese are continually building and re-organizing their war machine. The price of paying a few more dollars from our wallets to maintain a clean sharp edge is less costly than a war in which we are at a disadvantage.
What I do see as a wholesale waste of our tax dollars is when beauracracy starts eating it up by making up more red tape.
Ever wonder why we still have that ancient and burdensome tape when the Pentagon can produce far more advanced weaponry, in a shorter amount of time, and accompish it under budget with a "Black Project"?
Of course the Beauracracy is more than willing to pay $400 for a hammer, or $2,000 for a toilet seat.
And god forbid that we stop international aid to nations that are in every way imaginable HOSTILE to us. (Indonesia, Pakistan, etc.).
@ nobody in particular:
I have the perfect example of rule by the Democratic party: Kommiefornia (California), just slightly less Democratic than China.
Kommiefornia has passed some of the most restrictive laws I can think of. Particularly regarding firearms and ones' right to defend oneself.
It has gotten so bad that a majority of firearm/ammunition manufacturers have STOPPED providing services to the Police Departments there and REFUSE to service their firearms or sell them firearms and ammunition.
Why? Well, lets take a look.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/05/BAGOLFJMCD1.DTL&type=printable
http://www.hk94.com/hk/CA-DOJ-Banned-from-range-use-t15544.html
http://www.hk94.com/hk/FIREARMS-MICROSTAMPING-t16184.html
http://www.hk94.com/hk/AB-357-t15048.html
Currently, Glock is the ONLY firearms manufacturer that has a monopoly on sales of sidearms. Glock is considering of abandoning the Kommiefornia market with the recent bills AB-357 and AB-352 put on the list for a vote on the Senate floor. The bills are expected to pass.
Lovely, Democrats Control California, and we're disarmed and stripped of the right to defend ourselves. Sounds LOTS like Communism. It's nice when a heavily taxed state that can't even operate within their huge budget finds a way to waste even more forcibly collected funds.
But what happens when criminals start using revolvers or brass catchers? I guess they'll pass a new law to ban those too.
*UPDATE*
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71240
Oh well. I guess the LEOs' can kiss their Glocks goodbye, cuz I guarantee you that Glock is NOT going to go through with this.
My, now Democrats have succeeded in disarming their Law Enforcement Officers.
And two new bills have been drafted and are on the waiting list to be voted on..
SB 59 which criminalizes a firearms owner if their stolen firearm is used in a crime. Also tacked onto this, is the requirement that ALL thefts of stolen firearms are reported to the authorities.
AB-2714 Bans the purchase of ammunition by California residents via the Internet.
Well, we've successfully disarmed the populace. And the Seizure of the 9th Circuit was accomplished a while ago. So what's next?
http://www.rmgo.org/Gestapo/index.shtml
Oops!! I guess it's time to REALLY bring Communism to Kommiefornia. Time to play Big Brother!! (BTW, I live in Denver so this is sounding like a REAL FUN to me).
But criminals aren't going to turn in their guns, they're CRIMINALS!! SO what's the Democratic answer?
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/15447079.htm
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_racist.jpg
The following is a short timeline up to 1994 of various "Gun Control" laws passed here in the U.S.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html
These are SOME of the results of "Gun Control."
http://www.fightthebias.com/Resources/gundebate/history_of_gun_control.htm
Democrats don't play by the same rules as everyone else does:
Read the small blurb about her stance on "Gun Control."
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein
And this one about Chuck Schumer having an ARMED bodyguard.
http://www.americandaily.com/article/9405
WHY in the world would Democrats want to advocate Gun Control?
Oh wait, Gun Control = People Control.
At least with the Republicans in charge, the masses are fully armed and capable of overthrowing a corrupt government. Btw, both Fascism and Communism called themselves SOCIALISTS and championed for the rights of the people until they took absolute control.
And while this may be ONE issue regarding Democrats, this alone is enough to get me to make an about face and go anywhere but to them. I've also seen enough in all the other issues that the Democrats take positions on (ie. Welfare, the rights of private businesses, TAXES, National Security, U.S. sovreignty being subject to the U.N. etc.) to be convinced that Democrats WILL drive the United States into the ground and we will cease to be a sovereign and independent nation. I hope you like Baby Blue....or Red Stars (both have the same goal).
If you dispute the evidence presented, I suggest you read a couple of books entitled :"The Bias Against Guns," and "More Guns: Less Crime." Both are written by John R. Lott.:|\\
Rant OFF
(Continues to eat popcorn)
SubSerpent
09-08-06, 08:14 AM
I don't believe Marines are crazy enough or got the balls enough to do a job. They do their job because they are ordered to do a job and to disobey would result in a courts martial. The Army showed they too had the balls during WWII to do the same type of "beachhead" landings that Marines were capable of on June 6, 1944 (D-Day). Not one Marine was even at D-Day. They were all in the Pacific taking on the Japanese and doing beach landings there.
My arguement about the Marines is just that...BeachLandings! This is what they were and supposedly are still known for, yet their hasn't been a large scale beachhead landings with any fighting since WWII. The government (both republican and democratic partys) always talk about a military downsize because the threat of the cold war is over and the fact that just 1 US nuclear submarine is capable of winning a war all on its own (though there would be massive amounts of innocent casualties). This is why I don't call for a complete military wrap-up, but a serious reduction in both manpower and equipment. Why does the US need more than two aircraft carriers? Or 5? or 10? Isn't this a bit extreme considering the US usually only send one or two to a theater of operations at a time? Of course you are going to need a relief aircraft carrier, and relief ships and troops for every war. But it seems like the US military is set up to fight 10 different wars all at the same time and that just aint gonna happen. There just wouldn't be enough money to fund ALL that equipment ALL at the same time. It would cripple the US to have to fund a war that large in scale. Heck, even just one war is crippling us. We are spending WAY too much money on these pointless wars.
How is the US going to solve Middle East fighting and aggresion in just a few years or so? Those people have been fighting one another since the world first started. Don't you think that once the US leaves the MiddleEast they will be right back at it again? I know I sure do! The facts are there. The have a religion that makes even a young child over their crazier than any US Marine by far. How many US Marines would be willing to strap C4 to themselves and run into an enemy building with thousands of enemy troops within it? I doubt any would because Americans are selfish about life more so than any other country. Why would you want to die when you have it all? But I really think that the reason why that small Arab child would be willing to die for her sides cause more so than a Marine on the US side is because "Religion outweighs Government" every time. Everyone knows they are going to die someday. The Arabs seem to know that government is not going to always be around. Religion however is. People want to believe more that they are going to the "good" place when they die more than they care if some country and its government comes in and takes over.
The fact is Republicans spend way too much. Democrats are left no choice but to force higher taxes on the people to pay off the bills that the republicans create. You and your side are too "live for today". Democrats are thinking about tomorrow and they realize that health care is gonna vanish (nobody will be able to afford it), they realize that social security is going to vanish so that the generation that is just now beginning to work will have to work the rest of their lives without the retirement that your generation is getting to enjoy. They realize that this country is headed down the same path the the former Soviet Union was on during the cold war. They too spent way too much money on weapons and tanks and troops and look where that got them...
All this wreckless spending is only because republicans such as yourself are afraid of terrorism and act like they are some giant country that must be defeated. Terroism is just a strategy employed by weaker and less financed countries to create havok amongst its opponent. Look how screwed up the US has gotten since 9/11. We are now spending money like crazy to "protect" ourselves from people that mean to do us harm. However, it's never going to stop no matter how much money the US spends to trying to prevent it. You are probably scared of your own shadow too. I feel sorry for you, I truely do.
SkvyWvr
09-08-06, 08:31 AM
They tend to be made up of drunken red necks, the KKK, wife beaters, and major control freaks.
Is this your scientific assessment professor? :roll:
Well I think it's pretty accurate! So do most people opposed to those types of people! Blacks, women, etc. And the last time I looked, women outnumbered us men by nearly 7 to 1, so they must be right!
What about the Dem. Sen. from Tennessee? Robert (KKK) Byrd?
SkvyWvr
09-08-06, 08:38 AM
You would certainly be surprised if you looked at me and my skin color. ;)
Watch out man. You know how the Democrats won't tolerate anyone of color that doesn't tow their party line.
I know what you mean. I'm a liberal's worst nightmare. I'm a brown skin person who loves the USA, it's culture, and it's heritage. I believe in a strong military, border security, and national security as a priority. I've been called a "self-hater" by many that get infuriated that I don't blame 'whitey' for every economic challenge I confront in my life. I prefer to solve my own problems and blame no one.
I've totally frustrated liberals because I have brown skin, yet I'm NOT dependant on the government for my own sustinence. I've been hated by liberals because I have brown skin, yet I believe in economic freedom, low taxes, and pro-growth economic policies. It's true, there is nothing more dangerous politically to liberals than a conservative brown skin person. I've seen more hatred directed towards me by foul-mouthed liberals once they find out I have color in my skin and ancestry. I've actually experienced this. But I just laugh. :lol: I've actually been a little successful in convincing a few other "brown skin" people that they'll be better off not being a part of the Democrat Party Victim Group Program.
Funny how you say "brown" skin. Looks like you are trying to closer yourself to "Whitey". You must be the real Carlton! Last time I checked most African American's I know, proudly call themselves "Black" people.
An assumption gone wrong:rotfl: :rotfl:
SkvyWvr
09-08-06, 08:44 AM
Yeah! Me and all my Democratic friends are really communist.
Finally, a confession!!
SubSerpent
09-08-06, 08:52 AM
They tend to be made up of drunken red necks, the KKK, wife beaters, and major control freaks.
Is this your scientific assessment professor? :roll:
Well I think it's pretty accurate! So do most people opposed to those types of people! Blacks, women, etc. And the last time I looked, women outnumbered us men by nearly 7 to 1, so they must be right!
What about the Dem. Sen. from Tennessee? Robert (KKK) Byrd?
Here is the REAL kkk today. BTW there is no proof that connects Robert Byrd to the KKK.
Lets look at the real racist remarks shall we.
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/08/15/late-nite-fdl-the-real-republican-party/
bradclark1
09-08-06, 09:08 AM
Yes, it's difficult isn't it? But I find it interesting that those who critisize the Bush administration have no answers themselves. They do nothing but critisize and offer no alternatives short of full surrender. No Thanks.
Funny that you didn't answer the questions. So whats it worth?
Because one doesn't have the answer doesn't make one blind, dumb or stupid. What isn't working isn't working.
News Flash:
It was just on the news that the NATO commander is asking for more troops and quickly for Afganistan. They are loosing towns to the Taliban. The candle is burning on both ends. Whats the answer?
SkvyWvr
09-08-06, 09:18 AM
They tend to be made up of drunken red necks, the KKK, wife beaters, and major control freaks.
Is this your scientific assessment professor? :roll:
Well I think it's pretty accurate! So do most people opposed to those types of people! Blacks, women, etc. And the last time I looked, women outnumbered us men by nearly 7 to 1, so they must be right!
What about the Dem. Sen. from Tennessee? Robert (KKK) Byrd?
Here is the REAL kkk today. BTW there is no proof that connects Robert Byrd to the KKK.
Lets look at the real racist remarks shall we.
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/08/15/late-nite-fdl-the-real-republican-party/
My, my. You sure do have quite a collection of extreem left wing garbage. While your digging, search for racist remarks made by Dems.
Funny how you say "brown" skin. Looks like you are trying to closer yourself to "Whitey". You must be the real Carlton! Last time I checked most African American's I know, proudly call themselves "Black" people.
An assumption gone wrong:rotfl: :rotfl:
See what i mean?
waste gate
09-08-06, 10:13 AM
So why is this fella's work any more acurate than ABC's movie about the events leading to 9/11?
SkvyWvr
09-08-06, 10:20 AM
Why does the US need more than two aircraft carriers? Or 5? or 10? Isn't this a bit extreme considering the US usually only send one or two to a theater of operations at a time? Of course you are going to need a relief aircraft carrier, and relief ships and troops for every war. But it seems like the US military is set up to fight 10 different wars all at the same time and that just aint gonna happen.
The fact is, the US normally has 4 carriers deployed (sometimes 5), 2 in the yards and the rest doing fleet workups for their next deployment. 2 carriers would be of little use to national defense.
waste gate
09-08-06, 10:27 AM
Why does the US need more than two aircraft carriers? Or 5? or 10? Isn't this a bit extreme considering the US usually only send one or two to a theater of operations at a time? Of course you are going to need a relief aircraft carrier, and relief ships and troops for every war. But it seems like the US military is set up to fight 10 different wars all at the same time and that just aint gonna happen.
The fact is, the US normally has 4 carriers deployed (sometimes 5), 2 in the yards and the rest doing fleet workups for their next deployment. 2 carriers would be of little use to national defense.
The primary purpose, other than war fighting, of a navy is to secure the sea lanes of communication. Pirates, like all criminal elements, have a tendancy to thrive where there are unarmed citizens and law enforcement only arrive after the fact.
SkvyWvr
09-08-06, 10:30 AM
Why does the US need more than two aircraft carriers? Or 5? or 10? Isn't this a bit extreme considering the US usually only send one or two to a theater of operations at a time? Of course you are going to need a relief aircraft carrier, and relief ships and troops for every war. But it seems like the US military is set up to fight 10 different wars all at the same time and that just aint gonna happen.
The fact is, the US normally has 4 carriers deployed (sometimes 5), 2 in the yards and the rest doing fleet workups for their next deployment. 2 carriers would be of little use to national defense.
The primary purpose, other than war fighting, of a navy is to secure the sea lanes of communication. Pirates, like all criminal elements, have a tendancy to thrive where there are unarmed citizens and law enforcement only arrive after the fact.
They also provide emergency services beyond the reach of coastal forces.
SubSerpent
09-08-06, 11:11 AM
Still, there is no need for "hundreds" of US naval ships. There are so many right now that you could practically make a bridge out of them all the way to Europe. Just a plain and simple waste of good resources and money. Why not give that money to the people? Why not give that money to the victims of 9/11? Don't they deserve more for the lack of competance of the Bush administration and the military for letting them down and allowing terrorist to attack this country in such a horrible way? This all happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's.
SkvyWvr
09-08-06, 11:19 AM
Still, there is no need for "hundreds" of US naval ships. There are so many right now that you could practically make a bridge out of them all the way to Europe. Just a plain and simple waste of good resources and money. Why not give that money to the people? Why not give that money to the victims of 9/11? Don't they deserve more for the lack of competance of the Bush administration and the military for letting them down and allowing terrorist to attack this country in such a horrible way? This all happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's.
Yes it happend on Bush's watch however the planning took place long before. As for giving the money to the "people" that is not what the Federal government is for. There is quite a bit of waste in social programs. The Constitution does not provide for handouts. That is up to the States and individuals. I'd rather have my tax dollars spent on the military than on the lazy.
SubSerpent
09-08-06, 12:26 PM
Still, there is no need for "hundreds" of US naval ships. There are so many right now that you could practically make a bridge out of them all the way to Europe. Just a plain and simple waste of good resources and money. Why not give that money to the people? Why not give that money to the victims of 9/11? Don't they deserve more for the lack of competance of the Bush administration and the military for letting them down and allowing terrorist to attack this country in such a horrible way? This all happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's.
Yes it happend on Bush's watch however the planning took place long before. As for giving the money to the "people" that is not what the Federal government is for. There is quite a bit of waste in social programs. The Constitution does not provide for handouts. That is up to the States and individuals. I'd rather have my tax dollars spent on the military than on the lazy.
Yet again, another one shows his true colors. What a shame that you view the less fortunate, sick, and family & victims of 9/11 as "lazy".
What a sick sick world we live in! :nope:
SkvyWvr
09-08-06, 12:33 PM
Still, there is no need for "hundreds" of US naval ships. There are so many right now that you could practically make a bridge out of them all the way to Europe. Just a plain and simple waste of good resources and money. Why not give that money to the people? Why not give that money to the victims of 9/11? Don't they deserve more for the lack of competance of the Bush administration and the military for letting them down and allowing terrorist to attack this country in such a horrible way? This all happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's.
Yes it happend on Bush's watch however the planning took place long before. As for giving the money to the "people" that is not what the Federal government is for. There is quite a bit of waste in social programs. The Constitution does not provide for handouts. That is up to the States and individuals. I'd rather have my tax dollars spent on the military than on the lazy.
Yet again, another one shows his true colors. What a shame that you view the less fortunate, sick, and family & victims of 9/11 as "lazy".
What a sick sick world we live in! :nope:
I have never tried to hide my colors. The sick are usally provided for and the families of 9/11 have recieved quite a bit. The sickness in this world is with those that would suck us dry through welfare and with those who would protest the war at a fallen serviceman burial. The liberties you enjoy have come at a price. There is no "can't we all just get along" way of preserving that which is dear to us.
Spend my money on the machines necessary to maintain our freedom.
Yahoshua
09-08-06, 01:54 PM
You need to read "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" by Robert Kiyosaki.
He can give you some GOOD economical advice regarding finances. And I agree that neither the Republicans or the Democrats have performed well in this aspect.
However, it is my full and unadulterated belief that Welfare is a CRUTCH for the poor. It is easier to live off of a fixed income and keep the welfare, than to WORK and gain less financially and then lose the welfare because they're trying to support themselves.
And when they lose the welfare, they cry, whine and moan about their place instead of DOING something about it.
Ya ever wonder why the national Credit Card debt has skyrocketed, yet there are people who still depend on welfare? Or whenever the U.S. taxpayer gets their tax-refund back and then goes on a shopping spree or a vacation?
My father is deaf, he is BANNED from working full-time or earning above a certain amount of money unless he wants to risk losing his social security benefits. So the only solution my dad has is to find a teaching position that will outstrip the Social Security benefits. My dad is unemployed right now because American Sign language is STILL not considered a language (which is BS), so it isn't much of a motivation for students to take classes for a language that won't even count on their Credits!! Not only that, but a majority of the Universities/Colleges that my dad has applied to, all think they know how to teach Sign Language better than a deaf man!!
But surprise surprise. Because my dad worked while receiving Social Security Income, they're going back 13 years into our financial history and want our family to cough up 137,000 dollars. So now if Dad wants to work, he'll be stripped of all his money since it'll go to Social Security to pay off the debt, he's STUCK.
137,000 dollars. And ya know what? They say that I, now age 19, owe 37,000 of that. My sister owes 28,000, and she's 15 years old. So now my dad is FORCED to remain un-employed. Lovely, my family and I are already screwed over by the Government Beaureaucracy and I'm not even 30. Social security has already threatened to seize our property to make up the loss if we don't start paying them. Right now we're going through the legal nightmare of trying to fend off this unwarranted attack. Like I'm ever going to be a champion of welfare.
Thankfully, we like animals so my dad decided to start a business under my moms' name. My parents run a small dairy farm in Fort Hall Idaho. My mother makes cheese from Goats' milk, and my dad is in the process of raising a meat-goat herd, at this time we have approximately 36 goats on our farm. We don't have welfare, and right now my mom is the bread-winner while my dad is working on a long-term base of income for our family. Why don't others show the same innovation that we have in trying to support ourselves?
Or take me for example: I'm an un-employed student who is living on savings, and I've got a lock-down on my finances that will carry me around for at least 8 months before I'm out to try and get a loan. But at the same time I'm running up and down the street to get a job as fast as I can. You won't hear me whining about not getting welfare. You'll hear me whining about how difficult it is to get a job (I thought it'd be easier to get a job in the city). I'm practically guaranteed work once I finish school, and even more so if I do well (more motivation to learn here).
I'm competing against the clock, and I know I'm going to win. I'll be in lock-down for awhile, so there's no fun and games until I'm out of the woods. Even then it'll be better for me to continue a lock-down until I have a cushion and stable footing when I'm out of school.
That probably won't help much if taxes are continually raised to cover government expenses. Right now the average tax rate for U.S. citizens is 25%. That's a whopping large amount of money when you consider that American citizens will work from January until mid-May to pay off taxes.
And in regards to government expenses: Far more money has been wasted on Beauracracy, whose sole purpose is self-perpetuation (and will commit an act to justify its' existence, like the ATF) than the trifle amount that has been spent on this war.
http://timchapmanblog.com/category/wasted-tax-dollars/
And the spending of money is, to a degree, a complete waste.
Israel has an average Tax Rate of 22% for the average citizen and she has done an excellent job defending her borders and thwarting terrorist acts, we're doing the same. So what is needed now is not the raising of taxes, but the elimination of Beauracracy, Red-Tape, and the silly notion that America will be safe once we're out of Iraq. We also need to stop pouring so much money into our Beauracracy and put that money to use elsewhere. And you're right, throwing money at the issue will not make it go away. This is why we should send hot lead in that direction instead.
If we're going to win, we need the right technniques, the right equipment, and the ability to do more to protect our borders. We've done an excellent job of conquering a nation with less than what we needed, but it doesn't work the same way when we try to occupy it. And as strange as it may sound to you, enacting a draft would be a good thing since we could clear our prisons, reinforce Iraq, and let the Veterans go home while the raucous teenagers learn how to respect their home country and other people for once. I will go if required, but I will not serve voluntarily until my issues with the government are resolved. As the situation goes currently, and as I have observed numerous times, Uncle Sam is NOT my friend.
Contrary to what you think, I'm not afraid of my own shadow. I may be young, but I have enough experience to hold my own. I'm not invincible, and I know I'm walking a tight-rope. But I'm also prepared to handle surprises. In fact, I would've been serving in Iraq right now had it not been for the fact that Social Security is breathing down my neck.
I also see no reason why I should serve a nation that would order me to war and simultaneously strip me of all my rights. I found it ironic that one would swear to protect, uphold, and preserve the constitution, and then be stripped of all the rights the constitution provides while in service. Lastly, why should I serve a nation that no longer wants me as an individual?
And yes, we DO need a standing army, or would you prefer another world war in which we take on Russias' stance where we're being rolled over until we can stop the enemy, build up our war machine and then fight back? Seeing how fast todays' armies can conquer a country I'd wager we'd be completely overrun before we would even have a chance to get the nation in full gear for another world war.
Besides, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Meaning it's easier to prevent a war with intimidation than to fight one out to the bitter end while at a disadvantage to begin with.
And no, the USMC are not supermen, but they're well-suited to the job they're doing. They're doing far better than the National Guard is in terms of casualty rates. And no, I don't expect Marines to strap explosives to themselves to blow up terrorists.......that's just a waste of money to train a man for a year to strap explosives on himself. It would be an even larger waste of money if we were to retreat from both Afghanistan and Iraq. These terrorists will not go away. There are 1 billion other Mohammedans to replace them.
IF we can instill governments that are capable of standing on their own feet and waging a war on their own without U.S. help, then we have succeeded. We will have created a warzone where the war will stay. All the dumb ones will go there to die, then we only have to look out for the smart ones that are gonna die.
In regards to Social Security: Why in the world did we ever start a program that was based off of an already-failed program in Germany? If it didn't work once, it doesn't mean it'll work the second time. So why don't we take care of our parents anymore?
Regarding Healthcare: Hospitals are in the money-making business now, there are few left that actually care about people. Doctors are sued out of existence for a single mistake, and interns are pushed FAR beyond what they should be while in the medical field. It is also collapsing because free services to Illegal Immigrants are clogging the system and taking priority over legal citizens unless they have health insurance (Health Insurance is by and far one of the largest acts of fraud that has been legalized. Health Insurance companies can legally deny you coverage if they think your bill isn't worth the money you'll pay to them).
Anything else you'd like to comment about? :D
SkvyWvr
09-08-06, 07:07 PM
You need to read "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" by Robert Kiyosaki.
He can give you some GOOD economical advice regarding finances. And I agree that neither the Republicans or the Democrats have performed well in this aspect.
However, it is my full and unadulterated belief that Welfare is a CRUTCH for the poor. It is easier to live off of a fixed income and keep the welfare, than to WORK and gain less financially and then lose the welfare because they're trying to support themselves.
And when they lose the welfare, they cry, whine and moan about their place instead of DOING something about it.
Ya ever wonder why the national Credit Card debt has skyrocketed, yet there are people who still depend on welfare? Or whenever the U.S. taxpayer gets their tax-refund back and then goes on a shopping spree or a vacation?
My father is deaf, he is BANNED from working full-time or earning above a certain amount of money unless he wants to risk losing his social security benefits. So the only solution my dad has is to find a teaching position that will outstrip the Social Security benefits. My dad is unemployed right now because American Sign language is STILL not considered a language (which is BS), so it isn't much of a motivation for students to take classes for a language that won't even count on their Credits!! Not only that, but a majority of the Universities/Colleges that my dad has applied to, all think they know how to teach Sign Language better than a deaf man!!
But surprise surprise. Because my dad worked while receiving Social Security Income, they're going back 13 years into our financial history and want our family to cough up 137,000 dollars. So now if Dad wants to work, he'll be stripped of all his money since it'll go to Social Security to pay off the debt, he's STUCK.
137,000 dollars. And ya know what? They say that I, now age 19, owe 37,000 of that. My sister owes 28,000, and she's 15 years old. So now my dad is FORCED to remain un-employed. Lovely, my family and I are already screwed over by the Government Beaureaucracy and I'm not even 30. Social security has already threatened to seize our property to make up the loss if we don't start paying them. Right now we're going through the legal nightmare of trying to fend off this unwarranted attack. Like I'm ever going to be a champion of welfare.
Thankfully, we like animals so my dad decided to start a business under my moms' name. My parents run a small dairy farm in Fort Hall Idaho. My mother makes cheese from Goats' milk, and my dad is in the process of raising a meat-goat herd, at this time we have approximately 36 goats on our farm. We don't have welfare, and right now my mom is the bread-winner while my dad is working on a long-term base of income for our family. Why don't others show the same innovation that we have in trying to support ourselves?
Or take me for example: I'm an un-employed student who is living on savings, and I've got a lock-down on my finances that will carry me around for at least 8 months before I'm out to try and get a loan. But at the same time I'm running up and down the street to get a job as fast as I can. You won't hear me whining about not getting welfare. You'll hear me whining about how difficult it is to get a job (I thought it'd be easier to get a job in the city). I'm practically guaranteed work once I finish school, and even more so if I do well (more motivation to learn here).
I'm competing against the clock, and I know I'm going to win. I'll be in lock-down for awhile, so there's no fun and games until I'm out of the woods. Even then it'll be better for me to continue a lock-down until I have a cushion and stable footing when I'm out of school.
That probably won't help much if taxes are continually raised to cover government expenses. Right now the average tax rate for U.S. citizens is 25%. That's a whopping large amount of money when you consider that American citizens will work from January until mid-May to pay off taxes.
And in regards to government expenses: Far more money has been wasted on Beauracracy, whose sole purpose is self-perpetuation (and will commit an act to justify its' existence, like the ATF) than the trifle amount that has been spent on this war.
http://timchapmanblog.com/category/wasted-tax-dollars/
And the spending of money is, to a degree, a complete waste.
Israel has an average Tax Rate of 22% for the average citizen and she has done an excellent job defending her borders and thwarting terrorist acts, we're doing the same. So what is needed now is not the raising of taxes, but the elimination of Beauracracy, Red-Tape, and the silly notion that America will be safe once we're out of Iraq. We also need to stop pouring so much money into our Beauracracy and put that money to use elsewhere. And you're right, throwing money at the issue will not make it go away. This is why we should send hot lead in that direction instead.
If we're going to win, we need the right technniques, the right equipment, and the ability to do more to protect our borders. We've done an excellent job of conquering a nation with less than what we needed, but it doesn't work the same way when we try to occupy it. And as strange as it may sound to you, enacting a draft would be a good thing since we could clear our prisons, reinforce Iraq, and let the Veterans go home while the raucous teenagers learn how to respect their home country and other people for once. I will go if required, but I will not serve voluntarily until my issues with the government are resolved. As the situation goes currently, and as I have observed numerous times, Uncle Sam is NOT my friend.
Contrary to what you think, I'm not afraid of my own shadow. I may be young, but I have enough experience to hold my own. I'm not invincible, and I know I'm walking a tight-rope. But I'm also prepared to handle surprises. In fact, I would've been serving in Iraq right now had it not been for the fact that Social Security is breathing down my neck.
I also see no reason why I should serve a nation that would order me to war and simultaneously strip me of all my rights. I found it ironic that one would swear to protect, uphold, and preserve the constitution, and then be stripped of all the rights the constitution provides while in service. Lastly, why should I serve a nation that no longer wants me as an individual?
And yes, we DO need a standing army, or would you prefer another world war in which we take on Russias' stance where we're being rolled over until we can stop the enemy, build up our war machine and then fight back? Seeing how fast todays' armies can conquer a country I'd wager we'd be completely overrun before we would even have a chance to get the nation in full gear for another world war.
Besides, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Meaning it's easier to prevent a war with intimidation than to fight one out to the bitter end while at a disadvantage to begin with.
And no, the USMC are not supermen, but they're well-suited to the job they're doing. They're doing far better than the National Guard is in terms of casualty rates. And no, I don't expect Marines to strap explosives to themselves to blow up terrorists.......that's just a waste of money to train a man for a year to strap explosives on himself. It would be an even larger waste of money if we were to retreat from both Afghanistan and Iraq. These terrorists will not go away. There are 1 billion other Mohammedans to replace them.
IF we can instill governments that are capable of standing on their own feet and waging a war on their own without U.S. help, then we have succeeded. We will have created a warzone where the war will stay. All the dumb ones will go there to die, then we only have to look out for the smart ones that are gonna die.
In regards to Social Security: Why in the world did we ever start a program that was based off of an already-failed program in Germany? If it didn't work once, it doesn't mean it'll work the second time. So why don't we take care of our parents anymore?
Regarding Healthcare: Hospitals are in the money-making business now, there are few left that actually care about people. Doctors are sued out of existence for a single mistake, and interns are pushed FAR beyond what they should be while in the medical field. It is also collapsing because free services to Illegal Immigrants are clogging the system and taking priority over legal citizens unless they have health insurance (Health Insurance is by and far one of the largest acts of fraud that has been legalized. Health Insurance companies can legally deny you coverage if they think your bill isn't worth the money you'll pay to them).
Anything else you'd like to comment about? :D
Hell no! I just want you to breath.:doh:
Sea Demon
09-08-06, 07:40 PM
Yes, it's difficult isn't it? But I find it interesting that those who critisize the Bush administration have no answers themselves. They do nothing but critisize and offer no alternatives short of full surrender. No Thanks. Funny that you didn't answer the questions. So whats it worth?
Because one doesn't have the answer doesn't make one blind, dumb or stupid. What isn't working isn't working.
News Flash:
It was just on the news that the NATO commander is asking for more troops and quickly for Afganistan. They are loosing towns to the Taliban. The candle is burning on both ends. Whats the answer?
Hmmm. OK I'll go back to your original post and answer your questions.
.......
OK, back
Are we dumba$$es or what?
Well, I usually don't like to resort to name calling as that is the lowest common denominator of debate. But I will say that it is very stupid to hamper your own nation in a time of war....since you and your kids have to live there. I think it's stupid to ignore threats and give terrorists time to flourish. I believe it's stupid to put politics ahead of the national security of your country.
While Bush in Crawford grilling steaks with his good ole boy's our guys will still be dying. Isn't that swell.
No, it's not swell that our guys are dying. But I thank them for their service and sacrifices. And I refuse to spit on their service. The thing is, I don't look at what they're doing as trivial as what you do.
On your last statement on this most recent of your posts (see above), The answer is to give them the resources to do the job. But I'm sure you would prefer unconditional surrender, eh?
SubSerpent
09-08-06, 08:16 PM
Yes, it's difficult isn't it? But I find it interesting that those who critisize the Bush administration have no answers themselves. They do nothing but critisize and offer no alternatives short of full surrender. No Thanks. Funny that you didn't answer the questions. So whats it worth?
Because one doesn't have the answer doesn't make one blind, dumb or stupid. What isn't working isn't working.
News Flash:
It was just on the news that the NATO commander is asking for more troops and quickly for Afganistan. They are loosing towns to the Taliban. The candle is burning on both ends. Whats the answer?
Hmmm. OK I'll go back to your original post and answer your questions.
.......
OK, back
Are we dumba$$es or what?
Well, I usually don't like to resort to name calling as that is the lowest common denominator of debate. But I will say that it is very stupid to hamper your own nation in a time of war....since you and your kids have to live there. I think it's stupid to ignore threats and give terrorists time to flourish. I believe it's stupid to put politics ahead of the national security of your country.
While Bush in Crawford grilling steaks with his good ole boy's our guys will still be dying. Isn't that swell.
No, it's not swell that our guys are dying. But I thank them for their service and sacrifices. And I refuse to spit on their service. The thing is, I don't look at what they're doing as trivial as what you do.
On your last statement on this most recent of your posts (see above), The answer is to give them the resources to do the job. But I'm sure you would prefer unconditional surrender, eh?
And I think it's "stupid" that people actually think that the US is capable of abolishing ALL terrorism from the world. Are we not going to leave Iraq until all forms of terrorism have been completely eradicated? There's even cyber terrorism...Does this mean that all website owners are "harboring" terrorist? Should G.W. send troops to Neals server to blow it up? Perhaps G.W. and his wasteful spending would rather do it with a $1,000,000.00 Tomahawk cruise missle instead just for the extra fireworks display that it would cause? Does this mean that Bill Gates is the head honcho since his operating systems tend to make up the bulk of the worlds Internet servers? Is there proof enough that Bill Gates means to take over the world with his operating systems just in the same manner that Osama Bin Laden means to do it with his bombs and guns?
The fact is terrorism comes in all different shapes and forms, and for Bush to say that he aint gonna leave Iraq until it's been completely destroyed means that the US is gonna be in Iraq for a pretty long damn while apparently. I like how someone else mentioned earlier that the Iraqis' didn't become terrorist until AFTER they had been invaded by American forces. That is the absolute truth!
This whole war is nothing more than another Whitehouse scandal pent up on nothing more than sheer rage against Iraqi people and Sadaam for disrespecting G.W. Bush's dad and threatening his life. Bush knew exactly what to do once Al Queda struck New York (and there's proof that Bush knew that the 9/11 attack was going to happen, yet he did nothing to try and stop it:hmm: ).
I'll bet Bush was thankful about 9/11. This was his BIG chance, his BIG break, to finish off Iraq once and for all. It was time for him to show daddy that he was now a man.
Just the fact that Bush new that 9/11 was or could happen and did nothing about it means that he commited a major derelicition of duty which in some cases is punishable by death. I know all those times that if I had fallen asleep on watch or did nothing to make my shipmates aware that the ship and their lives were in danger from an enemy I could be sentenced to death. It's in the UCMJ, and if the president is the "Commander and Chief" of the military he needs to be tried like every other service member that has done the same thing (dereliction of duty).
Why does the Captain of the USS Cole have to suffer for an enemy attack that happened on his watch, but not Bush? What a double standard in it's purest form. The Cole Captain lost 17 crewmen, Bush lost thousands. The leader of any platform is ALWAYS suppose to be the one to take the blame, ALWAYS! A Captain is suppose to go down with his crew. Bush let those people die on 9/11 and he had the power to try and prevent it, and didn't. He didn't even have an extra cop on duty that day just for minimal extra protection. That is why I can't ever believe a thing the man says, that is why I won't ever believe what the mans says. That is why I don't support him, and that is why I will never support him.
I hope and pray for a Democratic government once again in office. Hillary Clinton would be who I'd vote for! She's got more ballz than Bush and her husband combined!:rock:
Sea Demon
09-08-06, 08:53 PM
And I think it's "stupid" that people actually think that the US is capable of abolishing ALL terrorism from the world. Are we not going to leave Iraq until all forms of terrorism has been completely eradicated.
You're totally confused. Do you actually listen to what President Bush says, or do you just say what feels good to support your irrational hatred? President Bush has said that we will remain until Iraq is stable and is able to provide it's own security. I really don't think you liberal types are very good listeners.
There even cyber terrorism...Does this mean that all website owners are "harboring" terrorist. Should G.W. send troops to Neals server to blow it up. Perhaps G.W. and his wasteful spending would rather do it with a $1,000,000.00 Tomahawk cruise missle instead just for the extra fireworks display that it would cause? Does this mean that Bill Gates is the head honcho since his operating systems tend to make up the bulk of the worlds? Is the proof enough that Bill Gates means to take over the world with his operating systems just in the same manner that Osama Bin Laden means to do it with his bombs and guns?
OK. This sounds like a 12 year old fantasy.
The fact is terrorism comes in all different kinds of shapes and forms, and for Bush to say that he aint gonna leave Iraq until it's been completely destroyed means that the US is gonna be in Iraq for a pretty long damn while apparently. I like how someone else mentioned earlier that the Iraqis' didn't become terrorist until AFTER they had been invaded by American forces. That is the absolute truth!
You're correct. Terrorism is going to be around a long time. But yes, Bush is right, it must be confronted. And yeah, we might be in Iraq for a while. It would be nice if Democrats would join us in fighting terrorists rather than fighting against our own nation.
You do realize that many terrorists being killed or captured by U.S. troops in Iraq aren't even Iraqi nationals, right?
This whole war is nothing more than another Whitehouse scandal pent up on nothing more than sheer rage against Iraqi people and Sadaam for disrespecting G.W. Bush's dad and threatening his life. Bush knew exactly what to do once Al Queda struck New York (and there's proof that Bush knew that the 9/11 attack was going to happen, yet he did nothing to try and stop it:hmm: ).
I'll bet Bush was thankful about 9/11. This was his BIG chance, his BIG break, to finish off Iraq once and for all. It was time for him to show daddy that he was now a man.
Just the fact that Bush new that 9/11 was or could happen and did nothing about it means that he commited a major derelicition to duty which in some cases is punishable by death.
:lol: I love watching Democrats push this crap. Al Qaeda thanks you for working for their propaganda machine. I'm sure they'll give you a medal for it. :hmm:
:lol: I love watching Democrats push this crap. Al Qaeda thanks you for working for their propaganda machine. I'm sure they'll give you a medal for it. :hmm:
More to the point every time he posts one of these irrational diatrabes, it's like an advertisement to vote Republican.
SubSerpent
09-08-06, 09:02 PM
DEMOCRAT = :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up:
republican = :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down:
DEMOCRAT = :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up:
republican = :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down:
Say, you're not some Republican provocateur going around trying to make the Democrats look bad are you?
SubSerpent
09-08-06, 09:17 PM
Say, you're not some Republican provocateur going around trying to make the Democrats look bad are you?
provo... provoc... provoca..???...What's this mean! :doh:
SubSerpent
09-08-06, 09:31 PM
Do you really want to know the truth about me and what I am?
SubSerpent
09-08-06, 09:42 PM
Truth is that I'm not a Democrat, never was, never have been. I'm not a Republican either. I find them both to be equally worthless!
No Sir, I'm a free spirit Independant, which means I have a license to talk trash about both party's since mine never wins anyways! I hate politics and I hate political followers even more. My only government is God and that is the only Mac-Daddy that I'll ever vote for Homie!
Cheers,
SubSerpent ;)
nikimcbee
09-08-06, 09:53 PM
(Eats popcorn)
Looks like one-liners don't make much impact on the overall scale here (referring to PH).
Looks like y'all did it again. THOU HAST ACTIVATED: THE RANT!!!
Rant ON :hulk:
@ SubSerpent:
I'm surprised you don't understand the importance of maintaining a standing army that would be ready for war at a moment's notice. More so after you've been in the service. We need Marines because they're crazy (read: Stupid) enough, and have enough balls to seize a beach head so the army can come onboard. Besides, we won't be getting rid of the army or Marines until the Navy boats grow legs and can take care of the job for us.
Communism may be gone in the regards to the USSR , but there are plenty of other dangers that are present. Our military needs to be kept at it's peak, especially since the Chinese are continually building and re-organizing their war machine. The price of paying a few more dollars from our wallets to maintain a clean sharp edge is less costly than a war in which we are at a disadvantage.
What I do see as a wholesale waste of our tax dollars is when beauracracy starts eating it up by making up more red tape.
Ever wonder why we still have that ancient and burdensome tape when the Pentagon can produce far more advanced weaponry, in a shorter amount of time, and accompish it under budget with a "Black Project"?
Of course the Beauracracy is more than willing to pay $400 for a hammer, or $2,000 for a toilet seat.
And god forbid that we stop international aid to nations that are in every way imaginable HOSTILE to us. (Indonesia, Pakistan, etc.).
@ nobody in particular:
I have the perfect example of rule by the Democratic party: Kommiefornia (California), just slightly less Democratic than China.
Kommiefornia has passed some of the most restrictive laws I can think of. Particularly regarding firearms and ones' right to defend oneself.
It has gotten so bad that a majority of firearm/ammunition manufacturers have STOPPED providing services to the Police Departments there and REFUSE to service their firearms or sell them firearms and ammunition.
Why? Well, lets take a look.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/05/BAGOLFJMCD1.DTL&type=printable
http://www.hk94.com/hk/CA-DOJ-Banned-from-range-use-t15544.html
http://www.hk94.com/hk/FIREARMS-MICROSTAMPING-t16184.html
http://www.hk94.com/hk/AB-357-t15048.html
Currently, Glock is the ONLY firearms manufacturer that has a monopoly on sales of sidearms. Glock is considering of abandoning the Kommiefornia market with the recent bills AB-357 and AB-352 put on the list for a vote on the Senate floor. The bills are expected to pass.
Lovely, Democrats Control California, and we're disarmed and stripped of the right to defend ourselves. Sounds LOTS like Communism. It's nice when a heavily taxed state that can't even operate within their huge budget finds a way to waste even more forcibly collected funds.
But what happens when criminals start using revolvers or brass catchers? I guess they'll pass a new law to ban those too.
*UPDATE*
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71240
Oh well. I guess the LEOs' can kiss their Glocks goodbye, cuz I guarantee you that Glock is NOT going to go through with this.
My, now Democrats have succeeded in disarming their Law Enforcement Officers.
And two new bills have been drafted and are on the waiting list to be voted on..
SB 59 which criminalizes a firearms owner if their stolen firearm is used in a crime. Also tacked onto this, is the requirement that ALL thefts of stolen firearms are reported to the authorities.
AB-2714 Bans the purchase of ammunition by California residents via the Internet.
Well, we've successfully disarmed the populace. And the Seizure of the 9th Circuit was accomplished a while ago. So what's next?
http://www.rmgo.org/Gestapo/index.shtml
Oops!! I guess it's time to REALLY bring Communism to Kommiefornia. Time to play Big Brother!! (BTW, I live in Denver so this is sounding like a REAL FUN to me).
But criminals aren't going to turn in their guns, they're CRIMINALS!! SO what's the Democratic answer?
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/15447079.htm
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_racist.jpg
The following is a short timeline up to 1994 of various "Gun Control" laws passed here in the U.S.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html
These are SOME of the results of "Gun Control."
http://www.fightthebias.com/Resources/gundebate/history_of_gun_control.htm
Democrats don't play by the same rules as everyone else does:
Read the small blurb about her stance on "Gun Control."
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein
And this one about Chuck Schumer having an ARMED bodyguard.
http://www.americandaily.com/article/9405
WHY in the world would Democrats want to advocate Gun Control?
Oh wait, Gun Control = People Control.
At least with the Republicans in charge, the masses are fully armed and capable of overthrowing a corrupt government. Btw, both Fascism and Communism called themselves SOCIALISTS and championed for the rights of the people until they took absolute control.
And while this may be ONE issue regarding Democrats, this alone is enough to get me to make an about face and go anywhere but to them. I've also seen enough in all the other issues that the Democrats take positions on (ie. Welfare, the rights of private businesses, TAXES, National Security, U.S. sovreignty being subject to the U.N. etc.) to be convinced that Democrats WILL drive the United States into the ground and we will cease to be a sovereign and independent nation. I hope you like Baby Blue....or Red Stars (both have the same goal).
If you dispute the evidence presented, I suggest you read a couple of books entitled :"The Bias Against Guns," and "More Guns: Less Crime." Both are written by John R. Lott.:|\\
Rant OFF
(Continues to eat popcorn)
Can I have some popcorn?:up:
nikimcbee
09-08-06, 10:13 PM
Here's a tribute to our beloved bubba.:rock:
http://www.forces.org/humor/images/clinton2.jpg
http://www.infoimagination.org/ps/humor/images/arkansas_sign.jpg
http://www.humorgazette.com/images/pix-clinton-jfk.jpg
http://clinton-legacy.org/humor/farewell.jpg
http://clinton-legacy.org/humor/two_stains_cole.gif
http://clinton-legacy.org/humor/fantasticnews.jpg
http://clinton-legacy.org/humor/clintonopoly_jm012601.jpg
http://clinton-legacy.org/humor/pardon_quid_pro_quo_kal.gif
http://clinton-legacy.org/humor/bungee_dumping_matson.gif
http://clinton-legacy.org/humor/2001-02-19-toons.jpg
http://clinton-legacy.org/humor/it_takes_a_village.gif
http://clinton-legacy.org/humor/hillary_gm010223.gif
http://www.iwon.com/home/entertainment/celeb/page_six_article/0,13907,11_18_2000_1,00.html
http://clinton-legacy.org/humor/double_checked_the_spelling_ohman.gif
:cry:
bradclark1
09-08-06, 10:30 PM
But I will say that it is very stupid to hamper your own nation in a time of war....
Well, I usually don't like to resort to name calling as that is the lowest common denominator of debate but besides that what hampering are you going on about?
....since you and your kids have to live there.
You've lost me here.
I think it's stupid to ignore threats and give terrorists time to flourish.
What threats? No terrorists were in Iraq when we attacked.
Time to flourish where? If you're talking about Iraq there was no terror there until we liberated them.
Now if we went after Syria or Iran you would be within the bounds of going after terrorism but that still would have been a not smart move because we were supposed to be dealing with Afganistan.
I believe it's stupid to put politics ahead of the national security of your country.
I'm in total agreement. Don't mistake what I say as politics. We did the right thing by going after Afganistan. One country, go in full force and deal with it. It turned into gross stupidity when we attacked another nation without finishing what we went in for in the first place. Now the primary objective is secondary in support. If you can see sense in that please enlighten me.
No, it's not swell that our guys are dying. But I thank them for their service and sacrifices. And I refuse to spit on their service. The thing is, I don't look at what they're doing as trivial as what you do.
Don't come that with me. You can't name one time where I have spit on or trivialized what the military is doing.
On your last statement on this most recent of your posts (see above), The answer is to give them the resources to do the job.
What resources do they need? Thats all you can say and it means nothing. What is their that we can give them to acomplish the mission?
But I'm sure you would prefer unconditional surrender, eh?
What it is is that I don't think our troops lives are cheap like you do. You think all it takes is to keep feeding troops and equipment. Thats a little shallow in thinking.
"Unconditional surrender, eh?" Like I said I don't have an answer for Iraq but I know we are in a mess and I'll voice it. I'm not a political head bobber like you and I'll question when I think lives are being wasted. What isn't working isn't working.
Also you still haven't given a answer, just rhetoric.
Sea Demon
09-08-06, 11:16 PM
what hampering are you going on about?
Oh I don't know, opposing the very policies that are designed to catch domestic terrorists. Such as wire-tapping, the Patriot Act, etc. That hampers our ability to catch these murderers before they attack. Oh and how about stop hampering us by calling for constitutional rights for enemy terrorist combatants. That doesn't help us. How about stop hampering us by calling for the pre-9/11 walls in intelligence agency information sharing that was the hallmark of the Clinton administration. Remember Jamie Gorelick? Need more?....
What threats? No terrorists were in Iraq when we attacked.
Time to flourish where? If you're talking about Iraq there was no terror there until we liberated them.
I think there are Kurds, Shia, and people in Israel who would disagree with you. And you simply know nothing of Salman Pak. Nor have you read any of the Iraq War resolution.
Now if we went after Syria or Iran you would be within the bounds of going after terrorism but that still would have been a not smart move because we were supposed to be dealing with Afganistan.
All I can say is thank God you people are not in power. You don't even understand what terrorism is. What differentiates Iran from Iraq when comparing them as terrorist states?
I'm in total agreement. Don't mistake what I say as politics. We did the right thing by going after Afganistan. One country, go in full force and deal with it. It turned into gross stupidity when we attacked another nation without finishing what we went in for in the first place. Now the primary objective is secondary in support.
You don't understand the war, or the enemy we fight.
Don't come that with me. You can't name one time where I have spit on or trivialized what the military is doing.
Fair enough on point one. However, pushing BS rhetoric like "Bush is in Iraq to steal their oil", especially with no evidence to back it up, does trivialize what they are doing.
What resources do they need? Thats all you can say and it means nothing. What is their that we can give them to acomplish the mission?
I don't personally know exactly. I'm not making the assessments. And I'm not personally there myself. But we hired Bush to do a job. And he has people working these issues. Let's stop the whining and allow them to do their jobs, shall we?
What it is is that I don't think our troops lives are cheap like you do. You think all it takes is to keep feeding troops and equipment. Thats a little shallow in thinking.
Not at all. In fact I've been a service member. Both enlisted and an officer. I honor their service. And I also know that at some point in your military service, you may get the call. You seem to think American life is cheap because you refuse to support those that will actually take action to protect it.
"Unconditional surrender, eh?" Like I said I don't have an answer for Iraq but I know we are in a mess and I'll voice it. I'm not a political head bobber like you and I'll question when I think lives are being wasted. What isn't working isn't working.
Also you still haven't given a answer, just rhetoric.
That's fine. You're free to your opinion. But you are indeed a political head bobber. Because ultimately, you have no idea what it's like on the ground in Iraq. I have two friends who were actually there in the last few months. I went to one guys wedding in St. Louis not too long ago. All he told me was don't believe everything you read in the newspapers. He said it's challenging but not a lost cause. And he volunteered to go back. hmmmmm :hmm: Who do I believe.....Bradclark1 who sits in his cozy little digs in Connecticut reading his latest copy of the New Yorker magazine.....or my buddy Chris who has actually been there twice now???
nikimcbee
09-09-06, 12:12 AM
OMG, how did I leave this out:damn:
http://www.thoseshirts.com/anti-hillary-shirts.html
http://www.thoseshirts.com/anticheshirts.html
http://www.thoseshirts.com/patrioticshirts.html
http://www.thoseshirts.com/gunshirts.html
http://www.thoseshirts.com/cat.html
http://www.thoseshirts.com/donkey.html
http://folk.ntnu.no/makarov/temporary_url_20060509kctqm/anthem-sovietunion-1943.mp3
Truth is that I'm not a Democrat, never was, never have been. I'm not a Republican either. I find them both to be equally worthless!
No Sir, I'm a free spirit Independant, which means I have a license to talk trash about both party's since mine never wins anyways! I hate politics and I hate political followers even more. My only government is God and that is the only Mac-Daddy that I'll ever vote for Homie!
Cheers,
SubSerpent ;)
The law is a light and people in service of the people are in an honorable profession worthy of more than your belittlement no matter what party they are from.God let's it rain on the evil and good alike.Who are you to instruct a king or give consul to.The weeds have been allowed to grow with the wheat until the time of the harvest, then the good master of the house will seperate the wheat from the chaff.Vanity of vanity ALL is vanity.Fear God and keep his commandments for this is your whole duty....look at your key word above..."I Hate"...don't be a hater..Fear God and stand in AWE...Be thankful.
Your only Government is God?...God himself says to respect the authority.
Lay off the weed dude lol.
scandium
09-09-06, 07:01 AM
I think, broadly speaking, there are only 3 kinds of Republicans (or in Canada we call them Conservatives, but same thing), and though there may be some overlap among the 3 groups its only the first one that benefits by their party's policies (and by that I mean by what they actually do once in office, and not the stuff they talk about doing or promise to do but know they can't achieve but can blame that on the Democrats). They are:
1. The rich and the very wealthy. This is not the family of 5 living on a single 150K/year income where the sole wage earner, or wage earners, are not only providing for their family but paying off big student debts, mortgages, etc and thereby likely carrying a debt load 3 to 4x higher than their annual income and for all intents and purposes practically living paycheque to paycheque; so rather these are the modern middle class, or what's left of it. The rich/wealthy are those with enough disposable income that they need not be concerned with debt, but can devote their resources to maximizing investments rather than paying off debt or using it as colateral. In another age, this would be the merchant/aristocratic class but while many, but not all, are of the 'leasure class', what they all have in common is that they have no use for any kind of social programs. Natural parks? They have no need of them, being able to spend their vacation time in more exotic locations. Community youth programs and such? Those are for "other people", these people live in their own communities that are inhabited exclusively by others of the same class. Public education? Again, these people have no use for that - their children, if they decide to have any, will attent exclusive private schools.
In other words, the rich/wealthy live in a world shared by very few of us. They are not even 15% of the electorate but they are the ones who benefit the most from Republican policies, since the tax cuts they receive are the largest ones while the programs that are cut to fund them are programs they don't use and will never have any need of. Republicans, to this group, is literally money in the bank to them.
2. The religious right and others who vote largely based on exclusivie wedge issues that the Republican party can almost never deliver, but always use to get this group of voters into the voting both. Though a few of these people might also belong to group #1, most of them are average wage earners or earning a lot less (and some of them are not "earning" anything but instead are retired, disabled, or even on welfare). Unlike group 1, fiscal policy is of little to no interest to this group and many of them are even directly harmed by Republican fiscal policies but they are motivated to vote by Republican social ideology (yes, ideology and not policy since the ideology is rarely transformed into policy - if it was this group would no longer be so easily motivated to the voting both).
3. Ditto heads. These are people who know very little about economics, and who, even though they have been sold a bill of goods by the Republican party that is completely at odds with reality, will check the (R) everytime. They have no interest in reality, having been sold an alternative version that is more appealing to them by one or more of Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or any one of the many other right wing shills who get the weekly talking points memo from the RNC and who, aside from being part of group #1, have mastered the art of getting the other 36%+ of the electorate need to sell out their own interests in favour of a (R) win to further fatten increase these talking heads' wealth and make a big profit in the meantime. The ditto heads believe that the US is actually winning the war in Iraq, that things are just swell in Afghanistan, that it no longer matters that Bin Laden still hasn't been caught, that the fact that the price of oil has tripled in the last three years has absolutely nothing to do with the republican executive branch (many of whom are former oil executives) and their (R) minions in congress and the senate, that climate change is still only a theory, that Americans would be speaking Farsi or Arabic if the Democrats were in power, etc.
Anyway that's enough for one post, spelling mistakes and all.
[Edit] I would automatically lump any "Independents" into group 3; most of the talking heads who push the RNC talking points are also "Independents", which is a very nice and disengenous way of pushing Republican ideology while being able to absurdly claim that you are above it, or "impartial", etc which is all just so much transparent BS to the rest of us. You may have convinced yourself, after voting for GWB twice and listening to Rush everyday, that you are an "Independent" but the rest of really aren't stupid enough to believe you.
Takeda Shingen
09-09-06, 07:12 AM
I think, broadly speaking, there are only 3 kinds of Republicans (or in Canada we call them Conservatives, but same thing), and though there may be some overlap among the 3 groups its only the first one that benefits by their party's policies (and by that I mean by what they actually do once in office, and not the stuff they talk about doing or promise to do but know they can't achieve but can blame that on the Democrats). They are:
1. The rich and the very wealthy. This is not the family of 5 living on a single 150K/year income where the sole wage earner, or wage earners, are not only providing for their family but paying off big student debts, mortgages, etc and thereby likely carrying a debt load 3 to 4x higher than their annual income and for all intents and purposes practically living paycheque to paycheque; so rather these are the modern middle class, or what's left of it. The rich/wealthy are those with enough disposable income that they need not be concerned with debt, but can devote their resources to maximizing investments rather than paying off debt or using it as colateral. In another age, this would be the merchant/aristocratic class but while many, but not all, are of the 'leasure class', what they all have in common is that they have no use for any kind of social programs. Natural parks? They have no need of them, being able to spend their vacation time in more exotic locations. Community youth programs and such? Those are for "other people", these people live in their own communities that are inhabited exclusively by others of the same class. Public education? Again, these people have no use for that - their children, if they decide to have any, will attent exclusive private schools.
In other words, the rich/wealthy live in a world shared by very few of us. They are not even 15% of the electorate but they are the ones who benefit the most from Republican policies, since the tax cuts they receive are the largest ones while the programs that are cut to fund them are programs they don't use and will never have any need of. Republicans, to this group, is literally money in the bank to them.
2. The religious right and others who vote largely based on exclusivie wedge issues that the Republican party can almost never deliver, but always use to get this group of voters into the voting both. Though a few of these people might also belong to group #1, most of them are average wage earners or earning a lot less (and some of them are not "earning" anything but instead are retired, disabled, or even on welfare). Unlike group 1, fiscal policy is of little to no interest to this group and many of them are even directly harmed by Republican fiscal policies but they are motivated to vote by Republican social ideology (yes, ideology and not policy since the ideology is rarely transformed into policy - if it was this group would no longer be so easily motivated to the voting both).
3. Ditto heads. These are people who know very little about economics, and who, even though they have been sold a bill of goods by the Republican party that is completely at odds with reality, will check the (R) everytime. They have no interest in reality, having been sold an alternative version that is more appealing to them by one or more of Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or any one of the many other right wing shills who get the weekly talking points memo from the RNC and who, aside from being part of group #1, have mastered the art of getting the other 36%+ of the electorate need to sell out their own interests in favour of a (R) win to further fatten increase these talking heads' wealth and make a big profit in the meantime. The ditto heads believe that the US is actually winning the war in Iraq, that things are just swell in Afghanistan, that it no longer matters that Bin Laden still hasn't been caught, that the fact that the price of oil has tripled in the last three years has absolutely nothing to do with the republican executive branch (many of whom are former oil executives) and their (R) minions in congress and the senate, that climate change is still only a theory, that Americans would be speaking Farsi or Arabic if the Democrats were in power, etc.
Anyway that's enough for one post, spelling mistakes and all.
I am impressed. This is very perceptive for a person that does not live in the United States. Despite what you are about to be told by the resident proponents of the Right, this is completely true. Comparisons can also be made for the politics of the Left. The result is the stagnation of government. The Right will blame the Left for this. The Left will, in turn, blame the Right. However, the truth is that it is the monopoly of the two-party system is to blame. Americans vote the politics of the Democrats and Republicans in and out of power as a revolving door, and until Americans are willing to realize that these are the politics of failure, we will not see a change.
SkvyWvr
09-09-06, 08:10 AM
OMG, how did I leave this out:damn:
http://www.thoseshirts.com/anti-hillary-shirts.html
http://www.thoseshirts.com/anticheshirts.html
http://www.thoseshirts.com/patrioticshirts.html
http://www.thoseshirts.com/gunshirts.html
http://www.thoseshirts.com/cat.html
http://www.thoseshirts.com/donkey.html
http://folk.ntnu.no/makarov/temporary_url_20060509kctqm/anthem-sovietunion-1943.mp3
I've just ordered 2 of those cat t-shirts and am thinking of sending one to SubSerpent:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
scandium
09-09-06, 08:40 AM
I am impressed. This is very perceptive for a person that does not live in the United States. Despite what you are about to be told by the resident proponents of the Right, this is completely true. Comparisons can also be made for the politics of the Left. The result is the stagnation of government. The Right will blame the Left for this. The Left will, in turn, blame the Right. However, the truth is that it is the monopoly of the two-party system is to blame. Americans vote the politics of the Democrats and Republicans in and out of power as a revolving door, and until Americans are willing to realize that these are the politics of failure, we will not see a change.
Things have changed so much in the U.S. over the last 6 years (and maybe even before that, since the ideologues who are either running the show on stage or behind the scenes were still very active politically while Clinton was in office and very sucessfully used the Lewinsky scandal to sow the seeds of deviseness that is now rampant today in US politics) that even many of us north of the border can see the changes if we bother to look at all (and many of us either don't look, don't care, or in some cases, even like what we see as there are Canadians who would love to see our country resemble much more closely the US).
It is to the point now, the devisive politics which breed a kind of 'fanatacism' about them (which is evident in the ever shrinking 'swing vote'), that its invaded American popular culture which Canadians are big consumers of (much more so than any other country in the world). We see it now not only in your news, but also in ordinary TV shows (which make up a substantial portion of our television programming), movies, music, and even popular literature. I was shocked at the political bias that was so evident in two of the recent American novels I'd read, both thrillers, that overtly had nothing to do with US politics but which both novelists (one left-wing, one right-wing) had managed to inject into the novels through the language they used, the characters and events and the way they depicted them, etc.
Aside from that, I also worked for 18 months, prior to my current job, with a U.S. company here in Canada where I provided tech support to its American internet subscribers (this is part of the US "outsourcing" that has been occuring since Free Trade and NAFTA, where the low tech low paying work is being done by sweat shops in Mexico and elsewhere while the former middle class, median wage higher tech jobs are outsourced to Canada, India, and elsewhere). Anyway, even though my job had nothing to do with politics, in the course of over 10,000 calls - many of them between 20 minutes to an hour or more - there is a lot of "dead time" on the call where small talk is essential and where it was often easy to nudge the caller into the political realm, as I'd prefer to hear their views on that (whether they were right-wing or left-wing) than discuss how the Boston Redsox were doing or how windy it was in Chicago; this was particularly easy during the run-up to the 2004 election and its aftermath. So you listen to enough people from all kinds of backgrounds and over the course of a year and a half, while keeping up on the news and coming from sociological/economics background in University, you get a good feel for the political climate down south...
One of my most memorable calls was from a black Vietnam veteran who was wounded over there and has been living on his VA disability ever since. I'd fixed his problem in about 5 or 10 minutes but let the conversation run on at least another half hour as he vented about how f*cked over he felt by the current government of the country he'd put his life on the line for and been maimed in the process. It was mostly memorable because the guy still had his sense of humour and wasn't only passionate, and dead on I thought about everything we talked about, but could make you laugh even while discussing some pretty bleak stuff. Anyway, that is kind of off topic but being Canadian and very openly anti-Bush I get a lot of "you hate the US/you hate Americans" which is kind of absurd when you consider that if it were true then there's no way I could have worked at one of the most stressfull/highest rates of burnout occupations for so long and while working supposedly for and with people "I hate" when I could have taken a job with a Canadian company, dealing with Canadian customers for the same pay at any time... which is what I eventually did do, but only because the job had lost any challenge (become too monotous) while at the same time I'd had enough of management and their asinine policies and office politics (but I have no preference for American or Canadian clients, and treat them no differently, since at the end of the day its all the same paycheck no matter who you work for or work with).
bradclark1
09-09-06, 01:07 PM
Remember Jamie Gorelick? Need more?....
Just read up on her. Yep, that was pretty stupid. I wonder why Bush didn't dismantle it when he came into office.
I think there are Kurds, Shia, and people in Israel who would disagree with you. And you simply know nothing of Salman Pak. Nor have you read any of the Iraq War resolution.
What, this bit you mean; "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq". I think thats been proven false.
Salman Pak:
According to Iraqi defectors and U.S. intelligence analysts, this is where Hussein's agents polished the air-piracy skills of foreign Islamist terrorists.
Details on this facility and its al Qaeda ties recently emerged in a Manhattan federal courtroom. Former CIA Director James Woolsey and Iraq scholar Laurie Mylroie offered sworn expert testimony in a largely overlooked lawsuit filed by the families of two people killed on 9/11. They are suing Iraq's government, among other rogue entities and individuals, for allegedly helping to murder their loved ones.
Salman Pak was found empty and unused(of bio weapons) wasn't it.
I may be wrong here but didn't we find evidence of only one small terrorist organization and this one had never been heard of then or now nor had they actually performed any terror acts.
All I can say is thank God you people are not in power. You don't even understand what terrorism is. What differentiates Iran from Iraq when comparing them as terrorist states?
Please explain what "you people" is. I'm just me. Who are you tieing me up with.
The difference is that Iran has been proven to support terrorism. Syria has been proven to support terrorism. Why haven't we attacked them yet. The answer you are going to come with is the reason we shouldn't have attacked Iraq.
I think I understand terrorism pretty well. I think I also understand the basic rules of war as in;
Don't split your force.
Don't fight on more than one front.
Use overwhelming force.
You obviously don't understand the basic's.
You don't understand the war, or the enemy we fight.
I believe you are in that category. With your way of thinking we should be in Iran, Syria, and Korea as well. Why aren't we. Again the answer you are going to come with is the reason we shouldn't have attacked Iraq let alone the massive intelligence failures in regards to Iraq.
But we hired Bush to do a job. And he has people working these issues.
Yes he does. They seem to have failed from the get go.
Not at all. In fact I've been a service member. Both enlisted and an officer. I honor their service. And I also know that at some point in your military service, you may get the call. You seem to think American life is cheap because you refuse to support those that will actually take action to protect it.
I spent eighteen and one half years in the army I've have a little more experience in honor and service.
I support our troops but I don't support the keep feeding men and equipment mentality. What inroads have we made there in say the last year or so for instance. I expect a blank reply here with the exception of cancelation of some units rotation sback to the states in order supply a larger force.
That's fine. You're free to your opinion. But you are indeed a political head bobber. Because ultimately, you have no idea what it's like on the ground in Iraq. I have two friends who were actually there in the last few months. I went to one guys wedding in St. Louis not too long ago. All he told me was don't believe everything you read in the newspapers. He said it's challenging but not a lost cause. And he volunteered to go back. hmmmmm Who do I believe.....Bradclark1 who sits in his cozy little digs in Connecticut reading his latest copy of the New Yorker magazine.....or my buddy Chris who has actually been there twice now???
I had a friend in Iraq also. He was Coast Guard. About a eighteen month's ago he was killed when he and two others boarded a boat that happened to be laden with explosives. A suicide bomber.
That incident has no bearing on my opinion however.
Don't know the New Yorker. Never read it. Yes we are both in our cozy little digs aren't we. Where was your friend stationed in Iraq?
Ultimately, you have no idea what it's like on the ground in Iraq also. You have heard from a friend who was knows of where he was at while in Iraq. I'm talking overall.
A brief summation;
I support the war on terror.
I support the invasion of Afganistan.
I support the use of overwelming force.
I believe invading Iraq was a gross mistake and has made the situation worse, not better.
I believe Sadamm was a bad guy but you don't invade countries because of a corrupt goverment. We don't have that right. We use that as a gage and we will be attacking over half the world.
Sea Demon
09-09-06, 03:31 PM
Just read up on her. Yep, that was pretty stupid. I wonder why Bush didn't dismantle it when he came into office............
I think I understand terrorism pretty well. I think I also understand the basic rules of war as in;
Don't split your force.
Don't fight on more than one front.
Use overwhelming force.
You obviously don't understand the basic's................
Ultimately, you have no idea what it's like on the ground in Iraq also. You have heard from a friend who was knows of where he was at while in Iraq. I'm talking overall.
A brief summation;
I support the war on terror.
I support the invasion of Afganistan.
I support the use of overwelming force.
I believe invading Iraq was a gross mistake and has made the situation worse, not better.
I believe Sadamm was a bad guy but you don't invade countries because of a corrupt goverment. We don't have that right. We use that as a gage and we will be attacking over half the world.
I was going to repond to you in entirety, but I'm sick of this thread.
Bush did dismantle the walls built by the Clinton administration in intelligence information sharing. And the Democrats screamed bloody murder over it when it was done.
And your basic premise of war fighting may be correct in some ways, but you would have lost WW2 applying them on a global warfighting scale. Tell Roosevelt he shouldn't have fought on multiple fronts or he shouldn't split his forces between Atlantic or Pacific. And while I believe we should use overwhelming force, it would help if the Democrats would shut up when we do it, and not become Al Qaeda's domestic propaganda machine. Your general basics of war do not apply with the type of enemy we now confront. And the leftists in the USA make it very difficult to use any force at all.
If you support the war on terror and Afghanistan, and you support the use of overwhelming force, why are you so opposed to President Bush? Just because you don't support our actions in Iraq? OK, you are against the Iraq war, fine. But you have not read the resolution. And it shows with your statement regarding Saddam being a bad guy, and thinking that's why we went there.
Oh yeah, and one more thing, Al Qaeda was in Iraq pre-invasion. What was proven not to be true was a link of Saddam to 9/11 nor was there an absolute establishment of a working relationship. But yes, in Salman Pak, there was terrorist manuals, evidence of a hijacking training program, and Saddam was actively financing terrorists in the West Bank. And Saddam had been actively using his military forces against Kurdish civilians. That sir, can be called a terrorist supporting state by any measure.
bradclark1
09-09-06, 04:19 PM
By your definition we should be using the military to go after Pet and Eco Activist's in this country. By your definition we should be in;
Cuba
Iran
Iraq
North Korea
Sudan
SyriaNot to mention we should also be in Israel for the Palistinions and in Lebanon for Hezbolla(?). Maybe we should lump Turkey in there to if you want because they are fighting the Kurds.
In WWII we fought on multiple fronts because we had to. We didn't start it. Hitler opened up two fronts against the advice of his generals and look what happened. We did however start Iraq. You weaken yourself as is proven today in Afganistan and Iraq. If we had the forces and money in Afganistan that we have used in Iraq their would be no Taliban, and probably no Al Qaeda and democracy would safely grow and that region could be an anchor. Instead we are piece mealing ourselves out and accomplishing nothing but holding on.
I suggest you reread the resolution and gleam fact from what turned out to be fiction and I'll say it again, what was going on in Iraq was bad or evil, whatever word you want to use but did not warrant invasion. We can't go around the world invading for every wrong.
I thought Al Qaeda had Sadamm as a target. Funny they would be chummy don't you think.
But yes, this thread is getting tiresome. You'll crow the republican line right or wrong.
I read in todays paper that republicans are starting to change and call for an exit strategy. Gee, nothing like an election to change politicians reasoning. It's disgusting.
Sailor Steve
09-09-06, 05:04 PM
I think, broadly speaking, there are only 3 kinds of Republicans...
Well, you're wrong on both counts:
1) No, there are many kinds of everything, and
2) No, you don't think.
I'm not a Republican, but I do tend to be more conservative than liberal. That said, I've been accused of being both due to my opinions on various subjects. I know many extremely intelligent people who listen to Rush Limbaugh (he is quite witty, after all); not so many of them like Hannity or Coulter.
You, on the other hand, usually come across as just as opinionated and lock-stepped as the people you like to point fingers at. I don't see you as any more open-minded or thoughtful in your arguments than some of the people on the "other side of the fence". You seem to already know that you are right and those who disagree with you are wrong, misguided, lying or just plain stupid. Of course that's true of a lot of conservatives as well.
I myself try to see all sides of situations and leave myself open to reasonable debate.
Konovalov
09-09-06, 05:53 PM
Oh yeah, and one more thing, Al Qaeda was in Iraq pre-invasion. What was proven not to be true was a link of Saddam to 9/11 nor was there an absolute establishment of a working relationship. But yes, in Salman Pak, there was terrorist manuals, evidence of a hijacking training program, and Saddam was actively financing terrorists in the West Bank. And Saddam had been actively using his military forces against Kurdish civilians. That sir, can be called a terrorist supporting state by any measure.
Oh sh*t, Al Qaeda was in Iraq really?
The ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were about as strong as balsa wood. No doubt you must have heard about the declassified report released on Friday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
From the 151 page report:
'No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Laden,'
and
'that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qaeda.'
and finally this
"Post-war findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida for material or operational support,"
Go read the report for more detail.
Another article here: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/450876p-379418c.html
Where is that crackpot Laurie Myrolie when you need her with her wacky theories that Saddam helped plan and fund 9/11 and other trippy LSD style type theories that she paraded in the media to strengthen the case for invading Iraq during the lead up.
Invading Iraq was the wrong war. Now we face the possibility of Iraq becomming another Afghanistan style haven/training ground for global terrorists (Al Qaeda), meanwhile Iran feels like it is on a role, and back in the States despite the massive policy failures and cockups following the conventional war victory in Iraq it is all going t*its up and not one sorry ass politician or beauracrat has been sacked. Accountability.....what's that?
Bradclark1 has it spot on.
nikimcbee
09-09-06, 10:04 PM
OMG, how did I leave this out:damn:
http://www.thoseshirts.com/anti-hillary-shirts.html
http://www.thoseshirts.com/anticheshirts.html
http://www.thoseshirts.com/patrioticshirts.html
http://www.thoseshirts.com/gunshirts.html
http://www.thoseshirts.com/cat.html
http://www.thoseshirts.com/donkey.html
http://folk.ntnu.no/makarov/temporary_url_20060509kctqm/anthem-sovietunion-1943.mp3
I've just ordered 2 of those cat t-shirts and am thinking of sending one to SubSerpent:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
You da man!:sunny:
Onkel Neal
09-09-06, 11:07 PM
.
Invading Iraq was the wrong war. Now we face the possibility of Iraq becomming another Afghanistan style haven/training ground for global terrorists (Al Qaeda), meanwhile Iran feels like it is on a role, and back in the States despite the massive policy failures and cockups following the conventional war victory in Iraq it is all going t*its up and not one sorry ass politician or beauracrat has been sacked. Accountability.....what's that?
Yeah, but now we are in prime position to invade Iran from the east and west. Poof! No more Iranian nuclear program.
.
Invading Iraq was the wrong war. Now we face the possibility of Iraq becomming another Afghanistan style haven/training ground for global terrorists (Al Qaeda), meanwhile Iran feels like it is on a role, and back in the States despite the massive policy failures and cockups following the conventional war victory in Iraq it is all going t*its up and not one sorry ass politician or beauracrat has been sacked. Accountability.....what's that?
Yeah, but now we are in prime position to invade Iran from the east and west. Poof! No more Iranian nuclear program.
Exactly...why as someone above said..must one "Wait" until one is attacked and innocent die?...Why?....I only speak hypothetical but to me it is utter non-sense to Wait....it is also a waste of lives to me having ground soldiers in there...some say you always need this..well maybe I think..to patrol the outskirts of the Nuclear blast area...I'm serious the crime should be in sending soldiers in...first dimplomacy...then break out the bigger stuff and level some cites...why is it wrong to do it in one fell swoop losing none of your own troops...killing the same amount you would over a period of time.It is simple math to me and it seems eventually push comes to shove the bigger dogs will flex more of that muscle maybe.You KNOW if Iran aquires a Bomb...they will use it you know it, and if not will you gamble that they won't? If I was Israel I would not....I only wish America had the ballz to stand up for what is right.And yes by that logic Korea,Syria, Cuba and whatever other ding dongs rocking the boat should be put down so the world could get on with solving it's real problems like feeding the straving, curing disease, and maybe figuring out how to colonize the other planets etc.....
Alas this is a hypothetical..but if the Anciant Roman mentality ever kicks back in...watch out....it won't be Sunday night football...it will be Sunday night throwing terrorist wannabes into the lions pit.....
PS...God I pray I am not here to see this ever happen. :)
SkvyWvr
09-10-06, 07:46 AM
.
Invading Iraq was the wrong war. Now we face the possibility of Iraq becomming another Afghanistan style haven/training ground for global terrorists (Al Qaeda), meanwhile Iran feels like it is on a role, and back in the States despite the massive policy failures and cockups following the conventional war victory in Iraq it is all going t*its up and not one sorry ass politician or beauracrat has been sacked. Accountability.....what's that?
Yeah, but now we are in prime position to invade Iran from the east and west. Poof! No more Iranian nuclear program.
Exactly...why as someone above said..must one "Wait" until one is attacked and innocent die?...Why?....I only speak hypothetical but to me it is utter non-sense to Wait....it is also a waste of lives to me having ground soldiers in there...some say you always need this..well maybe I think..to patrol the outskirts of the Nuclear blast area...I'm serious the crime should be in sending soldiers in...first dimplomacy...then break out the bigger stuff and level some cites...why is it wrong to do it in one fell swoop losing none of your own troops...killing the same amount you would over a period of time.It is simple math to me and it seems eventually push comes to shove the bigger dogs will flex more of that muscle maybe.You KNOW if Iran aquires a Bomb...they will use it you know it, and if not will you gamble that they won't? If I was Israel I would not....I only wish America had the ballz to stand up for what is right.And yes by that logic Korea,Syria, Cuba and whatever other ding dongs rocking the boat should be put down so the world could get on with solving it's real problems like feeding the straving, curing disease, and maybe figuring out how to colonize the other planets etc.....
Alas this is a hypothetical..but if the Anciant Roman mentality ever kicks back in...watch out....it won't be Sunday night football...it will be Sunday night throwing terrorist wannabes into the lions pit.....
PS...God I pray I am not here to see this ever happen. :)
Buy the man a beer on me. :()1: Hit them hard, hit them fast, hit them now!!!
scandium
09-10-06, 11:04 AM
I think, broadly speaking, there are only 3 kinds of Republicans... Well, you're wrong on both counts:
1) No, there are many kinds of everything, and
There are 3 kinds of republicans. As I said, there is overlap among the categories and each category could even be broken down into further sub categories, but I didn't have the time or the inclination to further elaborate on what I'd already written in what was already a lengthy post.
2) No, you don't think.
Hit a nerve did I?
I'm not a Republican, but I do tend to be more conservative than liberal. That said, I've been accused of being both due to my opinions on various subjects. I know many extremely intelligent people who listen to Rush Limbaugh (he is quite witty, after all); not so many of them like Hannity or Coulter.
Based on what you've written here and elsewhere I would put you squarely in the "dittohead" category. Why? Because based on your personal info you obviously don't fit category #1, being not even close to the socioeconomic class that defines that category, and which is the only class that benefits from republican policies.
I also get the feeling you don't vote based on whatever candidate Pat Robertson endorses, or based exclusively on any of the usual wedge issues that republicans bring up around election time to get out the category 2 vote (gay marriage, flag burning, immigration, abortion) even if you happen to agree with their positions, its not enough to get out your vote.
However you fit category 3 to a tee. You claim your an "independent", you admit you're a Rush fan, and you probably voted for Bush both times in spite of the fact that his policies have not only done absolutely nothing for you personally (your share of his biggest political plank, tax cuts, being not only next to nothing but grossly offset by the price of everything else that has increased since from the trippling of oil prices to state and municipal taxes that have had to have been raised, along with indirect federal "taxes" that have been raised or increased to make up for the shortfall and usually aimed directly at the middle and working classes) but have likely factored into a worsening of your personal circumstances since he came into office and began slashing funds to the VA and cutting back on other social programs that you may have benefitted from before or been able to benefit by now if they were still around (though you'd never admit it).
You, on the other hand, usually come across as just as opinionated and lock-stepped as the people you like to point fingers at. I don't see you as any more open-minded or thoughtful in your arguments than some of the people on the "other side of the fence". You seem to already know that you are right and those who disagree with you are wrong, misguided, lying or just plain stupid. Of course that's true of a lot of conservatives as well.
I'm very opinionated. My opinions, though, are not formed from listening to the RNC talking points pushed every night by Rush Limbaugh, but from a social science background that includes many courses in sociology, criminology, economics, and political science augmented by a regular reading of news and editorials from a variety of sources. That doesn't make my opinions "right", or "wrong", as opinions are just that... I am open, however, to accepting proven facts that the Reps have made a science out of downplaying and I'm immune to their particular brand of belligerent nationalism (being Canadian would probably account for the latter).
I myself try to see all sides of situations and leave myself open to reasonable debate.
Of course, after all you're an "Independent". :roll:
[Edit] Recommended reading: Confessions of a Former Dittohead. I'm assuming you have a library card, periodically use it, and you claim to be open minded... and this isn't written by a left-wing kook, but by a lifelong conservative... its also a quick, light hearted read.
Yahoshua
09-10-06, 11:50 AM
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
Just reminding y'all that the Democrats don't have much of a clean slate either. And they're just as guilty as Bush for going into Iraq.
The Avon Lady
09-10-06, 12:53 PM
/avon eats yahoshua's popcorn
scandium
09-10-06, 02:02 PM
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
Just reminding y'all that the Democrats don't have much of a clean slate either. And they're just as guilty as Bush for going into Iraq.
This is disengenous to the point of being downright dishonest. The IWR was passed Oct 10, 2002 - just one month before the mid-term elections. Among other things the IWR stated:
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Strong statements. There are no "ifs" there, those are all assertions of facts - facts based on "evidence" that most democrats were not privy to, since very few (and very rarely) would have access to the high level cabinet meetings where the intelligence that these assertions of fact were based on was discussed. So the vast majority of democrats, and all to one degree or another, had to take the President and his republican cabinet appointees (such as Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld) at their word as they presented the substance of this to the press - substance which we now know has been, at a minimum, discredited. The republicans also controlled congress and would need only a couple swing votes in the senate for it to pass, so it was going to pass no matter what - the only question was how the President would proceed from there, and none of the Democrats could have know in Oct 2002, with Afghanistan still an ongoing war, that Bush would decide to invade Iraq in March/03. So their only fault was in taking him at his word and not realizing the depths of the man's folly and stupidity (which is exactly what the invasion of Iraq has amounted to, but again they did not know his exact intentions in Oct beyond what he was stating publicly - which was to get inspectors back in Iraq, which this resolution did accomplish, but then Bush had them pulled out before their work was completed to invade Iraq).
Then there is this, also from the IWR:
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
That was never done. It was attempted, but when it became known that a second resolution was required that explicitly stated the use of force within it, in order for the UN to get involved, would not pass then the subject was dropped and Bush, along with the republican majority in the house and now the senate as well, settled instead for a "coalition of the willing". The democrats could not stop this, the only thing they could accomplish by speaking out at this stage (in early 2003 as the invasion became clearly more and more certain) was to look like the pink tutu wearing weaklings that the republicans had begun, and consistently done ever since (to all democrats now), to paint them as.
At worst the dems are guilty of trusting the prez and taking him at his word at a time when the country also trusted him, took him at his word, and were behind him with almost unprecedented levels of approval. Once the Genie was out of the bottle they could not put it back in, and anyone who voted for the IWR (as most dems did, though with no idea they would later be sold a completely different bill of goods than the one they thought they were buying) and later spoke would either be painted as a "flip flopper" (like Kerry) or a coward and a traitor. The dems had been cornered into a lose-lose, damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. It was a spectacular piece of political maneouvering, and I'd give most of the credit to Karl Rove for it, and it highlights where the real strength of the republicans: politics and political engineering; at that they excel, but at actual governing... well just look at what they've accomplished in the last 6 years: spiraling deficits and an obscene increase in the national debt, the worst terrorist attack on american soil in the country's history, two ongoing wars and 2,600+ dead service members with no end in sight, billions of dollars allocated to the Pentagon with so little oversight that they are simply "lost", the most inept and incompetent federal response to a natural disaster (Katrina, or Corrina as Laura calls it) in the agency's (FEMA) history, and on and on. And by the way, it wasn't the dems who appointed a horse commisioner to head FEMA, it was Bush. And its also Bush's legacy to preside over the largest and most expensive federal government in the nation's history (having never seen a spending bill from the republican congress he thought worthy of a veto... unless it was on stemcell research)... not sure how you "libertarians" reconcile that last part with your vote(s) for Bush. :dead:
It is fitting, however, that in the more recent months, as the ineptness and deceit have become obvious to all but the diehard Republican base, that the three words most associated with this President are "liar", "moron", and "idiot". Unfortunately it took 5 years for a majority of the American people to realize this, and now there's very little they can do to right the shipping sink (until a Democratic majority is elected in Nov, holds impeachment hearings, and Bush - like Nixon, who was only dishonest and not incompetent as well - finally resigns).
Yahoshua
09-10-06, 02:54 PM
(discpovers that popcorn is gone rants about other people stealing popcorn, goes and makes more popcorn...)
MMhmm........so, Dems aren't responsible for the bandwagon they were on because they are now convinced that Iraq was a mistake that was doomed to fail.
Very interesting. Do you care to explain why it's the Repubs. fault for going into Iraq, when clearly the Dems joined in when it was politically popular to do so(therefore BOTH are responsible at this point whether Iraq fails or succeeds), but now that it isn't popular to be in Iraq the Dems. have done an about face and want nothing more than to turtle and hide here at home while we abandon Iraq to become a puppet-state of Iran?
What solutions do the Dems. have? All I've seen is complaints, and no real plans to be laid down other than turning tail and hauling a$$.
As for the Repubs.? Haven't seen much workable solutions here, and it's hard to come up with one when you're straight-jacketed by congress.
What I can clearly see from this, is that politicking has taken superior priority over the needs of the people and the security of the nation.
Changing leaders now will not accomplish anything other than changing the name of the president on this topic.
And as for your excuses:
http://homepage.mac.com/sbooneaz/iblog/C596052566/E20050716131712/Media/give_a_damn_progress5795.gif
(Offers othr ppl popcorn.......)
Sailor Steve
09-10-06, 05:06 PM
Hit a nerve did I?
Not really; it's a joke I make from time to time.
However you fit category 3 to a tee. You claim your an "independent", you admit you're a Rush fan
Not really, I just find him amusing sometimes, and from time to time actually agree with him.
and you probably voted for Bush both times
Sorry, wrong again. I didn't vote at all in 2000, because I was unhappy with both major choices. I voted for Bush in 2004 because Kerry turned my stomach.
in spite of the fact that his policies have not only done absolutely nothing for you personally (your share of his biggest political plank, tax cuts, being not only next to nothing but grossly offset by the price of everything else that has increased since from the trippling of oil prices to state and municipal taxes that have had to have been raised, along with indirect federal "taxes" that have been raised or increased to make up for the shortfall and usually aimed directly at the middle and working classes) but have likely factored into a worsening of your personal circumstances since he came into office and began slashing funds to the VA and cutting back on other social programs that you may have benefitted from before or been able to benefit by now if they were still around
Congress raises and creates new taxes, not the president. I personally think of all taxes as evil, but neccessary, and don't trust anyone to create them who doesn't feel the same way.
(though you'd never admit it).
Now you know me so well you're putting words in my mouth. Nice trick question, though: if I "admit it" I'm de facto agreeing with you, and if I deny it you are obviously proven right. I can't win on that one.:rotfl:
I'm very opinionated. My opinions, though, are not formed from listening to the RNC talking points pushed every night by Rush Limbaugh, but from a social science background that includes many courses in sociology, criminology, economics, and political science augmented by a regular reading of news and editorials from a variety of sources. That doesn't make my opinions "right", or "wrong", as opinions are just that... I am open, however, to accepting proven facts that the Reps have made a science out of downplaying and I'm immune to their particular brand of belligerent nationalism (being Canadian would probably account for the latter).
Well said. Most of your stated opinions still appear to be in 'lock-step' with the standard liberal lines, so I stick by my original opinion-it looks very much to me like the pot calling the kettle black.
Of course, after all you're an "Independent". :roll:
As I said, I'm not a Republican at all. I do look at issues from every side and try to form a reasoned opinion. Pick an issue and try me sometime.
[Edit] Recommended reading: Confessions of a Former Dittohead. I'm assuming you have a library card, periodically use it, and you claim to be open minded... and this isn't written by a left-wing kook, but by a lifelong conservative... its also a quick, light hearted read.
I'll give it a look. I find lock-step Republicans to be just as silly as you do; but I also find that in anyone whose mind is made up, closed, locked and sealed.
bradclark1
09-10-06, 06:16 PM
Where did the intelligence reports come from that those dems warranted the invasion with?
Watched Face the Nation today. Don't normally but the VP was the guest.
He was asked if we still would have invaded if we knew they didn't have WMD. He answered yes because he still had the ability. What horse crap!
Then I thought about it.
If he'd of said no, all hell would break loose about our invading.
If he said yes (which he did) the white house looks like they were looking for any reason to invade Iraq.
I'd have to say the VP was telling the truth. We were looking for any reason to invade. That makes my dislike for this administration even worse and helps confirm my thoughts that they were set to invade before Bush was even in office.
scandium
09-10-06, 06:18 PM
(discpovers that popcorn is gone rants about other people stealing popcorn, goes and makes more popcorn...)
MMhmm........so, Dems aren't responsible for the bandwagon they were on because they are now convinced that Iraq was a mistake that was doomed to fail.
Very interesting. Do you care to explain why it's the Repubs. fault for going into Iraq, when clearly the Dems joined in when it was politically popular to do so(therefore BOTH are responsible at this point whether Iraq fails or succeeds), but now that it isn't popular to be in Iraq the Dems. have done an about face and want nothing more than to turtle and hide here at home while we abandon Iraq to become a puppet-state of Iran?
What solutions do the Dems. have? All I've seen is complaints, and no real plans to be laid down other than turning tail and hauling a$$.
As for the Repubs.? Haven't seen much workable solutions here, and it's hard to come up with one when you're straight-jacketed by congress.
What I can clearly see from this, is that politicking has taken superior priority over the needs of the people and the security of the nation.
Changing leaders now will not accomplish anything other than changing the name of the president on this topic.
And as for your excuses:
http://homepage.mac.com/sbooneaz/iblog/C596052566/E20050716131712/Media/give_a_damn_progress5795.gif
(Offers othr ppl popcorn.......)
I don't see how you can seriously blame the democrats for a bill (IWR) that was drafted and passed by a republican congress (meaning it would have passed no matter how the dems voted) and signed by a republican president, who 5 months later saw fit to re-interpret it however he wanted to and act accordingly.
I'm not saying the dems are blameless. As I said, they made the tragic mistake of trusting a President and trusting his judgement when he's since shown he's worthy of neither. But the dems did not make the decision to invade Iraq in March/03, nor could they have; Bush did.
You are trying to play a game of smoke and mirrors here and I'm sure republicans running for re-election in Nov will be trying to do the same thing, if they haven't started already. Perhaps this shell game might even work on some of the electorate. But I doubt it'll work on many. Most people aren't that stupid. As Bush said:
There's an old saying in Texas, I think in Tenesse too, that says 'fool me once, shame on.... shame on you... but fool me twice can't get fooled again'.
scandium
09-10-06, 07:09 PM
in spite of the fact that his policies have not only done absolutely nothing for you personally (your share of his biggest political plank, tax cuts, being not only next to nothing but grossly offset by the price of everything else that has increased since from the trippling of oil prices to state and municipal taxes that have had to have been raised, along with indirect federal "taxes" that have been raised or increased to make up for the shortfall and usually aimed directly at the middle and working classes) but have likely factored into a worsening of your personal circumstances since he came into office and began slashing funds to the VA and cutting back on other social programs that you may have benefitted from before or been able to benefit by now if they were still around Congress raises and creates new taxes, not the president. I personally think of all taxes as evil, but neccessary, and don't trust anyone to create them who doesn't feel the same way.
The Congress and the President belong to the same party, much of the legislation drafted in Congress is done so at the President's request, and all of it is either signed or vetoed by the same man, and if the President vetoes it then unless it was passed by 2/3rds of the house and senate, the bill dies. The only bill the President has ever vetoed in 6 years of office was the one on stemcell research, which was nothing more than a crass bone to the fundie base whose votes his party will be desperate for in Nov if they are to retain control of both houses. So your arguement, while factually correct, doesn't tell the whole story and paints a picture that is very distorted. But that's one of the traits I pointed out in the dittoheads; the preference for living in a reality manufactured by the RNC and repeated everynight by Rush and his ilk (all category #1 republicans who actually do stand to gain directly from republican policies).
I'll agree with you though that Rush is witty and entertaining, but so are some used car salesmen, and I put him in the same category since the product he's selling is, for the vast majority of Americans, a lemon but he's well paid to sell it and if he does make the sale and convert the ever shrinking swing-vote into an (R) vote, or get out "Independents" and other Republicans in Nov to check the (R) then he'll make a very tidy commission on their policies (I'd imagine his share of Bush's tax cuts is well into the 6 figures).
[Edit] Recommended reading: Confessions of a Former Dittohead. I'm assuming you have a library card, periodically use it, and you claim to be open minded... and this isn't written by a left-wing kook, but by a lifelong conservative... its also a quick, light hearted read. I'll give it a look. I find lock-step Republicans to be just as silly as you do; but I also find that in anyone whose mind is made up, closed, locked and sealed.
I think you'd enjoy the book. What's amusing is how he admits he was, for most of his life, a lock step Republican, describes how he became that way, what aspects of the Republican ideology appealed to him and why, and how recently he had a bit of an epiphany when he began to notice, more and more, the disconnect between their ideology and their policy once in office. What did it for him, if I recall correctly, was that being a fiscal conservative he could not reconcile hypocracy in the growth of a government whose Congress, Senate, and President are all Republican against their ideological centerpiece which has always been small government; yet when the y are actually in power theirs is the largest and most spending happy government in American history.
Nation building was another turning point as well. He voted for Bush in 2000 and at that time, in his debates with Gore, Bush said that he was going to get the US out of the nation building business that the Democrats had gotten it into; however in his first four years in office he's already tried to build two of them from the ground up, and both of them have amounted to little more than very expensive failures (to the tune of over a trillion dollars before its all said and done, and more likely closer to $2 trillion). But you don't get to that to the latter part of the book and that's only a tiny part of a small book. Like I said, being an independent you should be able to enjoy it and if you don't you can always return it.
By the way, as an aside I can understand how people vote republican in spite of the fact that republican policies are largely detrimental to most of the people who vote for them. They have invested billions of dollars in various "think tanks" (The Heritage Foundation being one of the best financed and best known, but only one of many) who spend a big part of their budget on finding out what makes the average voter tick, what issues appeal to them and can be used to bring them over to their side, and how best to package and sell an ideology that is entirely counter to the interests of all but a tiny portion of the electorate. And its been money well spent. They have changed not only politics, but even the language of politcal discourse. They have no match in this realm. Yet when it comes to actually governing, they suck. And this administration (the Prez and VP of which could very well both face impeachment hearings if they lose control of Congress), and its republican congress (the former head of which is so corrupt he was indicted and had to step down) and republican senate (the head of which has also been under investigation by the SEC) will likely go down as the most corrupt and worst US government in American history headed by one of the worst presidents in the American history. But then that's just my opinion... only time will tell.
Yahoshua
09-10-06, 09:12 PM
:rotfl:
Excuse my cigar smoke as I play flashlight tag with the good old boys' club.
I haven't been playing any games at all. I've been asking direct questions and posing direct arguments. Stop making excuses.
If you're still in denial of the fact that Dems supported (and VOTED) for the invasion of the Iraq war then it seems like you want reality to fit you.
It doesn't work that way.
Keep in mind that before this whole "Iraq is gonna fail" and "Bush lied to us" rhetoric came around, the Dems held the aforesaid positions........when it was politically popular to do so. But it is now politically un-popular to say that the improvements in Iraq are a GOOD thing (building schools, bringing basic rights to the people, producing electricity etc.).
None of this is what you hear on the news. But of course the Repubs. are all blamed for the deaths in Iraq and he apparent "lack" of progress seen. As if Bush had any real control over what was going on in Iraq.
But hey, when Iraq succeeds in standing on their own and can hold their own government, and hold free and fair elections. Guess who's gonna try and band-wagon on the credit? Democraps.
Ya gotta give credit where credit is due.
SUBMAN1
09-10-06, 09:20 PM
Oh my gosh! Could you imagine Gore as Pres? Ouch! Gore would be like - they just blew up the twin towers! What should we do about it! Should we beg for their forgiveness?
I guess Gore would be 100x better than Kerry. As far as I'm concerned, Bush was the best choice out of the choices for the job.
-S
SubSerpent
09-10-06, 10:26 PM
Oh my gosh! Could you imagine Gore as Pres? Ouch! Gore would be like - they just blew up the twin towers! What should we do about it! Should we beg for their forgiveness?
I guess Gore would be 100x better than Kerry. As far as I'm concerned, Bush was the best choice out of the choices for the job.
-S
It's pure ignorance to think that a Democrat would just scare away from an attack on our homeland. That's just plain and simple nonsense. Matter of fact, I recall a Democrat in office on Dec. 7, 1941, and who boldy and bravely stood up against the heinous attack at Pearl Harbor and immidately returned fire on them. I also remember there was a Democrat in office when both Hiroshima and Nagaski were A-bombed. I also remember that all of Europe was saved from Nazism and tyranny while a Democrat was the president. The past proves that the Democrats HAVE ballz. It's the cowardly Republicant's who haven't done diddly squat for the country except to get it further and further into unpayable debt.
Also, I'm sick of Republicans ALWAYS basing their political party believes on how they felt about William Jefferson Clinton. The only reason why you think that Dems don't have the ballz to stand up to terrorism is because Clinton was a draft dodger. Big Flippen WHUP! Your G.W. Bush ain't no American Hero either! Eww wow, he flew a plane and was late to several role calls and finally stopped showing up altogether. He military records really suck and show that he was an un-squared away military member. Just some lazy rich kid who's daddy got him out of trouble with his command. However, John Kerry WAS a war hero. His records are clearly documented by the Navy and he served with honor in an unpopular war.
Oh my gosh! Could you imagine Gore as Pres? Ouch! Gore would be like - they just blew up the twin towers! What should we do about it! Should we beg for their forgiveness?
I guess Gore would be 100x better than Kerry. As far as I'm concerned, Bush was the best choice out of the choices for the job.
-S
And there is the bottom line....STFU already scandlous about the president of my country.If it was Bush or Kerry or Kermit the frog ya gotta stand behind your leaders.This country is still,STILL the best place to live in the world, so if ya don't like it tough titty.Deal with it.To sit there and come off like the ENTIRE world was hood winked by Bush is preposterous and insulting frankly to the intell community.People make up there own minds...as do you, so quit coming off like the I told you so guy like Skybird does....one I told you so guy is all we can take.
Where's that popcorn ? ....
I love ya Skybird :)
Yahoshua
09-10-06, 10:41 PM
At least Bush released his records when Kerry didn't.
Btw, draft dodging is a FELONY. and bypassing the whole spiel of how he got there....Clinton is the first pardoned felon to have served as president of the United States.
scandium
09-10-06, 11:26 PM
And there is the bottom line....STFU already scandlous about the president of my country.If it was Bush or Kerry or Kermit the frog ya gotta stand behind your leaders.This country is still,STILL the best place to live in the world, so if ya don't like it tough titty.Deal with it.To sit there and come off like the ENTIRE world was hood winked by Bush is preposterous and insulting frankly to the intell community.People make up there own minds...as do you, so quit coming off like the I told you so guy like Skybird does....one I told you so guy is all we can take.
Where's that popcorn ? ....
I love ya Skybird :)
You gotta stand behind the leaders eh? Maybe down there. Up here, where we've been at war with Afghanistan for as long as you have, and on your behalf where many fellow of my countrymen have shed blood and lost lives, we reserve the right to be critical of not only our country, but also our allies and our enemies. The fact that Chretien and Martin, both Liberal PMs, were at the reigns of government while we were at war in the ME didn't stop the criticism of either, nor did it prevent Martin from being voted out office and consequently resigning his party leadership position; nor should it, or will it, prevent us from criticisizing our current PM whenever he deserves it.
To my way of thinking if your half-witted President hadn't lost sight of the ball, Bin Laden - remember that guy? - and committed even half the forces to Afghanistan that he wasted chasing phantoms in Iraq, then Afghanistan might well be a very different place today and we might not need to still be there; but in the meantime, since our country is also financing, with blood and treasure, your campaign to remake the ME in America's (or Iran's, who can tell anymore) image then expect the criticism to keep coming. :up:
bookworm_020
09-11-06, 12:29 AM
Hey, be glad!!! You guys limit your president to two terms in office, then he has to step down.
Here in Australia, we've had the same munchkin in office now since 1993, with no crediable opposition to speak of. You could drop little jonny in a septic tank and he'd come out smelling llike a new born bub!
Even members of his own party want to get rid of him, but can't. To add further salt to the wound, voting is compulsory!!!
Love to see how the US would cope with that!!
nikimcbee
09-11-06, 01:13 AM
[quote=SUBMAN1] However, John Kerry WAS a war hero. His records are clearly documented by the Navy and he served with honor in an unpopular war.
So was Benedict Arnold.:D
nikimcbee
09-11-06, 01:20 AM
BTW, did you watch any of the ABC show about the road to 9-11? Liberal foreign policy on parade.:up: Too bad bubba was occupied with other stuff.:rock:
..now where was the popcorn?
Yahoshua
09-11-06, 02:38 AM
(offers nickimcbee popcorn......throws popcorn at Avon to see what happens)
The Avon Lady
09-11-06, 02:41 AM
throws popcorn at Avon to see what happens
/avon hands broom and dustpan to yahoshua and tells him to clean up the mess he made
Yahoshua
09-11-06, 02:43 AM
(calls in dog to have a treat....dog dies of food poisoning......hands rest of popcorn to nikimcbee with evil grin on face)
nikimcbee
09-11-06, 02:44 AM
throws popcorn at Avon to see what happens
/avon hands broom and dustpan to yahoshua and tells him to clean up the mess he made
Could you make us some more popcorn...lots of butter, please. And while you're in there, could you get me a deit coke too, thnx:lol:
nikimcbee
09-11-06, 02:46 AM
...I changed my mind, could you make us some nachos:up: . Put lots of cheese on too.:/\\k:
Yahoshua
09-11-06, 03:03 AM
(buys nachos and eats all, leaving none for evryone else.....then gets sick from over-eating)
TteFAboB
09-11-06, 03:06 AM
My kingdom for pasta.
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/1144/barillaew6.jpg
Oops!
SkvyWvr
09-11-06, 07:27 AM
Oh my gosh! Could you imagine Gore as Pres? Ouch! Gore would be like - they just blew up the twin towers! What should we do about it! Should we beg for their forgiveness?
I guess Gore would be 100x better than Kerry. As far as I'm concerned, Bush was the best choice out of the choices for the job.
-S
And there is the bottom line....STFU already scandlous about the president of my country.If it was Bush or Kerry or Kermit the frog ya gotta stand behind your leaders.This country is still,STILL the best place to live in the world, so if ya don't like it tough titty.Deal with it.To sit there and come off like the ENTIRE world was hood winked by Bush is preposterous and insulting frankly to the intell community.People make up there own minds...as do you, so quit coming off like the I told you so guy like Skybird does....one I told you so guy is all we can take.
Where's that popcorn ? ....
I love ya Skybird :)
Here, here. I'll take a beer with that popcorn please.:up:
SkvyWvr
09-11-06, 07:36 AM
At least Bush released his records when Kerry didn't.
Btw, draft dodging is a FELONY. and bypassing the whole spiel of how he got there....Clinton is the first pardoned felon to have served as president of the United States.
He's also the only guy I've ever heard of trying but not inhaling pot. :huh: :roll:
SUBMAN1
09-11-06, 12:14 PM
Oh my gosh! Could you imagine Gore as Pres? Ouch! Gore would be like - they just blew up the twin towers! What should we do about it! Should we beg for their forgiveness?
I guess Gore would be 100x better than Kerry. As far as I'm concerned, Bush was the best choice out of the choices for the job.
-S
It's pure ignorance to think that a Democrat would just scare away from an attack on our homeland. That's just plain and simple nonsense. Matter of fact, I recall a Democrat in office on Dec. 7, 1941, and who boldy and bravely stood up against the heinous attack at Pearl Harbor and immidately returned fire on them. I also remember there was a Democrat in office when both Hiroshima and Nagaski were A-bombed. I also remember that all of Europe was saved from Nazism and tyranny while a Democrat was the president. The past proves that the Democrats HAVE ballz. It's the cowardly Republicant's who haven't done diddly squat for the country except to get it further and further into unpayable debt.
Also, I'm sick of Republicans ALWAYS basing their political party believes on how they felt about William Jefferson Clinton. The only reason why you think that Dems don't have the ballz to stand up to terrorism is because Clinton was a draft dodger. Big Flippen WHUP! Your G.W. Bush ain't no American Hero either! Eww wow, he flew a plane and was late to several role calls and finally stopped showing up altogether. He military records really suck and show that he was an un-squared away military member. Just some lazy rich kid who's daddy got him out of trouble with his command. However, John Kerry WAS a war hero. His records are clearly documented by the Navy and he served with honor in an unpopular war.
Ouch. Seems I hit a nerve.
SUBMAN1
09-11-06, 12:16 PM
Oh my gosh! Could you imagine Gore as Pres? Ouch! Gore would be like - they just blew up the twin towers! What should we do about it! Should we beg for their forgiveness?
I guess Gore would be 100x better than Kerry. As far as I'm concerned, Bush was the best choice out of the choices for the job.
-S
And there is the bottom line....STFU already scandlous about the president of my country.If it was Bush or Kerry or Kermit the frog ya gotta stand behind your leaders.This country is still,STILL the best place to live in the world, so if ya don't like it tough titty.Deal with it.To sit there and come off like the ENTIRE world was hood winked by Bush is preposterous and insulting frankly to the intell community.People make up there own minds...as do you, so quit coming off like the I told you so guy like Skybird does....one I told you so guy is all we can take.
Where's that popcorn ? ....
I love ya Skybird :)
Here, here. I'll take a beer with that popcorn please.:up: Hmm - the combo doesn't sound all that great. I'll just take either beer or popcorn, but not both! :p
SUBMAN1
09-11-06, 12:17 PM
By the way, I like how we always get to pointing fingers around here about crap we all have no control over. So on second thought - I'll take the popcorn!
-S
bradclark1
09-11-06, 12:30 PM
Ouch. Seems I hit a nerve.
I believe republicans do that because Clinton was twice the president in world politics then Bush is. The only thing they can come up with is Monica Lewinsky.
SUBMAN1
09-11-06, 01:18 PM
Ouch. Seems I hit a nerve.
I believe republicans do that because Clinton was twice the president in world politics then Bush is. The only thing they can come up with is Monica Lewinsky.
Did Clinton do something important? :D I think the rest of the world missed it.
He did try and take away my guns, and I dispise him for that. That is all I remember.
Actually that is not true - he is actually being a better pres after being pres, than he ever was as pres. He is doing some admirable things in his later years.
Yahoshua
09-11-06, 01:19 PM
Yep...Lewisnky, NAFTA, The Firearms ban (which also shuttered nearly 60% of all firearm dealers in the U.S. during that time), downsizing the the U.S. military.
None of those things were really Clintons' fault. It was the Repubs. who were duped by a president to go along with his schemes. :roll:
and the Food Bank. .
Man, I am in tears.
bradclark1
09-11-06, 02:05 PM
I believe republicans do that because Clinton was twice the president then Bush is.
That just my opinion however.
During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare rolls. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus. As part of a plan to celebrate the millennium in 2000, Clinton called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination.
After the failure in his second year of a huge program of health care reform, Clinton shifted emphasis, declaring "the era of big government is over." He sought legislation to upgrade education, to protect jobs of parents who must care for sick children, to restrict handgun sales, and to strengthen environmental rules.
In the world, he successfully dispatched peace keeping forces to war-torn Bosnia and bombed Iraq when Saddam Hussein stopped United Nations inspections for evidence of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. He became a global proponent for an expanded NATO, more open international trade, and a worldwide campaign against drug trafficking. He drew huge crowds when he traveled through South America, Europe, Russia, Africa, and China, advocating U.S. style freedom.
or read it here http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html
bradclark1
09-11-06, 02:31 PM
Yep...Lewisnky, NAFTA, The Firearms ban (which also shuttered nearly 60% of all firearm dealers in the U.S. during that time), downsizing the the U.S. military.
None of those things were really Clintons' fault. It was the Repubs. who were duped by a president to go along with his schemes. :roll:
Lewinsky. Is that all you got? Gimme a break :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Downsizing the the U.S. military. Can anyone say Rumsfeld?
NAFTA. You got something there. Corporations bailing on the U.S... Did you happen to know Bush junior had a corporate office in the Kaymans(?) I believe. How unamerican is that?
Firearms ban. Thats up to individual tastes. It has no bearing on anything but personal opinion.
SUBMAN1
09-11-06, 02:35 PM
I believe republicans do that because Clinton was twice the president then Bush is.
That just my opinion however.
During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare rolls. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus. As part of a plan to celebrate the millennium in 2000, Clinton called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination.
After the failure in his second year of a huge program of health care reform, Clinton shifted emphasis, declaring "the era of big government is over." He sought legislation to upgrade education, to protect jobs of parents who must care for sick children, to restrict handgun sales, and to strengthen environmental rules.
In the world, he successfully dispatched peace keeping forces to war-torn Bosnia and bombed Iraq when Saddam Hussein stopped United Nations inspections for evidence of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. He became a global proponent for an expanded NATO, more open international trade, and a worldwide campaign against drug trafficking. He drew huge crowds when he traveled through South America, Europe, Russia, Africa, and China, advocating U.S. style freedom.
or read it here http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html
They left out the fact that it takes 8 years for a presidents policy to affect things like that. So for economy to housing, that was either Bush or Regan's policies that affected that. Right now, we have an OK economy, and that is the result of Mr. Clinton. So he did OK. I like how even Bush claims this is his doing, as has every pres before him including Clinton, but it is really not. Only when Bush leaves office will we begin to see the results of his policy on the long term economy.
-S
The Avon Lady
09-11-06, 02:38 PM
During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history.
These were followed by 9/11 and by the high tech bubble. Both were a result of being asleep at the wheel prior to Bush taking office.
bradclark1
09-11-06, 02:38 PM
He was president for 8 years as is Bush. I think if there was much to that that would be a large topic in politics so I tend to discount it.
bradclark1
09-11-06, 02:41 PM
These were followed by 9/11 and by the high tech bubble. Both were a result of being asleep at the wheel prior to Bush taking office.
Oh, I always wanted to say this. :D
Where is your proof? Whats you source?
Edit: What does a high tech bubble have to do with a president?
SUBMAN1
09-11-06, 02:43 PM
He was president for 8 years as is Bush. I think if there was much to that that would be a large topic in politics so I tend to discount it.
Exactly - and you are living in his economy right now. A pres can only affect the short term economy now. His long term plans are 8 years away from right now.
I just wonder what Katrina is going to do to our future economy. It will take tha long to see the results.
-S
Yahoshua
09-11-06, 07:27 PM
Lewinsky. Is that all you got? Gimme a break :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Downsizing the the U.S. military. Can anyone say Rumsfeld?
NAFTA. You got something there. Corporations bailing on the U.S... Did you happen to know Bush junior had a corporate office in the Kaymans(?) I believe. How unamerican is that?
Firearms ban. Thats up to individual tastes. It has no bearing on anything but personal opinion.
That response is so pathetic it's not even worth responding to. But since I'm sitting here at home with nothing to do, I might as well do something along these llines:
The position of the President carries with it dignity, respect, and power. The president is the most powerful civilian on the planet. Commander-in-Chief of our Navy, Army, Air-force, and poseesing the "Nuclear Football" which holds the codes to launch Nuclear Weapons.
The president is trusted with this, but cheats on his wife, and then LIES about it! Why should I trust a man with a hundred dollars if I can't even trust him with ONE?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp
He also pardoned dozens of convicted felons. (I wasn't able to find a list online but there are numerous articles about the pardoning).
Is this the sort of man who I'd want in control of the military? A man who is control of Nuclear Weapons? Not that it matters. Since modern Democrats have not an inkling or morality, nor of duty,nor honor, nor of their own country.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/politics/clintondraft.asp
And as for downsizing the military vs. creating jobs, seems like he killed more jobs than created them.
http://www.opm.gov/feddata/html/dec00fac.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/comment-kaza051603.asp
NAFTA is something I disagreed with from the start. I HATE the idea of corporations leaving the U.S. and outsourcing, but if it weren't for the stringent red-tape, greedy union leaders, NAFTA, and un-warranted lawsuits they'd still be here.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_us
As for the firearms ban:
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Is there any part of this that you do not understand?
Clinton failed in Kosovo-Serb war, failing to stop the massacres by the Serbs. Clinton even ordered the bombing of Belgrade and allowing the returning Kosovoans to enact an ethnic cleansing of Serbs in the area.
Clinton has also set the present policy of "Three No's for Taiwan." No backing for Taiwanese independence, No recognition of an independent govt. of Taiwan, and No admissioin of Taiwan into International Organisations. Way to support a fellow democracy "Slick Willy."
Clinton also bungled the diplomatic interactions with North Korea, backing from sanctions, changing policy, allowing Jimmy carter to screw things up, and leaving a great big mess behind for everyone else to clean up.
Clinton, the mediator of the Oslo accords, is also responsible for the mess the Israelis are in today. Hundreds have dies and tens of hundreds more have been wounded by the terrorist acts of Israels' Arab neighbors. All in the name of peace.
1994, the Rwandan Genocide. For almost 110 Days, Clinton did NOTHING while Hutus slaughtered the Tutsi minority. 800,000 were massacred up until the point that the then Hutu president of Rwanda was forced to sign an agreement with the rebels that the Tutsis and the Hutus would share power.
Where was Slick Willy at the time? He was hiding behind the U.N. when all U.S. nationals were withdrawn from Rwanda. Were any Rwandan Tutsis saved from this? Were any of the moderate Hutus taken with the U.S. nationals? Nope. They were left to die. There are no excuses.
So much for the "Great" Bill Clinton.
Sea Demon
09-11-06, 07:57 PM
During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history.
These were followed by 9/11 and by the high tech bubble. Both were a result of being asleep at the wheel prior to Bush taking office.
Exactly. There was no peace during the Clinton years. The Clinton Administration simply ignored the threats. We were attacked multiple times, and Clinton did not respond. And Clinton increased the danger to our country, and the West in general by giving the Chinese access to high-tech space technology. And opening access to our labratories to people who have no business having access to it.
The Democrats in America are totally blind and oblivious to our own national security. By the way, George Bush has placed sanctions on the very same Chinese companies that the Clinton Administration helped. Ain't it sad that these same companies, owned by the Chinese government, have been proliferating technology they got from the Clinton administration. Clinton directly endangered our nation.
Sea Demon
09-11-06, 07:58 PM
and the Food Bank. .
Man, I am in tears.
Is this sarcasm or what? :roll:
bradclark1
09-11-06, 08:45 PM
quote]Lewinsky. Is that all you got? Gimme a break :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Downsizing the the U.S. military. Can anyone say Rumsfeld?
NAFTA. You got something there. Corporations bailing on the U.S... Did you happen to know Bush junior had a corporate office in the Kaymans(?) I believe. How unamerican is that?
Firearms ban. Thats up to individual tastes. It has no bearing on anything but personal opinion.
That response is so pathetic it's not even worth responding to.
================================================== =====
Funny I thought I addressed your drool comments. I understand. You are probably embarrassed by your pathetic post. I would be.
bradclark1
09-11-06, 09:01 PM
Exactly. There was no peace during the Clinton years. The Clinton Administration simply ignored the threats. We were attacked multiple times, and Clinton did not respond. And Clinton increased the danger to our country, and the West in general by giving the Chinese access to high-tech space technology. And opening access to our labratories to people who have no business having access to it.
Explain what he should have done? I know! We should have invaded Sudan.
Lets not forget that 30 days before 9/11 Bush had a security brief that bin Laden was planning an attack within the U.S. shall we. (Actually I didn't know that until I watched a clip today with Condi talking about it) Oh I forgot. Bin Laden is still running free isn't he. Five years after 9/11.
Yes to the Chinese. He should have gone to jail for treason for that.
The Democrats in America are totally blind and oblivious to our own national security. By the way, George Bush has placed sanctions on the very same Chinese companies that the Clinton Administration helped. Ain't it sad that these same companies, owned by the Chinese government, have been proliferating technology they got from the Clinton administration. Clinton directly endangered our nation.
Is that the reason Bush is giving India nuke technology? One upmanship? Didn't he have some kind of deal with Pakistan too?
Yahoshua
09-11-06, 09:18 PM
Now you're baiting.:down:
I posted an argument instead of sentimental rhetoric.:know:
Answer me directly.:stare:
No baiting. No wishy-washy rhetoric. Just pure and simple fact.:|\\
(washes popcorn down with soda)
Sea Demon
09-11-06, 09:34 PM
Explain what he should have done? I know! We should have invaded Sudan.Lets not forget that 30 days before 9/11 Bush had a security brief that bin Laden was planning an attack within the U.S. shall we. (Actually I didn't know that until I watched a clip today with Condi talking about it) Oh I forgot. Bin Laden is still running free isn't he. Five years after 9/11.
Yes to the Chinese. He should have gone to jail for treason for that.
Yes, he should have gone in there and got Bin Laden. Exactly. Instead of just sitting there and telling everybody to go back to sleep. Yes, Bill Clinton should have done everything in his power to protect the nation. Like President Bush is trying to do. But in classic Democrat fashion, he ignored the threat. If Clinton had done his job, there would have been no 9/11, bottom line.
And I love how Democrats are on Internet sites trying to convince everybody how effective they are on national security issues. Nobody buys it.
Is that the reason Bush is giving India nuke technology? One upmanship? Didn't he have some kind of deal with Pakistan too?
India already has nuclear technology. And I don't remember India threatening to blow up Los Angeles. Nor does India have a massive military build-up aimed at the USA. Brad, this is why Democrats and their fellow travelers cannot be trusted with our national security. It is too important to keep Democrats out of power. You don't understand the damage your people do. You can't even see the difference between the India situation and China. While both have nuclear power, Bush is providing civilian use nuclear assistance to a friendly nation. China is a borderline enemy, who not only has threatened us, but insists it might have to go nuclear first to prevent loss on the Taiwan issue. And Clinton provided not peaceful nuclear technology, but space related assistance. You know, guidance systems, radiation hardening, penetration technology...you know the things that can turn Connecticut and your family into dust. I'm flabbergasted that you seemingly hate Bush so much, you would out and out defend the worst President in American History.....tied with Jimmy Carter. And it is proof that Democrats cannot see the threats. Thus, they are unable to respond as recent history ( the last 40 years) has shown, and your own words prove.
Onkel Neal
09-11-06, 11:14 PM
Lets not forget that 30 days before 9/11 Bush had a security brief that bin Laden was planning an attack within the U.S. shall we. (Actually I didn't know that until I watched a clip today with Condi talking about it) Oh I forgot. Bin Laden is still running free isn't he. Five years after 9/11.
I agree, Bush has failed to get Bin Laden after 5 years and with the (supposed) partnership of the Pakis in the WOT. :nope: That plus the horrible immigration stance gives the Bush Presidency a C- in my book.
Sea Demon
09-11-06, 11:20 PM
I agree, Bush has failed to get Bin Laden after 5 years and with the (supposed) partnership of the Pakis in the WOT. :nope: That plus the horrible immigration stance gives the Bush Presidency a C- in my book.
Agreed. Bush's stance on border security and his unwillingness to enforce U.S. immigration law is a total failure. If the Democrats would jump on him for it, I would be in agreement with them on that issue. It's a wonder why the Democrats refuse to confront Bush on it as it is indeed a winning issue. With that in mind, it's a wonder why anyone politically won't do anything about it.
I have no doubt that the issue will get solved eventually. It's getting too hot to ignore. It's absolutely not going away. But it is my belief that it will be Republicans eventually who actually do something about it. The Republicans at least have people like Steve King, Tom Tancredo, and John Doolittle. The Republicans at least have people out there calling for enforcement. I can't think of too many people on the other side who do. Heck, out here in California, the Democrats wanted to give illegal aliens drivers licenses fer cryin' out loud. That's one of the main reasons we now have a Republican governor. The California Republican Party basically put a stop to that "drivers license for illegals" nonsense.
Yahoshua
09-11-06, 11:53 PM
No votes = No balls = no action
It's a hate/love relationship b/w voters and politicking beaureaucrats now.:down:
Also, have any of you heard of "Super Slab"?
This thing has already been started in Texas and the state is now using eminent domain to seize a swath in Colorado that has an easement that is 3 miles wide.
This thing is MASSIVE. They say it'll be 12 lanes across and will stretch from Canada to Mexico. They've already started issuing notices to landowners in the area.
http://www.superslab.org/
The smell of fish abounds here.
The Avon Lady
09-12-06, 01:20 AM
These were followed by 9/11 and by the high tech bubble. Both were a result of being asleep at the wheel prior to Bush taking office.
Oh, I always wanted to say this. :D
Where is your proof? Whats you source?
Read How the Left Undermined National Security Before 9/11 (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24328). I suggest reading the whole thing but a good synopsys can be found there under the headings "While the Clinton Administration Slept" and "Why the Clinton Administration Slept". The use of the word "slept" is no coincidence, as you'll also read that:
"By Clinton’s own account, Monica Lewinsky was able to visit him privately more than a dozen times in the Oval Office. But according to a USA Today investigative report, the head of the CIA could not get a single private meeting with the president, despite the World Trade Center bombing of February 26, 1993, or the killing of 18 American soldiers in Mogadishu on October 3 of the same year. “James Woolsey, Clinton’s first CIA director, says he never met privately with Clinton after their initial interview. When a small plane crashed on the White House grounds in 1994, the joke inside the White House was, ‘that must be Woolsey, still trying to get an appointment.’”
Edit: What does a high tech bubble have to do with a president?
Nothing, just like the "economic well being" of those years had nothing to do with Clinton. You hit the nail on the head without even realizing it. Good shot! :rock:
SkvyWvr
09-12-06, 06:31 AM
You gotta stand behind the leaders eh? Maybe down there.
"Down there" (here) is what/where we are talking about. If I wanted to talk about Moose or rioting hocky fans, then I would talk about "Up there".
SkvyWvr
09-12-06, 06:45 AM
They left out the fact that it takes 8 years for a presidents policy to affect things like that. So for economy to housing, that was either Bush or Regan's policies that affected that. Right now, we have an OK economy, and that is the result of Mr. Clinton. So he did OK. I like how even Bush claims this is his doing, as has every pres before him including Clinton, but it is really not. Only when Bush leaves office will we begin to see the results of his policy on the long term economy.
Hey, give him some credit. He was great at wagging the dog and he did give China some valuable technology and he did waste several million dollars in tomahawks fired at empty desert. Also don't forget how much old Yasser liked him. Wait a minute, (drink more beer) he was right up there with ole Jimmy Carter.:hmm: :rotfl: :rotfl:
fredbass
09-12-06, 06:47 AM
"By Clinton’s own account, Monica Lewinsky was able to visit him privately more than a dozen times in the Oval Office. But according to a USA Today investigative report, the head of the CIA could not get a single private meeting with the president, despite the World Trade Center bombing of February 26, 1993, or the killing of 18 American soldiers in Mogadishu on October 3 of the same year. “James Woolsey, Clinton’s first CIA director, says he never met privately with Clinton after their initial interview. When a small plane crashed on the White House grounds in 1994, the joke inside the White House was, ‘that must be Woolsey, still trying to get an appointment.’”
I'd say he had his priorities in perfect order. :D
bradclark1
09-12-06, 08:55 AM
Now you're baiting.
No. I responded to you in like fashion. I had responded to each of your comments and you were at such a loss all you could say was "That response is so pathetic it's not even worth responding to.". You tried to be slick but weren't.
Presidents and Mistresses:
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/text/puzzle11ans.html
Incase you are wondering two are democrats and three were republicans. So you see there is nothing new. Not angelic but nothing new. How much money and time did the republicans put into trying to impeach a president over a blow job? (Doesn't that sound stupid?) I can't seem to remember, was he found guilty or innocent?
Kind of like Whitewater. Republicans spent billions of our tax dollars and wasted so much goverment time trying to burn the Clintons on that and came up with a big fat zero. They couldn't deal with him in politics so they tried anything else they could dream up. Now that was pathetic. So we know republicans were not thinking of America, but were intent on a selfish quest for power in which they failed miserably.
He also pardoned dozens of convicted felons. (I wasn't able to find a list online but there are numerous articles about the pardoning).
Yep, I remember that. With his brother as go-between. Sold them for money.
NAFTA is something I disagreed with from the start. I HATE the idea of corporations leaving the U.S. and outsourcing, but if it weren't for the stringent red-tape, greedy union leaders, NAFTA, and un-warranted lawsuits they'd still be here.
To be true in some parts of industry union greed played a part. But the larger issue is corporate greed. Cheap labor in foreign downtrodden countries. Todays corporations have allegience to the dollar and their bank accounts not to America. I did mention our president using the Caymanns as a corporate headquarters in order to not pay tax dollars didn't I?
Clinton has also set the present policy of "Three No's for Taiwan." No backing for Taiwanese independence, No recognition of an independent govt. of Taiwan, and No admissioin of Taiwan into International Organisations. Way to support a fellow democracy "Slick Willy."
Think about this for a minute. What would have happened if we openly agreed to it. That would push China into attacking. That is why even Bush has not officialy changed that stance. In some things discretion is the better part of valor.
And as for downsizing the military vs. creating jobs, seems like he killed more jobs than created them.
He downsized the military for a smaller leaner balanced force. Rumsfeld wanted to cut into the meat.
Clinton also wanted to have less goverment. Something republicans are always up for. What makes Clintons attempts at smaller goverment bad?
Clinton also bungled the diplomatic interactions with North Korea, backing from sanctions, changing policy, allowing Jimmy carter to screw things up, and leaving a great big mess behind for everyone else to clean up.
Clinton tried bribing them into compliance. We do that a lot. Under Bush for six years they have the bomb and intermediate launch platforms.
Clinton, the mediator of the Oslo accords, is also responsible for the mess the Israelis are in today. Hundreds have dies and tens of hundreds more have been wounded by the terrorist acts of Israels' Arab neighbors. All in the name of peace.
Oh! I didn't know Hezbolla and terrorism came after the Oslo Accords. Here I thought it was an attempt for a peaceful reolution. You can read about it here to refresh your memory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Is there any part of this that you do not understand?
If you got rid of your firearms you can come to Connecticut. We have gun shops all over the place.
1994, the Rwandan Genocide. For almost 110 Days, Clinton did NOTHING while Hutus slaughtered the Tutsi minority. 800,000 were massacred up until the point that the then Hutu president of Rwanda was forced to sign an agreement with the rebels that the Tutsis and the Hutus would share power.
Where was Slick Willy at the time? He was hiding behind the U.N. when all U.S. nationals were withdrawn from Rwanda. Were any Rwandan Tutsis saved from this? Were any of the moderate Hutus taken with the U.S. nationals? Nope. They were left to die. There are no excuses.
What the heck do we have to do with Rwanda? I didn't know it was a state. It's not. Isn't that what the U.N. is for?
I wonder why Bush hasn't done anything with Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Congo? Or do you have special rules for republican administrations?
bradclark1
09-12-06, 09:31 AM
Read How the Left Undermined National Security Before 9/11. I suggest reading the whole thing but a good synopsys can be found there under the headings "While the Clinton Administration Slept" and "Why the Clinton Administration Slept". The use of the word "slept" is no coincidence, as you'll also read that:
Lets not forget that 30 days before 9/11 Bush had a security brief that bin Laden was planning an attack within the U.S. shall we, or the fact that building terrorism was a constant in his daily National Security brief's.
Also lets not forget that the information was their but the dots were not connected. Probably using available intellegence assets to try and find a reason to attack Iraq.
I'm really disappointed in your use of http://www.frontpagemag.com/index.asp. That's the right's version of Pravda it looks like. Usually you are solid. I read a sentence here and there but it was so obviously biased. Try an partially unbiased source. Like the ads though.
Quote:
Edit: What does a high tech bubble have to do with a president?
Nothing, just like the "economic well being" of those years had nothing to do with Clinton. You hit the nail on the head without even realizing it. Good shot!
What does fruit cake have to do with space ships? Damn'd if I know but you are useing the same type of reasoning.
Oh okay who had it to do with then? Donald Duck?
Come on AL you are scrambling.
and the Food Bank. .
Man, I am in tears.
Is this sarcasm or what? :roll:
You can bet on that. :up:
Skybird
09-12-06, 10:22 AM
Time for Skybird to settle this thread once and for all :smug: :
http://www.welt.de/data/2006/09/11/1032282.html
http://disembedded.wordpress.com/2006/07/12/president-bushs-iq-lower-than-nearly-every-other-presidential-predecessor/
and
http://www.gatago.com/soc/culture/usa/14299380.html
About Dean Keith Simonton (first two entries above):
http://www.psych.sjsu.edu/sparc/about/pastspeakers/simonton.pdf
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Simonton/
The relation is what counts, not the absolute IQ values which i do question, and very much so. They are certainly tuned way to high, which may come as a result of this certain method of examination, instead of doing life real-world IQ-tests.
Skybird
09-12-06, 10:33 AM
I like that student-evaluation thing in Simonton's biography. Could we have that twice a year for board administrators and moderators, too? :know: :D
SubSerpent
09-12-06, 10:36 AM
Time for Skybird to settle this thread once and for all :smug: :
http://www.welt.de/data/2006/09/11/1032282.html
http://disembedded.wordpress.com/2006/07/12/president-bushs-iq-lower-than-nearly-every-other-presidential-predecessor/
and
http://www.gatago.com/soc/culture/usa/14299380.html
About Dean Keith Simonton (first two entries above):
http://www.psych.sjsu.edu/sparc/about/pastspeakers/simonton.pdf
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Simonton/
The relation is what counts, not the absolute IQ values which i do question, and very much so. They are certainly tuned way to high, which may come as a result of this certain method of examination, instead of doing life real-world IQ-tests.
OUTSTANDING SKYBIRD!!! Great find!!! :up:
I always knew Bush was an idot and that proves it!!!
SkvyWvr
09-12-06, 10:41 AM
OUTSTANDING SKYBIRD!!! Great find!!! :up:
I always knew Bush was an idot and that proves it!!!
Heeees baaaack:doh:
SubSerpent
09-12-06, 11:00 AM
OUTSTANDING SKYBIRD!!! Great find!!! :up:
I always knew Bush was an idot and that proves it!!!
Heeees baaaack:doh:
:yep:
And badder than ever! :up:
SkvyWvr
09-12-06, 11:02 AM
OUTSTANDING SKYBIRD!!! Great find!!! :up:
I always knew Bush was an idot and that proves it!!!
Heeees baaaack:doh:
:yep:
And badder than ever! :up:
Excuse me while I reel in a bit more.:cool:
SubSerpent
09-12-06, 11:10 AM
OUTSTANDING SKYBIRD!!! Great find!!! :up:
I always knew Bush was an idot and that proves it!!!
Heeees baaaack:doh:
:yep:
And badder than ever! :up:
Excuse me while I reel in a bit more.:cool:
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?http://www.getodd.com/stuf/stupid/woody.jpg
SkvyWvr
09-12-06, 11:11 AM
OUTSTANDING SKYBIRD!!! Great find!!! :up:
I always knew Bush was an idot and that proves it!!!
Heeees baaaack:doh:
:yep:
And badder than ever! :up:
Excuse me while I reel in a bit more.:cool:
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?http://www.getodd.com/stuf/stupid/woody.jpg
Just shoot the woodchuck.:)
SubSerpent
09-12-06, 11:12 AM
OUTSTANDING SKYBIRD!!! Great find!!! :up:
I always knew Bush was an idot and that proves it!!!
Heeees baaaack:doh:
:yep:
And badder than ever! :up:
Excuse me while I reel in a bit more.:cool:
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?http://www.getodd.com/stuf/stupid/woody.jpg
Just shoot the woodchuck.:)
That's why there needs to be GUN control!!:yep:
The Avon Lady
09-12-06, 11:35 AM
One thing Bush stole for sure is this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2JGTFI2PPM) with Matt Lauer. :up:
Brad, if you've got something serious to point out that FrontPage is at fault with (other than banner ads?), then please do so.
About Bush and security lapses, I've always been of the opinion that US security and intel has been a disaster over the years. My pointing out Clinton's major lapses was simply to counter the attitude you and others share that Clinton was the next best thing to sliced bread. Far, far, from it.
Same with Bush.
Who's worse? I don't care. It makes no difference. Mistakes are mistakes and both of them have made major and minor ones that have and still are detrimental to the US.
SkvyWvr
09-12-06, 11:36 AM
That's why there needs to be GUN control!!:yep:
Gun control is being able to hit your target. Where's the woodchuck?:D
SkvyWvr
09-12-06, 11:42 AM
One thing Bush stole for sure is this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2JGTFI2PPM) with Matt Lauer. :up:
Brad, if you've got something serious to point out that FrontPage is at fault with (other than banner ads?), then please do so.
About Bush and security lapses, I've always been of the opinion that US security and intel has been a disaster over the years. My pointing out Clinton's major lapses was simply to counter the attitude you and others share that Clinton was the next best thing to sliced bread. Far, far, from it.
Same with Bush.
Who's worse? I don't care. It makes no difference. Mistakes are mistakes and both of them have made major and minor ones that have and still are detrimental to the US.
You have a very valid point Avon. There is no way mistakes can be avoided. The sad part is, when those in power make them, everyone pays. By the way, where's my popcorn and beer?
The Avon Lady
09-12-06, 12:10 PM
There is no way mistakes can be avoided.
Not true for all mistakes and in the case of US national security, there was blunder after blunder, most often avoidable.
By the way, where's my popcorn and beer?
At Costco, I suppose. :p
bradclark1
09-12-06, 01:20 PM
One thing Bush stole for sure is this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2JGTFI2PPM) with Matt Lauer. :up:
Afraid I didn't watch it. If I watch anything during the day it's CNN for about an hour and the 6.30 news. Thats the extent of my television viewing.
Brad, if you've got something serious to point out that FrontPage is at fault with (other than banner ads?), then please do so.
About Bush and security lapses, I've always been of the opinion that US security and intel has been a disaster over the years. My pointing out Clinton's major lapses was simply to counter the attitude you and others share that Clinton was the next best thing to sliced bread. Far, far, from it.
The intelligence community had been on the downslide since the end of the cold war and the thought was everything is satellites. Using human intelligence until now was routinely rejected. The fault is democrat and republican.
I don't support Clinton. I think he's scum and his personal actions could have caused more harm then they did. especially as rabid as the republicans were in trying anything they could think of to bring him down personally. I really do think he should have gone to jail for treason. He sold the country out for donations from Hughes Aerospace. The threat was either they are able to sell China the technolgy or donations would end. China's rocket/missile tech knowledge was horrible. Six out of ten launches were failures. We really couldn't take their strategic missle offense seriously. Now it's ten out of ten success.
Plus he tried lifting some of the white house furniture when he left. :)
However, as a world politician I think he was one of the top dogs out there. If only he could have been kept in a cage until needed. :hmm:
I partake of these Clinton/Bush discussions because I dislike republican politics more then I dislike democratic politics. I'm a third party guy, but the problem with that is we don't have a third party.:-?
Also there are more vocal republican supporters then their are democratic supporters on this forum. I am just adding a voice.
As far as Frontpage is concerned I've used them to back-up my comments before myself, :D but that article was so biased it made me choke. Then with those particular ads on the home page that seemed to me to be useable ammunition.
So-ooh may G-d guide you and give you many more children (if you want them). :cool:
Skybird
09-12-06, 01:23 PM
I'm a third party guy, but the problem with that is we don't have a third party.:-?
Welcome to the spacve between all chairs. If you lack orientation, let me show you around this place which holds lots of space for people like you. Or me. Even at the same time :lol:
Yahoshua
09-12-06, 07:44 PM
" Even at the same time "
So who sits on whose lap? (this was a morbid attempt at humor, ignore if it isnt funny).
Presidents and Mistresses:
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/text/puzzle11ans.html (http://historymatters.gmu.edu/text/puzzle11ans.html)
Incase you are wondering two are democrats and three were republicans. So you see there is nothing new.
And this doesn't concern you at all? Regardless of party affiliation I'd have had them all sacked.
To be true in some parts of industry union greed played a part. But the larger issue is corporate greed. Cheap labor in foreign downtrodden countries. Todays corporations have allegience to the dollar and their bank accounts not to America.
Seems like both sides had an equal play in this, and I agree that corporations have gotten out of hand.
I did mention our president using the Caymanns as a corporate headquarters in order to not pay tax dollars didn't I?
It's called sheltering, and it's legal. Even you can do it. If you own a business, you can file a company/corporate name with the Feds. and you thereby become an "Employee" of your own company. Everything you spend is corporate-owned pre-tax dollars. It measn your corporation can spend as much as it wants and not be taxed on it until the tax season is around (whatever's left of it that is).
Think about this for a minute. What would have happened if we openly agreed to it. That would push China into attacking. That is why even Bush has not officialy changed that stance. In some things discretion is the better part of valor.
I don't compromise principles.
He downsized the military for a smaller leaner balanced force. Rumsfeld wanted to cut into the meat.
The downsizing of the military is exactly what has lead to the increase of spending today. As for a Rumsfeld, he is a relic that should've been canned before Clinton was in office. He's also one of the reasons why the ban on imported firearms was enacted :damn: .
"Member of the President's General Advisory Committee on Arms Control (1982 - 1986)"
Clinton also wanted to have less goverment. Something republicans are always up for. What makes Clintons attempts at smaller goverment bad?
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/15440pub19980301.html
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14784
(I find it ironic that the very institution that opposes the right to keep arms is now being quoted by me).
Less government = Good. But the military doesn't decide what legislation is passed in the U.S.
Influence? Maybe (when they find the motivation to do so), but nothing close to lobbying on legislative issues.
And as it seems that less and less politicians are actually going to do what they say they will, or flip-flop, or are indecisive (ie. middleground grays), I've given up hope on them.
Clinton tried bribing them into compliance. We do that a lot. Under Bush for six years they have the bomb and intermediate launch platforms.
And who other than Clinton gave the Chinese the technology to launch ICBMs? Who in turn gave the NK nuclear technology and the "how-to" manual for building missiles?
Oh! I didn't know Hezbolla and terrorism came after the Oslo Accords. Here I thought it was an attempt for a peaceful reolution. You can read about it here to refresh your memory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords)
Yes, I do know how the Oslo accords came about. And Arafat was the leader of a TERRORIST organisation. And the accords FAILED. There is no negotiation with terrorism. There is either victory or death.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+before+2000/Fatal+Terrorist+Attacks+in+Israel+Since+the+DOP+-S.htm
http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief3-6.htm
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/11/11/arafat_the_monster/
And Mahmoud Abbas is no different.
http://www.standwithus.com/news_post.asp?NPI=200
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2006/05/mahmoud-abbas-terrorist.html
http://www.zoa.org/2005/12/pa_chief_abbas.htm
If you got rid of your firearms you can come to Connecticut. We have gun shops all over the place.
Got any MG shoots coming up? (I missed the recent one here in Co last weekend).
What the heck do we have to do with Rwanda? I didn't know it was a state. It's not. Isn't that what the U.N. is for?
I wonder why Bush hasn't done anything with Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Congo? Or do you have special rules for republican administrations?
The U.N. is useless, they can't even stop their own "peacekeepers" (read: Spectators) from raping little kids in Africa. And we have a moral obligation to stop the massacres of the innocent, if we've lost our high ground then we must get it back by all means. Regardless of the nation they reside in. Or would you rather that the massacres have continued? Would you complain if the U.S. started carpet-bombing Iran? No, of course you wouldn't, you have noting to do with it and it's not your business.
And thx for pointing out that Bush hasn't done anything for Sudan, Zimbabwe and the Congo. Once we're done with Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea we can head to those nations to help or we can pass a draft and do it all at once. And like I said in my earlier post: No Votes = No balls. Bush is a politician. No more, and there is no less than that.
But hey, since the Europeans aren't doing anything, WHY don't they send some troops to stop the fighting?
And since when have I started making up rules for the Republicans?
bradclark1
09-12-06, 09:18 PM
Who in turn gave the NK nuclear technology and the "how-to" manual for building missiles?
You'd have to show me something on that.
I don't compromise principles
You don't have to, but it keeps the chinese out of Taiwan.
The downsizing of the military is exactly what has lead to the increase of spending today.
There is nothing gained in keeping a cold war sized military. We in the army at that time even realized it. That also gave us the ability to rapidly modernize our forces which we were in desperate need of.
How has that increased spending anyhow?
Less government = Good. But the military doesn't decide what legislation is passed in the U.S.
You have totally lost me here.
Got any MG shoots coming up? (I missed the recent one here in Co last weekend).
The amendment does not say anything about the right to bear automatic firearms. It just says firearms. :D They weren't even concieved of at that time.
And thx for pointing out that Bush hasn't done anything for Sudan, Zimbabwe and the Congo. Once we're done with Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea we can head to those nations to help or we can pass a draft and do it all at once.
Yeah OK. Now I know where you are coming from. No point in further discussion with a child or someone who can't hold their liquor.
Yahoshua
09-12-06, 11:47 PM
You'd have to show me something on that.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002512.html
There is nothing gained in keeping a cold war sized military. We in the army at that time even realized it. That also gave us the ability to rapidly modernize our forces which we were in desperate need of.
How has that increased spending anyhow?
If there's nothing to gain by keeping a cold-war sized military then why are the resources of the active military we have now stretched so thin?
And I found an interesting article about it:
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1993/ns93241.pdf
It's more expensive to re-build and grow the military back to the stage it was during the cold war than it would've been to have kept the military at the size that it was.
You have totally lost me here.
My bad....I lumped the military + Gov't spiel together and totally derailed.
The amendment does not say anything about the right to bear automatic firearms. It just says firearms. They weren't even concieved of at that time.
fire·arm (fhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/imacr.gifrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif䲭http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gif) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dfirearm) http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif
n.
A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.
Yep, an MG, LMG, Rifle, Pistol, Mortar, etc. is covered by the term "Firearm." So yeah it's protected by the 2nd. Amendment. And the civilian militia CAN own these (for those that can afford it, and I'd prefer that only those with prior military/LEO experience handle the big stuff).
mi·li·tia (mhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-lhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifshhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dmilitia%26x%3D32%26y%3D24) http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif
n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
That covers just about everybody. Not that it really matters anyway. Those Light/Heavy Machine Guns are too expensive for me and many other ppl to feed (at $1.50 per round the price gets steep real fast.).
Yeah OK. Now I know where you are coming from. No point in further discussion with a child or someone who can't hold their liquor.
Eh?:o
Maybe you didn't catch the entire end of my post:
And thx for pointing out that Bush hasn't done anything for Sudan, Zimbabwe and the Congo. Once we're done with Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea we can head to those nations to help or we can pass a draft and do it all at once.
No Votes = No balls. Bush is a politician. No more, and there is no less than that.
But hey, since the Europeans aren't doing anything, WHY don't they send some troops to stop the fighting?
Perhaps I didn't elaborate enough on this point:
I DO want Bush to go into Sudan and stop the fighting. The U.N. isn't doing anything about it and I always hear the Eurocrats complaining of the U.S. being the "World Policeman" and yet demanding that we pull more cash out of our pockets to send overseas? Okay, we'll pull out our money, put it into our military, whom will then do the job that the U.N. was supposed to do.
It's a Damned if we do and damned if we dont, so we might as well go ahead with the rest of the other tyrannical nations too.
(btw, I dont drink....yet).
The Avon Lady
09-12-06, 11:52 PM
The U.N. isn't doing anything about it and I always hear the Eurocrats complaining of the U.S. being the "World Policeman" and yet demanding that we pull more cash out of our pockets to send overseas?
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/3340/ca0912dhz8.jpg
The Avon Lady
09-12-06, 11:57 PM
Heh heh! :p
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/8412/gm060911du1.jpg
scandium
09-12-06, 11:59 PM
I think this paragraph, from one of Skybird's links, sums it up nicely:
The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of
115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155. President G. W.
Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six
Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton
having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the
lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.
I'm not familiar with the particular test they used, but generally a score of 100 is the median value which puts GWB just slightly below "average"; so he is not actually retarded, as some believe he is, only that he is better suited to managing a lemonaide stand rather than the world's most powerful country. But IQ tests can't factor in wealth, affluence, political connections, and being the hereditary next-in-line to a well accomplished and well connected former President who also happens to be his daddy.
Too bad he screwed things up so badly that he soured any chance of Jeb succeeding him in '08. Thus I expect the Repubs to run a lemon who will lose in '08 (any (R) will be seen as a lemon after 8 years of Republican disasterous governing), and Jeb can then, after a couple terms in the Senate, continue the Bush dynasty in '12 or '16 after the Repubs have had a chance to blame the fallout for George Dubya's failed leadership on his democratic successor.
That's my prediction. I'll have to check back in 6-10 years to see if I nailed it on the money or not ;)
The Avon Lady
09-13-06, 12:10 AM
I think this paragraph, from one of Skybird's links, sums it up nicely:
The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of
115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155. President G. W.
Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six
Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton
having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the
lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.
I think this (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm) sums it up better.
There's a sucker born every minute.
scandium
09-13-06, 12:45 AM
I think this paragraph, from one of Skybird's links, sums it up nicely:
The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of
115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155. President G. W.
Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six
Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton
having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the
lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. I think this (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm) sums it up better.
There's a sucker born every minute.
*shrug* that 91 score should have given it away, but for once I gave Bush too much credit ;)
The Avon Lady
09-13-06, 12:51 AM
I think this paragraph, from one of Skybird's links, sums it up nicely:
The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of
115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155. President G. W.
Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six
Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton
having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the
lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. I think this (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm) sums it up better.
There's a sucker born every minute.
*shrug* that 91 score should have given it away, but for once I gave Bush too much credit ;)
Fake but accurate. :roll:
And who other than Clinton gave the Chinese the technology to launch ICBMs? Who in turn gave the NK nuclear technology and the "how-to" manual for building missiles?
Yahoshua, you are way way way off the mark with these statements. China has had operational ICBM's (http://www.sinodefence.com/strategic/missile/df5.asp)since 1981, I'd be really interested to see how you can lay that on Clinton if you can. The Clinton administration did agree to give the North Koreans a light water reactor of a design which was incapable of producing weapons grade plutonium, in return for the N.Koreans shutting down their breeder reactor (of a Russian design) at Yongbyon. For more information on the Korean standoff I highly recommend watching this episode of Frontline (http://http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/). The website also has tons of great info and interviews.
Skybird
09-13-06, 07:06 AM
I think this paragraph, from one of Skybird's links, sums it up nicely:
The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of
115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155. President G. W.
Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six
Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton
having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the
lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.
I'm not familiar with the particular test they used, but generally a score of 100 is the median value which puts GWB just slightly below "average"; so he is not actually retarded, as some believe he is, only that he is better suited to managing a lemonaide stand rather than the world's most powerful country. But IQ tests can't factor in wealth, affluence, political connections, and being the hereditary next-in-line to a well accomplished and well connected former President who also happens to be his daddy.
Too bad he screwed things up so badly that he soured any chance of Jeb succeeding him in '08. Thus I expect the Repubs to run a lemon who will lose in '08 (any (R) will be seen as a lemon after 8 years of Republican disasterous governing), and Jeb can then, after a couple terms in the Senate, continue the Bush dynasty in '12 or '16 after the Repubs have had a chance to blame the fallout for George Dubya's failed leadership on his democratic successor.
That's my prediction. I'll have to check back in 6-10 years to see if I nailed it on the money or not
Eh, hear-hear - my prediction, too (except that thing on Dubya).
Note that I quoted two different studies. One is indirectly concluding on IQ by analysing all material about a given person, speeches, articles, biography, here the author came up with ridiculously high scores, the important thing here is to look not at the absolute values, but the relation between values, and than it matches, roughly, the second study (which you quoted), which probably used more direct input (IQ-tests) people may have done for axample at university, shows more believable scores. IQ-tests at university are not uncommon, at least in Germany, I had three tests myself to earn points for participating in experiments, a certain number of such points was needed to get access to the half-time-exams (purpose is to supply ongoing reasearch works with a constant stream of willing rats, eh, subjects, I mean). for the latter design, ordinary clinical IQ-tests will be used. Outcome depends on the design of the test (culture-free or not, knowledge-free or not, focus on language or mathematics or abstract thinking or graphical presentation, time-limits or not). Ask 100 psychologists what intelligence is, and you get 30-40 different answers. Some IQ tests say more about the author than about the examined subject :D
Intelligence shifts and changes with age. A score of 91 is close to the limit when kids would be sent to special schools for mentally handicapped children and those with intellectual deficits.
but all that is academic only. Far more valid and interesting is the finding of Bush's repertoire of words he uses when analysising all his speeches, and statements and recordings. What was said about him: 6500 words, compared to an avergae of 11800 or soething like that. This deficit could mean two thingS: either his mental flexibility and intellectual capacity is seriously handicapped, or he is extremely clever and knows that those people he adresses are mentally inflexible or intellctually handicapped, so that he takes care of getting understood and reduces the niveau of his language to the needed lower level.
The Avon Lady
09-13-06, 07:09 AM
Did you miss my prior link (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm), Skybird? :hmm:
SkvyWvr
09-13-06, 07:13 AM
I think this paragraph, from one of Skybird's links, sums it up nicely:
The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of
115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155. President G. W.
Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six
Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton
having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the
lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.
I'm not familiar with the particular test they used, but generally a score of 100 is the median value which puts GWB just slightly below "average"; so he is not actually retarded, as some believe he is, only that he is better suited to managing a lemonaide stand rather than the world's most powerful country. But IQ tests can't factor in wealth, affluence, political connections, and being the hereditary next-in-line to a well accomplished and well connected former President who also happens to be his daddy.
Too bad he screwed things up so badly that he soured any chance of Jeb succeeding him in '08. Thus I expect the Repubs to run a lemon who will lose in '08 (any (R) will be seen as a lemon after 8 years of Republican disasterous governing), and Jeb can then, after a couple terms in the Senate, continue the Bush dynasty in '12 or '16 after the Repubs have had a chance to blame the fallout for George Dubya's failed leadership on his democratic successor.
That's my prediction. I'll have to check back in 6-10 years to see if I nailed it on the money or not
Eh, hear-hear - my prediction, too (except that thing on Dubya).
Note that I quoted two different studies. One is indirectly concluding on IQ by analysing all material about a given person, speeches, articles, biography, here the author came up with ridiculously high scores, the important thing here is to look not at the absolute values, but the relation between values, and than it matches, roughly, the second study (which you quoted), which probably used more direct input (IQ-tests) people may have done for axample at university, shows more believable scores. IQ-tests at university are not uncommon, at least in Germany, I had three tests myself to earn points for participating in experiments, a certain number of such points was needed to get access to the half-time-exams (purpose is to supply ongoing reasearch works with a constant stream of willing rats, eh, subjects, I mean). for the latter design, ordinary clinical IQ-tests will be used. Outcome depends on the design of the test (culture-free or not, knowledge-free or not, focus on language or mathematics or abstract thinking or graphical presentation, time-limits or not). Ask 100 psychologists what intelligence is, and you get 30-40 different answers. Some IQ tests say more about the author than about the examined subject :D
Intelligence shifts and changes with age. A score of 91 is close to the limit when kids would be sent to special schools for mentally handicapped children and those with intellectual deficits.
but all that is academic only. Far more valid and interesting is the finding of Bush's repertoire of words he uses when analysising all his speeches, and statements and recordings. What was said about him: 6500 words, compared to an avergae of 11800 or soething like that. This deficit could mean two thingS: either his mental flexibility and intellectual capacity is seriously handicapped, or he is extremely clever and knows that those people he adresses are mentally inflexible or intellctually handicapped, so that he takes care of getting understood and reduces the niveau of his language to the needed lower level.
More like 1 fake and 1 possible, yet to be confirmed, study.:roll:
bradclark1
09-13-06, 08:30 AM
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002512.html
What has this got to do with Clinton supposedly giving Korea nuclear and missile technology?
If there's nothing to gain by keeping a cold-war sized military then why are the resources of the active military we have now stretched so thin?
Because it wasn't designed to invade two countries at once for an expanded time.
It's more expensive to re-build and grow the military back to the stage it was during the cold war than it would've been to have kept the military at the size that it was.
Who says we are going to build up the military to pre CW levels?
The issue of firearms is in the individuals opinion so it's not worth arguing. I personally don't see why a civilian
needs automatic weapons but that's just me. The militia part is covered by the National Guard. In 230 years concepts change.
And thx for pointing out that Bush hasn't done anything for Sudan, Zimbabwe and the Congo. Once we're done with Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea we can head to those nations to help or we can pass a draft and do it all at once.
We are not an evil empire and we are not the worlds police man. I'd say that 99.99999999% of America would disagree with your idea. Even if you were president and tried it you'd be impeached because of mental impairment. Besides that the world wouldn't stand for it and you would have a chance to play militia and use your mg's because there would be a lot of people with different accents in the white house.
The Avon Lady
09-13-06, 08:34 AM
Besides that the world wouldn't stand for it and you would have a chance to play militia and use your mg's because there would be a lot of people with different accents in the white house.
What? Kissinger's planning on making a comeback?! :o
SkvyWvr
09-13-06, 08:37 AM
Besides that the world wouldn't stand for it and you would have a chance to play militia and use your mg's because there would be a lot of people with different accents in the white house.
What? Kissinger's planning on making a comeback?! :o
The Govenator will be moving in.:hulk:
bradclark1
09-13-06, 08:38 AM
Ha ha Ha :D
The Avon Lady
09-13-06, 08:38 AM
Besides that the world wouldn't stand for it and you would have a chance to play militia and use your mg's because there would be a lot of people with different accents in the white house.
What? Kissinger's planning on making a comeback?! :o
The Govenator will be moving in.:hulk:
Vell, zat's zeh zame accent zen. :p
Yahoshua
09-13-06, 08:57 AM
What has this got to do with Clinton supposedly giving Korea nuclear and missile technology?
Maybe this link will do better then....
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/nuclear.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/clinton-china-timeline
Because it wasn't designed to invade two countries at once for an expanded time.
WW2? We invaded continents for extended periods of time.
The issue of firearms is in the individuals opinion so it's not worth arguing. I personally don't see why a civilian needs automatic weapons but that's just me. The militia part is covered by the National Guard. In 230 years concepts change.
Not quite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces
The militia was reserved for the power of the states, NOT to be controlled by the Federal Gov't. And whether organized, or unorganized, the Militia was funded by the state (or in this case private citizens). The National Guard cannot be the modern civilian militia if the Federal Gov't has control over or funds National Guard activities. The militia is to be distinct from a regular army, so the federalization of the militias is not in accordance with the original intent of it's use.
We are not an evil empire and we are not the worlds police man. I'd say that 99.99999999% of America would disagree with your idea.
Taken a poll lately? I agree we're not an evil empire, but do you really want the U.S. to sit on their hands and do NOTHING while civilians are massacred? Why?
SkvyWvr
09-13-06, 09:25 AM
Besides that the world wouldn't stand for it and you would have a chance to play militia and use your mg's because there would be a lot of people with different accents in the white house.
What? Kissinger's planning on making a comeback?! :o
The Govenator will be moving in.:hulk:
Vell, zat's zeh zame accent zen. :p
Only cooler, with sunglasses:|\\ :rotfl: :rotfl:
Skybird
09-13-06, 09:33 AM
I think this paragraph, from one of Skybird's links, sums it up nicely:
The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of
115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155. President G. W.
Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six
Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton
having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the
lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.
I'm not familiar with the particular test they used, but generally a score of 100 is the median value which puts GWB just slightly below "average"; so he is not actually retarded, as some believe he is, only that he is better suited to managing a lemonaide stand rather than the world's most powerful country. But IQ tests can't factor in wealth, affluence, political connections, and being the hereditary next-in-line to a well accomplished and well connected former President who also happens to be his daddy.
Too bad he screwed things up so badly that he soured any chance of Jeb succeeding him in '08. Thus I expect the Repubs to run a lemon who will lose in '08 (any (R) will be seen as a lemon after 8 years of Republican disasterous governing), and Jeb can then, after a couple terms in the Senate, continue the Bush dynasty in '12 or '16 after the Repubs have had a chance to blame the fallout for George Dubya's failed leadership on his democratic successor.
That's my prediction. I'll have to check back in 6-10 years to see if I nailed it on the money or not
Eh, hear-hear - my prediction, too (except that thing on Dubya).
Note that I quoted two different studies. One is indirectly concluding on IQ by analysing all material about a given person, speeches, articles, biography, here the author came up with ridiculously high scores, the important thing here is to look not at the absolute values, but the relation between values, and than it matches, roughly, the second study (which you quoted), which probably used more direct input (IQ-tests) people may have done for axample at university, shows more believable scores. IQ-tests at university are not uncommon, at least in Germany, I had three tests myself to earn points for participating in experiments, a certain number of such points was needed to get access to the half-time-exams (purpose is to supply ongoing reasearch works with a constant stream of willing rats, eh, subjects, I mean). for the latter design, ordinary clinical IQ-tests will be used. Outcome depends on the design of the test (culture-free or not, knowledge-free or not, focus on language or mathematics or abstract thinking or graphical presentation, time-limits or not). Ask 100 psychologists what intelligence is, and you get 30-40 different answers. Some IQ tests say more about the author than about the examined subject :D
Intelligence shifts and changes with age. A score of 91 is close to the limit when kids would be sent to special schools for mentally handicapped children and those with intellectual deficits.
but all that is academic only. Far more valid and interesting is the finding of Bush's repertoire of words he uses when analysising all his speeches, and statements and recordings. What was said about him: 6500 words, compared to an avergae of 11800 or soething like that. This deficit could mean two thingS: either his mental flexibility and intellectual capacity is seriously handicapped, or he is extremely clever and knows that those people he adresses are mentally inflexible or intellctually handicapped, so that he takes care of getting understood and reduces the niveau of his language to the needed lower level.
More like 1 fake and 1 possible, yet to be confirmed, study.:roll:
Sorry, no, the first is confirmed to be valid academical project, even being led by one of America's leading figures in differential and intelligence psychology (his name by far is not unknown internationally ;) ).
It's just that you maybe do not like the outcome.
About the other I just can refer to the German newspaper site that referred to it some days ago. If that really is faked, then obviously many people fell for it.
Refer to Simonton'S work to be safe, then. The absolute values are not the interesting thing (they are scaled too high for a standard IQ scale), but their ratios.
The Avon Lady
09-13-06, 09:37 AM
While we've previously linked to many an article showing one failuer after another in US security and intel services over the past 20 years, here is what's brewing here and now (http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/13/republicans-fight-bush-on-terror-tactics/).
Stupid idiots!
SkvyWvr
09-13-06, 09:37 AM
@ Avon.
How about a couple Kinishes:D
The Avon Lady
09-13-06, 09:39 AM
Sorry, no, the first is confirmed to be valid academical project, even being led by one of America's leading figures in differential and intelligence psychology (his name by far is not unknown internationally ;) ).
It's just that you maybe do not like the outcome.
Or you don't like my prior link (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm). :shifty:
SkvyWvr
09-13-06, 09:41 AM
Sorry, no, the first is confirmed to be valid academical project, even being led by one of America's leading figures in differential and intelligence psychology (his name by far is not unknown internationally ;) ).
It's just that you maybe do not like the outcome.
Or you don't like my prior link (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm). :shifty:
He hasn't commented on that has he.:hmm:
Skybird
09-13-06, 09:46 AM
http://lovenstein.org/
and
http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/a/106301.htm
and
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/bushiq.html
Okay, I fell for them. Seems I had lots of company.
What link, AL? I found your underlined "prior link" signal, but that's it, and it was too late.
The Avon Lady
09-13-06, 10:03 AM
What link, AL? I found your underlined "prior link" signal, but that's it, and it was too late.
Put on your bifocals (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=308433&postcount=178). :cool:
SUBMAN1
09-13-06, 10:06 AM
Are we still on the Bush bashing thread? I'm out of popcorn already and you are making me have to go buy some more!
-S
Skybird
09-13-06, 11:27 AM
Sorry, no, the first is confirmed to be valid academical project, even being led by one of America's leading figures in differential and intelligence psychology (his name by far is not unknown internationally ;) ).
It's just that you maybe do not like the outcome.
Or you don't like my prior link (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm). :shifty:
Ah, I found out the mess I stumbled into minute after posting that. That quote of yours - meanwhile got corrected.BTW, since I really believe that Bush is not the most intelligent guy that ever was in that office, I put up those loinks, even the Simonton reference, as a joke only - whcoih can be seen by the tone in whcih I advertised them the first time. I googled about Simonton to find an English translation for the link in the article in Die Welt, and the result showed that fake from Lovington institute as well. I noticed the early date, but otherwise it looked okay, too, so I linked it as well, together with the Simonton stuff.
HunterICX
09-13-06, 12:08 PM
Edited for extremely bad language, please do not use obscenities here. -- Neal Stevens
The Avon Lady
09-13-06, 12:18 PM
This is an simple message I think:
************************* (http://www.adrants.com/images/bush-in-412-seconds.jpg)
:D
That you are an extreme sufferer of BDS?
Yep. :yep:
bradclark1
09-13-06, 01:02 PM
What's BDS?
SkvyWvr
09-13-06, 01:03 PM
What's BDS?
Google it.
Yahoshua
09-13-06, 01:08 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome
The Avon Lady
09-13-06, 01:39 PM
This is an simple message I think:
link removed
:D
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/802/mrbeanzapaterofb7.jpg
Personally, I would have voted for Mr. Bean.
bradclark1
09-13-06, 01:51 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome
Ooh. Thats me.:doh:
SubSerpent
09-13-06, 03:05 PM
I did find that link Avon posted with Matt Lauer and Bush a bit disturbing. It made Bush look like a paranoid maniac.
Ever watch a movie called "The Cane Mutiny". or read the Novel?
It's a fictional story but the mentality of the skipper is what I think Bush suffers from. It must be some kind of dementia about terrorist out to get the US 24/7 when they only really attack in reality once every 10 years or so. Even after 9/11, the US is still the least likely country to be attacked by a terrorist organization based outside of the US. We are just too hard to get to even with all the airplanes in the world. It helps us also to have Europe and Asia do most of the security for our country by catching most foriegn terrorist at their airports prior to getting to our country. This seems to be a common thing now for the last half decade.
SubSerpent
09-13-06, 05:24 PM
Here's one about Bush being stupid...ROFLMAO!!! :rotfl:
It's gotta be true cause it came from his own mouth. Just watch!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMLxvIbHC3U&NR
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - G.W.Bush
HunterICX
09-13-06, 06:04 PM
This is an simple message I think:
http://www.adrants.com/images/bush-in-412-seconds.jpg
:D
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/802/mrbeanzapaterofb7.jpg
Personally, I would have voted for Mr. Bean.
:hmm: pickin that because I live in spain....remember I,m dutch.
but generally I take an Big **** on politics because most what comes out of their mouths is just pure Bull****.
Skybird
09-13-06, 06:35 PM
but generally I take an Big **** on politics because most what comes out of their mouths is just pure Bull****.
She talks like thunder
She really lets you know
She keep changing the rules
And leave you nowhere to go
She bore you rigid with the party line
She's so far left she's gonna get left behind
He wants six pretty white spots on each side of the dice
He wants it all to be equal but he needs to throw twice
Now there's a guy in the corner with a smiling gaze
He turns to me and says
I'm gonna buy a hat
'Cos I think it's gonna rain
Got caught out coming here
Ain't gonna get caught again
I'm gonna buy a big one
Like that Mr Gorbachov
And when it's raining all this crap
Oh my hat will keep it off
Now take a look at all them leaders
Desperation in their eyes
The tight faces smiles that cannot hide it
They know no more than you or I
So I'm gonna buy a hat
'Cos here they come again
And everytime they start to blah-blah
It's you and me that gets the rain
Chris Rea: Gonna buy a Hat
SubSerpent
09-13-06, 10:06 PM
Funny Bush video...And you Repubs thought funny pictures were just for Clinton. Shame on you! :nope:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8dvU1RfUbE&mode=related&search=
SubSerpent
09-13-06, 10:10 PM
Good movie going to be coming out and it's not by Micheal Moore
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3254488777215293198
It must be some kind of dementia about terrorist out to get the US 24/7 when they only really attack in reality once every 10 years or so. Even after 9/11, the US is still the least likely country to be attacked by a terrorist organization based outside of the US. We are just too hard to get to even with all the airplanes in the world. It helps us also to have Europe and Asia do most of the security for our country by catching most foriegn terrorist at their airports prior to getting to our country. This seems to be a common thing now for the last half decade.
You really believe that don't you?
Do you live in a cave next to Osama?
People are dying every single day somewhere due to some Rag Head dipstick strapping a bomb to himself or in a car.
Every single protest held in Iran or Iraq is echoed with the chants of DEATH TO AMERICA and ISRAEL.
You need to quit smoking the crack dude.Crack Kills...your comments are absurd.
SubSerpent
09-14-06, 07:40 AM
It must be some kind of dementia about terrorist out to get the US 24/7 when they only really attack in reality once every 10 years or so. Even after 9/11, the US is still the least likely country to be attacked by a terrorist organization based outside of the US. We are just too hard to get to even with all the airplanes in the world. It helps us also to have Europe and Asia do most of the security for our country by catching most foriegn terrorist at their airports prior to getting to our country. This seems to be a common thing now for the last half decade.
You really believe that don't you?
Do you live in a cave next to Osama?
People are dying every single day somewhere due to some Rag Head dipstick strapping a bomb to himself or in a car.
Every single protest held in Iran or Iraq is echoed with the chants of DEATH TO AMERICA and ISRAEL.
You need to quit smoking the crack dude.Crack Kills...your comments are absurd.
Your comments show nothing more than your hate of muslims by calling them "ragheads". Apparently, you are a lot like Bush and want to bring death and destruction to all muslims by tagging them all as "terrorist".
Yes, I do stand by my statements because they are proven statistically. The US IS the least likely nation to be attacked by terrorist within their own countries borders. You act like Bush and think every country is out to get us or something when the fact shows that Europe and any other Christian based societies are even more at risk from Islamic radicals that want to bring down our religion because they are closer to them.
These radicals are nothing more than a small group of people. They are NOT a country. You think a couple of spoiled eggs ruined the batch or something when the majority of them were and still are good Islamic followers. It's our presence over there that is slowly but surely "rotting" away the rest of the good ones because our troops end up shooting dead one of their young kids who snuck out after American impossed curfews in their country.
Bush's war has done nothing more than to stir up more and more hatred in this world. A censous done recently showed that there were even more terrorist in our world now AFTER the invasion of Iraq. Could this be because America is now looked at as the aggressor over Islamic States and Countries? :hmm: Most likely!
Get a clue!
The Avon Lady
09-14-06, 07:59 AM
Apparently, you are a lot like Bush and want to bring death and destruction to all muslims by tagging them all as "terrorist".
Yes, I do stand by my statements
Where did Bush state what you just claimed?
The Avon Lady
09-14-06, 08:07 AM
You think a couple of spoiled eggs ruined the batch or something when the majority of them were and still are good Islamic followers.
Who Can Use the Word “Extremism”? (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013087.php)
Get a clue!
Get the facts.
SubSerpent
09-14-06, 08:37 AM
Apparently, you are a lot like Bush and want to bring death and destruction to all muslims by tagging them all as "terrorist".
Yes, I do stand by my statements
Where did Bush state what you just claimed?
By going to war with Iraq and using WMD as the excuse to be able to use Muslims as target practice because of his hate towards Muslims! He - like Iceman, think that Muslims are a bunch of "ragheaded terrorist" and need to be expelled from existence.
Obviously someone from Isreal such as yourself is going to have a hatred towards Muslims and Arabs as a whole, so it's of no surprise that you love Bush and his followers of Muslim hating storm troopers. You obviously hated Clinton for trying to calm Yesser Arafat down with bribe money and new vehicles when you thought he should have sent troops in instead to eradicate him and Palestinians. Yes indeed, no big surprise at all that you would side more on the Republican issues when it comes to violence against Muslims!
The Avon Lady
09-14-06, 08:49 AM
Apparently, you are a lot like Bush and want to bring death and destruction to all muslims by tagging them all as "terrorist".
Yes, I do stand by my statements
Where did Bush state what you just claimed?
By going to war with Iraq and using WMD as the excuse to be able to use Muslims as target practice because of his hate towards Muslims! He - like Iceman, think that Muslims are a bunch of "ragheaded terrorist" and need to be expelled from existence.
But there are Muslims all around the world. So what's Bush's plan for Malaysia? Indonesia? California, for that matter?
How much more slop are you planning on doling out?
BTW, regarding WMDs, why don't you see what the Clinton adminstration had to say about them before Bush even stepped foot in the White House? They're easy to google.
Sorry if the facts get in your way - again.
Obviously someone from Isreal such as yourself is going to have a hatred towards Muslims and Arabs as a whole, so it's of no surprise that you love Bush and his followers of Muslim hating storm troopers.
I'm not a big Bush fan at all but thanks for the rabid tribute anyway.
You obviously hated Clinton
No, I disapproved of him for numerous reasons, including:
for trying to calm Yesser Arafat down with bribe money and new vehicles when you thought he should have sent troops in instead to eradicate him and Palestinians.
While that is true, the Bush admin is no different. Besides, I blame my own politicians first and foremost for the follies they have ventured into.
Yes indeed, no big surprise at all that you would side more on the Republican issues when it comes to violence against Muslims!
So, you think that defending oneself is a "Republican" thing? Sad thing is that once upon a time, there were Democrats who wouldn't want people with your warped thinking anywhere near their party.
Times have changed. Not for the better, mind you.
SubSerpent
09-14-06, 09:39 AM
How are you "defending" yourself when you are "invading" another country?
Look up the word "defending" and then look up the word "attacking" or 'invading" or "aggression".
"Defending" is the oppostie of any of those words. You want your cake and to eat it too Avon. It doesn't work that way. You can't "attack" but call it a "defense". To "attack" is to provoke.
Yes, Republican'ts are "aggressors" and wish to do harm on Islamic beliefs and society. Like I stated, you have a chip on your shoulder over Clinton or any other person that you view has put your Jewish belief's and society at a greater risk with Islam and muslims.
Honestly Avon, I have nothing against Isreal or Jews, but I think we should let you all deal with your own problems even if it means Arabs coming in and pushing yall into the Med. Christian based America should severe it's ties and say so long to ALL middle east countries and mind its own business. Hope you can swim!
Skybird
09-14-06, 12:18 PM
Serpent,
read a bit about Islam's ideology and history. And do not trust pro-Islamic sources for doing so. We had this kind of debate so often that even me gets a bit tired of repeating the same old things time and again. your assumptions about what Islam is and wants are good-willed, but simply wrong. You mental comparions to western history necessarily must fail, for Islam has no parallels to the Western tradition. It simply is totalitarian, intolerant towards other cultures, and highly expansive/aggressive. In these things it is totally different than the later churches, the teaching of Jesus, and Buddhism.
I am totally anti Bush, as by now you may have noticed. But I am even more anti-Islam, and I have reasons for that. These reasons lie in
- it's self-definition,
- it's lack of consideration, it's slyness and selfishness,
- it's circular pseudo-reasoning and absence of any logic,
- it's explicit codifying of using force and violance and justifying it if it is in the name of Islam's interest (to be found in the Quran),
- it's claim to be the eternal victim where it turns others into victims indeed,
- it's education of people to become dumb and blindly believe the self-justification of a warmongering bandit who was one of the worst criminals ion human hiostory,
- it's violant history that kills every cultural diversity and tolerant coexistence that in the long run always, always tries to become the last man standing, at the cost of all others;
- and the absence of any future-orientation, replacing evolution with stagnation, knowledge with superstition, spirituality with helplessness and unreflected copying of one single figure: Muhammad, creativity and creational power with apathy and phlegmatism.
Islam is nobody's friend, and everyone's enemy. In principole it has declared war on everything and everyone that is not itself. It's demand to be the ruler of all mankind and owner of all land and countries is more absolute and total than the demands of the Nazi's ideology, the Chinese emperors or the European empires ever has been. Hitler admired it for it's ruthlessness!
Try to see that islamic society is still there, where Muhammad has left it in the 7th century. And then ask yourself why this is so, and what this tells you about the worth of Islam, and muhammad himself. Next compare that to the teachings of Jesus, and Siddharta, their teachings of not acting violantly, but peacefully which is so muczh the opposite of wjhat Muhammad taught and did thorughout his life, wading in blood. Islam is no solution to problems. It is the source of many problem that we have. It does not tame violance, it calls for violance and declares it a holy obligation. It attacks other cultures, and calls their self-defense an attack and an offense. It prohibits any resistance to Islam, it prohibits leaving Islam (by death-penalty) and calls subjugation and discrimination of other faiths "Islam's protection". Many self-declared Muslims will tell you that I am lying, or misunderstand Islam. I tell you that many Muslims are brainwashed victims of a man-hating ideology that puts the search for knowledge under penalty and made it a law that the search for answers must be limited to the Quran, for that is the central revelation of their God. Moderate Islam is untrue Islam, the only Islam there is is the fighting Islam, I base that statement on the Quran and the biography of Muhammad, the example he has set himself, as well.
In other words: we ask: is it really like this or that, like the findings suggest or like the bible says? They ask: why is it that the Quran is always right? - Now, think about that intellectual precondition, and then consider how far it could lead you when reflecting existential questions, questioning youirself, or doing scientific work - not very far, you' ll find. And the developement status of Islamic societies that very much are still basing on the mental and moral living conditions of the early and mid-medieval reflect that.
SubSerpent
09-14-06, 03:53 PM
Serpent,
read a bit about Islam's ideology and history. And do not trust pro-Islamic sources for doing so. We had this kind of debate so often that even me gets a bit tired of repeating the same old things time and again. your assumptions about what Islam is and wants are good-willed, but simply wrong. You mental comparions to western history necessarily must fail, for Islam has no parallels to the Western tradition. It simply is totalitarian, intolerant towards other cultures, and highly expansive/aggressive. In these things it is totally different than the later churches, the teaching of Jesus, and Buddhism.
I am totally anti Bush, as by now you may have noticed. But I am even more anti-Islam, and I have reasons for that. These reasons lie in
- it's self-definition,
- it's lack of consideration, it's slyness and selfishness,
- it's circular pseudo-reasoning and absence of any logic,
- it's explicit codifying of using force and violance and justifying it if it is in the name of Islam's interest (to be found in the Quran),
- it's claim to be the eternal victim where it turns others into victims indeed,
- it's education of people to become dumb and blindly believe the self-justification of a warmongering bandit who was one of the worst criminals ion human hiostory,
- it's violant history that kills every cultural diversity and tolerant coexistence that in the long run always, always tries to become the last man standing, at the cost of all others;
- and the absence of any future-orientation, replacing evolution with stagnation, knowledge with superstition, spirituality with helplessness and unreflected copying of one single figure: Muhammad, creativity and creational power with apathy and phlegmatism.
Islam is nobody's friend, and everyone's enemy. In principole it has declared war on everything and everyone that is not itself. It's demand to be the ruler of all mankind and owner of all land and countries is more absolute and total than the demands of the Nazi's ideology, the Chinese emperors or the European empires ever has been. Hitler admired it for it's ruthlessness!
Try to see that islamic society is still there, where Muhammad has left it in the 7th century. And then ask yourself why this is so, and what this tells you about the worth of Islam, and muhammad himself. Next compare that to the teachings of Jesus, and Siddharta, their teachings of not acting violantly, but peacefully which is so muczh the opposite of wjhat Muhammad taught and did thorughout his life, wading in blood. Islam is no solution to problems. It is the source of many problem that we have. It does not tame violance, it calls for violance and declares it a holy obligation. It attacks other cultures, and calls their self-defense an attack and an offense. It prohibits any resistance to Islam, it prohibits leaving Islam (by death-penalty) and calls subjugation and discrimination of other faiths "Islam's protection". Many self-declared Muslims will tell you that I am lying, or misunderstand Islam. I tell you that many Muslims are brainwashed victims of a man-hating ideology that puts the search for knowledge under penalty and made it a law that the search for answers must be limited to the Quran, for that is the central revelation of their God. Moderate Islam is untrue Islam, the only Islam there is is the fighting Islam, I base that statement on the Quran and the biography of Muhammad, the example he has set himself, as well.
In other words: we ask: is it really like this or that, like the findings suggest or like the bible says? They ask: why is it that the Quran is always right? - Now, think about that intellectual precondition, and then consider how far it could lead you when reflecting existential questions, questioning youirself, or doing scientific work - not very far, you' ll find. And the developement status of Islamic societies that very much are still basing on the mental and moral living conditions of the early and mid-medieval reflect that.
@Skybird, you must really hate muslims! Perhaps it's because living in Germany you are closer to the real nutcase ones compared to me? My daughters pediactric doctor is an Islamic muslim and he's a real nice guy. I've never asked him if he was going to kill me or my daughter some day, but now I think I will. Considering of course you are stating that ALL muslims are nutjobs and their religion practices violence and evil. I just don't know why my daughter's doctor got into medicine if he planned on hurting people sometime? This claim of yours of course, means that most black people in this world are also evil since most blacks are of an Islamic decent.
I don't remember reading about any Islamic people killing Christ though. Twas the Jews was it not? Why is one religion any better than any another if they all promote violence? I think most every religion has practiced and promoted some form of violence and murder throughout history, am I wrong? Truth is we're all guilty and we will all be judged for our participation in such violent nonsense.
Skybird
09-14-06, 04:07 PM
Sure I hate Muslims. I also eat Muslim babies twice a week. I prefer them as Hamburger with onion and salad. :smug:
You look at it too simple, Serpent. I'll send you a short PM, no reason to do all this on the board - again.
BTW, my former dentist in the city where I lived before moving here was Syrian. Does that proove that Muhammad had nice teeth? :doh:
SubSerpent
09-14-06, 06:04 PM
Thanks for the PMs. I don't know what to respond with. I am not going to tell you that I know more than you about Islam and Muslims since your PM seems to be pretty thorough. I will stand by my belief that what America is doing in the middle east is wrong and potentially triggering of a religious war between Islam and Christians. That's what I believe has already begun and this whole WMD, Oil, terrorism, etc. is just a ploy to cover up the fact that it's all about religion and the beginning of a Christian vs. Islam Holy War. It just hasn't reached epic proportions yet.
Yahoshua
09-14-06, 06:12 PM
It probably goes without saying that if Skybird wanted to PM you, then you should limit your response to that of a PM as well.
Skybird
09-14-06, 06:13 PM
I agree that America's strategical planning has been terribly flawed and definitey does not help to improve our position. It weakens our strategical positons, and wastes precious ressources, and does nothing to prepare for what lies ahead of us. I did not answer to you because of your criticism of Bush and the US, but becasue of your perception of Islam. Islam does not become a better thing just because Bush is an idiot. Both things have nothing do to with each other, and just interact in a time-window of coincidence.
The war you mantiuoned, exists since 1400 years, btw, and it is not exclusively a christian-Islamic war, but essentially an Islamic-non-Islamic war.
Skybird
09-14-06, 06:14 PM
It probably goes without saying that if Skybird wanted to PM you, then you should limit your response to that of a PM as well.
No problem. Only reason was not to repeat wellknown debates one more time again in public. That purpose has been served.
SubSerpent
09-14-06, 06:31 PM
I agree that America's strategical planning has been terribly flawed and definitey does not help to improve our position. It weakens our strategical positons, and wastes precious ressources, and does nothing to prepare for what lies ahead of us. I did not answer to you because of your criticism of Bush and the US, but becasue of your perception of Islam. Islam does not become a better thing just because Bush is an idiot. Both things have nothing do to with each other, and just interact in a time-window of coincidence.
The war you mantiuoned, exists since 1400 years, btw, and it is not exclusively a christian-Islamic war, but essentially an Islamic-non-Islamic war.
True. That's what I should have said - Islamic vs non Islamic.
SubSerpent
09-14-06, 06:33 PM
Somehow this thread went from Bush stole the election to popcorn to religion. :hmm:
I need a beer!
Yahoshua
09-14-06, 06:54 PM
And back to pocorn.....which, btw is reference to a smiley not in use on this forum. In which a smiley is holding up a sign on a chair saying "MORE DRAMA PLS" and eating popcorn. And so......(Eats popcorn).
scandium
09-14-06, 07:08 PM
That's what I believe has already begun and this whole WMD, Oil, terrorism, etc. is just a ploy to cover up the fact that it's all about religion and the beginning of a Christian vs. Islam Holy War. It just hasn't reached epic proportions yet.
I'm in general agreement with much of what you've posted throughout this thread, and you have the right sense of it here but backward: strategic and economic resources are at the root of the problem, and the rest is only symptomatic of that conflict.
To elaborate briefly: we, the west, have had our hands mixed into affairs into various parts of the ME, to one degree or another, for over a century and its mainly been about either control of oil (even if only indirectly through making sure its managed by friendly regimes) or strategic positioning (as in both world wars and the cold wars). Everything else has been a consequence of this meddling; we depose a government we don't like and install one we do, which is inevitably repressive and maintained in power with the aid of western "aid" (weapons, technology, etc) which is used to control the local population, disenfranchise them from their own homelands, or government, etc and then we scratch our heads and wonder why they "hate our freedom" ... meanwhile our politicians and media stir the pot through the subtle promotion of ignorance, xenophobia, and intolerance and what we're left with is 9/11 and the endless "war on terror".
Really though, it is not about religion - that is only a distraction. It is about control of us and them, devisiveness of us and them along religious/ethnic lines, and strategic & economic hegemony combined with good old fashioned profiteering (its no coincidence that the bush family fortune, cheney's fortune, and the saudi fortune all come from the same place and they have more in common with each other than they do with us... we are just the sheep to be manipulated).
Skybird
09-14-06, 07:11 PM
I don't remember reading about any Islamic people killing Christ though.
To be precise, Islam is angry with christian priests for - amongst other reasons - they teach that Jesus (in Islam an important prophet) has been crucified. Islam teaches he has not been killed, but avoided getting executed, and someone else in his place was executed.
I think most every religion has practiced and promoted some form of violence and murder throughout history, am I wrong?
While the european churches and their earthly political ambitions have accepted wars as well as murder, the teaching of Jesus has not, and holds no word of accepting war, calling for murder and finding excuses for it, Jesus directly opposed this kind of violance, as to my best knowledge of the four gospels that are holding his teaching. Also, Buddha's teachings never have called for war and violance, quite the opposite. Islam, on the other hand, has the demand to use force and violance, execution and murder against infidels, explicitly codified in the Quran, at several locations, namely in the 2nd, 4th, 8th and 9th Sura.
Not all and everything is equal, some things and some people are of more and others are of lesser worth, and not all and everything is of the same value. That is the socialistic understanding of justice=equality, which is not basing on qualitative, but quantitative and material definitons only. We should learn again that tolerance needs limits to keep us separated from what we should not tolerate and accept as equal, for our own benefit and survival, else we tolerate ourselves to death, getting anarchy only and by that the law of the jungle, and in jungles not the tolerant and reasonable survives, but the strongest. Indeed, here lies the primary danger of the EU's determination to delete people's feeling of historical identites (deleting differences by that), and relativizing values and qualitative judgements so long until the are ripped out of their contexts, have been desintegrated into meaningless, in special contexts sometimes even hindering sub-portions of their former entities and by that have no more meaning anymore that politics need to respect and take care of. Having made anythging "equal" by making flat what was hill and filling up what was vally, the ground is prepared to welcome the "equal" and brotherly values of Islamic immigrants.
Socialists and communists had accepted an alliance with Khomeni to help him to topple the Schah. after Khomeni was successful, he thanked them by having them hanged up at light and telephone masts throughout the country. Westerners do not understand that the system of values summed up in the Scharia eats Western "tolerance" and "equality"in one bite. They are no match for Islam, and hold no attractiveness for true Islam. that's why they did not develope a market economy, and that's why Scandium is wrong thinking that all would be good if they only would get the same share of ressources and wealth. Scandium outs himself as a materialist by that assessment, and he thinks Islam also is only a materialistic ideology, like the West's thinking today is. But the attractiveness and cultural penetration power of Islam lies in it's rigid (interpreted as: strong) ethical value structure which cannot be put asleep by offering it a handful of dollarnotes. it will take the money - and still attract believers for non-material reasons. Corruption and tyranny always has been accepted and are a legitimate part of finding the new leader in islamic societies throughout history - as long as the leader is strong enough to make it to the top, and uses some of his power and wealth to push Islam and Sharia in the world as well. This is the reason why every help offered to islam, every gift given to it, and well-meant advise and assitance - is interpreted as a signal for the giver's weakness and willingness to surrender.
SubSerpent
09-14-06, 08:29 PM
That's what I believe has already begun and this whole WMD, Oil, terrorism, etc. is just a ploy to cover up the fact that it's all about religion and the beginning of a Christian vs. Islam Holy War. It just hasn't reached epic proportions yet.
I'm in general agreement with much of what you've posted throughout this thread, and you have the right sense of it here but backward: strategic and economic resources are at the root of the problem, and the rest is only symptomatic of that conflict.
To elaborate briefly: we, the west, have had our hands mixed into affairs into various parts of the ME, to one degree or another, for over a century and its mainly been about either control of oil (even if only indirectly through making sure its managed by friendly regimes) or strategic positioning (as in both world wars and the cold wars). Everything else has been a consequence of this meddling; we depose a government we don't like and install one we do, which is inevitably repressive and maintained in power with the aid of western "aid" (weapons, technology, etc) which is used to control the local population, disenfranchise them from their own homelands, or government, etc and then we scratch our heads and wonder why they "hate our freedom" ... meanwhile our politicians and media stir the pot through the subtle promotion of ignorance, xenophobia, and intolerance and what we're left with is 9/11 and the endless "war on terror".
Really though, it is not about religion - that is only a distraction. It is about control of us and them, devisiveness of us and them along religious/ethnic lines, and strategic & economic hegemony combined with good old fashioned profiteering (its no coincidence that the bush family fortune, cheney's fortune, and the saudi fortune all come from the same place and they have more in common with each other than they do with us... we are just the sheep to be manipulated).
On Topic...
Ahhhh, that makes sense now! :know:
I love Canada! I shall move there I do think! :yep:
Off Topic...
BTW, how are you doing from the car accident? How is that situation coming along? I hope everything is going well!
SubSerpent
09-14-06, 08:32 PM
I don't remember reading about any Islamic people killing Christ though.
To be precise, Islam is angry with christian priests for - amongst other reasons - they teach that Jesus (in Islam an important prophet) has been crucified. Islam teaches he has not been killed, but avoided getting executed, and someone else in his place was executed.
I think most every religion has practiced and promoted some form of violence and murder throughout history, am I wrong?
While the european churches and their earthly political ambitions have accepted wars as well as murder, the teaching of Jesus has not, and holds no word of accepting war, calling for murder and finding excuses for it, Jesus directly opposed this kind of violance, as to my best knowledge of the four gospels that are holding his teaching. Also, Buddha's teachings never have called for war and violance, quite the opposite. Islam, on the other hand, has the demand to use force and violance, execution and murder against infidels, explicitly codified in the Quran, at several locations, namely in the 2nd, 4th, 8th and 9th Sura.
Not all and everything is equal, some things and some people are of more and others are of lesser worth, and not all and everything is of the same value. That is the socialistic understanding of justice=equality, which is not basing on qualitative, but quantitative and material definitons only. We should learn again that tolerance needs limits to keep us separated from what we should not tolerate and accept as equal, for our own benefit and survival, else we tolerate ourselves to death, getting anarchy only and by that the law of the jungle, and in jungles not the tolerant and reasonable survives, but the strongest. Indeed, here lies the primary danger of the EU's determination to delete people's feeling of historical identites (deleting differences by that), and relativizing values and qualitative judgements so long until the are ripped out of their contexts, have been desintegrated into meaningless, in special contexts sometimes even hindering sub-portions of their former entities and by that have no more meaning anymore that politics need to respect and take care of. Having made anythging "equal" by making flat what was hill and filling up what was vally, the ground is prepared to welcome the "equal" and brotherly values of Islamic immigrants.
Socialists and communists had accepted an alliance with Khomeni to help him to topple the Schah. after Khomeni was successful, he thanked them by having them hanged up at light and telephone masts throughout the country. Westerners do not understand that the system of values summed up in the Scharia eats Western "tolerance" and "equality"in one bite. They are no match for Islam, and hold no attractiveness for true Islam. that's why they did not develope a market economy, and that's why Scandium is wrong thinking that all would be good if they only would get the same share of ressources and wealth. Scandium outs himself as a materialist by that assessment, and he thinks Islam also is only a materialistic ideology, like the West's thinking today is. But the attractiveness and cultural penetration power of Islam lies in it's rigid (interpreted as: strong) ethical value structure which cannot be put asleep by offering it a handful of dollarnotes. it will take the money - and still attract believers for non-material reasons. Corruption and tyranny always has been accepted and are a legitimate part of finding the new leader in islamic societies throughout history - as long as the leader is strong enough to make it to the top, and uses some of his power and wealth to push Islam and Sharia in the world as well. This is the reason why every help offered to islam, every gift given to it, and well-meant advise and assitance - is interpreted as a signal for the giver's weakness and willingness to surrender.
:doh: :hmm: ...............:doh:
Me thinks SkyBird knows his extremist!
scandium
09-14-06, 11:54 PM
On Topic...
Ahhhh, that makes sense now! :know:
I love Canada! I shall move there I do think! :yep:
I like both our countries, but (naturally I'm biased and freely admit it) could not live in the U.S. Too many guns, too much violent crime, inadequate healthcare coverage for too many people, and the current government there is out of control.
Here in Canada we also have our problems, but they are ones that I'm used to so I guess they don't matter quite so much. I'm becoming increasingly wary of our conservative government, mainly because of its Reform Party roots and the influence Bush may have over our own PM in adopting similar policies. I think soon I may, for the first time, become involved in the political process beyond just voting; I just haven't decided which party I want to throw that level of support at, either the NDP or the Liberal party (I am ideologically closer to the NDP, but the Liberals tend to be more electable and they served us well during the 13 or so years they were in power).
Off Topic...
BTW, how are you doing from the car accident? How is that situation coming along? I hope everything is going well!
I've made a lot of progress there in the last 10 days; I'm not sure how much is due to just passing a certain threshold in the healing process, and how much to these "miracle meds" my doc had me on. I think I will make even more progress once physiotherapy starts, but that is delayed while I still wait on the insurance company to see if they will pick up the tab or not.
That actually sums up the good and the bad of our healthcare system; I happened to be hit by an SUV at a time when I was no longer insured (despite popular misconceptions, Canada has a mixed public/private two tier system and not a single tier socialized system), having lost my health insurance when I quit my old job and having to pay into the different insurance policy at my new job for 90 days first just for partial coverage, and then 180 days (total) for full coverage.
But despite that, the medicare insurance program that every Canadian has still automatically paid the emergency room bill, the surgical consult, the icu, the x-rays and ultrasounds, ct-scans, inpatient medication, and the cost of the private room I was given. I would not want to see the bill for that. I'd imagine it is well up into the 5 figure zone. And my lack of private coverage had no impact on the type and quality of care I was given, nor did it cause any delays (in fact throughout my entire hospital stay I was never asked if I had additional insurance coverage). Private, secondary insurance here is something most of us also opt into and its very cheap when its offered through your place of work and useful for everything not covered by medicare. But there is no substitute for medicare, and I would put all my energy into throwing out of office any politician who threatened to eliminate or undermine it (as would millions of other Canadians, it is so deeply embedded into the national fabric).
But anyway, to make a long story short its going pretty well all things considered. And having that routine brush with death that is so common, along with all other kinds of accidents and violence that routinely injure, maim, and kill, its served only to reinforce my belief in just how out of all proportion this terror war is. Its all just so much hyped up nonsense and BS. Millions more people died just last year in the US alone from any one of Heart Disease, Stroke, Cancer, AIDS, etc - imagine what the $1 trillion plus wasted on Iraq, which has only served to create terror where it never existed before and kill tens of thousands in the process, could have done if even a quarter of it had been spent on any of the above causes. Yet millions of obese Canadians and Americans are so caught up in events in the ME and the Muslim boogeyman under the bed that they don't realize they'll be dead first of a heart attack, stroke, shooting, stabbing, or traffic accident. Yes, terrorism is a problem, but the US isn't doing squat to address the root causes other than to further inflame them while pissing away billions that could be better spent on police, intel, domestic security, and still have hundreds of billions left to spend on projects that would actually save lives instead of indiscrimately taking them. But then that would be too pro-life, and this US government is very anti-life as shown by the only bill Bush ever used a veto on - federally funded stemcell research, which has shown the promise already, even in its infancy, to cure all manner of diseases. But then that would piss off the fundie base and alienate the pharmaceutical lobby and cut off their campaign contributions, since government funded cures would undermine the profits they make on expensive treatments.... anyway, that is another tangent I am off on ;)
SubSerpent
09-15-06, 12:43 PM
@Scandium,
Good to hear you're doing better. I agree, the US healthcare system is crap. This is a problem long overdue to be fixed by both Democrats and Rebpulican't parties. I guess there are too many wealthy young americans that refuse to help out the old, sick, disabled people here because of their greedy little ways. That's ok though, they themselves will one day become old, sick, or disabled, and without the money to cover it all and have to die a rotting miserable person.
True story about an elderly couple that I knew awhile back. It's quite sad...
An old man and old woman lived in this house just a few doors down from my parents. It was a middleclass neighborhood in the 1990s and no one in the neighborhood was struggling for money. The old man was a WWII vet that fought on the beaches of Normandy on D-day and lost his only brother there that day as well. He was 78 years old when I met him. He had developed cancer in one of his legs and he became very sick. His wife (about 70) took him to the hospital to try to save his life. Over the course of several months and several doctors visits their bills were pilling up! They had both been retired for over 15 years and the wife had to go out and get another job to help out. She ended up getting a job at a local thread and yarn shop making $7.00 an hour. She worked full time there but she soon found that the constant standing on her feet all day was taken it toll on her. She ended up getting fired by the store owner because she had to take frequent breaks to sit down and one day she fell asleep and was caught.
Her husband's condition got worse and she took him back to the hospital. They refused to work on him for failure to pay several previous bills that they couldn't afford. Their medical insurance was outrageously expensive because it usually goes up a lot the older you get. Finally, they had to sell both vehicles they owned to juet get him admitted again for treatment and admitted to the hospital as a permenant patient. She now had no ride to go and see her husband at the hospital and paying for a cab fair to and from each day is very expensive. I saw her leave her house one morning very early and saw her walk up the street. Later that day my dad and I needed to go to the store for something (this was about 4 hours after I saw that old woman walk up the street). We left the home and drove about 10 miles up the road when I noticed the old woman walking down the interstate. I told my dad that I had seen her leave her house earlier that day on foot. My dad pulled off the road and confronted the old woman. She nearly fainted into my dads arms. It was almost 90 degrees outside and she had literally walked 10 out of 20 miles at 70 years old towards the hospital just to see her husband.
My dad loaded her up in the car and we drove her to the hospital. She needed medical attention too now from heat stroke and exhaustion. She told us on the way to the hospital about her problems and the story that I've told you so far about. My dad agree to help her out and drive her to the hospital 3 times a week for her to check on her husband and she was greatful. My dad also gave her a thousand dollars to use towards paying off her bills at home. She really didn't want to take his money but did and agreed to pay him back one day if she could. Her husband took another turn for the worse one day and finally died at the age of 79. The old woman was now alone. Her childern were all grown up and never came to see her or their father before he died. We attended his funeral funded by the VA and other private veteran foundations. It was a beautiful funeral with a miltary band there to play taps as well. His wife was given the American flag for his military service and I remember her crying as she took it from the Army sergeant that presented it to her. I looked hard into her eyes as she cried and I could almost see her reliving her life with her husband again within them. I could see how she was remembering the times when they were young and happy. When they had kids and were happy parents. I really felt bad for her loss and I'l never forget that day.
A few months went by and me, my dad, and others slowly stopped seeing the old woman. I'd sometimes see her in the front yard of her house watering her flowers and picking up her newspaper. Sometimes I would see her in the evenings slowly swinging on her front porch swingbench that her and her husband used to sit on together just before dark. She seemed to just stare at her front lawn as a waived at her from my bike as I peddled towards home. She never waived back as she still just stared at her lawn. Perhaps she was remebering times in that yard she had with her childern or with her husband when they were young? They only time she ever would wave back to me was when she was watering her flowers or picking up her newspaper if I just happened to pass by her then.
One day the government came in and sold her house out from under her feet with an auction for bills she owed to the hospital for backed up bills. She was now 71 years old and homeless. Some family moved in and destroyed her flower beds and tore down her front porch. I never saw her again after that but I can only assume that she died very lonely and homeless. Her husband's sacrifices at D-day and his military service amounted to nothing in the end. What mattered was the money the rich snob greedy hospital wanted as if they were struggling. What a sick world this is...:nope:
SkvyWvr
09-15-06, 12:53 PM
Somehow this thread went from Bush stole the election to popcorn to religion. :hmm:
I need a beer!
First round is on me. :()1:
Skybird
09-15-06, 01:07 PM
Popcorn IS religion! Nothing worse than cold, rubber-like, too-sweet or not-sweet-enough popcorn. It makes me even pray, I pray every time I buy it that they got it right, and I also pray that the bag is huge enough so that it holds enough until I am fed up with it, which usually makes me wishing it to hell for the next six months, so you see, no matter how I hold it with religion, it leaves me as a sinner, who nevertheless is forgiven by buying more popcorn. Eating popcorn is a spiritual ceremony, so do it with devotion: always eat only one piece at a time, and say a thankful prayer after each swallowing!
SubSerpent
09-15-06, 01:20 PM
Somehow this thread went from Bush stole the election to popcorn to religion. :hmm:
I need a beer!
First round is on me. :()1:
MGD in the bottle for me! Thanks! :()1:
Yahoshua
09-15-06, 04:44 PM
(hoards popcorn)
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.