SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 4 of 5 123 4 5
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   Really getting tired of Bush... (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=123890)

August 10-23-07 01:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradclark1
Not really, 'my boy' did not ignore terrorism for seven months.
No, he ignored it for 8 whole years.

DeepIron 10-23-07 02:05 PM
Quote:
Nor will it be in your and my lifetime. We have fallen into an abyss of status quo generated over the years.
And that, my friend, is the quite possibly the saddest summation of this whole flippin' bureaucratic mess we call the US Government... :nope:

Quote:
Katrina is a whole different thread and perhaps looking at the Governer and Mayor who refused federal help needs to be read up on. Devastation there was MASSIVE! Know one knew were to start. I'm not on FEMA side as this wing is still screwed up. Nothing was learned at all.
Actually, that was my point in mentioning Katrina... Here we are *again* with what will be another MASSIVE amount of damage in SoCal, and I doubt that we will have learned anything from the Katrina experience to alleviate the suffering and to "make things right" again.

And that's what really gets me. Here we are, this "Super Power" in the world, highest standard or living, freedoms and all that, and we still do all this stupid cr*p... We're supposed to LEAD the Freeworld, not rape and pillage it..

SUBMAN1 10-23-07 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tchocky
Well, there's a lot of things that are not in the Constitution that should be done by a government. Things like environmental protection.
"Hey man, if lead poisoning and nuclear waste are so dangerous, then why aren't they in the constitution?!?"

etc
That is a bad comparrison because that falls under the section of laws, not basic freedoms. It has nothing to do with the constitution, which outlines your basic freedoms and rights and nothing more. Laws dictate what you can or can't do.

-S

SUBMAN1 10-23-07 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk
Per DeepIron

Quote:
What the hell has gone wrong with this country?? Now, we use our kids as "cannon fodder" for an ongoing political power struggle? I frankly could care less about whether or not any particular political party scores "points" against the other. American politics have degenerated to the point of utter futility...
I agree 100%. America is tired of the Bush clan and the Clinton clan. Time for a new face with fresh ideas. The political jockeying during campaigning make ones stomach turn.
Here here! +3 points telling it like it is!

-S

SUBMAN1 10-23-07 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk
Quote:
I agree, now if we can only get that pesky cloning technology to work we could have another Reagan.........
Reagan:up: May man! Unfortune there is no one who could fill his shoes. Such a shame.
Thompson can.

-S

SUBMAN1 10-23-07 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradclark1
Quote:
Originally Posted by waste gate
The muslim terrorists got the party started with 9/11. Thinking that the US was as weak as the Clintonistas.
Hate to enlighten you but nothing of this scope happened under the Clintonistas. It happened under the Buck-a-roo's. And we all know the Buck-a-roo's knew an attack was coming but ignored it.
That is BS. No other way to say it. They are inundated with threats every day, and have been since the 60's and 70's. No one believed it could happen.

-S

SUBMAN1 10-23-07 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk
Quote:
Im not talking about free healthcare, im talking about tax funded healthcare for all citizens.
There is free healthcare. Just visit any emergency room and see it at work. The ER has turned into the family doctor. What, are they going to turn you away while you are bleeding from the jugular? Nope. But guess what, those like me who pay for my families healthcare pay a premium to cover those that choose to use the ER like the family doctor and have no coverage. They know they will get the help and they use it without blinking an eye.
You again get more points! +1

-S

SUBMAN1 10-23-07 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradclark1
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk
It was out there but Clinton refused to acknowledge it. Enlightened as to the Clintonists.
Please show anything that says that?

Edit: http://archive.salon.com/politics/fe...01/09/12/bush/

Simple Google it. Google is your friend. An example - http://www.google.com/search?client=...=Google+Search

Not sure how you are going to respond to that link, but it's pretty incriminating for the Clinton's. :D

-S

Sea Demon 10-23-07 03:03 PM
There's alot of damning things out there about the Clinton's. Some of it is in such absolute broad daylight, it's impossible to ignore. Although the left is utterly oblivious to their own self-destruction.

There's something wrong about the Dishwashers in Chinatown for Clinton. I know the Clinton's are bought and paid for by the Chicomms, but it's ridiculous the regular Joe Dem's refuse to see it.......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102101069.html

Chinese laundered campaign donations?????You don't say.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202007...hinese_lau.htm

I'll say it again. Giving the Democrats the White House, mainly HR Clinton, will be giving the Chinese butchers in Beijing, and Islamic Terrorists in the Middle East a boost. It is so clear that a Hillary presidency will be more of the same in regards to the selling/giving away the "keys to the kingdom" to China again.

And have you heard some of the Democrats in regards to our current situation in the war on terror? The whole Democrat party waffles on whether or not we should fight it, *surrender*, or go back to the "sweep under the rug" policies of Bill Clinton and pretend it never happened. And the ones who would fight it are ostracized for their commitments to confront enemies of this country. See Joe Lieberman***. A Democrat President would not be in America's interest right now while we are at war and are confronting real threats. The Democrats cannot and will not see the realities of the day. They are not FDR or Truman Democrats these days. Today's Democrats simply don't have the abiility to lead.

Ishmael 10-23-07 04:17 PM
You guys just don't get it. The Bushes and the Clintons are just the two sides of the Corporatist World Order Agenda, designed to give the illusion of choice while preventing genuine alternative candidates from attempting to change that. Who do you think owns the media? The Bush admin is unconcerned because they know that a Hillary Clinton admin will continue the Occupation For Oil in Iraq, keep paying mercenaries like Blackwater, keep the mechanisms for state tyranny enacted during the Bush reign intact and pardon all the illegal acts committed by the Bush Regime.

Their goal is to bankrupt the US government while paving the way for the rise of The North American Union where only corporations and the wealthy will have rights. The only right remaining to us will be the right to starve. By this time, everyone will be forced to be implanted with RFID chips while all our internet conversations are monitored for non-right thinking.

The United States government will be gone within ten years. Replaced by the North American Union with police and prison services provided by Blackwater, CACI and their ilk.

As far as the "Health-Care System". I have no health insurance, haven't had any in a year, so if I get sick, I die. But then, after watching my wife's experiences with the health care system, I won't let those butchers any closer to me than I'd let the Bush admin. butchers. I figure I'm perfectly capable of dying on my own. I don't need those sick f**ks helping me on my way. When it's my time, I'll take a drive up into north central New Mexico on the Jicarilla Apache res and go for a walk in the Sangre de Cristos before a big blizzard. That way I can have my own do-it-yourself Tibetan funeral. I've decided I don't want to die on the white man's land, not even my own.

Sailor Steve 10-23-07 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUBMAN1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tchocky
Well, there's a lot of things that are not in the Constitution that should be done by a government. Things like environmental protection.
"Hey man, if lead poisoning and nuclear waste are so dangerous, then why aren't they in the constitution?!?"

etc
That is a bad comparrison because that falls under the section of laws, not basic freedoms. It has nothing to do with the constitution, which outlines your basic freedoms and rights and nothing more. Laws dictate what you can or can't do.

-S
Actually you're thinking of the bill of rights. The Constitution itself is the instruction manual for running the government. It defines specifically what each branch of government can and cannot do, as as such is the controlling basis of all our laws. How it is to do those things and what the limitations of power are, are not clearly defined. So not clearly defined that the founders themselves had many arguments concerning what was and was not "Constitutional".

bradclark1 10-23-07 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by August
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradclark1
Not really, 'my boy' did not ignore terrorism for seven months.
No, he ignored it for 8 whole years.
This says different. Even with the GOP trying to block.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradclark1
http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/...dTerrorism.htm
Myths Debunked - Clinton Didn't Fight Terrorism

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
Urban legends.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...lumenthal.html
"The Clinton Wars" Excerpts: How the GOP Undercut Clinton's Efforts to Fight Terrorism

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/516805.stm
The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has announced a major reorganisation, with a greater emphasis on the prevention of terrorist attacks against American interests.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.t...ill/index.html
The original House bill, passed last month, had deleted many of the Senate's anti-terrorism provisions because of lawmakers' concerns about increasing federal law enforcement powers. Some of those provisions were restored in the compromise bill
The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terroris...eet_10_96.html
WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET ON COUNTER-TERRORISM MEASURES

http://nsi.org/Library/Terrorism/policy.html
Nevertheless, as strong as the bill was, it should have been stronger. For example, President Clinton asked the Congress to give U.S. law enforcement increased wiretap authority in terrorism cases. But the Congress refused. After the President proposed that the Secretary of the Treasury consider the inclusion of taggants in explosive materials, so that bombs can be traced more easily to the bomb makers, the Congress exempted black and smokeless powder -- two of the most commonly used substances in improvised explosive devices.

SUBMAN1 10-23-07 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUBMAN1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tchocky
Well, there's a lot of things that are not in the Constitution that should be done by a government. Things like environmental protection.
"Hey man, if lead poisoning and nuclear waste are so dangerous, then why aren't they in the constitution?!?"

etc
That is a bad comparrison because that falls under the section of laws, not basic freedoms. It has nothing to do with the constitution, which outlines your basic freedoms and rights and nothing more. Laws dictate what you can or can't do.

-S
Actually you're thinking of the bill of rights. The Constitution itself is the instruction manual for running the government. It defines specifically what each branch of government can and cannot do, as as such is the controlling basis of all our laws. How it is to do those things and what the limitations of power are, are not clearly defined. So not clearly defined that the founders themselves had many arguments concerning what was and was not "Constitutional".
That is true. I'm trying to lump sum it and all of it - Bill of Rights, Admendments, COnstitution, etc. - but should have elaborated further. The point being it is not a set of documents that covers every aspect of the future, nor the past, but simply to provide a basic set of operating rules. That is the point I am trying to get across. It is not meant to replace laws.

-S

bradclark1 10-23-07 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUBMAN1
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradclark1
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk
It was out there but Clinton refused to acknowledge it. Enlightened as to the Clintonists.
Please show anything that says that?

Edit: http://archive.salon.com/politics/fe...01/09/12/bush/

Simple Google it. Google is your friend. An example - http://www.google.com/search?client=...=Google+Search

Not sure how you are going to respond to that link, but it's pretty incriminating for the Clinton's. :D

-S
Nothing to respond to. You aren't saying anything. Anybody can drop google links on any subject under the sun.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...rt&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...rt&btnG=Search

Ducimus 10-23-07 05:54 PM
>>RE:Really getting tired of Bush...

Just responding to the post title. I suppose at some point, just about everyone will become disillusioned with Bush. He lost my support during the presidential debates for the second election. The subject of outsourcing came up. As i recall, his only response to that was something along the lines of "ya'all just gotta get a better eduction". Excuse me, Mr Nue klar? The man can't even pronounce nuclear correctly, and he's telling me the answer to american jobs being outsourced overseas was to retrain? I have never looked at him favorably since.

baggygreen 10-23-07 06:05 PM
Im just impressed everyone has kept it civil in this thread - we should frame it and mount it!:rotfl:

I dont know that anyone coulda really stopped 9/11 as has been discussed. Clinton never woulda been allowed to launch a war or even higher profile strikes in order to try kill OBL, because there wasnt a perceived threat among the general population. Attacks still happened, but they were far away, in places that many americans had never heard of let alone knew the location of.

What it took for the public to realise that yes, there is actually a threat out there was a large-scale, very public and very bold attack. It will take another attack of the same style to make people think "oh, look, there is still a threat". Unfortunately most people will deem any big attacks a retaliation for the past few years' efforts in the ME. Fact of the matter is that this next attack will happen regardless of if we (the west) stay in the ME, pull out tomorrow, or even if we stop supporting Israel or something ridiculous like that.

On a lighter note, to everyone advocating a troop pullout today, i'll leave a quote from a teacher of mine about 10 years ago. Im bastardising the context, but thats ok. "withdrawing offers no protection at all, neither in the here and now or in the future";):D

P_Funk 10-23-07 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUBMAN1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tchocky
Well, there's a lot of things that are not in the Constitution that should be done by a government. Things like environmental protection.
"Hey man, if lead poisoning and nuclear waste are so dangerous, then why aren't they in the constitution?!?"

etc
That is a bad comparrison because that falls under the section of laws, not basic freedoms. It has nothing to do with the constitution, which outlines your basic freedoms and rights and nothing more. Laws dictate what you can or can't do.

-S
Laws are extentions of the founding documents. Every law written is assumed to be a clarical interpretation of the constitution. The constitution IS the ultimate law and any others are an exploration of the boundaries set by the most basic laws of the democracy in question. This is where you get the extended social welfare system being applied as a right. Less or more conservative interpretations indicate different levels of government involvement.

Referring to the common practise here of talking about how the government should only build roads and arm hicks on the borders is a very simple minded approach. It hails to an old world sense of government. Any student of history can see that static establishments that seek to deny progress to reality always fail ultimately. Relying on the utopian concept of the free market as being the true protector of people's needs is either naiive or intentionally dismissive of those that are left out. Greed is inherently capitalist and at the forefront of every business. Describing the collective benefits of society as being a natural ancillary to profit is proven idiotic. The term 'trickle down' is used to describe western capitalism. I never understood why anyone thought that was an acceptable reality. Those who work the hardest get the scraps and the fewest richest get the most because they already have too much for their own good. I just want someone to say f&*k the poor and get it over with. Enough romanticising of the free market already. Just be an honest capitalist someone and say that those without can go to hell if they can't hack it. The fundamental rights of those to equality are denied by the simple fact that poverty extinguishes the possibilities of many people. How can we all achieve something great if the lion's share already goes to those that have it. And when the economy falters, usually as a result of the rich getting so greedy that they invert the supply demand ratio, the poor are the ones forced to suffer the consequences since the rich offset the losses of poor economic profitability by cutting everything except for the revenues that go straight to the owner of the operation.

Pinko-Commie out.:|\\

Ishmael 10-23-07 06:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by P_Funk
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUBMAN1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tchocky
Well, there's a lot of things that are not in the Constitution that should be done by a government. Things like environmental protection.
"Hey man, if lead poisoning and nuclear waste are so dangerous, then why aren't they in the constitution?!?"

etc
That is a bad comparrison because that falls under the section of laws, not basic freedoms. It has nothing to do with the constitution, which outlines your basic freedoms and rights and nothing more. Laws dictate what you can or can't do.

-S
Laws are extentions of the founding documents. Every law written is assumed to be a clarical interpretation of the constitution. The constitution IS the ultimate law and any others are an exploration of the boundaries set by the most basic laws of the democracy in question. This is where you get the extended social welfare system being applied as a right. Less or more conservative interpretations indicate different levels of government involvement.

Referring to the common practise here of talking about how the government should only build roads and arm hicks on the borders is a very simple minded approach. It hails to an old world sense of government. Any student of history can see that static establishments that seek to deny progress to reality always fail ultimately. Relying on the utopian concept of the free market as being the true protector of people's needs is either naiive or intentionally dismissive of those that are left out. Greed is inherently capitalist and at the forefront of every business. Describing the collective benefits of society as being a natural ancillary to profit is proven idiotic. The term 'trickle down' is used to describe western capitalism. I never understood why anyone thought that was an acceptable reality. Those who work the hardest get the scraps and the fewest richest get the most because they already have too much for their own good. I just want someone to say f&*k the poor and get it over with. Enough romanticising of the free market already. Just be an honest capitalist someone and say that those without can go to hell if they can't hack it. The fundamental rights of those to equality are denied by the simple fact that poverty extinguishes the possibilities of many people. How can we all achieve something great if the lion's share already goes to those that have it. And when the economy falters, usually as a result of the rich getting so greedy that they invert the supply demand ratio, the poor are the ones forced to suffer the consequences since the rich offset the losses of poor economic profitability by cutting everything except for the revenues that go straight to the owner of the operation.

Pinko-Commie out.:|\\
Kinda makes you want to revisit Karl Marx again doesn't it? When you elect people who don't believe government works, why are you surprised when they can't make anything work in governing? What's most ironic to me is how many traits the neocons and Bolsheviks share. Both want the state to wither away for different reasons. Both think they know more than the masses of people. Both consider those people as sheep who must be forced to their own concept of "right action" and both will never willingly surrender power to oppositions.

10-23-07 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishmael

Kinda makes you want to revisit Karl Marx again doesn't it? When you elect people who don't believe government works, why are you surprised when they can't make anything work in governing? What's most ironic to me is how many traits the neocons and Bolsheviks share. Both want the state to wither away for different reasons. Both think they know more than the masses of people. Both consider those people as sheep who must be forced to their own concept of "right action" and both will never willingly surrender power to oppositions.

Quote:
When you elect people who don't believe government works, why are you surprised when they can't make anything work in governing?

Excellent observation Ishmael!!!



Quote:
Both consider those people as sheep who must be forced to their own concept of "right action" and both will never willingly surrender power to oppositions.

Time to take back our government. A Constitutional Convention is in order. Not so much to do away with our current constitution as to remove our current professional politicians and their contempt for the governed.

The WosMan 10-23-07 07:16 PM
Yes, our government overall needs a complete enema so we can get back to our roots and that includes the Reps and the Dems because both have abandoned us. I never was a conspiracy person but the fact that Bush does nothing about illegals and they continue to build the highway from Mexico through the US to Canada leads me to believe Ishmael's statements more than I would have 5 or 6 years ago.

Didn't Jefferson say the government would need to be reset every 20 years or so? I think we are due.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:20 PM.
Page 4 of 5 123 4 5
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.