# F*** the Republican party



## Flex (Sep 2, 2004)

With the Rep. Nat'l convention going on, i am at my sickest point. I usually try to tune out all the political bullshit, because thats all it is, bullshit. 

I happened to tune into their jerk-eachother-off convention last night for a few minutes, and i had to restrain myself from puking. 

The bullshit that spews from these guys mouths is incredible! am i the only one that thinks this????

i realize all the Bush supporters are their because he makes them richer, but do they have to BOOOOO when a democrats name is called? It reminded me of the "Haters BAll" from the Chappelle show, where there were supposedly the 5 biggest "haters" (people who "hate on" everyone else the most) in one room. They'd mock eachother, and the crowd would yell, "HATE HATE HATE HATE". thats exactly what it reminded me of, a bunch of stupid comics.

Have all these idiots been watching CNN for the past year and a half??? Do they realize there are our own people out there at war dying for a cause that we have no business being involved in when they chant "4 more years, 4 more years".

What if it were their sons and daughters that had to go overover there? I bet then they wouldnt be so gung ho about the war then, huh?

Hey Bush, send your two dumbass daughters there. see how pro-war you are then.

Like i said, i don't follow politics too closely, because it makes me sick to my stomach. And i'm not all Pro-Democrat, either. ITs just i disagree with just about every last thing Bush is all about. 

After watching that shit last night, it makes me think, My God, what a country we live in.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Weight39 (Sep 2, 2004)

Flex said:
			
		

> Any thoughts?



I'm sure rich will chime in soon.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 2, 2004)

When I have said that the anti-Bush crowd is embarrassing themselves, this is what I had in mind.

I am not a huge Bush fan, but I will vote him b/c he is by far a better candidate than Kerry. Republicans are much better equiped to manage both the war and the economy. Democrats are economic illiterates.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 2, 2004)

How many people did Saddam have to kill before you guys would say it's OK to take him out?

Put a number on it please, because this whinning about taking out that murderer is getting sickening.


----------



## kvyd (Sep 2, 2004)

How many people would it take for Saddam to kill till the people would get tired and rebel?

Thats the thing if freedom is wanted then freedom can be attained.


----------



## gr81 (Sep 2, 2004)

oh Cmon Flex, republicans spouting BS! why, thats absurd.. ha ha  

I have long since lost any respect for anyone in general that is a member of a political party period. There is much more that unites Americans than divides us and we get so caught up in winning and more importantly the opposite party losing that we have completely lost site of whats important in this country. Partisanship leads to divisiveness, a number of former presidents have thought so including Andrew Jackson and Madison I believe, and it does. Imposing a political agenda is the first priority of any party, when the first priority should be, has to be serving the American public and addressing issues. What does it say about a persons integrity and overall value of their own belief system when at the time a decision needs to be made, he looks to the party manual for what he/she is supposed to believe?? I am not a Democrat despite the labeling and finger pointing that has gone on and probably will continue to go on in this thread as well. I believe that the govt. doesn't have the right to make moral decisions for us, and yet according to this administration thats a ludicrous notion for me to have. Make very clear that I am not just bashing one party. Yes I hate Republicans, but I hate them b/c they automatically and perpetually discredit my opinions based on the perception that I am not one of them, so therefore I must be an enemy. I'll will be dammed if I sit and listen to anything from a party that tells me its ok to have a gernade launcher and a extended banana clip on my semi, b/c its my right as a citizen to form a militia (lets please keep in mind that America has more gun deaths than just about the next 10 most populated countries combined!!) yet if I wanna smoke a joint in my room by myself, or I wanna use a prohormone supplement, I will be thrown in jail (lets also please be reminded of how crowded our jails are with non violent drug offensives!) Yeah ok, that makes sense and is not at all hipocritical. And yes I know the Democratic party can be hipocritical, and I don't care, so please do not reply with that you A-holes. your all going to hell and your bringing this country with you. I hope your happy! peace bitches


----------



## Pepper (Sep 2, 2004)

kvyd said:
			
		

> How many people would it take for Saddam to kill till the people would get tired and rebel?
> 
> Thats the thing if freedom is wanted then freedom can be attained.


What are they going to do, throw rocks at him?

So that's the model for leadership? Let him kill until there is an uprising? All of Europe would be speaking German today.


----------



## gr81 (Sep 2, 2004)

> How many people did Saddam have to kill before you guys would say it's OK to take him out?
> 
> Put a number on it please, because this whinning about taking out that murderer is getting sickening.



Oh please, PLEASE pepper. I got love for you buddy, but lets not pretend that we went over there to eliminate a hazardous dictator that was killing its citizens and THATS why we went over there, from the goodness of our heart. Even your so called president said the reason we were there was to find weapons of mass destruction and find terrorist ties so PLEASE. First off, the US has NEVER EVER, I repeat NEVER done something like this in its history that wasn't going to directly benefit them, and please argue that! And to extend off that point quickly, if what you say is true and we just spent hundreds of billions of dollars and had nothing specific to gain, that would be an extremely sizable blunder. Secondly, if the US was really interested in eliminating dictators killing off their citizens then why are we not doing this for other countries like South Africa or N. Korea or teh hundreds of other countries that could benefit from out helping hand?? The Middle East is not the only place that this shit is going on by any means. How many other leaders have we assasinated in the name of goodness and concern in the last ten years, since this heroism is such a prominent priority for our country hmmm? Lets not kid ourselves. This War was politically motivated, as many are. I am not saying that Saddam shoudln't have been captured the way he was, b/c he deserves much more than that for the horror he has caused, but it is essential that we be brutishly honest and scrupulous about the situation as a whole. Bush used this opportunity, a national crisis, to impose his political agenda upon the country. Just examine at the country today to see a representation of this for gods sake. Debating the War and if whether we should've gone is one thing, but to do that lets please first be honest about what really happened. Its disrespectful to the countries involved not to be. Maybe that shit will get a cheer at the RNC, but there are some of us are not yet brainwashed by this unpatriotic propaganda. Its one thing to have love for your country, but to be forever adamant and believing that all we touch turns to gold is just nonsensical and self defeating. Thats like niave parent believing that her little boy is an angel, and even though this little mother fucker is kickin up dust everyday at school and causing trouble right and left, the parent is still in denial about it and is convinced that everyone else has to be wrong b/c her little boy is an angel. Its time to be honest about our actions. no one is perfect so lets start behaving like we understand that folks! I am finished. bonjour bitches


----------



## kvyd (Sep 2, 2004)

I guess things happen the way they do for a reason.  And all situations are different.


----------



## gr81 (Sep 2, 2004)

> So that's the model for leadership? Let him kill until there is an uprising? All of Europe would be speaking German today.



btw comparing Saddam to Hitler is so asinine I don't even kow where to start. Saddam was horrible but he in no way posed the threats that Hitler did.


----------



## maniclion (Sep 2, 2004)

Would you Republicans make up your minds, is the war on Iraq about terrorist links to Al-Qaeda, WMD's or stopping Saddams genocide?


*Five Falsehoods That Led to the Iraq Quagmire*


Weapons of Mass Destruction. The weapons have still not been found. Nader emphasized, "Until the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was our government's anti-communist ally in the Middle East. We also used him to keep Iran at bay. In so doing, in the 1980s under Reagan and the first Bush, corporations were licensed by the Department of Commerce to export the materials for chemical and biological weapons that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney later accused him of having." Those weapons were destroyed after the Gulf War. President Bush's favorite chief weapons inspector, David Kay, after returning from Iraq and leading a large team of inspectors and spending nearly half a billion dollars told the president :We were wrong." See: David Kay testimony before Senate Armed Services Committee, January 28, 2004.
Iraq Ties to Al Qaeda-9/11. The White House made this claim even though the CIA and FBI repeatedly told the Administration that there was no tie between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. They were mortal enemies - one secular, the other fundamentalist.
Saddam Hussein was a Threat to the United States. In fact, Saddam was a tottering dictator, with an antiquated, fractured army of low morale and with Kurdish enemies in Northern Iraq and Shiite adversaries in the South of Iraq. He did not even control the air space over most of Iraq.
Saddam Hussein was a Threat to his Neighbors: In fact, Iraq was surrounded by countries with far superior military forces. Turkey, Iran and Israel were all capable of obliterating any aggressive move by the Iraqi dictator.
The Liberation of the Iraqi People. There are brutal dictators throughout the world, many supported over the years by Washington, whose people need "liberation " from their leaders. This is not a persuasive argument since for Iraq, it's about oil. In fact, the occupation of Iraq by the United States is a magnet for increasing violence, anarchy and insurrection.


----------



## gr81 (Sep 2, 2004)

> Would you Republicans make up your minds, is the war on Iraq about terrorist links to Al-Qaeda, WMD's or stopping Saddams genocide?



yeah no shit manic! pick a lie and stick to it for christs sake. These are no longer reasons, they are justifications after the fact! who are you kidding besides yourselves.



> The Liberation of the Iraqi People. There are brutal dictators throughout the world, many supported over the years by Washington, whose people need "liberation " from their leaders. This is not a persuasive argument since for Iraq, it's about oil. In fact, the occupation of Iraq by the United States is a magnet for increasing violence, anarchy and insurrection.



exactly, if we were really concerned as republicans suggest why just iraq?


----------



## Pepper (Sep 2, 2004)

gr81 said:
			
		

> btw comparing Saddam to Hitler is so assinign I don't even kow where to start. Saddam was horrible but he in no way posed the threats that Hitler did.


 
Assinine?

I suppose it would be, however, I did not compare two. I think reading that into my post is so assinign that I don't know where to start


----------



## gr81 (Sep 2, 2004)

the suggestion was there.. and yeah I type fast and I can't spell.. lol


----------



## maniclion (Sep 2, 2004)

By the way those Five Falsehoods come from the Impeachment Petition by Ralph Nader

http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=15

*If you don't like Bush please add your signature.*


----------



## Muscle_Girl (Sep 2, 2004)

Sorry, maybe I am reading this wrong, but seems you 2 have something in common Pepper and Gr8.. you both like Shithawks?


----------



## gr81 (Sep 2, 2004)

^^someone should have told MG at the door that this is a conversation about politics and world matters, not lipstick and shoes or whatever it is women talk about. leave the statesmenship to the men dear and observe quietly if you must.. thank you


----------



## Flex (Sep 2, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> How many people did Saddam have to kill before you guys would say it's OK to take him out?



Let me ask you a question Pepper. 

Why Saddam? Why Iraq? You know why? Because he needed to blame SOMEBODY for Sept. 11.

If he is so fuckin against innocent people getting killed, what about all over teh rest of the world? What about in Africa, where people are getting slaughtered in civil war everyday? What about in other parts of the middle east, where people are getting punished by non-democracies everyday just as much if not more than in Saddam's Iraq.

I'll tell you why, again. Because he fucked up in not gettin Bin-Laden, so he needed someone to blame. And why not blame the asshole that his father was so passionate about, he's an easy target.


----------



## Flex (Sep 2, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> When I have said that the anti-Bush crowd is embarrassing themselves, this is what I had in mind.



Ya, i feel real embarrassed. Open your eyes. 

And Bush/Republicans balance war and the economy?????

i dont know much about politics, but what the fuck are you talkiing about, may i ask?

You already know my stance on the war, and i'll repeat it, its ALLLLLLL B.S. and the economy? are you being serious? Have you seen the economy lately? there are NO jobs. gas and oil prices are RIDICULOUS. The economy is terrible.

Come on, Pepper. I'm no politician, but i'm not an idiot either.


----------



## Flex (Sep 2, 2004)

gr81 said:
			
		

> Oh please, PLEASE pepper. I got love for you buddy, but lets not pretend that we went over there to eliminate a person that was killing its citizens and thats why we went over there, from teh goodness of our heart. PLEASE. First off, the US has NEVER EVER, I repeat NEVER done something like this in its history that wasn't going to benefit us, and please argue that! Second, if the US was really interested in eliminating dictators killing off their citizens then why are we not doing this for other countries like South Africa?? the Middle East is not the only place that this shit is going on. How many other leaders have we assasinated in the name of goodness in the last ten years, since this is such a priority for our country hmmm? Lets not kid ourselves. This War was politically motivated. I am not saying that Saddam shoudln't have been captured like that, b/c he should've, but lets be honest about the situation and why we are there. Buch used this opportunity, a national crisis to impose his political agenda upon the country. Juts look at the country now for gods sake. arguing about the War and if we should've done it is one this, but lets be honest about what really happened. Its disrespectful not to. Maybe that shit will get a cheer at the RNC, but some of us are not brainwashed.



if my posts didnt come out how i meant, ^ is what i meant to say.

very thoughtful and educated, bro.....impressive (both your long posts, not just this one)


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Sep 2, 2004)

It pisses me off that during the Republican convention, Democrats are outside protesting and starting fights with the cops.  But this doesn't happen during the Democratic convention, because Republicans are grown ups.


----------



## Flex (Sep 2, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Would you Republicans make up your minds, is the war on Iraq about terrorist links to Al-Qaeda, WMD's or stopping Saddams genocide?
> 
> 
> *Five Falsehoods That Led to the Iraq Quagmire*
> ...



Chew on that, Republicans


----------



## Flex (Sep 2, 2004)

sorry to keep babbling,

but when Bush makes a speech, does he even read it first????

He looks like a fuckin idiot when he talks. he looks like its all brand new information for him. WTF is he talking about???


----------



## maniclion (Sep 2, 2004)

[Sarcasm]Iraq deserved it and next Venezuela cause damn-it all to hell we felled to get that Chavez out of office even by trying to rig the elections like we did so well in Florida. And now he want's 30% of the cut in Venezuelan oil instead of the nice 16% we let him keep. And for of all selfish reasons to help his people out of squalor. What a Hitler-esque man we should vaporize his whole country for electing such a shit-head.[/Sarcasm]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0816-03.htm

By the way, Venezuela has more oil than Iraq, if they can construe a plan Bush and Cheney would love to conquer them too.


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Sep 2, 2004)

Flex said:
			
		

> but when Bush makes a speech, does he even read it first????



He's too busy running the country and doing good for us all.


----------



## Flex (Sep 2, 2004)

TheGreatSatan said:
			
		

> He's too busy running the country and doing good for us all.



oooooooooooooh, i see. 

so that's why when he talks he looks like he has no idea wtf he's saying. He must not even have time to read his note cards.


----------



## maniclion (Sep 2, 2004)

TheGreatSatan said:
			
		

> It pisses me off that during the Republican convention, Democrats are outside protesting and starting fights with the cops. But this doesn't happen during the Democratic convention, because Republicans are grown ups.


Yeah, wearing cute little purple heart band-aids, elephant ear hats and calling people not sharing their views "girlie-men".

They don't protest anything because they are *scared* it might put them in harms way, they're nothing but a bunch of *insecure paranoia* ridden greedy goons that live ,not just in, put on *FEAR*.  Why do you think everything is about Guns, War, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security, Commander in Chief, terror, shoving 9/11 down everyones throats etc.


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Sep 2, 2004)

Oh god.

You actually took that as an insult??  How easy are you people?  It's just fuckin' politics.


----------



## gr81 (Sep 2, 2004)

> if my posts didnt come out how i meant, ^ is what i meant to say.
> 
> very thoughtful and educated, bro.....impressive (both your long posts, not just this one)



thanks buddy, appreciate it. btw I still haven't seen anyone debate what I have said. Notice when you pull one of their republican cards they just ignore that specific issue and move on to something else, like Clinton getting sucked and how bad that was for the nation, or more recently how much of a flip flopper Kerry is, b/c changing your mind between teh ages of 18- 45 is bad?! Lets address the issues you bastards, don't shy away bitches.. lol


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Sep 2, 2004)

I missed you're point.  Can you elaborate?


----------



## gr81 (Sep 2, 2004)

> He's too busy running the country and doing good for us all.



I assure you that the president is not so swamped that he sacrifices sounding intelligent while addressing the nation. Surely you don't believe this. I mean thats something that would help his popularity and credibility in the long run. And its ridiculous to suggest that he sounds like a fool b/c he doesn't have the time not to,.. C'mon man, please.


----------



## maniclion (Sep 2, 2004)

Republicans don't protest anything because they are *scared* it might put them in harms way, they're nothing but a bunch of *insecure paranoia* ridden greedy goons that live ,not just in, put on *FEAR*. Why do you think everything is about Guns, War, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security, Commander in Chief, terror, shoving 9/11 down everyones throats etc.


----------



## maniclion (Sep 2, 2004)

They don't protest anything because they are *scared* it might put them in harms way, they're nothing but a bunch of *insecure paranoia* ridden greedy goons that live ,not just in, put on *FEAR*. Why do you think everything is about Guns, War, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security, Commander in Chief, terror, shoving 9/11 down everyones throats etc.


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Sep 2, 2004)

War sells.  It's kind of important and all.  Besides, if you vote Kerry in he's just gonna run.  What happens in the Middle east then?  I can't believe school is making me miss the President's speech.


----------



## oaktownboy (Sep 2, 2004)

Flex said:
			
		

> With the Rep. Nat'l convention going on, i am at my sickest point. I usually try to tune out all the political bullshit, because thats all it is, bullshit.
> 
> I happened to tune into their jerk-eachother-off convention last night for a few minutes, and i had to restrain myself from puking.
> 
> ...


ever watched any Democratic National Conventions?


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 2, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> When I have said that the anti-Bush crowd is embarrassing themselves, this is what I had in mind.
> 
> I am not a huge Bush fan, but I will vote him b/c he is by far a better candidate than Kerry. Republicans are much better equiped to manage both the war and the economy. Democrats are economic illiterates.




why of course...and our personal lives as well.


----------



## gr81 (Sep 2, 2004)

> ever watched any Democratic National Conventions?
> [\QUOTE]
> 
> fault lies not within a party, but within the system itself my friend.. we are all to blame


----------



## gr81 (Sep 2, 2004)

> and our personal lives as well.



ha ha


----------



## MaxMirkin (Sep 3, 2004)

Vote for Duke!!!


----------



## moon (Sep 3, 2004)

I would vote for Bush, if I were an American citizen. I like him. He has the courage to do a big game. Sorry...this is just my opinion.


----------



## MTN WARRIOR (Sep 3, 2004)

The problem is, Moon, it isnt his game to play, he playing the wrong game, a game he cant win because he doesnt know how to play, AND HE IS A FUCKING IDIOT.  DO YOU REALLY WANT AN IDIOT AS PRESIDENT.  COME ON


----------



## Luke9583 (Sep 3, 2004)

Flex said:
			
		

> With the Rep. Nat'l convention going on, i am at my sickest point. I usually try to tune out all the political bullshit, because thats all it is, bullshit.


I about Puked when Mrs. Dole gave the opening speach.... "the Republicans didn't _invent god, but we will defend him." _


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 3, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> I about Puked when Mrs. Dole gave the opening speach.... "the Republicans didn't _invent god, but we will defend him." _




Yeah..they just keep re-inventing God. But their interpretation skills seem limited...they can memorize a dozen or so Bible verses, but can't seem to get down those hundreds about helping the poor or embracing greed. 

But then, they have trouble with those Ten Commandments, too. That's why they need them in front of every public building, so they won't forget them.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 3, 2004)

MTN WARRIOR said:
			
		

> The problem is, Moon, it isnt his game to play, he playing the wrong game, a game he cant win because he doesnt know how to play, AND HE IS A FUCKING IDIOT. DO YOU REALLY WANT AN IDIOT AS PRESIDENT. COME ON


Harvard & Yale much?


----------



## Luke9583 (Sep 3, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Yeah..they just keep re-inventing God. But their interpretation skills seem limited...they can memorize a dozen or so Bible verses, but can't seem to get down those hundreds about helping the poor or embracing greed.
> 
> But then, they have trouble with those Ten Commandments, too. That's why they need them in front of every public building, so they won't forget them.


Very well written response . You've encapsulated my anger into intelligable text.



			
				Pepper said:
			
		

> Harvard & Yale much?


Ahh, what money can buy, it's amazing


----------



## Rich46yo (Sep 3, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Yeah, wearing cute little purple heart band-aids, elephant ear hats and calling people not sharing their views "girlie-men".
> 
> They don't protest anything because they are *scared* it might put them in harms way, they're nothing but a bunch of *insecure paranoia* ridden greedy goons that live ,not just in, put on *FEAR*.  Why do you think everything is about Guns, War, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security, Commander in Chief, terror, shoving 9/11 down everyones throats etc.




                    Hahahahah   Yeah were all "to scared" to run out like a little asshole and get arrested protesting. Of course republicans are mostly to busy "working" and "raising familys" to be on a protest line spitting on the Police and posing for cameras. We also have an abhorrence for violating the law. You know these little shitheads were released from jail a few hours before the convention started? And what did they do? They ran back to the convention to start some shit again. Can you imagine a bunch of middle aged republicans doing that? Were to busy supporting this great country and paying its bills to be picking fights with the police like little assholes.

                And did we take to the streets when that fat cunt M. Moore created that smear campaign movie? Or when democrat special interest spends $10 to every $1 dollar RSI do, to finance their own mean spirited vendetta campaign against our President? Of course not! Meanwhile the little whiners sit around and pout when a republican leaders takes a potshot against their spineless little jellyfish of a candidate.

             Geeeee! I guess were to scared to say anything.

             Now, point by point.........."""""""Weapons of Mass Destruction. The weapons have still not been found. Nader emphasized, "Until the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was our government's anti-communist ally in the Middle East. We also used him to keep Iran at bay. In so doing, in the 1980s under Reagan and the first Bush, corporations were licensed by the Department of Commerce to export the materials for chemical and biological weapons that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney later accused him of having." Those weapons were destroyed after the Gulf War. President Bush's favorite chief weapons inspector, David Kay, after returning from Iraq and leading a large team of inspectors and spending nearly half a billion dollars told the president :We were wrong." See: David Kay testimony before Senate Armed Services Committee, January 28, 2004."""""""""""""

                  Now where the fuck did you get the idea Saddam was our "ally"? Gee, kinda like Britain right? Or another NATO country?   Nobody ever "used" Saddam for anything my little friend. His attack on Iran was entirely his own doing. It was financed by his Arab brothers from the Gulf states, we never gave him a dime or a weapon. We did sell him some "civilian" helicopters and airplanes, none of them armed or designed for military use. And we did provide Sat imagery of Iranian forces. Remember Iran in the 80's? Remember it in Nov. '79? I certainly do as I was only sa few hundred air miles from Tehran when those hostages were taken. Iran was, and is, our mortal enemy. It was the right decision at the time to help Iraqi's to kill Iranians. Its true there was some export of "dual use" technology from America to Iraq which could be used for chem/bio weaponry, half the machinery you find in any hospital could be used as such. But the majority of such materials was exported to Iraq from France,Russia,West Germany, and Switzerland.

                And up until a year after Gulf-ll David Kay was sure he was going to find these WMDs in Iraq. HE was the expert who was wrong. HE had a front line seat to Saddams violations all those lonely years after Gulf-l, and they were numerous. But I guess the Liberals and flag burners don't remember them  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020917-8.html

""""""Iraq Ties to Al Qaeda-9/11. The White House made this claim even though the CIA and FBI repeatedly told the Administration that there was no tie between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. They were mortal enemies - one secular, the other fundamentalist"""""""""

                   There was some evidence from foreign sources that Saddam was in leauge with terrorists. He had always supported Palestinian terrorist groups who were slaughtering Israelis. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/general.html

"""""""""Saddam Hussein was a Threat to the United States. In fact, Saddam was a tottering dictator, with an antiquated, fractured army of low morale and with Kurdish enemies in Northern Iraq and Shiite adversaries in the South of Iraq. He did not even control the air space over most of Iraq."""""""""

 A "tottering dictator"? Your kidding right? He had just put down a mass uprising of Iraqs Shiites, whom make up 60% of Iraqs population, and he was "tottering"? He was busy rebuilding his army using monies from the dumbassed UN's oil for food program, most of his top units survived Gulf-l intact,"remember when the world stopped us from destroying his entire military"? He had flouted and obstructed the UN inspectors, eventually kicking them out, and he had even attempted the assassination of a former US president. Yeah except for all this he was "tottering".

              And the reason he didn't control his own airspace is because the USAF did. Weve controlled airspace in every war we've ever been in, just like the worlds oceans are controlled by the USN. It didnt stop Saddam from shooting at the warplanes, again violating UN and ceasefire protocol. But whats another violation right?   

"""""""""Saddam Hussein was a Threat to his Neighbors: In fact, Iraq was surrounded by countries with far superior military forces. Turkey, Iran and Israel were all capable of obliterating any aggressive move by the Iraqi dictator.""""""""""""

          You conveniently left out Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in your list. Along with the other Gulf States. Yaknow, the ones with about 3/4 of the worlds oil? Remember? And without oil you couldn't drive your SUV, couldn't heat your house, wouldn't have a job, and wouldn't have electricity to play on your computer. And other then starting two major wars which cause millions of casualties, which required an American military deployment of almost 1/2 millions troops, and other then committing genocide on a mass scale on several occasions,other then deploying sarin and other toxins, other then rapeing and pillaging Kuwait, as well as taking many hostages who were "disappeared", other then lobbing SCUDs onto Israeli cities almost starting a World War, and other then lieing to,obstructing and eventually kicking out UN inspectors to hide his extensive WMDs arsenal..................

                    Yeah, other then all this Saddam was actually quite benign, almost "tottering"   

""""""""""The Liberation of the Iraqi People. There are brutal dictators throughout the world, many supported over the years by Washington, whose people need "liberation " from their leaders. This is not a persuasive argument since for Iraq, it's about oil. In fact, the occupation of Iraq by the United States is a magnet for increasing violence, anarchy and insurrection.""""""""

Thats right, during the cold war we were often forced to decide between two evils. And such decisions were made by democrat presidents as often as republican ones. I don't get your point, or see its relevance in this conversation. And of course oil is a big part of it, are you a child? Without oil our entire economy would come crashing down and Jesse Jackson would be forced to walk instead of driving his big pink cadillac. And if our oil was interrupted, our economy on the brink, you flagburning flakes would be tearing down the streets crying about how Bush "ruined the economy".

                And dont forget. Your boy Kerry voted against Gulf-l screaming "no blood for oil", then he took a look at the polls and voted for this war, then voted against funding it, then looked at the polls and stated he "would have attacked even if he knew Saddam had no WMDs, because it was the right thing to do". NOW hes saying............I don't know whats hes saying now I haven't look at todays news......or polls....take care....  ....Rich


----------



## Pepper (Sep 3, 2004)

Actually, KBM, I give you crap all the time but your point about Christians forgetting their duty to help the poor, etc is a good one. Point taken.


----------



## Stickboy (Sep 3, 2004)

gr81 said:
			
		

> thanks buddy, appreciate it. btw I still haven't seen anyone debate what I have said. Notice when you pull one of their republican cards they just ignore that specific issue and move on to something else, like Clinton getting sucked and how bad that was for the nation, or more recently how much of a flip flopper Kerry is, b/c changing your mind between teh ages of 18- 45 is bad?! Lets address the issues you bastards, don't shy away bitches.. lol



Perhaps you should present the "issues".  What are the "issues" EXACTLY? (as you see it)


----------



## Stickboy (Sep 3, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Actually, KBM, I give you crap all the time but your point about Christians forgetting their duty to help the poor, etc is a good one. Point taken.



Not all forget.  I give a fairly decent percentage of my salary to charities.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 3, 2004)

To charites that help the poor or your church? I give a good bit too but really only to my church and other church related groups. Don't get me wrong, these groups do a great work and are worth support, I just feel that in general Christians spend too little of their money tending to the physical needs of people. Not all, of course.


----------



## Stickboy (Sep 3, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> To charites that help the poor or your church? I give a good bit too but really only to my church and other church related groups. Don't get me wrong, these groups do a great work and are worth support, I just feel that in general Christians spend too little of their money tending to the physical needs of people. Not all, of course.



I give 10% to the church.  I also give money to other various causes that support the poor.  (via the Combined Federal Campaign).


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 3, 2004)

At this point I would add my Bush monologue ... but I promised Pepper to stop Bush bashing for 24 hours.  So  ...


----------



## Stickboy (Sep 3, 2004)

Well, if you are a Kerry supporter, simply flip-flop and comment away.


----------



## Monolith (Sep 3, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> They don't protest anything because they are *scared* it might put them in harms way, they're nothing but a bunch of *insecure paranoia* ridden greedy goons that live ,not just in, put on *FEAR*. Why do you think everything is about Guns, War, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security, Commander in Chief, terror, shoving 9/11 down everyones throats etc.


 I'd just like to point out that it was a democrat who got us into every 20th century conflict. The only exception is Gulf War 1.

  World war 1?  Wilson
  World war 2?  Roosevelt
  Korea?  Truman
  Vietnam?  Kennedy/Johnson

  And that's not even mentioning Democratic fuckups like the Bay of Pigs and Somalia.

 But you know what's even more interesting? For the wars that werent a truly global event... that is, one where it was the U.S. being its nasty, imperialistic self... it was a republican who got us out.

  Korea?  Eisenhower
  Vietnam?  Nixon

 And do i even have to mention the Cold War, ended by Reagan? And furthermore, that John Kerry tried to halt Reagan's every move towards that end? Or that Kerry, when we ousted the communist crackheads in Grenada, condmned Reagan for using a "bully's show of force"? Yes, that's right. We end a communist regime close to home, one happily throwing cocaine across our borders, and Kerry say's we're playing too rough.

 Or how about in '86, when there was a terrorist bombing of a nightclub in Germany filled with US soldiers. Two died and hundreds were injured. When intelligence discovered that Moammar Kadafi was behind the attack, Reagan ordered his house bombed. What'd Kerry say? Surely he'd want to show this scum that he cannot freely attack and kill US servicemen... after all, he was in the line of fire! He knows what it's like! But, alas, no... Kerry's only comment was negative, saying Reagan's retaliation was "not proportional." Yes, that's right. Soldiers die, and when we bomb the terrorist who killed them, Kerry says we're wrong.

  I won't even get into his opposition to the first Gulf War.  Kerry is the worst democratic candidate in decades.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 3, 2004)

Well, I have just a  few corrections on your Republican warrior lovefest....first of all, it was Eisenhower who got us into Vietnam, a conflict that could have been settled quickly several times by both Truman and Eisenhower. Ike considered using the Bomb to rescue the poor besieged French, who were busy trying to maintain a decayed colonial outpost while we were pumping food and materials into their homeland to keep THEM from voting for a communist government. In the end, it was the General who decided NOT to send American troops in to rescue the French, because he feared too many casualties in jungle terrain.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 3, 2004)

Nixon's Vietnamization plan was the biggest reason he managed to get elected, although his infamous Watergate break-in did him in by 1974, and Ford was left to pick up the pieces of the Vietnam mess. Opposition to that war had led to so much social unrest in this country that citizens were dying at HOME, killed by U.S. National Guardsmen.

Pre-emptive war is not a new concept in our policies - we've used that as a reason to invade Latin American countries for decades, and not just for the "noble" purposes in Grenada. How do you think we got the land for the Panama Canal? But it is also expensive and costly, both in human lives and in money and prestige. 

You don't re-elect a President who talks about being a "wartime" leader and then does everything possible to promote divisive domestic policies. You can't preach about crusading for "freedom" and then have a military officer running around the country telling people this is a "holy war." And you can't tell your people that you are freeing someone else while you campaign for half a dozen constitutional amendments that further restrict freedom at home. 

A "wartime" President promotes unity. . .not proselytize one group's religious beliefs while disrespecting others. He started off fine after 9/11. . .and then deteriorated at the direction of Karl Rove until he sounds like a puppet of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and every fearmongering weird-ass this country has ever produced. 
The Party has already as good as lost one Senate seat in Illinois, since Allen Keyes, who at least is honest in his embracing of the Republican Party platform, has managed to alienate even the moderate Republicans. The Prez needs to be real careful about running on some of that platform - I don't think most people are interested in spending a fortune freeing Iraq so we can become a regulated theocracy HERE. Nor do I want our manufactured government for Iraq turning into the Bush model for our own - though he is stuck promoting it now.


----------



## Flex (Sep 4, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> I'd just like to point out that it was a democrat who got us into every 20th century conflict. The only exception is Gulf War 1.
> 
> World war 1?  Wilson
> World war 2?  Roosevelt
> ...



Monolith, I'll give you Korea and Vietnam. Those are endlessly debated foreign conflicts for their own respective reasons of whether or not we should've got involved.

But OMG, are you EVEN trying to be serious be mentioning WW1 and ESPECIALLY WW2 here?????

Are you saying that if a Republican was in power during Pearl Harbor, he would've forgiven the Japanese, because obviously they went off-course and bombed Pearl Harbor by accident. They were obviously supposed to hit "Squirrel Harbor", a non-US target of the allies. The republican president would've then invited Mussolini to join him for espresso to talk about how the U.S. doesnt care Italy is trying to take over the Mediteranean. And finally our great rep. pres. would fly over to Nazi Germany and tell Hitler simply to "cut it out, Adolf". When all the axis powers finally conquered the rest of the world, save the US, our pres. would get those evil m-fer's to let the US live seperately in our own peaceful democracy, while they ruled the rest of the world in a tyrranical, evil, slavery, fascist, murderous rule.

Have you ever even taken a history class? 

Monolith, as stupid as my sarcasm sounds right there, your comment about how a Democrat "got us into" WW1, and ESPECIALLY WW2 is 100x worse.


----------



## Flex (Sep 4, 2004)

and dammit, you republican hardheads are missing my point. 

like i tried saying, i'm def. not a republican, but i'm not even a democrat. i'd like to think i can just vote for a president that will be HONEST, and do what is best for our country w/o thoughts of GREED, and not go to WAR when we have no business there, even if he needs an excuse b/c he can't find the real 9/11 culprits.

my point is, Bush IMO, is a liar. He is greedy. and we have no business being in the war.

Kerry may be a meathead. But its come to the point where i, and we, have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils. and we've seen what Bush can do. like i said, every single time he speaks it looks like he's reading those notecards for the first time.

everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and vote for that matter, and thats what makes our country what it is today, and why we've been the most successful country in the world. 

But come on, what the heck do you Bush supporters really see in him? i'm very serious when i say this.


----------



## Stickboy (Sep 4, 2004)

Ok, I'll bite.

What do I see in Bush?

I see a man that does what he says he's going to do.
I see a man that truely cares for the american people.
I see a man that will not compromise US security.
I see a man that tells the truth.

What do I see in Kerry?

I see a man that will do anything to get a head in life.
I see a man that is a pathalogical liar.
I see a man that humiliated his fellow soldiers by lying to congress.
I see a man, who by his own admission, commited war crimes.
I see a man who should have been tried as a traitor (along with Jane Fonda).
I see a man who stands for nothing.

I don't know Flex, the lesser of two evils would be Bush.  He's a known.  There's no telling what wacko Kerry would do.  Thankfully, he's on a downward spiral.

I predict we'll see just how flip-floppy Kerry is during the debates.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 4, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Ok, I'll bite.
> 
> What do I see in Bush?
> 
> ...



You might be surprised...as a man who "truely cares for the american people" he might have some explainin' to do about a slew of constitutional amendments designed to restrict civil rights, especially some which he hasn't personally endorsed. Let's see him explain the compassion in that Party's platform. 

A Texas accent and an "aw shucks" tone preesnted by a man with a Yale education sounds more Hollywood than truthful to me. And his famous claim to be a "uniter, not a divider" should be an interesting "truth" to explore.


----------



## Flex (Sep 4, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> What do I see in Bush?
> 
> I see a man that does what he says he's going to do.
> I see a man that truely cares for the american people.
> ...



Will not compromise US security is the ONLY one i will give you. But are we defending US security by invading Iraq? what happened to those WMD's? i guess we were wrong about those.

Truely caring for the American people? I think you gotta take taht back. Americans are still needlessly getting killed in the middle east. 

And tells the truth? come on, man. he doesnt even know what he's saying when he reads off his note cards. 

And does what he says he's going to? Stickboy, the economy is in shambles. they're are no jobs. republicans try to take credit that they have bettered the economy and created jobs, ya, well guess what, that was after you killed the economy in the first place. Remember teh Clinton era? the economy was booming. and oil and gas prices? didnt Bush promise to lower those? it costs me $800 to fill my freakin' tank, half way.

whatever. its an endless debate that has no right answer. like i said, i'm not even a democrat, but i just can't stand Bush. the fuckin guy is crooked as a dog's hind leg. "Thanks for getting me into office, dad".


----------



## M.J.H. (Sep 4, 2004)

Gotta' agree. I absolutely hate Bush.


----------



## Monolith (Sep 4, 2004)

Flex said:
			
		

> Monolith, I'll give you Korea and Vietnam. Those are endlessly debated foreign conflicts for their own respective reasons of whether or not we should've got involved.
> 
> But OMG, are you EVEN trying to be serious be mentioning WW1 and ESPECIALLY WW2 here?????
> 
> ...


 I was merely putting everything into context.  Would you have preferred if i just said "OMG DEMOCRATS GOT US INTO EVERY STUPID WAR IN THIS CENTURY" while ignoring that they also got us into two "righteous" wars?  A democrat did "get us into" WW1 and WW2.  I didnt say if it was good or bad.  Easy now, take a deep breath.

 Did you even scroll down to the second half of my post, in which i disregarded WW1 and WW2?


----------



## Monolith (Sep 4, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Well, I have just a few corrections on your Republican warrior lovefest....first of all, it was Eisenhower who got us into Vietnam, a conflict that could have been settled quickly several times by both Truman and Eisenhower. Ike considered using the Bomb to rescue the poor besieged French, who were busy trying to maintain a decayed colonial outpost while we were pumping food and materials into their homeland to keep THEM from voting for a communist government. In the end, it was the General who decided NOT to send American troops in to rescue the French, because he feared too many casualties in jungle terrain.


 Eisenhower had several hundred civilian and military advisors in vietnam.  JFK increased that number to 15,000 almost immediately after his election.

 And i find it interesting that your tone suggests a disdain for Eisenhower not supporting the french.


----------



## Monolith (Sep 4, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> You don't re-elect a President who talks about being a "wartime" leader and then does everything possible to promote divisive domestic policies. You can't preach about crusading for "freedom" and then have a military officer running around the country telling people this is a "holy war." And you can't tell your people that you are freeing someone else while you campaign for half a dozen constitutional amendments that further restrict freedom at home.
> 
> A "wartime" President promotes unity. . .not proselytize one group's religious beliefs while disrespecting others. He started off fine after 9/11. . .and then deteriorated at the direction of Karl Rove until he sounds like a puppet of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and every fearmongering weird-ass this country has ever produced.
> The Party has already as good as lost one Senate seat in Illinois, since Allen Keyes, who at least is honest in his embracing of the Republican Party platform, has managed to alienate even the moderate Republicans. The Prez needs to be real careful about running on some of that platform - I don't think most people are interested in spending a fortune freeing Iraq so we can become a regulated theocracy HERE. Nor do I want our manufactured government for Iraq turning into the Bush model for our own - though he is stuck promoting it now.


 So... what exactly are these "divisve domestic policies"?  And can you explain to me why the US government/military seems to go out of its way to respect islam throughout this "holy war"?  I mean, we haven't rounded up muslim's in internment camps as our democratic president did to the Japanese in world war 2, have we?  We havent just bombed the Shia mosque in Najaf because its filled with terrorists, have we?  In fact, does not the mere mention of anti-islamic behaviour bring about the wrath of a few hundred civil liberties groups?  Hell, when rednecks like Jerry Falwell started blabbering about how bad islam was, Bush actually said "Islam... is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others."  He's iterated on numerous occasions that he feels the terrorists are simply trying to hijack the islamic faith.

 And what exactly are these "half dozen constitutional amendments" that are going to restrict our freedoms...?  The only proposed amendment im aware of is the one on gay marriage, and while i dont agree with that, im not concerned.  A constitutional amendment is a massive undertaking, one that even Bush couldnt muster the support for with a second term.  Anyway, when you figure out what those other amendments are, let me know.

 Again, Bush hasn't done a thing to antagonize Islam any further than necessary.  He in fact does all he can to illustrate this as a war on terror, and not a war on Islam.  How you could see it as anything else is disconcerting.


----------



## crisg555 (Sep 4, 2004)

Flex said:
			
		

> sorry to keep babbling,
> 
> but when Bush makes a speech, does he even read it first????
> 
> He looks like a fuckin idiot when he talks. he looks like its all brand new information for him. WTF is he talking about???


I've always wondered that. I hear his bloopers all the time on the radio. You would think they would sit down with him, and practice before the speech. I think that's embarrasing.


In regards to who to vote for president, I'm still not sure who I would vote for 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.  Is there a third candidate....


----------



## Monolith (Sep 4, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> You might be surprised...as a man who "truely cares for the american people" he might have some explainin' to do about a slew of constitutional amendments designed to restrict civil rights, especially some which he hasn't personally endorsed. Let's see him explain the compassion in that Party's platform.
> 
> A Texas accent and an "aw shucks" tone preesnted by a man with a Yale education sounds more Hollywood than truthful to me. And his famous claim to be a "uniter, not a divider" should be an interesting "truth" to explore.


 I was going to play nice, but this made me mad.

 Stop using this typical democratic subversion of "if i say it enough some people will start to believe it."  There is no "slew" of proposed constitutional amendments.  There is one, which has no chance of being passed.

 I realize how hard it is to find legitimate reasons to hate Bush, but you could at least _try_ to make them believable.


----------



## Flex (Sep 4, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> Would you have preferred if i just said "OMG DEMOCRATS GOT US INTO EVERY STUPID WAR IN THIS CENTURY" while ignoring that they also got us into two "righteous" wars?
> 
> Did you even scroll down to the second half of my post, in which i disregarded WW1 and WW2?



Actually, i would've prefered that. the world wars were about as "righteous" and def. as neccesary as your gonna get.

And no, i didnt see that part in the 2nd half of your post. i went back to reread it, but i still didnt see it.

BTW, what about the current war in Iraq? is that considered a war? thats certainly not started by the democrats. that was started by a dickhead who needed to retaliate against somebody, and since he couldnt find the real culprits, he went after someone who us Americans know of very well and dislike, Saddam.

 well, if this is considered a war, what republican pres. is gonna bail us out this time? certainly not Bush


----------



## Flex (Sep 4, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> I realize how hard it is to find legitimate reasons to hate Bush



are you being serious? actually, i can't find a reason NOT to hate him.
I dont even wanna comment this is so ridiculous.

and don't think i'm some pissed off democrat, cuz you republicans like to play that card all too often. I'd actually consider myself a free-lancer. in other words, i'll vote for who i think will do the best job. whether its rep. or dem., it matters to me not. 

But damn, PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE give me reasons why you guys are so pro-Bush. i honestly, sincerely don't know why????????? the economy sucks. don't get me started on the war. civil rights are going down the shitter. His father got him into college, and his brother helped cheat him into the office. 

In all honesty, PLEASE give me some reasons. i'm very curious.


----------



## Flex (Sep 4, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> Again, Bush hasn't done a thing to antagonize Islam any further than necessary.
> 
> He in fact does all he can to illustrate this as a war on terror, and not a war on Islam.



Oh, you don't think so?

I agree with you they he has repeatedly said this is a war on terror. But how do you think ALL the people in the middle east see it when we go in there and blow the shit out of Iraq? People "over there" don't hate our "way of life", like Bush keeps blabbering about. They hate the fact that we put our noses where they don't belong. 

If there are terrorists in Iraq, so be it, go to war there. But so far he hasnt had ANY proof there is. Or the so-called WMD. or any other BS reason he has given.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 4, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> Eisenhower had several hundred civilian and military advisors in vietnam.  JFK increased that number to 15,000 almost immediately after his election.
> 
> And i find it interesting that your tone suggests a disdain for Eisenhower not supporting the french.



Not at all - if I felt his actions disdainful, I'd have no trouble typing that word to describe them at all. The point is, France asked Ike to save them at Dien Bien Phu - he considered using the Bomb and committing U.S. troops and decided against it because of casualty projections. Truman's mistake in that country was not recognizing the independence movement. 

We were supplying the French troops in Indochina with most of their supplies and feeding the French at home at the same time. 

A lot of things happened between that point in the Eisenhower Administration and JFK's decision.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 4, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> I was going to play nice, but this made me mad.
> 
> Stop using this typical democratic subversion of "if i say it enough some people will start to believe it."  There is no "slew" of proposed constitutional amendments.  There is one, which has no chance of being passed.
> 
> I realize how hard it is to find legitimate reasons to hate Bush, but you could at least _try_ to make them believable.



Read the Republican Party's platform as drafted in New York. Then look over Party proposals that are currently pending in Congress.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 4, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> So... what exactly are these "divisve domestic policies"?  And can you explain to me why the US government/military seems to go out of its way to respect islam throughout this "holy war"?  I mean, we haven't rounded up muslim's in internment camps as our democratic president did to the Japanese in world war 2, have we?  We havent just bombed the Shia mosque in Najaf because its filled with terrorists, have we?  In fact, does not the mere mention of anti-islamic behaviour bring about the wrath of a few hundred civil liberties groups?  Hell, when rednecks like Jerry Falwell started blabbering about how bad islam was, Bush actually said "Islam... is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others."  He's iterated on numerous occasions that he feels the terrorists are simply trying to hijack the islamic faith.
> 
> And what exactly are these "half dozen constitutional amendments" that are going to restrict our freedoms...?  The only proposed amendment im aware of is the one on gay marriage, and while i dont agree with that, im not concerned.  A constitutional amendment is a massive undertaking, one that even Bush couldnt muster the support for with a second term.  Anyway, when you figure out what those other amendments are, let me know.
> 
> Again, Bush hasn't done a thing to antagonize Islam any further than necessary.  He in fact does all he can to illustrate this as a war on terror, and not a war on Islam.  How you could see it as anything else is disconcerting.




Read the Republican Party platform and look at the Party's sponsored proposals in Congress. I'm not your research assistant. 

Funny - he did little to punish that American military officer running around the country telling people this was a christian Holy War against Islam.


----------



## maniclion (Sep 4, 2004)

*World War I and II* - Many republicans of the day were under the impression Jews were trying to take over America.  Good thing a Democrat was in office.
*Korea* - McCarthyism of the Republicans of the time.  Eisenhower slandering Truman that he was being soft on Commies.
*Vietnam* - Funding was started by Eisenhower and also his Dominoe Theory made it hard to change American minds, the only way to get elected was pretend to agree.  Kennedy would have never sent troops to fight, but Johnson who was more of a Liberal Republican (thats what a Texas Democrat is) was trying to be half the man Kennedy was.


----------



## gr81 (Sep 4, 2004)

> Stop using this typical democratic subversion of "if i say it enough some people will start to believe it." There is no "slew" of proposed constitutional amendments. There is one, which has no chance of being passed.



you mean kindof like repeating to the public over and over again that there are weapons of mass destruction until they buy it?? kindof like that? there actually is and if you paid attention you will know this


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 4, 2004)

mmmm...hmm...and while the Prez was trying to sound inclusive about Islam, his leading support televangelists were blasting away at every other religion on the face of the planet as inferior. As their reward, the prez circumvented Congressional stalling on approval of his "faith-based" initiative to funnel tax dollars into charity work performed by those same televangelists. So Pat Robertson dug a few wells in India, and blasted the Hindu religion while dedicating them. Then the Party proposed a whole set of new provisions, including one to allow churches to endorse political candidates and campaign from the pulpit (even though nearly 70% of Americans polled are against that...but we don't get to "vote" on those things), supported a bill that would allow employees to practice their beliefs during work, even if it violated the company's customer service and human resources policies), sponsored a bill to establish a national hymn, and allow federal dollars to pour into religious institutions that remain exempt from non-discrimination employment laws. We could go into his secrecy in matters of national policy, the lack of press conferences, the ties of his family with the Second Christ, Rev. Moon, owner of the Washington Times, his appeals to the Pope to intervene in gathering support from the Catholic Church for his domestic social policies, the alteration of studies conducted by the National Science Board to better align findings with his religious and ideological beliefs, an economic policy so out of touch that half of all new bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. A prescription drug card policy that is so poorly explained and so confusing that only 14% of seniors eligible will use the plan. . .and of course the flipflopping on the 9/11 commission hearings, the we-can't-win-the-war-on -terrorism followed by yes-we-can-I -didn't-mean -it-that-way the next day, the "anyone can enter into any contract they like" followed by the sudden rant about "activist" judges who threw out his own state's sodomy laws for invasion of privacy and arbitrary enforcement (laws he supported as governor). Then he supports that constitutional amendment, knowing that the proposed draft could outlaw even a privately funded health insurance benefit, backtracks and suddenly says he thinks states can define civil unions, except as Leader of his Party, the Party proposed amendments in those states that would prohibit them by lumping those in with a vote on marriage. Then he signs into a law a partial ban on abortions, while his Party campaigns for a permanent ban on ALL abortions via still another constitutional amendment. We have the outsourcing of jobs, which his Administration said was "good" for the country, the importation of temporary labor from Mexico, the higher defense budget that still closes military bases around the country. . .


----------



## Rich46yo (Sep 4, 2004)

KBM did you ever hear the word "paragraph"? I hope you all get used to Bush. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5915140/site/newsweek/ There is no way the American people are going to replace him with John Kerry. Actually I called this outcome a couple of months ago..................take care...............Rich


----------



## Monolith (Sep 4, 2004)

Flex said:
			
		

> Actually, i would've prefered that. the world wars were about as "righteous" and def. as neccesary as your gonna get.
> 
> And no, i didnt see that part in the 2nd half of your post. i went back to reread it, but i still didnt see it.
> 
> ...


 How is Bush a "dickhead" for toppling a regime who - at the time - appeared to have stockpiles of WMD?  The same guy who gassed his own people?  The same guy who invaded his neighbors?  The same guy who launched missiles into Israel?  The same guy who ordered an assassination attempt on our president?  The same guy who fired at UN aircraft patrolling "no fly zones" for 12 years?  The same guy who refused to let weapons inspectors confirm that he wasn't trying to procure or build WMD?

 I honestly dont understand the controversy here.  There's one less dictator in the world, millions of people are freed, and all people in the states can think about is their 50 cent higher gas and how "worthless" it was that 1000 US servicemen died to liberate an entire country.


----------



## Monolith (Sep 4, 2004)

Flex said:
			
		

> are you being serious? actually, i can't find a reason NOT to hate him.
> I dont even wanna comment this is so ridiculous.
> 
> and don't think i'm some pissed off democrat, cuz you republicans like to play that card all too often. I'd actually consider myself a free-lancer. in other words, i'll vote for who i think will do the best job. whether its rep. or dem., it matters to me not.
> ...


 You've told us all that youre a "free-lancer" two dozen times already.  Constantly repeating it doesnt make you sound any more erudite.  Really, we believe you.

 The economy is doing pretty well in my eyes.  My grandmother just sold her house for a great price.  There was actually a _bidding war_ right before the deal closed.  There are "now hiring" signs at the local Costco and Stop&Shop.  Home Depot just opened a new store 5 minutes from my house.  Wal-Mart is building a new store right next to it.  All of my friends found part time jobs over the summer, and none have had problems finding a job that fits their class schedule now that the new semester is starting.  After the market crashed in late 2000, most of my stocks took a big hit and then either remainded stagnant or had 12 month graphs that looked like a 92 year old heart attack victims heart monitor.  Over the past 12 to 18 months, theyve slowly yet consistently risen.  If you look at a graph of the past 125 years on Wall Street, you'd see that a boom period like we had in the 90's comes along once every 50 years or so.  And, usually, it's followed by a horrific crash.  Amazingly, this one hasnt crashed.  Things were rough for a couple years, but it was never as bad as past economic downturns.

 As for civil rights, think you can clarify what exactly youre talking about?  I keep seeing these generalizations thrown about, but nothing specific.  I know you're not talking about the Patriot Act.


----------



## Monolith (Sep 4, 2004)

Flex said:
			
		

> I agree with you they he has repeatedly said this is a war on terror. But how do you think ALL the people in the middle east see it when we go in there and blow the shit out of Iraq? People "over there" don't hate our "way of life", like Bush keeps blabbering about. They hate the fact that we put our noses where they don't belong.


 So, what should we do?  Do we stop funding Israel?  Do we stop supplying them with arms and technology?  Do we allow the only democracy in the middle east to then be invaded by every single one of its neighbors, _again_?

 For that matter, should we just sit idly by while dictators and theocracys take hold all over the world?  The United States is founded on the principle that every person is entitled to certain unalienable rights.  Wouldn't it be hypocritical for us to allow such maniacal dictatorships to flourish while declaring how firmly we believe in our individual rights?  We salute the flag that symbolizes our resolve for equality, yet when the time comes to show the world how firmly we believe in these ideals, we decide that 1000 american lives are more valuable than several million living under tyranny.  Or that an extra 50 cents per gallon of gasoline is far too high a price to pay just so we can stop a dictator from murdering and torturing his citizens, from paying the families of suicide bombers, and from using the black gold buried under his country to create the 3rd largest standing army in the world... with which he uses to force his will upon his neighbors.

 Again, i fail to see how we could act any differently.  Democracy is not yet a guaranteed evolutionary step for humanity.  It was wiped out once more than 2000 years ago by people deemed "backwards" and "uncivilized."  With communism and dictatorships still dominating the world's political heirarchy, we have no choice but to be aggressive.  We can not sit by and hope the world turns out alright.  A tyrannical government can take hold much faster than a democracy.  As such, it is our duty to ensure democracy survives these first few hundred years of its rebirth.  Simply looking at your life as a mutable, unaltering point in time is naive.  Time moves at a much faster pace than any of us realize.  Humanity has only been here for the blink of an eye.  Civilization hasnt existed long enough to even be counted on the cosmic scale.  Our ability to see beyond our current lives, and to look towards the future of our race is what should separate us from lesser animals.  Our ability to look at the bigger picture, and to not allow ourselves to be overwhelmed with the here and now are vital to our future.  The defense of democracy is the most justifiable war i can imagine.  The gift of democracy is the most precious gift we can leave for future generations, no matter where on earth they live.


----------



## Monolith (Sep 4, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Read the Republican Party platform and look at the Party's sponsored proposals in Congress. I'm not your research assistant.
> 
> Funny - he did little to punish that American military officer running around the country telling people this was a christian Holy War against Islam.


 If you're not willing to qualify your accusations, then shut the fuck up.

 Boykin, the guy im assuming youre referring to, made those comments at a single church.  He wasn't running around the country.  That said, the choice to fire him or not is complicated.  There is a separation of church and state.  There is also freedom of religion.  When you have a person of strong religious faith who works for and directs aspects of the government, which right wins?  Personally, i think that unless he is found to have used religion as a pretext for actions that would not otherwise have been taken, he should keep his job.

 From his history, it appears that he's served admirably thus far.  He was involved in the Iranian hostage crisis of 1980, Grenada, Panama and Mogadishu.  He even won a purple heart.  I'd be hesitant to fire someone that experienced, too.


----------



## Flex (Sep 4, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be hypocritical for us to allow such maniacal dictatorships to flourish while declaring how firmly we believe in our individual rights?



I agree it SUCKS that people don't have the luck (and it is luck to be born into a free country like the US) that we were born with.

but at the same time, WHY Iraq? 

you've already given all the reasons why Saddam is such a bad guy. But we've known that since Desert Storm. 

If Bush wanted to spread freedom and liberty and all those great US values, why Iraq? Do you know how much other shit is going on all over the world? in Africa, where people are getting slaughtered just as bad if not worse than Iraq....in certain parts of Europe, where its still like the middle ages....and in other parts of the middle east???

Again Monolith, i'm not argueing that people all over the world shouldnt be as "lucky" as we are. I think many of the troubles of the world fuckin suck. People just don't, can't and/or won't realize how to live in harmony with each other. 

But in this case, it seems Bush wanted to "liberate" Iraq b/c he couldnt catch the real 9/11 terrorists. He knew the country would back him in a war because we were in such a state of shock, and he didnt know who to go after, except good old, faithful Saddam.


----------



## Monolith (Sep 4, 2004)

Flex said:
			
		

> I agree it SUCKS that people don't have the luck (and it is luck to be born into a free country like the US) that we were born with.
> 
> but at the same time, WHY Iraq?
> 
> ...


 Yes, there are many other countries besides Iraq with evil dictators and oppressed people. But because we can't help all of them should not be a reason for us to give up trying.

 I agree that the original argument for war with Iraq was Saddam's posession of WMD's. Thus far, we haven't found any. But it's important to realize that _at that time_ all of our intelligence pointed to links between Al Qaeda, Iraq, and a drive toward procuring or producing WMD's. After having been attacked in New York, and then to be told that Iraq could be a source of this malevolence, i'm not sure if anyone put in that situation could make a different decision.

 If this were a matter of us invading a democratic country like France, then i could understand the outrage. Deciding to invade a democratic nation is not a decision to be made over just bits and pieces of intelligence. But when you're facing a dictator, there are only two outcomes: You free a subjugated people, or you free a subjugated people _and_ remove a source of global terrorism.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 4, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> KBM did you ever hear the word "paragraph"? I hope you all get used to Bush. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5915140/site/newsweek/ There is no way the American people are going to replace him with John Kerry. Actually I called this outcome a couple of months ago..................take care...............Rich



Why Rich...I'm so flattered you paused from one of your rants long enough to notice. 


I'm not too worried about a bounce in the polls - people don't know the Party platform yet. Besides, since when did you ever trust something the liberal media printed?


----------



## M.J.H. (Sep 4, 2004)




----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 4, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> If you're not willing to qualify your accusations, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Boykin, the guy im assuming youre referring to, made those comments at a single church.  He wasn't running around the country.  That said, the choice to fire him or not is complicated.  There is a separation of church and state.  There is also freedom of religion.  When you have a person of strong religious faith who works for and directs aspects of the government, which right wins?  Personally, i think that unless he is found to have used religion as a pretext for actions that would not otherwise have been taken, he should keep his job.
> 
> From his history, it appears that he's served admirably thus far.  He was involved in the Iranian hostage crisis of 1980, Grenada, Panama and Mogadishu.  He even won a purple heart.  I'd be hesitant to fire someone that experienced, too.




Uh...if you aren't able to research enough to justify your support for a political party, I think you are the one way out of line here. It shouldn't be too hard to look at the Party's platform text. Besides, I've already mentioned two of the amendments in previous posts, and several of the proposals that would require amendments. 

Now, as far as Boykin is concerned, he did a lot more than just speak at one church. There is a fairly well-documented trail of his presentations in quite a few different places, including reports of explaining the conflicts in those terms to other soldiers on the base and incidents reported back to Mogadishu. I'm afraid he represents a religious belief in this country that claims the concept of seperation of church and state is a myth and that the nation has an official religion. Just because the military barely disciplined him over one incident doesn't mean there wasn't a long trail they ignored. 

Serving well has never been any barrier to drumming out other distinguished service personnel, including the gay ones who served admirably. Why....that's another plank in the Party's platform...

When you have someone working for the government that doesn't endorse or establish an official religion, and you have a strong faith, you do your job, and maintain your own relationship with the Creator. Otherwise, you aren't behaving any differently than the radical religious adversary he claimed we are waging "holy war" against.  He isn't wearing the uniform issued him by his Church.


----------



## Stickboy (Sep 4, 2004)

Flex said:
			
		

> Will not compromise US security is the ONLY one i will give you. But are we defending US security by invading Iraq? what happened to those WMD's? i guess we were wrong about those.



Yeah, the intel was bad.  We KNOW he had WMD's because we sold them to him.  He could not account for their destruction - part of the agreement to end Gulf War I.



> Truely caring for the American people? I think you gotta take taht back. Americans are still needlessly getting killed in the middle east.



How many of those Americans are there involuntary?  You are talking military folks, who VOLUNTEERED to join the service.



> And tells the truth? come on, man. he doesnt even know what he's saying when he reads off his note cards.



Oh, I'm sorry didn't realize you were suddenly physic.  You accuse Bush of lying, but there is no proof that he has.  Amazingly enough, Kerry has, I believe, FOUR different versions of what has happened in his past.

So, yeah, come on man.  Yank your chain if you wish, don't yank mine. 



> And does what he says he's going to? Stickboy, the economy is in shambles. they're are no jobs. republicans try to take credit that they have bettered the economy and created jobs, ya, well guess what, that was after you killed the economy in the first place. Remember teh Clinton era? the economy was booming. and oil and gas prices? didnt Bush promise to lower those? it costs me $800 to fill my freakin' tank, half way.



How is the economy in shambles?  Care to elborate?  Seems to be doing just fine.



> whatever. its an endless debate that has no right answer. like i said, i'm not even a democrat, but i just can't stand Bush. the fuckin guy is crooked as a dog's hind leg. "Thanks for getting me into office, dad".



Actually, there IS a right answer.  You make accustations, now BACK THEM UP with actual facts (include sources).  Where do you get your news from?  The back of a comic book?

Not to be insulting, but .........damn.


----------



## gr81 (Sep 4, 2004)

just b/c you deny things, it doesn't mean they aren't going on ya know. thats a tactic almost as advanced as if I can't see then it's not happening.. very impressive


----------



## phoenix0 (Sep 4, 2004)

lol i know this is a stupid reason but i really dont like kerry cause his face scares me...lol btw check this out http://www.jibjab.com/default.asp click on this land


----------



## Rich46yo (Sep 5, 2004)

Don't be to flattered, I didn't actually read your post, try using paragraphs next time. I sit here and read some of the posts you children are typing it and Im astounded how none of you know WHY we invaded Iraq. Are any of you old enough to remember Gulf-l? And all those cease fire agreements 
and  UN resolutions against Saddam's Iraq. You know, the ones that authorized force if he violated them?

                        Which he did, hundreds of times. He slaughtered the Shiites while the world community forced us to sit and watch. He obstructed the UN inspectors, harassed them, hid much of his WMDs, much of which he still cant account for. He eventually kicked them out of the country. He shot at our airplanes, tried to assassinate a former US president, starved his people while using the UN oil for food money to rebuild his army. How many chances were we supposed to give this guy? How many more UN resolutions? How much more political bullshit?  He'd already started two major wars, had almost ignited a WW by lobbing scuds at Israel. It would have only been a matter of time before he reconstituted his military.

                    How many more chances could you have given this madman? Saddam would have always, ALWAYS, been a threat to America and our vital oil supply. The same clowns badmouthing Bush now about Iraq, and shrieking "no blood for oil" are all driving SUVs, have good jobs, and are watching their IRA's grow. If our ME oil supply was to be interrupted their comfy little selfish lives would be ruined and they'd all be howling for Bush's head ,and screaming to send the neighbors kid to war to re-open the oil pipeline. What fucking hypocrites! 

                There maybe little evidence that Saddam supported Al Qaeda but hes supported many other ME terrorist organizations and they are all our enemies. The only problem with the Iraq war is that Saddam should have been dealt with earlier.

               And last we sent our armies 1/2 across the world to destroy Saddam because we had to make a fashion statement to the worlds tyrants that we COULD do it. The world don't run on love so get used to it. The only way this war will end this is if we bring democracy and freedom to these Islamic dictatorships . And its only going to happen thru the use of force. North Korea too! Its madness to let these tyranny's develop nukes and strategic delivery systems .

            But we cant risk the lives of the wonderful young people in our armed forces just to "bring freedom" to the worlds oppressed. We can only do it if American interests are threatened. Thats it!
         Frankly I think its a testament to the goodness and humanity of the American people that we are spending so much of our blood,wealth, and effort to rebuild Iraq and trying to  give them freedom from tyrants like Saddam. We could have just annihilated them, as Russia did in Chechnya .....take care......................................Rich                                                                                                                                                                                  





			
				kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Why Rich...I'm so flattered you paused from one of your rants long enough to notice.
> 
> 
> I'm not too worried about a bounce in the polls - people don't know the Party platform yet. Besides, since when did you ever trust something the liberal media printed?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 5, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Ok, I'll bite.
> 
> What do I see in Bush?
> 
> I see a man that does what he says he's going to do.



In what way, specifically?



> I see a man that truely cares for the american people.



You are brainwashed.



> I see a man that will not compromise US security.



He already has. 



> I see a man that tells the truth.



You haven't been following politics very long, have you? 



> What do I see in Kerry?
> 
> I see a man that will do anything to get a head in life.



And not with baby Bush. Cocaine, booze, Skull and Crossbones, dodging the draft?[/quote]



> a man that is a pathalogical liar.



If he wasn't, he wouldn't be running for President.



> I see a man that humiliated his fellow soldiers by lying to congress.



He didn't humiliate any of his fellow soldiers and he never lied to Congress. 



> I see a man, who by his own admission, commited war crimes.



He never admitted to committing war crimes.  At least he didn't dodge the draft like Baby Bush did. 




> I see a man who should have been tried as a traitor (along with Jane Fonda).



For risking his life and limb in Vietnam?  Unlike the cocaine snorthing East Coast Elitist Preppy, who dodged the draft. 



> I see a man who stands for nothing.



Oh he stand for something, just like Bush: money & power. 



> I don't know Flex, the lesser of two evils would be Bush.



You got that right.  This is the first thing you said that makes sense.


----------



## Flex (Sep 5, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> 1.How many of those Americans are there involuntary?  You are talking military folks, who VOLUNTEERED to join the service.
> 
> 2. Oh, I'm sorry didn't realize you were suddenly physic.  You accuse Bush of lying, but there is no proof that he has.  Amazingly enough, Kerry has, I believe, FOUR different versions of what has happened in his past.
> 
> 3. Actually, there IS a right answer.  You make accustations, now BACK THEM UP with actual facts (include sources).  Where do you get your news from?  The back of a comic book? Not to be insulting, but .........damn.



1. i realize the military is voluntary. so thats enough justification for you for our soldiers to die needlessly? its funny how there's something like 535 members of congress, and ONE, yes only ONE, has one relative over in the ME. see how pro-war they are when its their family fighting. But i guess we don't have to worry about that, cuz its the poor and middle class that do the fighting in wars, the rich just have to provoke it.

2. ya, i'm a physics major. 
oh no, he hasnt lied? thats funny, cuz i'm still not sure why we're in Iraq with all the different reasons he's given. "There are WMD's.....there are no WMD's". "Saddam is linked with Al-Quaeda...... he's not linked with Al-Quaedo." "Saddam is tyrannical, we need to liberate the country........oh wait, he sits on our oil reserves".

3. try reading the entire thread to see some "fact".


----------



## Stickboy (Sep 5, 2004)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> He never admitted to committing war crimes.  At least he didn't dodge the draft like Baby Bush did.



Oh, what do you call this statement (from a Tim Russert interview):


SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, *and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities* as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions 




> For risking his life and limb in Vietnam?  Unlike the cocaine snorthing East Coast Elitist Preppy, who dodged the draft.



What are you saying?  Anyone that served in the National Guard during that time was a draft dodger?


----------



## Stickboy (Sep 5, 2004)

Flex said:
			
		

> 1. i realize the military is voluntary. so thats enough justification for you for our soldiers to die needlessly? its funny how there's something like 535 members of congress, and ONE, yes only ONE, has one relative over in the ME. see how pro-war they are when its their family fighting. But i guess we don't have to worry about that, cuz its the poor and middle class that do the fighting in wars, the rich just have to provoke it.



Any idea what I do for a living?   I understand better than alot of you what it's actually like to be fighting in a war zone (in addition to the scars I have from injuries recieved).  Were we justified?  Of course,  We would have been justified simply because Saddam refused to abide by sanctions HE agreed to to stop the first Gulf War.  Just because countries like France and Germany didn't come along means little.  We don't need their permission to protect our country or our countries interests.



> oh no, he hasnt lied? thats funny, cuz i'm still not sure why we're in Iraq with all the different reasons he's given. "There are WMD's.....there are no WMD's". "Saddam is linked with Al-Quaeda...... he's not linked with Al-Quaedo." "Saddam is tyrannical, we need to liberate the country........oh wait, he sits on our oil reserves".



Why did Britian, Spain and the others join us?  Everybody thought he had WMD's.  

Making a decision based on flawed intelligence is not lying.  He had WMD's [FACT] and he could not account for their destruction [FACT] as required by the UN's mandate. 



> 3. try reading the entire thread to see some "fact".



   

LOL.  "fact" - you are not presenting facts, you are presenting your seriously flawed opinion on what's actually what.   You wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and bit you in the ass. 

You guys are giving Bush way too much credit for being some kind of comic book super villian.   I bet you guys think he actually has a costume that he puts on when he's in the Bat Cave.  It's so pathetic, it's funny.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 5, 2004)

Actually, I thought he was donning the robe of Jesus Christ...er...sorry...that's his good buddy Rev. Moon's job.


----------



## Flex (Sep 5, 2004)

ok stickboy, er, Mr. Fact. it's not me that has to show the facts, its you! i can't prove something doesnt exist until you show me that it does exist.

He couldnt account for their destruction b/c he didnt know there were WMD's. show me facts they had WMD's. I, and most of the rest of the country, believes he doesnt. Again, I can't prove something that is non-existential because thats exactly what i believe. Its you that has to show facts, or existence, of WMD's in order to disprove it.

and let me tell ya, that bat cave wisecrack was fuuuuuuuuuuunny. wow you can crack a joke.


----------



## moon (Sep 5, 2004)

The reason that Saddam is a bad ass is enough to invade.


----------



## Stickboy (Sep 5, 2004)

Flex said:
			
		

> ok stickboy, er, Mr. Fact. it's not me that has to show the facts, its you! i can't prove something doesnt exist until you show me that it does exist.
> 
> He couldnt account for their destruction b/c he didnt know there were WMD's. show me facts they had WMD's. I, and most of the rest of the country, believes he doesnt. Again, I can't prove something that is non-existential because thats exactly what i believe. Its you that has to show facts, or existence, of WMD's in order to disprove it.
> 
> and let me tell ya, that bat cave wisecrack was fuuuuuuuuuuunny. wow you can crack a joke.



LOL.  Let me get this straight....You tell me to read the whole thread to get the "fact".  What fact?  All I see is mindless Bush bashing with some off the cuff remarks and _opinions_.

WMD's.  Ok, let's see how we know he had them.

1.  We SOLD Saddam some WMD's during the Iraq-Iran war.  (FACT)
     (Source:  Story 

2.  He still had WMD's when he kicked the UN inspectors out.  (FACT)
     (Source: Story 


3.  Iraq could not demonstratively prove that they destroyed WMD's in the time between when the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq and when they returned.  They had 4 years to hide them, or, perhaps destroy them, but they couldn't prove they destroyed them.

So, did he have them?  Yes.  Where are they now?  Unknown.


----------



## maniclion (Sep 5, 2004)

So then maybe the rest of the world should invade us for enabling Saddam.



*By the way your first source contradicts your support of Bush*  

_According to Ritter, between 90% and 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were destroyed by the UN. He believes the remainder were probably used or destroyed during 'the ravages of the Gulf War'. _

_Ritter has described himself as a 'card-carrying Republican' who voted for George W Bush. Nevertheless, he has called the president a 'liar' over his claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. _

_Ritter has also alleged that the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits certain gases, which would have been detected by satellite. 'We have seen none of this,' he insists. 'If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof.' __He also dismisses claims that Iraq may have a nuclear weapons capacity or be on the verge of attaining one, saying that gamma-particle atomic radiation from the radioactive materials in the warheads would also have been_


----------



## Stickboy (Sep 5, 2004)

No it doesn't.  I included that to prove to flex that we did, in fact, sell WMD's to Iraq.

Ritters *opinion* in the article is irrelevant.


----------



## maniclion (Sep 5, 2004)

_The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US. _

So when will G.W. Bush file the papers to hold his father and Mr. Reagan responsible for the murder of these 5000 Kurds?


----------



## Stickboy (Sep 5, 2004)

Not worthy of a comment.


----------



## Randy (Sep 5, 2004)

TheGreatSatan said:
			
		

> I missed you're point. Can you elaborate?


  My thoughs exactly! 

Hey Satan, how the hell are ya.  It's good to see you on, has been a hell of a long time.  How are you and the family doin?


----------



## Flex (Sep 5, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> 1.  We SOLD Saddam some WMD's during the Iraq-Iran war.  (FACT)
> (Source:  Story
> 
> 2.  He still had WMD's when he kicked the UN inspectors out.  (FACT)
> ...



1. As far as your 1st story, let me ask you a question. I'm curious, should the former president's who sold these to Iraq be held accountable for thier actions? 

2.well, alls i could find in your 2nd story that "proves" he still has them is this...Please note the IF in the first quote and the ALMOST CERTAINLY in the 2nd quote.
(like you mentioned already) "If he has secret weapons, he's had four years since he kicked out the inspectors to hide all of them."--Daniel Schorr, NPR, 8/3/02 

"Since 1998, when U.N. inspectors were expelled, Iraq has almost certainly been working to build more chemical and biological weapons" --Washington Post editorial, 8/4/02 


Stickboy, we could go on argueing all day and night. The fact is, you like Bush, some of us don't.

My whole entire point is that it just seems kinda weird to me how we invade Iraq after Sept. 11 b/c we couldn't find the true culprits behind the attack. 
Why wasnt Bush so interested in Iraq pre-9/11 if Iraq is such a threat? 
And what about Pakistan, and esp. North Korea, who is just as, if not more hostile than Iraq?


----------



## Stickboy (Sep 5, 2004)

It's not that I think Bush is all that great.  He's just a better choice than Kerry, IMHO.

I left the republican party because of Bush, if the truth be known.  Why?  The ATF cracked down on my hobby (rocketry) and made it damn near impossible to buy the propellant needed (I ain't talking small rockets here, folks).  I could, of course, apply for the LEUP (low explosives users permit) but I can't get cleared because my house is within 75 feet of a road. (storage restrictions).  All this from the Patriot Act.

We know who did the attack.  Al-Quaeda did it.  Actually, Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror.  Do I think Pakistan is a great country?  Hell no.  It's shit hole.

NK is lead by a certifiable mad man.  He's fucking crazy.  That's what makes NK a problem.  Do you want to start trading sunshine with them?  Me either.  Better to settle that with diplomacy if possible.  Saddam didn't get it, refused to cooperate, and paid the price for it.

NK, on the other hand consistently makes threats if they don't get aid.  At some point, this is going to come to blows unless the NK people can remove him from office (i.e. Kill him).  Maybe not anytime soon, but eventually someone's going to have smack that shit hole down as well.

I thought we were debating, not arguing.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 5, 2004)

When, in a relationship, if you do not tell someone an important fact while deciding an issue it is a deception by omission ... a lie. If in business an individual was so completely dishonest in a deal and that dishonesty carried such an extreme cost that person would be unemployed *at the least*.

The honest American that seeks out the facts and looks at these facts without his or her party blinders on knows that Bush committed a deception by omission. Even if Bush fans and party members deny these facts ... the facts are in. To say that Bush thought he was telling the truth is nothing more than an attempt at plausible deniability just as Reagan did in the Iran/Contra fiasco (I can still hear the shredders). Plausible deniability is not a factor in everyday relations and should not be allowed as an excuse by our leaders. He lied. We know that he lied. The evidence is abundant now. Defend his actions with half-truths and half-assed insults from now until the October Surprise comes out, but the truth is out.

Most of the responses here are from two camps. Republicans defending their leader and their place as the power elite (even if the defender is nothing but a voter ??? he can somehow hold his head up by being a party member) or from Democrats that want that same power and position back. Neither party offers a real person of moral quality as a leader. 

If a Republican outside the corrupt Bush Power Group Inc. were to be ABLE to run then that person would get my vote. Fuck-head Kerry (it is just as bad that Kerry is a Democrat) is THE only other option.


----------



## Stickboy (Sep 5, 2004)

Yeah, If you want the US seeking permissions slips to defend it self, then vote Kerry.

Kerry:  Hey France!  We have all these crazy arabs running around blowing our shit up, can we attack them?

France:  No, we want you to perish, you should be nice and deal with the aftermath.

Kerry:  Ok, cool.  Just wanted to know what direction we should take.  That sounds good.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 5, 2004)

Stick I'd  expect a better quallity response from a person of your oveus inteleckt.


----------



## Stickboy (Sep 5, 2004)

Heh, I've had a few beers tonight - you bastard.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 5, 2004)

Enjoy bro ...


----------



## Randy (Sep 5, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Heh, I've had a few beers tonight - you bastard.


You need more than a few after reading the bs in this thread.
I had a nice Heineken fest myself last night


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 6, 2004)

Fuck France Stick.  You're hiding behind them rt now anyway bro.  Uh-oh ... you were just accused of being defended by the French there Stick.  HaHAHAHAha ... 

After the way they treated my boy Lance I say that the big bike race they been holding should be held in Colorado!  What are the french really good for anyways?


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Sep 6, 2004)

> F*** the Republican party



No, fuck you sir


----------



## Flex (Sep 6, 2004)

myCATpowerlifts said:
			
		

> No, fuck you sir


----------



## gr81 (Sep 6, 2004)

Flex, why do you even argue with thse fools.. we know what the deal is, if they wanna make shit up then let them believe what they want. Republicans are so hipocritical they have no basis to judge anyone. besides whenever you say anything about their beloved retard of a president, they have nothing to so but, "well Kerry did this or Clinton did that". they displace blame onto someone else. Fuck em all


----------



## Pepper (Sep 6, 2004)

You know, GR81, if people mouthed off to you like you do to us, you'd go ape shit.

I say again, how many retards have diplomas from Harvard and Yale?


----------



## Stickboy (Sep 6, 2004)

gr81 said:
			
		

> Flex, why do you even argue with thse fools.. we know what the deal is, if they wanna make shit up then let them believe what they want. Republicans are so hipocritical they have no basis to judge anyone. besides whenever you say anything about their beloved retard of a president, they have nothing to so but, "well Kerry did this or Clinton did that". they displace blame onto someone else. Fuck em all



Quite possible the stupidest thing I've ever heard someone say.  I should trust your take on it?  You can't even spell correctly.  (hint: HYPOCRITICAL)

Just screwing around with ya gr81.


----------



## gr81 (Sep 6, 2004)

> I say again, how many retards have diplomas from Harvard and Yale?



well thats a logical and reputable debating tactic. theres more to a persons intelligence than just grades ya know.



> Just screwing around with ya gr81.



its ok I have developed thick skin from all the IM arguing I have been through. I can take it..lol


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 6, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> You know, GR81, if people mouthed off to you like you do to us, you'd go ape shit.
> 
> I say again, how many retards have diplomas from Harvard and Yale?


Thanks for that gmail. I will use it as a personal email that goes only to close friends and my yahoo email as my public add'y.
Also 24 hours are up ... so ...​Pepper we know of at least one ...  He's a soverignininity unto himself.

This is the part where this thread degrades into a bunch of school-yard bullshit. The people that object to Bush and have stated facts as to why are asking for a response. 

*WHERE ARE THE FACTS WITH SOURCES TO DISPUTE US!! *_ Hello!!_​


----------



## maniclion (Sep 7, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I say again, how many retards have diplomas from Harvard and Yale?


How many high school dropouts came up with the theory of relativity?


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 7, 2004)

Our president is well known for his grammatical lapses and word mix-ups. In this particular instance, Bush was trying to make a point about obstetrician/gynecologists while attacking Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry and his running mate, former trial lawyer Sen. John Edwards. He said that "frivolous lawsuits" drive up the cost of health care and force doctors to go out of business. All of which made sense until he added, "We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many Ob-Gyns aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."
----reported by Reuters about a Bush campaign speech yesterday in Poplar Bluff, Missouri. Of course, the "liberal" local media was so busy gushing over his visit that they never said a word about this part of his speech. . .

Ok...now are ya sure the man isn't drinking?


----------



## Randy (Sep 7, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> How many high school dropouts came up with the theory of relativity?


Weren't you one of them Manic   j/k

Sorry man..couldn't resist


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 7, 2004)

I had many theories about my relatives as a kid ... is there somthing wrong with that?


----------



## Randy (Sep 7, 2004)

And what theories where those BC?


----------



## Rich46yo (Sep 8, 2004)

its is the common practice of the elite liberals to portray a Republican President as stupid. It has been going on for more years then many of the practioners here have even been on earth, its started with Nixon. They are aided by their news media puppets. Well I guess Bush is smart enough to have been elected to the most powerful office in the land.

                            It makes the flag-burners feeel better you know. To think the Republicans are dumb. Strange tho how I see many "so-called educated liberals" on the streets, especially in these nightclubs, and man are they stupid. A squad cars lights are like lights to a moth with them, they just dance around it. Where-as "Willy", in da ghetto, widda foeth gray eddecadun,say "Man its da Po-lice, lets geddda fug outta here"....take care...........  ...........Rich


----------



## Dale Mabry (Sep 8, 2004)

I am thinking I am going to have chicken tacos for dinner, perhaps with a dash of guacamole.  Your thoughts?


----------



## Rich46yo (Sep 8, 2004)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I am thinking I am going to have chicken tacos for dinner, perhaps with a dash of guacamole.  Your thoughts?



                              Great choice. I prefer steak ones however, and with the jalapenos that make you run out of the restaurant screaming for water..take care...............Rich


----------



## Dale Mabry (Sep 8, 2004)

Oh, the steak ones Are great, but I don't have steak at home.  I one time told a chick in a mexican restaurant that I wanted my food spicy.  She asked how spicy and I told her I wanted her to burn my asshole off.  She just about did.


----------



## Randy (Sep 8, 2004)

lean hamburger tacos... the best


----------



## Flex (Sep 8, 2004)

Not to beat a dead, um, chicken, but i just watched 60min and found another fact that made me nautious. i'm sure you guys prob. already knew this, but i didnt know he ducked Vietnam by joining the Air Nat'l guard. 

for all you who don't think he did, catch a re-run of 60min. The former speaker of the house tells the whole story of how he himself set up GW in the Texas Nat'l guard so he could avoid 'Nam (per favor of G. Bush sr. and a mutual wealthy oil tycoon/friend of theirs).


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 8, 2004)

That topic has been pounded through pretty well here.  There is a differance of opinion on the times and where he was.  What matters now though is ... well ... now.  What is Bush doing right now that has earned him another 4 more years?  What has he done that has earned him his pink slip?


----------



## Flex (Sep 8, 2004)

i understand that, Bone.

its just another thing i didnt know about that freakin' snake.

it just makes you wonder though, ya know? how can a guy be the brunt of so much controversy? i mean, please don't get me wrong, he's on a pedistle (sp.) where people are waiting to jump down his throat. but SO MUCH controversy? Nam, Fla. election, war in Iraq....its like it never ends....ya, Clinton got head in office. But shit, 50% of marraiges now end in divorce. 

if the guy lies/cheats/whateveryouwannacall it, you know what they say "if it smells like shit and looks like shit, then its probably shit".


----------



## Randy (Sep 8, 2004)

People are constantly holding Bush under a microscope and discussing his flaws... But personally I think under the circumstances he did a lot of good things for our country. I by no means am any politition, but I sure can't see anything good that John Kerry would have to offer. You keep hearing the Bush bashers, but I don't hear anything positive about Kerry. As far as negative, people can go on for days bashing Kerry just as they can Bush... But as BoneCrusher stated I think the most important thing to think about is what positive things they can do for our country, not focus on the past. Everyone has dirt that can be dug up I don't care who it is.

And with all the deceit going on in this country, don't think just because something smells like shit, it is shit. It may just be someone else trying to make them look like shit


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 8, 2004)

LOL flex ... the trick is to see through the illusion put out there by his group. It is not Bush in the White House. It is the crew that maneuvered him and themselves in there. This is what people are not talking about but need to look at. It was not Bush alone that worked us all over in 2000 ??? it was Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and a few of their less public cohorts. Bush could not act as stupid as he does on his feet and be such a powerhouse in other ways. These guys work as a group to improve their own fortunes at our expense ... both in the lives of our youth and the earning potential that has been reduced.

*The one thing to remember here is if you don???t vote then you give up your right to bitch about it later.*​​*VOTE!!!!!!*​


----------



## maniclion (Sep 8, 2004)

It comes down to how the world judges us by our President's actions and right now we look like arrogant cowboys out to conquer the wild wild world.  We may have them outgunned, but they have us out numbered.  If we started fighting right now China could send 10 million people a year into battle and never run out.  They have at least 350 million at the age to serve in the military.  So let's not get this "fuck the world we do things the way we want to" attitude cause it could harm us.  If ever there was a time to be closer to our allies it's now, what's the saying?  Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.


----------

