NationStates Jolt Archive

ne1 else agree with me that hes a wanker and thinks that the Iraq war was pointless and only happened coz GB had a blood lust?

personally i think Tony Blair is in on the deal as well bt most people in england hate the bastard (well both of them).

i think the mafia have an secret alliance with bunnies? i swear the bunnies in my head are against me. :twisted:

Well, both countries could have kept the status quo alive and let Sadam continue to defy all U.N. Security Council resolutions. I'm sure that further inaction would have led the Jihadists to perform more September 11th, 2001 events.

I think that even you'd have to admit that the civilized and free world was looking rather weak.

So we had to spend $87 billion on the War on Terror (so far). Did you know that investors in the U.S. securities markets lost over $2 trillion ($2,000 billion) in wealth as those markets reacted over the next several months to the attacks on U.S. soil? Have you forgotten that over 3000 were snuffed out that day? Is there something about liberty and freedom that you hate on a fundemental level?

But then the US diverted resources to Iraq and Bin Laden is still loose, and Al Qaeda had the opportunity to strengthen. And Saddam WAS allowing inspectors in, and since we haven't found any WMD then maybe he DID comply with the resolutions.

People like to compare 9/11 to Pearl Harbor. Well, attacking Iraq after 9/11 is like invading Argentina after Pearl Harbor. Saddam was a secular dictator and Bin Laden didn't like him at all. However, most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...

Easy on the profanity, Weirdo Donkeys.

But then the US diverted resources to Iraq and Bin Laden is still loose, and Al Qaeda had the opportunity to strengthen. And Saddam WAS allowing inspectors in, and since we haven't found any WMD then maybe he DID comply with the resolutions.

People like to compare 9/11 to Pearl Harbor. Well, attacking Iraq after 9/11 is like invading Argentina after Pearl Harbor. Saddam was a secular dictator and Bin Laden didn't like him at all. However, most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...Exactly!
And that is my problem with Iraq. THEY WERE NOT A THREAT!!

If Bush had diverted troops to go after North Korea, I'd have supported that, THEY ARE A THREAT!

If Bush had gone after Saudi Arabia, I'd have suppported that, after all, most of the 9/11 hijackers WERE Saudis!

By the way, weirdo donkeys...you did know that the "W" in George W Bush stood for "wanker" didn't ya?

it wouldnt surprize me at all if at some point in history they discover that Bush/Cheney played a role in the attack against America in some kinda blackops manuever--this has to be the most evil administration to ever hijack american democracy.Every single federal agency is being perverted to serve an evil agenda (from helping polluters in the EPA to stealing overtime from workers in the Labor Dept to detroying medicare for corporate looters and the list goes on and on) I heard on air america in one of Bushs latest crimes that he lifted a Clinton era law that prevented criminals from doing business with the Govt as well as appointing a pro-genocide serial killer (negroponte) to go to Iraq--its like having Satan as President

Well, both countries could have kept the status quo alive and let Sadam continue to defy all U.N. Security Council resolutions. I'm sure that further inaction would have led the Jihadists to perform more September 11th, 2001 events.


Ummmm..... which defiance? NOT keeping WMD that he said he wan't keeping?

So we had to spend $87 billion on the War on Terror (so far). Did you know that investors in the U.S. securities markets lost over $2 trillion ($2,000 billion) in wealth as those markets reacted over the next several months to the attacks on U.S. soil? Have you forgotten that over 3000 were snuffed out that day?

Actually, between Afghanistan and Iraq the figure is more like $200B.

One question is: did you HAVE to invade IRaq? No. The fact that you chose to is a diferent matter. And let's not forget that IRaq had nothing to do with the 3000 lives snuffed out that day. The guy who did that is still walking free.

Nor, frankly, was 9-11 the only contributer to the loss of wealth. That spate of Enrons and Worldcoms that hit all at once also contributed. Nor is that a valid reason for anything regarding Iraq as, once again, they had nothing to do with it.

Is there something about liberty and freedom that you hate on a fundemental level?

What exactly does that have to do with the subject? Ask the average IRaqi right now if they are "free". The answer is not going to be yes.

Is there something about liberty and freedom that you hate on a fundemental level?

One could ask you the same question, Stableness, since the current Bush Administration is the biggest threat to liberty and freedom for the average American that this country has ever faced from any Administration (this does not include foreign aggressors.)

Fact is...now the government can monitor your email, phone calls, private conversations with your lawyer, your bank transactions...all without a warrant, and without your knowledge.

Fact is...now the government can declare anyone it likes as an "enemy combatant" and simply disappear them, not allowing them to speak with counsel, or family. Witness what has been done with Hamdi and Padilla, both of whom ARE American citizens. Walking human garbage they may be, if they are guilty of what the government says they are, BUT...they are STILL citizens right now, and deserve their Constitution right to due process, which is being denied them.

What's to stop the government from abusing this power to go after dissenters (like me) Democrats (like me) GLBT (or insert your "undesireable" minority group here) (again, like me.) Nothing is in place to stop them, and if I am taken, who will say "boo" to a cuckoo bird over it? And don't say it can't happen! Because the government has yet to define what activities can make you an "enemy combatant."

Already, dissenters like me are accused of "giving aid and comfort to our enemies" because we are pointing things like this out! How long before the government deems we are an obstacle to their objectives, and they disappear US?

How long before WE start getting four o clock in the morning knocks on the door, and we simply vanish?

Call me paranoid if you want, but the Bush Administration has now put the apparatus in place to make it happen...and has created the kind of culture in this country where it COULD happen, and no one will speak up. He has created and forstered an atmosphere of fear, hatred, and distrust. We are, every day, becoming more and more like the very terrorists we are fighting...and that means the terrorists have won.

I feel it to be my patriotic duty to point this out whenever, and wherever I can...AND IT IS BECAUSE I LOVE LIBERTY AND FREEDOM THAT I DO SO!! BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO LOSE MY "LIBERTY AND FREEDOM"...OR WHAT'S LEFT OF IT, ANYWAY!!

You come up with any American President who has been a greater threat to civil liberties, civil rights, human dignity, worker's rights, and the environment, and I take salt with my hat, okay?

By the way, how do YOU like paying 2 bucks a gallon for gas? I know I sure as hell don't! We need to get Bush the hell out of the White House...and the sooner November gets here, the sooner I can breathe a sigh of relief that the greatest domestic monster we have ever faced will finally be where he has put three million plus Americans...out of a job!! :evil:

Oh, and I almost forgot...now the Administration can also strip you of your citizenship at will, thus meaning they will no longer have to play by the rules! And they have yet to make clear policy and make public exactly what activities can put you in a position where your citizenship would be stripped from you. So, currently, the Administration can strip you of your citizenship at it's will, with no reason. That seems pretty much like a dictatorship to me. George Wanker Bush is this country's first Dictator. Heil, Bush! :roll:

One could ask you the same question, Stableness, since the current Bush Administration is the biggest threat to liberty and freedom for the average American that this country has ever faced from any Administration (this does not include foreign aggressors.)

Don't know much about people like Abe Lincoln or John Adams, eh?

Well, both countries could have kept the status quo alive and let Sadam continue to defy all U.N. Security Council resolutions. I'm sure that further inaction would have led the Jihadists to perform more September 11th, 2001 events.
What has Iraq got to do with September 11th, 2001 events?

I think that even you'd have to admit that the civilized and free world was looking rather weak.
And spending $87 Billion on war in Iraq is going to make the free world stronger?

So we had to spend $87 billion on the War on Terror (so far). Did you know that investors in the U.S. securities markets lost over $2 trillion ($2,000 billion) in wealth as those markets reacted over the next several months to the attacks on U.S. soil? Have you forgotten that over 3000 were snuffed out that day? Is there something about liberty and freedom that you hate on a fundemental level?
What has Iraq got to do with September 11th, 2001 events?

even if it didn't benifit us it will the Iraqi people, better 900 Americans than 9 million Arabs...right?

One could ask you the same question, Stableness, since the current Bush Administration is the biggest threat to liberty and freedom for the average American that this country has ever faced from any Administration (this does not include foreign aggressors.)

Don't know much about people like Abe Lincoln or John Adams, eh?
Unfortunately they aren't here to straighten out this current regime. :cry:

in all honesty, we all know that the war with Iraq was pointless. we all know that Bush Jr. was sent to finish what bush Sr. couldn't, that and the oil, can't forget about that. and oh yeah, Tony Blair isn't britain's prime minister, he's Bush's lap dog.

But then the US diverted resources to Iraq and Bin Laden is still loose, and Al Qaeda had the opportunity to strengthen. And Saddam WAS allowing inspectors in, and since we haven't found any WMD then maybe he DID comply with the resolutions.

nice try. UN resolutions didn't just apply to WMDs. There were plenty of weapons found in Iraq that the UN had previously decreed he shouldn't have, weapons that immediately threatened surrounding nations. Plus, he could've had much more than what we did find--e.g. WMDs--but he had 30 days to clean up shop because Bush at least tried to get the UN to be decisive.

[What exactly does that have to do with the subject? Ask the average IRaqi right now if they are "free". The answer is not going to be yes.

Sure, their lives suck pretty bad right about now. Food, water, electricity are scarce. But how do you think we should fix it? Pull out of Iraq? There's no real government there! Right now US martial law is the only hope for Iraq. It's not easy to restore order to a country that just had a regime change, and it's unrealistic to expect all of Iraq's problems to go away overnight, or to blame everything that goes wrong on Bush.

By the way, how do YOU like paying 2 bucks a gallon for gas? I know I sure as hell don't! We need to get Bush the hell out of the White House...and the sooner November gets here, the sooner I can breathe a sigh of relief that the greatest domestic monster we have ever faced will finally be where he has put three million plus Americans...out of a job!! :evil:

here in America we have this thing called a demand economy. It's where the government doesn't control businesses, and it's up to the people to buy what they want and support their own economy. There's little any American president can directly do to create jobs.

I'm sure that at one time or another you've speculated that Bush just invaded Iraq for the oil. If he indeed had, we'd be controlling Iraq's oil, and prices therefore would be dropping. What you're proving to everyone who reads your posts is that rather than spending the slightest bit of energy thinking about the actual causes behind the problems you complain about, you're much more content to blame everything in sight upon Bush because it's simply easier.

But then the US diverted resources to Iraq and Bin Laden is still loose, and Al Qaeda had the opportunity to strengthen. And Saddam WAS allowing inspectors in, and since we haven't found any WMD then maybe he DID comply with the resolutions.

nice try. UN resolutions didn't just apply to WMDs. There were plenty of weapons found in Iraq that the UN had previously decreed he shouldn't have, weapons that immediately threatened surrounding nations. Plus, he could've had much more than what we did find--e.g. WMDs--but he had 30 days to clean up shop because Bush at least tried to get the UN to be decisive.

Plenty? you mean the small set of Al Samoud IIs that were debateable as to effective range, but that he agreed to get rid of and started chopping up?

Or the two wooden drone planes that could hardly fly?

And since when is a 150mile missile such a huge threat as to warrant this response when compared to our ally Pakistan handing out the plans to nukes to any who asked for them?


-Z-

[What exactly does that have to do with the subject? Ask the average IRaqi right now if they are "free". The answer is not going to be yes.

Sure, their lives suck pretty bad right about now. Food, water, electricity are scarce. But how do you think we should fix it? Pull out of Iraq? There's no real government there! Right now US martial law is the only hope for Iraq. It's not easy to restore order to a country that just had a regime change, and it's unrealistic to expect all of Iraq's problems to go away overnight, or to blame everything that goes wrong on Bush.

And the current lack of electricity, water, food, and security would be who's fault exactly?

No... not Bush's!

It just happened spontaneously..... when he bombed the food, water, and electricity supplies!

I blame Saddam for leaving them out where they might get broken....

:roll:

Yes, there is now an obligation to fix what you broke. But using that to retroactively justify the invasion in the first place is rediculous.

-Z-

even if it didn't benifit us it will the Iraqi people, better 900 Americans than 9 million Arabs...right?

Yes, you are right. It is not the job of the American people to do in and 'liberate' people. This is yet another hypocritical GOP stance, our own citizens are suppossed to work hard and pull themselves up by the boot straps and make their own way in life, yet this other country filled with people who pay no taxes and have no ability to vote are deserving of a ton of money and having their way of life improved.

No screw that. You know what should be the priority of the American Government? AMERICANS.

Saddam was a secular dictator and Bin Laden didn't like him at all.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Their hatred of America overshadowed whatever problems they had.

What exactly does that have to do with the subject? Ask the average IRaqi right now if they are "free". The answer is not going to be yes.

How many average Iraqis do you know or talk to?

Saddam was a secular dictator and Bin Laden didn't like him at all.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Their hatred of America overshadowed whatever problems they had.


Lovely quote. However rather worthless given that there has still been no saddam-al qaeda tie made and even GW went on the record and stated that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.

What exactly does that have to do with the subject? Ask the average IRaqi right now if they are "free". The answer is not going to be yes.

How many average Iraqis do you know or talk to?

Oh... you're right. They were actually celebrating their liberation in Falluja, dancing and firing their guns in the air. It was just a few bullets coming back down that killed the Marines....

:roll:

Saddam was a secular dictator and Bin Laden didn't like him at all.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Their hatred of America overshadowed whatever problems they had.


Lovely quote. However rather worthless given that there has still been no saddam-al qaeda tie made and even GW went on the record and stated that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.

What exactly does that have to do with the subject? Ask the average IRaqi right now if they are "free". The answer is not going to be yes.

How many average Iraqis do you know or talk to?

Oh... you're right. They were actually celebrating their liberation in Falluja, dancing and firing their guns in the air. It was just a few bullets coming back down that killed the Marines....

:roll:

Sadaam may have had nothing to do with 9/11, but he had all those billions of dollars to donate to terrorists.

Falluja is not the only city in Iraq. Those people are not average, and most of them aren't even Iraqi.

What's to stop the government from abusing this power to go after dissenters (like me) Democrats (like me) GLBT (or insert your "undesireable" minority group here) (again, like me.) Nothing is in place to stop them, and if I am taken, who will say "boo" to a cuckoo bird over it? And don't say it can't happen! Because the government has yet to define what activities can make you an "enemy combatant."


In my hometown just last week, someone I know was arrested for possession of marijuana after the police used the Patroit Act as an exscuse for entering the home without a warrant.

Saddam was a secular dictator and Bin Laden didn't like him at all.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Their hatred of America overshadowed whatever problems they had.

Saddam had more in common with American views than anything shared with Al Qaeda. By the enemy of my enemy is my friend principle, Saddam would have been on the side of the US against Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq were diametrically opposite. There was absolutely no link between them, there may have been some Al Qaeda members somewhere in Northern Iraq. Which is not a link at all.

Any attempt to link Al Qaeda to Saddam's regime to garner support for the war is an insult to intelligence.

Saddam bin Laden does not exist.

What's to stop the government from abusing this power to go after dissenters (like me) Democrats (like me) GLBT (or insert your "undesireable" minority group here) (again, like me.) Nothing is in place to stop them, and if I am taken, who will say "boo" to a cuckoo bird over it? And don't say it can't happen! Because the government has yet to define what activities can make you an "enemy combatant."


In my hometown just last week, someone I know was arrested for possession of marijuana after the police used the Patroit Act as an exscuse for entering the home without a warrant.

marijuana is still illegal, and as such they should pay for their crimes

Sadaam may have had nothing to do with 9/11, but he had all those billions of dollars to donate to terrorists.
Funny, it's easier to connect the dot's between the Bushs and the bin Ladens than it is to connect bin Laden to Saddam. That connection is direct: George H W Bush is a business partners with with the head of the bin Laden family and was even with him on 9/11! (the Carlyle Group)

Actually, the easiest way to connect Saddam to the bin Ladens is through the Bush family!

Falluja is not the only city in Iraq.

Yes, there are plenty of cities in Iraq that are rife with unrest!
Like Najaf and perhaps even the whole Sunni Triangle.

Those people are not average, and most of them aren't even Iraqi.

really? That doesn't explain why over half of all Iraqis want the Coalition to leave!

What's to stop the government from abusing this power to go after dissenters (like me) Democrats (like me) GLBT (or insert your "undesireable" minority group here) (again, like me.) Nothing is in place to stop them, and if I am taken, who will say "boo" to a cuckoo bird over it? And don't say it can't happen! Because the government has yet to define what activities can make you an "enemy combatant."


In my hometown just last week, someone I know was arrested for possession of marijuana after the police used the Patroit Act as an exscuse for entering the home without a warrant.

That's nothing! I know somebody that was arrested just last week for stealing a car. Can you believe that they got a conservative judge to give them a warrant! And can you believe they took him in and read him his rights! And then they informed him of what they were charging him of, and even let his evil lawyer to sit in on it!

What an oppressive government!

In my hometown just last week, someone I know was arrested for possession of marijuana after the police used the Patroit Act as an exscuse for entering the home without a warrant.

Is this getting any media attention? If not, make it happen. If you can't, write your representitive and TELL them.

GO HERE TO WRITE YOUR REP (http://www.house.gov/writerep/)

PLEASE.

Sadaam may have had nothing to do with 9/11, but he had all those billions of dollars to donate to terrorists.

Certain people in Britian have, in the past, financed the IRA....should the US invade the UK?

What makes one right and not the other?

Saudi Arabia has financed terrorism for years.....why arent we invading them?

marijuana is still illegal, and as such they should pay for their crimes

Yes, but perhaps you should read the Fourth Amendment sometime:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Funny, it's easier to connect the dot's between the Bushs and the bin Ladens than it is to connect bin Laden to Saddam. That connection is direct: George H W Bush is a business partners with with the head of the bin Laden family and was even with him on 9/11! (the Carlyle Group)
Most of the BinLaden family has disowned Osama, so I don't really see the problem unless your talking about G H W Bush being with Osama.

In my hometown just last week, someone I know was arrested for possession of marijuana after the police used the Patroit Act as an exscuse for entering the home without a warrant.

marijuana is still illegal, and as such they should pay for their crimes

well, to hell with due process and civil liberties then! Why don't we all just install cameras in our home so the Emperior can keep us safe from ourselves....

iv said it before and il say it again.
Bush is a can of spam on rye.

Funny, it's easier to connect the dot's between the Bushs and the bin Ladens than it is to connect bin Laden to Saddam. That connection is direct: George H W Bush is a business partners with with the head of the bin Laden family and was even with him on 9/11! (the Carlyle Group)
Most of the BinLaden family has disowned Osama, so I don't really see the problem unless your talking about G H W Bush being with Osama.

Thats not true..Osama was in attendance of a family members wedding...six months before 9/11.

marijuana is still illegal, and as such they should pay for their crimes

Yes, but perhaps you should read the Fourth Amendment sometime:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/2953483/detail.html

There is no Fourth Amendment: welcome to George Bush's Amerika

In my hometown just last week, someone I know was arrested for possession of marijuana after the police used the Patroit Act as an exscuse for entering the home without a warrant.

marijuana is still illegal, and as such they should pay for their crimes

well, to hell with due process and civil liberties then! Why don't we all just install cameras in our home so the Emperor can keep us safe from ourselves....

why the heck not? they can see my hairy arse all they want :P

Thats not true..Osama was in attendance of a family members wedding...six months before 9/11.

Note : Most Of.

Saddam was a secular dictator and Bin Laden didn't like him at all.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Their hatred of America overshadowed whatever problems they had.


Lovely quote. However rather worthless given that there has still been no saddam-al qaeda tie made and even GW went on the record and stated that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.

What exactly does that have to do with the subject? Ask the average IRaqi right now if they are "free". The answer is not going to be yes.

How many average Iraqis do you know or talk to?

Oh... you're right. They were actually celebrating their liberation in Falluja, dancing and firing their guns in the air. It was just a few bullets coming back down that killed the Marines....

:roll:

Sadaam may have had nothing to do with 9/11, but he had all those billions of dollars to donate to terrorists.

Hey - you;'re the one that made the unfounded link with the "the enemy of enemy"quote. Again, there has been no proven Saddam-Osama link. You implied one existed so I called you on it. Don't now point to a generic "he had billions" statement. That's changing your argument to something completely diferent.



Falluja is not the only city in Iraq. Those people are not average, and most of them aren't even Iraqi.

Interesting assertion. This is, of course, based on your intimate and recent experience in that town? Hell, even members of the CPA have recently made statements against the coalition.

If you don't think that the average IRaqi is losing faith with the way the occupation has gone, then I don't think you have been paying attention. The Kurds are about the only group who are still pretty happy with the way things are going, but then they also had a decade protected under the no-fly zone to get a start on their own region.

Thats not true..Osama was in attendance of a family members wedding...six months before 9/11.

Note : Most Of.

Nice to see you on the boards.

Please note, I will crush anyone who interferes with my colony.

Thats not true..Osama was in attendance of a family members wedding...six months before 9/11.

Note : Most Of.

There were about 30 Bin Ladens also in attendance.

Falluja is not the only city in Iraq. Those people are not average, and most of them aren't even Iraqi.

Interesting assertion. This is, of course, based on your intimate and recent experience in that town? Hell, even members of the CPA have recently made statements against the coalition.

If you don't think that the average IRaqi is losing faith with the way the occupation has gone, then I don't think you have been paying attention. The Kurds are about the only group who are still pretty happy with the way things are going, but then they also had a decade protected under the no-fly zone to get a start on their own region.

As opposed to your intimate and recent experience in Iraq?

http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/2953483/detail.html

There is no Fourth Amendment: welcome to George Bush's Amerika

I've already seen that, but it's good to see that it's making the rounds out in the net still.

It's not quite as bad as it is made out to be. However it is still a slippery slope that I don't want to see the country roll down. It basically modifies the rules for 'hot pursuit'. Which are probably already overstretching their bounds.

Thats not true..Osama was in attendance of a family members wedding...six months before 9/11.

Note : Most Of.

There were about 30 Bin Ladens also in attendance.

...and? This leads to a big Bin Laden network where they're all terrorists? Could not have Osama just showed up, without inviation to the wedding? Not to mention that you don't say which Bin Ladens - Osama's sons and daughters? His siblings? Parents? Uncles? There's literally hundreds of Bin Ladens out there.

Taken from the New Yorker : http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011112fa_FACT3

... the family signed a statement officially disowning Osama in 1994, a year after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

Taken from the New Yorker : http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011112fa_FACT3

... the family signed a statement officially disowning Osama in 1994, a year after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

Wow! They signed a piece of paper...


Anyways, it seems like being in his presence in 2001 would contradict that -- but I suppose little things like that the order of events don't matter to REAL AMERICANS!

Thats not true..Osama was in attendance of a family members wedding...six months before 9/11.

Note : Most Of.

There were about 30 Bin Ladens also in attendance.

...and? This leads to a big Bin Laden network where they're all terrorists? Could not have Osama just showed up, without inviation to the wedding? Not to mention that you don't say which Bin Ladens - Osama's sons and daughters? His siblings? Parents? Uncles? There's literally hundreds of Bin Ladens out there.

Taken from the New Yorker : http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011112fa_FACT3

... the family signed a statement officially disowning Osama in 1994, a year after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

Right.
They "publicly" disowned him in 1994.

EXECPT for the fact that they didnt really if they are still hanging out with him even 6 months before 9/11.
These people do A LOT of business with not only America...but Bush as well.
These people may just be still willing to support or aid him, and nothing was done....even on 9/11 when the Bin Laden family was allowed to fly around the country picking everyone up..and then allowed to fly to Boston..then to europe...and then back home.

While all other planes were grounded.

...and? This leads to a big Bin Laden network where they're all terrorists?


Don't forget thier business partners: the BUSH CARTEL

Anyways, it seems like being in his presence in 2001 would contradict that -- but I suppose little things like that the order of events don't matter to REAL AMERICANS!
No, it wouldn't.

Ronald Reagan stayed with the Soviet leaders for visits for weeks at a time, does that mean he was in with the Communists? No!

EXECPT for the fact that they didnt really if they are still hanging out with him even 6 months before 9/11.
These people do A LOT of business with not only America...but Bush as well.
These people may just be still willing to support or aid him, and nothing was done....even on 9/11 when the Bin Laden family was allowed to fly around the country picking everyone up..and then allowed to fly to Boston..then to europe...and then back home.
Yep, because they knew that they'd face discrimination and prejudice in the USA.

Don't forget thier business partners: the BUSH CARTEL
Nothings wrong with doing business with people who happen to have a bad half-brother (or a few bad half-brothers).

well, to hell with due process and civil liberties then! Why don't we all just install cameras in our home so the Emperor can keep us safe from ourselves....

why the heck not? they can see my hairy arse all they want :P

Amazing: the arm-chair warriors that most want to send our nations younge to pillage the middle-east for the profites of this Administration: the guys who most support a war against people who "Hate our Freedom"
are the same spineless cowards who are willing to sell the Bill of Rights and Constituiton down the river: You are a TURNCOAT!

And let's not forget that IRaq had nothing to do with the 3000 lives snuffed out that day.

Except for the fact Saddam gave Al-Qaieda money and let some of these terrorists stay in Iraq.

well, to hell with due process and civil liberties then! Why don't we all just install cameras in our home so the Emperor can keep us safe from ourselves....

why the heck not? they can see my hairy arse all they want :P

Amazing: the arm-chair warriors that most want to send our nations younge to pillage the middle-east for the profites of this Administration: the guys who most support a war against people who "Hate our Freedom"
are the same spineless cowards who are willing to sell the Bill of Rights and Constituiton down the river: You are a TURNCOAT!

nope, i'm not american, no bill of rights for me :D

Ronald Reagan stayed with the Soviet leaders for visits for weeks at a time, does that mean he was in with the Communists? No!

The Bush and bin Laden Cartels are both members of the Carlyle Group: LOOK IT UP!!




EXECPT for the fact that they didnt really if they are still hanging out with him even 6 months before 9/11.
These people do A LOT of business with not only America...but Bush as well.
These people may just be still willing to support or aid him, and nothing was done....even on 9/11 when the Bin Laden family was allowed to fly around the country picking everyone up..and then allowed to fly to Boston..then to europe...and then back home.
Yep, because they knew that they'd face discrimination and prejudice in the USA.

Isn't this the same time when every Mosque in America was being searched by the FBI and a vast amount of innocent Arabs were locked-up for weeks?

Don't forget thier business partners: the BUSH CARTEL
Nothings wrong with doing business with people who happen to have a bad half-brother (or a few bad half-brothers).

Again -- there is a DIRECT link from Bush to the bin Laden Family and a DIRECT link from the bin Laden Family to Osamo (bin Laden)

nope, i'm not american, no bill of rights for me :D

That explains why you love the police-state...

nope, i'm not american, no bill of rights for me :D

That explains why you love the police-state...

;) no bill of rights for me either...

;) I have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Except for the fact Saddam gave Al-Qaieda money and let some of these terrorists stay in Iraq.

the CIA created al-Qa'ida and Bush was funding the Taleban up untill 9/11...

If you want to talk about the US funding terrorist, look at the Iran and Nicaraguan Contra scandles ~ not to mention the School of Americas.

The Bush and bin Laden Cartels are both members of the Carlyle Group: LOOK IT UP!!
They are. The Bin Laden family has, more or less, nothing to do with Osama except through name.

Isn't this the same time when every Mosque in America was being searched by the FBI and a vast amount of innocent Arabs were locked-up for weeks?
Some were innocent, some weren't, and they weren't all "locked up for weeks" - sure the Buffalo 6 (I believe) were, though.

Again -- there is a DIRECT link from Bush to the bin Laden Family and a DIRECT link from the bin Laden Family to Osamo (bin Laden)
The Bin Laden family is, by some estimates, more than 600 people. Its quite a stretch to link one of them to the whole web then to the Bushes.

the CIA created al-Qa'ida and Bush was funding the Taleban up untill 9/11...
No, you already posted a thread about this (or someone else did) and it was debunked. Of course, you consider the Airforce letting in a Arab to an institute which needs Arabic translators the Airforce letting in the hijackers on purpose.

nope, i'm not american, no bill of rights for me :D

That explains why you love the police-state...

whats wrong with a police state? :?

Wait! I've got it!

The bin Ladens to the Bushes :arrow:

President Bush to Donald Rumsfeld :arrow:

That picture of Rumsfeld shaking Sadaam's hand!

I've done it! I've linked al-Qaeda to Iraq! Take that everyone!

And let's not forget that IRaq had nothing to do with the 3000 lives snuffed out that day.

Except for the fact Saddam gave Al-Qaieda money and let some of these terrorists stay in Iraq.

Some of which terrorists?

Bush himself dispelled any connection between Saddam and 9-11 (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html)

his only clamed link beyond that was the statement that he believed saddam definitely had ties to al qaeda via al- zarqawi. Of course, the fact that al zarqawi's camp existed in northern IRaq under the umbrella of protection of the US no-fly zone might make you wonder why the US didn;t deal with him as long as they were scattering bombs around IRaq even before the invasion.....

But then again, GW also definitely said that Saddam had WMD in certain known places. So I'll take GW's certaintly on this with a big grain of salt...

-Z-

Palestinian Terrorists are the ones I think he's referring to.

Palestinian Terrorists are the ones I think he's referring to.

Okay... so let's say that Saddam indirectly supports Palestinian Terrorist

I still think that Bush directly supporting the bin Ladens is a bigger deal.

Palestinian Terrorists are the ones I think he's referring to.

Saddam's connection to Hamas is well know. However, once again that has nothing to do with 9-11 which the quote he was responding to referred to.

A poll just last week still had 57% of American's believing that Saddam had been involved in 9-11.

That astounded me.

And depressed me.

you'd think people would care enough to keep up with the news....

If you want to talk about the US funding terrorist, look at the Iran and Nicaraguan Contra scandles ~ not to mention the School of Americas.
But who do you think really funds terrorist weapons in places like Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea? I'd say Russia. and I'd go out on a limb and say that France and Germany probably contribute as well, seeing as how they sold weapons to Saddam. And notice how the UN members that opposed an Iraqi invasion were the countries that Iraq owed money for weapons to (meaning Russia, Germany, and France). Sorry for the slight deviation from the main point, but I thought it was relevant.

If you want to talk about the US funding terrorist, look at the Iran and Nicaraguan Contra scandles ~ not to mention the School of Americas.
But who do you think really funds terrorist weapons in places like Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea? I'd say Russia. and I'd go out on a limb and say that France and Germany probably contribute as well, seeing as how they sold weapons to Saddam. And notice how the UN members that opposed an Iraqi invasion were the countries that Iraq owed money for weapons to (meaning Russia, Germany, and France). Sorry for the slight deviation from the main point, but I thought it was relevant.

That statement makes absolutely NO sense. Germany has recently had a massive crackdown in Hamburg on terror elements. So even if they were supplying money to terror groups, they certainly aren't anymore.

France just found a bunch of explosives like less than a week ago see above.

And now for the most completly wrong point in your post. Russia. Russia, the country that is busy fighting ISLAMIC seperatists in Chechnia and has been for years now. The people who invaded Afghanistan in 1980, yes, it makes so much sense for them to aid Al-Qaida.

By the way, how do YOU like paying 2 bucks a gallon for gas? I know I sure as hell don't! We need to get Bush the hell out of the White House...and the sooner November gets here, the sooner I can breathe a sigh of relief that the greatest domestic monster we have ever faced will finally be where he has put three million plus Americans...out of a job!! :evil:

here in America we have this thing called a demand economy. It's where the government doesn't control businesses, and it's up to the people to buy what they want and support their own economy. There's little any American president can directly do to create jobs.

I'm sure that at one time or another you've speculated that Bush just invaded Iraq for the oil. If he indeed had, we'd be controlling Iraq's oil, and prices therefore would be dropping. What you're proving to everyone who reads your posts is that rather than spending the slightest bit of energy thinking about the actual causes behind the problems you complain about, you're much more content to blame everything in sight upon Bush because it's simply easier.

Well, then...how about YOU tell ME what's to blams for this high=priced gas? Because it wasn't like this until DUH-bya started up his shit!

even if it didn't benifit us it will the Iraqi people, better 900 Americans than 9 million Arabs...right?

Yes, you are right. It is not the job of the American people to do in and 'liberate' people. This is yet another hypocritical GOP stance, our own citizens are suppossed to work hard and pull themselves up by the boot straps and make their own way in life, yet this other country filled with people who pay no taxes and have no ability to vote are deserving of a ton of money and having their way of life improved.

No screw that. You know what should be the priority of the American Government? AMERICANS.

To which I add a hearty A-Phucking-MEN!!

What's to stop the government from abusing this power to go after dissenters (like me) Democrats (like me) GLBT (or insert your "undesireable" minority group here) (again, like me.) Nothing is in place to stop them, and if I am taken, who will say "boo" to a cuckoo bird over it? And don't say it can't happen! Because the government has yet to define what activities can make you an "enemy combatant."


In my hometown just last week, someone I know was arrested for possession of marijuana after the police used the Patroit Act as an exscuse for entering the home without a warrant.

Which would, in the old days, be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Of the Constitution DUH-bya swore to uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And has failed miserably to do.

Well, then...how about YOU tell ME what's to blams for this high=priced gas? Because it wasn't like this until DUH-bya started up his shit!

Inflation. Market Insecurities following 9/11 and due to Iraq. Lack of refining capacity. Rising demand without a appreciable jump in supply. The California Energy fiasco probably also helped to push up gas prices. At least in this state, 2.24 is the highest I've seen for regular, I generally pay around 2.09 for the cheap stuff.

In my hometown just last week, someone I know was arrested for possession of marijuana after the police used the Patroit Act as an exscuse for entering the home without a warrant.

marijuana is still illegal, and as such they should pay for their crimes

well, to hell with due process and civil liberties then! Why don't we all just install cameras in our home so the Emperior can keep us safe from ourselves....
DAMN...Texastambul, we got more in common than I thought!!

The ignorance i've seen...oh the ignorance...

Jeez guys; get a grip.

Yes, Iraq was wrong, but it's not worth arguing. Hell i could be wrong oh well. The point is, we're in Iraq now. Nothing will change our past up till this point (and i'm talking realistically, not time machines). Now the question is: What do we do now? not what should we have done. This is exactly the reason why america is so divided. People should stop going back and getting really pissed, YES THE WAR ON IRAQ IN MY OPINION WAS WRONG. But we can't impeach bush, there was no official declaration of war. Since we can't do that, we should look towards the future and how to better it, not talk about death threats to george bush for so and so.

Well, then...how about YOU tell ME what's to blams for this high=priced gas? Because it wasn't like this until DUH-bya started up his shit!

The California Energy fiasco probably also helped to push up gas prices. At least in this state, 2.24 is the highest I've seen for regular, I generally pay around 2.09 for the cheap stuff.


You realize that was Cheney's doing, don't you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1972574.stm

Well, then...how about YOU tell ME what's to blams for this high=priced gas? Because it wasn't like this until DUH-bya started up his shit!

The California Energy fiasco probably also helped to push up gas prices. At least in this state, 2.24 is the highest I've seen for regular, I generally pay around 2.09 for the cheap stuff.


You realize that was Cheney's doing, don't you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1972574.stm

You know, I read that whole article and they didn't mention the Vice President once.

well, to hell with due process and civil liberties then! Why don't we all just install cameras in our home so the Emperor can keep us safe from ourselves....

why the heck not? they can see my hairy arse all they want :P

Amazing: the arm-chair warriors that most want to send our nations younge to pillage the middle-east for the profites of this Administration: the guys who most support a war against people who "Hate our Freedom"
are the same spineless cowards who are willing to sell the Bill of Rights and Constituiton down the river: You are a TURNCOAT!

Oh, it's even worse than THAT, Texastambul...these people are willing to shed any amount of American blood necessary to achieve their ends...BUT NARY A DROP OF THIER OWN BLOOD!!

well, to hell with due process and civil liberties then! Why don't we all just install cameras in our home so the Emperor can keep us safe from ourselves....

why the heck not? they can see my hairy arse all they want :P

Amazing: the arm-chair warriors that most want to send our nations younge to pillage the middle-east for the profites of this Administration: the guys who most support a war against people who "Hate our Freedom"
are the same spineless cowards who are willing to sell the Bill of Rights and Constituiton down the river: You are a TURNCOAT!

Oh, it's even worse than THAT, Texastambul...these people are willing to shed any amount of American blood necessary to achieve their ends...BUT NARY A DROP OF THIER OWN BLOOD!!

sweet jesus! little angry, yes?

Oh, it's even worse than THAT, Texastambul...these people are willing to shed any amount of American blood necessary to achieve their ends...BUT NARY A DROP OF THIER OWN BLOOD!!

sweet jesus! little angry, yes?

You've never met a Texan before, have you :wink:

damn, how many bush-hating threads are there? makes you wonder...the theory of averages says if there are this many bush-hating threads, there should be just as many bush-loving threads. well, obviously, the law of averages never met bush

There is no Fourth Amendment: welcome to George Bush's Amerika

There's no Tenth Amendment either thanks to the Sixteenth & Seventeenth Amendments and, oh yes, Supreme Court Justices who have taken over the roles of the Legislative branch of government.

Ask yourself and be honest - which maybe hard to do for a ravid lefty such as yourself - is this list (make sure to scroll all the way down) (http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/tree) representative of too much government, not enough government, or as Goldilocks might say, "this amount of government is just right!"

...Hell i could be wrong oh well...

History will tell with second and third generation Iraqis. It's just my opinion but you have a better chance of being on the wrong side of history rather than being on the right side of it with the position that you've taken. It would be very difficult to argue against freedom, liberty, and peace.

Okay... so let's say that Saddam indirectly supports Palestinian Terrorist

I still think that Bush directly supporting the bin Ladens is a bigger deal.
You yourself were just exaggerating Bush's infringment on the Constitution, you'd think you would want to be a little more respectful of it.
The Bin Ladens, that are by in large not connected to Osama (Unless you consider 30 out of over 600 at a wedding collaboration) have every right to do what every other private citizen does.

Ultraliberal conspiracy theorists of the world unite, huh? *prepares to be flamed*

Okay... so let's say that Saddam indirectly supports Palestinian Terrorist

I still think that Bush directly supporting the bin Ladens is a bigger deal.
You yourself were just exaggerating Bush's infringment on the Constitution, you'd think you would want to be a little more respectful of it.
The Bin Ladens, that are by in large not connected to Osama (Unless you consider 30 out of over 600 at a wedding collaboration) have every right to do what every other private citizen does.

Yes. How many times have you heard people not wanting others at their wedding, but then you have to, because "it's family?" If you're in the bin Laden family, you don't want to piss off Osama by not inviting him to the wedding. He might just come anyway and blow it all up!

its still VERY strange how when americans were dying in the rubble of the WTC that Bushs ignorance failed to prevent (prolly on purpose) that Bush ran to defend the family of the man who planned the attack--very very strange

The California Energy fiasco probably also helped to push up gas prices. At least in this state, 2.24 is the highest I've seen for regular, I generally pay around 2.09 for the cheap stuff.
You realize that was Cheney's doing, don't you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1972574.stm

First of all, I live in California, and our energy crisis is partly due to the crappy ex-governor Gray Davis not doing his job right. Second, we have to have our oil more refined because so many people live here and drive, and that is mainly why our gas prices are higher than those in other states. Cheney isn't responsible. Third, and like someone else said, I didn't see Cheney mentioned in that article. And fourth, I don't think the BBC is the best source of information for things that go on in California.

damn, i go offline for a few hours and the whole topic sets on fire. do we honestly have to debate over Bush? I mean, is it his fault he was dropped on his head as a baby? probably a few...hundred times?

The California Energy fiasco probably also helped to push up gas prices. At least in this state, 2.24 is the highest I've seen for regular, I generally pay around 2.09 for the cheap stuff.
You realize that was Cheney's doing, don't you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1972574.stm

First of all, I live in California, and our energy crisis is partly due to the crappy ex-governor Gray Davis not doing his job right. Second, we have to have our oil more refined because so many people live here and drive, and that is mainly why our gas prices are higher than those in other states. Cheney isn't responsible. Third, and like someone else said, I didn't see Cheney mentioned in that article. And fourth, I don't think the BBC is the best source of information for things that go on in California.
And Arnold Scwartenegger is better?

And Arnold Scwartenegger is better?
Actually, Arnold, from what I've read, is doing quite well in California. He's managed to bridge the gap between Democrats and Republicans that paralyzed the state before, and start to get things moving again.

ooo, good ol' arnie. a good example of a european politician in america i guess (he's austrian to those of you who thought arnie was american). well, being in england, its getting a bit late and i have stuff to do in the morning, so...
I'll be back

First of all, I live in California [bla bla bla] Cheney isn't responsible. Third, and like someone else said, I didn't see Cheney mentioned in that article.

read what the energy companies did:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1972574.stm
http://www.forbes.com/2002/01/28/0128topnews.html
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=211&row=1

and keep in mind that Cheney was the CEO of Enron!

Yet another bush flame thread...sheesh i personally think the war was long over due or at least the removal of saddam. As for osuma i think its kinda hard to catch some one who doesnt need a passport to go from country to country. Dont know anything about blair so i could care less about people flaming him :?

Actually, Arnold, from what I've read, is doing quite well in California.

not bad for a sexual predator that admires Hitler.

Actually, Arnold, from what I've read, is doing quite well in California.

not bad for a sexual predator that admires Hitler.

You know, most people that don't know you would think that present tense infers that he currently admires Hitler, and, as the mysterious women who came out shortly before the voting claim, sexually prays on people. Of course, people here would know better. :wink:

and keep in mind that Cheney was the CEO of Enron!
He was? Are you sure you don't mean Haliburton? :roll:

He was the CEO of halibut? isn't halibut a fish? oh, haliburton. ek, thought you said halibut. thank god for the edit button...really, i should just delete this, but i do have something contructive to say:
Why. Do. We. Still. Need. To. Flame. Bush? This thread should of burned and died hours ago. Even the other bush-flaming thread is dieing out now...so why isn't this one? yea, bush is an idiot and all, but do we need to waste a few hours of our lives flaming him? a few hours we will NEVER get back? a few hours we SPENT on bush? so, put in another way, we just gave Bush a few hours of our lives? doesn't that make it more of a waste?

Okay, let's flame that Whack-A-Mole of Evil Cheney for awhile. He only pops up every now and then to spew some incomprehensible garbage and then he ducks back fast before someone hits him with a mallet.

true, true, cheney is a bit of deploy-and-withdraw politician, and he is a first-class idiot. BUT. Cheney isn't worth the time as much as bush is. I mean, seriously, we're sitting here in our stuffy chairs in front of a computer monitor; maybe a bit tired with a bit of butt cramp, and they're relaxing in some million-dollar suite, with room service on call and a BIG bank account. Who's better off? Not us, thats for sure, sitting here typing all this babble about Bush and Cheney. C'mon people. If we wanna flame them, lets do it when they're looking, rather in this way which makes NO difference at all/

FECKING FECKER! look what you people have done to me? its 00:44 where i am (england, home of queeny and harry potter >.<) DAMMIT! i have to be up early tomorrow, at seven. how many 15 years olds get up at 7 on a SUNDAY! pfft, hehe, its all this flaming.

I didn't want to read this hate-mongering thread. I just wanted to say that, despite all the anti-Bush sentiment around here, I think his daughters are pretty damn cute. :)

I didn't want to read this hate-mongering thread. I just wanted to say that, despite all the anti-Bush sentiment around here, I think his daughters are pretty damn cute. :)

I hear they're drunk and easy, too.

First of all, I live in California [bla bla bla] Cheney isn't responsible. Third, and like someone else said, I didn't see Cheney mentioned in that article.

read what the energy companies did:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1972574.stm
http://www.forbes.com/2002/01/28/0128topnews.html
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=211&row=1

and keep in mind that Cheney was the CEO of Enron!
WOW!! I followed that Forbes link, got interested and thought I would do some more exploring.

Sooo I typed "dick cheney links to halliburton" in a Google search. I started to read some of the articles and I was shocked at the affiliation/power/control that this guy has/had in regards to Halliburton and other companies.

Receiving deferred payments from Halliburton while Vice President. Stock portfolio is held by a "trustee", but still contains Halliburton stock, which no doubt will rise in value as Cheney has been able to win "no bid" contracts for Halliburton and its' subsidary Kellogg Brown & Root for the rebuilding of Iraq oil facilities, and even to "overcharging" for supplying meals for coalition soldiers.

This is crazy stuff to say the least. It is scandalous!!

The California Energy fiasco probably also helped to push up gas prices. At least in this state, 2.24 is the highest I've seen for regular, I generally pay around 2.09 for the cheap stuff.
You realize that was Cheney's doing, don't you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1972574.stm

First of all, I live in California, and our energy crisis is partly due to the crappy ex-governor Gray Davis not doing his job right. Second, we have to have our oil more refined because so many people live here and drive, and that is mainly why our gas prices are higher than those in other states. Cheney isn't responsible. Third, and like someone else said, I didn't see Cheney mentioned in that article. And fourth, I don't think the BBC is the best source of information for things that go on in California.
And Arnold Scwartenegger is better?
Yeah, he is. He helped get rid of the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT DRIVER'S LICENSE bill (which was work of stupid Gray Davis). Also, he got rid of that triple car tax increase (yet another one Gray Davis's stupid creations). So yeah, Arnold is already better than Gray Davis.

I didn't want to read this hate-mongering thread. I just wanted to say that, despite all the anti-Bush sentiment around here, I think his daughters are pretty damn cute. :)
Yeah? And I LIVE in Austin. Where the drunk-asses got busted at Chuy's!

And I was there the night it went down. Let me tell you, the Bush girls are real bitches. I witnessed what went down that night,and what went on for weeks afterwards, the owner of that restaurant was getting fecking death threats!!

I didn't want to read this hate-mongering thread. I just wanted to say that, despite all the anti-Bush sentiment around here, I think his daughters are pretty damn cute. :)

I hear they're drunk and easy, too.
That's ok. I'm married.

I didn't want to read this hate-mongering thread. I just wanted to say that, despite all the anti-Bush sentiment around here, I think his daughters are pretty damn cute. :)
Yeah? And I LIVE in Austin. Where the drunk-asses got busted at Chuy's!

And I was there the night it went down. Let me tell you, the Bush girls are real bitches. I witnessed what went down that night,and what went on for weeks afterwards, the owner of that restaurant was getting fecking death threats!!
:lol: Bullshit.
Anyway, what's your point, hatemonger?

I didn't want to read this hate-mongering thread. I just wanted to say that, despite all the anti-Bush sentiment around here, I think his daughters are pretty damn cute. :)
Yeah? And I LIVE in Austin. Where the drunk-asses got busted at Chuy's!

And I was there the night it went down. Let me tell you, the Bush girls are real bitches. I witnessed what went down that night,and what went on for weeks afterwards, the owner of that restaurant was getting fecking death threats!!
:lol: Bullshit.
Anyway, what's your point, hatemonger?

her point is the Bush sluts should get drafted and sent to Iraqi rape rooms where they can do what they do best

I didn't want to read this hate-mongering thread. I just wanted to say that, despite all the anti-Bush sentiment around here, I think his daughters are pretty damn cute. :)
Yeah? And I LIVE in Austin. Where the drunk-asses got busted at Chuy's!

And I was there the night it went down. Let me tell you, the Bush girls are real bitches. I witnessed what went down that night,and what went on for weeks afterwards, the owner of that restaurant was getting fecking death threats!!
:lol: Bullshit.
Anyway, what's your point, hatemonger?

I live here....you don't. I saw what happened that night and in the weeks that followed. I saw it first-hand. You didn't.
If you don't want to believe me, then that is your choice. But don't tell me "bullshit."

I'd say you could call Chuy's Restaurant, on Barton Springs Road in Austin, Texas...and ask THEM...but they probably want to forget it ever happened, and probably wouldn't talk to you, anyway.

I'll tell you what, I'm not sure how much press the death threats got, but i'll look around, see if I can find a newspaper article or two about them from The Austin American statesman newspaper. Would you believe it THEN...if I shoved the proof right under your nose?

Or would you continue to deny it ever happened, like most Bush butt-kissers do?

You call me hatemonger? I call you Bush butt-kisser.

And, yes...I hate Bush. I hate him with every fiber of my being. i'm willing to own up to that. Bet YOU vote GOP, dont'cha? And THAT is why you say "bullshit." Because, you guys so badly don't want to admit any fault in your guys that you won't accept it even when the evidence of it (or lack thereof, where WMD's in Iraq were concerned) is shoved right in your face...you will still deny it. You'll attack the source or the messanger...you'll do ANYTHING to avoid admitting ANY malfeasance on the part of YOUR guys...but you'll jump all over Clinton like stink on a stool for getting a friggin' hummer in the Oval Office, won't ya?

At least I will own up to being a hatemonger, where Bush is concerned. I hate him because of how badly he has screwed up the nation I was once proud to be a citizen of. Now I have to hang my head in shame when speaking to people from other countries, and actually be embarrassed to say I'm an American.

I didn't want to read this hate-mongering thread. I just wanted to say that, despite all the anti-Bush sentiment around here, I think his daughters are pretty damn cute. :)
Yeah? And I LIVE in Austin. Where the drunk-asses got busted at Chuy's!

And I was there the night it went down. Let me tell you, the Bush girls are real bitches. I witnessed what went down that night,and what went on for weeks afterwards, the owner of that restaurant was getting fecking death threats!!
:lol: Bullshit.
Anyway, what's your point, hatemonger?

I live here....you don't. I saw what happened that night and in the weeks that followed. I saw it first-hand. You didn't.
If you don't want to believe me, then that is your choice. But don't tell me "bullshit."

Why not? I can choose not to believe you, but I can’t choose to say so? No, kid, the way it’s going to be is I’m going to say whatever the hell I want, and if you can’t deal with it, that’s your problem, not mine. I’m not trying to censor you, and you have no power to censor me. You sound like the FCC, trying to dictate what I can or can’t say.

I'd say you could call Chuy's Restaurant, on Barton Springs Road in Austin, Texas...and ask THEM...but they probably want to forget it ever happened, and probably wouldn't talk to you, anyway.

You’re suggesting that if I call them, they will be able to tell me that you were there. So, they know you pretty well there, huh? Are you that regular a customer there, or maybe an employee there, or something? Why do you assume they probably wouldn’t talk to me? My guess is that was just your blind hatred talking.

I'll tell you what, I'm not sure how much press the death threats got, but i'll look around, see if I can find a newspaper article or two about them from The Austin American statesman newspaper. Would you believe it THEN...if I shoved the proof right under your nose?

Proof of what? You seem to be under some false impression that I’m denying some incident, when all I actually denied was that you were there when it happened. If you can show proof that you were there, I might believe it, but I don’t see why it matters that much to you. If our roles were reversed, I would have just said “fuck off”, and blew it off.

Or would you continue to deny it ever happened, like most Bush butt-kissers do?

If you’re saying “continue to deny” the incident, you’re confused. I never denied any incident, just the claim that you were there. I have to actually START doing something before I can continue it.
Otherwise, it sounds like you’re saying that “most Bush butt-kissers” know who you are, and deny that you were there. I really don’t think you’re that famous.

You call me hatemonger?

You ARE a hatemonger. You even admit it.

I call you Bush butt-kisser.

What the hell led you to that blind conclusion? At least when I called you a hatemonger, it was based on things you’ve actually said, and you’ve even confirmed that it was a statement of fact. I have posted nothing to indicate which direction I lean politically. I have given you absolutely no basis whatsoever to assume that I even support Bush at all. All I said was his daughters are cute. That’s not even a political statement. It sounds like you would call me a Clinton-basher if I were to say that I don’t find his daughter attractive. How asinine.

And, yes...I hate Bush. I hate him with every fiber of my being. i'm willing to own up to that.

And there you have it.
Oddly enough, there are still people who think it’s the other side that hates. I don’t hate you, I just disagree with you.
Not that this has even the slightest thing to do with what I had said...

Bet YOU vote GOP, dont'cha?

To be quite honest, I don’t even know what that means. I voted for Dukakis, Clinton, and Nader. Are they “GOP”? I sure didn’t vote for Bush. Sr or Jr. I haven’t decided yet who I’m voting for this time. I don’t want to vote for Kerry, but that doesn’t mean I’m voting for Bush. Just like when I didn’t want Gore I didn’t vote for Bush. Maybe I’ll just go with Nader again...

And THAT is why you say "bullshit." Because, you guys so badly don't want to admit any fault in your guys that you won't accept it even when the evidence of it (or lack thereof, where WMD's in Iraq were concerned) is shoved right in your face...you will still deny it. You'll attack the source or the messanger...you'll do ANYTHING to avoid admitting ANY malfeasance on the part of YOUR guys

What in the blue hell are you talking about? You seem to be responding to things I didn’t even say. You say “you guys” as if I’m more than one person. I didn’t think it would be so hard for you to tell the difference on your own, but the Bush girls are not guys, or even politicians for that matter. What in the blue hell does WMD in Iraq have to do with it?? I said “bullshit” because I didn’t believe you were there when whatever this incident was happened. (I don’t even know what the incident was.) You speak of shoving evidence in my face, but I can’t imagine you’ll be able to show evidence of your whereabouts at the time of whatever this incident was. The bottom line to me, though, is there is nothing you can show me that can debunk my opinion that the girls are physically attractive. That’s what’s making you look completely insane. You took a comment on physical appearance, threw a HUGE political spin on it, forged it into a club, and beat me over the head with it. What the hell is the matter with you? Just because I’m not a republican, that means I can’t find a republican’s daughters attractive? This is sheer stupidity taken to an insidious level. Nothing good can come from that much partisan hate.

...but you'll jump all over Clinton like stink on a stool for getting a friggin' hummer in the Oval Office, won't ya?

Oh for crying out loud, here we go again with this Clinton got a bj crap. Yeah, ok, Clinton got busted with an intern. GET OVER IT ALREADY!!! Why the hell can’t people just let that go? Out of all the things he did between 1992 and 2000, all you can remember is one bj. That’s too pathetic for words. What’s really disturbing about it is 99.9% of the time, it’s a democrat who brings it up. Someone says something they don’t like about Clinton, and a hard-line democrat will jump up and say “you’re just mad because he got a bj”. It either stems from a total lack of objectivity, or an unwillingness to cope with reality. More likely it’s both. As for myself, I prefer to look at actual Clinton policies, rather than some stupid little scandal that got blown way out of proportion. Furthermore, Clinton has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. I don’t see why you even brought him up.

At least I will own up to being a hatemonger, where Bush is concerned. I hate him because of how badly he has screwed up the nation I was once proud to be a citizen of. Now I have to hang my head in shame when speaking to people from other countries, and actually be embarrassed to say I'm an American.
That’s asinine. There is no reason for you to be ashamed for anything that any president did. If someone looks down on you because of something Bush did, that’s not your fault, it’s their stupidity. Just ignore them. Don’t let their ignorance hurt you. All you need to do is vote. If the guy you voted for doesn’t win, it’s not your fault, so you shouldn’t shoulder the blame for it. Anyway, if there is some place you would rather be than here, perhaps you should make it a goal to move there. As for myself, I love America too much to leave it, or even be ashamed of it, no matter what any president does. He’s just one man, he’s not the whole country. Being ashamed of your country because of Bush is right in line with people who hate anything French because of Chirac. You want some “freedom fries” with that? lol How sad.

By the way, you needn’t bother digging up the dirt on the Bush girls. I know they’ve gotten into some trouble, and I don’t really care. All I did was comment on their physical appearance. A statement that had no political implications whatsoever. I didn’t even vote for Bush. This irrational partisan hatred you display is the polar opposite of credibility. That kind of sentiment is what’s probably going to lead all of us to another 4 years of Bush. When normal, rational people hear that shit, it sends them in the opposite direction. They don’t want to be associated with such obscene, irrational behavior, so they support the other side. I know this is nearly impossible for people who run exclusively on hate, but you really should try to focus on what’s good about your side, rather than what you hate about the other. At least then, you might actually give the appearance of being sane, even if you’re not.

I wasn’t going to get political, but since you brought up Clinton, and also brought up WMD in Iraq, I thought you might be interested in these three Clinton speeches.
http://www.cnsnews.com/InDepth/archive/199808/IND19980820o.html
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
http://www.jameskbishop.com/special/president_clinton_veterans_day_1998.html
I supported Clinton’s actions in Iraq 100%. I was just disappointed that he left the job unfinished, just like Bush Sr did. It’s too bad this problem was dumped on us in the first place, by certain dealings with Iraq during the Reagan administration, but at least I’m not stupidly partisan enough to suffer from the delusion that it is somehow Bush Jr’s fault.

...Hell i could be wrong oh well...

History will tell with second and third generation Iraqis. It's just my opinion but you have a better chance of being on the wrong side of history rather than being on the right side of it with the position that you've taken. It would be very difficult to argue against freedom, liberty, and peace.

The freedom to oppress the iraqs, the liberty of forcing them to do sex acts, and the "peace" where people are dying daily. Oh yes, i'm most likely wrong :roll:

They will learn to love freedom and peace or we will keep jailing and killing them until they do.

How can Bush be interested in "freeing" Iraqis when hes buzy stealing rights from Americans at home? this argument is bogus

If you want to talk about the US funding terrorist, look at the Iran and Nicaraguan Contra scandles ~ not to mention the School of Americas.
But who do you think really funds terrorist weapons in places like Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea? I'd say Russia. and I'd go out on a limb and say that France and Germany probably contribute as well, seeing as how they sold weapons to Saddam. And notice how the UN members that opposed an Iraqi invasion were the countries that Iraq owed money for weapons to (meaning Russia, Germany, and France). Sorry for the slight deviation from the main point, but I thought it was relevant.

That statement makes absolutely NO sense. Germany has recently had a massive crackdown in Hamburg on terror elements. So even if they were supplying money to terror groups, they certainly aren't anymore.

France just found a bunch of explosives like less than a week ago see above.

And now for the most completly wrong point in your post. Russia. Russia, the country that is busy fighting ISLAMIC seperatists in Chechnia and has been for years now. The people who invaded Afghanistan in 1980, yes, it makes so much sense for them to aid Al-Qaida.

The post didn't say al Qaeda (see underlined above)

SHL

What's to stop the government from abusing this power to go after dissenters (like me) Democrats (like me) GLBT (or insert your "undesireable" minority group here) (again, like me.) Nothing is in place to stop them, and if I am taken, who will say "boo" to a cuckoo bird over it? And don't say it can't happen! Because the government has yet to define what activities can make you an "enemy combatant."


In my hometown just last week, someone I know was arrested for possession of marijuana after the police used the Patroit Act as an exscuse for entering the home without a warrant.

Which would, in the old days, be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Of the Constitution DUH-bya swore to uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And has failed miserably to do.

I'd like to see the specifics on this. Got a link to a reliable source? In the meantime, let me know when this goes to trial.

SHL

Well, then...how about YOU tell ME what's to blams for this high=priced gas? Because it wasn't like this until DUH-bya started up his shit!

The California Energy fiasco probably also helped to push up gas prices. At least in this state, 2.24 is the highest I've seen for regular, I generally pay around 2.09 for the cheap stuff.


You realize that was Cheney's doing, don't you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1972574.stm

I don't get it. What is the Cheney connection. There was no data at the BBC link.

SHL

There is no Fourth Amendment: welcome to George Bush's Amerika

There's no Tenth Amendment either thanks to the Sixteenth & Seventeenth Amendments and, oh yes, Supreme Court Justices who have taken over the roles of the Legislative branch of government.

Ask yourself and be honest - which maybe hard to do for a ravid lefty such as yourself - is this list (make sure to scroll all the way down) (http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/tree) representative of too much government, not enough government, or as Goldilocks might say, "this amount of government is just right!"

Real life handling of US affairs is complex. What is the issue? Big government? Do you propose benign neglect? Sure there is a lot of fat but where would you start?

SHL

ooo, good ol' arnie. a good example of a european politician in america i guess (he's austrian to those of you who thought arnie was american). well, being in england, its getting a bit late and i have stuff to do in the morning, so...
I'll be back

Nobody said he was perfect. Most of us don't hold that against him. He had the good sense to settle here. :P

SHL

The entire war was, is, and always will be stupid and pointless i mean he didn't find any "Weapons of mass destruction." I think Baby Bush did it for his daddy. You know how it goes. "I wanna get the attention from Dad I always wanted maybe I'll just seek my revenge since that one sand nigga' tried to kill my daddy."

(Excuse the language.) anyway, I hate him and liket he dixie chicks said, "I'm ashamed that Geoge W. Bush is was Texas."

Sincerely,
Raving Graver (AKA: Android13) :evil: :twisted:

First of all, I live in California [bla bla bla] Cheney isn't responsible. Third, and like someone else said, I didn't see Cheney mentioned in that article.

read what the energy companies did:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1972574.stm
http://www.forbes.com/2002/01/28/0128topnews.html
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=211&row=1

and keep in mind that Cheney was the CEO of Enron!

Halliburton not Enron

SHL

Okay, let's flame that Whack-A-Mole of Evil Cheney for awhile. He only pops up every now and then to spew some incomprehensible garbage and then he ducks back fast before someone hits him with a mallet.

:lol: Very apt imagery!

SHL

How can Bush be interested in "freeing" Iraqis when hes buzy stealing rights from Americans at home? this argument is bogusFor example?

If people do not agree with why we went into Iraq, vote against Bush. If you do, vote for him. But look at the last ten years. The UN believed Iraq had WMD in the mid to late nineties and the Clinton administration believed Iraq had WMD. Clinton fired cruise missiles and ordered air strikes because of it. Saddam was a thorn in the side of the US. However, after September 11th, altered the perception of the American isolation factor. No longer did the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans pose a protective barrier. Prior, Americans and American interests were getting hit, but it was always "over there." New York and Washington were hit. Iraq, once just considered a thorn in our side, now was look upon as a loose cannon. Potentially very dangerous. Who knows? But why take the risk? After September 11th, the argument for preemptive action was very compelling. And I still think preemptive action is compelling. I grew up in Brooklyn, NY. From my house, I had a view of the Twin Towers. I saw them every day as a kid. Now they're gone, with 3,000 people. Was Iraq "directly involved" with the attacks? Probably not. However, would Iraq have compounded the war on those responsible by funding, equipping, training, or offering assistance of any kind to those who the US was engaged with? Yes. Probably. Definately? No, nothing's definate but death and taxes. But why take the chance?

By that logic, Lex Terrae, I could argue that I should be allowed to kill you. After all, I have no "real" proof that you might be a threat to me one day, but why take the chance?

By that logic, Lex Terrae, I could argue that I should be allowed to kill you. After all, I have no "real" proof that you might be a threat to me one day, but why take the chance?

No. You are not taking into account the probabilty of future problems with Iraq based on history. Obviously, if you apply preemption in a vacuum, any nation could be a potential threat. We could take out Luxemborg. Thus, you could not make a logical argument for a preemptive strike on my life because we have absolutely no history interaction other than this message.

By that logic, Lex Terrae, I could argue that I should be allowed to kill you. After all, I have no "real" proof that you might be a threat to me one day, but why take the chance?

No. You are not taking into account the probabilty of future problems with Iraq based on history. Obviously, if you apply preemption in a vacuum, any nation could be a potential threat. We could take out Luxemborg. Thus, you could not make a logical argument for a preemptive strike on my life because we have absolutely no history interaction other than this message.But Iraq posed no real threat to the US prior to our preventive strike against them either. What threat was there? WMD? Hah! Unmanned aerial attack drones? Hah! Terrorist attacks? Hah!

Iraq posed as much a threat to the US as you pose to me, regardless of our lack of history outside these few comments. But I don't know--you might pose a threat to me one day, based on your hostility toward my point of view (relax, I'm being sarcastic here), so according to the Bush doctrine of preemption, I have the right to strike first and destroy the potentially emerging threat. Too bad for you, I guess.

Now I don't really want to do anything to you. I'm a peaceful kind of guy. I'm just pointing out the logical flaws in the Bush doctrine of preemption.

But Iraq posed no real threat to the US prior to our preventive strike against them either. What threat was there? WMD? Hah! Unmanned aerial attack drones? Hah! Terrorist attacks? Hah!

Iraq posed as much a threat to the US as you pose to me, regardless of our lack of history outside these few comments. But I don't know--you might pose a threat to me one day, based on your hostility toward my point of view (relax, I'm being sarcastic here), so according to the Bush doctrine of preemption, I have the right to strike first and destroy the potentially emerging threat. Too bad for you, I guess.

Now I don't really want to do anything to you. I'm a peaceful kind of guy. I'm just pointing out the logical flaws in the Bush doctrine of preemption.[/quote]


There are flaws in every doctrine. Yes, any thing is possible. But discard the remote possiblities. There was a strong possiblity that Iraq could help with terrorists cause. Logistically it was there. Is it a strong possiblity that Iraq could give/sell several dozen liters of sarin to Al-Quada? Yes. Funding? Yes. Was it ever going to happen? Who knows. I don't have a crystal ball. We chose a proactive course. Only time will tell if it was the right one. However, I believe a proactive course of action is better than to retreat into an isolationist stance. Waiting for them to strike is not the answer. It wasn't the answer in 1914 and it wasn't the answer in the 1930's. We can't allow things to feaster anymore. 63 years ago it was Pearl Harbor that drew us out. We must stay on the offensive, because the next time it may be a nuclear, chemical or biological waepon in New York or Washington. That is a risk we should not take. But, I do believe we should also make every effort to remove ourselves from the dependence of oil from that region. Whether it is oil from another source or a completely different fuel altogether. But that is another can of worms for another discussion. :wink:

But discard the remote possiblities.

I'll concede that Iraq posed more of a threat than, say Micronesia. but considering that we had effectively contained Hussein for 11 years, that no terrorism had been linked to him since the early 90s, and that since 1998 when we last took action against Iraq, there had been no sign of WMD programs of any sort, that's about the only concession I'll make. Remember, one of the first criticisms of the Bush case for war came when the press reported that they relied on intelligence from 1998.

And I'm not saying we need to retreat and become isolationist and that we shouldn't be proactive in trying to preempt legitimate threats, but the fact is that the US is not threatened by any other state on earth. We hold the ultimate trump card in our nuclear arsenal.

No, what we are under threat from are these amorphous groups like al Qaeda, and when we've been proactive against them, we've been largely successful. But all the war in Iraq has done--and plenty of people were sounding the warning before we went in--is distract us from the battles we need to be fighting against al Qaeda. It's done worse than distract us--it's tied up a significant portion of our forces and is slowly draining our military readiness. This was not a war we needed to fight now and in this manner.