NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a hypothetical question for those of you who still support President Bush: What would he have to do in order for you to no longer support him? By that I mean what is the moral spectrum of actions that, if you found out this president was involved in, would lead you to oppose him?

This has been the source of a lot of confusion as a fair number of people seem to back him no matter what he does. So I'd like Bush supporters to go on the docket with plausible scenarios that would prompt their disapproval of our President. Post away...




EDIT:

Scenarios posted so far have been...

-Some of the allegations against him being proven.

-The locking up of Liberals indiscriminately.

-Changing his political platform

-Negotiating with Bin Laden.

-Retreating from Iraq.

-Ending the war on terror.

-N/A, would support Bush in any scenario

ut-oh :eek:

the silence says enough....

The way I see it, anyone who still supports Bush after Operation Bullsh- I mean Iraqi Freedom would never stop supporting him. I mean, come on. We get attacked by Osama Bin Laden, and Bush's answer is "Let's invade Iraq, remove Saddam from power, and bring democracy to the Iraqis! To hell with Osama!"

I highly doubt that Bush can come up with a way to lower the bar even further besides destroying the entire planet, in which case there would be no people left to say "Okay, I don't support him anymore."

So I'd like Bush supporters to go on the docket with plausible scenarios that would prompt their disapproval of our President. Post away...
Proof of some of the allegations against him which do not rely on the presumption of guilt.

When he starts locking up Liberals indiscriminately I'd no longer realize he is for Americas safty.

America will sure be quiet then.

Hmm maybe its not such a bad Idea after all, stupid potheads an squeelers.
Give the Bush bashing a rest PLEEEESE its so tiresome, America is FIRST, the countrys SAFTY is first NOT YOU OR I.

Rich

Proof of some of the allegations against him which do not rely on the presumption of guilt.

OK, that's a good start. So Malclavia will oppose President Bush if proof of "the allegations against him" surface. *scribbles on docket*

Anyone else?

If Bush woke up one morning, stepped out of the White House nude, lit up a doobie, proclaimed his undying homosexual love for Dick Cheney, shook hands with Michael Schiavo and consoled him on his loss, admitted the war in Iraq was a bust, put "happy holidays" on his Christmas cards, chastised outsourcers for hating America, confessed his tax cuts are a sham, and insinuated that Clinton wasn't such a bad guy, yeah, I'm sure a few current Bush supporters would start to have second thoughts.

;)

him becoming an athiest democrat might do it..

Proof of some of the allegations against him which do not rely on the presumption of guilt.
The onus of proof is on those who are arguing (in the face of all the evidence that's so far emerged) that he wasn't lying about Iraq possessing WMDs and having ties to Al Queda, sadly. You'll have to do better than that.

GOLDDIRK: did your lips move while you were typing that? If you weren't so stupid I'd ask you how destabilising the middle east is making America any safer, because all of these insurgents swarming into Iraq don't give me the impression that it's helping your country's cause any.

When he starts locking up Liberals indiscriminately I'd no longer realize he is for Americas safty.

America will sure be quiet then.

Hmm maybe its not such a bad Idea after all, stupid potheads an squeelers.
Give the Bush bashing a rest PLEEEESE its so tiresome, America is FIRST, the countrys SAFTY is first NOT YOU OR I.

Rich

Wait, so would you oppose him at that point or still support him? Please clarify.

OK, that's a good start. So Malclavia will oppose President Bush if proof of "the allegations against him" surface. *scribbles on docket*

Anyone else?
Pardon me if I don't believe Malclavia--the proof is out there for all to see, and has been mounting for years now. That he/she refuses to see it has nothing to do with its existence.

Give the Bush bashing a rest PLEEEESE its so tiresome, America is FIRST, the countrys SAFTY is first NOT YOU OR I.

So much the individualism of conservatives!

If he was to negotiate with Bin Laden.
If he was to retreat from Iraq per Nancy Pelosi's request.
If he were to give up the war on terror.

him becoming an athiest democrat might do it..
How many Bush supporters really care about his religious affiliation, do you think? (14 year old English boys don't count as Bush supporters) And "Democrat" is just a name. It wouldn't need to change anything. Indeed there are many Democrats who support Bush's programmes and who are Christians also.

So much the individualism of conservatives!
The individualist conservatives have already left the GOP in favor of the Libertarian party. Last I checked, they weren't fond of Bush...

YES I WAS JOKING,....jeeze you guys need a house to fall on you,but really enough with your crybaby antics. Heres hoping Muslims attack and destroy and kill love ones in your own country!!


P.S. I'm not a bush supporter, and i dont believe in a GOD but heres hoping a lot more EU countries get butt fucked by america, you really deserve it especially after letting NAZIs rise and Jews killed, the invention of slavery,and basically sleeping and living on past glories so on and so on.

Dont like it do you ?


Rich

OK so far we have:


-Some of the allegations against him being proven.

-Locking up Liberals indiscriminately.

-Becoming an atheist democrat.

-Negotiating with Bin Laden.

-Retreating from Iraq.

-Giving up the war on terror.



Keep 'em coming...

I have a hypothetical question for those of you who still support President Bush: What would he have to do in order for you to no longer support him? By that I mean what is the moral spectrum of actions that, if you found out this president was involved in, would lead you to oppose him?

This has been the source of a lot of confusion as a fair number of people seem to back him no matter what he does. So I'd like Bush supporters to go on the docket with plausible scenarios that would prompt their disapproval of our President. Post away...
I will always support our President. That doesn't mean I don't disapprove of the President or his actions, but I will support him.

so my support of the President Bush will end when he leaves office.

P.S. I'm not a bush supporter, and i dont believe in a GOD but heres hoping a lot more EU countries get butt fucked by america, you really deserve it especially after letting NAZIs rise and Jews killed, the invention of slavery,and basically sleeping and living on past glories so on and so on.


Wow. That's so wrong...
No, don't mention Native Americans, segregation, Republicans :p , the continuation of slavery decades after Europe, isolationism, immigration, WWI, WWII, and oh yeah, the atom bomb.

P.S. I am an American, much more than some others.

The irony here is, of course, were it Clinton or Kerry doing the exact same things that Bush is doing/has done, all roles would be absolutely reversed. With few exceptions, everything I've read here on both sides are just various repeats of party lines.

My personal opinion is that liberals are the worst of the bleating sheep, wandering around the countryside with nothing to offer except "Bush baaaaaaaaad." At least the conservative sheep have a shepherd.

"To All Bush Supporters..."

Why does that make me think you really mean "athletic supporters?" :eek:

If he was to negotiate with Bin Laden.
If he was to retreat from Iraq per Nancy Pelosi's request.
If he were to give up the war on terror.
Those who would give up their Essential Liberty and Freedom, deserve neither Liberty or Freedom. ---Ben Franklin

Bush suppoters just remember that... a founding father.. someone you're supposed to undyingly love, honor and cherrish was telling Bush a LONG time ago that the Patriot Act is a load of hogwash.

Wow. That's so wrong...
No, don't mention Native Americans, segregation, Republicans :p , the continuation of slavery decades after Europe, isolationism, immigration, WWI, WWII, and oh yeah, the atom bomb.

P.S. I am an American, much more than some others.

Don't mention the KKK, eugenics programs or the replacement of democratically elected regimes with brutal, pro-America dictatorships either.

Sure, Europe isn't perfect and we've had some very unpleasant episodes in our history (although to be fair we've had longer to accumulate them :p ) but in terms of actions in recent times America has performed far more morally dubious actions than we have.

The irony here is, of course, were it Clinton or Kerry doing the exact same things that Bush is doing/has done, all roles would be absolutely reversed. With few exceptions, everything I've read here on both sides are just various repeats of party lines.

My personal opinion is that liberals are the worst of the bleating sheep, wandering around the countryside with nothing to offer except "Bush baaaaaaaaad." At least the conservative sheep have a shepherd.

True but they're being herded towards a cliff.;)

True but they're being herded towards a cliff.;)

Heh, not necessarily going to argue with that. :D

I had nothing to do with those things, but the way i see it, IT NEEDED to happen, if the people weren't so fucked up on drugs, sex, religion( ALL PEOPLE) and weren't so fuckin greedy for money (starting Slavery) or Lazy cultures (American Indians doing absolutley NOTHING to create a real civilization wth this land) i say fuck em all.

I'm still waiting for the big nukes to fall, then I can watch all you libs cry in the street while snorting your last ounc of blow. Wait you are doing that already. Time to grow up, Europe was fucking up people and lands WAYYYY before america had one of its descendants on it, so quit the blame gamee. 911 changed the world, and i say fuck all. Especially you. :)

Don't mention the KKK, eugenics programs or the replacement of democratically elected regimes with brutal, pro-America dictatorships either.

Sure, Europe isn't perfect and we've had some very unpleasant episodes in our history (although to be fair we've had longer to accumulate them :p ) but in terms of actions in recent times America has performed far more morally dubious actions than we have.

Sadly, yes.
You forgot democratically elected Leftist regimes with Pro-America right regimes.

I had nothing to do with those things, but the way i see it, IT NEEDED to happen, if the people weren't so fucked up on drugs, sex, religion( ALL PEOPLE) and weren't so fuckin greedy for money (starting Slavery) or Lazy cultures (American Indians doing absolutley NOTHING to create a real civilization wth this land) i say fuck em all.

I'm still waiting for the big nukes to fall, then I can watch all you libs cry in the street while snorting your last ounc of blow. Wait you are doing that already. Time to grow up, Europe was fucking up people and lands WAYYYY before america had one of its descendants on it, so quit the blame gamee. 911 changed the world, and i say fuck all. Especially you. :)

Ok, stop typing one-handed and try to express your views coherently, calmly and without resorting to profanity.

Frankly I don't have a clue what you're talking about beyond the fact that Europe's older than you, the native Americans deserved to be mistreated because they had no interest in ruining the unspoilt countryside, and that you want to see people getting nuked. Oh, and you have a strong desire to copulate with somebody on the thread but you don't specify who.

8/10 for effort, 9/10 for passion, 1/10 for structure and content. Try again.

I mostly supported him last year out of what I see as being a coherent platform, not one based on "we aren't x." Also, there wasn't the whole shrill, simplistic mess from the squaking protestors. I also saw a good number of, bluntly in my opinon, out and proud communist groups at anti-war rallies.

I personally am not fond of many of his domestic policies. I was less than enthralled with the whole massive drug benefits scheme, but what do I know, I'm just the college student who will be paying for it.

I don't know, but I feel most politicans are hypocritcal and spin isses constantly. And the media is complicit, because they refuse to admit they have opinions. I don't mind opinions, but if they are told as fact, there is a problem.

Sorry about being a little long winded.

Sadly, yes.
You forgot democratically elected Leftist regimes with Pro-America right regimes.

I was guessing that most people on the thread either knew that already or would deny that anything of the kind ever happened.:)

If Bush woke up one morning, stepped out of the White House nude, lit up a doobie, proclaimed his undying homosexual love for Dick Cheney, shook hands with Michael Schiavo and consoled him on his loss, admitted the war in Iraq was a bust, put "happy holidays" on his Christmas cards, chastised outsourcers for hating America, confessed his tax cuts are a sham, and insinuated that Clinton wasn't such a bad guy, yeah, I'm sure a few current Bush supporters would start to have second thoughts.

One down, then... (Oh, and he woke up, so make that two!) :p

If he was to negotiate with Bin Laden.

Can't happen since after billions of $$ have been spent on "intelligence" we can't seem to find the septugenarian with a an entourage that gets dialysis for his kidneys every other day. Thank goodness we have a foothold on the war on terror </sarcasm>

If he was to retreat from Iraq per Nancy Pelosi's request.

And staying in Iraq gains what?

If he were to give up the war on terror.

I thought he already did by abandonning the troops in Afghanistan to bring focus to his Iraq War.

Then again, he revamped and became a terrorist by deciding he can do whatever he wants, like monitoring all e-mails, cell phones, home phones, and library withdrawals. Because the FBI's knowledge of me reading the Da Vinci code helps the war on terror.

The onus of proof is on those who are arguing (in the face of all the evidence that's so far emerged) that he wasn't lying about Iraq possessing WMDs and having ties to Al Queda, sadly. You'll have to do better than that.
Statements like this are a big reason why I want proof, not just rhetoric.

The burden of proof is on the people making the accusations. So far, the only "proofs" I've been shown require a presumption of guilt.

I mostly supported him last year out of what I see as being a coherent platform, not one based on "we aren't x." Also, there wasn't the whole shrill, simplistic mess from the squaking protestors. I also saw a good number of, bluntly in my opinon, out and proud communist groups at anti-war rallies.

I personally am not fond of many of his domestic policies. I was less than enthralled with the whole massive drug benefits scheme, but what do I know, I'm just the college student who will be paying for it.

I don't know, but I feel most politicans are hypocritcal and spin isses constantly. And the media is complicit, because they refuse to admit they have opinions. I don't mind opinions, but if they are told as fact, there is a problem.

Sorry about being a little long winded.

You'll see far more longwinded posts than that on this forum mate.:)

Anyway, what's wrong with Communists? (N.B. I am not a Communist but as a generic leftie I have to defend them on general principle)

I had nothing to do with those things, but the way i see it, IT NEEDED to happen, if the people weren't so fucked up on drugs, sex, religion( ALL PEOPLE) and weren't so fuckin greedy for money (starting Slavery) or Lazy cultures (American Indians doing absolutley NOTHING to create a real civilization wth this land) i say fuck em all.
I love the piece about Indians: that's like claiming that niggers are entitled to rape your wife because you're crap in bed.

I'm still waiting for the big nukes to fall, then I can watch all you libs cry in the street while snorting your last ounc of blow. Wait you are doing that already. Time to grow up, Europe was fucking up people and lands WAYYYY before america had one of its descendants on it, so quit the blame gamee. 911 changed the world, and i say fuck all. Especially you. :)
The eleventh of September 2001 didn't actually change a single thing, it just served as a belated wake up call demonstrating to the vast hordes of braindead sheep in middle America how the real world works.
Unfortunately, as the drivel you're spouting proves, a lot of them failed to grasp that point.

One down, then... (Oh, and he woke up, so make that two!) :p

*Scurries off to photoshop pictures of Bush kissing Cheney*

Pardon me if I don't believe Malclavia--the proof is out there for all to see, and has been mounting for years now.
So you should have no problem presenting some?

The irony here is, of course, were it Clinton or Kerry doing the exact same things that Bush is doing/has done, all roles would be absolutely reversed. With few exceptions, everything I've read here on both sides are just various repeats of party lines.

My personal opinion is that liberals are the worst of the bleating sheep, wandering around the countryside with nothing to offer except "Bush baaaaaaaaad." At least the conservative sheep have a shepherd.

More than half the conservatives aren't following this shepard. McCain said he was tired of "Bush's Kingly ways". And last i checked, the liberals aren't wandering the countryside. Bush has actually spent a lot of time wandering trying to convince Americans that he is right about anything. Which polls show, isn't very effective.

I highly doubt that Clinton or Kerry would authorize unwarranted wiretaps, go to war against Iraq to make up for their Dad's mistakes, or give payouts to every high level corporate entity in America.

Most people have known that trickle down economics doesn't work since the time of Carnegie.

I thought he already did by abandonning the troops in Afghanistan to bring focus to his Iraq War.

Nope. We're evidently assassinating and capturing people worldwide.

And Iraq acts as bait.

Statements like this are a big reason why I want proof, not just rhetoric.

The burden of proof is on the people making the accusations. So far, the only "proofs" I've been shown require a presumption of guilt.
So where are these WMDs, then? The GOP haven't been furiously backpedalling and changing their excuse for invading when they failed to find any?

Randomlittleisland
I love your county its people and especially your film and TV industry but you're limp dick blighter! Now go get yourself a scouser, a pint and bugger off you wanker. ;)

Rich

P.S. Profanity, well its just part of me.

Scenarios posted so far have been...

-Some of the allegations against him being proven.

-The locking up of Liberals indiscriminately.

-Becoming an atheist democrat.

-Negotiating with Bin Laden.

-Retreating from Iraq.

-Giving up the war on terror.

-N/A, would support Bush in any scenario


You could add appoint a Supreme Court Judge like Ginsburg.

Support Gay marrige.

Change the national language to multilingual jibberish

Fund abortion worldwide

Pretend Social Security was in good shape

Premote the Mayor of New Orleans to head of FEMA

Make american military subject to world war crimes courts, instead of our own justice system.

Say our Troops can't win in Iraq, or have already lost.

Also, the Democrats don't offer a credible alternative.

Do you honestly think that if Kerry had been elected, we would have gotten the troops out any faster? Or if we did, that Iraq would not have fallen into chaos?

Get real.

More than half the conservatives aren't following this shepard. McCain said he was tired of "Bush's Kingly ways". And last i checked, the liberals aren't wandering the countryside. Bush has actually spent a lot of time wandering trying to convince Americans that he is right about anything. Which polls show, isn't very effective.

I highly doubt that Clinton or Kerry would authorize unwarranted wiretaps, go to war against Iraq to make up for their Dad's mistakes, or give payouts to every high level corporate entity in America.

Most people have known that trickle down economics doesn't work since the time of Carnegie.
Thank you for proving my point with your canned, boring and uninspired response. Next time, just type "I'm a liberal hack -- baaaaa" and everyone will know what you mean. Otherwise, don't hurt yourself trying to re-word what you read in the Times this morning.

Don't worry, though. When I said liberal sheep were the worst, it wasn't by much. You all disgust me pretty much equally. :D

So where are these WMDs, then? The GOP haven't been furiously backpedalling and changing their excuse for invading when they failed to find any?
Intel was wrong. That's been known for some time... I wish the President had publically admitted it earlier. But, despite the attempts at revising history from the left, the administration were NOT the only ones saying that Saddam had biological and chemical weapons.

As far as "changing excuses": while the WMDs (and WMD programs) were a major portion of the administration's justification for going into Iraq, they were not the only reason.

"You all disgust me pretty much equally."



Boy you said it Brudder!

Give the Bush bashing a rest PLEEEESE its so tiresome, America is FIRST, the countrys SAFTY is first NOT YOU OR I.
Yay, I'm bringing new meaning to the phrase "reply with quote."

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

The Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (or PATRIOT) Act and FDA both violate free speech, a constitutional right and essential liberty.

Questions/jokes/rebuttal/comments?

EDIT: Dammit, I just realized that SoCal_Cymru beat me to citing him.
EDIT: The next portion has been made a thread and is therefore removed because there is no point in discussing the same in two places.

Here's the one thing that would make me support a Bush decision...if he stepped down and admitted he has had no idea what he has been doing the past 5 years.

Which is fine since political analysts are believing that even the republican controlled house and senate plan on sanctions against the President King and if things get more out of hand, possible impeachment.

Time to grow up, Europe was fucking up people and lands WAYYYY before america had one of its descendants on it, so quit the blame gamee.

Let me remind you that you are the one who actually started the blame game. And the way I see it America is becoming rather annoying since Bush was elected. That person is quite clearly not inteligent enought to be in such an office. Haven't you heard one of his speeches? "Terrorists are bad people..." he says. I mean is that ok?!

That person is quite clearly not inteligent enought to be in such an office.

Irony, anyone? :D

Intel was wrong. That's been known for some time... I wish the President had publically admitted it earlier. But, despite the attempts at revising history from the left, the administration were NOT the only ones saying that Saddam had biological and chemical weapons.

As far as "changing excuses": while the WMDs (and WMD programs) were a major portion of the administration's justification for going into Iraq, they were not the only reason.
The other reason given was Hussein's ties to Al Queda. That was bollocks as well.

I love the piece about Indians: that's like claiming that niggers are entitled to rape your wife because you're crap in bed.


Yeah, its their fault. And you wonder why they didn't support us in the Revolution. Or ever for that matter.

President translates to burner of houses in iroquois. Go figure.

Victors write history I guess.

Man I took all that time to click on this thread and read it, only to realize it wasn't talking about people that support hair downstairs...geez:)

Thank you for proving my point with your canned, boring and uninspired response. Next time, just type "I'm a liberal hack -- baaaaa" and everyone will know what you mean. Otherwise, don't hurt yourself trying to re-word what you read in the Times this morning.

Don't worry, though. When I said liberal sheep were the worst, it wasn't by much. You all disgust me pretty much equally. :D

Ummm...last I checked I wasn't a liberal. I fall somewhere in between, it's something you won't find a label for in this ridiculous 2 party system. But really, your conservative rhetoric is much more soothing. Simply type the following:

"Nothing is wrong. Everything is okay. Ignore those dieing in far off lands, ignore the poor suffering in our land. Just go to the mall and buy the corporate goods so you can be just like everyone else."

It's a good thing you gave up the freedom to think for yourself when you gave up your freedom of speech. Imagine if we had conservatives that thought for themselves...bleh.

Anyway, what's wrong with Communists? (N.B. I am not a Communist but as a generic leftie I have to defend them on general principle)
It was more how they tried to both hide themselves as being closer to mainstream. I live on a major college campus, and there was a great big rally last month, organized by the most left wing groups on campus, pretending to be just the left wing of the Democrats.

The Slavic nations-


Go back to sleep bro, that is what Europe and Asia is all about living for the Past and "Remembering past glories" through the rose color from the bottom of a wine bottle.
"I conqured theses slags" "I blasted these asrewipes", "I enslaved this race" you are all guilty of it, so if its gonna be an an all out war lets get to it, other wise stop acting like the liberals and the Europeans and asia are all pretty little innocent virgins.
America is what it is, A thriving budding nation that moves towards and lives for a economic future, THE FUTURE. Cant keep up umm, too bad,think you have the balls to get into politics and change it, Do it, lets see how long mommy and daddys bought education will help you along.


Knock off the bullshit, no one is innocent jack. It's kill or be killed, and the muslims know this. Hell the liberals are having a feild day keeping me out of work. So Bugger all!

Rich

It was more how they tried to both hide themselves as being closer to mainstream. I live on a major college campus, and there was a great big rally last month, organized by the most left wing groups on campus, pretending to be just the left wing of the Democrats.

Is there really any difference between conservatives, liberals and communists? Let's break it down:

Communism: The government controls what you can and cannot have.

Conservatism: The government controls what you can and cannot have...unless you are rich.

Liberalism: The government controls what you can and cannot have...unless it makes them look benevolent to give it to you.

Shades of grey folks...

GOLDDIRK, are you being completely sarcastic and having everyone on?

Hell the liberals are having a feild day keeping me out of work. So Bugger all!
Ah, I wondered what you were bitching about. You're angry about the liberal conspiracy to give all the good jobs to blacks, towelheads and Chinese lesbians.

Man I took all that time to click on this thread and read it, only to realize it wasn't talking about people that support hair downstairs...geez:)
Life is cruel.
So are you pro or anti hairy genitals?

You could add appoint a Supreme Court Judge like Ginsburg.

Support Gay marrige.

Change the national language to multilingual jibberish

Fund abortion worldwide

Pretend Social Security was in good shape

Premote the Mayor of New Orleans to head of FEMA

Make american military subject to world war crimes courts, instead of our own justice system.

Say our Troops can't win in Iraq, or have already lost.

I'm pretty sure those can all be summed up with "changes party doctrine" or "changes political platform", wouldn't you say? Except for the Mayor of New Orleans one that is.

Do you honestly think that if Kerry had been elected, we would have gotten the troops out any faster? Or if we did, that Iraq would not have fallen into chaos?

Get real.

hmm...lets think about this one. if bush hadnt been (wrongfully) elected before even his first term, and if the florida secretary of state hadnt messed things up in 2000, do u even think we would be in, as you said, chaotic iraq with, what is it now, 20,000 troops and civilians dead?! i think not...

Well more or less...... i am taking a piss, and your all in my way. But i am a true liberal - "live and let live" unless you attack me, or hinder me then i put on my turban with explosives, my kamakazi head band plop in my zero and fuck all.;)

rich

Ummm...last I checked I wasn't a liberal. I fall somewhere in between, it's something you won't find a label for in this ridiculous 2 party system. But really, your conservative rhetoric is much more soothing. Simply type the following:

"Nothing is wrong. Everything is okay. Ignore those dieing in far off lands, ignore the poor suffering in our land. Just go to the mall and buy the corporate goods so you can be just like everyone else."

It's a good thing you gave up the freedom to think for yourself when you gave up your freedom of speech. Imagine if we had conservatives that thought for themselves...bleh.

The best part of this yawn-inducing little speech, no doubt transcribed from Air America, is that if, you know, you had read my initial statement, you'd know I'm not a conservative. Maybe my second comment agreeing about Bush leading the sheep over a cliff might have given that away? But, no, instead, you instantly label me a conservative because I disagree with your fake, manufactured "fervor."

I label you a liberal because, like Nationstates, no matter what you call yourself, when you cut and paste from the DNC handbook, even in your insults, you pretty much give yourself away. Maybe if you came up with an opinion where you disagree with the Democratic party, I might reconsider. But given posts of yours I've read so far, I'm not sure you have the capacity to do that.

Ah, I wondered what you were bitching about. You're angry about the liberal conspiracy to give all the good jobs to blacks, towelheads and Chinese lesbians.

Don't forget that while they are despicably stealing jobs they are simultaneously lazing around at home scrounging off the hard-working Americans who have no jobs because they've been stolen by the immigrants.

*nods sagely*

Well more or less...... i am taking a piss, and your all in my way. But i am a true liberal - "live and let live" unless you attack me, or hinder me then i put on my turban with explosives, my kamakazi head band plop in my zero and fuck all.;)

rich
Never mind all that: were you dropped on your head as a baby, or is English not your first language?

Randomlittleisland
I love your county its people and especially your film and TV industry but you're limp dick blighter! Now go get yourself a scouser, a pint and bugger off you wanker. ;)

Rich

P.S. Profanity, well its just part of me.

Friend, this is a debating forum, if you don't like having your views questioned and challenged then this is prbably the wrong place for you. Oh, and a friendly warning: not all posters are as tolerant of flaming as I am, k?

hmm...lets think about this one. if bush hadnt been (wrongfully) elected before even his first term, and if the florida secretary of state hadnt messed things up in 2000, do u even think we would be in, as you said, chaotic iraq with, what is it now, 20,000 troops and civilians dead?! i think not...


Hmmm lets think about this one, Sadam in power... How many civilians dead?

Exactly how many recounts would convince you? Bush won get over it. Look to the future and get ready to repeat whatever Hilary wants you to say.

Make american military subject to world war crimes courts, instead of our own justice system.

Say our Troops can't win in Iraq, or have already lost.
Booo! Hissss!
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/5202/smileytroutsmack9bt.gif (http://imageshack.us)

I label you a liberal because, like Nationstates, no matter what you call yourself, when you cut and paste from the DNC handbook, even in your insults, you pretty much give yourself away. Maybe if you came up with an opinion where you disagree with the Democratic party, I might reconsider. But given posts of yours I've read so far, I'm not sure you have the capacity to do that.

*waves*

I don't like the Democrats much either, I just hate the Republicans more than the Democrats.

Ah well, it's not like I live in America anyway.

*sits back, watching cricket while drinking tea*

Life is cruel.
So are you pro or anti hairy genitals?


Well it really depends on the situation i assume. Some girls are better with a little patch down there and others are better bald. :D

Cahnt -

What....you got yourself a true Eduaction? Hmm... happy about it? Proud of it, well use it to HELP people not shit on them. You POS! Sorry taking a piss again.

I grew up working with an african american family fixing semi trucks and dreaming about drawing japanese animation, I achieved my animation dream by working in Japan aftger all the Liberals told me NO, but at least I dont FEELTHE NEED TO CORRECT People. What a Schmuck.
Lets see why wont you use your education some where else like "TRYING" to fix this nation if your so fucking better then anyone else,chances are you wont get too far. :rolleyes:


Rich

Well it really depends on the situation i assume. Some girls are better with a little patch down there and others are better bald. :D
You're clearly a tolerant sort.

The best part of this yawn-inducing little speech, no doubt transcribed from Air America, is that if, you know, you had read my initial statement, you'd know I'm not a conservative. Maybe my second comment agreeing about Bush leading the sheep over a cliff might have given that away? But, no, instead, you instantly label me a conservative because I disagree with your fake, manufactured "fervor."

I label you a liberal because, like Nationstates, no matter what you call yourself, when you cut and paste from the DNC handbook, even in your insults, you pretty much give yourself away. Maybe if you came up with an opinion where you disagree with the Democratic party, I might reconsider. But given posts of yours I've read so far, I'm not sure you have the capacity to do that.

IT's hard to tell that you aren't conservative (or at the very least heavily leaning toward conservativism) when you spew rhetoric and say that when people don't agree with you they are Air America listening to usurpers of the DNC handbook.

Certainly doesn't sound conservative.

Let me just get this straight, you aren't conservative and you hate liberals?

Where do I disagree with the democratic party? Welfare, tossing cash away on education instead of trying to reform it, feeling the need to defend themselves by trying to coalesce around religion the way the conservatives do, and the fact that the only difference really between the two groups is the name.

It's still just mostly rich people. I am not a rich person, so my voice is worthless in the US. But if you think that means the conservatives are better then you are entitled to an opinion.

Hmmm lets think about this one, Sadam in power... How many civilians dead?

Exactly how many recounts would convince you? Bush won get over it. Look to the future and get ready to repeat whatever Hilary wants you to say.


right, and iraq is DEFINETELY the ONLY *sarcasm* cruel dictatorship in the world, right? hm, so why iraq if so many other countries were suffering? perhaps alterior motives? *oil cough cough* and perhaps a distraction from the failure to catch osama in AFGHANISTAN, which is definetely not iraq.

Lets see why wont you use your education some where else like "TRYING" to fix this nation if your so fucking better then anyone else,chances are you wont get too far.
I lack the pigheaded self righteousness and naivete to believe that there's any hope of stopping America going down the tubes and taking the rest of the western world with it short of killing every man woman and child who lives there.
I don't believe myself to be better than everybody else: you're the one who's making incoherent rants from that position, not me.

OK listen up Bush supporters, a few categories are conspicuously absent from the scenarios you've outlined, like for instance civil liberties. Would you still support Bush if he had tampered with ballots, spied on his political opponents, violated the Bill of Rights or a Constitutional ammendment? What if he did all or most of these things? I'd like to cover the full moral spectrum here.


To those who have responded seriously to my request, your line in the sand has been noted. I take you at your word that, should the scenario you have outlined occur, you will withdraw your support for Bush.

Oh, GOLDDIRK. If ever there was a greater show of American illiteracy I have yet to find it. Actually, scratch that, I reckon you could probably beat Bush in a spelling contest...

So many issues; where to start?

- Native Americans

They had a society that had VERY little crime, and such, few laws. They lived in harmony with the environment. Europeans came along, took the coast from them, and exploited them for trade. They moved further inland. America came along, burned their homes, took their land and humiliated them with false "treaties". (Incidentally, the reason the founding fathers wanted proportional representation in Parliament was NOT entirely because of taxation, but rather because they wanted more land from the Indians. Parliament said no. The Americans, who stood to gain from said land, rebelled). We're BOTH responsible for their decline, but you cannot say they did not deserve their land purely because it was not cultivated. Terra Nullius has been outdated for centuries.

- American Foreign Policy

Perhaps you should read the following essay, by Serj Tankian (of System of a Down fame):

http://wrestlingcasa.tripod.com/systemofadown/id174.html

- Terrorism and 9/11

You think America has suffered at the hands of terrorists? What about Britain? 7/7 attacks by Muslims? Or before that? The IRA? Whom, I may point out, were sponsored by many Americans of Irish descent.

- Middle East

Well, you reap what you sow as they say. America sold the weapons to Iraq and Iran. America trained Bin Laden and his cohorts to fight the "Reds" during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. America persistently favours the Israelis over the Palestinians in the Middle East. Bush was the man planning to bomb Qatar, an ALLY, because he doesntlike Qatar based news agency Al Jazeera.


Now go home, waster.

I have a hypothetical question for those of you who still support President Bush: What would he have to do in order for you to no longer support him? By that I mean what is the moral spectrum of actions that, if you found out this president was involved in, would lead you to oppose him?

This has been the source of a lot of confusion as a fair number of people seem to back him no matter what he does. So I'd like Bush supporters to go on the docket with plausible scenarios that would prompt their disapproval of our President. Post away...

EDIT:

Scenarios posted so far have been...

-Some of the allegations against him being proven.

-The locking up of Liberals indiscriminately.

-Changing his political platform

-Negotiating with Bin Laden.

-Retreating from Iraq.

-Ending the war on terror.

-N/A, would support Bush in any scenario

I would say all of these conditions listed in ur Edit about sum it up. However, I would also add "expressing indifference to resistance on any number of major issues in congress which would have great impact on the nation". We do not elect leaders to await public opinion on the direction of the country, since public opinion polls sway farther and faster then a pendulum on a clock. One of the things I have liked so much about Bush is his determination to push through his agendas regardless of the polls against him, or resistance from politcal rivals.

*Scurries off to photoshop pictures of Bush kissing Cheney*

Please, no! :fluffle: Oh Lord, the humanity!

Hmm... If you had a picture of Bush making out with Clinton (either one ;) ) would you hide or destroy it, use it only for good, or use it just for personal gain? :eek: Now that's a dilemma...

:D

Give the Bush bashing a rest PLEEEESE its so tiresome, America is FIRST, the countrys SAFTY is first NOT YOU OR I.

If you and I aren't safe, how can the US be safe? Is the US not made up of its citizens? What is the country if not its citizens?

President Bush would lose the support of his most dedicated supporters if he was accused of a tenth of what Bill Clinton was found guilty of.

If you and I aren't safe, how can the US be safe? Is the US not made up of its citizens? What is the country if not its citizens?

I think he meant the safety of the richest 2%. Those are the citizens that really matter here.

right, and iraq is DEFINETELY the ONLY *sarcasm* cruel dictatorship in the world, right? hm, so why iraq if so many other countries were suffering? perhaps alterior motives? *oil cough cough* and perhaps a distraction from the failure to catch osama in AFGHANISTAN, which is definetely not iraq.

Both statments are non-sense.

The US doesn't get it's oil from Iraq, so oil has nothing to do with it.

Sure there are other dictatorships, but you don't like us attacking Iraq. After Afghanistan, Iraq was the most legitamate target. Imagine the death toll of attacking say South Korea. Then it's impact on the war on terror. Now I'm sure you will say attacking Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror, but the terrorist don't agree with you. They're dieing to stop Iraq from becoming a constitutional government. Why is it so important to them? While your counting bodies, how many of your 20,000 civilians were killed by the terrorist trying everything possible to stop Iraq from being a free country?

I'm a liberal and I despise all those druggy,back-stabbing punks that, well I no longer work with becaue they blacklisted me, Cons on the other hand are selfish, spinless, money-pinching sludge that are basically un-aproachable as people.

So yes you can be a lib and hate them at the same time, Hell look at Ward Curchhill that plagerist hack, shite mouth. I can teach him about spewing profanity, but calling innocent people in the WTC on 911 (a true day that changed the world) nazis in america is unacceptable.

I'd side with the Cons for the War, till we are eiher beaten or we win. Libs now want us to cower an cry in front of a bunch of backward religious "Live for the Past" nutjobs who continue to live a non exsistant life, all this shit about the arabs and the jealously they feel for the Jews is what amounts to their childlike kicking and screaming trantrums as we drag their lazy asses into our century. They need to wake up.

Rich

President Bush would lose the support of his most dedicated supporters if he was accused of a tenth of what Bill Clinton was found guilty of.

What was Clinton found guilty of?

Was it, lying to the American people? Spying on citizens? Creating a staggering deficit the likes of which has not been seen ever in American history?

Or was it just that Lewinski thing?

If Bush screwed around on the side but didn't create a world of hate, I would support him.

What was Clinton found guilty of?

Was it, lying to the American people? Spying on citizens? Creating a staggering deficit the likes of which has not been seen ever in American history?

Or was it just that Lewinski thing?

If Bush screwed around on the side but didn't create a world of hate, I would support him.

Correction; not a world of hate, but a world that hates him.

If he was to negotiate with Bin Laden.
If he was to retreat from Iraq per Nancy Pelosi's request.
If he were to give up the war on terror.
:mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :mad: I hate bush wit a passion already he wants to invade other countries privacy by spying.

Both statments are non-sense.

The US doesn't get it's oil from Iraq, so oil has nothing to do with it.

Sure there are other dictatorships, but you don't like us attacking Iraq. After Afghanistan, Iraq was the most legitamate target. Imagine the death toll of attacking say South Korea. Then it's impact on the war on terror. Now I'm sure you will say attacking Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror, but the terrorist don't agree with you. They're dieing to stop Iraq from becoming a constitutional government. Why is it so important to them? While your counting bodies, how many of your 20,000 civilians were killed by the terrorist trying everything possible to stop Iraq from being a free country?

Umm...yeah...a dictator with actual self-proclaimed Nuclear capability and who is pretty much certifiably insane was definitely not the better target. Kim Jung-Il is much tamer than Bin Laden or Hussein. Good point</sarcasm>

Correction; not a world of hate, but a world that hates him.

I was thinking they hated all the US, he just being the face we present to the world.

True; even here in Britain, America and Bush are both becoming by-words for exploitation and War.

As for invading South Kore (3 posts back), well. I hope you meant North Korea mate, since the South is a Pro-America democracy...

Umm...yeah...a dictator with actual self-proclaimed Nuclear capability and who is pretty much certifiably insane was definitely not the better target. Kim Jung-Il is much tamer than Bin Laden or Hussein. Good point</sarcasm>


Rally? you think South Korea is a better target? I've heard people say that but can't understand why. How could that be better than Iraq in any way, shape or form?

American Indians were at war with themselves and and other tribes, smoke shite all day and DID Nothng except fuck, shit, and kill,(similar to what a lot of libs want america to do today) Not a world I'd want to live in, they needed to get run over. Quiet now they only have thereselves to blame.

If we dont help Isreal the arabs will try and to kill off the Jews ala Germany 1930-1945, and sorry muslims that is not gonna happen doesn't matter how many peace nics(yet back-stabbers of americans) there are.

Business is business, you want to change it to help people jerk wad , go in an make a business and help those that need the help, otherwise shut your pie hole. BTW we all can't be the lion tamer, then you rich educated fucks would have no one to shit on, ohh, yes excpt you'll start turning on one another.

Rich

True; even here in Britain, America and Bush are both becoming by-words for exploitation and War.

As for invading South Kore (3 posts back), well. I hope you meant North Korea mate, since the South is a Pro-America democracy...


Yep, North, sorry for the confusion.

The best non political reasons for going after Iraq rather than North Korea were terrain and preperation. Korea is a hilly, mountianous country that's bad for tanks. The death toll from that fight would be horrendous, on all sides. Also, we've conducted SEAD and Combat air patrol over much of Iraq since the establishment of the No Fly Zones.

From a purely military stand point, I'd much rather go into the flat country were the enemy can't shoot at my air cover.

Rally? you think South Korea is a better target? I've heard people say that but can't understand why. How could that be better than Iraq in any way, shape or form?

Really for a couple of reasons. They have a nuclear capability that could reach the US (Iraq would need warplanes and a fleet of ships, not to mention nukes, which they don't have). We have a great deal of support in that area from nations that also have Jung-Il's nuke to fear.

Really for a couple of reasons. They have a nuclear capability that could reach the US (Iraq would need warplanes and a fleet of ships, not to mention nukes, which they don't have). We have a great deal of support in that area from nations that also have Jung-Il's nuke to fear.

So after all the bloodshed, how would that war have changed the war on terror?

@ GOLDDIRK

Rich educated fuck eh? Sorry mate, but you are actually talking to an 18 year old working class history student. My parents combined income is less than £25,000 a year. My mother is a single mother.

As for Native Americans. They had a society described by the Philosophes as the "Noble Savage" society. No crime, little in the way of a legal system. They were the pinnacle of Socialism. Each man had enough to live by, and neither wanted nor needed any more. As for warring amongst themselves, sure, who doesnt war amongst themselves? They were only human. Americans are not averse to warring among themselves (Civil War?). Neither are us Brits (too many Wars to name).

Now onto the Middle East. With adequate support, America, as the new Global Policeman, could come to an agreement with the Middle East over Israel. If anyone should be removed from office, it is Ariel Sharon. I am most certainly not a pro-Muslim man, let alone a pro-Muslim fanatic person, but they Palestinians have an equal claim to that land, if not better. We (Britain, and the UN) gave Israel to the Jews. We took it from Palestine. Ergo, they are in the right.

North Korea is a major danger. Far more so than Iraq. It is however, like Iran, more complicated. North Korea and Iran BOTH have the backing of the Chinese. Now, the Japs may hate the North Koreans, but their military is purely for defence. The South Koreans hate the North Koreans, and would support the Americans, but how effective would their military really be?

Australia might very well support an invasion of NK, as might the Phillipines. Public opinion in Britain would not stand for a War there, so you can count us out. The same can be said of France and Germany, and Italy (after you guys shot their hero intelligene bloke in Iraq). The Socialist Spaniards would be no help either.

In short, a combination of the dangerous, unwritted alliance between China-Iran-North Korea, and the lack of support for America, would make an invasion of North Korea very very tricky.

When he starts locking up Liberals indiscriminately I'd no longer realize he is for Americas safty.

America will sure be quiet then.

Hmm maybe its not such a bad Idea after all, stupid potheads an squeelers.
Give the Bush bashing a rest PLEEEESE its so tiresome, America is FIRST, the countrys SAFTY is first NOT YOU OR I.

Rich

Are you saying that We should give it a rest just because you have to see and aknowledge it? Thats pretty terrible. Also, calling people who don't support Bush Potheads and (I presume you meant and not an) squeelers is much worse than showing political opinion. Also, what the hell are you talking about? "America is FIRST, the countrys SAFTY is first NOT YOU OR I" do you mean America is better than other countries (which is a lie. Iceland is much better. Also, I'm Canadian, so that isn't country pride speaking) and that the countrys [sic] safty is not in the hands of its people?

Anyways, I think the people who decided do deny Bush's obvious lack of care for poor black families in New Orleans could only stop liking America if he said "We're pulling out of Iraq, giving illigal immigrants fair wages and getting our laws out of peoples personal lives".

@ GOLDDIRK

Rich educated fuck eh? Sorry mate, but you are actually talking to an 18 year old working class history student. My parents combined income is less than £25,000 a year. My mother is a single mother.

As for Native Americans. They had a society described by the Philosophes as the "Noble Savage" society. No crime, little in the way of a legal system. They were the pinnacle of Socialism. Each man had enough to live by, and neither wanted nor needed any more. As for warring amongst themselves, sure, who doesnt war amongst themselves? They were only human. Americans are not averse to warring among themselves (Civil War?). Neither are us Brits (too many Wars to name).

Now onto the Middle East. With adequate support, America, as the new Global Policeman, could come to an agreement with the Middle East over Israel. If anyone should be removed from office, it is Ariel Sharon. I am most certainly not a pro-Muslim man, let alone a pro-Muslim fanatic person, but they Palestinians have an equal claim to that land, if not better. We (Britain, and the UN) gave Israel to the Jews. We took it from Palestine. Ergo, they are in the right.


Doen't matter how far back in history you go? Didn't Great Britain basically make the map and call it Palestine, because that's what it was called in the bible. If you go back to the right time BC the Jews owned that land. And oddly enough fought amougst themselves. I'm not so sure you can easily say historically who has the better claim. Rather is there a current claim that people can live with???

American Indians were at war with themselves and and other tribes, smoke shite all day and DID Nothng except fuck, shit, and kill,(similar to what a lot of libs want america to do today) Not a world I'd want to live in, they needed to get run over. Quiet now they only have thereselves to blame.

If we dont help Isreal the arabs will try and to kill off the Jews ala Germany 1930-1945, and sorry muslims that is not gonna happen doesn't matter how many peace nics(yet back-stabbers of americans) there are.

Business is business, you want to change it to help people jerk wad , go in an make a business and help those that need the help, otherwise shut your pie hole. BTW we all can't be the lion tamer, then you rich educated fucks would have no one to shit on, ohh, yes excpt you'll start turning on one another.

Rich

You are a truly frightening individual.

So after all the bloodshed, how would that war have changed the war on terror?

How is the war in Iraq changing the war on Terrorism?

At least, a known nutjob with a nuke that is willing to blow up the US would have his toys taken away. It would create a safer area in that region, unlike Iraq where there were nu nukes and we are just stirring up a wasp nest.

How is the war in Iraq changing the war on Terrorism?

At least, a known nutjob with a nuke that is willing to blow up the US would have his toys taken away. It would create a safer area in that region, unlike Iraq where there were nu nukes and we are just stirring up a wasp nest.


Ok, now I see the fundimental difference. I think an Arab country with a constitutional government and meaningful elections would make a difference and cause a problem for the hate mongering extreem which stirs up the problems in the middle east.

Although removing a nutjob, might be a good thing, I don't think we have the stomach for that war, so I don't think we would accomplish anything except adding north korea to china when they got involved.

I am in no way a supporter of bush...but I am a supporter of the operation in Iraq. With the Kurds in the north supporting us we recieve intelligence from Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey. I could go into a long and drawn out response about how that is beneficial to us (although many can see it with the intel we have recieved from Iran alone). If you want to read a GOOD essay about it read "Plan B" in the New Yorker.

I don't usually read this, so not sure how it works....maybe I will check back more often.

*waves*

I don't like the Democrats much either, I just hate the Republicans more than the Democrats.

Hehe, that's a respectable point of view, indeed. I'm the other way, but like I said, barely. I'm sure you and I can find lots to hate together. :D

Libs now want us to cower an cry in front of a bunch of backward religious "Live for the Past" nutjobs who continue to live a non exsistant life, all this shit about the arabs and the jealously they feel for the Jews is what amounts to their childlike kicking and screaming trantrums as we drag their lazy asses into our century. They need to wake up.
Which is why Bush is handing the education system over to people who believe that the old testament should be taught as the literal truth, and has gone on record as claiming that God has spoken to him, no doubt. When somebody drags those fuckwits into the twenty first century, maybe you'd have a leg to stand on with that argument.

Going back to the topic of the first few Posts...


Has anyone noticed that Government Size has Gone up since Clinton, under Bush?


Now that he's gone and used the NSA, a Supposed Foriegn Intelligence Agency and used it to spy on Americans Without permission.


Bush seems a bit Against the Republucan Personal Freedom Grain this go round.

I stopped supporting him after the last election.

OK Nova sorry about the Rich educated Fuck slant, you're a slummer like me, were are in the same boat, and mine is sinking FAST, care to help out this uneducated fucker? Hmm though So. :D

Screw the Indians can't say it any clearer or to any race that sits back and are a savages to themselves or those around us, Can you imagine the American Indians creating NASA? The Internet, Starwars? Stagnant races are such a wonder to behold, YEAH! :rolleyes:

I do Like their art though, but i have an "acquaintance" that i know who is of american indian blood desent, one of the most unfriendly persons you can ever get to know, trust me I've worked in Ireland (Very Distant People) and Japan (Extremely Friendly People), Calif (Mixed about them, some were good others well,...forget it), NYC (Jack Offs all) and even little Indianapolis MD. (Get it Indian-Yuk yuk) and he was the worst. I have no sympathy for creeds, religion, or people who live for the past. I'm honest.

The Jews must never be fucked again (I'm not Jewish, German actually, really im Polish, Irish, and German, makes me a PIG, or a a drunken fool that wants to take over the world) Anyway this shit with the muslims has got to stop. The Pals lost the land in the 6 day way, get over it. Grow up Pals. :headbang:

I'm no Ariel Sharon supporter, but I live with the Eye for an Eye ideal, The Arabs are afraid of him and that all that counts. I'd just wish they all declear war on each other and get the whole hate thing over with and whoever wins WINS, and the loser just has to STFU.

Good luck with your schooling Nova, dont fuck those that are behind you and don't think that when you get your paper from Scrw-U you have to the right to fuck anyone you want. That goes for all of you .

Rich

I have a hypothetical question for those of you who still support President Bush: What would he have to do in order for you to no longer support him? By that I mean what is the moral spectrum of actions that, if you found out this president was involved in, would lead you to oppose him?

This has been the source of a lot of confusion as a fair number of people seem to back him no matter what he does. So I'd like Bush supporters to go on the docket with plausible scenarios that would prompt their disapproval of our President. Post away...




EDIT:

Scenarios posted so far have been...

-Some of the allegations against him being proven.

-The locking up of Liberals indiscriminately.

-Changing his political platform

-Negotiating with Bin Laden.

-Retreating from Iraq.

-Ending the war on terror.

-N/A, would support Bush in any scenario

Leaving Iraq early, before the job is done

Stopping the search for Bin Laden and his cohorts (and letting up in the war on terror/-ists)

Raising taxes (on anyone)

Failing to try to get Congress to locate plausible spending cuts/cut the pork (we do need to try to balance the budget, and since it's necessary to have such high spending on defense, we need to cut spending elsewhere)

Failing to defend the entrepreneurial/free-enterprise tradition of America

Screwing some other woman besides the First Lady (hehe)

etc.

Those are some things that I'd disagree with

Firstly; I was not offended by your first comment, I just wanted you to know that just because we can write and read well doesnt mean we are rich, educated fucks. Similarly, not all working class people in Britain support the Labour Party (I am a Conservative actually).

As for the Indians, I wont argue this point any further, but I still completely disagree. I also disagree with your comment about the Japanese but I wont get into that... bad bad things will happen.

The Jews must never be fucked again (I'm not Jewish, German actually, really im Polish, Irish, and German, makes me a PIG, or a a drunken fool that wants to take over the world) Anyway this shit with the muslims has got to stop. The Pals lost the land in the 6 day way, get over it. Grow up Pals. :headbang:

So the Palestinians don't have any right to the land because they weren't strong enough to hang on to it?

If you think that being overpowered means you forfeit all of your rights then you must agree that the Jews deserved to be killed by Nazis because they weren't strong enough to protect themselves.

This is clearly a mad conclusion so it is fair to call you a hypocrite.

Oh, and incidently if you don't stop your constant flaming and trolling (especially against the native Americans) then I will report you to the mods. I've had enough of this already.

Firstly; I was not offended by your first comment, I just wanted you to know that just because we can write and read well doesnt mean we are rich, educated fucks. Similarly, not all working class people in Britain support the Labour Party (I am a Conservative actually).

As for the Indians, I wont argue this point any further, but I still completely disagree. I also disagree with your comment about the Japanese but I wont get into that... bad bad things will happen.

Frankly the only real difference between 'new' labour and the conservatives is that the conservatives don't bother to pretend that they represent the workers.:rolleyes:

Ah yes, but they just promoted Hague to Shadow Foreign Minister. And being from Rotherham, like me, he naturally has my support. He's also very anti- EU - another thing we have in common.

IT's hard to tell that you aren't conservative (or at the very least heavily leaning toward conservativism) when you spew rhetoric and say that when people don't agree with you they are Air America listening to usurpers of the DNC handbook.

Certainly doesn't sound conservative.
What "rhetoric" did I spew? Is it really my fault if everything you posted to this point is almost verbatim from various New York Times editorials? If you would have posted something verbatim from a Wall Street Journal editorial, I would have thought you conservative. It's not really that perplexing. Your first post in this thread reads like a media talking points for Howard Dean. That, my friend, is rhetoric.

Let me just get this straight, you aren't conservative and you hate liberals?
Now you're getting it. But don't forget that I hate conservatives too. Political hacks on both sides of the aisle make me puke, and so do their antiquated, processed or canned responses and beliefs when you try to get their feelings about an issue. And in that regard, it's really easy to spot either of them. You said it, and maybe you mean it and maybe you don't, but I mean it - "think for yourself."

Where do I disagree with the democratic party? Welfare, tossing cash away on education instead of trying to reform it, feeling the need to defend themselves by trying to coalesce around religion the way the conservatives do, and the fact that the only difference really between the two groups is the name.
OMG, see? Not that I necessarily agree, but I sure as hell respect those statements more than any "we're at war for oil" or "Bush killed my gay fetus" stuff. Wanking off about any president being all good or all bad is idiotic simplification. Bush is not America's angelic defender and he's not pure evil. Neither was Clinton. They do what they feel is right, they're put in power by the people, and they're gone in four-eight years. I agreed with some of what Clinton did (majority actually) and some of what Bush has done, because I look at each issue and make a decision based on my education and the situation.

Demonizing or glorifying any administration wholly is simple-minded, ignorant, and worse than all that, it destroys any chance at actual, constructive debate. You can blame the system if you wish, but if you participate in propagating talking points, you're part of the problem.

It's still just mostly rich people. I am not a rich person, so my voice is worthless in the US. But if you think that means the conservatives are better then you are entitled to an opinion.
See, and now we're back to the talking points. :( I've heard this before. If the conservatives are the rich, why do the desolate poor show up in droves to support it? They're not rich. Backwoods hillbilly rednecks don't often run multi-billion dollar corporations (exception: GW).

You can say that conservatives are the party of the really rich and the poor white trash, and you'd probably be right. But to say it the way you did is simply liberal-speak, and it's sad.

Well because Im a "Very Frightening" person :rolleyes: as opposed to the drug addicts, drug pushers, alcoholics, murderers, rapists, alien gangbangers, unscrupulous businessmen, unsrupulous people in general for that matter,religious killers, greedy politicians looking to get more cash and the generally "Scrooge" at heart mo-fos, I'll leave the world up to you "EDUACATED" folks to try and UH Hmm try to fix it, just remember the poor and undereducatred didnt fuck the world over all these years, the rich, greedy and educated did. :headbang:


Rich

Random- the Jews Won the Nazis are Dust. Forever.

just remember the poor and undereducatred didnt fuck the world over all these years, the rich, greedy and educated did.
I'm only greedy and educated. Do I get a pass? :D

Screwing some other woman besides the First Lady (hehe)
He'd probably be laughing himself if he could manage that...

If you can sleep at night, go for it punky!

Well because Im a "Very Frightening" person :rolleyes: as opposed to the drug addicts, drug pushers, alcoholics, murderers, rapists, alien gangbangers, unscrupulous businessmen, unsrupulous people in general for that matter,religious killers, greedy politicians looking to get more cash and the generally "Scrooge" at heart mo-fos, I'll leave the world up to you "EDUACATED" folks to try and UH Hmm try to fix it, just remember the poor and undereducatred didnt fuck the world over all these years, the rich, greedy and educated did.
Hitler was poor and undereducated. So was Stalin, come to that.

And the Nazis most certainly are not dust. There are still a number of Nazi organisations out there.

Yes, YEs i know all about them , but they will never attack the jews again. They are cowards as are the arabs, Soulless hateful, things that rather destroy then create. Although Germanys WWII era art,music and architecture were high quality.

Go to:

www.axishistory.com for some great info on germany during WWII and yes some of them that post there are like the peeps here just on the border of being a neofascist. Oh Lord how they hope it would start all over again.

Nutters i tell you , bloody bonkers! :D


Rich

Well because Im a "Very Frightening" person :rolleyes: as opposed to the drug addicts, drug pushers, alcoholics, murderers, rapists, alien gangbangers, unscrupulous businessmen, unsrupulous people in general for that matter,religious killers, greedy politicians looking to get more cash and the generally "Scrooge" at heart mo-fos...

Well, plenty of those people are frightening too. But as you know it's a big world, and bad karma isn't mutually exclusive. I'm willing to accept that you were goaded though, since I don't really know you at all.

Oh, we all harbour ideas like that. I for one would love to see the Empire resurgent, India reconquered, the Royal Navy the supreme force in the world. But most of us keeps such ideas in the realm of fantasy.

If Bush woke up one morning, stepped out of the White House nude, lit up a doobie, proclaimed his undying homosexual love for Dick Cheney, shook hands with Michael Schiavo and consoled him on his loss, admitted the war in Iraq was a bust, put "happy holidays" on his Christmas cards, chastised outsourcers for hating America, confessed his tax cuts are a sham, and insinuated that Clinton wasn't such a bad guy, yeah, I'm sure a few current Bush supporters would start to have second thoughts.

;)

I agree.

GOLDDIRK: did your lips move while you were typing that? If you weren't so stupid I'd ask you how destabilising the middle east is making America any safer, because all of these insurgents swarming into Iraq don't give me the impression that it's helping your country's cause any.

I agree. Iraq not a threat to the US beforehand, I mean lets face it, what country is? None? Wait, maybe the countries that would be fighting America with the weapons they bought off them, and even then, they would be threat for how long? A day? Anyway, I would argue that a country that has not been invaded would have no real reason to be hostile, whilst one that has been invaded would have many reasons to be hostile. Following that logic, congratulations America, you just made yourself a true enemy!

If Bush woke up one morning, stepped out of the White House nude, lit up a doobie, proclaimed his undying homosexual love for Dick Cheney, shook hands with Michael Schiavo and consoled him on his loss, admitted the war in Iraq was a bust, put "happy holidays" on his Christmas cards, chastised outsourcers for hating America, confessed his tax cuts are a sham, and insinuated that Clinton wasn't such a bad guy, yeah, I'm sure a few current Bush supporters would start to have second thoughts.

;)

To be absolutely, completely honest, if Bush did this, he would WIN my vote.

That is, if I was an American citizen.

I dont believe in all that Karma crap. In a Carl Sagan voice: "You are a human being living in a vast universe of a hundred Bill-Ion stars of infinite space, either help the human race or get off the earth." :p

I'm sick of the need and want of wealth and money and thosse who screw the people who are not able to help themselves and the hate that it causes. May mankind finish itself off in the most painful way. Joking of cousre. :D

rich

To be absolutely, completely honest, if Bush did this, he would WIN my vote.

That is, if I was an American citizen.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the British should get to vote in American elections: if whichever incompetent cretin they put in power is going to be dictating our foreign policy, we should get to vote for them. No annihilation without representation.

I think when we argue about politics as much as we do, all we really end up doing is dividing the country. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely DESPISE king George and the rest of the Royal Family (ESPECIALLY the Queen Mother) but arguing about politics these days is becoming more about emotion and less about the actual issues at stake. This country's greatest enemy is and always will be itself, and if people would just put their emotions aside (and maybe if we got rid of the whole evangelical Christian philosophy about politics) then I truly believe we could accomplish more than most people think is possible.

"Oh, we all harbour ideas like that. I for one would love to see the Empire resurgent, India reconquered, the Royal Navy the supreme force in the world. But most of us keeps such ideas in the realm of fantasy."

Hear Hear Nova! :)

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the British should get to vote in American elections: if whichever incompetent cretin they put in power is going to be dictating our foreign policy, we should get to vote for them. No annihilation without representation.

ANYONE but the British. The reason being that the British actually have the power to instate someone who opposes Bush. Someone who disagrees with his polices, let alone helping him invade countries. If the British public really do not like Bush at all then they probably wouldn't have voted for Tony Blair. This also goes for Australia, same paragraph but with John Howard.


I think when we argue about politics as much as we do, all we really end up doing is dividing the country. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely DESPISE king George and the rest of the Royal Family (ESPECIALLY the Queen Mother) but arguing about politics these days is becoming more about emotion and less about the actual issues at stake. This country's greatest enemy is and always will be itself, and if people would just put their emotions aside (and maybe if we got rid of the whole evangelical Christian philosophy about politics) then I truly believe we could accomplish more than most people think is possible.

I believe that what you say is true to a certain extent. Not that I think that America is not destroying itself, but just because I agree with what you say does not mean that if a leader does something that I disagree with then I will appease with him and follow his decision simply to avoid the polarisation of society. In other words, I agree with what you say but I will still fight for what I think is right.

arguing about politics these days is becoming more about emotion and less about the actual issues at stake. This country's greatest enemy is and always will be itself, and if people would just put their emotions aside (and maybe if we got rid of the whole evangelical Christian philosophy about politics) then I truly believe we could accomplish more than most people think is possible.

Quiet, you. This is no place for a voice of reason!!!!!! :p

ANYONE but the British. The reason being that the British actually have the power to instate someone who opposes Bush. Someone who disagrees with his polices, let alone helping him invade countries. If the British public really do not like Bush at all then they probably wouldn't have voted for Tony Blair. This also goes for Australia, same paragraph but with John Howard.
Not actually true, unfortunately: every PM we've had since Ted Heath seems to have seen this country's role as America's catamite. If Hague had won in '97 he'd doubtless have had Bush's cock even further than down his throat than Blair did as soon as the chimp ooked and shambled his way into the White House.

Not actually true, unfortunately: every PM we've had since Ted Heath seems to have seen this country's role as America's catamite. If Hague had won in '97 he'd doubtless have had Bush's cock even further than down his throat than Blair did as soon as the chimp ooked and shambled his way into the White House.

Surely Britian must have at least one candidate who opposes American policies, even to a small extent? If not, then I concede that point, but then that also says alot about their country, and backs up my reasoning for the phrase "Anyone but Britian."

I would say that nothing will change my mind about supporting PRESIDENT (not king thank you) Bush...after seeing the flip flopping, flippant, useless excuse for a "candidate"..I am referring to John "gimme another medal" Kerry, I'd say America is in good hands.

When you lot have a serious candidate to put up for election, let me know...I'll be interested to see what they have to offer. After all, President Bush will have served two terms and can happily retire afterward.

You can kick and throw tantrums all you like, he is still the President of the United States.

You can scream and hold your breath till you turn blue, he will still be the President of the United States.

You can write all the screeds and garbage you like on this forum, he will still be the President of the United States.

And I bet that drives you mad, doesn't it?

Reality check, buddy.

George W Bush is President of the United States and will remain so until 2008.

If you can't handle that, go find a basement somewhere.

These threads, not to mention the topic , are not only getting old, they are getting MONOTONOUS.

ENOUGH already.

These threads, not to mention the topic , are not only getting old, they are getting MONOTONOUS.

ENOUGH already.
Unfortunately, as a lying incompetent fuckwit is the current President of the United States, you're stuck with them.

Romanitas: the current fashion in British politics is towards euroscepticism (and has been since the late '70s) so sucking up to the American GOP is seen as preferable to actually trying to deal with the EU in an evenhanded manner. It's utterly pathetic, but it keeps the tabloid readers happy.

I am by no means a bush supporter, but I do have to lay down facts.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the British should get to vote in American elections: if whichever incompetent cretin they put in power is going to be dictating our foreign policy, we should get to vote for them. No annihilation without representation.

nope. If we decide to go to war, we go to war, and there's no amount of protesting you can do to stop a determined lunkhead with a lot of power.

His job is to make americans happy, nobody else, and that appeals to many americans.

Next, He is fairly intelligent, despite criticisms. He knows the majority likes his texan dialect, and uses it as a crowd pleaser. also, he knows how to stay as close to center of the spectrum as he can, making non-comittal responses until the polls come in. he would have never been nominated against that other guy of the republians if he hadn't waffled at the abortion question. his opponent said he was all for abortion, the religious right slammed him, and poof, we have bush running for president.

The rest is history. He caters to whoever he can. especailly the rich companies that support him, and his war in iraq. If he had announced that yes, this was a war for oil, he would not have won re-election. but he's smarter that that, unfortunately.

anyhoo, It doesn't matter, because he's not going to be impeached, and he's probably not going to make things worse. In 2008, I can vote, and mabye, just maybe, America won't be 7 trillion in debt anymore, and foreign policy won't be 'screw you, we're the us' but more 'what's your opinion?'

-Some of the allegations against him being proven.
Maybe
-The locking up of Liberals indiscriminately.
Yes
-Changing his political platform
Not a fair question (To what?)
-Negotiating with Bin Laden.
No
-Retreating from Iraq.
Fuck yes
-Ending the war on terror.
I'd think about it
-N/A, would support Bush in any scenario
No

I support George because he may not be the strongest, he's better than anything the Liberals would come up with. Now, if the Liberals actually use nails to hold together their planks and gave t some support, I'd stand on their stage if I liked the play.

I knew that as soon as I tried to get people to compromise on an issue, some narrow minded person would come back with some stupid reply about the British Empire or something like that. For the record I AM an American, but I am not a pompous, narrow minded person who believes that America has all the answers and who thinks politics solves everything. Nor am I a greedy capitalist out to make a buck and distort the world whatever the cost. I am simply a man who tries to see things form an open minded point of view, all the while acknowledging that no one can ever truly be open minded because they always let their emotions get in their way.

Random- the Jews Won the Nazis are Dust. Forever.

You don't get this do you?

You were arguing that, at this moment, the Palistinians have lost many of their rights because of the six day war, where they weren't strong enough to defeat the Israelis.

This logic can be used to justify the oppression of any group by any stronger group, and therefore the Holocaust. I was using the Reducto ad Absurdum argument to show that the logical basis for your argument is completely retarded.

I'm off to bed now. 'Night all.:)

Quite frankly, I consider President Bush to have done well.

Unlike his "opponent", whom every other country knew ahead of schedule would lose and lose BIG.

I will ask a question of my esteemed colleagues, and request a serious answer.

When hundreds of children died in Beslan, President Bush offered help, solace, comfort, and stated to the world that an atrocity had been committed.

Kerry, the candidate for the highest office in the United States said: nothing.

When Australians were attacked and killed (Kuta, Jakarta) President Bush offered help, investigators, intelligence and publically stated his support for the Australian people.

Kerry, the candidate for the highest office in the United States said: nothing.

Why?

I can guess the obvious answer: he didn't care.

President Bush did.

Given a choice between a President who treats his allies with respect and affection, and a "candidate" who refers to the US allies as "window dressing", and ignores a terrorist attack against one of his country's allies...I choose George W Bush each and every time.

I've heard this before. If the conservatives are the rich, why do the desolate poor show up in droves to support it?


Simple. Because they're Christians and Are Brainwashed into accepting thier place in society, so they Vote for Bush, who's an Icon to them. 60% of the Vote in 04 Was from Christians.

Simple. Because they're Christians and Are Brainwashed into accepting thier place in society, so they Vote for Bush, who's an Icon to them. 60% of the Vote in 04 Was from Christians.

And where in the world did you pull this number out of?

Being that well over 60% of the US are Christian, that would contradict your point as then LESS Christians voted.

What I love is that nobody can be happy. No matter who is president, people b1ich. How about we get more voters out and then people can b1tch about something they were actually a part of!!

The irony here is, of course, were it Clinton or Kerry doing the exact same things that Bush is doing/has done, all roles would be absolutely reversed. With few exceptions, everything I've read here on both sides are just various repeats of party lines.

My personal opinion is that liberals are the worst of the bleating sheep, wandering around the countryside with nothing to offer except "Bush baaaaaaaaad." At least the conservative sheep have a shepherd.

Yes, and his name is Karl Rove. He and Scooter Libby will be seeing the "darker side" of things very shortly in a wonerful place called San Quentin.

--A Moderate Republican who thinks both ends of the spectrum have walked off the deep end.

nope. If we decide to go to war, we go to war, and there's no amount of protesting you can do to stop a determined lunkhead with a lot of power.

His job is to make americans happy, nobody else, and that appeals to many americans.
This is true. This also why I find incredibly offensive that the chimp expects us to provide troops to fight his wars for him. His sulking and pouting about the fact that only the UK and Spain were willing to commit their armed forces to help him with an undeclared war that the UN had not allowed was truly laughable.

President Bush would lose the support of his most dedicated supporters if he was accused of a tenth of what Bill Clinton was found guilty of.

Somebody has been watching FOX news (propaganda) again...

I would say that nothing will change my mind about supporting PRESIDENT (not king thank you) Bush...after seeing the flip flopping, flippant, useless excuse for a "candidate"..I am referring to John "gimme another medal" Kerry, I'd say America is in good hands.

1) Kerry didnt' flip-flop. That was campaign propaganda... and a good catch-phrase for people that really don't know how to form their own opinion can latch on to something short and easy to remember.

Kerry supported multi-lateral action in Iraq, but none of the cowboy stuff. Bush started going cowboy and snubbed the UN and the rest of the world-- then Kerry, just as I did, disagreed. I supported multi-lateral action--although I truly supported getting Osama Bin Laden first before anything else, as did Kerry. Once we went ahead alone I cried foul... That decision has only *started* hurting us... it will get worse. Kerry foresaw what destroying our reputation on the world stage would do--and yes, I know I forgot Poland. I'm half Polish too. Sorry Poland.

Kerry is intelligent. I know intelligent is bad in America. Don't rise your head up above the trees or we'll lop it off.

2) Give me another medal.

I'm sorry, I blindly get all my information from campaign ads--true or false--and will stop debating any issues myself. If you wish to debate something with me, just see any political ads that oppose your viewpoint and march ahead accordingly. To be truly efficient we can have your viewpoint's campaign ads go head to head with my viewpoint's campaign ads so neither of us will have to bother with deduction, reasoning, or thinking for ourselves.

Somebody has been watching FOX news (propaganda) again...

Bushevism is a Cult of Personality. Almost nothing Bush does would ever break their faith in him. When I sarcastically refer to him as Dear Leader, I'm only half-joking about the magnitude of the personality cult behind him.

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

Hmmm lets think about this one, Sadam in power... How many civilians dead?

I thought conservative people were supposed to just work for their own benefit and not use the government to enforce goodwill using tax money?