| FreddiesGhettoTrench 26.09.2004 15:09 |
So what if Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs? Neither did Osama bin Laden. What Hussein DID have was time and power. So did Osama bin Laden. When people start talking about how Bush "doesn't care about terrorism", remember: one of those planes was headed for the White House. Did the U.N. have a plane headed for it? |
| Mr.Jingles 26.09.2004 15:40 |
Prepare for a long long long fuckin' thread. Anyone who thinks that Bush is doing right choices when it comes to terrorism should read the '9/11 Comission Report' or Richard Clarke's 'Against All Enemies'. Which I need to mention that Richard Clarke is not a liberal or a democrat trying to bring Bush down for political purposes, but by exposing true facts without taking sides on the political spectrum. After that, tell me if you still believe that Bush is our brave, encouraging, determined, and patriotic commander in chief. |
| wstüssyb 26.09.2004 16:54 |
I dont this board is equiped to handle political conversations. Everytime we do it every one just bitches at each other. |
| Saint Jiub 26.09.2004 18:09 |
Sour grapes plus $$$ for a book deal ... link "After that, tell me if you still believe that Bush is our brave, encouraging, determined, and patriotic commander in chief." Where in the 9/11 Commission report should I read to draw your brilliant conclusion? |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 26.09.2004 18:54 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote: Prepare for a long long long fuckin' thread. Anyone who thinks that Bush is doing right choices when it comes to terrorism should read the '9/11 Comission Report' or Richard Clarke's 'Against All Enemies'. Which I need to mention that Richard Clarke is not a liberal or a democrat trying to bring Bush down for political purposes, but by exposing true facts without taking sides on the political spectrum. After that, tell me if you still believe that Bush is our brave, encouraging, determined, and patriotic commander in chief.And you think that Clinton was doing a better job? I agree that Bush was not doing all he could prior to 9/11: had he gotten off his ass and done what he is doing now in Iraq and had taken the Taliban out of power, there is a good chance 9/11 would have not happened. HOWEVER, you seem to find no problem lambasting Bush's decisions both then and now - you sarcastically talk about Bush not being "brave, encouraging, determined, and patriotic", well what the fuck would you prefer him to do? Do YOU have any brillant suggestions for him? If not, stop spouting rhetoric, get your head out of your ass and think about something for once in your life. |
| Music Man 26.09.2004 19:39 |
wstüssyb wrote: I dont this board is equiped to handle political conversations. Everytime we do it every one just bitches at each other.Word. |
| Holly2003 26.09.2004 21:41 |
"...what the fuck would you prefer him to do? Do YOU have any brillant suggestions for him? If not, stop spouting rhetoric, get your head out of your ass and think about something for once in your life" Maybe you should've called this thread "Some thoughts on Iraq I don't want anyone to disagree with or I'll start ranting and swearing like an idiot" |
| Mr.Jingles 26.09.2004 21:42 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: HOWEVER, you seem to find no problem lambasting Bush's decisions both then and now - you sarcastically talk about Bush not being "brave, encouraging, determined, and patriotic", well what the fuck would you prefer him to do? Do YOU have any brillant suggestions for him? If not, stop spouting rhetoric, get your head out of your ass and think about something for once in your life.Cool it down, dude. I respect your position for not liking Clinton, and like most presidents he did wrong decisions (which I believe were few compared to other presidents), but even if he did a lot of mistakes does that make Bush a saint? Suggestions are too many to mention, and they're basically the same ones that everyone talks about... - Raising taxes for the wealthy to cope with the deficit instead of making it worse by giving tax cuts to even those who DON'T NEED THEM. - International environmental policies that the Bush administration hasn't worried about because they think that things like global warming are just NOT THAT IMPORTANT. - And of course... link ...we all know that there are far better things to do with all this tax payers money for something other than killing. Anyways, I really can't blame Bush because you have all these people saying things like 'Bush is Evil' or 'Bush is Nazi', and I truly believe that Bush is not the one to blame here. Obviously the guy is not very brilliant, but that's mainly because he's a puppet of Dick Cheney and all those bastards who want to brainwash America by selling them fear. How could you expect people not being dissapointed about this administration when corporate greedy bastards from Halliburton are running the nation for their own benefit? |
| joeyjojo 26.09.2004 21:49 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench, did you even read what you typed? Did the lack of any actual logic connecting the dots bother you? The reality is that Iraq has nothing to do with the planes crashing into the US. In fact, there are more ties to the US with Saddam, and more ties to the Bush clan with the Saudi's than there are between Iraq and either country. But, alas, american voters don't seem too concerned with logic these days. I'm worried. "And you think that Clinton was doing a better job?" What does that have to do with anything? ": had he gotten off his ass and done what he is doing now in Iraq and had taken the Taliban out of power" And what would him attacking Iraq have done to prevent 9/11? "Do YOU have any brillant suggestions for him?" Yes. Admit to his misdeeds. Pull out of Iraq and start addressing the root issues of terrorism. You simply can not fight a war against it. Many countries have already learned this lesson. Also, throw out the bible thumping, stop the gay bashing, start funding real education iniatives, actually come up with a solution to the health care problem, resolve the free trade issues, stop with the tax breaks to those that don't need it, and for christ's sake, LEARN TO SPEAK IN FULL SENTENCES. "If not, stop spouting rhetoric, get your head out of your ass and think about something for once in your life." Ouch. That's some thick irony. |
| Saint Jiub 26.09.2004 22:02 |
"Pull out of Iraq" Brilliant idea - reward Saddam's cronies, the religious lunatics and the Al Qaeda beheading terrorists. Holly always treats everyone with respect. LOL |
| Saint Jiub 26.09.2004 22:12 |
And Jingles is allowed to start the swearing I see, FGT is not allowed to respond in kind? Pot Kettle ... |
| Mr.Jingles 26.09.2004 22:24 |
I said it's going to be a long fuckin' thread. Was I offending anyone? |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 26.09.2004 22:30 |
Holly2003 wrote: "...what the fuck would you prefer him to do? Do YOU have any brillant suggestions for him? If not, stop spouting rhetoric, get your head out of your ass and think about something for once in your life" Maybe you should've called this thread "Some thoughts on Iraq I don't want anyone to disagree with or I'll start ranting and swearing like an idiot"Oh, get off it. Like you don't throw a hissy fit every time someone disagrees with your views. I've seen it - dare anyone say something that compromises your point of you, you fly off the handle! |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 26.09.2004 22:31 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote:Cool it down, dude. I respect your position for not liking Clinton, and like most presidents he did wrong decisions (which I believe were few compared to other presidents), but even if he did a lot of mistakes does that make Bush a saint?Where did I say Bush was a saint? I said he's doing the right thing now by taking a brutal, bloodthirsty dictator out of power. |
| Saint Jiub 26.09.2004 22:35 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote: I said it's going to be a long fuckin' thread. Was I offending anyone?How can I be offended by wisdomless youth that is still wet behind the ears. When you hit thirty maybe you will wise up and become Republican. |
| joeyjojo 26.09.2004 22:43 |
"Brilliant idea - reward Saddam's cronies, the religious lunatics and the Al Qaeda beheading terrorists." It's not rewarding anyone. Many folks in Iraq don't want us there anymore. This includes the ones that were very grateful for us for relieving them of Sadam. The point is that what we're doing is what encourages the weak minded to resort to terrorism. We're doing nothing but feeding the flames at this point. |
| joeyjojo 26.09.2004 22:46 |
"I said he's doing the right thing now by taking a brutal, bloodthirsty dictator out of power." A few points just to add to the discussion: 1) ...but did bush do it in the right manner/framing? 2) note that Sadam has been in jail for quite a while now. 3) Note that we still do business daily with plenty of evil dictatorships 4) This war has benefitted few folks. It got rid of Sadam for the Iraqis. They're happy about that. But we haven't given them much else except continued war up to this point. It has benefited a few gigantic contractors with close ties to Cheney and Bush. It hasn't benefited US citizens at all. We're now in massive debt again. |
| joeyjojo 26.09.2004 22:49 |
In otherwords, I guess I'm just very very tired of the 'but Sadam was evil' as a blanket forgiveness for Bush's entire presidency. Far Righties tend to debate on a level assuming their opponents are actually for Sadam. It's hard to debate someone when they're not even on the same plane. (And that isn't directed to anyone in particular...just to the world at large...) |
| Mr.Jingles 26.09.2004 22:55 |
Bullwinkle wrote:So I take it as you're one of those very wise people who think that the money that we pay for taxes should go towards killing more people including our own.Mr.Jingles79 wrote: I said it's going to be a long fuckin' thread. Was I offending anyone?How can I be offended by wisdomless youth that is still wet behind the ears. When you hit thirty maybe you will wise up and become Republican. You have indeed prooved yourself to be very wise. |
| deleted user 26.09.2004 23:15 |
joey- I agree with you. I'm 38. And if I talk to my parents about Bush and his 'lack of honesty' or that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, they give me the same old thing you hear from everyone. "Well he (Saddam) was a evil man. He was just biding his time to get to the US." First of all he didn't have WOMD. He didn't have the people with the know-how to make them. Another fact: Bin Laden HATES Saddam. Therefore, those two did not collaborate in any way shape or form. So the blanket statement is void right there. Yes he was a bad guy. Killing massive amounts of people is never a good thing. He is an evil guy. That in and of itself does not give the right to the heavy hand of the US and a few so called allies, to go and take him out. If thats the case, lets got get the Koreans and the Chinese while we're at it. And heck, just for laughs, why not Isreal and Palestine too. Maybe they are next on Bush's list. Who knows. The facts are, that Bush and his 'team' with help of the Brits and the 'Coallition of the Willing', doctored information, lied about information, used information that was in some cases 10 years old, to scare the American people (those who can't think for themselves) into a frenzy. Then he (they) go against what the WORLD and the Weapons Inspectors had to say, and did it anyway. Taht is pure arrogance. Now that the US is in there, he has no plan on getting out. He went in there and without thinking of that. Thinking it would be a cake walk. Vietnam anyone? This sickens me. What is even more baffling is that here are many poor fools out there that still want this guy back as a leader, as a contact with all the other countries in the world, and someone who is there to help solve problems. Oh wait. He sends an inept Colin Powel to Iraq to help things. My 10 year old daughter could do more good that that embarassment. My parents think of me as a fool. But I'm beginning to wonder if they are. And anyone else who doesn't see what is plainly right in front of thier face. |
| Saint Jiub 26.09.2004 23:29 |
Sure stick your head in the sand and hope the problem goes away. It did not work with Hitler - why should it work now? Iraq invaded another country, instituted genocide on the Kurds, and never complied with the UN resolutions to return to the world community. How does China and North Korea compare to Iraq? and I suppose Israel should ignore the suicide bombers? |
| Holly2003 26.09.2004 23:56 |
"Like you don't throw a hissy fit every time someone disagrees with your views. I've seen it - dare anyone say something that compromises your point of you, you fly off the handle!" That's about as truthful and accurate as most of your comments. If someone is spreading lies or is being deliberately racist or abusive (for example) then they deserve some dog's abuse in return. After all, I can't punch Harvey's stupid face in for insulting my family so some verbal abuse is totally in order. It seems to be the only language he understands. However, Mr Jingles simply disagreed with you and you couldn't deal with it. You starting a thread that you knew would attract dissenting points of view but when you got them you started flaming right away. So you're fair game for poking some fun at. After all, you're the Max Cleland joker aren't you? Or is it suddenly "different" when you're the target? It's true though that I called Harvey 300 pounds of shite in a 200 pound bag - or something along those lines. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to air that one again. |
| joeyjojo 27.09.2004 00:07 |
"Sure stick your head in the sand and hope the problem goes away. It did not work with Hitler - why should it work now?" Didn't we already have this discussion, Bull? You're one of those folks who's not even on the same plane. It's not an issue of whether sadam was good or bad. "Iraq invaded another country" As did we. "instituted genocide on the Kurds" Hmm...many native american's would say that sounds familiar. "and never complied with the UN resolutions to return to the world community" I wonder if the US has never complied with UN resolutions...hmm... "How does China and North Korea compare to Iraq?" North Korea is run by a tyrant that abuses his citizens. Oh...he most likely DOES have WMDs as well. Of course, he has no oil. Again, you're making a silly argument. You are saying that 'saddam was a very very very bad man' and using that as oversimplified justification for the things Bush has done. There are so many evil dictators on the planet. We've heled our fair share get into power even. That Sadam was 'evil' is simply not a valid argument to justify the way that Bush has done things these past four years. "and I suppose Israel should ignore the suicide bombers?" Ah, yes, the outrageous completely irrelevant 'and I suppose' comment. Perhaps Israel and Palestine should actually come to an agreement. Obviously, their petty back and forth killing of each other hasn't really gotten them too far, now has it? Sound familiar? |
| joeyjojo 27.09.2004 00:09 |
ah, hell...I'm getting rude. Sorry about that, bull. I'm just getting frustrated with the whole lack of debate in the US these days... *sigh* |
| Saint Jiub 27.09.2004 01:06 |
Is there a dictator from these past 20 years worse than Saddam? Saddam deserved what he got. If there was dictator that was more invasion worthy - please tell me. I suppose ten years of the US sticking their heads in the sand for Saddam - hoping he would go away was not long enough? |
| YourValentine 27.09.2004 06:24 |
Whenever you discuss the (illegal!!) war in Iraq you get the answer: but Saddam was removed. So what - may I ask? Are the people in Iraq better off now that terror rules the streets of their cities? Are they better off when the soldiers who torture prisoners and keep them in jail without a charge, with no lawyers, no possibility to defend themselves are Americans? Are they better off when their houses are bombed each night, when their cities are a battle field, when they have no electricity, no water, no food, no medication? Two days ago Rumsfeld (who is still in office although his army broke all international laws - how can that happen?) said it would be okay when the elections are only held in US controlled areas - it would be better than no elections at all. Is that the idea of democracy the US has in mind for the Iraq - let only people vote who vote for OUR side? Terror has not decreased since the US invaded Iraq - it has increased. The world is not safer, it's less safe - ask the people in Madrid. The US will pull out of Iraq sooner or later, they cannot win that war, we all know that and it was predicted from day 1. All they get is that the Al-Quaida and other groups won millions of supporters in the Middle East - thank you very much, Mr. Bush. |
| joeyjojo 27.09.2004 19:12 |
"Is there a dictator from these past 20 years worse than Saddam?" There has been and are plenty of bad dictatorial-led countries. I don't think you can easily gauge the 'worst' of the bunch very easily. "Saddam deserved what he got" Who's saying he didn't? "If there was dictator that was more invasion worthy - please tell me." Again, we shouldn't be invading any country. Do you need to invade a country to overthrow a single leader? Are there other methods? "I suppose ten years of the US sticking their heads in the sand for Saddam - hoping he would go away was not long enough? " We stuck our head in the sand for much longer than that. As we did with afghanistan, and many of toue countries we do business with daily. Don't ignore the rest of the world just because you personally find Sadam the worst out there. It's a clever distraction. I'm with YourValentine on this. Bull, you're oversimplifying the entire situation. You keep saying 'but sadam was really really bad' and ignore the more complex issues surrounding it. Sadam was bad. He's gone. What now? How do we justify the methods for going in in the first place. How do we justify the increasing terrorism that's now taking place INSIDE of Iraq. How do we justified the continued US loss of soldiers. How do we justify the exhorbitant price tag that WE--as americans--are going to have to pay? In another thread, you pointed out how you despise the 'waste of money' that 'ambulance chasers' place on our system. You seem to be against price protection of domestic goods. Yet you seem find for Bush to give one sole company...a company ran by Cheney, an uncontested contract for billions of dollars of our money to overthrow one single person. I can't understand how people are OK with that. |
| iron eagle 27.09.2004 20:38 |
intelligent, grown up debate here is impossible esp. when it comes to Bush... well actually for just about any subject--- it always breaksdown to name calling-country bashing-and personal attacks |
| Saint Jiub 27.09.2004 23:49 |
joeyjojo wrote: "Is there a dictator from these past 20 years worse than Saddam?" There has been and are plenty of bad dictatorial-led countries. I don't think you can easily gauge the 'worst' of the bunch very easily. "Saddam deserved what he got" Who's saying he didn't? "If there was dictator that was more invasion worthy - please tell me." Again, we shouldn't be invading any country. Do you need to invade a country to overthrow a single leader? Are there other methods? MDV - Do you have any ideas for other methods? The Baath party is pretty strong. "I suppose ten years of the US sticking their heads in the sand for Saddam - hoping he would go away was not long enough? " We stuck our head in the sand for much longer than that. As we did with afghanistan, and many of toue countries we do business with daily. Don't ignore the rest of the world just because you personally find Sadam the worst out there. It's a clever distraction. I'm with YourValentine on this. Bull, you're oversimplifying the entire situation. You keep saying 'but sadam was really really bad' and ignore the more complex issues surrounding it. Sadam was bad. He's gone. What now? How do we justify the methods for going in in the first place. How do we justify the increasing terrorism that's now taking place INSIDE of Iraq. How do we justified the continued US loss of soldiers. How do we justify the exhorbitant price tag that WE--as americans--are going to have to pay? MDV - "We" are resonsible for the actions of terrorists??? Your monday morning quarterbacking appears to advocate immediate withdrawal from Iraq and caving in to the terrorists. In another thread, you pointed out how you despise the 'waste of money' that 'ambulance chasers' place on our system. You seem to be against price protection of domestic goods. Yet you seem find for Bush to give one sole company...a company ran by Cheney, an uncontested contract for billions of dollars of our money to overthrow one single person. I can't understand how people are OK with that.MDV - I never said that. I am not fond of Haliburton. But what alternative is there? Kerry and a near immediate cave in (within the next year) to the Baathist, terrorists and religious lunatics? Oh boy rewarding terrorism. |
| Saint Jiub 27.09.2004 23:56 |
YourValentine wrote: Whenever you discuss the (illegal!!) war in Iraq you get the answer: but Saddam was removed. So what - may I ask? Are the people in Iraq better off now that terror rules the streets of their cities? Are they better off when the soldiers who torture prisoners and keep them in jail without a charge, with no lawyers, no possibility to defend themselves are Americans? Are they better off when their houses are bombed each night, when their cities are a battle field, when they have no electricity, no water, no food, no medication? Two days ago Rumsfeld (who is still in office although his army broke all international laws - how can that happen?) said it would be okay when the elections are only held in US controlled areas - it would be better than no elections at all. Is that the idea of democracy the US has in mind for the Iraq - let only people vote who vote for OUR side? Terror has not decreased since the US invaded Iraq - it has increased. The world is not safer, it's less safe - ask the people in Madrid. The US will pull out of Iraq sooner or later, they cannot win that war, we all know that and it was predicted from day 1. All they get is that the Al-Quaida and other groups won millions of supporters in the Middle East - thank you very much, Mr. Bush.No Iraq is not better off, but they will not be better off if the US leaves prematurely. The three religious factions will slaughter each other. The turning point appeared to come with the Iraqi prisoner torture fiasco. Suddenly the US appeared just as evil as the Baathists, Shiites and Al Qaeda. But is that really the case? The job still needs to be finished in Iraq - even if the terrorists hide in civilian areas. The terrorists cannot be caved into. I am not a fan of Rumsfeld (did he authorize the torture - maybe) But elections should still be held if the terrorist areas refuse to participate. They effectively voted not to participate. |
| The Real Wizard 28.09.2004 00:59 |
Being as I am one in the middle of the political spectrum, I have made some very clear observations from reading this topic. This is about the 54th example in QZ's history in which dozens of questions are asked, and the conservative only answers the few in which he is able to give (what he sees as) a concrete answer. The non-conservative, on the other hand, does his best to answer everything that comes his way, even if it poses more questions in the end. Even if such questions lean to the rhetorical, is it that difficult for the conservative to admit that the other person may have decent points, even if there is no immediate solution? Of course the answer is yes, because most conservative thinkers are those who think black and white (ie, not outside the box), and need immediate solutions, as well as constant division between right and wrong. Thus such an admission is seen by them as a weakness. There are three kinds of people who have just read the above post: those who found this to be news, those who did not find it to be news, and those who will reject it out of denial. Sorry, I'm in one of my moods. |
| Saint Jiub 28.09.2004 01:17 |
Sorry GH, did you say you are a moderate? You're kidding right? |
| The Real Wizard 28.09.2004 01:31 |
Bullwinkle wrote: Sorry GH, did you say you are a moderate? You're kidding right?Moderate indeed. If I were on the left, I would have posted a direct rebuttle against you, perhaps giving reasons why certain things you said were plain wrong. But I didn't do that. I acknowledged that you did have good points. However, I also acknowledged that you clearly missed points that do not coincide with your political leaning. Just because I noticed this doesn't mean I must therefore be on the left. |
| YourValentine 28.09.2004 02:53 |
Iron_Eagle, what is country bashing? When in a discussion like that someone says "US", s/he is talking about the current government, at least I do. It's the government that defines the country in the eyes of the world and is responsible for such actions as the war in Iraq. That does not mean the US is a "bad country", they just have a government that does not respect other countries and sure not international law. Hopefully, they are not re-elected. But peace nobel price winner and UN observer of elections (in non-democatic countries!!) Jimmy Carter already stated in the Washington Post yesterday, that Florida is AGAIN about to manipulate the outcome of the Presidential election. Again tens of thousands of voters are about to be deprived of their voting rights and again Bush campaign people are in charge of the elections. I don't understand why this is not much of a topic in the media. In the end, Bush will be a president without legal mandate. |
| YourValentine 28.09.2004 04:05 |
"No Iraq is not better off, but they will not be better off if the US leaves prematurely. The three religious factions will slaughter each other. The turning point appeared to come with the Iraqi prisoner torture fiasco. Suddenly the US appeared just as evil as the Baathists, Shiites and Al Qaeda. But is that really the case? The job still needs to be finished in Iraq - even if the terrorists hide in civilian areas. The terrorists cannot be caved into. I am not a fan of Rumsfeld (did he authorize the torture - maybe) But elections should still be held if the terrorist areas refuse to participate. They effectively voted not to participate." What is the "job" that needs to be finished? Can't you see that the "terrorists" you want to fight did not even exist in the Iraq before the US invasion? There is not one big group with a leader you can fight - you are fighting against a very small group of Al-Quaida people (who were not in Iraq before the war, they come from Saudi Arabia), groups of Islamistic terrorists from other countries who never operated in the Iraq before, some groups of Saddam loyalists - and you fight against civilians who just take a gun to defend their country against an illegal invader. Each dead Iraqui woman and child will make another civilian take a gun and fight the intruder. This is not a "job", it's a war taken into a country that never was a threat for the USA, it's a war that was started against the UN resolutions, it's a war that was "justified" with lies and faked graphics shown to the world by US Secretary od State Colin Powell. It's a war that will end in a fiasco, a civil war in Iraq and increased terror all over the world. And as to the elections: people are not terrorists only because they live in Falludja, Najaf or other cities which cannot be enterd by the US army anymore. If you deny them their voting rights, what kind of legal mandate are you trying to achieve? The Arab world begins to believe that the alleged freedom and democracy the US has in mind for the Iraq is not the same freedom and democracy they are talking about when it's their own country. How is it possible that the top officer who is in charge for deciding if Baath members are eligible for a job is searched for murder in Germany? How is it possible that US officials just ignore that they employ a killer as long as he only hates the Baath party enough? And to Rumsfeld: it does not matter if he personally ordered the torture, he was in charge. In any democracy such a severe breach of law which hurts the country's reputation in the world leads to the resignation of the top official to show the world that such outrageous actions are not condoned by the government. That he is still in office only shows the total disrespect of this administration for the rest of the world. |
| iron eagle 28.09.2004 05:01 |
YV perhaps not you but you yourself know for a fact over the years there has been lots of country bashing--from all corners... in regards to Carter-- funny how he complains 36 days out of the election with his partys canadate down by some 6 points-- one of his own aides from his time in the WH said this---- Randy Lewis, who worked as a press aide in the Carter White House and for a former speaker of Florida's House, was among those who questioned Carter's attack. Florida's elections are overseen by county election supervisors who do not answer to state officials, which is not the case in many other states, Lewis said. The voting machines that Florida is using this year have proven reliable in state elections since 2000, including the August primary, and are similar to those used elsewhere, including Georgia, Lewis and Faraj said. "If [Carter's criticisms] are valid in Florida, they're even more valid in Georgia," said Lewis, who has a public relations firm, Fitzpatrick & Lewis, in Atlanta. now remember they had a primary in August-- he said.....nothing then....nothing about his own state....or any other state with the machines.. nothing more then partisan politics IMO |
| YourValentine 28.09.2004 05:36 |
That's even worse then, isn't it? The most powerful man in the world is elected and there are doubts about the voting process, that should not happen. As to the country bashing: I know what you are talking about. As a German I grew up with that: whenever a discussion comes up, I get the Nazis, WW2 and the Holocaust thrown in my face, even if the discussion is about a Queen bootleg. I just wanted you to know that I did not intend to bash the United States as a country, I am not that stupid. |
| iron eagle 28.09.2004 05:50 |
nope didnt take it that way dear btw still working on it.... |
| geeksandgeeks 28.09.2004 18:27 |
wstüssyb wrote: I dont this board is equiped to handle political conversations. Everytime we do it every one just bitches at each other.Yeah, but that's what makes it fun. Sara, you well know what my position on this is, and so does everyone else, so I don't think I need to repeat it. What I will say is that I really don't give a shit who did what in or out of Vietnam, or who voted for what with regards to this stupid war. Bush's politics really frighten me, and his cabinet frightens me even more. I'm sick of having a right-wing nutjob in office, bin Laden or no bin Laden. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 28.09.2004 18:48 |
geeksandgeeks wrote:*grins* I think I succeeded in doing what I set out to do.wstüssyb wrote: I dont this board is equiped to handle political conversations. Everytime we do it every one just bitches at each other.Yeah, but that's what makes it fun. Sara, you well know what my position on this is, and so does everyone else, so I don't think I need to repeat it. What I will say is that I really don't give a shit who did what in or out of Vietnam, or who voted for what with regards to this stupid war. Bush's politics really frighten me, and his cabinet frightens me even more. I'm sick of having a right-wing nutjob in office, bin Laden or no bin Laden. I decided I could revive the board by pissing at least half the people off. It worked :) Hehe! :) Wheeeeeeeee |
| Music Man 28.09.2004 19:21 |
Okay, I just finished reading this thread and I am spent. I would come up with a sentient, logical post, but...well, I'm spent. But I have to say something...someone in this thread mentioned something about Native Americans and tried to use it in his or her argument. Don't use that argument anymore. It is probably the most irrelevant thing I've seen in this thread (well, one of them...). That is all. |
| joeyjojo 28.09.2004 21:39 |
Music Man, the native american argument always meets that response...'It's the past...it's irrelevant...why dwell on it...'? I big problem with US citizens is our total lack of understanding of our own history. Hell, the history of the continent for that matter. It clouds our ability to see the big picture for what it is. We tend to lack perspective. Both in terms of historical context and worldly contexxt. The US is not some amazing shining example of a great country that is untouchable by the rest of the planet's nations. We forget that. We tend to get overly patriotic. We turn nationalistic. And then think we're holier than though. And then we do stupid things. ;o) The saving grace is that we're quick to forget the stupid things and go on as nothing happened. Take the carter announcement today. People are upset about this? Do we forget that George W Bush lost the popular vote but win the presidency due to a miscount in the state where is own brother is the governor and his cousin was in charge of Fox's presidential election coverage? A state that was shown to use fraugelent methods to deny citizens the right to vote? A state that had a faulty voting system? Yes. It's in the past. But let's not forget it. You constantly hear the bush admin-followers preaching '9/11...never forget' while at the same time spewing things like 'wellstone is dead...get over it' and 'Florida was 4 years go...let it go'. Anyhoo, SirGH is a smart person. To be fair, conservatives are actually quite intelligent folks as well. As are liberals. There used to be a time when civil discoure used to be the way to figure things out. The followers of Bush aren't into that. They're a loud, aggressive subset of the GOP. They're not the majority, but they have the power. THOSE are the people that tend to not answer the questions, and instead try to simply muddy the conversation. Bush will be forever analyezed, studies, and immitated in countless debate classes for decades to come. He knows how to spin. Bull, on the other hand, I'm not sure what to say to you. You seem to taunt folks to get a response from them, then fail to address any of their actual replies to you. You also tend to flip a comment around into an inane counter-question. It's hard to carry on a conversation in that manner. |
| Saint Jiub 28.09.2004 23:36 |
Joey - suppose you are talking about Jingles. He made one semi-decent point in this whole topic and I responded to it. I do not regret taunting Jingles. Jingles was not shy about hurling insults (and not just at me). "You also tend to flip a comment around into an inane counter-question." Should I respond with an insult in kind? |
| joeyjojo 29.09.2004 00:35 |
"Should I respond with an insult in kind?" See...like that. I did not insult you. But you ask a question in response implying that I did. It's clever. It works on some folks. Did anyone catch Peter Jennings showing a clip of Bush stating 'and I vehemently disagree with my opponent who said we'd be better off with Saddam in power' only to cut to a clip of Kerry's speech he was referring to where Kerry said nothing even close to that? It's funny because it's so blatant. It's scary because half of the country doesn't care. |
| Saint Jiub 29.09.2004 01:09 |
"Inane" = constructive criticism? |
| Maz 29.09.2004 01:09 |
joeyjojo wrote: while at the same time spewing things like 'wellstone is dead...get over it'They actually say that in Minnesota? I'd think the Republicans there would be too busy trying to fix their budget problems than worry about that. And where did someone mention Native Americans? |
| joeyjojo 29.09.2004 01:28 |
""Inane" = constructive criticism? " in·ane adj. in·an·er, in·an·est One that lacks sense or substance. Take it as an insult. Take it as constructive criticism. Or take it for what it was: an observation of the comment you made in response to another. |
| joeyjojo 29.09.2004 01:30 |
"They actually say that in Minnesota?" Oh, we have bumperstickers that say that! "And where did someone mention Native Americans? " That was me. I was trying to bring some perspective to the whole 'evil countries vs. holier than thou' countries. People forget that we have blood on our hands too in this country. IMHO, of course. ;o) |
| Music Man 30.09.2004 19:51 |
joeyjojo wrote: Music Man, the native american argument always meets that response...'It's the past...it's irrelevant...why dwell on it...'? I big problem with US citizens is our total lack of understanding of our own history. Hell, the history of the continent for that matter. It clouds our ability to see the big picture for what it is. We tend to lack perspective. Both in terms of historical context and worldly contexxt. The US is not some amazing shining example of a great country that is untouchable by the rest of the planet's nations. We forget that. We tend to get overly patriotic. We turn nationalistic. And then think we're holier than though. And then we do stupid things. ;o) The saving grace is that we're quick to forget the stupid things and go on as nothing happened.I understand where you are coming from. The abuse of Native Americans you speak of is truthful...it is fact. However, there are two types of fact...relevant fact and irrelevant fact. A good debater or moderator can immediately identify irrelevant points another is making to promote his ideas. I won't get into this whole nationalistic mess, because I think it is indefinite and critical at the same time. I fully understand the Native American issue, and I have a basic knowledge of United States history. That is not the issue. The fact is that the current administration has done nothing that is even remotely touches this issue. The whole debate is about the current administration, right? We cannot change or influence what has happened in the past (the very distant past, mind you). This debate is concerning what we can and will do to mold the future. It is acknowledged that what happened 300 years ago was wrong. That does not make it hypocritical of us as Americans to acknowledge such wrongdoings in other countries and criticize them. Major reasoning to this is because not a single American alive today has had anything to do with what happened then, and most acknowledge it as wrong, and thus we do our best to prevent it wherever it rears its ugly head. |
| Mr.Jingles 30.09.2004 22:55 |
Bullwinkle wrote: Joey - suppose you are talking about Jingles. He made one semi-decent point in this whole topic and I responded to it. I do not regret taunting Jingles. Jingles was not shy about hurling insults (and not just at me). "You also tend to flip a comment around into an inane counter-question." Should I respond with an insult in kind?What insults? Just because I said this is going to be a... "LONG, LONG, LONG, FUCKIN THREAD." I wasn't insulting Sara Jane, Bullwinkle or anyone on this board. Bullwinkle on the other hand did more by responding with insults when he called me "wisdomless", and then he questions my mental ability. Talk about being wise for God's sake. |
| Saint Jiub 01.10.2004 00:10 |
This is where Sarah Jane responds to Jingles' insults that set the tone for later responses to this topic and the "Bush for President" topic:
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Mr.Jingles79 wrote: Prepare for a long long long fuckin' thread. Anyone who thinks that Bush is doing right choices when it comes to terrorism should read the '9/11 Comission Report' or Richard Clarke's 'Against All Enemies'. Which I need to mention that Richard Clarke is not a liberal or a democrat trying to bring Bush down for political purposes, but by exposing true facts without taking sides on the political spectrum. After that, tell me if you still believe that Bush is our brave, encouraging, determined, and patriotic commander in chief.And you think that Clinton was doing a better job? I agree that Bush was not doing all he could prior to 9/11: had he gotten off his ass and done what he is doing now in Iraq and had taken the Taliban out of power, there is a good chance 9/11 would have not happened. HOWEVER, you seem to find no problem lambasting Bush's decisions both then and now - you sarcastically talk about Bush not being "brave, encouraging, determined, and patriotic", well what the fuck would you prefer him to do? Do YOU have any brillant suggestions for him? If not, stop spouting rhetoric, get your head out of your ass and think about something for once in your life. |
| geeksandgeeks 01.10.2004 15:48 |
Bullwinkle wrote:*blinks a few times*Mr.Jingles79 wrote: I said it's going to be a long fuckin' thread. Was I offending anyone?How can I be offended by wisdomless youth that is still wet behind the ears. When you hit thirty maybe you will wise up and become Republican. So all liberals, Democrats, and people who don't agree with you are just too young and stupid to know better, is that right? You go on about how Dan and Sarajane set the tone for this thread - take a look at yourself sometime. It's clear that you respect the opinions of the other people on this board about as much as I respect the musical contributions 1910 Fruitgum Company. Somehow Sara and I manage to have regular conversations without ending up at each other's throats over this. Even though politically, we agree on just about squat. Perhaps its because we don't feel the need to act like Bill O'Reilly half the time. Don't go around sticking your nose up in the air just because you were born earlier. |
| Music Man 01.10.2004 15:56 |
Well, obviously a person is only as good as his or her age. ;-) |
| Saint Jiub 01.10.2004 22:46 |
I apologize for implying that most young people are wisdomless and stupid. |
| joeyjojo 02.10.2004 01:36 |
"The fact is that the current administration has done nothing that is even remotely touches this issue. The whole debate is about the current administration, right?" I think you're reading too far into my comment. It's a rebuttal against the mindless excuse for invading Iraq...that Saddam was evil. It implies that we're a angel of a country that was justified in invading a devil of a company. It's about toning down the arrogant nationalism that the far right relies on to justify its status as the bully of the planet. But I agree, there are plenty of more contemporary example of blood on our hands than the Native American Genocide. Probably wasn't the best example to use. "That does not make it hypocritical of us as Americans to acknowledge such wrongdoings in other countries and criticize them." Not at all. I agree. I'm just saying it's so very wrong to over-simplify such serious issues as the invasion of a nation down to a black-and-white 'we're the greatest nation in the world' vs. 'saddam is evil and hates freedom'. Which is pretty much exactly what Bush did in his debate last night. |
| joeyjojo 02.10.2004 01:39 |
" I apologize for implying that most young people are wisdomless and stupid. " Now apologize for insinuating that the only 'smart' people over 30 are republican. ;o) (Just giving you grief...;o) |
| The Real Wizard 03.10.2004 01:40 |
joeyjojo wrote: I'm just saying it's so very wrong to over-simplify such serious issues as the invasion of a nation down to a black-and-white 'we're the greatest nation in the world' vs. 'saddam is evil and hates freedom'. Which is pretty much exactly what Bush did in his debate last night.Yep... Kerry definitely kicked ass. Bush looked more nervous than a nun in a porn flick. |