General discussion

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3187916

      It’s all lefty BS

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

      At least that’s what I was told when I mentioned it a couple of years ago.

      Canadian TV did an indepth story on it, interviewing many former White House officials and CIA agents that confirmed being sent on missions to confirm, and when they turnedup empty handed, claims were still made to the contrary.

      Many of these people came forward before the War begain and said all this in public.

      But I wa stold it was all horsesh*t as it was broadcast in Canada and all of our media is complete crap when compared to the US propaganda machine.

      Others said I had no idea because I wasn’t American….uh….yeah. Still others said I must be mad to buy into such a pack of lies. These were generaly the same people who promised me that they were there to save their own lives from WMD and I’d do the same thing if I understood what terrorsim was like in my own country, not remembering that I am from England, a terrorized country for decades.

      SO I think maybe I’ll side with the majority of those who refuse to accept alternates to a complete and bungled screwup by the world’s largest governments for their own gains.

      I won’t et back into GWB’s confirmed plans for the Afghan pipelins and how Iraq was a major thorn in the side of the US military presence in the Middle East before China could get in there.

      Because that’s all crap too that we have to wait a few years to see come into action. 😉

      What’s real and what’s true will never be admittted, the government will simply make the appropriate choices and they will be defended regardless, just justified by even more ridiculous means than the Iraq invasion was.

      Look at the WMD, even AFTER they were proven to NOT be in Iraq, everyone still stood behind the invasion and said they didn’t get in soon enough and he’d simply moved them. Whatever, I am sure there are WMD somewhere, but they weren’t being found in Iraq, CIA reports came back wmpty on teh whole nuclear arms issue too. But the president went ahead and said it was all there and simply not found. Whatever, at least I didn’t vote for the idiot. I’m not responsible for all those lost Iraqi and US lives, the president sent your/his people to die , I didn’t.

      For such a religious man, I wonder if he’s got enough years lef to be forgiven for his sins before he goes to hell? Ah well, he’d only get his ass kicked in heaven anyway.

      • #3187909

        forgiveness??

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to It’s all lefty BS

        not an option.
        after all, nowhere else is forgiveness without punishment found in the univers, but amongst them whackos, christians.

        figure that americans will learn anything by this discovery? I don’t
        after all, they have no rights anymore, homeland security destroys the rights they had.

        the anti terrorist laws they have enacted have turned them into a fascist state.
        so it’s only going to get worse.

      • #3187443

        I’m sorry, but I had to laugh.

        by itgirli ·

        In reply to It’s all lefty BS

        I cannot believe you wrote:
        “…not remembering that I am from England, a terrorized country for decades.”

        Terrorized for decades? Oh no! If it wasn’t for your filthy, slaughtering, english dogs, my family would have never had to leave their native land. decades, huh? But they have been terrorists for centuries, so excuse me if I do not weep for you. two words: Oliver Cromwell. Slaughtered over 40% of the population of Ireland in one campaign in 1653. Mass slaughterings. I have nothing but utter contempt for your english dogs. Speak not to me of the decades of hardships your people have been through. Have you ever read “A Modest Proposal”? You english types, I have no pity for you. Tell your horrors to those ignorant enough to believe you.
        God save Ireland!

        • #3187377

          Holy Christ!!!

          by jck ·

          In reply to I’m sorry, but I had to laugh.

          BTW, ITgirli…don’t forget to mention that the English oppressed the Irish for over 700 years, yet when the Irish representative was 7 minutes late to the signing of their independence, the English representative complained about “being kept waiting”.

          And yes, Oliver Cromwell was a bastard and killed some of my ancestors.

          HOWEVER:

          I won’t rant on Oz. Simply because Oz isn’t Oliver Cromwell. I won’t blame the children of England for the sins of the fathers. It’s just wrong.

          Anyways…rant on! (I kinda liked it…hehehe)

        • #3187369

          You can’t say that!

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Holy Christ!!!

          “holy christ”, from a liberal godless heathenes swill is just too much for me to handle!

          Repent sinner! Your time is drawing niegh!

        • #3187367

          Eh…

          by jck ·

          In reply to You can’t say that!

          I’ll see you in hell, Republican hypocrite!!! :p

        • #3187317

          need to change beer

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Eh…

          Killians tastes terrible warm…. I would bet the same goes for that “stuff” you swoon over! :^O

        • #3187310

          actually

          by jck ·

          In reply to need to change beer

          Guinness is good room temp, so long as your room isn’t more than 80 degrees.

          Of course, I’m starting to brew my own now. As soon as I make as close to a perfect Guinness Draught clone as I can, I’ll stop buying the lacking stuff imported in the USA and only drink the brand name when I can get the real stuff when visiting in Ireland.

        • #3187307

          Hold it right there, fellah!!

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to need to change beer

          The “stuff” jck swoons over is Guinness. Now I’m not of Irish nor English origins, so I won’t take sides in that battle, but when you denigrate Guinness, you’re pickin’ a fight with the wrong MoFo.

          Besides, it’s deeeelicious warm.

        • #3187276

          Always like to throw that in

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to need to change beer

          just to see if anyone actually is paying attention!

          Not to mention, it is a topic that I HAVE to poke jck with at least ONCE a week!

          I thought it was a chilled “beer”? what is the recommended temp suppose to be?

        • #3187218

          All haoil king Guinness!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to need to change beer

          Hip, Hip HOORAY!!!

          Hip, Hip HOORAY!

          Hip, Hip Hooray!!

          Funny how itgirli has more contempt for the British than the Irish in Ireland do though! Talk about learning from history and ignoring development and progression. Take a trip back one day, you’d be amazed.

        • #3187178

          The Irish and British

          by jck ·

          In reply to need to change beer

          The Irish (in the Republic) have little, if any, animosity toward the British.

          They strictly point the finger at Cromwell and his like…not the other British past or present.

          Yes, Oz…the Irish are a damn good people.

        • #3187117

          And damn can they tie one on!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to need to change beer

          That’s the hard part, drinking our beer and trying to keep up with the English or the Irish when I go over there.

          I remember staggering down a street with a guitarist after a show in Dublin one night,a lady came out of her house in her nightie and grabbed us and took us un for tea and some sandwiches (about 3AM). We we miles from our friend’s house where we were staying so she put us up fo rthenight, made us breakfast and gave us a thermos of tea for the ride home in the morning.

          We returned her thermos a couple of days later along with the most sincere heartfelt thanks I have ever extended to anyone, some flowers and a thank you card/CD from the band for her grandson.

          I think the whole group in teh UK and teh rest of Europe for that matter have done an amazing job at understanding WHY their governments have done all these things and forgice each other (the people) for what the leaders of their country have done.

          That’s why I don’t understand the gravity with which people are drawn to politics in teh US, it is someone else playing puppet master with oyur lives and future, don’t trust them, don’t support their madness, just live your life and et on with it. That way, when they DO f-up, which they all do, YOU are not the one who was waving your flag for them.

        • #3187113

          Reply To: Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

          by the admiral ·

          In reply to You can’t say that!

          That and not to mention that those pieces of paper were re-typed since the originals were thrown out and WERE TWO FRIGGIN YEARS OLD.

          Liberals never tell the whole story.

        • #3187365

          My point was…

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to Holy Christ!!!

          That Oz was bringing up the decades in which the english were terrorized (he being only a few decades old as it is) when they HAVE been terrorists for hundreds of years without remorse or regret to what they have done to my ancestors. Has he been in England and personally terrorized? Probably not. Has his father? Most likely. So if he is going to bring out past transgressions against his people in their country of origin, I’ll bring out past trangressions against my people in their country of origin perpetrated by his own people for 10 times the length that his has been “terrorized”. What a crock. Hypocrites, the lot of them.

        • #3187330

          well if you feel that way

          by jck ·

          In reply to My point was…

          more power to you.

          I think you’d probably find, if you looked into British parlimentary record, that the British do have remorse for the actions of Oliver Cromwell. I just don’t think they come out like American politicians and make a spectical of their speeches.

          I’ll go and try to find something mentioned so that I have some proof for you.

          I just can’t imagine the British not thinking Cromwell’s actions weren’t heinous and feeling some remorse for his transgressions.

          Of course, the English (like the Irish and most other Northern Europeans) were terrorized by my Viking ancestors for decades too…

          AH!!!! HEIA NORGE!!!

          hahahaha (I think I remember that right…been a long time since I conversed in any Norwegian)

        • #3187326

          dude.

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to well if you feel that way

          Have you studied any Norwegian Mythology? It’s great!
          And the Irish have always been picked on, but we’re still around and made the stronger for it.

        • #3187316

          The answer:

          by jck ·

          In reply to dude.

          yes: My grandmother was Danish/Norwegian. Used to tell me stories when I was about 5 or 6. I studied all about how the 2 days of the week are named in accordance to 2 Norse Gods, Frygga and Thor (Thor’s day = Thursday, Frygga’s Day = Friday), Valhalla, Odin – The All-father, etc.

          The Irish are a class people. Like I tell my friend Andrew in county Tipperary, I would up and move over there if I won the lotto.

          I just liked it that much.

        • #3187308

          umm…

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to dude.

          there are a lot more than two days named after them when you realize that Wednesday was originally Odin’s day.

        • #3187303

          I know that

          by jck ·

          In reply to dude.

          But in the modern calendar we use, only 2 are left…the rest were changed to celestial stuff (Moons day = Monday), Roman gods (Saturns day = Saturday), etc.

          I still can’t remember how to spell Odin’s eight-legged horse tho…it was like “Stepplehoppener” or something.

          Norse languages are hard to learn and pronounce 🙁

        • #3187202

          JCK origin of Tepperary

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to dude.

          The origin of that name was something my dad taught me when I was little.

          A long long time ago, a man returned from Africa with an odd pig/wolf cross kind of thing. It was so odd he named it a ‘rare’y .

          The thing ate him out of house and home and he just didn’t know how to keep it without going broke and losing his land.

          He ended up hiring a local thug to dispose of it. He told teh thug to take the Rarey in a wheelbarrow and push it to the top of the Dover cliffs and toss it into the sea where it would certainly drown.

          The thug looked wuite stunned and when the owner asked if there was a problem with this task, the thug replied, well…not really, sir….but, it’s a long way to tip-a-rarey!

          I’ll tell you my Chatanooga Choo-Choo story nest time. 🙂

          Damn war stories!

        • #3187172

          BAAAAH HAAH

          by jck ·

          In reply to dude.

          That was good, Oz.

          actually, Tipperary is a word deriving from the Gaelic “Tiobrad Arran”.

          Hehehe…I tell you…I love that country, man. My kind of people.

        • #3187169

          I work with an Irish band

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to dude.

          Well the founder was from Ireland, moved here and just moved back to London a few years back.

          The bass player is from Istanbul and was raised in germeny and Sweeden, the vocalist is from liverpool. Man, what a motley crew! But that’s what you get in Europe I guess.

        • #3187165

          Oz that is perhaps the worst joke ever…

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to dude.

          I’m going to have to tell it to everyone all day everyday for the next 12 years… 🙂

        • #3187151

          Well you’ll hate this one too

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to dude.

          I grew up in post war England, by post war I mean 30 years later but the country was still very much focused on recovering from the war, a chocolate bar was an extreme treat. No Coke or Pepsi when I was young. SO I heard a lot of OLD OLD war jokes when hanging out in dad’s pub with the old timers, some serving in both world wars.

          Chatanooga chooc-choo!

          A guy was on his way home from his deployment in Italy after WWII and decided to go and by a really expensive pair of Italian made shoes to return with. While on the train his feet wer esore form teh new shoes so he took them off and laid back for some rest.
          A few minutes later, a cat ran up and took off with his shoes!

          He was absolutely flabbergasted and ran up and down th etrain trying to catch the cat, he stopped a porter and had half th etrain runnign around trying to catch the cat but to no avail. He returned home without shoes, but alive and proud of his service all the same.

          A few weeks later he heard a knock at the door, he opened it to see the same porter standing there with a stern expression on his face and a cat hanging by the scruff of it’s kneck. The conductor asked, “Pardon me boy, is this the ‘cat-that-chewed-your-new-shoes’?”

          (You have to sing the last part to the song chatanooga choo-choo).

          And one day, I may tell you about the ‘oggle box’. Even I cringed at that one!

        • #3187209

          Ah you a viking too ?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to well if you feel that way

          Yeah, my family history dates back to the Viking raids in North Eastern England, we (my ancestors) settled in the south while others moved westward across England.

          My family coat of arms is pretty cool, I made a full size shield in high school with the family coat of arms of it, really cool actually. Makes me want to get a giant wooden hammer wit ha big stone head and go conk a few people one day. 🙂

        • #3187170

          hell yeah

          by jck ·

          In reply to Ah you a viking too ?

          my great aunt did a bunch of family research (that my second cousin won’t copy for me, the bitch) and proved us related back to Eric the Red, as well as a family that used to own several hotels in Copenhagen, Denmark.

          Sh*t…why’d they move? I could have been Danish and romanced Paris Hilton with my hotels!!!!! 😀

        • #3187166

          A wee bit mroe glamorous than mine

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Ah you a viking too ?

          My history wasn’t quite so pretty from what I’ve learned over the years. I have traced my history back to just before the Norse invasions of England, to a night’s squire who’s father was named for breeding ducks for the king.

        • #3187137

          don’t worry

          by jck ·

          In reply to Ah you a viking too ?

          my pedigrees are all long extinct…

          I put myself above no one…except the a$$hole I have to knock out once in a while ]:)

        • #3187116

          That’s my theory

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Ah you a viking too ?

          And oen of my favorite T-Shirts too.

          “When in doubt…knock em out”

        • #3187125

          Oz

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to well if you feel that way

          God those are AWFUL…Which means I must torture everyone I know with BOTH of them now! 😉

        • #3187114

          Just horrible aren’t they?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Oz

          Even as a wee one I knew they were awful.

          But I’ve never forgotten them either, I forget the best jokes and remember the worst ones. 😀

        • #3187048

          I don’t know which side to take

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to well if you feel that way

          I have English, Scottish, Irish, Danish, and French ancestry, all of whom terrorized each other at one time or another. So, that my mixed ethnic heritage will not war with myself, I will not take sides and blame or demonize one group over the other (maybe with the exception of the French that is. Still enjoy reading about the thrashings that the British gave the French Agincourt, Trafalgar and Waterloo. 🙂 )

        • #3187309

          But your not suppose to remember that

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to My point was…

          the british EMPIRE ruled much of the world at one time or another.

          Much of the global unrest is directly a result.

          But it is much easier and more fashionable to blame America.

        • #3187304

          but of course.

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to But your not suppose to remember that

          But then you also had the Ottoman Empire (and thank them for those fabulous foot-rests), the Roman Empire (indoor plumbing), The Turkish Empire (I love turkey, yum yum.), and on and on and on. Blame whoever you want. I’m not blaming anyone for the state of the world today. We all have had a hand in it.

        • #3187793

          Foot rests

          by beads ·

          In reply to but of course.

          Its just difficult to get those little guys to stay still for long periods of time. They complain insesesntly about crouching like that and all…

          – beads

        • #3187145

          Nice mentality

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to But your not suppose to remember that

          Whilst countries develop and CENTURIES of history pass between them, some people hang on to outdated dogma as if it pertains to the actions of today.

          By that same sense, you can go and take allof your African American friends and make them slaves, because it was done so many years ago. OR how about black Americans having a right to take YOU as a slave then?

          The past is not today, life in the past is not life today. Nobody forgets the horrors of the CENTURIES that lead us to our modernized and devloped world of today, we just don’t dwell on it and blame each other for it now.

          In that same sense, everyne is supposed to forget the atrocities that YOUR nation is currently infringing upon another then?

          In 300 years we are to STILL hold this against Americans who can barely even remember what their criminally insane forefathers had done?

          Hopefuly not.

          But the terrosism of which I spoke is cowardly terrorism taking place in recent years, not hundreds of years ago.

          That’s a major problem with America, it’s so young that the history is still quite modern and they don’t realize what history really is.

        • #3187789

          Forgotten History

          by beads ·

          In reply to Nice mentality

          There was a time when the Barbary Empire did take slaves, especially white slaves. This affected most of the Mediterean Sea for many years.

          That nice big palace in Monoco was built by white slave labor, primarily Brits and Americans. I agree the slavery thing here in America has been played out much to much. You’d have a hard time finding any large group of people who haven’t been enslaved at one time or another in human history.

          Americans generally tend to only hear the history they want to hear and move on, to say McDonald’s or some other fast food joint as quickly as possible then complain that the food makes them fat.

        • #3187214

          Poor assumption

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to My point was…

          “Has he been in England and personally terrorized? Probably not.”

          I WAS in Hyde park when terrorist bombs went off and killed children, mothers and fathers and the Queens Guard on parade, yes the horses were killed right in front of me too.

          While waiting for my mother to meet my brother and I at a train station, a bomb wemt off in HER station and many on the train were killed, thankfully not my mother.

          So whilst you hang onto repression that was 400 years ago, not like America didn’t do the same either, our governments grow up. The IRA bombings I speak of were in the last 30 years and were to get England to remove troops from Ireland that were trying to stop the northern Irish’s repression of the rest of Ireland.

          Much like America trying to stop Saddam from repressing the Iraqi’s (if you really still believe that’s what it’s all about).

        • #3187197

          Bombings don’t lead to withdrawls

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to Poor assumption

          The parallels between the IRA bombings, esp in the 70’s, and the Iraqi insurgency now amaze me. Do these people really think that these terrorist actions will REALLY make the occupying powers leave? The US’s biggest reason for staying in Iraq now is because the insurgency is providing the administration with a reason for the troops to stay. I was pretty young at the time, but I’ll bet there were more (and angrier) British troops in Belfast with each bomb tht exploded in London. Was the same in Viet Nam.

          Peace, which is pretty nice for its own sake, will be the best way to move the troops out. After that, the US would have a hard time justifying any intervention in the Iraqi political process regardless of what goes down. Even if the govt and people voted to become an Islamic republic after the form of Iran.

          And stopping repression is just the latest reason for the invasion. Pretty soon it’ll morph into “It was the obligation of the US to sweep up all that sand in Iraq.”

        • #3187186

          As always

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Bombings don’t lead to withdrawls

          Americans hang on to history and instead of seeing it as a lesson to not be repeted they use it to justify modern day actions.

          The US were the last peple to give up slavery of African Americans, but if the topic is raised, it is blamed on England as the original slave traders.

          So it’s England’s fault that Americans didn’t abolish slavery. It’s Englands fault that even after the British had abolished slavery that America was still trading slaves.

          It’s always someone else’s fault as the US has done and can do no wrong. Once you understand that, all is well.

        • #3187159

          Bombings DO lead to withdrawls

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Bombings don’t lead to withdrawls

          They know that if they do the bombings that the people that are looking for any reason to say “I told you so” to Bush will jump all over it.

          The people that WANT this to fail because it makes Bush look bad instead of WINNING this and making Bush look good.

          That is why there is all this crying out for a time table to evacuate Iraq.

          Politics trumps doing what is right everytime.

          [b]Even if you didn’t believe in why the war was started, it is impossible to rationally not find a way to MAKE this a sucess. If you are one of those irrational people, don’t waste both of our time with a reply.

        • #3187146

          JD – Reply

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to Bombings don’t lead to withdrawls

          There is no way I, or anyone in my opinion, could justify clearing out of Iraq immediately. Cool down. The point I was trying to make is that the chaos over there is leading us to stay longer every day. I think the insurgents have their heads up their a$$e$. I’m a leftie, Jesus-lovin’, peacenik type of guy and I believe that violence begets violence. I hate that my government went into Iraq and I hate that we can’t get out.

          I’ve often tried to put myself back to 1941/1942 and tried to imagine haow I would have felt about Hitler and the Nazis. The only answer I can come up with is that I’m glad I was spared the decision. The person who imbued me with the leftie, Jesus-lovin’ peacenik-ification, my old man, did have to make the decision. He joined, fought, got injured, and came home to take care of his little brother who joined, fought, got SEVERLY injured and came home. I hope that would predict how I would react.

        • #3187133

          Think about it JD

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Bombings don’t lead to withdrawls

          Nobody wants to see mroe Americans die, or mroe Iraqis die either. That’s the whole point, people don’t support a war that was unjustly brought about.

          Pople don’t want to see GWB fail, he’s ALREADY failed his people and the rest of your allies.

          NOW, regardless of what happened, regardless of the fact that GWB pretty much said F-U to his once allied force, regardless that the world feels it wasn’t ustified and was a wrong war to be fighting and for the wrong and definitely unjustified reasons, peope DO want to see and end to it and your allies are coming to your side regardless of what the liar in the House said to them or did to undermine their own judgments and feelings on the issue. Allied nations are now offering aid to see and end to this ridiculous conflict for US gain.

          So befor eyou start shedding a tear for Bush, just remember who said it was false information, who said you wer being mislead and who STILL sent your American brothers and sisters, people’s mothers and fathers to die for no apparent or justifiable reason. It wasn’t those who opposed the war that’s for damn sure.

          THe inspectors said there was nothign, the CIA said there was nothing. Bush just ignored it and comfirmed that Saddam was stockpiling WMD for an attack on America and that they had sought weapons grade uranium. Which was confirmed as untrue long befoer Bush said he had comfirmed their existence and invaded Iraq.

          He’s the one who stopped inspectors finishing this time, NOT Saddam.

          He’s the one who wouldn’t wait to PROVE his allegations wrong, because THAT would have thwarted his plans all along.

          He’s the one who is responsible for thousands of Americans deaths,not me, I sleep well at night.

        • #3187786

          The Romans invented Terrorism

          by beads ·

          In reply to Bombings don’t lead to withdrawls

          The Romans invented terrorism by spreading propaganda, diseased meat and poisoning wells.

          Didn’t work then and doesn’t work today. In fact terrorism in general has never worked for any cause that I have been able to find.

          – beads

        • #3187769

          Personally…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Bombings don’t lead to withdrawls

          I would have thought it was the Hittite armies or the Mongol hordes that invented hit and run attacks…they were both masters at it.

        • #3187787

          Very poor

          by beads ·

          In reply to Poor assumption

          This ‘war’ was and still is about American colonialism, read: Oil. See all those nice ‘Support our Trucks’ and ‘Blood for Oil’ ribbons on all those SUVs?

          – beads

        • #3186955
          Avatar photo

          Now that is really scary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to My point was…

          Several years ago I ran into a Rabid IRA member who was on a conscription drive out here for the Irish to return to their country or origin and continue the good fight. He went on about the Potato Blight of the 1600’s or there abouts as a valid reason to destroy the British. However when I pointed out to him that the Infamous Bush Ranger here Ned Kelly was also Irish and was persecuted by the British Rulers in AU of the time he added that to his list of grievances against the British. I can just see it now at a IRA meeting this guy standing up and complaining that not only where the Poms nasty to Ireland and the Irish in Ireland but that took that with them when they settled new lands and use Ned as an example. 😀

          That guy scared the SHITE out of me because he wouldn’t accept that the past is the past and live in the current time where he could find no valid reason to justify his hatred for the Poms.

          If you wish to do this there are far worse people out there in History than OC ever was and he was a really nasty piece of work but mild in comparison to many that came before him and some since like the Witch Hunts in Salem.:^O

          And while the last lot may not have killed as many they did destroy without any form of mercy those that they took a personal dislike to or those that wouldn’t come across when they wanted. The sign of a Good Christian shows no mercy to others who they think of as different and do not blindly follow them in everything. These people not only expect to be followed without question but get confused when they are asked why should we do this? :p

          Col ]:)

        • #3187327

          How many Americans

          by beads ·

          In reply to Holy Christ!!!

          How many Americans would even know of Oliver Cromwell? Not many I am guessing. Too many couldn’t tell you who the Vice President is at the moment. Let alone something difficult like there local state representitive is, off hand.

          For those who feel a bit left out.

          Oliver Cromwell a once respectable farmer turned Parlimentarian became a calvary general to put down the ‘Irish cause’ in 1645. That may be the other way around.

          He used a new instrument called a cannon to litterally blow holes (breaches) in the old stone castle fortifications. Once inside he gave his men the pillaging rights to anything and anyone left alive. Rape, murder and general looting were common rewards for any soldier who made it through the capture of the city.

          Public hangings were likewise common. Sometimes entire villages.

          Motars, also a new invention were called by the Irish: ‘boms’. Where we get the modern day word: ‘Bomb’.

          Anyways. Seven hundred years later people still won’t let the sins of the past heal. Much like many Southerns in the states who believe the Civil War was and is unjustly portrayed 150 years later.

          So theres your Jeopardy! trivia for today. Even if I do hope that Cromwell is enjoying Hell as I write this – lol.

        • #3187319

          I’ll be the first to agree…

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to How many Americans

          Most “Americans” are ignorant. Very ignorant. Not just politically, but in every way imaginable. Of course, I believe the same can be said for most people in most countries, but I have a prejudice against ignorant people and that is only my opinion. If you don’t like it, I don’t care.

          More Trivia! 🙂
          http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon48.html

          Oliver Cromwell Song by Monty Python
          SPOKEN: THE MOST INTERESTING THING ABOUT KING CHARLES I IS THAT HE WAS 5’6″ TALL AT THE START OF HIS REIGN, BUT ONLY 4’8″ AT THE END OF IT…
          BECAUSE OF…
          Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protecteur of England
          PURITAN
          Born in 1599 and died in 1658
          SEPTEMBER
          Was at first
          ONLY
          MP for Huntingdon
          BUT THEN
          He led the Ironside Cavalry at Marston Moor
          in 1644 and won. Then he founded the new model model army And praise be, beat the Cavaliers at Naisby And the King fled up North like a bat to the Scots.
          SPOKEN: BUT UNDER THE TERMS OF JOHN PIMM’S SOLEMN
          LEAGUE AND COVENANT, THE SCOTS HANDED KING
          CHARLES I OVER TO…
          Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protecteur of England
          AND HIS WARTS
          Born in 1599 and died in 1658
          SEPTEMBER
          But alas
          OY VAY!
          Disagreement then broke out
          BETWEEN
          The Presbyterian Parliament and the Military
          who meant To have an independent bent.
          And so…
          The 2nd Civil War broke out And the Roundhead ranks Faced the Cavaliers at Preston Banks
          And the King lost again, silly thing
          STUPID GIT
          SPOKEN: AND CROMWELL SEND COLONEL PRIDE TO PURGE THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN ROYALISTS
          LEAVING BEHIND ONLY THE RUMP PARLIAMENT…
          Which appointed a High Court at Westminster
          Hall To indict Charles I for…tyranny
          OOOOHHH!
          Charles was sentenced to death
          Even though he refused to accept that the court
          had…jurisdiction
          SAY GOODBYE TO HIS HEAD
          Poor King Charles laid his head on the block
          JANUARY 1649
          Down came the axe, and…
          SPOKEN: IN THE SILENCE THAT FOLLOWED, THE ONLY SOUND THAT COULD BE HEARD WAS A SOLITARY GIGGLE,
          FROM…
          Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protecteur of England
          OLE
          Born in 1599 and died in 1658
          SEPTEMBER
          Then he smashed
          IRELAND
          Set up the Commonwealth
          AND MORE
          He crushed the Scots at Worcester
          And beat the Dutch at sea In 1653 and then
          He dissolved the Rump Parliament And with Lambert’s consent Wrote the instrument of Government Under which Oliver was Proctector at last
          The end.

          And then we have these sorry people:
          http://www.olivercromwell.org/

          Enjoy!

        • #3187305

          not only did he blow down castles

          by jck ·

          In reply to How many Americans

          But, it’s estimated in his time in dominating the Irish countryside, Cromwell also brought in hundreds of workers from England and, in the years he did his crimes in Ireland, also managed to deforest over 20% of the island.

          They also estimate that Ireland was, at one point, 70% deforested by the English so that they would have enough wood to build structures in England.

          He wasn’t only a terrorist to humans, but to the environment as well.

        • #3187194

          Did you say Cromwell?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to not only did he blow down castles

          I thought you meant George Bush and perhaps Canada’s trees. Same thing, different century.

          Hey, aren’t we supposed to LEARN from our mistakes?

        • #3187798

          Mistakes?

          by beads ·

          In reply to Did you say Cromwell?

          You do realize that our most honored President was a HISTORY major at Yale? LOL! A bad one at that!

          – beads

        • #3187095

          Thanks to the History Channel..

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to How many Americans

          Yes I do/did know of Oliver Cromwell before this thread was posted. But nope didn’t learn about him in school, it was my fascinating interest in programs on the History Channel and Discovery that taught me about him.

          History channel had one of those hour long programs on Cromwell just a few months/weeks back in fact.

        • #3187086

          yes

          by jck ·

          In reply to Thanks to the History Channel..

          weekend before last…I saw it as well…

          I learned about Cromwell in college, but I learned a LOT more about him when I was in Ireland, including seeing the dents and holes his cannons put in castle walls.

          Simply astounding…the stupidity of such a man…

          Oh well…The Irish survived…all for the better…

        • #3187075

          That’s similar

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to yes

          Tp what I saw left of England when Hitlers Luftwaffe had nombed it continiously for weeks on end.

          Then again, Brits and Germans get along for the most part now, that was WWII, it was fought it was won, then we all learned our lessons and moved ahead.

          The British survived teh Battle OF Britain, Hitles last ditch effort to invade England. But they also won against incredible odds, and in fact were shown to have shot down and increaidble ratio of German planes to British.

          This is what makes teh Irish, The British and the Scottish such tough mofo’s. They fought for their land and they won it. That inner pride was seen as an absurd arrogance for too many years, now that more people are aware of what those people really endured, that arrogance is once again understood as deserved pride.

        • #3187045

          I would not say Cromwell was stupid

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to yes

          He was a genius, both politically and militarily, however, he was a VERY EVIL genius, on the same level of evil as Stalin and Hitler.

        • #3187835

          Cromwell’s stupidity

          by jck ·

          In reply to yes

          Military genius? Yes.
          Political genius? Maybe for a period of time.

          However, any man who goes in to conquer a people and destroys those holdings which would, in part, become his (most would be held by the monarch in his time…he might be lord over them or given title and taxed accordingly) to run.

          All those castles just destroyed because he didn’t have the guts to take them like a man. Nor did he repair many of them to make habitable by his own countrymen.

          He was stupid for ruining things…laying mindless waste to such beauty.

          He had no mind for possession…he wanted to feel important and glorified. He was yet another Napoleon.

        • #3187785
          Avatar photo

          jck sort of right

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to yes

          O C was a little man with delusions of grander so he firmly believed that if a person in his position could not have something then as sure as the rain falls from the sky no one else who he considered an enemy would have either. O C was the first person to form a standing Army even if he never actually paid them for their services and killed of the complaints when things got way out of hand with the foot solders not receiving any payment for well over 12 months. In some respects he was inspired and in others he was a very little man with a Hell of a lot of power and no one to stand in his way to prevent him from doing as he pleased. In other words a typical Bureaucrat who rose to power by stabbing all his opponents in the back on his way up.

          Col ]:)

        • #3187776

          yes…but how he paid them was

          by jck ·

          In reply to yes

          to let them have free reign over what they conquered, i.e.- steal/plunder, rape, murder, etc.

          His payment to them was with what he did not earn.

          If I ever build a time machine, I’m going to find Oliver Cromwell and go have a Cartman-style game of Roshambo with him. The pissy little wanker…

        • #3187083

          Thanks to Star Trek

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Thanks to the History Channel..

          I can understand how Americans feel so tied to the political party that commands them, no matter what their poor misguided leaders expect them to take.

          WE are REPUBLICAN. We are DEMOCRAT. WE ARE BORG!

        • #3186951
          Avatar photo

          OZ you forgot

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Thanks to Star Trek

          RESISTANCE IS FUTILE! 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3187831

          LOL

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to Thanks to Star Trek

          Yep and here we are today with a movie star (yeah I know Reagan was a movie star too..but I’ll contest that he was no where near the level of “Stardom” as Arnie) governing the 6th (or is it 7th) largest economy in the entire WORLD.

          “I am proud to be the governator of cal-a-for-ne-a”

          😉

        • #3187797

          Eye out

          by beads ·

          In reply to Thanks to the History Channel..

          I’ll have to keep an eye out for that. Obviously, it would have to be some sort of BBC import but interesting nonetheless.

          – beads

        • #3187242

          Christ had this to say:

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Holy Christ!!!

        • #3187284

          Applying the standards of today to history is always easy

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I’m sorry, but I had to laugh.

          The life of the average Englishman in 1653 was hardly idyllic and the application of what we would call grossly excessive force in England or Ireland was considered the norm.

          Cromwell, however, took the repression of the Irish to “ethnic cleansing” levels following his Puritan religious anti-Catholic beliefs. It’s a section of English history that – for obvious reasons – most Englishmen want to forget and most Irish want to remember. Cromwell killed the King! Hardly the action of someone who would care about anyone who got in his way.

          But – and its a big but – to blame all or even any Englishment living today for what happened 350 years ago is pretty damn stupid. The world has moved on. Move on with it.

          Your wonderful IRA freedom fighters – bombs paid for by the generosity of your countrymen – blew up and killed the guy who used to sell me my morning paper.

          He was from Pakistan.

          Neil

          I’m Welsh, by the way. The English have repressed us for 1500 years but I don’t bear them any grudge.

        • #3187269

          hmm..

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to Applying the standards of today to history is always easy

          I guess you did not read very closely, but your comment “The world has moved on. Move on with it.” should be directed at Oz. I wrote my post in response to his comment about the english being “terrorized” for decades. That is also past. But I guess if you need someone to pick on, go ahead. It won’t bother me. My people are used to it.

        • #3187261

          But yours was the rant

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to hmm..

          Oz merely posted that the UK – not just England but Northern Ireland as well – was indeed subjected to decades of indiscriminate terrorism that is – for the moment – paused. It happened in my lifetime, in my city and in my place of work – my office was blown up – and it killed someone that I knew. It may be past but I – personally experienced being shepherded to safety and I remember it. It didn’t happen to a ten-times great grandfather. It happened to me.

          I’m not picking on you. Your the one frothing at the mouth.

        • #3187249

          i think

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to But yours was the rant

          You’re missing the point, but I don’t care. judge me, rant away, whatever.

        • #3187230

          “How the Irish Became White”

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to i think

          I think that will put a little perspecitve on your “rant.”

          Also, I think ITgirli’s point was that the past in the past and refering to it as an appeal to authority is spurious.

        • #3187215

          I thing there is a lot of that going on

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to i think

          if we all miss each others points does that make us pointless? Hmmm.

          Many points and counter points. Some we like, some we don’t. Many are valid even if we don’t like them.

          where does that leave us?

        • #3187173

          JD-You do have a point

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to i think

          Now go and roll up some construction paper and make a hat to fit it.

        • #3187162

          jmgarvin-

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to i think

          exactly. and thank you. I was wondering if I wasn’t making sense or what. At least someone understands (scary).

        • #3187129

          Well I’m glad an American still feels that way

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to i think

          The Irish don’t seem to when I have a laugh with them. In fact most Irish will are completely disgusted with the way the IRA was terrorizing not only the English but the Irish too.

        • #3187122

          Oz

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to i think

          I think most people agree that bombing for peace is like f’ing for virginity.

          Ireland and England seem to get along pretty well, but the nut bag extremists have watched Michael Collins one too many times…

        • #3186949
          Avatar photo

          So judging by your own comments

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to i think

          Those down trodden Irish Americans of the late 50’s & early 60’s are a good reason for a Civil War right? :^O

          Don’t get me wrong but that is in the past and while it should be remembered it should not be a justification for what happens today. If we forget our past we are bound to make the same mistakes over and over again until we eventually get it through our thick skulls that this is not the way to go. 🙂

          Col ]:)

        • #3187185

          I was referring to the past 20 or so years

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to hmm..

          Not the 17th century.

        • #3187191

          The Welsh

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Applying the standards of today to history is always easy

          Are okay because they breed good jockeys.

        • #3187188

          They also bred Tom Jones

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to The Welsh

          And THAT’s what’s up, pussycat.

        • #3187179

          Oh

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to They also bred Tom Jones

          Well that’s different then, maybe I don’t like the Welsh afterall. Hmmmm, perhaps I can get GWB to bomb Wales, it won’t take much more than a vicious rumour that they will soon attack the US.

          I’ll tell him that teh Welsh are ready to fight ‘vociferously’. That’ll get him going!

        • #3187168

          You mean…

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to Oh

          that the Welsh will fight with loud voices??? I thought that was the Scots.

        • #3187220

          Priceless

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I’m sorry, but I had to laugh.

          And certainly not worth addressing in any way shape or form, but good for a morning giggle.

          But I willa dd that British history in the 1600’s in not a reason to place a bomb in a public park in broad daylight 400 years later. If so, then I suppose the Taliban had full rights to crash planes into the trade center too, YOU have armed whatever side pleases you in the middle east and tried to defeat them when they no longer benefit you. You support their wars then invade them later. But judging by the antiquated ferocity of your last post, it is hardly worth even attemtping to debate with you.

          You simply missed the point and the comments leading up to it.

          Thanks all the same though.

          🙂

        • #3187158

          Well I guess I’m screwed then…

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to I’m sorry, but I had to laugh.

          Because my family ancestry is rooted in both Ireland AND Italy!

        • #3187139

          Does that make you…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Well I guess I’m screwed then…

          a potato loving dago?

          or a pasta lovin mick?

          personally…I’m a mutt…couldn’t tell you exactly what all portions of what nationalities I am…just know I got the bigness of a German/Nordic person with the eyes and hair of a Cherokee Indian.

          You’d never guess I have English, Irish and Scottish in me if you saw me.

          BTW…I’m a beer lovin, haggis-eatin, teepee livin mick limey nazi swill…just so you know I’m not being a biggot when I say those names…

          Like Carlin said:

          “I’m not a biggot. I hate everybody equally.” 😀

        • #3187126

          We all are

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Does that make you…

          I am sure even itgirli is a mutt too, even though hanging onto Irish heritage.

          not too many actual IRISH or ENGLISH people around anymore. Just like there are not very many ACTUAL Americans or Canadians. We are ALL immigrants of some form.

        • #3187109

          you’re right

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to We all are

          I’m half Irish and half Scot.

        • #3187090

          and…..

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to you’re right

          Irish, which country’s settlers were your Irish and Scottish ancestors from?

          I would say you are probably at least a dozen more nationalities when you REALLY dig back, as we all are. Even the kings and queens (consdered true blue bloods) in the Dark Ages were mixed breeds.

        • #3186625

          You could be 100% something

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to you’re right

          The name Scot comes from an Irish tribe the Scotti, who came over from the Ulster area during the Dark Ages. Of course, the Scotti mainly settled in the Highlands and Islands and the west part of Scotland. Also living in Scotland at the time were Picts and some Vikings and quite a few english(who at the time were Angles and Saxons and other Germanic tribes). So from 1000 years ago the Scots were a mixed group, which may explain 1000 years of infighting.

          In the early 1300s Robert the Bruce, King of Scotland, invaded Ireland to attack the English castles. He invited the Irish to join him, some did, some didn’t. After a famine occured his troops raided nearby villages and it turned into a bit of an Irish Civil war. Though after Robert’s death the Scots left, it sowed the seeds of rebellion in the Irish.

          In the early 1600s the English decided to send over some of its Protestant english friendly scots(not all were of course) to Ulster and granted them land(Ulster plantations).

          After about 1750 (after Culloden when the last Scottish rebellion was brutally crushed) the English decided to get rid of the tennant farming class in Scotland so they could convert from cattle to the highly demanded sheep(to feed the northern english wool mills). The tennants were evicted, or as in my ancesters, told they would go on trial tomorrow for horse theiveing, forcing them to pack up and flee for the nearest port that night. My ancesters went to northern Ireland for a time and then a generation later to Canada.

          So its quite possible, that since there has been so much intermingling over the years, you aren’t half and half, but a whole something.

          James

        • #3187106

          No offense you friggin mutt :) lol

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to Does that make you…

          Nah no offense at all. To be honest I have some English in my history somewhere — that’s according to my mom, but I have never seen written research that backs that up or anything (on the other hand the Italian/Irish thing I do have plenty of research on that — aside from just looking at my grandmom who looks as italian as you can possibly get..lol…and she speaks the language too).

          Me? You’d crack up laughing if you saw me “Yeah right Tom YOU are italian!” — I’m white as a ghost (except for my arms) and except for the italian body hair…(ewwwww I know, but hey I’m a guy so its not that ugly …is it? LOL). there are no real physical traces of Italian that are noticeable.

          Yeah it stinks…I got more the Irish thing going appearance wise than the Italian…(thanks mom!).

          Well as long as no one mistakes me for some damn nazi mick I’m ok.

          😉 he he

        • #3187081

          you could be mistaked

          by jck ·

          In reply to No offense you friggin mutt :) lol

          and be okay…

          just don’t get mistaked for ole Osama…that’s certain death in my part of the world.

          People driving around with stickers on their cars and trucks that says “Florida Terrorist Hunting Permit” in the back window.

          ahhhhhhh…I need a beer…it’s Beer-thirty.

        • #3187004

          Irish

          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to I’m sorry, but I had to laugh.

          The Irish would not have been ‘terrorized’ by the English if they weren’t such a bunch of sissies! :p

    • #3187505

      Must Have Been Marked “Return to Sender”

      by dmambo ·

      In reply to Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

      This letter was sent to “The Honorable George W. Bush” The post office probably could not locate that person.

    • #3187419

      Just one fair question

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

      Wouldn’t Bush have HAD to made up HIS mind BEFORE he would go to talk to Congress? Would he talk to Congress about going to war before HE had decided this was the right action?

      I do not know the timeline and have not seen the leaked documents to know what they say, so like everyone else who has not seen them I can not make an informed decision on them.

      I again don’t have the information to discuss the INTENTIONS of why the war came about, but I do know that this was NOT a new idea that Bush just dreamed up. Clinton and Kerry (long before the election) in the last decade have both been known to talk about the threat of WMD from Iraq and Clinton had actually bombed them thinking it was a chemical weapons factory.

      In fourty years we may find out the truth. Until then we will just hear what the different “sides” want us to hear.

      • #3187401

        Enough Evidence

        by beads ·

        In reply to Just one fair question

        Theres been enough evidence come out from former Bush administration folks who have blatenly said that he wanted to invade Iraq from day one but needed an excuse.

        As I have and had said many times. I would only support this war if WMD were found otherwise it smacks of colonialism and worse.

        Bush has also said in interviews that ‘God’ told him to invade Iraq. Either hes a prophet or a fool. I am ‘leaning’ twoard fool, personally.

        For the record: I fought for daddy Bush in Iraq 1990-1991, 1st Cav, 1st Armored Division. Yes, we saw chemical weapons stockpiled everywhere. Yes, we were treated as nothing more than mercenaries of a foriegn government. No, we weren’t allowed to take the thousands of dollars in ‘bonuses’ the Kuwaities and Saudis were willing to through at us because we aren’t ‘mercenaries’.

        – beads

      • #3187352

        Just one fair answer

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Just one fair question

        Making a decision before making a recommendation (to Congress) of a particular course of action is not the issue. The issue is making a decision before reviewing the information on which such decision should be based, then instructing sources of that information to provide bias to Congress so as to lead to a flawed decision by Congress.

        http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

        Junior was not the first US President to notice that Hussein is evil. He was the first to assert that he is also (1) allied with Al Qaida, (2) in possession of a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (3) planning to use those weapons, either through his national military or as a gift to Al Qaida, against the United States.

        In fourty years, I’m sure more detailed accounts will be available. For now, you may review television broadcasts of Bush himself and various members of his junta backing away successively from each of the claims originally made to Congress, and to all the world, as the supposed basis of the illegal invasion of Iraq.

        He knowingly presented falsehoods as justification for use of offensive, not defensive, military force, in contradiction of US tradition and law. Even if neither side tells the whole truth, and I have no doubt that some or all Democrats colluded in the deception at some point, Bush’s own story conflicts with his own previous story. How do cops treat suspects when that happens?

        • #3187342

          cops

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to Just one fair answer

          Cops do absolutely nothing and let the person in question walk away. Such was the case this weekend when I was hit by a drunk driver.

        • #3187124

          You know

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to cops

          If you could resolve your bitterness with a subject befor eyou post, it MAY hold a bit mroe credibility.

          When it is spewed as some rant that is obviously fuelled by a bitterness (bias) it is harder to swallow or accept as it usually doesn’t make too much sense.

        • #3187270

          innocent until proven guilty?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Just one fair answer

          And one point you were wrong on.

          Number 2, he was NOT the first to say this.

          Back in 98/99 John Kerry was saying this and PROUD that he was in front of the curve on saying this. That they had WMD and needed to be dealt with.

          Clinton also stated this.

          WMD was not just something Bush made up and is dishonest in the least to even imply this.

          Remember all of the neighboring countries ALSO thought he had the chemial bombs and was working on nukes.

          The UN didn’t say don’t go in because they don’t have any WMD, they just said “why now”? They were content to keep passing resolutions as fast as Saddam could break them. That is what the UN does. Nothing.

        • #3187105

          higher standards for elected officials?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to innocent until proven guilty?

          Should a person elected with the mission of protecting the entire nation be subject to more scrutiny than someone who is not elected to protect anybody? Yes.

          I didn’t say Bush was the first to mention the presence of WMD in Iraq. It wouldn’t even matter if all those others had also [i]lied[/i] along with him, although there is no such evidence to my knowledge. The subject of discussion is that he [i]lied[/i] about a national security matter that has so far led to over 1700 dead soldiers. That is more important than what his neighboring countries–most of which are totalitarian Muslim theocracies–represent as their opinion, which we should always suspect as Allah-tainted.

          Other politicians stated that Iraq had WMD and action was required, or at least a credible stance on the issue. I’ll grant that. They did not–or if they did, no evidence has surfaced–Clinton and Kerry did not make statements about WMD and the capacity to launch them within 45 minutes. If Iraq had that ability, there would have been rational basis for pre-emptive action. That was a fabrication, as was the rest of the most dramatic “intel” offered during the campaign to create support for military action in Iraq.

          The UN is not responsible for the defense of any single nation, its charter is global, and it is a voluntary association. It is just silly to expect it to be as pro-active in the defense of any member nation as that member nation is on its own behalf. Recent peacekeeping missions have taken place in countries totally incapable of defending themselves against foreign invasion or civil war. The United States does not yet fit that description.

          Whatever Kerry said in 98/99, and even now, is not relevant in this discussion until and unless there is evidence that he also falsified evidence to achieve his goals.

          [i]WMD was not just something Bush made up and is dishonest in the least to even imply this.[/i]

          I did [b]not[/b] even imply that. I stated very clearly that what he overstated was the proof, the extent of the threat, the certainty with which he knew all those things, and those are the subjects repeated to Congress and all of us voters as the reasons why we should invade Iraq. As each of those assertions have been proven false, the members of the administration who have not been fired have backed away from each of those claims, and shifted emphasis to other slants, which have not yet been proven false. That changes nothing about the claims made in the first place, which were characterized as valid reasons to go to war, and the [b]fact[/b] that the most important of those claims have been [b]proven[/b] false.

        • #3187221

          *sigh*

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Just one fair answer

          1) I can’t image that any educated American actually bought into that. Sure the ignorant mouth breathers bought it, but the reality is that it just doesn’t tie together. While Saddam DID do things with terrorist organizations, I’m not conviced he work with AQ. The rhetoric coming out of the White House was just too over the top on this count.

          2 and 3) Clinton also claimed this. While I still like Bush jumped the gun, I also think that finding WMDs is like finding a needle in a hay stack. I’m sure Saddam shipped them off to some other area. We also know that Saddam had used them before, so I have no doubt that he would use them again. Claiming Bush made it up is typical rhetoric.

          My point is that it doesn’t matter who is in the White House, until we get someone who can actually LEAD the country, we are stuck with politics as usual.

          Bush == Kerry

        • #3187119

          2 and 3

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to *sigh*

          You’re right, Saddam DID have WMD and probably DID move them long before the invasion. So why the invasion?

          Saddam did NOT have intercontinental missile capabilities, he could not launch an attack on the USA. BUT, you were made to believe he would, and there were several hundred opinion right here to prove just that. People honestly believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and was preparing to attack America with WMD. Pull the other one!

          You’re right on one thing though, politicians are all a farce and should not be adored as if they are gods.

          I was stunned to see GWB stay in his position because nobody could have done worse, even if you feel Kerry would have done the same thing, it would have been someone else doing it, one guy fails and lies through his teeth to the people and even AFTER finding out is was all pure BS, you reelected him?

          Clinton got a hummer and cheated on his wife and he was IMPEACHED?

        • #3187089

          sport utility vehicles

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to 2 and 3

          [i]Clinton got a hummer and cheated on his wife and he was IMPEACHED?[/i]

          That is because so many lunatic Christian fundamentalists expect public figures to set an example for their children, which is in fact their own personal responsibility, not Bill Clinton’s, nor Charles Barkley’s, nor Tupac Shakur’s.

          But one party evades responsibility on personal issues just as the other disclaims personal accountability on economic issues. So neither side is taken seriously by the other, nor by the level-headed members of the public–both of us!–who take varying amounts of time to realize that nobody in office represents our interests, or anything close to our interests.

          Still, Bush has represented a more dramatic, reprehensible, direct assault on my interest in peace and liberty than any American in history.

        • #3187018

          Clinton, Bush, et al

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to 2 and 3

          Clinton lied under oath, which is why he was impeached. Had he been a man, he would have come out and said he got the hummer and been done with it.

          Bush lied to the American public about everything involving the invasion of Iraq. How he was re-elected, I’ll never know. I couldn’t, in good conscience, vote for someone who lied (lies) to the country and involves us in an unwinable war. Not to mention the wonderful Patriot Act and spiffy new ways to destroy the Constitution.

          Kerry was/is a moron. I couldn’t, in good conscience, vote for someone who couldn’t take a stand on anything. His one and only stance was “A vote for me is a vote against Bush.” The little that Kerry did stand for I couldn’t abide. Kerry also didn’t understand the Constitution.

          We had no choice in this election. It really doesn’t matter who won, because they both are the SAME IDIOT.

        • #3187863

          Neither ran a good campain either

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Clinton, Bush, et al

          I thought both sides were very sloppy, but I guess if you just throw enoght money at something like both Kerry and Bush did, something will happen.

          And yes, the only thing Kerry had going for him was Bush Hate.

          If Dean wouldn’t have done his now famous yell, thinks might have turned out differently. But after seeing Dean over the last few years he would have been even worse than Kerry had he got in. THERE is a guy that is NUTS.

        • #3187781

          Too often

          by beads ·

          In reply to *sigh*

          Too often an ‘Educated American’ is like saying left wing liberal.

          But then again its really difficult for some not so educated folks to not vote for a candidate when you see, of all things, churches, with signs saying: “Don’t make baby Jesus cry – Vote Republican!” Those are very harsh words during a political campaign.

          – beads

      • #3187020

        Bush had plans when he first was ushered in

        by antuck ·

        In reply to Just one fair question

        When Bush first ran for office, in his campain he spoke of outsting Saddam then. When he was running for office I said he wants to get into office and will be attacking Iraq. Then 9-11 came and what a perfect opprotunity. Although, I have personal reservation on who all really was involed with 9-11. This turned into his perfect excuse to attach Saddam. I read the Downing memo and seen a couple of other leaked documents and all have shown that this was planned in advance. The Bush administration was going to invade Iraq at any cost.

        My question to this day has been, wasn’t Binladin responsible for 9-11 not Saddam? Weren’t 17 of the hihackers Saudis? How come we still to this day have not caught Binladin? How come we never went knocking on the Saudi’s doors asking them about terrorists? Wait I know the answer to some of this. You can’t take out Binlaidin he is part of the Saudi royalty. they have put to much money into the Bush’s pockets and you don’t bite the hand that feeds.

        Bush has done nothing since he was ushered into office. (still can’t say elected with Bush jr) He has done nothing to help America. Everything he has done has distanced the US from the rest of the world. He has spent way to much in the Iraq war, and this doesn’t mean just money. One day it will come out as to how corrupted this administration really is.

        I hear people say Bush should be in office now to clean up his mess. But I don’t belive he has ever had a plan to get out of Iraq. I belive his only plans were to take Saddam out. I say impeach him and get someone else in office.

    • #3187376

      I’d love…

      by jck ·

      In reply to Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

      to see the reply to that, if there was one.

      I bet the circles the White House ran in the reply (if it exists) would make Euclid’s head spin.

      Ab: a big thank you for putting that up there.

      Proves my intuition about Dubya more valid everyday.

      • #3187374

        I bet

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to I’d love…

        you were just about orgasmic when you read this.

        I would personally still like to see what the proof to any of this is, but that is just because I don’t believe ANY politican as they all play the same game of make the other look bad so I look good.

        Is it just more of the same “gotcha” crap?
        Is it just posturing?
        Is it just revenge for impeaching Clinton?
        Is it fair people asking a fair question?

        So many questions, with so many answers.
        Too bad most answers deviate from the truth.

        • #3187368

          not orgasmic

          by jck ·

          In reply to I bet

          Just happy to know that my intuition about the guy was right from the vibe I got when meeting him, plus my judgements on his attitudes, disposition, demeanor, etc., since that time from seeing television interviews and such.

          It’s one thing to have a strong president.

          It’s quite another to have one who’s not man enough to admit his mistakes.

          At least Clinton admitted his…

        • #3187347

          Am I missing something?

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to not orgasmic

          I saw the letter, but I did not see any evidence supporting it. Did I miss something? I can write a letter to whomever I darn well please and it can be a complete load of malarkey. And someone can take it and put it on the Internet, but ti doesn’t make what I wrote true just because it’s on the Internet. There is so much propaganda going on these days it’s like religion. Give me enough proof to believe it.

        • #3187336

          I could

          by jck ·

          In reply to Am I missing something?

          pee in a bucket and call it Mountain Dew too.

          All I know is, it fits his character.

          That’s step one for me: evidence which fits the character profile of the individual in question.

          That is, you wouldn’t be able to try and stick something like this on leaders of countries like Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Australia, Japan or Spain.

          Why? Because it doesn’t fit:
          a) their political agendas
          b) their personality

          BTW: I invite you to forward that link and/or PDF file to all those representatives and verify that was a letter they sent to Bush. Or, you should be able to find that on http://www.senate.gov since it is a formal document of government business it should be available somewhere online (and Barney Frank and Maxine Waters are both US senators I recognized when glancing at the names).

          Good luck with your pursuit of the truth.

        • #3187311

          two things…

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to I could

          1. It fits his personality? Do you know him personally that you can accurately say that?

          2. I don’t care if they sent it. I’m agreeing that they sent it. I am requesting further proof that the information they received that caused them to write that letter is indeed factual.

        • #3187292

          um…hang on

          by jck ·

          In reply to two things…

          you judge me as swill…because of some off-center, humour-meant comments…about going after someone’s 18 year old daughter…and because of other statements you assumed things about…without personally knowing me?

          But, I can’t judge George Bush as a hard-headed, spoiled rich boy who is power hungry because I’ve seen him get red in the face and flustered when people don’t ask questions he wants to field, and (as is now being presented by members of congress evidently) that he misled (and perhaps knowing over-exaggerated) domestic and foreign leaders about Iraq?

          Hmmm…I think you should not form an opiniono of me as swill…or let me have my opinions in the same manner you get to establish yours.

          Otherwise, you’re carrying an obvious double standard.

          Thanks.

        • #3187274

          jck,I don’t know you either and I judge you as swill

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to two things…

          But from what I’ve read from you, you seem to be the finest kind of swill. 🙂

        • #3187273

          jck

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to two things…

          I have my opinion, but you said it fits his personality as a fact. Sorry, but your case doesn’t hold water.
          Also, you never answered the second part.

        • #3187257

          ITgirli

          by jck ·

          In reply to two things…

          1) I have said it a dozen times before…I did meet Bush, Lawton, OK, Ft. Sill Army Base. I was invited by Gov. Frank Keating of Oklahoma and his wife Kathy, who were throwing the party for Bush because Oklahoma lost to Texas in the big interstate football rivalry that year. He seemed pompous, didn’t seem to like the fact people were asking him questions about his job as Governor of Texas, and got flustered with it quite easily. It seemed the man didn’t want to be asked about things like his support of the death penalty…even though being Governor *is* a 24/7 job.

          I have met him personally, but I do not know him intimately. I think I can say from numerous observations what his personality is…personality is not knowing every life experience the man has or every thought…it is the way he acts, moves, thoughts he expresses, either confronts or avoids the tough questions, etc.

          One thing it definitely isn’t…is that big sh*t-eating grin he puts on when Katie Couric interviews him. If you want to see the genuinely nice, gentle, understanding person in the White House…look to Laura Bush.

          It’s quite easy to see…the man is pious, bull-headed and wants his way no matter what.

          2) if you want factual proof, request from the BBC or whomever the information that was “leaked” according to the congressional letter to President Dubya…or, request the document (given it’s not classified) from your local congressman. I’m not the library of congress. I don’t keep em in the files here.

          BTW, you wanted an answer to #2 even tho you did not put a question forth to warrant that answer.

          I suppose you want me to get you copies of pictures with Bush and Keating at Ft. Sill, plus an affidavit from the Kodak shop who developed them for me? And fuel receipts?

          Jeez…gimme a break.

        • #3187246

          why do you people miss the point?

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to two things…

          You don’t know him, so get over it. My uncle has met him a few times and doesn’t presume to know his personality. You’re the pompous one.
          I saw the little letter. big deal. I wanted facts not the stupid little letter. If you want me to explain things on your level, you’ll have to wait until my son gets out of day care. I’m sure he could help you.

        • #3187222

          hahahaha

          by jck ·

          In reply to two things…

          First I catch you double-standarding, now you’re frustrated because you can’t understand the difference between what knowing someone’s personality is and knowing about intimate details of someone’s lifestyles and habits.

          Sure, I can’t tell you if he wears a smoking jacket or what in the White House.

          Personality has to do with disposition…i.e.- their normal moods or inclinations…their temperment…how they act in certain situations.

          It’s not knowing what Bush does with a spare 2 hours on a non-holiday Sunday when he’s in Crawford, Texas with his dog and his two daughters.

          Give me a break. I’ve seen his personality…in person…and on TV dozens of times.

          I know his personality…*despite* what your opinion is…thank you.

        • #3187203

          “knowing” public people

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to two things…

          Do you REALLY think he acts the same at home as when he is out in the public?

          Do you REALLY think you can tell what someone is like based on the front they put on for you during a horse and pony show?

          As for irritated for being asked questions that are not in your interest to discuss, have you never felt irritated by a cute little handcuff wearing techy on this board?

          You made an oppinion based on what you saw this one night. what did you think of him before that night? How long did you discuss directly with him and about what? Or was he just sitting at the same table with other people talking to him?

        • #3187167

          did I say I care about how he acts at home?

          by jck ·

          In reply to two things…

          I was critiquing his leadership…how he carries himself as the *leader and represenatative to the world of our country*.

          Again at this time (according to polls), I’m in the majority. Most other Americans don’t think he’s doing a good job or that Iraq was justified.

          Hence…according to local and national NBC polls (check their websites…that’s my proof), he’s not a good president.

          Merry Christmas.

        • #3187140

          A poll determines who is a good president?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to two things…

          Now I KNOW you had a liquid lunch!

          The public is stupid and uninformed. Just ask Oz, Neil, James or any other Canuk/UKer/Aussi out there. How does taking a poll on if people are happy with something RIGHT NOW determine the job he is doing?

          People that do unpopular things but are still the right thing to do are bad people? Crazy ramblings!

          The polls go up and down and only a fool, a complete idiot or a swill would base their oppinion on what a poll has to say. (I don’t care who you are, that there is funny!)

          FACTS my friend, give me facts. A poll is OPINION, not fact and that is a fact!

          So how did you like Max blowing your “concervative judges” argument out of the water? You must have been standing next to the wrong water cooler.

          He said the same thing I did, but he just did a much better and more complete and FACTUAL job than I did.

        • #3187118

          a poll

          by jck ·

          In reply to two things…

          is a cross section of people questioned about a topic…some are uninformed…some are well-informed.

          Fact is…Bush’s numbers have gone down every months for almost a year. And, that is the *opinion* of the people he is responsible to report to…American citizens.

          BTW,Larry the Cable Guy called…he wants royalties 😉

        • #3187298

          jck, minor correction

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to I could

          Maxine and Barney are in the House. I noticed at least 5 reps from Massachsetts signed. Interesting.

        • #3187294

          good eye!

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to jck, minor correction

          very interesting! very interesting indeed!

        • #3187289

          hm

          by jck ·

          In reply to jck, minor correction

          you’re right…I thought Frank was a Senator tho…maybe he used to be.

          oh well…Guinness musta killed enough brain cells by now.

          Gotta go get a birthday cake now, kids. I’m the designated birthday party thrower tomorrow for a co-worker.

        • #3187277

          Barney never was in the Senate

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to jck, minor correction

          He’s most famous for being one of the 1st openly gay members of Congress. His district includes eastern Cape Cod, including Provincetown, where dog leashes are not just for dogs 😉

        • #3187256

          DMambo

          by jck ·

          In reply to jck, minor correction

          I’m not *even* gonna pretend I wanna know how you know what other uses for dog leashes are in that particular area.

          Yeah, I remember Barney coming “out of the closet”. I was like “What does it matter? Does he do his job right? Let him have a boyfriend to screw as long as he doesn’t screw the people.”

        • #3187254

          About Barney,

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to jck, minor correction

          Even tho he represents a district with a sizable gay population, the vast majority of his constituates are straight. It took a lot of balls to put his political career on the line. And if you look at the guy, he does not appear to be the typical red-tied, perfect hair smooth congressman. I think he’s honest, very sharp and that he has the best interest of his district at heart. (He’s nearly as lefty as my rep, Bernie Sanders.) I respect him greatly.

        • #3187248

          yeah

          by jck ·

          In reply to jck, minor correction

          I think Barney has done a lot more good for his constituency than a lot of others.

          I always like him and that frizzy/wild-haired guy from Minnesota (Wyman, I think?)…they always shot straight, answered questions, presented very stepwise speeches, and didn’t side with their party all the time.

          I tell ya…if I run for county commission here, I’m gonna run as an independent…spend my own money on a campaign…and show the people that you don’t have to be a republican or democrat to be conscientious and listen to your public.

        • #3187266

          Don’t need proof

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Am I missing something?

          when it fits in with what some people WANT to believe.

          Just like the Rather memo. “the story was real, just the supporting documents were fake”.

          Who is actually so dishonest or stupid to believe that? THERE IS NO STORY without supporting documents.

        • #3187255

          so…jdclyde…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Don’t need proof

          Since the Bible has no supporting documents to prove Jesus performed miracles, your own standard defines Jesus as a “fake”.

          Think about it…Christianity is what you *want* to believe in…not what is really true based on fact.

          As for Dan Rather…he’s another pompous ass…heard that from a guy in the Melbourne, FL Airport who worked for CBS.

          Belief is belief…whether it’s religious or political.

          Oh well…guess absolute power does corrupt absolutely.

        • #3187250

          belief vs fact

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to so…jdclyde…

          belief in god does not make it a fact.

          belief in the political crap that is spewn does not make it fact.

          You should know that.

          It is when desires and beliefs are pushed as fact that there is the departure from reality.

        • #3187243

          I don’t get that…explain

          by jck ·

          In reply to so…jdclyde…

          How does a document, presented on the internet and traceable to hold the siteholder responsible if he/she forged Congressmens’ signatures, constitute a “desire or belief”? It’s a PDF of an apparently valid document with signatures of several legislators.

          It’s a presentable piece of evidence. Where’s your counter-evidence to the contrary?

          Nonetheless, I can’t prove it’s valid. I didn’t write it. I’m not a Congressman who signed it. I’m not the guy at the White House who’d have reviewed it for the President of the USA.

        • #3187217

          Explained

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to so…jdclyde…

          I didn’t say this was a forged document. This is just a letter that was written up that means NOTHING.

          Where is the documentation that backs up this letter?

          Is this just more pandering to the “I hate Bush” group or is there valid data to support this?

          This is JUST A LETTER accusing Bush. Not a letter convicting Bush.

          And when people DO step up and have a LOT of reasons to lie about something, that goes directly to the credibility of all testamony. Bring someone that doesn’t have an axe to grind that wasn’t singing prase one day and then throwing gas on the fire the next.

        • #3187160

          talk about an unreasonable expectation

          by jck ·

          In reply to so…jdclyde…

          You’d *never* get a Republican to walk in front of a camera, which is probably what you’d require, and give proof of Bush’s acts.

          You’re expecting the most improbable thing in politics. Someone jumping party lines and burning the bridges behind them.

          BTW, I never said he was “guilty” or “convicted” of anything. I just think it highly unlikely that someone would put that on a website and risk federal charges for:

          1) forging signatures of Congressional members
          2) forging an official government document

          I think it’s more likely the letter and signatures are valid, rather than it being a political ploy to “convict” Bush.

          As for the sources, I’d not think that many Congress members would sign that without some knowledge in front of them. Remember, Dan Rather isn’t CIA director.

        • #3187132

          Many would agree

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to so…jdclyde…

          that I am unreasonable. Get over it! 🙂

          AGAIN, I am NOT questioning the letter. I fully believe that this is something that would be done by Congress (from either side) to do something with the sole intention of trying to make someone else look badly.

          I am questioning the ACCURACY of the letter. Not that it is a letter really written and submitted by a bunch of twits with an agenda.

        • #3187268

          “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to not orgasmic

          Yeah, he stood up like a man and had his whole administration further a lie because of his sexual harrassment suit he was in.

          It is amusing the people of limited reason that claim he was impeached because of sex. No, he was impeached for purjury. You know, lieing under oath in court?

          Better find a different model to compair him to.

          Clinton only “came” out after the blue dress had “cum” out. Yeah, wait for DNA to come clean.

          And then the reason he gives for it? “Because I could”.

        • #3187267

          A real man

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”

          would have said ” Yes. I did it. And I’d do it again if I could find a nicer looking woman who didn’t keep DNA evidence.”

        • #3187775
          Avatar photo

          Just one point here

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to A real man

          If any Politician was a “Real Man or Woman” they wouldn’t be in Politics as those that are in that field are really a different species all together. :^O

          Now if only we could stop them from breeding life would be so much better. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3187721

          a sure way to stop the propagation of political genetics

          by jck ·

          In reply to Just one point here

          two words:

          meat….cleaver

          Thank you ]:)

        • #3187260

          and Bush is so much better

          by jck ·

          In reply to “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”

          He was impeached for his perjury of the Monica Lewinsky incident being “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”…which by all accounts, it was Clinton was legally maneuvering around the term “sexual relations” being vaguely defined.

          It had nothing to do with the sexual harassment allegations of Gennifer Flowers or Paula Jones. It involved no sexual harassment at all. That was prosecutable only in the State of Arkansas in Federal or State or District Court, not in front of a Congressional committee.

          And I guess Bush being a convicted drunk driver and self-admittedly having been a heavy drug user makes him any better of a model? Yeah right…maybe if you’re from BFE nowhere where moonshine is still the most popular soft-drink and your mom is your sister too.

          At least Clinton’s actions he was accused of with Monica Lewinsky weren’t criminal. Bush’s drunk driving was.

          I can hear the thoughts now, Kennebunkport, ME circa 1972:

          “Whew!!! daddy got me off light by knowin that there judge…and I can be president now if’n I want…yeeeeeeehaaaaaaaw…*wheez*”

          Yeah…what a guy, that Bush. You’re right…I should stand up for a guy who got convicted of drunk driving and almost failed out of an ivy league school, rather than for a guy who had a personal-life affair with an intern and was a highly-esteemed scholar.

          Sure…you’re right…I’m wrong. *cough cough*

        • #3187231

          Twisting in the wind

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to and Bush is so much better

          First, I (unlike you) am not using the sins of one man to justify the sins of another. I just pointed out that the man you were TRYING to compair him to has way too much baggage to give you a good point.

          The impeachment was because of the purjury in court during the sexual harrasment suit, not because of when he got on national telivision, looked America in the face with his jaw set and said those immortal words. And he had much stronger alligations against him, but they weren’t PROVEN.

          Drunk driving, anyone here ever been pulled over after having a few too many? (not me)

          How many went to Canada to avoid the draft? (not me)

          How many people have killed someone while intoxicated and got away with it? (kennedy) (not me)

          Did you get admitted to an ivy league school? (not me)

          Like I said, if you want to start doing the “compaired to blah blah” you had better find a better group of models.

          Or just make each stand up for their own sins.

          But remember, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law goes for everyone.

          You can believe Bush did this or that and how you don’t like him. You can even believe that pigs can fly, but that doesn’t mean it is true. No matter how badly you want all the bad news to be true and no matter how badly you hate Bush.

        • #3187180

          of course you’re not…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Twisting in the wind

          1)You just hold him up as a great leader. Well…got news for ya…he’s not in the top 10. Lowest approval rating of a president during non-wartime action. That says it all….more than half the citizens think he’s doing a crappy job…more than half think Iraq was wrong.

          2) I didn’t justify Clinton’s “sin” at all. I’ve said this before too, even tho you seem to have forgotten. I think Hillary should have been allowed to cut his nuts off for having an affair. It’s a personal life issue.

          3) If I remember right, I was discussing how Bush won’t admit he’s wrong on things he’s done in office…but, Clinton did. You attacked Clinton on personal character with the “sexual relations” poke. So, don’t go saying I’m using Bush to validate Clinton’s “sin”, when you’re the one who brought up the adultery in this. I was addressing political mistakes as president.

          4) He perjured in the trial of Paula Jones (whose allegations were never proven) about Monica Lewinsky.

          oh yeah…reference: http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

          5) Answers to your Q&A session:

          “Drunk driving, anyone here ever been pulled over after having a few too many? (not me)”

          Me either.

          “How many went to Canada to avoid the draft? (not me)”

          Me either, but my high school principal was a chicken sh*t that did that.

          “How many people have killed someone while intoxicated and got away with it? (kennedy) (not me)”

          Me either, and it was Ted Kennedy, not Robert or John…make sure to point that out for those who don’t know American history…and BTW…I think Ted Kennedy is a bigger douche than Bush if you must know.

          “Did you get admitted to an ivy league school? (not me)”

          Me either, but I was going for a science/math degree not a law or business degree. I was admitted to M.I.T., Cal Tech – Pomona, University of Texas, UIUC, and several other universities with my 1400+ SAT (I think I got 1480) and my 33 in Natural Sciences and 35 in Mathematics on the ACT. However, my parents couldn’t afford for me to attend a big university. So, I attended the local university so that my parents wouldn’t be financially ruined.

          Finally…yeah…I can believe how I want…I can believe that Jesus is a 2000 year old fairy tale too…but, I don’t. Know why? I think. I don’t just follow party line. I doubt everyone…even my own friends and family. But, other things make sense other than validated documents that are in triplicate with the seal of the UN, NAFTA and EU leaders on them.

          I don’t need verfiable proof from 2 sources to think it’s likely someone did something because I can see the obvious way they act, the ideals they follow, the ideas they express, their avoiding questions, etc.

          Would I trust Clinton with my daughter if I had one? Hell no. But, I’d trust Clinton to keep his word to me a hell of a lot more than I would Bush. It’s not because of where he was raised, what his name is (I think Dubya’s dad and mom are damn good people), or what school he went to or the grades he’s got.

          Fact is (in my opinion, as you’d probably like me to fully qualify things explicitly), Bush is arrogant/pious/pompous. He wants things his way, which is pretty evident by his flare-ups consistently at news conferences where (for any man cognizant of his job requirements) should know as president he will have to field the tough questions from some reporter who is looking to make a mark for himself in the news industry. Hell, I know if I have to give a technical brief to the county commission where I work, I’d have to be prepared to handle *any* question dealing with my work. *ANY* question…be *PREPARED* to answer to those for whom I am responsible in my duties. I couldn’t get all distraught looking and take deep breaths and look at the council when they asked for more detail and go “You know, guys…I’m not gonna go through this again. I am doing good work in my office over there. I’m doing good things…helping people…making reports for those managers. What else do you want?”

          What does that all mean?

          I’d rather risk keeping faith in an adulterer who seems steady to keep his word, than someone who avoids tough questions and situations or gets red faced like a frustrated kid when someone asks him a question he doesn’t like.

        • #3187079

          JD

          by bob in calgary ·

          In reply to Twisting in the wind

          Just one quick comment on this post, The statement you made

          “But remember, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law goes for everyone”

          No longer applies in the US and a few other countries it should read

          Americans are innocent until proved guilt in a court of law. Others are guilty because we say they are.

          for example the detainees at your detention facilities in Cuba, Iraq and Afganistan. They have not had any trial and have not been charged, They probably are guilty but from a moral point of view deserve to be tried. The US should not reduce it’s self to the mentality of AQ. If you fight for freedom then you should also practise that freedom.

        • #3187228

          Part of the difference

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to and Bush is so much better

          is that Bush and his crew are MASTERS at manipulating the media (a media that loves to be manipulated to ease their job). Think of the Mission Accomplished rally on the carrier. Filmed only from a single perspective to avoid showing the shore, giving the illusion of being near the action. Bush, or Karl Rove, gets the White House to toe the line. Since there is so little dissention in the administration, I think that contributes to the divisions in the country. If other political persuasions had some hope that they had something of a voice in the inner circle, they might try to work within the system to some extent.

          Clinton and his gang really were rubes in this area in many respects. While they concentrated on politics of events, they were not able to present a united front. Their organization as a whole was terrible. Read Robert Reich’s book “Locked in the Cabinet” Even at the top levels, Clinton did not have his people singing out of the same hymnal.

        • #3187149

          Hey DMambo…want a juicy tidbit?

          by jck ·

          In reply to Part of the difference

          Check out the news stories about how long it took soldiers to applaud at Ft. Bragg and why they did finally…

          It took a Bush Whitehouse member applauding something to actually finally get the soldiers to fall in line…none of them applauded til then even after they were put “at-ease” and seated.

          Plus, I’ve seen news stories on all the TV stations here in the Tampa area. None of the soldiers will give their opinion on Iraq in *any* manner.

          I think the barking orders have been given. You talk bad about Bush and his Iraq campaign…you get sh*t duty somewhere horrific.

        • #3187134

          Military “gag order”

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Part of the difference

          In the military you can’t speak of political things to the press. It doesn’t matter who is Pres.

          Also, military memember can’t applaude because they are either instructed not to or they are standing in formation and cannot due so (unless at ease). In this case I would guess the military members were instructed not to applaude and were probably given orders to remain quiet throughout the speech.

          At least this is what happened while I was in. Clinton came to Germany twice and Gore went to Fort Hood once. All three times we couldn’t do much other than sit and listen.

        • #3187163

          fine, Clinton lied

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”

          shame on your critics for comparing one liar to another, they’re both schmucks.

          But did George Walker Bush present ties to Al Qaida, and the existence of an imminent military threat, or did he not? Does the evidence offered then now prove false, and worse, deliberately falsified, or not?

        • #3187161

          Does it really matter?

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to fine, Clinton lied

          It is far too late now to be pedantic about the whole thing.

          We all know he lied, but we are stuck in what we are in. We need to look towards the future and what to do NOW and not worry about what Bush did or did not lie about.

        • #3187153

          To be honest

          by jck ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          If this country keeps getting much worse, I’m in for another pay cut and I’m moving to Ireland to become dual citizenshipped.

          That’s where my future lies…where people aren’t prioritized below money…people don’t care if a representative is putting a good one to his secretary or not, and who appreciate a *real* beer like Guinness. (that one’s for jdclyde…hahahaha)

          BTW, jdclyde…if you see this…

          Even Smithwick’s is carried in far more places than Killian’s is in Ireland…

          Just remember…the potato famine started in Ireland too, but it doesn’t mean they wanted it around either. 😉

        • #3187152

          Of course it really matters.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          True, we need to look towards the future and what to do NOW to minimize the damage that Bush’s lie will continue to cause. To do that, we need to determine how much of the truth he misrepresented, ignored, and suppressed, respectively, in order to achieve his goal of invading Iraq, regardless of whether it was our most important threat.

          To bring a man to justice who deliberately misled all the citizens of the country of which he is the commander-in-chief [i]on the single issue that was the basis for the unprecedented decision to begin a war against a sovereign nation[/i] is anything but [b]pedantic[/b], and you may expect further instruction on this topic until you understand and publicly acknowledge your error.

        • #3187141

          Absolutely you can’t see past your hatred of Bush

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          It is pointless and solves nothing to rehash the same old stuff that we will NEVER have answers to. What would make the most sense is to:
          A) Discuss making Iraq a safe and secure country now that it is in the mess it is in
          B) Discuss finding a LEADER for the US that will actually be able to bring forth positive growth both at home and abroad.
          C) Stop making this a partisan issue. I don’t like the Dems or Repubs, I just want the REAL issues to be discussed, not how we shouldn’t be in Iraq (too late), how Bush lied to get us there (too late), or how we don’t have an exit strategy (PRESENT ONE!)
          D) Being angry about Bush isn’t solving anything. In 06 we have another election and you can vote for whatever slime bag politician you want, they are all the same, right or left.

        • #3187128

          jck

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          I’m on the next boat with you. I need to find my roots in County Cork (I can’t remember the name of the village off hand)…

          The US has gone from the land of the free to the land of the rich do what they want and the rest of us pay for it.

        • #3187121

          I can see that you like this Iraq war

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          Seeing [i]past[/i] my hatred of Bush is not at issue. My hatred is for killing, which the US military is entrusted to do [i]in the national interest[/i] only. You and I paid for those tanks, ships and planes. And guns, and bombs, and all the rest of it. Our collective property was used against our interests.

          Acting on false pretense has given any existing enemies [i]real[/i] injustice to blame on my country.

          Whether his replacement will be perfect, or even better than average, is (1) pure speculation (2) irrelevant. Enough facts have been presented to begin impeachment proceedings, especially in light of the most recent precedent, which involved a falsehood regarding an intrinsically personal matter, no loss of life, and no national security matters.

          Without espousing the other major party, Bush’s actions are unforgiveable. Without falsely associating that statement with the Democratic party, can you defend [i]Bush[/i] himself, his actions or his words, in their real context? Do you have any point to make that does not depend on a smear against your opposition?

        • #3187115

          Absolutely, I know I’m going to regret this.

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          The difference that I see is that Clinton was accused of violating a specific statute, ie lying under oath. Bush is clearly guilty of lying, but did not violate the law.

          Disclaimer – I’m no lawyer and I can’t say for sure that there isn’t some law that can be construed as having been violated. You can probably cite some clause in the Grand Old Lady (Constitution) whose spirit has been violated.

          Pleading – Please don’t shread me!!

        • #3187034

          left my shredder at home

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          Also, my copy of the Constitution. However, the Declaration of Independence implies, by mentioning them first, that the primary rights of all people are those of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. “In that order” is implied by the fact that they are in [i]that order[/i], not, for example, alphabetical order, in which case liberty would have been named first.

          Bush committed a high crime by distracting our nation’s defensive capabilities from the Muslim tyrannies where Al Qaida is most present and recruits most, to one of the most secular countries in the Middle East. At least, it was. Now, I predict Islamic nationalism replaces pan-Arabism as the dominant force in whatever political ideology shapes that country’s future.

          The nature of his crime was not anticipated by the Founding Fathers, and thus not addressed so specifically as lying under oath. But with just a little bit of reason, it is clear that the President’s job does not include deciding that some country [i]needs[/i] to be invaded, then construe facts to support that conclusion, even if no facts exist to lead the voters, including those in Congress, to the same conclusion. I won’t look for a specific clause of any Amendment, he lied about the most important topic possible in his position of trust as President. Open and shut, as they say.

        • #3187015

          *double sigh* Why is everything binary in politics?

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Does it really matter?

          “Seeing past my hatred of Bush is not at issue. My hatred is for killing, which the US military is entrusted to do in the national interest only. You and I paid for those tanks, ships and planes. And guns, and bombs, and all the rest of it. Our collective property was used against our interests.”

          I agree. I think that we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq. While you put words in my mouth that I love the Iraq war, the opposite is true. I think we went to Iraq under false pretenses. While I’m glad Saddam is out of power, I also know that we won’t be leaving any time soon.

          The problem is what do we do in the mean time? We have to have solutions to the problems, just not the restatment of the same problems over and over again.

          “Acting on false pretense has given any existing enemies real injustice to blame on my country.”

          Agreed again.

          “Whether his replacement will be perfect, or even better than average, is (1) pure speculation (2) irrelevant.”

          The problem is that his replacement will be shoulded with the same garabage that we are currently dealing with. It doesn’t matter which blue blood takes office next, it is the same mess and no solutions.

          “Enough facts have been presented to begin impeachment proceedings, especially in light of the most recent precedent, which involved a falsehood regarding an intrinsically personal matter, no loss of life, and no national security matters.”

          While I am baffled that Bush was re-elected, I also can’t say that there are any impeachable offensive (in the purely legal sense).

          The problem here is the “truth” is mired in political rehtoric and obfuscation. The “truth” probably doesn’t even exist anymore. While I would like to see Bush out of office, I don’t think there is any constitional way to do so.

          “Without espousing the other major party, Bush’s actions are unforgiveable. Without falsely associating that statement with the Democratic party, can you defend Bush himself, his actions or his words, in their real context?”

          Why would I want to? I have no desire to defend Bush. I do have a desire to find solutions and bring our soldiers back home. I do have a desire to see Iraq rebuilt and become a strong member of the international community.

          “Do you have any point to make that does not depend on a smear against your opposition?”

          Where have I “smeared” the opposition?

          You also haven’t addressed my original points:
          A) How do we make Iraq a safe and secure country now that it is in the mess it is in?

          B) Whos is a LEADER for the US that will actually be able to bring forth positive growth both at home and abroad?

          C) When will everyone stop making this a partisan issue? I don’t like the Dems or Repubs, I just want the REAL issues to be discussed, not how we shouldn’t be in Iraq (too late), how Bush lied to get us there (too late), or how we don’t have an exit strategy (PRESENT ONE!)

        • #3187782

          Reply To: Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

          by antuck ·

          In reply to “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”

          What is funny about the comparing of lies is Clinton’s lie did not cost anybody thier life. Bush’s lies have cost thousands of lives.

          You’re right though in what is perceived about what Cliton was impeached for. It was for lying about having a sexual affair not the sexual affair itself. The media played it out as the sexual affair so people think that is why he was impeached for. Which is funny in it self because in the whole time Cliton was in office the only thing they could get was his lying about a sexual affair. Did this really have an effect on national security? Well ok maybe for that couple of min he couldn’t answer the phone.

          Bush has lied about the reasoning for going into Iraq. And yet he still is in office. I have heard people say that Bush should be in office to clean up his mess. But what are the plans to clean it up? Even the President and Vice President are at odds with how the war is going.

    • #3187147

      My last thought

      by itgirli ·

      In reply to Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

      Does anything we post on this website make a difference to the state of the world?
      No.
      Does anything we post on this website change what has happened?
      No.
      Do any of you think we can just go back and un-do all that has happened in the past 4 years?
      No.
      Past 20 years?
      No.
      Past 400 years?
      No.
      Past 2005 years?
      No.
      What points are you proving when you cannot answer the most simple of questions?
      None.
      What can you post on this website that is going to change the next 5 years?
      Nothing.
      Are we all here to share our opinions and thoughts with many different people from all over the world regardless of their personal views?
      Yes.
      I’m done. Have a happy holiday for those of you that celebrate the Independence and freedoms and liberties of America!
      Go ahead Oz, say something negative about America on it’s birthday.

      • #3187110

        weeeeeee

        by jck ·

        In reply to My last thought

        Gimme some Jimmy Buffett, Margaritas, and some sombreros!!!! It’s independence time!!!! And I’m not even Mexican and want a sombrero!!!!

        BTW, ITgirli…come back on July 4th for Oz’s response 🙂

        Happy Independence Day, America.

        Thank Ginsburg, Souter and Kennedy and all those guys next time they bulldoze your house you worked 40 years for…

        Life, Liberty, and the right for a hotel elevator to be built where your commode used to sit.

        There’s still one good thing about this place.

        I can make myself 100 gallons a year of beer for myself 🙂

        God Bless America.

    • #3187142

      Reply To: Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

      by the admiral ·

      In reply to Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

      Yawn. Couldn’t you get pissed off at something that affects you? Like your local government? The US government actions are so far removed that it is unlikely that it will affect you.

      I don’t think that something created through liberal or conservative hearsay is considered an impeachable offence.

      Clinton, on the other had, lied to a Grand Jury, AKA Purjury while he was in office. That is why he was impeached. But, to each is his own. I would rather fight on the local side telling them I refuse to pay an additional grand in property taxes rather than worry about something that means zip.

      • #3187130

        A lot more than a Grand

        by dmambo ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

        At about $300 BBBBBilion and rising, you’re spending more than a pawltry $1000 for this war as are your kids, wife, cousins…

        At least at the local level, the politicians support local businesses with their bribes and the garbage get picked up.

        • #3187111

          Reply To: Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

          by the admiral ·

          In reply to A lot more than a Grand

          It means an additional $100 in income taxes before I even see it versus an additonal $1000 in taxes I have to write the check for as well as the check that I pay for the garbage pickup which is $100 a month now.

        • #3187098

          You OAY for garbage pickup?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

          I know it’s all included in Canadian taxes but to actually write a check for garbage pickup is nuts!

          Do hey weight your garbage or count the bags to determine how much YOU’ve thrown away?

          the losest I’ve seento that here is in a suburb of Vancouver. You are allowed to throw a certain number of bags out each week (I THINK it’s 3) and after that you need to buy tags for additional bags (just a dollar or two each).

          That same city also has a dumping period each year where you can toss out your old matresses, dressers Tv’s etc. on the front lawn and they will pick it up for free. It’s also like a giant city wide FREE garage sale. You can drive around and get all sorts of stuff, lawnmowrers TV’s, Couches for the rec room etc.

          One year when I lived nearby, I wanted a couch for the basement and saw one that appeared brand new, I suppose it simpl didn’t fit wit ha new paint job or capets or something. It was wrapped in plastic and left for pickup, with a sign that said, please leave the plastic behind.

          Probably at least a $300 couch, like new, very comfy and perfect for the downstairs den.

          Bit of a segue isn’t it, and it didn’t actually bridge into a conclusion, sorry about that.

          But to PAY for garbage pickup by writing a check for $100 PER MONTH? NASTY! That’s more than I pay for heat, electricity and hot water each month!

        • #3187096

          You’ll have to excuse typos

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You OAY for garbage pickup?

          I can’t edit posts until TR fixes a glitch.

          They request adding tags when you try to edit a post, but there’s nowhere to ADD tags when you edit a post so it doesn’t work right now.

        • #3187091

          Reply To: Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

          by the admiral ·

          In reply to A lot more than a Grand

          It means an additional $100 in income taxes before I even see it versus an additonal $1000 in taxes I have to write the check for as well as the check that I pay for the garbage pickup which is $100 a month now.

          And don’t give me this kids, cousins, viet nam poo poo.

          50,000 people were sent to viet nam and did not come back, 1,750 lost in this one because of terrorists.

          2,900 People died in Pearl harbor
          3,200 People croaked in the World Trade Center
          58,000 soldiers died in viet nam
          1,750 soldiers died in Iraq

          Pardon my french, but what in the F&^* is your point?

          Generated BS letters and notes got Dan Rather in trouble, and instead of hunting down the facts and making an informed decision, these friggin liberals generate bull to support their retardation.

          Flame me, I don’t care. But make sure when you spew forth supposed facts, you have the REAL FRIGGIN FACTS TO BACK IT UP. AND STOP TELLING HALF TRUTHS AND HALF STORIES!

        • #3187080

          Ouch, Stopped yawning pretty quickly, didn’t we?

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

          Hey, sir, I was just responding to the financial side of your post. That was my point. Even if we could forget about all the souls lost, which I can’t, the financial impact of this little foray is affecting everyone. ($300 Billion/280 million people > $1000/people).

          How the heck did you leap from that, 6000 miles to Viet Nam?

        • #3187071

          Reply To: Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

          by the admiral ·

          In reply to Ouch, Stopped yawning pretty quickly, didn’t we?

          You did not add the Mexican Labor Force.

        • #3187061

          I can only offer…

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

          …a resounding “Huh?”

        • #3187060

          La cucaracha…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

          La cucaracha…

          AY! AY! AY!!!

          hahahahaha

          me siento a mi hermanos y hermanas de las ciudades y estados de la lingua hispanico.

          Arriba!!!

      • #3187101

        Hey Admiral

        by jck ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

        You’re talking to a government employee. So, I’m involved in a lot everyday in government, dare I say a *hell* of a lot more than you ever will be.

        I talk to my boss daily…his boss daily…and I see the administrator, commissioners, supervisor of elections, and other heads of the government monthly. And, they get to hear my opinions…on many things.

        BTW…that far-removed action in Iraq…is what destabilized gas prices. Check out the prices of fuel 3 3 years ago $.90 a gallon cheaper than now. That’s the highest 3 year increase total ever.

        So, you’re wrong. I’m affected. I moved to the Tampa area, gas was $1.28. It’s now $2.09 cheapest/$2.21 highest price. That was 3 years on July 22nd.

        Also, you wouldn’t want to move where I live. They just doubled the impact fees on land and made it per constructed dwelling. Hence instead of $5,000 on an acreage, you pay $10,000 on each homestead built.

        Gotta pay for all the water, sewer and roads somehow since we’re the 5th fastest growing county in the state.

        • #3187073

          Reply To: Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

          by the admiral ·

          In reply to Hey Admiral

          So tell me:

          You say:

          “BTW…that far-removed action in Iraq…is what destabilized gas prices.”

          How much Iraqi Oil is imported into the United States?
          How much South American Oil (even during the civil unrest) do we import?
          How much Pennsilvania Crude do we unearth?
          How much Texas Crude do we unearth?
          How much Saudi Oil do we import?

          You confuse greed, gauging and the lack of regulation for instability.

          The fact is the price to pull the crude out of the ground in TX and PA has not changed. The price of pulling the oil out of the ground in Saudi has not changed. The price of pulling oil out of South America has not changed. So where is the instability?

          Politics, Mobsters, and our no so friendly OPEC are the culprits. NOT the administration. The destabilized gas prices? No, what happened there was the same thing that happened in Florida in 2004 after the hurricanes blew threw. $320 sheet of plywood.

          Oh yeah, and in North Carolina it is $2.15 a gallon, with 46.5 cents per gallon taxes, and a wholesale tax rate that just went up an additonal penny a gallon.

          Your points are well taken, but not thought up. And alot of your tax money is going into Medicare and Medicaid, since you live in Florida.

        • #3187063

          I confused it?

          by jck ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

          Iraq, previous to the American invasion, was providing 7% of the world’s market oil via the UN oil for food program.

          Since then, yeah…companies have increased prices…out of greed and taking advantage…sure. But, they couldn’t have done it if there wasn’t an opportunity present.

          OPEC has cut supplies, but not enough to warrant the 80-something percent price increase. I think they cut 1M barrels a day? that’s about…1/3 of 1% of the US oil use per day? and prices went up about 80%?

          Give me a break…it’s not so much the Saudis or Iraqis…it’s your local rich oil man screwing you.

          As for $320 a sheet for plywood…that’s an exaggeration unless you were getting gouged…I saw it for $53 a sheet at Lowes up the highway when they’d get trucks in. If you paid that much, you need to report it to Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist in Tallahassee, FL. It’s a crime to do that here. I will get you his address or the website, if you like. I work for a government here and hate seeing people in situations being taken advantage of. I’ll help you in any way I can if you’ve been a victim in Florida. Let me know.

          BTW…just to let everyone know…not all the contractors down here are thieves… I got boards put on my windows for $40 a piece before the storm…3/4″ plywood…last year.

          There are some good people still left in this country…just not that many.

          They’re probably all going to Ireland to drink Guinness and work a fair day and relax 😀

      • #3187072

        Why do you believe that I don’t?

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

        This is an international forum, therefore municipal issues would most likely be of interest to a much smaller cross-section of its members.

        If you believe that I will never be affected by the US invasion of a sovereign nation based on claims known to have been untrue at the time they were made, by the parties responsible for making them, you are twice the fool that your comparison to Clinton’s lie implies.

        I expect my President to make statements about war and the initiation of it with complete allegiance to fact. That means we should expect him to be as truthful as if he were under oath. If that is not enshrined in law, it is only because protection of life is the most important purpose of law, which fact is common knowledge. Those who feign inability to reason that out do not deserve to have it explained for their benefit, nor do they deserve any protection of law.

    • #3187107

      Absolutely GREAT POST!!!!

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

      What an AWESOME post! Unfortunately it’s not being debated with the same fact-counter fact that many of teh old discussions used to, where’s Max, Chas and the rest of the guy swho put up a great political fight when you need them?

      I actually usedto reallu enjoy the in depth headwreackers we’d get into, they REALLY made you do your homewroks, this one’s better than some but still just a he said/she said argumnent with some humour tossed in. But VERY well posted by yourself, just yesterday I was thinking it would be good to see soem real hot topics hit teh threads again, it’s been dead around here lately. Now we just need another dozen different faces here and we’ve got a REAL topic going again!

      cheers! Keep up the great work!

      • #3187100

        Oz, you want HOT topics? Where were you for this?

        by dmambo ·

        In reply to Absolutely GREAT POST!!!!

      • #3187012

        “….debated with the same fact-counter fact. . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Absolutely GREAT POST!!!!

        ……that many of the old discussions used to, where’s Max, Chas and the rest of the guys who put up a great political fight when you need them?”

        See my message posted below in a different post.

        But thanks for the words. I have slacked off quite a bit lately, haven’t I? I suppose I’ve grown weary of either preaching to the choir or trying to reason with a fence post. In my opinion, no one’s presented various arguments complete with solid support of history, facts, and reasoning better than I have. But I’ve found it to be a colossal waste of my time. I don’t think I could change anyone’s mind any more than I could change the orbit of the moon. The only reason I’ve continued (or still continue) to contribute is for my own mental exercise. But I’ll never change anyone’s mind or opinion about anything.

        • #3187011

          But you can enlighten

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to “….debated with the same fact-counter fact. . . .

          So people argue out of ignorance (too much listening to Rush or Franken) and you tend to “fix” that… 😉

        • #3187007

          Thank you, jm

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to But you can enlighten

          I appreciate that.

        • #3187000

          Don’t give up, Max

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to “….debated with the same fact-counter fact. . . .

          Though I would deny it if questioned, I always read your posts with interest and find myself even agreeing with you on occasions. Few, admittedly, but if I can agree with you, then anyone can be convinced.

          One day I will get one of your jokes (without help or signposts) and all will be complete. 😉

        • #3187728

          Thank you, Neil

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Don’t give up, Max

          (And I won’t tell anyone that you might even agree with me once in a while. We have to keep up appearances, you know.)

          I’m sure we’d get along just fine, disagreements and all, especially over a yard or two of beer.

        • #3187866

          Max, Change Comes Slowly. Keep Chipping Away

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to “….debated with the same fact-counter fact. . . .

          I’ve often wondered why we bother with televised presidential debates, local school board debates, or here in VT, Town Meeting. The process to change peoples’ minds is a slow erosion, an evolution if you will. It does not happen all at once. Your well thought out positions may affect those wil pre-formed opinions only in miniscule amounts, but it does have an impact. For those with no positions on a particular subject, the effect is greater. Keep it up!

        • #3187732

          Thanks DMambo

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Max, Change Comes Slowly. Keep Chipping Away

          I appreciate the words.

          By the way, I lived in Shelburne, Vermont (overlooking one of the coves of Lake Champlain) for a year in the late 80s when I took a job with a small firm on the Church Street Mall in Burlington. Bernie Sanders was the socialist mayor at the time, but I loved my year there anyway.

          Woodstock, Vermont has to be on my top 10 list of favorite places.

          I actually consider my year in Vermont as one of my best.

        • #3187743
          Avatar photo

          Max while you may be unable

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to “….debated with the same fact-counter fact. . . .

          To change someones mind once they have set it on a course you at the very least have given an insight into the way that things are done in the US and help no end to allow people outside the US to understand why things happen like they do.

          I’m just worried now that some idiot will pull the troops out too early from Iraq before the place settles down and then it will degenerate into anarchy and that would be even worse than having Saddam there.

          Col ]:)

        • #3187729

          Thanks Colin

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Max while you may be unable

          I appreciate it. I have taken a few weeks off, however, without as much as logging into TR. A break is good once in a while.

        • #3187714
          Avatar photo

          Good to see you back Maxwell

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Thanks Colin

          I thought you where undergoing a 12 step program for your Computer Addiction Glad to see it hasn’t been successful. 😀

          Now if we can only keep up the pretense that more times than not we disagree with each other the illusion will be perfect.

          Anyhow have a great weekend Mate as I believe that you have a long weekend coming up so enjoy it and once in a while between drinks think of me doing last years Taxes. 🙁

          Col ]:)

      • #3186995

        Thank you Oz

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Absolutely GREAT POST!!!!

        As a newcomer, I’m just impressed with the presence of a Miscellaneous subject, on an IT site. I’m delighted that opinions are not only tolerated but encouraged here.

        If I see the same topics addressed elsewhere, it’s either network TV, or some other forum directed toward a particular political bias, and the same opinions are expressed better here. Also, more interesting opposing viewpoints are taken here, some of which are entirely new to me. Long live the Tech Republic!

    • #3187047

      Tempest in a Teapot

      by montgomery gator ·

      In reply to Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

      These memos are much ado about nothing, the letter signed by GWB’s liberal Democrat adversaries that take any attempt they can to attack him. (Not that I think that GWB has done everything right. His “No Child Left Behind” and Medicare Prescription Plan are big mistakes that make our bloated government even bigger, and he is weak on illegal immigration, and he has let Congress get away with increasing spending by not vetoing spending bills, instead of cutting spending to match the tax cuts.)

    • #3187016

      Absolutely a knee-jerk reaction

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

      I’m surprised at your knee-jerk reaction to something started by Congressman John Conyers. It’s something tantamount to a joke started by someone who could easily be called a joke. John Conyers? Are you kidding?

      It’s all over Tony Blair’s support of a “regime change” in Iraq, as he discussed in 2002.

      It’s not too unlike the USA’s very own “Iraq Liberation Act”, which also called for a “regime change” in Iraq, except ours was passed by our Congress and signed by the President in 1998.

      “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime,” according to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338).

      – Text from the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

      You and Congressman John Conyers on the same side? Man, who’d a thunk it?

      The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, by the way, not to mention various UN resolutions, gave the president, either Bush or Clinton, all the legal support necessary to go to war with Iraq. Another interesting note is that the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 passed the US Senate unanimously, and passed the House by a wide margin of 360-38. (John Conyers, by the way, was one of the 38 voting against it.)

      • #3172842

        John Conyers: malfunctioning timepiece?

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Absolutely a knee-jerk reaction

        If a stopped clock shows the correct time twice every 24 hours, how often is a leftist politician right?

        The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 did not result in military invasion, and was not based on claims that proved to be fabricated. The present military action in Iraq was based on fabrication, except where it was based on exaggeration.

        Even if John Conyers is an extremist on the opposite side of the spectrum from the extremist GWB, the text of the memo, if verified in impeachment hearings, would lead me to find GWB guilty of treason. My reaction is not reflexive. My reflex was to disbelieve such a wantonly immoral scheme, reminiscent of JFK conspiracy theories. But most of what I’ve found online leads me to conclude that the truth should be conclusively ascertained, and that the best way to do that is to get all interested parties to submit sworn testimony in an impeachment hearing.

    • #3187010

      By the way, Absolutely

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

      Unless you’re elected to the US House of Representatives, you don’t get a vote on any articles of impeachment.

      • #3186953

        it’s about time somebody mentioned that.

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to By the way, Absolutely

        🙂

        However, I do have the option to make it a matter of personal policy to vote against any candidate who continues to support GWB.

        Something that has changed since 1998 is that Al Qaida has now attacked a [i]civilian[/i] US target, becoming a more legitimate military consideration than when they had only sent a small boat full of explosives on a suicide attack on the USS Cole, which was in Arab waters at the time. So, when that resolution was passed, Iraq was a higher priority target relative to other perceived threats.

        GWB later used faked reports to lead voters and Congress to support invasion of Iraq, contrary to what would have been the rational conclusion, as we know now that we have more of the facts [i]that he had all along, but ordered to be withheld[/i].

        • #3187818

          What about the first bombing of the Trade Center?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to it’s about time somebody mentioned that.

          Remember that 911 was not the first attempt to take out the Trade Center. How does that fit in?

        • #3187741

          That would be Ramzi Yousef with Iraqi passport

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to What about the first bombing of the Trade Center?

          “ACCORDING TO THE presiding judge in last year’s trial, the bombing of New York’s World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 was meant to topple the city’s tallest tower onto its twin, amid a cloud of cyanide gas. Had the attack gone as planned, tens of thousands of Americans would have died. Instead, as we know, one tower did not fall on the other, and, rather than vaporizing, the cyanide gas burnt up in the heat of the explosion. “Only” six people died.

          Few Americans are aware of the true scale of the destructive ambition behind that bomb, this despite the fact that two years later, the key figure responsible for building it–a man who had entered the United Stares on an Iraqi passport under the name of Ramzi Yousef–was involved in another stupendous bombing conspiracy. In January 1995, Yousef and his associates plotted to blow up eleven U.S. commercial aircraft in one spectacular day of terrorist rage……”

          http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

          (But no, Iraq has never been involved with and/or connected with and/or supported terrorists. Just like Saddam Hussein never ordered the assassination of a US President and a US ambassador. Just like the sun doesn’t rise in the eastern sky.)

        • #3185341

          My take on the first bombing of the Trade Center

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to What about the first bombing of the Trade Center?

          Primarily, it was done incompetently. They screwed up, because they’re more evil than clever. The evil genius of Hollywood is a myth. If technical expertise were compatible with a sociopathic mindset, we’d be living in a very different, much less efficient society.

          I’d characterize 9-11 more as a lucky break for the bad guys than evidence of any change in strategy, potency, or scope. I’m skeptical that Al-Qaida has gotten bigger or more sophisticated. I expect they’ve always been as rabid as they are now, and the only difference is that since Sept. 2001, we’ve seen every one of their videos broadcast on US TV, but the nature of those recordings has not changed much, I would guess.

          They were able to hijack planes with utility knives because nobody expected a hijacking to be lethal. The traditional hijacking up to that point was just for ransom and rarely cost any passengers their lives. All of those attempts could have been stopped if all the adult passengers had decided to fight back, like they did on the plane that crashed when the passengers learned what was in store for them, and I’m sure every passenger on future hijackings would fight back, except it probably won’t happen again for that exact reason!

          For almost four years now, Al Qaida has done nothing more than the occasional exploding disco, mostly in tyrannical Muslim countries, India and the Philipines. Yes, they’re evil, but they’re not a military organization with global reach, as they’re sometimes portrayed. They’re a band of misfits who can be stopped with better bookkeeping, specifically stricter enforcement of immigration laws as they stood 10 September 2001.

          Disrupting the center of operations in Afghanistan was probably the right thing to do. Claiming – even once – that liberation of oppressed Muslims was any part of our motivation, is false and immoral. Liberation was a happy consequence, but not why we invaded the Taliban’s Afghanistan. I’m glad that women there can vote, and that men are allowed to shave without being scourged, but the purpose of the US military is to protect the US, not to liberate the world. Changes in policy of governments that have not declared war – as Afghanistan effectively had – should be handled by diplomats, not the military.

          The fact that Ramzi Yousef had an Iraq passport doesn’t mean anything to me, except that maybe we should not take passports from countries on certain State Department lists – at all. That does not tell me that there had to be a tie to top levels of Iraq’s government. Just as likely, they were pleased to give anybody papers so long as they weren’t an enemy of the Iraqi government.

          I think that the Al Qaida threat has been blown out of proportion every time it has been mentioned by our representatives in Washington, on both sides. Both parties resort too much to hyperbole to be believable, even if one day they should tell the truth. I blame the sheeple for taking so much of it at face value.

    • #3186945

      Secrets

      by av . ·

      In reply to Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

      I’m not surprised at the secret memos. In my opinion, regime change was always on the menu for GWB since the day he took office. He took advantage of the 9/11 war on terror to focus on Iraq and seized the opportunity.

      There were no WMD’s in Iraq and thats why we originally went to war. You don’t hear that argument anymore. Who could forget Colin Powell’s compelling presentation to the UN of all of the mobile biological weapon’s labs?

      How could America be so embarrassingly wrong? Bad intelligence? Maybe. It still doesn’t let GWB off the hook. He isn’t telling the truth now about why we are at war in Iraq and he never has.

      I think we need a regime change.

      • #3186937

        Gag…

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to Secrets

        Oh the rehtoric. The WMDs were backed up by the previous administration as well. Do you even know what the “secret” memos say?

        While I don’t agree with the war, the WMD justification did have YEARS of intellegence behind it.

        Why are we at war with Iraq? Politics, palm greasing, and oil.

        • #3187823

          I totally agree…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Gag…

          However, Iraq’s WMDs existed before Clinton or even G.H.W. Bush.

          Iraq and Iran were regularly tossing short-range, crudely-manufactured biological and chemical weapons in their war years ago when I was a kid.

          I think Clinton was just simply the first president to use the term “weapons of mass destruction” in a speech to the US people.

          As for why we’re at “war with Iraq” (we’re not actually at war with them and never were…it’s a military action to use force against their government):

          1) Someone has a lot to gain financially and politically.

          2) There was a beef there about Saddam still being in power…I think Dubya didn’t want to “fail” at getting Saddam out like his father did. (In actuality, his father did what he was authorized to do and left…Dubya has gone past the authorizations of HR 114)

          3) Ego…ego…ego. We need to learn when to stop the futility and put our energies into more fruitful things.

        • #3187791
          Avatar photo

          Quite true but in the past WMD

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Gag…

          Actually stood for “Weapons of Muslim Destruction” not as it was latter misused “Weapons of Mass Destruction!” 😀

          I know it is only a small point but the small difference makes a large difference to what the Public was gullible enough to sallow without choking on, on the way down. :^O

          Col ]:)

        • #3187683

          I shouldn’t laugh

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Quite true but in the past WMD

          But the truth is sometimes funny. 😉

        • #3187615

          Yes, there were years of intelligence about WMDs

          by av . ·

          In reply to Gag…

          But not compelling enough to go to war. Iraq was weakened by sanctions and the Gulf War. Maybe Saddam had WMDs at one time, maybe he moved them so they couldn’t be found. He was still not an imminent threat to the US or connected to 9/11.

          It didn’t matter though, because GWB had always planned regime change for Iraq to finish what his father started. The Downing Street memo brought to light that GWB and Britain planned to go to war with Iraq secretly in July 2002. The Iraq WMD threat and Saddam’s connection to 9/11 were the supposed reasons. There was just not good enough evidence to support going to war.

          GWB did not have the approval of Congress or the American people at the time. We were all lied to and mislead. It is all about politics, palm greasing and oil, as you say. I hope this is Bush’s Watergate.

    • #3187858

      Why did the flock we call Congress…

      by dmambo ·

      In reply to Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

      …follow the shepard so willingly 2 1/2 years ago? Both the House and the Senate overwhelmingly passed the resolution to authorize the President to use force. It’s sad that so few of them had the political courage to stand up and state any opposition at the time. Now, it’s amusing to see some of these sheep straying. I guess nobody had the foresight to see the quagmire that awaited.

      I’ll leave it to jck to insert the sheep jokes. 🙂

      • #3187854

        no sheep jokes…

        by jck ·

        In reply to Why did the flock we call Congress…

        if I did that, it would be baa-a-a-ad… 😉

        actually, the Democrats were going to oppose it. but I heard when the president said he’d send them in with or without and that the Republicans had the votes to win, the Demos decided that the Reps would put a spin on it later that they were “unpatriotic not to vote to fund our soldiers over there”.

        Democrats did it as a tactical move, plus to show that the entirety of Congress stands behind the U.S. military by funding them…not to support what Bush’s policies.

        • #3187850

          Here’s a “Yeah, But”

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to no sheep jokes…

          I’m not talking about the funding, I’m talking about the resolution to use force. Don’t you think that had there been a 52%-48% vote, GWB would have had a much harder time rushing in? And that since the UN inspectors were actively operating in Iraq at the time, what sparse international support there was might have dried up? Speculation is meaningless, but I’m doing it anyway.

          Of course with all the embedded reporting going on, it looked like a video game on TV for the first few weeks. That really whipped up public support. I did not support the invasion, but I watched CNN’s coverage with interest. Felt like a voyeur

        • #3187837

          votes on HR 114

          by jck ·

          In reply to Here’s a “Yeah, But”

          House vote was 296 Yeas – 133 Nays
          Senate vote was 77 Yeas – 23 Nays

          It wasn’t totally unanimous, but it was 2/3 majority in both houses. Democrats, for the most part, just wanted to avoid being labelled as unpatriotic at the next election.

          BTW, this is the direct text from Sec. 3, subsection (a) of H.R. 114 that authorizes what the president can do.

          *********************************************
          SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

          (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–

          (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

          (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

          ************************************************

          1) Iraq now poses no threat and hasn’t for months. How can we justify still holding a presence there?

          The bill doesn’t authorize Bush to eliminate the terrorist threat there…but that of Iraq.

          2) How is rebuilding Iraq defending our national security or enforcing UNSeCo resolutions?

          Something isn’t right with this. There’s an alterior motive to rebuilding Iraq. Someone’s got a big stake in that country or something and is gonna make big money from its reconstruction, besides Dick Cheney of course.

          *ADDENDUM*

          Oh yeah…I keep forgetting…some people have to have a weblink in order to believe me.

          http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107M1Glow::

        • #3187830

          You get an “A” for your homework

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to votes on HR 114

          Friday – Guinness starting early???

        • #3187827

          my plans

          by jck ·

          In reply to You get an “A” for your homework

          my boss is 2200 miles away…I have 6 days of paid leave time built up, and by noon I’ll have 42 hours this week.

          I’ll be leaving at noon…due to stomach pains.

          (We’re having our fourth of July lunch…started at 7am…hahaha…2 3×6 tables plus a small kitchen counter filled with food.)

          Guinness will start as soon as I mow my yard. 🙂

        • #3187822

          I hope your neighbor…

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to my plans

          …tells you that you look sexy when you’re mowing 😉

        • #3187806

          my sexiness

          by jck ·

          In reply to my plans

          despite what (as it was put, as close as I can remember, by jdclyde originally) some handcuff techys on TR might think, I was already complimented by one neighbor and she offered to introduce me to her granddaughter…however, she is now in a nursing home and is losing her memory.

          My other neighbor told me she’d have introduced me to her daughters if they weren’t both already married.

          Am I sexy like a model? No.
          Am I better looking than average? People tell me I am…I don’t believe it though.
          Am I a good guy? Most people tell me I am, contrary to the belief of others.

          Nonetheless…my lawn will get mowed…my Guinness will be consumed (thanks for reminding me…gotta pick more up…only 3 left at the house!).

          1 hour or so til I head home…ahhhh…

    • #3172788

      A desired conclusion in search of justification

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

      Your argument sounds like a desired conclusion in search of justification. This (WMD issue) is light years removed from impeachable offenses; and to even mention treason is an “absolutely” preposterous suggestion. You presume too much. You presume that you know the whole story. You don’t. Or perhaps you presume that you should know the whole story. You shouldn’t.

      I’ve debated that WMD issue with the people around here more times than I can possibly remember. And the last thing I want to do (or will do) is get involved in yet another one. But suffice it to say that I couldn’t disagree with you more. I will say a few things, however; some food for thought, so to speak.

      First of all, define “stockpiles of WMDs”. I get the feeling that most people conjure up images of piles and piles of weapons bunkers and factories, as much WMDs in Iraq as corn in Iowa. That’s a false notion. The chemical WMDs in question could fit inside a tractor trailer; and the biological weapons in question could fit inside a briefcase. How easy would it have been, in the days, weeks, or months leading up to the war, to smuggle out of the country and/or hide within the country, such small items? Considering the borders and political climate that exist, and considering that Iraq is a nation about the size of California, it’s easy to see that it would be quite easy.

      And then there are the world political implications of the “discovery” of such weapons. If you don’t think that some things are kept from the public in order to avoid an absolute meltdown in world politics and/or to avoid world-wide political embarrassment and/or implications, you’re absolutely naive. Could (and would) this (or any) administration keep some things secret to pacify international relations with France and Russia, for example — or the United Nations, itself? Absolutely they would, absolutely.

      And the last thing I might mention is the ties to terrorism angle. If anyone doesn’t think that absolutely every middle-eastern country, not just Afghanistan and Iraq, had and/or still has some ties to, or culpability in, supporting world-wide terrorism, they’re naive. And yes, this certainly includes Saudi Arabia. Did you know that much of the funding for such terrorism flowed through, in some way, Saudi Arabia? You probably did, or you wouldn’t be surprised. Did you know that in the months following 9-11, the Saudis were unwilling to do anything to help in cutting-off such funding? Most people don’t. Did you know that the Saudis suddenly started to “cooperate” when there were a couple of armored divisions parked at their northern border? Interesting, don’t you think? It’s amazing what a little arm-twisting might do.

      And did you know that, “OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda–perhaps even for Mohamed Atta–according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum….”

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

      Like it or not, the middle-east is a vital player in the health and vitality of the world economy. So simply isolating them and/or cutting off all ties with them is unrealistic. For better or for worse, the nations of the middle-east are, as you might describe, a devil we are forced to dance with. And considering that just about every nation in the middle east is, or has been, either supporting terrorism or turning a blind eye to terrorism for the past forty years, it’s a devil that the world has allowed to flourish. It will be a long process to turn the tides, and it’s probably one of the most politically delicate dances in which we’ve been involved for a long time.

      You should read retired Lt. General Michael DeLong’s book, Inside CentCom: The Unvarnished Truth About the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And then you should read George Friedman’s book, “America’s Secret War”. (George Friedman’s private global intelligence firm, Stratfor, has been described as a Shadow CIA.)

      There’s more to this story than you know. And there’s more to this story than you should know. And there’s more to this story than you will ever know. And the mere fact that the “reasonable” opponents of this administration (both domestic and international opponents) aren’t beating the impeachment or war crimes war-drum (and these are people in a better position to know), should be reason enough to dismiss in entirety the extremist and “loony” opponents such as John Conyers. Besides, he’s so far out there that he doesn’t even have a watch, broken or otherwise.

      • #3172756

        An implied conclusion in search of investigation

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to A desired conclusion in search of justification

        What has been very easy for me to find are accounts of the contents of that memo which portray Bush and Blair as conspiring to fake the “information” that would be offered to the US and British public. If Iraq’s ties to Al-Qaida and their military ability turn out to be completely untrue, there is a major problem somewhere. If that problem is a deliberate lie by our President, I stand by my evaluation of such deception as treasonous.

        However, I had not seen this http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp article, which tends to exonerate our leader.

        I have to agree that existence of any biological weapon is cause for alarm, but on the other hand, Iraq is not the only country that has WMDs and “bad intentions”. In support of GWB’s decision, Iraq was probably the most formidable nation to have invaded another sovereign nation without provocation in the last 20 years, and more.

        I am generally aware of Saudi Arabia’s role in supporting geopolitical instability, with their apparent strategy (according to my casual analysis) being to hold a wildcard in trade negotiations and the like. Aside from your use of religious imagery, I agree with your characterization of the Middle East as generally hostile to civilization: as I see the entire region as backward, superstitious and brutal, with a few (frequently exaggerated) exceptions. Pragmatic, Machiavellian opportunism have been on display since US and British oil wells were [i]nationalized[/i] following WWII, with no sign of giving way, except through force or at least the threat of force, as you mentioned with Saudi Arabia.

        Finally, I have no problem with keeping strategic military information secret, nor with keeping some other secrets in order to maintain working relationships with strategic allies. I would object to lies being the basis of military action though, and I do not agree with dismissing in entirety the input of opponents such as John Conyers, who can just as easilty portray GWB as a loony [i]to their supporters[/i] as GWB and his supporters do the opposite. If either side is rational, that side ought to prove it by [i]showing[/i] the other’s claims to be false, not by [i]only[/i] criticizing the person making the claims most loudly.

        Whether both sides have equal claim to correct analysis or moral validity, or recognize the others’ position as valid, both represent US voters who have the right to representation under the Constitution, and to dismiss an opposing view out of hand dismisses the views of all those voters as well. I know this isn’t how it works, I have watched C-Span, but they [i]should[/i] be arguing the facts, not the personalities behind each view…unless politics is only a popularity contest?

        • #3172748

          Aside from my use of religious imagery?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to An implied conclusion in search of investigation

          What? What “religious imagery”? None was implied.

          If you read any “religious imagery” into my message, you’ve fabricated it yourself.

          Which makes me wonder how many people fabricate something that was neither implied or intended from anything they may read.

        • #3172715

          I consider the devil a religious figure

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Aside from my use of religious imagery?

          It doesn’t exist outside of religious myth.

          [i]For better or for worse, the nations of the middle-east are, as you might describe, a devil we are forced to dance with. And considering that just about every nation in the middle east is, or has been, either supporting terrorism or turning a blind eye to terrorism for the past forty years, it’s a devil that the world has allowed to flourish.[/i]

        • #3172712

          Oh, I see

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I consider the devil a religious figure

          But no, it wasn’t intended to be a Christain is good and anything else is evil kind of thing.

          I was usng “the devil” in a different context.

          Kinda’ like the old saying, it’s better to dance with the devil that you know than the devil that you don’t know. (Or something like that.)

        • #3172709

          I didn’t mean to accuse you of religious bigotry

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Oh, I see

          I myself feel perfectly comfortable calling all theocratic governments evil, regardless of what “wholly book of words” is used as the basis of the claim to rule by divine right.

          If humans are flawed, as all theologians insist in different contexts, then the evil inherent in ascribing absolute power to a human, in the name of any deity, is not an accident I can forgive as an honest oversight. But now I’m getting off-topic. Back to you.

        • #3186590

          I know you’re not

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I didn’t mean to accuse you of religious bigotry

          I know you’re not accusing me of religious bigotry.

          I just found it interesting that you saw a religious reference when none was really intended. Sure, “the devil” certainly has a base of origin in something religious, or spiritual, or anti-spiritual, or whatever; but I believe it has found its way into the secular. At least I think it has.

          A small point, to be sure. But the devil’s in the detail, or so they say.

          I haven’t given much thought to the notion that “all theocratic governments (are) evil”. Does that mean Israel is “evil”? Is the Holy See (the vatican) evil?

        • #3172741

          Bush and Blair are really space alien babies

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to An implied conclusion in search of investigation

          If there was anything of substance to that Bush-Blair thing, the major news outlets would be on it like stink on you-know-what. And so would the United Nations. It’s some of the most nonsensical stuff I’ve ever seen. It’s right up there with space alien babies. That’s why I’m so surprised that someone who seemed so rational to me would buy into it. It’s pure nonsense. In my opinion, you’ve been duped on this one.

          And as for the people who want an investigation “just in case”, in order to get all the facts, they’re only playing politics in an effort to discredit either Bush or Blair — or both. I remember one loony-tune Senator (maybe a congressman) who once said that it didn’t matter if it was true or not (I forgot the exact “false charge” to which he was referring), but the seriousness of the charges warranted an investigation just in case they were. Of course, that would only give legitimacy to the charges, and another “false truth” would be in the papers day after day, which would, in effect, discredit someone with falsehoods. And that’s all these extremists want. That’s all John Conyers wants.

          You know, there’s so much going on behind the scenes, that we’ll never know all of it. But it will all make for good spy movies twenty or thirty years from now. So I suppose a lot of it does indeed come down to “trust”. Of course, those on the left will never give the appearance that they “trust” President Bush. That’s just the way the game is played. But who do I “trust”? President Bush, or the middle-eastern $!@#%^& who’ve been terrorizing the world for the past forty years? In my book, the answer’s a no-brainer. And as for John Conyers, he’s doing exactly what Osama bin Laden would want him to do. And that should be enough to send chills down your spine. And speaking of treason……….

        • #3172708

          All this time, I thought…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Bush and Blair are really space alien babies

          …that they were robots controlled by Dick Cheney! He seems to me more credibly the evil mastermind from Vega, the other two seem like clowns, but I’ll take your word that they’re aliens, and wait for you to enlighten me on Cheney’s species and planet of origin.

          😉

          I have to admit that I’m also moved to suspect Bush on account of his family’s alleged business with the Saudi royal family’s businesses, and I’m interested in what you know about that. You do seem to have done more extensive research than I.

        • #3172739

          The basis of military action

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to An implied conclusion in search of investigation

          The basis of military action was not “lies”. A lie is an intentional deception. In my opinion, that did not happen. Misleading, or false, or exaggerated intelligence reports? Maybe, but only to some degree. And the jury is still out on that one, at least in my opinion. But lies? No way. And perpetrated by Bush, himself? That’s almost laughable.

          In General DeLong’s book, he goes into great detail about what he thinks about the WMDs. And he was certainly in a position to know. Perhaps you might find it interesting to do an Internet search of him and/or his book, and I’d guess that you could find the text of an interview or something. It might be worth your while. (Or just buy the book.)

        • #3172737

          A lie

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to The basis of military action

          A group of CIA agents were sent to Iraq to investigate whether Saddam had the means to aquire nuclear arms (weapons grade plutonium) or had attempted to do so before.

          After much underground work, they returned and reported that they did not find that he had, nor had he the means to even try to do so.

          That evening, Bush was on a press conference where he stated that Saddam had the means to or had already aquired WGP (can’t remember which but it’s irrelevant). The CIA member was interviewed and was shocked that his report had been changed. They then interviewed the person who writes his speeches. He was told to NOT write that it had been an unconformed allegation, he was also quite shocked but said he rarely actually spoke to Bush but was told to write what HE thought Bush would say, or how he would say it.

          So if Bush or his adminiatrtion had changed this FACTUAL information and reported otherwise, then that would constitute as a blatant lie.

          It all depends WHO you believe, or even moreso, who you WANT to believe. Not actually who is telling the truth. You CHOOSE to believe Bush, you have placed your faith in the fact that the Republican administartion has done no wrong in this conflict and you buy what they say is true. Not everyone does though, and there is just as much compelling evidence to the contrary.

      • #3172738

        You raised an interesting issue there Max.

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to A desired conclusion in search of justification

        Firstly, happy fourth of July to all of our US peers!

        Perhaps without realizing it, your comments actually prove that the invasion goes against what we as citizens are alowed to act upon in our own society, a case of NOT leading by example.

        “…in the days, weeks, or months leading up to the war, to smuggle out of the country and/or hide within the country, such small items?”

        [i](Yes I removed a snippet from your post, but it is in the correct context for my comments and doesn’t change the view shared by yourself in anyway.)[/i]

        IF, Saddam had removed the weapons from Iraq prior to the invasion, according to all North American laws, this removes any justification for action upon Iraq.

        If you hold a gun to someone and they knock it out of your hands and then proceed to punch you and break your nose. YOU have legal grounds ot sue the person for breaking your nose, because the threat was removed before they caused bodily harm to you. I have seen quite a few security guards dragged off to court befor ebeing fired and fined over just this. Someone waves a baseball bat at a security guard, the guard knocks the bat out of his hand and then hits the guy, supposedly in self defense, but it is only self defense WHILE the person has the baseball bat in his hands and is capable of hitting you with it.

        In the case of Iraq, once the threat is removed you no longer have justification to take military action upon them, they are no longer a threat, the threat is somewhere else at that point.

        Now they didn’t know then nor do they know now, if weapons were smuggled out of Iraq, it’s a convenient assumption that supports the actions, but it really DOESN’T support the actions taken at all. It’s a poor excuse if an excuse at all.

        There was QUESTION of a threat, though inspectors attempts to confirm allegations were thwarted many times, the recent inspections preceding the invasion WERE being completed in a timely and effective fashion. Inspectors had been allowed to continue their search without problems and were finding useless/unsused war heads and some small arms etc.

        MY personal feelings, that also tie quite well with the title post here, as well as what people from the White House and CIA are claiming, is; with the knowledge that inspections MAY come up dry and no invasion would be justified under GWB’s term, they had to move FAST, convince the uncertain and shaken up citizens that they were threatened and go ahead with a premptive strike against Iraq.

        There WAS another way to deal with this and many allies said so, much to GWB’s disain. So he turned America against the allies that opposed his ideas and again, instilled a fear of threats from Iraq into the people to further justify his cause.

        IF inspections finished and it was shown nothing existed, he could hardly justify invading Iraq at that point and his interest in becoming a hero president would come to an end.

        IF inspections finished and they concluded that the arms MUST have been moved, then he had to find a needle in a haystack and would HAVE to due to the fear of WMD that he instilled into the people.
        He would then have ot divert his attention from Iraq and focus on finding these WMD, which I don’t believe were really the main objective now or then.

        It was just convenience and timing that made it all come together, a well planned invasion based on years of planning by both the US and UK governments. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, it was just so easy to impose a threat upon the people, even when no threat was found nor confirmed, and justify an invasion. Despite intelligence that suggested otherwise.

        When it was confirmed by his CIA operatives that Saddam had NOT sought weapons grade plutonium and that SAME day he confirmed that Saddam HAD sought it on national TV, isn’t THAT a little bit of a fib, if not a blatant and outright lie to the people?

        In closing, for what it’s worth I never read any religious insinuations in your post at all.

        To be quite honest but not to take shots at you, you speak with sytong conviction regarding the facts, yet you also agree that we really don’t know what is going on nor should we, which I can agree with in the case of security of course. How can you so quickly dismiss such compelling information from SO many sources that all points to the same scenario, and merely stick to the information that YOU feel is accurate?

        Is anything not possible at this point, and judging by all of the actions and people who WERE in the know that have since come forward, I see this as closing your eyes to what may be reality to favour what you would prefer is reality.

        As for the comments that made me post, unless you are under a direct and imminent threat of attack, you cannot justify offensive action against an attack whether in government or in our own society. Just because someone HAD a weapon and WANTED to hurt you, this does not give you legal grounds to attack the person.

        Our governments say that IF the person HAS a gun and DOES point it at you, you can do whatever is within your power to remove the threat. Yet when it comes to themselves, laws they themselves enact, seem to be a moot issue to be brushed aside when it comes to their own devices, no matter what they REALLY are.

        • #3172726

          What you said

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You raised an interesting issue there Max.

          You said, “IF, Saddam had removed the weapons from Iraq prior to the invasion, according to all North American laws, this removes any justification for action upon Iraq.”

          This assumes that it was the weapons, themselves, and nothing else that was the intent. The real intent, however, was to eliminate the means and/or the regime that allowed it. Whether or not the weapons are ever found is immaterial. What is material is that Saddam will never support the production of WMDs or terrorism again.

        • #3172718

          That’s not justification for an invasion though

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to What you said

          And nary a sole in the world would have supported such an action. WMD were the catalyst to get the public on th egiovernment’s path. It was used to coerce poeple into support.

          Now I know you have said over and over again that there wer emay reasons for Invading Iraq, and I agree and I also feel they go WAAAAAAAY beyond removing Saddam, that is also another catalyst for those savvy enough not to buy into the WMD BS.

          As I said, it was all convenince and damn good timing in my mind.

          WMD was not brought up by me, I merely read the posts and offered my perspective, they do NOT justify invding ESPECIALLY if they cannot be located and pointed to. If they don’t exist, which is what other allies wanted to have confirmed BEFORE the invasion, why inspectors had been back and forth for years etc, then you cannot justify an invasion.

          The allies agreed Saddam had malintent, they also cited that that is NOT justification for an invasion, IF WMD were in fact being harboured in Iraq then the use of military force to remove them was just. With no WMD, a little heresay and no threat, you cannot justify invading a country because they don’t have your best interests in mind.

          It is simply bad form, was not just and is looking worse and worse everyday, thanks to the guy who decided to say stick with the best and F**k the rest.

          This is probbaly the dirtiest and most unjust iunivasion of another country since Hitler decided to take over Western Europe.

          Diplomacy my ass.

        • #3172714

          The difference between you and me

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to That’s not justification for an invasion though

          I believe President Bush; you don’t.

          I trust President Bush; you don’t.

          I give President Bush the benefit of the doubt; you don’t.

          I believe that President Bush has acted, and is still acting on the best interest of the United States; you don’t.

          I will believe President Bush over any and all middle-east leaders, the Russians, the French, the Germans, and the entire American Democrat Party; you don’t.

          I’m an American who will admit that I prefer to put American interests over and above those of any other nation; you’re not.

          You believe that the whole world could live together as one big happy family; I don’t.

          We’ll never agree or find common ground in this regard. So what else is new?

        • #3172707

          You seem to be missing the focus behind my comments

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to The difference between you and me

          Well if we are gonna point fingers;

          You believe president Bush, I would LIKE to think I could but I don’t. I have doubted him since I first saw his speeches where his marrerisms are a detailed example of what ANY criminal investigation uses to peg a liar.

          I would like to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, but the odds are against him, again he has specific mannerisms in his public speeches that point him out to be a liar. The world’s police forces and psychologists have studied and detailed such mannerisms and he fails(ed) every one of them. If it’s good enough to determine who should and shouldn’t be in front of a US court, it’s good enough for him. No matter what his position of trust and faith, he is a man who has failed miserably at being a credible speaker in the eyes of professionals.

          I TOO believe that Bush has acted and is still acting on the best interest of the United States, or what HE feels is in their best interests. This doesn’t justify his actions. There are many ways I can act for my own benefit or those around me that is completely unjust to most others.

          I will ALSO believe President Bush over all the middle east leaders, perhaps even Russa or France, this doesn’t excuse him for an poorly justified invasion of another country, even one of those that I don’t really trust. Nobody was being protected, nobody faced a threat imminent enough to make such an invasion acceptable or neccesary. As for democrats, you are implying you do not trust half of Americans, this is the sad part of political affiliation in your country as I have iterated too many times to count. You place people’s political affiliation way ahead of people themselves, this to me is reason to seek help. When politics outweighs personal action, and when politics clouds your ablity to see an alternative viewpoint, it leaves you blinded to all but a single concept.

          You should know by the amount of history you’ve studied, that people make mistakes and use their power to their personal advantage, that happens to all kinds of people regardless of political affiliation.

          I am a Canadian who thinks we should consider all interests of the allied nations before making a rash decision to ditch forged alliances for an unconfirmed allegation. Unfortunately too many Americans think America comes first, instead of, as well. You see America as the end all, not simply a piece of a massive puzzle.

          I DON’T believe the world could live as one happy family, that is just some pigeonhole you place all who don’t see your views into.

          We never find common round on this regard. Well I was hoping you’d understand by now that I am not trying to convert you. NOR am I a democratic supporter, I just don’t support YOUR current administration, I couldn’t care less which party GWB represents, it’s the actions not the party that matter to me.

          My point is that you constantly and very quickly dismiss ANY opinion but your own by supporting your own claims with what that YOU believe to be true.

          You are not even CONSIDERING alternatives to what you believe, you don’t even give other concepts a single moment of your time before you defend what YOU wish to believe. This affords you a very one sided and extremely uneducated and biased approach to all political discussion.

          The part that gets to me, is that you insinuate anyone who DOESN’T see and believe what YOU believe is stupid, uneducated, disingenious, and all those other colorful phrases you like to discredit others beliefs with.

          “LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF THE COIN BEFORE PASSING JUDGEMENT.”

          YOU came into this whole issue admitting completely biased favour toward Republicans and GWB. Nobody else CAN be right, there’s no possiblility of a Republican president being wrong or making incorrect decisions or working to further his own cause.

          This is simply a ridiculous view of ANY party in ANY country. Politicians do NOT have a record of credibility, justice, truth, honesty or acting only on behalf of the people, never have and never will, they MUST be questioned when questions are raised that is what we call democracy and freedom.

          So really the MAIN difference between you and I is that I open myself to all sides of the story, I know what Bush thinks and what the Republicans think, it’s been in the daily news for what, 5+ years now?

          I allow myself to look into and consider what the other side says, I won’t discount an opinion due to political affiliation, especially when it is often well supported. I bash Republicans for the reasons you have cited that make you a Republican, ‘no other opinion counts’.

          My objective here was simply to prove once and for all that YOU are the one who is completely biased and is admittedly a blind follower as you openly refuse to even consider any alternative.

          Yet you constantly accuse others of being disengenious, poorly educated or simply stupid for claiming that they are interested in alternative viewpoints, thus opening their eyes.

          Again, it has nothing to do with MY political preference, it has nothing to do with your clouded vision that anyone Against bush is a tree hugging democrat who feels the world should just be one big happy place.

          As you have demonstrated, it has EVERYTHING to do with one American who feels HIS choice should never be questioned, that HIS country should have ultimate control, HIS country should request the acceptance of nobody and HIS opinion is the only correct one.

          It is 100% self-centered and closed minded, blinded by faith that YOUR personal decision is the only valid one to be found.

          Your comments, to justiify invading Iraq, completely ignored aspects of the law that we as a society have been expected to follow for many years. When it is done in the name of YOUR faith it’s okay though? When does the crusade begin?

          [i]I wouldn’t take it as too much of a personal attack, there’s no grudge involved, I am merely using you as one example of many. And THAT’S the viewpoint that has the world seeing you as arrogant, uneducated, political sheep.[/i]

          no personal offense intended, you are just one member of a collective. A perfect rube for some whacked-out commune like Waco was.

          All I am saying is open your eyes and question your faith once in a while, it’s actually quite healthy.

        • #3172557

          Gosh Oz!

          by beads ·

          In reply to You seem to be missing the focus behind my comments

          Thats fairly well what I have been saying about my fellow Americans for years. We are political sheep and we are becomming more and more blind by the day.

          Heres the reality of the American political meltdown: So called liberals try to convince people with facts. Using facts doesn’t work with Americans. Conservatives use feelings. How does that make you feel? How do you feel about the subject. Just ask Carl Rowe, et. al. They will tell you quite blantantly, thats how they “won” the election.

          – beads

        • #3186827

          It was one of my first comments here

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You seem to be missing the focus behind my comments

          That and the fact that US news is so censored and controlled by the Republican party ythat it doesn’t even come close to actually being a news report when the same stories air in Canada with much mroe live video, full interviews etc.

          To this I was told, I had no idea what I was talking about, no idea what US news was about (though most of my Tv channels are US networks) and that Canadians being socialist country are completely misguided by our warped censored news.

          It IS funny though to flip form a US network to a Canadian one and see the difference in teh news reports. Ours shows pretty much both sides, has interveiws with people in the middle east as well as Canada, US and UK. The US is ONLY US speakers, ONLY US focused news and never shows anything but the negative views of others.

          For example, teh EXACT same news reel in Canada runs 8 minutes, in the US that SAME peiece of video footage will be 3 minutes. Yet we only get part of the story I hear?

          Just try bringing up politics in Canada, you’ll clear the room. Someone just peer mailed me on this subject actually and I was showing comparissons on the differences. It’s funny, in the US, you rpolitical affiliation is mroe imortant that your sex. People meet each other and pose political preference like two dogs doing the bum sniffing thing before they can even talk together.

          It’s laughable form the outside looking in, but it’s horribleto think that some of you guys are forced to live that way against your wishes.

          One could say it’s quite BAAAAAAAAAAD ! 😉

        • #3172678
          Avatar photo

          Max while I do agree with you about a lot of things

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to The difference between you and me

          Happening behind the scenes really we will never know for sure and I hope I’m not around in 30 to 40 years when the current “Secret Documents” become public.

          But I suppose that the proof of the pudding will be in where the Incumbent President of the US is willing to travel once he leaves office. Marie Thatcher was unwilling to travel to many parts of the world because she feared arrest and trial I think that Tony Blair, John Howard and GWB will place similar travel restrictions upon themselves after they leave office or they will be advised in the Strongest Terms Possible not to go to some places where they could be arrested and placed before the International Courts for their actions while in Office.

          I guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens.

          Col ]:)

        • #3172713

          “IF Saddam had removed the weapons…”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You raised an interesting issue there Max.

          First, I dislike analogies because of their tendency to distract from analysis of the actual topic, and to introduce assumptions that provide false impressions of simplicity and clarity.

          That said, if a man attacks me with a club, or points a gun at me, then I knock the weapon away, the very next question to consider is: who is now closer to that weapon? If the weapon falls to the ground closer to the attacker, I’m going to continue to consider him dangerous and beat him unconscious if I can, because he demonstrated unwillingness to behave reasonably and he initiated the use of force. The way I see it, when force is initiated, the victim has the right to render his attacker harmless, not just non-lethal. I know that is not how law is consistently applied, but it is just.

          In general, I cite pre-Revolution English common law, and claim the right to defend myself against any clear and present danger. I also assign my government the responsibility to act likewise on my behalf against foreign and domestic enemies. That’s why governments exist, dating back to the days of the Huns and the Barbars and even before that. Humans first formed tribes to defend against wild, predatory animals. We remain organized in much larger tribes to defend against wild, predatory humans.

          If I disarm [i]and incapacitate[/i] an attacker, I would accept Oz’s scenario, and would be willing to consider it in the case that I disarm an attacker and retrieve his weapon, or stand between it and him. But no such analogy applies to the Iraq situation. It’s more like concealing evidence or impeding an investigation into a crime.

          If a mugger takes my wallet at gunpoint, then sets his gun down when a policeman walks by, he’s still a mugger and punishable by law. If he throws the gun in the ocean, I have more trouble proving that he used a gun to commit a crime, but he still owes me my wallet. Well, now you can see why I dislike analogies.

          I still tend to agree with you about the lying, though, Oz. The administration has been inconsistent in their characterization of the threat that was, or is, in Iraq, leading me to [i]suspect strongly[/i] that they were dishonest in the first place.

        • #3172706

          You’re right, would you like 5 years or 10?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to “IF Saddam had removed the weapons…”

          There are clear answers to what you consider anologies here.

          If a mugger takes your wallet and throws away the gun, he is still a mugger and a criminal. If you proceded to beat him to get your wallet back, you become th eassailant and teh criminal.

          If the penalties for stealing the wallet are less than the assault charges, you will be getting the short end of the stick, while the person who stole your wallet will be treated and possibly get a financial settlement from you for damages incurred.

          When you knock a weapon out of someone hand, even if it’s between the two of you or closer to teh attacker, you DO have a right to restrain the person or fight with him to get the weapon safely away from him, but you DO NOT have a right to assault him. Secure the weapon YES, hit the offender NO, unless it is needed to secure the weapon. The threat is the weapon, not the offender.

          Iraq was SUSPECTED to have WMD, GWB removed inspectors who were there to confirm the allegations and they were successfully doing so, despite years of setbacks. This is removing the ability to provide evidence of the claims, not one OUNCE better than Saddam refusing them access to begin with, which incidentally is another reason for th einvasion. It’s like stepping into crime scene and removing inspectors because you think the accused may be freed. Any evidence would be deemed inadmissible, in Bush lingo this means the accused must be guilty.

          You fight for years to get your inspections completed and when they are finally working you remove the inspectors?

          First it’s inspections will not be allowed by Saddam, unless they can continue we will use force to continue them, then it’s remove the inspectors because he has WMD and will harm the USA, then it’s we are not there to get WMD, we are there to Liberate the poor Iraqi people?

          What happened to using force to finish inspections? It wasn’t needed because they WERE inspecting as planned and had found little of any importance. That use of force is what Kerry had agreed to, NOT invading Iraq, he didn’t flip flop on that issue as so many seem to believe.

          Bush has proven that his every move needs to be scrutinized, his every comment needs o be confirmed, his every move may NOT be in the best interests of the people of the USA.

          I suppose that’s why he was elected for a second term, just to prove himself? This isn’t Monopoly or Chess, it’s lives, YOUR lives.

          Saddam would have had a hard time killing as many Americans as Bush has, he must be one happy camper/inmate and I would suspect that after he is granted his US citizenship, he will also vote Republican and will quickly dismiss anything but his views, in truly democratic style.

        • #3172695

          When you said. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You’re right, would you like 5 years or 10?

          …..”Saddam would have had a hard time killing as many Americans as Bush”, you lose me entirely. Statements like that are absurd. They show a person’s naivete. They show a person’s ignorance. They show a person’s bias. They show a person’s lack of realistic understanding. That is a most ridiculous thing to say. It’s no wonder you and I can’t even agree to disagree most of the time. We are on totally different intellectual levels of understanding. It’s no wonder I simply dismiss everything you say. And that’s why you simply cannot be take seriously.

          Try to step it up a few levels, Oz. You’re in a bar room; I’m in a board room. You read comics; I read serous opinion. You crack jokes about serious matters; I take serious matters seriously. You base opinions on feelings and whims; I base opinions on well thought-out principle. You lack political understanding; I study political matters. I could go on and on.

          It’s no wonder I generally quit replying to your messages. I might as well read Dr. Seuss, Sam I am. So go have some green eggs and ham with your beer, and leave the serious matters to serious thinking individuals.

        • #3172693

          That’s the best you could come up with?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to When you said. . . . . .

          Instead of actually offering some form of an opinion on the subject you just make some pathetic attempt at determining my intellectual level and even more f’d-up, take some bizarre leap by insinuating you are of a higher being than someone else? ANYONE else!

          The truth seeps out from you doesn’t it?
          First you prove you have 100% blind bias towards your own choices and aren’t open to considering any others.

          Then you prove that you feel you are intellectually superior to people you don’t know.

          You have carefully avoided both of these accusations here for years and yet you spew all of this in a mere two posts?

          Well lets see what you claim to actually know here shall we?

          The comment you quoted is completely taken out of context, as anyone with such high intellect as yourself should know. It was simply a lighthearted closing comment and obviously an exaggeration considering the following lines, which you completely omitted, that place the preceding comments in context.

          This in iteslf makes the rest of your comments unqualified and irrelevant but lets keep going anyway.

          I’m in a bar room? Sorry, people in bars here don’t talk about politics, so your comment is once again entirely incorrect. I don’t live in the USa, there is life outside of politics and nobody gives a crap who you vote for.

          Totally different intellectual levels of understanding?
          You arrogant Yankee you! First of all, your comment is not relevant because the entire point you have made is incorrect, secondly you haven’t the vaguest idea of what my level of intellect really is, this is a forum where I enjoy my time with lighthearted banter. You can’t possibly expect me to believe that if I make a compelling argument you will see my point, so what’s the point in trying?

          You have no idea what I do or don’t know, nor do you know what ANYONE’S intellectual level here is. You know I like to study Latin and Psychology, does this mean I have a higher intellect than other people who DON’T read this material?No.
          It would be extremely arrogant to even think so. What do you do when YOUR car breaks down Einstein?
          Who drew the plans for YOUR house?
          Maybe you should study Psyche for a while, read some old Freud, you’ll love it, all based on the ego and male dominance!

          Step it up a few levels? I won’t even address that your highness/heinous.
          You’re in a board room? How about you get a grip on reality for a day or two.

          I read comics? Are they funny? I haven’t read a comic since I was a kid, I didn’t collect them either. You don’t read serious opinion, you have already said you only follow one side of the story, one that favours your own feelings, but you may as well read Popeye comics I suppose.

          I tell joke about serious matters, yes I do, you can’t tell me that ANYTHING in life isn’t laughable, don’t try and tell me what’s important and serious until you’ve tried death, nothing here on Earth is SO important that it can’t be considered with humour, including the Iraq war. (just remember to read that carefuly before you quote it later).

          I base opinions and feelings on WHIMS? Well yes I don’t let other people dictate how I ‘feel’, if I want to be in a good mood I will be, despite others. I guess you could say feelings are a whim, that’s how I feel and that’s how I’ll be. What does that have to do with the price of eggs?

          Opinions based on whims though, no. I base opinions on what I hear, read and seee from many sources all over the world, without instantly dismissing them as BS. How I feel about that may be positive or negative depending on how I feel that day, so I guess my PERSONAL feelings are a whim, but aren’t everyone’s? Something you might want to try one day, it will show you what an open minded opinion is about and perhaps that not ALL contrary opinions are complete BS if they don’t support your predetermined conclusion.

          You study political matters and I lack political understanding? Who the hell are you trying to kid?

          [i]”I will believe President Bush over any and all middle-east leaders, the Russians, the French, the Germans, and the entire American Democrat Party; you don’t.”[/i]

          That sure sounds like someone not willing to actually study political matters but will spend all day seeking those which again support his own predetermined conclusion, THAT’S what you consider political understanding? Understanding what? One side’s point of view? Get real!

          As for leaving serious matters to serious thinking individuals, you can simply get stuffed. You arrogant SOB, I’ve seen people claim you are arrogant and self centered but I’ve always just seen a determined side that poses facts from his side of the debate. I went to bat for you thinking you would add some new views or at least some fact from your side of the fence. I was proven wrong, you are just running around on your typical ‘disingenious’ BS again. My mistake, you can disappear back into hiding anytime.

          What a teet! (.)(.)

        • #3172692

          People don’t kill people, GUNS kill people!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You’re right, would you like 5 years or 10?

          Oz:

          “When you knock a weapon out of someone hand, even if it’s between the two of you or closer to teh attacker, you DO have a right to restrain the person or fight with him to get the weapon safely away from him, but you DO NOT have a right to assault him. Secure the weapon YES, hit the offender NO, unless it is needed to secure the weapon. The threat is the weapon, not the offender.”

          I believe that when people use force, they are evil and deserve to be treated accordingly. Whether they use handguns, jets or virulent microorganisms as their weapon, it is the human choice to initiate the use of force (usually to acquire unearned property or prestige) that is evil, not the existence or possession of a weapon that may be used in self-defense.

        • #3172688

          Too true

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to People don’t kill people, GUNS kill people!

          I would be th efirst to admit that if you pull a gun on me, you better hit me with the first shot.

          I couldn’t care less if the person turned and ran or dropped the gun, I’d still inflict as much pain as possible upon him.

          BUT, by doing so, I understand that I would like ly be the one to be charged with an offence if it was taken to court.
          Unfortunately, morals and law have very few crossings with each other.

          BUT, legally, once the threat (the weapin not the person) is removed, I cannot t=legally take offensive action unless the person continues to assult me and I ned to defend myself form bodily harm.

          My comparisson to Iraq was that IF (and that’s IF) we are to actially believe that WMD were the main reason for the invasion (as it was initially sold to the public), then once that THREAT is removed, you cannot justify further agressive or offensive action. It is no longer defense at that point, it is an offensive movement by invasion of another country.

          So whie STILL many Americans speak of defending their nation as a way to justify the war, it is not really defensive at all.

          IF they had waited as recommended for the inspections to finish, what is estimated to be anything from 2 weeks to 6 weeks depending on the source, then perhaps it would NOT have been found that the use of force was neccessary and the invasion would have never happened. Bush I am sure would not stand fo rsuch a chance at losing so close to achieving a personal goal for his term in office.

          Th ethoing that still irks me is how he constantly insists that it had to be done, this was a needed resolution yet while nobody has ever contested that, he never addresses the fact that it wasn’t immediately neccessary, it could have been a planned invasion conducted by a larger gloal force and that would have definitely reduced teh US burden of money and lives. The hit on the US economy would have been eased, the number of US lives lost reduced etc.

          He just keeps plodding on with more of the same, and right now that seems to be too little too late. It COULD have been different, Bush didn’t want to seek that avenue though, he had is mind set and went in like a bull in a China shop, only to be quite surprised that they didn’t all break down like the starved and ill equipped Taliban.

          Allied forces are now starting to offer a little more support, just to see an end to the madness he began.

          He knew very well that IF things started to go bad, that his allies would turn no matter how he’d treated them or ignored their wiches. SO the rest of the world is being dragged into a war against their wishes and better judgement and foresight.

          Way to go America, a great way to make friends.

          NO I don’t like Bush. AT first I figured hey, he’s a new president, big deal, great, Canadians place politics behind life.

          But when I saw him making his assertions against Saddam, I noticed all kinds of mistakes in his mannereisms, which many like telltale eye movements and hand motions seem to have been addressed since the early days. I have studied criminal psychology in some depth and understand interrogation techniques and he FAILED the visual lie detector test miserably. This form a PRESIDENT? A public speaker for the entire nation?

          Then one thing after the next just smelled bad and has turned out bad ever since.

          He lost my trust form the get go, and as I have said before, it matters not that he is a Rpublicanor Democrat to me, we don’t label people in our society or grade their credibility based on political preference. We leave the bum-sniffing introductions/interrogations to dogs.

        • #3186752

          At what point?

          by beads ·

          In reply to People don’t kill people, GUNS kill people!

          At what point does the “attacker” become ineffective? That is to say when has the attacker been effectively neutralized? Is it when the gun/bat/club/… is removed or should you wait to detail if he/she/they/them are going to clench thier fists and counter attack? Leaving me to counter-counter attack?

          Fortunately, I am not a security guard but if attacked first I will neutralize the attacker until such a time I am stopped or feel that the first attacker is no longer a threat to me or anyone accompanying me. The hypothesis doesn’t make the best analogy as I never saw Iraq as being a front line threat to the United States, its Allies or nieghboring countries. So the point is mute for all real purposes. If found to be on the ‘wrong’ side of this its going to be because I had poor representation in court. If it made it that far in the first place. Also, many states have laws precluding this argument. For example, you may have the right to use deadly force if you see a violent felony in progress. You have the right to stop that act in order to save anothers life. There isn’t a jury that isn’t going to say you didn’t act in the defense of another or in self-defense in such a case.

          Now, we started an unprovoked ‘war’ and have to finish it as gracefully as we can. Hence we cannot claim that the US was under iminent attack by any stretch of the imagination.

          Can anyone clarify when Congress declared a state of War against Iraq. Otherwise we are really talking about a nice ‘police action’. I really don’t remember Congress passing a War Act but I could be wrong. Buried in some tech book somewhere.

          Yes, Absolutely. I do agree that: “I believe that when people use force, they are evil and deserve to be treated accordingly…” Its also called being a bully. Evil begets evil and the cycle goes on and on. Now, if your attuned to such things you would have noticed that the US is now in serious disfavor with the rest of the world. Not that we were super popular before its only getting worse.

          Don’t think I’ll wanting to take a trip abroad any time soon, lets put it that way.

          – beads

        • #3186646

          Some misperceptions

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to At what point?

          “There isn’t a jury that isn’t going to say you didn’t act in the defense of another or in self-defense in such a case.”
          Yes there is and they do and have done. If YOU step in a stop someone from being attacked, that is fine and dandy. If you stick around and beat the attacker up, you will be found libel for assault. once the threat is removed you can no longer claim self defense, it is offense at that point.

          As far as threat from Iraq, Iraq MAY have become a threat to others but as it was, Iraq posed no immediate threat to anyone’s life or security. IF anyone had reason to fear attack, it was the UK. Saddam had a far greater logistical ability to inflit harm upon Europe than look to North America for an attack on US citizens.

          So why weren’t the British citizens scared into thinking they were going to be attacked? Blair stated from teh onset the cause was to liberate Iraqi’s, a fair and nobel task really, and people did support it to some extent. a document representing 3000 Iraqi exiles was presented to Blair and he acted upon their requests. It was GWB who started the whole WMD scare, not Blair.

          Sorry to be so rude, but this is NOT in the interests of most Americans, America is first and foremost and others will be taken care of if and when it effects Americans. So to pose that American spend several hundred billion dollars to free Iraqi’s in the Middle East, while costing American lives and a heavy blow to the economy (and the American checkbook) there’s was no hope in hell Americans would have supported a war.

          Instill fear into them, instill a need to save the country, a threat of security etc. and they will follow in droves. Unfortunately, this is how most of the world views the US mindset.

          “America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” — George W. Bush, 10/07/02

          What kind of message does that send to people of America other than we will be attacked by nuclear arms if we don’t act NOW! ?

          So it was justified as a retaliation or DEFENSE against a threat, that never existed, therefore in a court of law, GWB would/should be doing time by now.

          As for favour, as I’ve said before, I had a Canadian band booked into a club outside of London
          when they arrived someone thought they were American because of thei accents and all hell broke loose, they were ALMOST cancelled but they quickly showed their passports and some were actually UK citizens that hadn’t be speaking, so the show went on and they were treated like royalty. Not to boast but Canadians really are treated well in England. You’re money is no good, they won’t let you buy a round or dinner or anything, the just love Canada as Canada was at their side early on and helped save England from Hitlers attempts to claim air superiority in WWII, as well as being the first to attack France (though miserably, DIEPPE) and the first to land and secure sites on D-Day.

          Bush and Americans who claim they are so superior than th erest of the world have pretty much trashed that.

          You’d still be welcomed I am sure and woul dinfd people realy nice, just don’t bring up WWI or US politics and all is well. 🙂

          You’d love Europe I am sure, if you haven’t been there already. The people and the places are fabulous, the music is non stop and the sights are countless.

      • #3172593

        one point to make

        by jck ·

        In reply to A desired conclusion in search of justification

        If you’re going to read a book and expect nothing to be exaggerated by the publisher, editor, etc., then you are misled.

        Usually when I want to know something (which I know isn’t confidential or classified), I’ll talk to someone I know who works at CentCom (whether civilian or military) to find out the real deal. I’ll trust a normal person over a journalist or writer.

        I don’t trust books…especially the ones that come out about debated topics. Content usually ends up getting “improved” by either the author, the editor, or the publisher so that they can sell more copies.

        I mean, look at the Jessica Lynch story. She went through hell, but she wasn’t the “hero” she was made out to be at first.

        Nonetheless…don’t count on those books for totally accurate information. And, I wouldn’t use them as a reference tome for your kid’s book report either. They might be interesting, but they’re not guaranteed to be right.

        • #3186794

          accurate observation

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to one point to make

          but not why the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press. I think the expectation of journalistic accuracy is implicit, and completely reasonable.

          If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, then most of the largest news organizations (owned by entertainment corporations, btw) should have their free press status revoked for failure to pay their dues!

        • #3186787

          all of them would have to

          by jck ·

          In reply to accurate observation

          because none of them have been totally vigilant in reporting accurate information, whether in military conflict, government elections, foreign policies, etc.

          About the best news source I’ve found on American politics is CSPAN. That guy who runs and owns it has always questioned anyone on their policies when they come on his shows because he believes in confirming all agendas…not just ones he sides with.

          Otherwise, I don’t watch too much news for its truth. I only use it to keep abreast of general happenings so I can get information on things that interest me and congeal my thoughts from several places.

          Also, freedom of speech was mainly put into place to avoid government control of it. In the day, you could be killed by the King if you spoke out against him openly.

          Of course, you can be killed today too in that fashion. Just go talk trash at a corner ristorante about a Sicilian mob boss in NYC. hehehehe 🙂

        • #3186750

          BBC

          by beads ·

          In reply to all of them would have to

          Try the BBC as well. Its always good to get a different or fresh perspective from a non-US based news organization.

          You should be able to find the BBC on Public Radio, Internet and TV. Though some of the times may hasten your reach for the TiVo. LOL

          – beads

        • #3186694

          I usually watch

          by jck ·

          In reply to BBC

          BBC News on PBS or BBC America.

          And yes, it’s refreshing to get a perspective outside of the American media’s spin.

        • #3186778

          The horse’s mouth

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to one point to make

          I both read General DeLong’s book and heard several in-depth interviews he personally gave. The things he wrote in his book were spoken by him as well. I both read the words and heard the words.

          You said that you would trust, “someone (you) know who works at CentCom”.

          Lt. General was the vice commander at CentCom – the second highest ranking person there.

          I’ll believe General DeLong. You can believe the janitor, for all I care. You may not want to trust the general’s word, but if it doesn’t support your desired conclusion, I suppose you’ll find some way to justify it.

        • #3186754

          and you’re doing the same thing

          by jck ·

          In reply to The horse’s mouth

          That General has about as much idea of what really goes on at the ground level as the President.

          Generals don’t have their hands in the day-to-day of operations at SAC, CentCom, or any other command in the United States military.

          BTW, civilians are not only janitors. So, your over-exaggeration just proves how crass you can be in trying to prove your points.

          Some of my friends have included:
          Civilian trainer to USAF computer security
          The (now former) head of the USAF CERT
          The (now former) head civilian advisor of USAF Computer Operations
          A civilian advisor to CentCom in procurement

          So yeah, I believe what my friends say when it comes to what goes on at the ground level rather than a general who gets “briefs”.

          I’m not saying he didn’t know anything…he just isn’t going to know all the particulars and that leads to conjecture on his part about what happened day-to-day.

          Not even I could remember that much information if it were put in front of me…and God knows, he didn’t walk out of the military with his file cabinet.

        • #3186748

          So limited

          by beads ·

          In reply to and you’re doing the same thing

          Having worked in the Intel field for the US Government I can tell you theres little the General or anyone else could really say without getting into one heck of alot trouble seems a bit naive unto itself.

          Oh yeah! Here it is. Everything I know from working in Central Command. Yep! The governments is going to let me tell all. All that classified above Top Secret information (SCI, by the way) its all here in my book. Hogwash!

          The general would be foolish to publish anything more than conjecture and most likely conjecture that has been dismissed.

          – beads

        • #3186696

          I stated in an earlier post

          by jck ·

          In reply to So limited

          I wouldn’t ask or expect my friends to divulge confidential or classified info.

          I have held several clearances. I know the routine and not to dig for more info. I take what they give me, whether it’s facts or hints.

          I even knew before CNN did about guided missle cruisers firing on Iraq in the first gulf fiasco. Was just told by a friend in the navy “Keep an eye on CNN. It’ll be interesting soon.”

          Of course, glad I knew about something going to happen. I got to hear Bernard Shaw yell “Oh sh*t!!” over his phone live on the air.

          That was funny…no censor would have caught that when that missle flew down that street in Baghdad past the Al Rasheed hotel.

          Hotel room in Baghdad: US$80
          Satcom uplink: US$275,000
          Bernard Shaw almost messing his pants and swearing on live TV as a tomahawk flies by his hotel window: Priceless.

      • #3186708

        WMD

        by montgomery gator ·

        In reply to A desired conclusion in search of justification

        It is very possible that Saddam Hussein sent some of the WMDs to Syria or Iran for “safe keeping”. Also, some caches of WMDs have been found in Iraq, particularly, chemical weapon stores. The intelligence used by Bush and Blair may not have necessarily been wrong, Saddam Hussein took measures to hide or give away his WMDs before the liberation of Iraq by the Coalition.

        • #3186641

          Therefore

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to WMD

          Iraq was not an immediate threat, some other country was harbouring the weapons.

        • #3186584

          Ideas

          by beads ·

          In reply to Therefore

          Don’t give the Bush administration any more ideas. They’ll be using that as the next excuse to invade Jordan or Syria.

          In the first Gulf War for Oil I personally saw tons, metric or imperial, tons of leaking and intact creates of ammunition lying about. Some of which was detected as having chemical weapons. Most of those boxes were labled in English and Farsi: Jordanian Ministery of Defense.

          You can tell the chemical weapons when they have that nice green band on them. Just like the American chemical weapons do! Yellow is High Explosive; White: White Phospherous, etc.

          The only reason the Iraqi’s didn’t use chemical weapons that they had orders to use? The wind shifted in our direction. South to North right before we went over the berm. Also to note our very sophisticated ‘Fox’ chemical detection vehicle the German’s lent us was the first vehicle to hit a land mine 50 meters into Iraq. This after telling us, the lead unit for 1st Armor Division, that chemical weapons were indeed present!

          – beads

        • #3186576

          That was then though

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Ideas

          I don’t think anyone’s ever doubted that Saddam had WMD, they KNEW he had them becaus ethey had provided him with them.

          But what happened to them is the mystery to be solved ‘before’ starting a war.

        • #3180117

          Iran/Syria/Egypt

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to That was then though

          Iraq probably just shipped them out to some folks for safe keeping in another country. Sure, there are lots of holes in the desert, but when it comes down to it…I would bet somebody has an itch to use Saddam’s old WMDs.

        • #3180108
          Avatar photo

          Not to even think about

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Iran/Syria/Egypt

          All of those countries listed where his bitter enemy either.

          Actually he took them to Kuwait and hid them there with that Governments approval. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3183066

          Most of it was destroyed

          by beads ·

          In reply to That was then though

          Most everything we could find was immediately mapped and transported for destruction. One cute little story though was when we found a bunker site so big and so massive, not to mention booby-trapped no one was allowed in much past the first 100 feet/30 meters.

          In come the Engineers on a nice warm afternoon and packed the place full of explosives or atleast as well as they could. The bunker was HUGE! Set it all off – at once. Well. Here we were having a nice boring day when from 5 or 6 miles away 8-10km down come all these nasty high explosive rounds in our encampment. Never ran so fast in my life.

          We did run accross a few open chem rounds but nothing in sufficient quantity to really worry anyone. Those were disposed of after the war by the UN.

          Did we catch everything? No, of course not. Did Saddam have the capability to manufacture more. Probably not but atleast his scientist lead him to believe so. Its that or be shot out back. Easy enough to lie to him and survive another day.

          Still if there actually were any weapons even if in another country the storage and handling of such weapons is still very technically difficult to manage. Anything left of these missing weapons is probably more dangerous to anyone close by than to the US or its Allies.

          – beads

    • #3179865

      Impeach the bastard because of border problems.

      by areloader ·

      In reply to Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

      I am not voting for the idiot. He can’t stop car bombings or people raming their vehicles into our convoys. Arabs and bushes stealing us bling over fuel prices. He is a mexican lover and they dont pay their way.

      Lordy, how bad it would have been if limber spine kerry had won>
      But why do i have my downloads converted to some foreign dialog or character. All unreadable. & I am unable to post a ? on techrepublic. Any ideas on the above problems?? Thank you.

      • #3182907

        more good reasons

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Impeach the bastard because of border problems.

        But we won’t have another chance to not vote for him. The majority of Americans did that twice, and he was still appointed ruler of the land.

        I’d have to wait for a female confirmation, but I suspect that “mexican lover” is too close to “Latin lover” to be really derogatory, as GWB deserves. I do agree that illegal immigrants don’t generally pay taxes, and a lot of illegal immigrants in this country are Mexican. But considering the threat of terrorism that is supposedly important enough to compromise our Constitutional rights, and considering how long the “immigrant problem” has been impossible to even slow I think it makes more sense to focus our efforts on identifying immigrants and welcoming them. If that were our southern border policy, anybody who is sneaking over can be assumed to be a terrorist or drug trafficker, or at least to have something to hide besides just wanting to work. As it is, aspiring gardeners are treated just the same as aspiring bombers, and all ethical issues aside, that makes for larger crowds in which the violent criminals can hide.

        As for paying their way, illegal Mexican workers do not generally compete for jobs that legal US citizens are willing to do for the wages offered. I like having fresh produce to eat at reasonable prices, and I’d rather have a Mexican harvesting it than a convicted US-born felon. If anybody who is not terribly poor is picking it, the wages will drive the prices of fresh fruits and vegetables far beyond the price of oil.

    • #3101419

      Huh?

      by bobbyajr ·

      In reply to Why I’m voting for GWB to be impeached

      So, you are a member of congress and have the authority to vote for impeachment?

      Listen, if you want to Bush bash, there’s plenty of room for that on Yahoo’s message boards. That place is crawling with liberals who hate Bush. This is a tech forum. Not an arena for political debate.

      • #3101155

        “This is a tech forum. Not an arena for political debate.”

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to Huh?

        Where have you been for the past four years since you joined this website?

        There is a section in discussions called “Miscellaneous.” Here we talk about ANYTHING that someone wants to talk about. Politics and various social issues are discussed regularly.

        If you are not interested in discussing politics, then stay away from these discussions.

        Actually what has occurred at this website during the past two years is that almost all members who were formerly staunch Republicans have wakened up to what a shameful disgrace of a president this man has turned out to be.

        • #3101115

          or

          by rob mekel ·

          In reply to “This is a tech forum. Not an arena for political debate.”

          the “lefty’s” are coming in. 😀 😀
          (or should that be “marchin’in”, but those were the Saints, and that they sure ain’t :D)

          Rob

        • #3102661

          Are you being funny, Julian?

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to “This is a tech forum. Not an arena for political debate.”

          There are plenty of us Republicans still here, and more joining, and some moderates posting who do not go to the extreme of either view (like our friend rob.mekel). 🙂

          And GWB is definitely not perfect, he has allowed Congress to run away with spending, but he is still much better than Kerry would have been.

        • #3102631

          A funny bumper sticker I saw regarding Bush.

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to Are you being funny, Julian?

          I was in Boston at a red light and the car in front of me had a bumper sticker with a picture of GWB on it and the caption read,” Will somebody please give this guy a blow job so we can impeach him.” What I haven’t been able to figure out, was that a Bush bash or a shot at Clinton and the Democrats but I thought it was so funny, I couldn’t move when the light changed because I was laughing so hard.

          [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3103373

          A bash by the uneducated

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to A funny bumper sticker I saw regarding Bush.

          because the don’t seem to remember that while Clinton was empeached, he was never removed from office.

          Nor would Bush be removed.

          It is all just payback, and shows that most people in the world have no idea how our system works (especially the US citizens). X-(

        • #3103375

          Don’t forget Tom

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Are you being funny, Julian?

          Much better than Gore would have been too.

          Can you imagine having that madman in the whitehouse? He is clearly insane.

        • #3103294

          Yes, but…..

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to Don’t forget Tom

          both Gore and Kerry would obviously made much better presidents if you look at their comments about world events. They evaluate everything that Bush has done, evaluate what happened as a result, and then proclaim that they would have handled the situation differently if they had been in charge. As Monday morning quarterbacks, they are almost perfect in their decisions. Who could ask for anything better than that?

        • #3101753

          Have you SEEN Gore?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Yes, but…..

          He is just short of foaming at the mouth!

          He has killed his political career (thankfully)

        • #3101573

          Sure,

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to Have you SEEN Gore?

          but wouldn’t you be foaming at the mouth if you just found out from Hillary that you were working on a plantation but weren’t in charge? That would make him a ________ (fill in the blank but please be politically correct when doing so).

        • #3101746

          Puppybreath,

          by old guy ·

          In reply to Yes, but…..

          this is an example of why it is so important to read some things more than once. You almost had me on this one…:^O

        • #3102966

          You are right on the money

          by av . ·

          In reply to “This is a tech forum. Not an arena for political debate.”

          First, miscellaneous is miscellaneous in my book. We can discuss anything we want here, and I think thats great; but more than that, there has been a public vetting of the values of left and right, politically speaking.

          I think that Bush is out of control. Some people think he is a patriot. Over the years there has been lots of very spirited discussions about “W”. Its an interesting read.

          I think Republicans need a new role model. Is Bush a disgrace? Yes, he is in my opinion. I don’t see his vision.

        • #3103370

          One point that is good, but libs see as bad

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to You are right on the money

          The fact that Bush does what he feels is right, not what the daily polls tell him is popular.

          He is there to do a job, not be popular.

          And before you start with the “will of the people”, remember we would still have segregation if we went by the “will of the people”.

          doing what is right, isn’t always popular.

          Dems intentionally try to distort this as being pig headed and a BAD thing to not waver everytime a new poll says something.

          convictions. They should try it some time.

      • #3103377

        “this is a tech forum”

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Huh?

        And in such tech forums, we learn how to look at the DATES of the postings, and not get worked up on a conversation that everyone else forgot about six months ago.

        Your second mistake was assuming liberals hate Bush. They hate Bush just because he is a Republican, and all this hate was here from the moment he started running for the office because the mindless masses of liberals don’t follow politics and are controlled only by getting them emotionally involved through hate.

        Democrats don’t stand FOR anything anymore. They stand AGAINST Republicans. That is their entire platform.

        Hopefully they didn’t learn their lesson on not being able to win an election simply be stating that they are not Bush.

        We will see a new person that is hated just as much when the election comes around again. It is the most powerful tool of the “party of tolerence”.

Viewing 14 reply threads