Hip Hip Horaay!

But what happens when the same people you are trying to protect and give security to don't want you there?
jan said:
The trouble w/Dean was ... well ... he is a liberal through and through and he wasn't afraid to show it.This is good news to conservatives like me.The majority of americans wont vote for an out-an-out peddle-to-the-metal liberal.The way that most liberals get elected is to lie or obviscate about who they really are(Kerry,Edwards,Clinton).And they will call themselves progressives or "new" democrats, but they wont call themselves liberals.This is by design.They have to.Dean was not afraid to be who he really is.The democrat leadership knows this too,thats why they had to "take him out".Funny and interesting to watch really.

I take offense with the way conservatives use the term "liberal" as something negative...

we promote liberalism in other countries but in the us it relegates people who are liberal to 2nd class citizens..

Dean's issue was not that he was liberal... kerry and edwards both are as well... it was his platform...

his platform was built around hate.. hate for bush and the like and THAT is what scared people away...

btw if you want to look @ people in a party tearing someone down... look @ mc cain v/s bush in 2000... bush stole most of mc cain's ideas and also looked like the bigger doofus in public appearances and yet he won... who tore whom down ? consider also his promises before coming to office and his immediate about turn when he came to office... its part of the territory but calling clinton a liar for his record as president (not his personal life) is quite something...

republicans are just as guilty as democracts when it comes to the politcal arena... regardless of how much of a holier than thou conservatives exude...

btw.. keep an eye out for june/july when the senate will have to authorise the white house to borrow more money since we will by then have arrived @ our debt ceiling of approx $7.3 trillion...

good times...
LeeJend said:
The rules go like this:

When an airplane crashes into a skyscraper in New York and you live in Chicago the price of security is too high.

But if the Mall you and your family shops in every week gets bombed no price is too high to pay for security. Or if someone goes into the basement of your childrens school and opens the gas valves and sets a timer, or if someone drives a truck with a thousand pounds of chlordane into your cities reservoir, or...

Should I go on or do you get the message?

what is your point leejend :confused:

I fail to get where you are going with this...
Well this was the reason for the League of Nations after WW1 which didn't work and after the second world war the UN was created to help in these types of matters though it seems the UN has failed there. The problem is the world was actually I think safer when the USSR was around as you knew the emeny and they knew you and both knew they could pretty much wipe out each other and most of the world. But the world has changed now for all you know your next door neighbor could be a terrorist. I'm waiting for the next Oklahoma city type event as the reason behind that was the failed checks on balances system. As for Bush claimed Saddam had WMD and as such was a threat to us and was housung terrorist. Well the first point so far as turned out to be false as for the second false as well. While I do agree we needed to get rid of Saddam I think North Korea is a bigger problem that Bush as fubared good. Clinton promised the North Koreans help or something and then Bush ingored it. The main reason I feel for the war in Iraq was to shift the light from the lack of finding Osama Bin Laden though we were able to find Saddam in a fairly short peroid of time and yet we can't find Osama
Kermit_The_Frog said:
Well someone needs to police the world people like Saddam kill hundred of thousands of people and we sit by idle on our computers with our big houses and all the comforts possible and cry and complain about anything ... so what there were no MWOD or is it possible that during all the time it took to comvince the bleeding hearts maybe alot of that stuff was destroyed or shipped to another location? Sure lets all sit back and watch thousands of innocent people get slaugtered and killed all over the world everyday or have the balls to stand up and say ok enough is enough and do something to try and free nations and give them a chance to hold proper elections and live in a world where they wont be thrown in prison for wearing shorts or listening to music of playing football ..... get real people the world needs the strong nations with the means to step up and face the music and help ... all the bleeding hearts will always cry foul after the fact its always been that way

understand this... most of the people who died under saddam were during a time when the US was allied to Iraq... we never took any action...

most of the wmd's used were during saddam's alliance with the US... we never took any action...

bleeding hearts you say? how bout actually doing something about the terrorists in the world who even today abound and continue to strike @ targets? how bout actually fighting the WAR ON TERRORISM instead of tieing up pretty much the entire army in a peace-keeping effort for a war we did not even need to fight... how bout taking a stance against the actions of a so-called ally which has actively supported terrorism for decades...


during the entire planning stage for operation iraqi freedom we had no operatives on the ground in iraq passing back info to the administration... no one near saddam's inner circle to relay secrets... nothing of the sort...

now... this has been beaten to death but since you obviously don't get it... let's bring it up again... we NEVER went into iraq to FREE PEOPLE... it was a security risk due to WMD's that saddam was suspected of having in his possession...

in the almost 1 year we have been in iraq we have not found any of those wmd's and we are now in the process of rushing along an election which is likely to be won in a landslide by al sistani... a conservative cleric or an aide of his...

the people of iraq are not bad people... they have suffered much in their lives undoubtedly but for crying out loud... we didn't care for them when we went into iraq... had we actually cared for the people of iraq we would have had a POST WAR scenario setup that would have tackled many of the problems the US has faced since entering into iraq...

its all well and good for the press secretary to get up and say oops... they were worse off than we thought in terms of utilites... um if you don't have a clue about the state of the utilities in iraq what makes you think you know what sort of weapons programs are active there?

its easy to blame "bleeding hearts" for all the problems of the world but the cause of the problem has its roots set very deeply in the ranks of the neo-conservative trigger happy hawks who love nothing better than to play with big toys...
on topic.. the budget is going to hurt bush big time... and the facts about his presidency...

overall... bush sr had a better record than jr and probably coulda been re-elected...

I fail to see any reason bush jr should be re-elected... medicare/budget/security/economy since he took office/accountability/foreign relations/smaller government (what a myth that turned out to be)

I just can't personally fathom why he should be re-elected... its not a popularity contest alone... its about whether he deserves to be re-elected.. and thats a big NO in my book...
Yep Bush Sr did a better job and would have gotten re-elected if the economy didn't go down the drain but current Bush has less of a shot I think due to everything he didn't even try to do let alone said he would. Go whoever can beat him
More importantly we must look at the reasons Bush has given at different times for this war. We must as a nation refuse to be lead like sheep to the slaughter and use our own common sense and reasoning when we weigh whether to support Bush and his end run around the US Constitution, justice system, and election process. We must take time out to examine what his real motives are/were behind this war and whether this will be the end of his attempts at destroying other nations or whether this is just the beginning of it.
for those people that think the war was a valiant cause;

do you love America?

and if you love America, don't you believe in what she stands for?

this country does not put a dictator in office, and no man is ever allowed to act unilaterally, exclusive of the other branches of of goevenment.

this is America stands for...checks and balances, and no one man doing whatever he wants to do.

in America, the head of state is NOT allowed to go to war for any reason other then the reasons he uses tp convince the other branches of government, and the people of this country into the war.

he can't say;

"oops, well, the reasons I used, ummm, well, those weren't really the reasons I started the war...sorry, my bad...so sorry...let me try these reasons on you, let's see if this will work"

he is NOT allowed to start a war with reasons that only he knows about, and he is NOT allowed to start a war with "other" reasons then the ones he puts before the other branches of government.

I don't know what country it is that allows the head of state to start wars for reasons other then what he claims the reasons are, but it's NOT America

and anyone who wants to believe his next "other" reason, remember the following;

as little as a week before the war, bush specifically gave Saddam a last chance, "this is not about regime change, this is about wmds...disarmm and this is no war"

so, no there were no "other reasons" then the one he used to talk the other branches of government into going along

if you love America, and the government that we fought for, you must be alarmed at how Little regard Bush has for our government.
now, about his speech last night

this is unbelievable;

he gets in front of us, and says;

"the Congress and the league of nations all looked at the proof I showed them and agreed with me"

do you believe he has the nerve to say something as ridiculous as this!!!?

and the press says nothing about this??????

first of all, where did he get the idea that the UN agreed to this war?

the UN did NOt think war was necessary at all, so what the hell is up with that statement, who knows.

and next, this president that needed his war so badly, didn't bother to show the UN or the other branches of the American government the information; that every agency that authored this "proof" said his assessment was INCORRECT, and that he was told his assessment was incorrect." before he started his war.

but he showed to us and to the branches of government that would have put a stop to his war mongering, his own interpretation, even though he was told that his interpretation was incorrect by his very own advisor's

bush saying that these other branches believed his lies,, so they are to blame too is his latest lame excuse for this war?

then he has the nerve to go on in his statement yesterday to say "we have to take out regimes that will provide to terrorists the ultimate weapons!!!!!!


what is wrong with this guy?

is he STILL making believe we found these "ultimate weapons"?.

ummm...mr president, didn't you think we read the Kay report?

what kind of speech is this?...and how is it that the media lets him just go on saying anything he wants to without any kind of criticism?

does this wealthy owned media point these ridiculous statements out?..and hold him responsible for what he says?

perris said:
now, about his speach last night
can someone post a link? Being in the UK I missed it and I have never seen a thread with such, errrr, how can I put it?.... a political feel to it! But yeah Hip Hip something (Doofus?)
chastity said:
Yep Bush Sr did a better job and would have gotten re-elected if the economy didn't go down the drain but current

Bush senior would have been an Excellant president, and would surely have gotten re elected if he only listened to his own advisors that told him "trickle down economics" is "voodoo"...can't work.

but, even though he was the very person that coined the term "voodoo economics", and even though he knew what that strategy was doing to the american middle class, he was obligated to take forward the economic preferance of the people that put him in office, which of course would shrink the middle class, (the engine that drives the American economy), even further then reagan did, he would continue to borrow money so he could give more money to rich people just like reagan did....now his son borrows money so he can give it to rich people also, and so the dept continues.

if only senior listened to his own advisors, and stopped giving money to rich people, he would have gone down in history as one of the greatest presidents of the united states.

At one point you state that its not your resonsiblity to remove a dictator you put in power and to remove the weapons you supplied him <<<< MMMMM thats exactly why it is your resonsibility in the first place
Ok this guy is an class 1 idoit the League of Nations has not been around for more then 50 years as it didn't even make to the second world war if I remember right. Yes we give Saddam WMD's as we did to Iran in the Iran Iraq war. We also help train and supplied weapons to the Afghanstan when the soviets invaded there and look what happen after that. The last leader in Iran we put into power and didn't fund him enough or something so he got over thrown.

Well that explains more why the ececomy went down the drain right about the time for an election and I guess his son learned well. Well very insightful posts perris
Kermit_The_Frog said:
What difference does that make Tony and Bozo Bush are bedmates

Wellll you're right, and we're pretty disgusted about that BUT my point was really to be taken almost in isolation (like you could just say you were happy to live in Canada too!) and also there is an issue that Bush took the war footing and Blair joined him - it was not Blairs doing to declare the war or to make that speech.... We have other issues here but the war sure dropped him out of a lot of peoples "good books" opinion wise here.
Yes well here in Canada they did not send troops and take an active part in the war ( But in my opinion they should have people like Saddam need to be removed from power by any and all means )

Members online

No members online now.

Latest profile posts

Also Hi EP and people. I found this place again while looking through a oooollllllldddd backup. I have filled over 10TB and was looking at my collection of antiques. Any bids on the 500Mhz Win 95 fix?
Any of the SP crew still out there?
Xie wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Impressed you have kept this alive this long EP! So many sites have come and gone. :(

Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
hello peeps... is been some time since i last came here.
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.

Forum statistics

Latest member