Bush is a jackass!

So is Ralph Nader.

Here we go again... :rolleyes:

So don't. One doesn't have to be political to have an opinion. However...what are you saying?

Being neither a Democrat or a Republican, I still see Bush's lack of grasp on world politics as a squandered opportunity to effect significant positive change in the Middle East and the world. In the time immediately post 9/11, there was a true sympathy world wide for the United States - Bush's futile, outmoded political stance not only wasted a fleeting opportunity for a world wide anti-terrorist concensus, but his so-called "dream team" only served to further polarize moderate Arab nations into exactly the opposite of our stated objective - there now exists a global distain for US foreign policy, consistantly reinforced by questionable political behavior and the shocking images coming out of Iraq. Unfortunately, this is no longer about the politics of the left vs. the right here in this country, as witnessed by some conservative Republicans calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. Saddest of all is an armed force of truly great men and women, being led by a small group of politicians with no clear, focused mission or exit strategy.

Until we get secret orginasations and corprate involvement out of government, nothing will change. I like the Mayan way, behead the basterd, ofcourse there are only two casses writen down that verifies that sentament.

They all are a bunch of natzees, oh sure there are a few that arn't, yet...

Every American should read the following and make themselves aware of what the 'liberators' in Iraq are doing. This is not the fault of our brave military service personnel, but of the administration in control of their actions who has soldiers acting as interrogators and prison guards.

Red Cross Report Leaked

Americans are just like anyone else. Some are fantastic and some are.....
Your "government / corperation" is a world wide joke, as 96% of Americans already know.

Hey Nick, why is Nader so bad? I've always seen him as a humane, concerned individual who's always spoken the truth and truly wants freedom back in the hands of the people. Have I been duped?. What's the dirt that makes him such an arsehole?

Kelly, Bush won by one vote in 2000. It was as obvious to Nader as it was to everyone else that that was exactly what was going to happen. Sure enough, we have *by far* the worst administration in the entire history of this country. Thousands of people would still be alive if that ****ing egomaniac had withdrawn from the race in 2000. Every single one of his votes was a Gore vote.

His and his supporters' idiotic idea that all politicians are equally bad has been proven wrong - as if that were necessary.

Now the mother****er is running AGAIN! I think opinions have shifted again this week after the revelations about the prisons, but before that the poll I read was something like 50% Bush, 47% Kerry, 3% Ralph ****ing Nader.

That's why I call him a jackass. Having good ideas means nothing - in fact, it's caused deaths - if you don't understand that politics is only the art of the possible, not the ideal.

The harm that ******* has done far outweighs all the good he did in the entire rest of his life.

Justin,

I'm sure jackasses everywhere deeply resent your comparison.

Love,

The Illuminati has created a Movie. We are in it. We are extras;unable to take a speaking role. In the plot of this Movie is greed, death, War,poverty, bigotry and fear. All these are made evident in order to control the audience. There are no accidents in this New World Order. It is real...Very real....! Imagine the Skull and Bones(the secret college organization) These members learn their tasks in college and then move on to business and politics. I was a member. The Chancellor and Dean of Students were members. I was a prominent student leader and a good hang. They initiated me. I joined. Later on, I revolted, pledged the first Black fraternity member and generally created havoc. Two goons were sent to my Fraternity house in the early moring. They found me and beat me into submission. I quit and never looked back. I could have been messing with your minds but chose to cleanse mine. If you think certain myths are real and can't find a logical explanation in the Media blitz, they most likely are. This translates into Voter fraud(Jeb and George in Florida) and a Saudi/Illuminati connection that should make your hair stand on end. Peace

Yeah man, I dig!

Bush scared me along time ago when he had to talk. He would be asked a question, he'd start to awnser " then and aaahhh, ahhh , aahh, we'll ahhh"
the guy can't even talk or think in real time.

Give him a speach written by some political wiz , lots of rehearsel and a read out screen, and he can finish a sentence.

We are in deep **** in Irac, it was a bad move by Bush, it's ugly and getting ugiler.

Personaly I want him the hell out of the white house.

Yes...but the other candidate? Too bad Ross Perot's life was threatened. The third party, which we need, was stopped abruptly. It was a dark, foggy night. A tall man in a dark blue suit with a crimson tie leaned toward Perot and spoke in confidence: Ross.......leave the race. Get out now......No bullet was necessary.

"Nattering nebob of negetivity. Blah, blah, blah . . ." -so sayith the Dali Lama.

Oh ya, that thing...but besides that I like the guy.

quit your crying about Ralph Nader.
We never would have been stuck with Klinton if it had'nt been for perot, and the race would not have been so close last election if it had'nt been for Buchannan.

Bush may be a jackass, but if you think Kerry is better you are dreaming.
I have news for ya.. Both parties have sold us out.
Time for a revolution. :|

Too bad Bush didn't get a blowjob in the Oval Office... Jeez, THEN we'd have to impeach him.

I can't even stand to look at Bush. or Cheney. or Rumsfeld. or GWB senior. or any of those lying ratbastards. They stole the last election. He and ALL of his henchmen are the real enemies of the people of the US and the entire world, and the rest of the world knows it, and has lost a lot of respect for the people of this country for "electing" him. I want more than anything to get him out of office, and I'm deeply embarrassed to be an American with him as our president.

I'm still learning more about Kerry...

Gore is a cardboard cutout without balls, whose wife has been beating the drum for censorship for 20 years - yeah, they'd have been great in the White House together!

I voted for Nader last time, and so did a lot of people - BECAUSE HE WAS THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB! and he reflects WAY more of my point of view than either of the other two ever will. He represents an opportunity and and alternative to reject "business as usual" (moneymaking at any cost) on all fronts in our "government" (big business) including making my vote actually worth one vote by putting the electoral college in the trash can where it belongs, and putting people like Haliburton's executives in jail where they belong. There are a lot of people ****sing and moaning about how they hate what's going on in this country at a fundamental level, and that my vote got us into this because I should have seen that my Nader vote was really a Gore vote wasted - that is such BS!!! Real change happens because people have the courage to acknowledge and speak the truth, stand behind it, and support it with their vote and lifestyle. The biggest problem is that people are afraid to do what they know is right. If everyone who wanted to vote for Nader actually DID vote for Nader last time, we might have a third party (on the way at least) that actually represents the people and not big business. I know from 25-35 years of paying attention that Ralph Nader has done more for positive change FOR THE PEOPLE in this country over that period of time than anybody. It's my impression that he's done what he has because he believes in it, not because he's posing for photo ops. He's not sexy, but he's got teeth. He's been rolling up his sleeves and taking these *******s on for 30+ years, making a dent, and I actually believe what he says...that is not a wasted vote!! He makes clear the distinction that big buisiness controls our government, gets us into wars all over the globe, oppresses our own people along with millions of others in every corner and destroys the environment ruthlessly with prejudice and without conscience. This is the model that will never work and is completely unsustainable. Under these conditions, the best we can hope for is someone who is concious enough to minimize the damage. The worst is someone like Bush.

Michael M., I've been using literally the same words you're using for four years about not being able to stand looking at Bush.

But I hold every person who voted for Nader personally responsible. They can go on justifying their irresponsible votes however they want, but that will not make it realistic. It was obvious all along that a vote for your principles was exactly the same as a vote for Bush.

I too like what Nader was saying. But so ****ing what; in the real world, he was and is never going to become president. Gore isn't ideal, but he isn't Bush. It's just plain naive to think that they're equal just because they both share some faults.

That's faulty logic, and Nader's supporters were all intelligent enough to know better.

I'm not very impressed with Kerry, by the way - I don't like the way he starts flapping his lips in sync with the wrong tape in response to a different question - but he's no George Bush. We've never had an administration this evil.

And the worst part about it is that so many otherwise perfectly reasonable people are going to vote for him.

Shane, that cartoon isn't the least bit funny.

Good one, Glenn
Nick, sounds like you are a little resentful of Bush being in office!! I hope you understand that it's a big stretch to say that Bush directly caused the deaths of U.S. troops....

The net of it is, neither the republicans or the democrats are in Iraq at the moment. All of us are, and all of us have to face the consequences and finish it right....also, the outcome is still a question mark. If Iraq ultimately becomes a self-sufficient democracy, it could be a beacon for the entire middle east, which is something that's desperately needed.

I was lucky enough to avoid Vietnam {see my long winded post}
http://www.audiotalkback.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005772#000009

However, I have some friends that served and I've heard all the stories.
One common practice was to blindfold an NVC prisoner, tie his hands behind his back, load him up on a helicopter. They'd fly that puppy a ways and tell the prisoner,
"talk or else we're going to shove you out the door."
On the funny side... because the copter had been flying around, not known to the blindfolded prisoner was, the pilot had positioned the copter three... four feet off the ground.
What's not so funny is, along the way, more than several VC that didn't spew or didn't know anything anyway, died due to fright when they were shoved out the door.

This is the kind of stuff that happens during war time. It does however happen more frequently when politicians begin to panic in their quest for information to dig themselves out a deep hole {as they have been and are now}. And you can bet your DA-7 {or other} anyone who's anyone knew what was going on as far as prisoner abuse. That's the real pity ... there always has to be "fall guys"... Inconsequential, disposable peons {in this case soldiers following orders} that take the rap when the real criminals are the current gutless administration and the chiefs of staff. The same folks that got us all into this mess... the ones you have to know OK'd this form of interrogation. The ones who handed their inside/corporate buddy's the lucrative contracts for support services in Iraq and to clean up the mess over there. The corporations that are bilking us due to {supposed} continual cost overruns and for non existent services and materials. Everyone involved here is nothing but a despicable stinky skunk!
Here's one last little tidbit.
Not too long ago, there was an interesting but newsworthy rumor {it was reported several times} that Osama had been captured near or on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Then nada {MUZZLE}.
What a surprise it'll be when election week arrives and suddenly Osama appears on our door step {dead or alive and count up the votes}... that'd be a real shocker, wouldn't it??
Brent

Nick, now who's using flawed logic?! People who vote for Bush are NOT otherwise perfectly reasonable people! Why do you wish to make excuses them?!

Nick, I accept the responsibility for voting for the best man! Thank you!
The fact that you acknowledge he was the best candidate in the last election (and this one as well) not vote for him, and then call him a jackass is insane! My vote wasn't wasted. This is such a great example of people knowing exactly what is right, and then not doing it! We all have to take responsibility and WE GET TO unlike most of rest of the world.

C'mon! Just imagine what it would feel like to have ANY guy named Ralph as President!

"Sooner or later, you gotta listen to Ralph Nader. I don't wanna cause a fuss, but fast cars are so dangerous...."

--Pete Shelley

No, only if he lied about it under oath while being investigated for sexually assaulting another woman.
People always seem to forget that part.

nonsense. No more than Gore was trying to do anyway.
How 'bout them democrats in Wisconcin who were handing out smokes to homeless folks for voting Gore.
NICE! And then the dude hires a DALEY to help him sort out the little election fiasco.
LOL.. do you folks know how notorious the daleys are for stealing elections? I think pappa daley is the guy who had dead people voting for him in chicago.
dont hand me the whiney "bush stole the election" BS. becuase thats what it is. Bush is no more or less of a snake than Gore, or any other democrat or republican for that matter.
They have all sold us out.


I beg to differ. His predecessor has plenty evil.

Agreed. as much of a stretch as it is to accuse Clinton of causing the deaths of US troops in Yugoslavia. Or Somalia. Or citizens in New York.

Im not buying the "they were just following orders" BS. They sure looked like they were having a good time. And they were stupid enough to take pictures of it.
If higher ups were ordering them to do this they would have been smart enough to say "Hey.. leave the polaroid at home."

No, your vote was for Bush. Congratulations, you won.

And I absolutely do not acknowledge that Nader was the best candidate. The fact that he didn't drop out when he saw that Bush was going to win proves that he lacked the stature to be president.

That's the point: having good ideas is a tiny part of being a good leader. Any fool can be right. So what if you're right. The country is on a rapid march to hell because George Bush is in office. It wouldn't have been if Gore had won. Plain and simple.

Fiery (was it you who said this? sorry if not), I hold George Bush and his insane posse directly responsible for leading us into Iraq. We would not be there if Gore had won. Gore did not have that as part of his agenda before he was elected, as Bush did, Gore is not a religious zealot of the far right (I HATE the Christian right, by the way, or at least I hate their arrogant agenda...which is neither Christian nor right, as the bumper stickers say), and Gore wouldn't have used the 9/11 tragedy + since-proven lies to get us there.

And I'd like to know what's going to change in Iraq? What are we "working" toward? How are we going to install a democracy that shows the Middle East how to be? And what basis is there for thinking that other countries would follow suit if that did happen? All that's happening is that the situation is deteriorating. What's going to happen differently in the future? More shooting and bombing? Who are you going to "defeat?"

When are people going to wake up and stop parroting the idiotic bull**** they're told to parrot?

And it was five C U Next Tuesdays on the Supreme Court who stole the election, by the way. Bush won by one vote, as I said.

We should re-elect Gore!

Nick, you raise good questions. Take comfort in the fact that we are able to criticize our own government. As often as it's been said, other people simply don't have that right.

The reason that so many other countries criticize our government (not just Bush policies, etc., the U.S. in general...)is that they aren't allowed to criticize their own governments (which are often in a much worse state than we are).

I'm not saying we're the right ones to "fix it", but there have been enough screws loose in the middle east to take the whole world off track for some time.....Don't expect them to solve their own problems anytime soon.

Nick, you raise good questions. Take comfort in the fact that we are able to criticize our own government. As often as it's been said, other people simply don't have that right.

The reason that so many other countries criticize our government (not just Bush policies, etc., the U.S. in general...)is that they aren't allowed to criticize their own governments (which are often in a much worse state than we are).

I'm not saying we're the right ones to "fix it", but there have been enough screws loose in the middle east to take the whole world off track for some time.....Don't expect them to solve their own problems anytime soon.

Thanks Justin. It's good to get this out every now and then.

No, it would have shown exactly the opposite. It would have shown he was a man of no convictions and that he did not believe he should be president.

I cant believe there are still people crying becuase Gore lost 4 years ago.
He lost becuase he didnt carry his home state.
If he had won that Florida would not have mattered.

"The fact that he didn't drop out when he saw that Bush was going to win proves that he lacked the stature to be president."

and when exactly was that?!! Nader didn't support either one of them and made it clear that while gore was definitely the lesser of two evils, "picking your poison" doesn't value the life of the system. The sooner we all forget about cliches like that one and get busy addressing the sad truths, the better. It's unfathomable to me that America may choose this idiot bush again, and yet, it may be what the country needs to get off its collective ass and get involved at every level to make some changes that mean something, not just lining the next bunch of pockets!

"having good ideas is a tiny part of being a good leader. Any fool can be right."

that is absurd! great leaders have a plan, integrity and charisma, and 2 out of 3 doesn't get it done, as hitler and others have proved - although you might argue hitler was a great leader, he was a great manipulator. many of our politicians aren't about actually DOING anything to change our country and the world for the better, they're about lying and pretending while really protecting their special interests and manipulating through the media! Preying on fear. Nader does suck at that. That's because integrity isn't something you have when it's convenient. Truth is still truth even when it isn't popular.

OMG I just checked to see 33 people replied to my simply worded post "Bush is a jackass."

Amazing how four words can start a flamefest.

Look I didn't expand on my comment because everybody knows why Bush is a Jackass. Cause he is.

Nuff said.

Hmmmmm.....you're right. Not political...ad hominem.

I also would like it if principle were all that mattered in politics, Michael. I also would like it if there were no crime, and if there were no war because people were smart enough to sit down and talk it out.

That's not this world. Politics has never been that way and it never will. You learn that in the first political science class you take. Look where your ****ing truth got you when it was inconvenient: thousands of people are dead. **** the truth. I'll take someone mediocre over a warmongering cowboy ideologue monster any day.

And yes, I'm still crying that Gore lost the election - which he didn't - because a) the world has gone to hell since then as a result, b) because what the Supreme Court did was probably the low point in our history as a democracy (or at least it's up there), and c) because the electoral college is bogus. I'd be mad at the Supreme Court even if Gore were president - it was an outrage.

How about this one?

Just for fun...


1) If you think you 'know' that the U.S. or the world would be in a better place if Al Gore had won the election, I guess I'd ask you if I could borrow your crystal ball that seemingly allows you to see alternate realities(?) - but it's obviously broken!

2) To say that voting for a non-mainstream candidate like Nader is some type of ill-advised "vote essentially for Bush" is the worst type of selfish, short-sighted political expendiency. The fact of the matter is, the distinctions between Bush and Gore, or Bush and Kerry - or ANY Republican and ANY Democrat - are so freaking marginal that it's almost imperceptible.

Why? Because our closed-loop, two-parties-only system allows it to be a race which is essentially about photegenics and 30 second TV spots - and NOT about a true discourse on all of the issues with ALL of the interests represented.

The only way that MIGHT change is to have more independent candidates. I, for one, would gladly stand by and watch any number of Presidential elections in my lifetime get flushed down the toilet of a failurre to congeal a majority - if that happened in the process of moving towards a true, open airing of all of the issues with several viable candidates running.

Man, I shudder to think where we'd be now if folks like Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Hancock and the like actually thought things like: "Well, if we do the RIGHT thing here, for future generations, it will make the next few years really difficult for us. Let's just stick with the lesser of two known evils. Let's not burden ourselves with the difficult task of even trying to make things right, for the future and for everybody."

3) No, I am not a Bush supporter. I think the guy is a moron and has put the U.S. into the worst foreign relations posture that it has been in, in decades. I'm just of the opinion that, under the present system, no matter who gets elected, it'll pretty much be business as usual.

Knife, there's no reason to believe that Gore had plans to invade Iraq from the beginning, that every single decision he made would have been pro-business, that he would have been totally anti-environment, that he would have pushed through the tax cuts for the rich, that he would have screwed up our standing in the world as you say...it goes on and on.

There was a HUGE difference between Gore and Bush, just as there is between Kerry and Bush. I'm not crazy about Kerry, but he's not within light years of being as bad as Bush.

And the choice you're presenting is a false choice. It wasn't between right and wrong. It was between making a statement nobody is going to hear - i.e. voting for Nader - or voting to keep the worst administration ever the hell out of my country.

Nader had no chance to win, so why vote for him?

Yep. And there's also no reason to believe that Gore would have done anything BETTER.

I'm not interested in listing what we KNOW Bush has done. That's easy for all of us to point to and see. I'm more interested in your seeming to KNOW what would've happend if Gore was in office.

I respectfully suggest that you really have no better idea than any of us do. You have dashed hopes and a dream of what might have been, but that has nothing to do with reality.

Spoken like someone who truly can't imagine having REAL choice.

Obviously, this is a purely subjective point of opinion that is open to debate.

Well, you're right about ONE thing. It WASN'T about right and wrong.

It IS about right and wrong.

Your referring to this concern as a past-tense event, relating only to a single election shows you don't get my point.

That's exactly what I meant when I said it shows a concern for political expediency. I'm MUCH more concerned with trying to make the system better - overall - than I am in seeing puppet No. 47 win over puppet No. 36 - this year - because puppet No. 47 just seems more warm and fuzzy, or whatever.

Nice that you summarily dismiss the votes for Nader as a "statement nobody is going to hear."

Even if you "know" that to be true (much as you "know" what a Gore Presidency would have brought us....), I'd ask you, Nick:

Do you think Nathan Hale only made statements he thought "someone was going to hear"?

Do you think Rosa Parks only made satements that she thought "someone was going to hear"?

I'm starting to think you might not ever understand why.


*filing this under the "Polygamy hurts people but gay marriages don't" file of Nick B's. entirely unsupported proclamations.

The Dahli Lama is out of the loop. You're all doomed. If Bush is more than 5% behind in August, watch out for an intentional Terrorist event in the US. Bush wants to win. They fixed 2000 and they'll be there again this year. Bush will again rescue us from the Evil Doers. Don't forget that Bush and the other Illuminati need War. Their interests are widespread in the Mideast.

Messe, I KNOW that if you and enough misguided, naive people vote for Nader, we'll be stuck with Bush and all those hyenas for another four years - and the world may not last that long if that happens. If you really believe that Kerry is just as bad as Bush, there's nothing I can say to you. You're a fool to believe that, but according to you I have no way of knowing that.

And I'm filing this under Knife is misquoting what I said about polygamy in the end. What the hell has this got to do with polygamy?! I'm not the least bit interested in polygamy.

Anaconda is absolutely right. The perfect candidate isn't running. We have to choose from among the two that are. You're not going to change the system by voting Bush in, you're going to risk ending the world as we know it.

Bush for Ex-President in 2004. Ralph Nader, go to hell.

Knife, grow a beard and no moustache, move to Utah, and go marry ten ugly women if it'll make you happy. I couldn't care less if that's what you want to do.

Justin,

Keep making prolific, unbiased statements like that, and you just might find yourself in an editorial seat at the New York Times

As much as I hate to say it, I believe that Bush will be re elected by an alarmingly wide margin in November. The pitiful Democratic party isn't capable of raising enough money to combat the Bush camp, and it certainly hasn't shown the ability to present a clearly defined candidate. This country so badly needs more choices, but it just ain't gonna happen, folks.

Gone are the days of the humble, hardworking peanut farmer. Today's presidential candidate has to be a multi millionaire with the support of several other multi millionaires in order to sell a public which is more concerned with watching reruns of "Married With Children" than discussing real issues in a rational manner.

Don't expect a real public outcry about the administration's whacked out foreign policy until the draft is reinstated (which I'd be willing to bet happens within 18 months).

I don't personally care if a Democrat or Republican is President; they are all evil. All I care about is that the President NOT be of the same party as the majority in the house & senate. You cannot have proper balance if one party is so completely dominant. Nobody can stop the Republicans at the moment and they are destroying our economy and world position, with no possibility of the "other side" to intervene and stop them from doing whatever the hell they want. THAT is the problem.

I'm not sure if I would say "evil", but they certainly have sold us out. The are not even in control.


Sure they can. The democrats have fillibustered plenty of stuff. And besides there are RINO's in the republican party that almost always vote democratic.
Olympia snow comes to mind.
And the republicans are not ruining the economy. the corporations are ruining the economy by sending all our friggin jobs over seas. and both parties are slaves to these huge corporations. Dont kid yourself into thinking that
the democrats are anymore "for the working class people" than the republicans are.
Nafta has done trememndous damage to american workers and that was a bush & clinton screw up.
Actauly I dont even know if you can call it a screw up.
I fully understand the reasoning behind NAFTA.. well.. at least I think I do..
But it doesnt seem to be helping us much at the moment.


No, the problem is that we have a two party system. Which is why the Ralph Naders and Pat Buchanans and Ross Perots of the world are a GOOD thing. The trouble is that third parties are trying to bite off more than tehy can chew when they are running for president.
They need to establish themselves more by running for local and state government before they go charging for the whitehouse.
It's like that kid who told me "I dont want to learn these drum rudiments and stuff. I just want you to teach me how to play like neil peart."

Mark, there are Democrats, there are Republicans, and there's Bush. I don't know how you can think that it doesn't matter who's in power as long as it's balanced out between the legislature and the presidency.

John McCain is a Republican, for example, but he's an intelligent guy with his heart in the right place (although I happen to disagree with him about a lot of things). Bush is also Republican, but he's a warmongering far right religious nut who wants to roll back Roe vs. Wade, have a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, drill for oil in Alaska, give tax cuts to the rich...it goes on and on.

There are HUGE difference between politicians, even if they vote together.

Kerry comes across as a sleazy politician to me, but at least he's fairly liberal. Not as impressive or liberal as Ted Kennedy, but not a half-wit either.

But I agree that having the hyenas in charge of all three branches of the government is horrible.

The moral of the story: vote for Kerry.

As usual in my lifetime it is a choice between the lesser of two weasels. Kerry seems like a republican in democratic clothing to me. The lines have blurred and I do agree with Mark Kluth and some others here that there are fewer and fewer real differances between the two parties. Bottom line is special interests rule and until there is some real campaign reform in this country, nothing will change that.

Debate appears to be a lost art.

He is an example of a RINO. He could not really be called a republican any more than Zell Miller could be called a democrat.

He has'nt done nough to get rid of it if you ask me. That is one of the reasons Im ****ed at him.

jkruta, then let's hear what you have to say!

I'll keep saying it, we lost controll after the first takeover of the government. When Lincon was assanated the government gave the army to the prez, now hess called the commander and chief, what does that mean? Well, hes in controll,all he has to do is say army do that thing and the army does, before, when the secretary of state, I believe, had controll of the military, congress had to mandate the use of the army (a way safer way to use them). The other part of that equasion is that the proclamation of emancapation didn't free the slaves, it enslaved the free. And we all think Lincon was the good guy - SHEESH! Fifty years later, or there abouts, we were further enslaved by the incomtax that Coolige brought in with his winning of the presidental election, which he openly said that he would bring in the tax if elected, well he did on Dec 24 at 2 am in the morning when he called a special session that has NEVER been retified. It declined a little further with the taking away of our constitional right to own gold (the basis of our monitary system), then the initation of SOCIAL SECURITY, which is there to protect us from (ourselves) as we give sturardship to the government over ourselves in lue of the gift of retirment. We will never see a retirment check, who are they kidding...

As far as persidents, get the secret orgination out of politics, then the companies, go back to constitutional law, throw out the corprate law, where the lawers have to agree to be a pawn to the government, get rid of the four colored flag, red, white, blue and gold (the military flag), get the red, white and blue back in the court rooms and let the jury have its rights back to change any law and free anyone who has not hurt anyone... Secquestering the jury is like removing sexual ograins and telling the crowd that its OK now he has a a higher voice.

We CAN change this, we have to, we need to. FUK the government of the world, were American, damm it. If it means taking the government back, so be it. We must, we have to, for if WE don't, everything is lost. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "it was a good 60 years" reffering to the way the government opperated in those years. It was before the civil war but Jefferson could see the writing on the wall, it was time to change it back to what it was, it didn't happen then,IT MUST HAPPEN NOW!

re-ELECT GORE!

I'm not kidding myself about anything - I plainly stated that I despise both sides. I lived in Minnesota in 1998 and voted for Jesse Ventura. Try to find out facts about people before you blindly categorize them.

If the current administration wanted to stop corporations from offshoring, they would enact laws to stop it. But they aren't. Thus, they are directly involved in ruining the economy.

If the current administration wanted to improve our foreign policy, they'd stop acting like spoiled children trying to finish daddy's unfinished business. But they don't. So the entire world continues suffering.

Just a friendly reminder:

YOU GUYS ARE MUSICIANS AND ENGINEERS!!!!!!!!!!

Not politicians.

Do like Dairy Queen and "EQ something different"

Thanks for your consideration.

Vote Quimby!

But Daniel,

Thats the same logic that the polititions use...
'We know whats best for you, were the polititions', those sold out lawers don't care about us useless feeders, we just pay for everything. there allegence is to the great gods, the coperations... Not us.

The design is to keep us down, lowering the population will do that. The war is just anouther way of eleminating the useless feeders and keeping them/us under thier control.

Your dreaming if you think that you have freedom right now, yea sure, we have more than MOST but not as much as we are suppost to because it has already been tahen away from us and we let them do it.

Well Nick,
I hate politics and I dislike politicians in general. I don't trust a single one of them. Well, less than I can count on one hand. I vote for either Republican or Democrat or independent or not at all, depending on what info I can gather on them. Unfortunately, I don't trust the press either. I appreciate your opinions, Justin's opinions, Shane's opinions, etc. My observation is that making a derogatory remark about someone (even one that I agree with), doesn't convince me that everything about that person is wrong. I'm an ass at times, but that doen't mean that if I say "1+1=2", that makes that equation false. The reverse is true also.
I haven't heard a lot of information from the participants on this forum to explain or justify their opinions.
I'm not saying that we don't have the right to express those opinions or beliefs, it's just that we are not engaging in honest, traditional debate. That was the reason for my statement about the art of debate being lost. Even on the news and cable shows which purport to be fair, balanced, left, right, central, or whatever, there is no true debate.
While I enjoy the zingers and gotchas I read here, it seems that the remarks are made from deep seated convictions and prejudices rather than from analyical observations.
For example two people view a spokesperson for an administration and one thinks every word coming out of their mouth is a lie and the other believes it as gospel. Then, a few years later, a new administration is in and now the reverse is true. I'm tired of both of them.
Jim K.

Just some of the entirely unsupported opinions and misstatments of "fact" spouted in here:

4 More years of Bush will lead to "ending the world as we know it."

"The Republicans at the moment are destroying our economy and world position,"

Roe vs. Wade is a sound decision that should not be rolled back.

Ted Kenedy is an "impressive, liberal" politician.

Before Lincoln's assassination, the President was not the Commander in Chief.

Yeah. The art of debate IS lost.

As well as the idea that a sound debate is founded on a knowledge of the facts (both those that support your position AND those that support the opposition), an understanding of the issues and an ability to stay on topic.

What did the lepper say to the hooker?


Keep the tip.

But see: http://www.audiotalkback.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=007090;p=4

I'm not misquoting a word of what was said.

Deal.

Bush should have never made it in there. He needs to lose by a landslide. I'm amazed by how many people like the guy. Bush is scary. I agree with nick, we cannot afford for more years of bush. voting for Nader is a wasted vote. Kerry is not the best but he's the one.

P.S. GET REAL!!!

Skunks/scoundrels. That's my opinion Jim and any political party is full of them. But the tip of the iceberg is always "the current" administration and it doesn't make a diff who it is. You asked for information to back up opinions stated here. I could post dozens of links to some very interesting historical info.... but lets start here and although certainly not the beginning of government being a secret society filled with lying scumbags whose biggest concern is taking away your rights and wealth, this is the start of the current "scumbag's" debacle.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timel...line&startpos=0

There's an unbiased, complete transcript and timeline of 9/11 here with imbedded text links to hundreds of news reports backing up all the info. It's not only riveting but it'll get your dander up a bit.
'Course, it is lengthy but because there was more than several bizarre events that happened that day, I found what I was looking for on the below page of the report. Scroll down to {before 10:06 AM} and read several of the following paragraphs from there:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timel...ne&startpos=150
 
Note that if you read a little further beyond 10:06 AM, it's reported Bush asked Rumsfeld "if this flight {93} was shot down" to which Rumsfeld replied "no." But to the contrary, it appears passenger cell phone conversations/noises, practically every crash eyewitness as well as the crash site debris field, indicates exactly the opposite. I mean for cryin out loud, one of the engines was found a mile from the crash site. There was debris spread over a six square mile area which certainly wasn't "spread" by the plane's impact. This plane was coming apart before it crashed.
If you read back a ways from here, just from now mostly censored open cell phone conversations and noises on the plane, these indicate that the passengers had most likely already retaken control of the flight and two very capable "friendly" pilots {passengers at the time} were probably in control of it or trying to when it crashed. Also note that more than several regular, everyday, humdrum citizens have been told not to discuss anything they heard, saw, smelled, collected with the media. {Hmmm, I wonder what Uncle Sam would do to them if they did talk. Would they strangely disappear?}   

I've always suspected this was the case and this action, shooting it down, was perfectly understandable at the time. 'Course, conundrums like these always beg the response "do ya really wanna know?" Well, hell yeah... I don't just wanna know, we all have the right to know!! And it's not within the governments authority to censor information and give it to the public on a "what we think they need to know" basis unless it's of absolute national security.
But here and what's worse. That's not the even the real motivation..... the noble intent by witholding information that would make a very sad catch 22 situation worse. It's because at election time, the current crop of scumbags don't want Bush to be known as "the man who shot down flight 93!"
It's always about power, wealth, reelection and control! Anymore... these guys can't get there with out being liars. It's their way of life!

GAWD.... no more politics for several days.
Brent

Okay? Now please stop trying to wind me up. Neither George Bush nor Ralph Nader is a polygamist - although they should both go **** each other as far as I'm concerned.

Amazing how this post has grown.

Also... Clearly Bush is a polygamist and routinely wife swaps Laura with others on his executive staff and also his own brother Jeb when on Florida trips.

Also... While Bush is commonly referred to as "Satan" other names can be subsituted such as: archfiend, beast, Beelzebub, brute, dastard, diablo, dybbuk, enfant terrible, Evil One, fiend, hellion, imp, knave, Lucifer, Mephistopheles, monster, ogre, rogue, scamp, scoundrel, sin, the Dickens, and villain.

:p

Nick you're so much better when you're wound up tight!

Man this thread jest cracks me up!

I'm very wound up, Justin!

And the funny thing is that you'd only have to use two of the four words you posted to start the ball rolling!

knife,

I'm calling you out here... ;-), put your money where your mouth is.

Prove me wrong, show me where the prez was comander AND chief before Lincon was shot. Or just show me where the four colored flag came from, you know the one that is behind bush and all the fedral gov media blitzes.

I'll start there.

Knoledge is power, look up the facts. The propaganda the fedral government has been feeding us for many, many dacades is only confusing your apple pie and red, white and blue wanta believe in the ideal. Reality isn't what it looks like for things are not as they appear, we have been getting screwed for a long, long time.

Whoa, simmer down there sparky!
I think you took things a little more personaly than they were intended.

Politicians are slaves to corporations. They try pushing corporations around and they gonna end up with thier brains splattered on the back of a convertable. :|

A bit alarmist, I think.

It is a decision that has led to a slaughter that makes the holocaust look like a picnic.

Ted kennedy is a alcoholic nutsack who most likley murdered the blonde he left in the pond.
Hey I hear Jean Bennet Ramses dad is running for office. Maybe the two of them can start a club.
Now all we need is OJ to hold a senate seat!

Bush is truely evil.

I said it well may end the world as we know it. Of course it's an exaggeration, but we're a few suicide and dirty bombs away from total disaster.
There are serious points on both side of the abortion debate, but that's not one of them. Abortion is a very difficult issue, and that just makes light of it.

And I hear Hitler is coming back from the dead so you can vote for him.

"4 More years of Bush will lead to "ending the world as we know it."
"A bit alarmist, I think"

Uh, go ahead and call me an alarmist, but I'm gonna point out here that the world as we know it has already ended.

And Knife, why don't you post something supported and on-topic if you're such a great debater. The truth is that you have nothing to say, so you resort to ****ing me off.

I don't pretend that my opinions are anything but my opinions. The fact that theyr'e right has some relevance, but I don't see you offering yours, backed up or not. You didn't say anything intelligent in the gay marriage argument either. All you know how to do is complain about what I say and play devil's advocate.

Well, patronizing me to hide your vacuousness isn't on-topic either. Contribute to the conversation or shut the **** up.

I am hardly making light of it. The abortion issue happens to be quite important to me.
I tend to be a single issue voter with regards to it. And honestly there are no points on the pro-abortion side that are serious enough to warrant the destruction of innocent human life.

I kept my original point rahter brief becuase I didnt figure people wanted to debate that particular point much.
BUt hey, im froggy.

Righto, but the world started to end as we know it the moment it began.

The things you are saying are the same things people like me were saying back when klinton was in the oral office.

Patronizing me to hide your vacuousness isn't on-topic. Please stick to the topic or shut up.

Sorry to jump in here so late.

I see where you're coming from - but I disagree.

I don't understand how a president who lied about a getting a blowjob is the same as a president who lied (or 'mislead') about the pretenses for war (Niger - nukes - State of Union -CIA told the administration this was incorrect intel for a speech given in Cincinatti in Oct. of previous year). This is not a matter of opinion - its fact. Oh wait - that's right - Bush's team just overlooked it. At best - it was bad management.

The BJ did not lead to a war (which we are going to lose).

Our list of world allies did not turn into "The Coalition of the Willing" with heavy-hitters like Azerbaijan and Palau because of the BJ.

Thousands of people didn't die becuase of the BJ.

It is NOT the same thing!

And by the way - on abortion - I personally agree with you. If I were to ever get pregnant (which is highly unlikely b/c I don't have a vagina or a uterus) I wouldn't terminate the pregnancy. For me there is no moral justification for terminating a life. But then again - it's not a choice I will likely face. So I will leave that choice up to those who do face it. I imagine it's a whole different ballgame.

The saddest thing about the conservative right is that they don't realize how flawed their logic is everytime they bring up Clinton as an excuse for poor Republican behavior. Friday, your comparison to Clinton's relatively innocuous behavior doesn't excuse Bush's total lack of credibility, education, moral compass (hey, I can say I'm a Christian too - big deal), knowledge of world affairs (love a president that brags about not reading newspapers - good example for our kids), focus (probably as poor a communicator as I've seen in national politics), control over his subordinates (please don't get me started on Rice, Rumsfield & Haliberton). Look, it is so painfully obvious that Bush is in over his head - and since the conservatives cannot defend him, they must use an old familiar battle cry... "Clinton, Clinton". Pathetic.

BTW, I did not vote for Clinton and was not a Clinton supporter. I am neither a democrat or republican. I am an issue oriented centrist. There is much to be gained from looking at the world objectively, not being a party hack and understanding that, believe it or not, sometimes our initial political intuition about Bush just might be wrong. And while I don't share the more radical views of some of our other posters, even if I were a staunch conservative, I'd agree that Bush must go. He's a failure.

I would advise you guys to read the book "lies and the lying liers who tell them" by Al Franken.

well, first of all.. considering the circumstances under which he clinton had lied.. I dont think it was innocuous.. If I recall correctly he being tried for the sexual assault of another woman.

Second.. I dont think Bush "lied" about the WMD's. He may have operated on grossly innacurate intelligence, but you do remember Clinton operated on this same intelligence.
He stood before the nation and spoke of Saddams WMD program and how something had to be done about it, even going so far as to bomb a pharmaceutical company if I recall correctly.

And invading Iraq has been on the to-do list for the past three administrations.
Clinton had his Yugoslavia, Bush has his iraq.

And like I said.. Clinton dropped his bombs on Iraq too.. coincidentaly right at the time he was being impeached. nice little distraction there.. so actualy I wonder how many people DID die for clitons blowjob...


I understand where you are comming from, but I disagree with you. If there is something that is immoral that is occuring in our society.. particularly something as horrible as the slaughter of innocence.. it is EVERYONES duty to object and do thier best to put a stop to it..
You dont have to havea uterus to feel that infanticide is immoral and should be stopped.

Oh no, we realize it. We just marvel sometimes at how short the memory of the left can be...
The left would like to believe that Bush is the right hand of satan, and he may very well be.. but Clinton was certainly his left.

Well, I dont really feel too much need to defned him as Im not all that pleased with him either. I just find the liberals to be rather hypocritical in their attacks on Bush for his invasion of a soverign nation when clinton had done the same thing, and operated on the same intelligence.
And if the tables were turned and it was Clinton who invaded IRaq.. the conservatives would likely be saying the same things the liberals are.
It's all pretty stupid really.
Thats why I think BOTH parties are messed up and that the two party system SUCKS.

Oh spare me. I distincly remember the cries of "REGAN! REGAN!" during the clinton years.
It's what folks do. Just watch... the next democrat that is in office will start screwing up and the republicans will start hammering him, while the liberals cry "GW BUSH!!! REMEMBER GW BUSH!!!!?"

I did vote for bush, and regret it. I would have rather voted for Buchannan. He might be a little loopy but at least he is a real conservative.

I agree, but I would not want to see him replaced with Kerry.
I would rather see him replaced witha real conservative. Not some guy who claims to be a conservative, then hands out tax rebates, then grows the government to rediculous sizes and starts passing laws that expand the tentacles of the government into our private lives in the name of national security by bribing our mail men and garbage pickup guys into ratting folks out.

If you're not liberal then you don't deserve to own a DA7.

out of my cold dead hands nick!
Just like the NRA!

If we try to explain it by using the incompetence theory, it doesn’t
make sense. For example, if it was incompetence, we would expect
that there would have been a normal inquiry into what went wrong.
We would have expected that there would be some kind of
reprimands, that certain officials would be downgraded, or they would
lose their jobs, or something would have happened to correct the
situation.
But we find that there have been no such reprimands at all.
But I think it’s pretty clear now to everybody that America has an oil
geo-strategy in that part of the world.

Honestly, the whole Iraq thing is a lot deeper than conservatives vs. liberals. While we're wasting time sorting out who is accountable for what, and what abuses took place where, our adversaries are planning their next move to murder more civilians and innocent people. I am convinced that if another person is elected into office other than Bush, we will be in deeper **** than anyone can imagine. Will I be voting out of fear the next election? You're damn right I will be.

Meanwhile, I have seen nothing but criticism, pandering and indeciveness among liberals, who presumably think the whole problem would go away if we just pulled out. I would rather have a decisive leader with a focused goal (i.e. eliminate terrorism) than an idealistic demagogue who thinks Bush is the cause of our problems.

If you really believe Bush caused our problems, maybe you also feel that other countries do their share, the UN is efficient and that terrorism is sometimes justified....

What planet are you on?

That could be part of it. It would be nice not to have to rely on Saudi-Arabia, since they probably had mor to do with 9/11 than Iraq did.
I think the goal was also to have a presence in the Middle east. To do it, all we needed to do was get rid of the tyranical leader of a 3rd world nation who was not complying with the treaty he signed to get us to stop putting the hurtin on him from the Gulf War.

There is also the theory that it was intended to focus terrorist attention to iraq rather than the US, and if that was a reason, it seems to be working.

and I thought someone did get fired over the intelligence screw up.. or rather that he "retired".

What I dont get is why people are so uptight over the WMD thing.
We know he HAD them becuase we GAVE them to him back in the 80's! If i remember correctly it was due to a common enemy at the time.. Iran.

Those are the weapons he used on the Kurds.
So we KNOW they had them! if they got rid of them or hid them really well I dont know, but the fact is:

we know he had them becuase we gave them to him.

he was ordered to get rid of them and show proof that he had done so.

he threw our inspectors out of the country and never fully complied with the inspections.

That alone was enough for us to do away with him.

Agreed. The whole place would turn upside down if we pulled out now.
Of course the liberals would say it is already upside down, and it is true that things are not going very well..
But like I think I said before.. if we pulled out now the place would be taken over by islamic fundamentalists ala the Taliban, and we will have once again betrayed the Iraqi people who actauly ARE appreciative of being liberated from Hussein. And yes, I do believe there are a great number of them who are happy to be rid of that man.

Can I just get something clear?

No one actually believes America went into this thing because they had to defend democracy. I mean, come the f**k on!

This war was coming for a long time. Zbigniew Brzezinski who had been Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, who also worked in Intelligence roles for Presidents Reagan and Bush I, was co-founder of
the Trilateral Commission… he wrote a book in 1997 called The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geo-Strategic Imperatives, and in three specific places in that book, he says that the key to America’s
control of the world in the 21st Century is the control of Eurasia. In support of his thesis, Brzezinski states, “A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions and about thee-fourths of the world’s known
energy resources.”
Then he says that without an attack on the order of Pearl Harbor or without a direct external threat, there was no way that the American people would support the imperial mobilization necessary to control
central Asia.

And in this book - again written in 1997 - Brzezinski had a map of where the next world conflict was going to be and you look at this map in the book and it is exactly where we are fighting now.

Hello 911...

Nick Batzdorf wrote:
Nick, by any chance, are you a writer for the New York Times (or have you ever considered a career in political journalism?)

well, you have to agree that it sounds better than "Me and my boys in the Skull and Bones and the Illuminati are bent on global domination and we need to take over Iraq first. Hope you dont mind. God Bless America."

Oh ya, I forgot, only Americans love freedom.

Ahhh, sh*t...with heads this deep in the sand, Bush is gonna win.

dont get your panties in a bunch. It was a joke.

That's just it - Bush either lied or is incompetent. In the October prior to the State of the Union Speech, Bush included the whole nuke - yellowcake uranium from Niger bit in a speech given in Cincinatti. The CIA (4 months before the State of the Union) told the Bush administration that it was incorrect intel.

Somehow, amid lagging support for a preemptive stike against Irag, this assertion was again included in the State of the Union address. This is THE MOST PROOF READ DOCUMENT ON EARTH.

Poor Condy Rice (who could have had a great carreer in politics and I think could have been the US's first female and first African American president) said on Meet the Press (or some other Sunday Morning talk show) that its inclusion was a mistake.

Hmmm. I doubt seriosly that it was a mistake, but for the sake of argument, I'll give GWII the benefit - which would make him (and his administration) incompetent and undeserving to run the most powerful state in the world.

sorry dude, he bombed afghanistan. bombed al-qaeda training camps.

it isn't going out on a limb to say that putting even more hurt on al-qaeda at that time would have done good for the rest of the world. but those who saw his campaign as 'distraction' put an end to it real quick.

and two years later...

I may have been wrong about the timing, but I know he bombed Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/16/iraq.strike.03/


oh lookie. Clinton thought Hussein had WMD's too.
I guess he was unfit to be president as well.

yo.

just a fewies,

'I'm not very impressed with Kerry, by the way - I don't like the way he starts flapping his lips in sync with the wrong tape in response to a different question - but he's no George Bush. We've never had an administration this evil.'

Kerry is Bush.

Both totally pro-israel zionist leeches. By the way the oft touted 'two state solution' is impossible. it will never be. The illegal zionist 'marxist' state of Israel, ran by Facist Europeans, wants ALL the land, from tip to toe. No deal, no sharing, no excuses. Sharon wants war and the American tax payer shall foot the $Bill.

$11.5 billion this year i believe, tax free. Works out at $40 per year for every household/ family in America. Remind me why you OWE all this money to a foreign country on the otherside of the planet?

And should anybody want to check my CREDS on this (as i believe a number of you will.)

When Sharon visited Bush a week or two back, Sharon actually postponed the trip, saying unless he got what he WANTED and his DEMANDS met politically, the gig was off. Bush yielded like a good little puppet. At the same time, thousands of Orthordox Jews boycotted Sharon's visit outside the Whitehouse claiming that 'he' and 'the ILLEGAL' state of Israel does NOT represent World wide Jewry. Go ask a decent, consciencious, orthodox Rabbi. The state is ILLEGAL and immoral under Torah Judaic law. You're not allowed to steal land from others. This contravenes the historic/spiritual purpose of the dispora etc.

was any of this civic hullabulu reported on any Networks? it wasn't here either. thousands of protesting voices and someone didn't want them to be seen.

but i digress. both bush and kerry don't give a **** about the American citizen, the 2nd staged terrorist attack is still ON. Can you feel the summer heat? it's gonna be HOT! wink wink, nudge nudge.

the 60 minutes documentary photos, Washington post scandals on American personnel?

Fakes.

All any of these young GI/people have been saying is that they were directed by 'unamed' CIA/intelligence staff telling them to do what they were told.

no-one is grilling any CIA ass on this.

Our BRIT exposes on the same thing? Even more fake...


Why is someone trying to smear the American and British Armed forces? No-one can doubt that things do go on that are unpleasant out there, but considered this...

'Has freedom of the Press' suddenly broken out in the US, like a rash? Are journalists suddenly finding it their duty to report the whole darnit truth?

nope. stich up.

the Us and UK cannot win in Iraq. the marines, special forces and regulars, UK and US, have failed. the resistance is too strong. 27 million people who want the occupiers out or dead. There are no insurgents or terrorist's, merely organised people defending their homes and kids, just as you or i would.

belive me, the coalition has been there more than a year, and they've done squat.

i now belive they were sent there TO FAIL.

yup. America and Britain become the worlds villians. they go in arrogantly, defying the world. they get a nasty shock though. they can't win. their forces become frustrated and demoralised. they're smeared by a deliberate HATE campaign in the press and are eventually returned home, their own country having serious lost faith in them. belittled.

bush goes to the UN. the liberal idiots rejoice. bush has 'seen the light'. the UN goes in and the world now thinks the War is over and the world is safe.

NOPE.

the war continues.

here begineth the NWO.

funny, reading some of the comments on this page, could have sworn i covered a number of these points on my last epic rant. nice to see some people wising up.

ah, the man comes around.

oh nick.

bush winning by a few votes? eh? are you for real?

20,000 black voters in the traditional democrat heartland of Florida having the 'idendity' confused with imagined FELONS and being BARRED from voting...

but Bush loves the blacks right? ermmmmmmmmmmm....?!

and Condi? god, she's c-r-e-e-p-y.

i rest my case.

ps. Manfriday?

'What I dont get is why people are so uptight over the WMD thing.
We know he HAD them becuase we GAVE them to him back in the 80's! If i remember correctly it was due to a common enemy at the time.. Iran.'


yes we gave him the weapons. you FAIL to appreciate one thing. we ALSO backed IRAN. we funded them too!

ain't we F-U-C-K-E-R-S! UK too!

common enemy? what planet are you on?

you are the COMMON enemy, and your time is NIGH!

Audiorigami said:
No, Audiorigami, sorrEEEE. Clinton ordered bombs dropped on IRAQ on December 16, 1998 on the eve of his impeachment debate. Get your facts straight.

Audiorigami said:
No, Audiorigami, sorrEEEE. Clinton ordered bombs dropped on IRAQ on December 16, 1998 on the eve of his impeachment debate. Get your facts straight.

Nope, he won by ONE vote on the Supreme **** - Court, I mean Court.

Things I've noticed concerning these discussions... :p

1. The utter futility of absolutely going nowhere real fast.

2. There is a pattern

3. They go from venting to amusing to absolutely absurd!

4. Not one person is ever disuaded from there opinion, however misguided or misinformed it may be.

5. And finally, some people have way too much time away from their Da7 than others. :rolleyes:

ah,

i see your point nick.

bush did force the supreme court to 'award' him the presidency (wink) like it was a cheap tin cup.

the point i made was that bush's stolen 20,000 democrat votes in florida, plus all the rigged diebold ****, was proof that he never expected to lose and be faced with the supreme court stuff, because the whole thing was rigged from the start.

yeah, we all agree on that'un.

he'd already won before the first vote, so he'd already won by one vote.
:rolleyes:

ps can anyone help me?

i've lost my dog, '77'. he's a boeing, about a 110 tons, bluey silver colour, 'really' big tail, makes a whiny noise. answers to the name of 'AA 77'

last time i saw him, he was around about here...


there is no reward offered for finding him.
j.

Wow. You guys crack me up.

Whenever John Gee gets involved, you just KNOW it's gonna be a good one!!!




Nick. I didn't say you never said anything OTHER THAN you thought polygamy was harmful.

Lord knows you've said a AWFUL LOT, since then!!!

I simply observed that it was one of those classic Nick B. pronouncements that you often make - loudly, confidently, and almost invariably with no factual support at all.

You did say it. That is a fact.

Deal with that, eh?

*sigh*

Does ANYBODY in here actually think before they type?

I mean, seriously, Google is a mouse click or two away, fellas. Some of you might look a bit less foolish if you simply availed yourselves of just SOME of the information that's out there.

OK, here we go...:

U.S. Constitution: Article II

Section 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

See, that's not an Amendment or anything. That's the ORIGINAL Article II.

The U.S. Constitution was written in May of 1787 and was completely ratified by all member States by May of 1789, I believe.

Lincoln wasn't elected President until 1861 (1861-1865).

So, your timeline is off by about 100 years or so.

What was that about... ????

Oh, never mind.

Here's a hot tip - you MAY be thinking of things like "war powers" and some subsequent debates and laws concerning who can declare war vs. who can commit troops WITHOUT declaring war... (but you didn't get that from me, OK?)

But, far be it from you to actually look any of this up, in any detail, before rambling on.

Funny, I recall you specifically saying that one of mine was the ONLY post in the entire thread that made you stop and think.

And brace yourself, oh Nick-the-wisest, but I had a couple of folks tell me - off the thread - that they thought I was the ONLY one tracking a consistent argument and outing some *cough* other people *cough* for the hypocrites that they seemed to be.

Now, I've got to "contribute" - ONLY in a way that King Nick approves of...

And G.W. Bush is a Nazi?!?!?!

And Nick B. is a progressive liberal?!?!?!

Look up the word "hypocrite", Nick.

Nick, I AM contributing to the conversation.

Just because it makes you angry or uncomfortable when my contributions serve to show you how foolish many of your pronouncements are, doesn't mean I'm not contributing. Sure, it may SEEM like nothing more than sport (it's certainly easy enough), but some of us find it incredibly helpful - as well as entertaining - to disembowel some of the myopic, uneducated, unsupported and half-baked ideas tossed off in here.

knife,

if you're the product of american education,

fine.

where's my ****ing dog?

woof, f-u-c-k-i-n-g-, woof.

point the dog out baby. he's real big, got 125 ft ears!

daddy's waiting!

ps. Big Up to Kelly for mentioning this.

Then he says that without an attack on the order of Pearl Harbor or without a direct external threat, there was no way that the American people would support the imperial mobilization necessary to control

Find the 'Project for the New American Century' website.

find an Article printed in 1999 called 'Rebuilding America's Defences'.

Check out page 68 and others, for reference's to 'A New Pearl harbour' and 'Massive perceived external threat', in relation to the above statement.


Many of the lunatics who sat on this Washington think tank, now adorn your .... administration.

I dunno, John Gee.

Where's my FACTS?????

facts?

look at the photo, tell me where the plane is.

end discussion.

You're kidding, right?

You can't really be THAT dumb.

I won't continue to post the pictures here, out of respect for those that were lost, but can you see any plane in any of the photos of the WTC after impact?

What do you think happens to a 750,000+ pound plane when it hits a building while travelling at a few hundred miles per hour?

It goes INTO the building, Dr. Science.

What, do you think it should've oh, bounced off and landed on the lawn, there?

Crap, you are simple.

won't continue to post the pictures here, out of respect for those that were lost,

hey dr.dickless,

a rolls-royce 747 aviation engine block is by far the strongest structural part of a 747, they survive vertical crashes into mountain sides. that's what rescue teams look for first. they look for the most likely parts to have survived.

i'll ask again.

where is the plane? name a single part you can see. a wing. a tip. a wheel. a nose. a logo. a engine. a seat. a suitcase. a body. 70 tons of aviation fuel. 110 tons of aluminium, titanium and renforced steel.

anything knife.

anything.

you can't.

because it's not there.

and as for your morality on respecting the dead?
how can the ignorant defend the dead?

wakey, wakey sunshine.!
j.

Holy crap. You are a moron.

Again, do you see a Rolls Royce jet engine - or ANYTHING ELSE - in the WTC after the impact???

Anything????

Seriously, this theory re: the Pentagon is just so dumb, its pathetic.

Again, the plane goes INTO the building and explodes (they picked planes fully fueled for trans-continental flight, eh?).

AGAIN - you couldn't EVER see ANY EVIDENCE of a plane in EITHER of the WTC buildings after impact - just a hole.

We know the planes went in there, genius.

But by your incredibly intelligent theory - maybe they didn't, because nobody saw them afterwards!!!

*two thums up*

*not sure I want to ask this, but....*


Uh, so where do you think the plane (and all of its cargo, crew and passengers) went, if you don't think it hit the Pentagon?

Friday: Believe it or not, we are quite in agreement. If Kerry is the best the Democrats can offer, we are all in a lot of trouble. And my opinion of Bush, as yours, has nothing to do with his political affiliation - he is just aimless. And depressingly unintelligent.

John Gee: We missed your rhetoric. Always thought provoking, amuzing and off point. Welcome back, indeed. Now, tell us what you REALLY think

Nick: So, if you have to be a liberal to use a DA7, what console do you get to use if you are a Communist? A Sovtek? Or is Mackie now made in China?

knife,

the photo concerned is about half way up the page.
i have not made ANY other references to any other crashes. the photo is the Pentagon. It has a hole. if you think it was by a plane, please point out Any evidence that clearly indicates this, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT YOU WATCHED A LOT OF TELEVISION ON THAT DAY AND DIDN'T REALLY BOTHER TO DO ANY THINKING.

put up any picture you can find on the NET of the Pentagon crash. point out the plane. even the smallest part.

you're not suggesting the plane vaporised itself, knife are you? now THAT'S deluded.

what about a black hole? tttttiiiiiiiimmmmmmmeeeeewarp?

no, knife, we're all adults here and we all know something else hit that building. some of us aka, you, don't want to admit to it.

ta.

All:

It's now safe to refrain from making any further posts on this thread. We have the good fortune of having been visited by a hyper-intelligent personage (who is also a DA7 user and a member of the literati!!!). We have been enlighted to the following points:

1) That an American education is sub-standard
2) That Israel will never co-exist peacefully with its neighbors
3) That it's gonna get really hot this summer
4) The US and the UK will fail in Iraq
5) That the Pentagon wasn't really hit by a plane

Phew....it's been a long day. I'm going to bed.

[mooning]

Brace THIS!

I have a better idea: you look up where the comma goes.

I'm just curious, John, but what do you think did hit the Pentagon? It obviously knocked the wall in from the outside, and it looks like it wasn't a truck or something on the ground, because the top of the wall's caved in.

GEE John!

Do you think a plane (full of jet fuel and traveling at over 600 mph) that crashed into a concrete building will leave a lot of evidence?

Did you expect to see some tires lying around?

I hope you're pulling our leg.

Was the whole WTC a conspiracy too? If not, how were "they" able to pull off the pentagon "scam" within an hour?

I think you're a troll.

Knife,

NICE TRY!

What does 'require' mean? I don't have my Blacks legal dictionary in front of me, but I believe it means MUST, just as 'may' does. Those are the 35th & 36th words in your quote - out of my personal copy of all the original documents. That says to me that 'he has to have permission'.

I do admire you looking it up though...

When the carpet baggers were put into the house and congress they replaced any who did not comply with the party line - for the most part, they were army personal. and at that time the federal flag was replaced by the military flag. And at that time, the army and navy was given totally over to the president. Common law stareted to be replaced by lyres/lawyers and the illeagle law system we now have.

Now prove me wrong....

I think we should take up a collection and buy John Gee a tinfoil hat so that John AShcroft cant read his mind...
:|

Incredibly insightful response there, Nick.

Great to see you are staying on point and still still relying on thoughtful, fact-based arguments to support your positions, as stated.

Here's another suggestion: think about what tactics folks often use when they've run out of real, intelligent ideas to actually say...


Does your Black's Law Dictionary REALLY say that the use of the word "may" - as in, "may require" - means "must?"

Please send me the link or post an image of the page where it says that.

The word "may" means exactly what it says. May. As in "possibly."

"I may go the ball game, tonight. I'm not sure."

"I may require you to write an opinion for me."

-vs.-

I shall go to the ball game tonight. I have no choice."

"I shall require you to write an opinion for me."

?????

You don't think there's a difference???

The founding fathers had BOTH the words "may" and "shall" at their disposal. The word "shall" appears often in the Constitution - ALWAYS indicating a course of action that MUST be taken, with no exceptions. The word "may" appears ONLY when an action is elective or not entirely necessary to a process.

Have you ever ACTUALLY read or thought about the U.S. Constitution? Ever studied Constitutional history?

Frankly, it doesn't seem so.

You really should read it, and REALLY think about it - if not study it - before you go on to post these ill-advised rants about things that just aren't so.

Much more to the point, in any event:

Followed by:

DOH!!!!

Squirm all you want around tortured attempts to redefine the word "may." The fact remains, you made a simple, direct challenge - and you were directly and simply proven wrong.

Bitter pill, I know, but don't go all Batzdorf on us about it.

Just admit you've been proven wrong and let's move on.


And FWIW, if you are inclined to keep challenging me on this stuff, I don't "look it up." I know it.

Trust me on this.

Knife, please put your small penis away and go home. All you're doing is ruining this board with your obnoxious behavior.

Really? Impressive!

Hmmmm... if the true measure of correctness in any debate is the size of one's penis, then I guess I win

Thanks for a great debate guys!

what does knifs penis have to do with anything?
Looks to me like he was just kicking ass.

I'm reluctant to jump on any conspiracy theories regarding this but in the first hour of this going down (and that's usually when you get some of the most insightful information-before the powers that wish to not be seen have a chance to put their story in place) I remember CNN reporting that the Pentagon had been hit by a truck bomb.
It's curious that there wasn't any plane debris on the lawn right in front and that there was damage done to only the first ring of the Pentagon.

...and don't get me started about building #7!


now where did I put that tinfoil hat?

Knife is not kicking ass, he's being an ass.

I'm not flaming you, Kelly, but to me the pattern damage doesn't look like what a truck bomb what do. Again, it appears to start at the top of the wall and move down. And I think the momentum would carry the plane debris forward.

While it seems quite possible that there were dirty dealings going on - Saudis being flown out, etc. - I think it's more likely that they started after the plane crashes. To me it's pretty farfetched to think that this was all a stunt.

Nice.

I'm really sorry to see that Nick has decided to take this to such a juvenile - and personal - level.

Seriously.

I felt that we are all in here, talking about things that are important to all of us (other than the DA-7 and other audio gear) and freely exchanging views.

I commented on my observations of some of the statements that have been made in here and expressed my views.

I didn't attack anyone. In fact, I always referred to comments people made in the abstract and never to those who made them - until I was addressed directly.

I see no need to turn the discussion into personal warfare.

I'm truly surprised that apparently, the fact that I don't necessarily agree with Nick - or the hyperbolic way he chooses to characterize his statements - causes him to resort to attacks typographical errors and juvenile penis jokes.

Seriously, if someone simply disagreeing with you - and doing so in a mature discourse, using FACTS to do so - upsets you that much, maybe you think a minute about some of the stuff you are saying in here.

As I've said before, Nick, your writing - both in the media and in here - indicates that you are a very bright guy. Seriously. I'm not trying to be patrionizing here.

You and I happen to disagree on some of the political/philosophical opniions you seem so willing to state in such graphic terms. I take issue with those things, as is my - and everyone's - right. But I'm not upset with you, nor does it make me think you're any less intelligent, or that you deserve to be told something as immature as "shut the **** up" or "say something constructive" or "take your small penis and go away."

Seriously, Nick: before you go on attacking me and telling me I'm "ruining this board" or being obnoxious, take a look at your OWN behavior/posts for a minute.

I'm pretty comfortable that the definition of "hypocrite" is still applicable to your position.

smoke this:
On August 20, 1998, the Navy launched 75 Cruise missiles, blowing up what President Clinton described as:

"..terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan." (President Clinton, NY Times, 8/21/98, p. a12)

Justifying the attack on Sudan, the President said:

''Our forces also attacked a factory in Sudan associated with the bin Laden [terrorist] network. The [Shifa] factory was involved in the production of materials for chemical weapons.''(ibid.)

we're both right. he bombed everyone!

A hypocrite is someone who advocates one thing but does another. I'm an audio hypocrite in lots of ways, mostly because of laziness (my studio is a mess, I have cables running where they shouldn't be running, etc.). But I'm not a hypocrite politically.

I don't think you even understand what it is that's so annoying about your posts. You have this attitude that you're the Opinion Police, that it's your job to point out when someone's opinions (generally mine) are subjective and presented without all the supporting evidence. Well, you're not the moderator of this thread, I'm not your student, and I find that obnoxious. And personal, since I'm the object of it all the time.

So say something of your own instead of pointing out what you think are weaknesses in what I say.

I beg to differ.

You routinely refer to politicians (and others) as "only putting forth their own agenda" being oppressive, being closed minded, etc., etc. - In fact, you just did it to me - here (to be discussed below).

Yet, you refuse to recognize that you quite frequently attempt to put forth your OWN agenda, come off as closed minded (blindly subscribing to "liberal" tenets without supporting them or listening to any other views does NOT = open mindedness) and often act like an oppressive policeman yourself.

Just go back and look at your posts in this thread alone. Seriously. You absolutely refuse to even consider or enter into rational discourse on almost anything anyone else says. You just keep pronouning your views and telling other folks who disagree to shut the *** up.

It's not my job to oppose anyone's opinions Nick.

But what you fail to realize, is its my RIGHT to oppose them, eh?

Sorry it upsets you that I don't get in line with your other sheep, as you would like. But, as your immature and innapropriate "shut the *** up" "your small penis" etc., attacks indicate, apparently, I'm doing something to stir you.

And it's NOT attacking you in that way - because I haven't.

So what could it be, Nick?


Now THIS is truly funny:

What part of my "moderating" do you find obnoxious?

The fact that I told you to "shut the **** up?"

The fact that I directed you to "say something constructive?"

The fact that I said you had a "small penis?"

The fact that I said you were "being an ass?"

I don't think so - mostly because I DIDN'T SAY ANY OF THOSE THINGS, Nick.

YOU did, though.

Do you get why I say you are a hypocrite, yet?

YOU try and moderate. YOU tell peole what they should say. YOU resort to juvenile attacks.

Do you think that YOU just might be behaving like an obnoxious, self-appointed moderator?

Maybe???

EVERYTHING I've said in here has been "something of my own."

Deal with the fact that, if pointing out the gaping holes in your lack of logic, is what I want to say, that is MY CHOICE. Not yours, eh?

Christ.

I'M an "obnoxious moderator?????"

I'll say it again - hypocrite.

Bush is gonna win in 2004...

hey guys...check this out....interesting none the less.

No matter what happens in my life i ALWAYS keep an open mind... (ufos anyone?)

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

That IS bizarre, Daniel! I'd love to hear the explanations.

I love a good conspiracy.... probably more then the rest of ya.
After the transponder and other electronic tracking gizmos had been shut down on this flight, they were only able to track it via radar and visual.
Radar tracking had it clocked at between 460 and 500 mph. It was going in excess of 460 when it struck the building.
Although 460 is not quite the muzzle velocity of an M-16, it's close to half of it. Have any of you guys ever shot a 22 at a brick? The slug liquefies and although it leaves a divot in the brick, you'd be searching for days just to find a molecule or two of the slug.

This flight was soooo low just before impact, it was actually shearing off light poles like a lawnmower. There's also eyewitnesses that claim it bounced off the ground before hitting the building. Regardless, it was also reported the plane hit the building at an angle "/" There was civilian search and rescue teams on site until the Friday after the event. Given that plus the many civilian eyewitnesses... there's far too many prying eyes here and something would have leaked out if it was anything other than a plane, at least early on.
The construction of this building is a far cry from the flimsy Twin Towers. Just the glass alone in this joint is 2 inches thick. This is a "hardened" structure built to take a hit and a run of the mill explosive would only Pi$$ it off. On the other hand, a giant 460 MPH projectile... I'd say that's all that could do this type of damage to this building short of a nuke. 'Course, the 460 MPH projectile... "the jet" would simply cease to exist with little or no recognizable wreckage..... not unlike the slug from a 22.
Quote:
<Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?>>

Yeah... I can. They had to do something temporary to run heavy equipment over. Sand and gravel was trucked in, then tamped down. It was much easier and much more "temporary" than laying asphalt.
Brent

hi

big up nick, kelly and others for growing up.
nice to see, contrary to the popular world view of Americans, you actually have a CLUE what goes on outsite the USA in the rest of the world.
Thus seeing the real role your puppet gov plays in destablelising the world.

the 'i'm an american and i don't need to know what's going on in the rest of the world.' mentality certainly don't apply to these folk. kudos to you.

and as for the dick from nashville who claims i'm a troll?

redneck, moonshine swigin' cretin 'jokes aside',

in remote parts of the world......

in vast stretches of mountainous and tropical terrain....


commercial airliners ....as big as 747s, even exact models...


have been known to crash...

not at low altitudes ....

but from as high as twenty thousand feet....

accelerating to intense speeds in near vertical descent... totall engine failure...

like a big steel brick... staightdown...


and when, weeks, or months, even years later....


when rescuers travel, and directly or indirectly, discover the scene of impact...


they find wreckage....

what's that?

they find wreckage...

you mean the plane doesn't 'VAPORISE' itself, leaving no trace of any PROOF that it WAS a massive COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE....??????

no.

that's physically impossible..

especial bearing in mind...

that what ever hit the pentagon ....

did so...horizontally, not vertically, as would have been the case of rolling a plane down from a great height to cause maximum damage....

and by the way...

some one asked...

was i expecting to find a wheel? why not?. the undercarriage/ wheel systems are put under tremendous strain during normal operation in a 747. they are incredibly strong and durable to heat and impact.

In a nutshell this plane would have had to have been made of paper, glue and wood to FIT the understanding of a number of idiots on this thread.

'commercial airliner vaporises itself at LOW speed, low altitude impact leaving no trace .... literally not a single identifiable square inch of wreckage...'

ha ha ! yeah, i can see why the they managed to fool the required 50% of americans, when people 3 years later are still steadfastly clinging to their CNN reports of objective, unbiased reporting, WHILE ALL OTHER INFORMATION POINTS TO THE CONTRARY.

TIN FOIL HAT? YEAH, COUNT ME IN.

but there's some apologies coming, that are due to me and others. i'll expect them later in the year, and i'll not gloat, but i will expect them!


'First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.'

you all take care. you more-than-likely will need to.

j.

Asuming that there wasn't a plane that smashed into the pentagon on 9-11 although I believe there was. What became of all those people & crew aboard that flight. As far as I know there were family members claiming their loved ones were on that ill fated flight. And as far as conspiracy theory's go, this administration has shown time & time again that the truth is what they want it to be. PS. I looked closely at the pictures using my jewelers magnifying visor, and it seems like there is a large wheel with a flat above & to the right of the second firefighter. In fairness, the landing gear would have had to be down in order for the wheels to be sheared off on impact.

I just watched the unedited video of the Berg beheading. Terribly disturbing. It makes the errant activities of the idiot servicemen in the Iraqi prison look tame. What will eventually come to the surface is that Military Intelligence with a direct line to the White House instigated the torture and humiliation of the prisoners. This is because Bush and his Illuminati cronies want this war....need this war and will stop at nothing to proliferate it. They care not about those like Nicholas Berg who were slaughtered at the hands of Terrorists. Like throwing gasoline into the fire.
If you want to view it go to www.singlesouthernguy.com and search. This is where I found it. If I knew how to post the .wmv verion here I would but I bet Justin wouldn't allow it.

Please don't post it. There's nothing to be gained from that.

I saw a sped-up version of it by accident (it just started playing when I clicked on a link), and it was beyond disturbing. My recommendation is that nobody go out of their way to see it. There aren't words for how despicable those people are.

The prison abuses are a totally separate evil, as far as I'm concerned. Only those smelly bastards think that the two are related.

i have had the video sitting on my desktop for a few days now. im too scared to watch it.
once you see something you cant unsee it and Im not sure I want that rattling around in my head for the rest of my life.

As for me, seeing the video made the visciousness in the World seem all the more real. It aroused anger and repulsion. However, I can view a complete autopsy without even a twitch. I am not desensitized, just pragmatic. I had visions of being a surgeon. Anyway, I am going to send the Video to the Recycle Bin. I really don't want to save it. I stick to the theory that we are only audience members watching a planned conspiricy in the making. I find Greg Palast quite inspiring and believeable. His investigations never make it to the US press. Especially the St. Joseph Lecture in Berkeley found on his website. There is an Audio recording that explains the Florida voting fraud which is too involved for me to paraphrase here. The truth really is out there.

Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla..... Bla bla bla! Bla bal bla bla bla bla.... Bla Bla, now this is what I really think... Bla bla bla....blabla bla bla BLA!

Followed by , Bla bla Bla Bla BLA!!!!!!!!!

I change the channel when ever the subject comes on the news. I do not want that **** in my head, at all.

What are you clocking to, Jeremy?

the berg decapitation is highly disturbing.

much as the murder of Daniel Perle was disturbing. But not for the reasons you might think.


I can remember when those Japanese prisoners were being held by 'masked individuals', and thinking something wasn't right.

it was the skin tone of the hands and nose bridges of the captors. they were practically white. the japanese looked darker in tone. Arabs have fairly dark/brown skin tones. even poor quality cameras aren't going to muddle this.

i believe berg's murder was just another stunt to outrage americans and get people back behind the war. the same thing was pulled with the murder of Daniel Perle.



and no, i don't want to see this video.
i've seen too many pictures of dead iraqi's to want to look at anything more.

Back to the Pentagon, my next question is what did do the damage if it wasn't a plane? Where's the truck if that's what it was? More fundamentally, who had what to gain by blowing up the Pentagon and blaming it on Bin Laden?

There are a lot of questions to answer before you can come to the conclusion that it wasn't a plane, of course - starting with those pictures. Were they really taken right after the crash? Have they been Photoshopped? Are they really showing the area where the plane hit?

But yes, those pictures are pretty bizarre.

Bush Dad Snr gave Bush Jnr an oil company back in the late 1970s. It was called Arbusto.

Georgy, being an incompetent ****wit, screwed it up, but made his first few million from it.

One of his major investors in this company was highly powerful house of Saud family, known as the Shiek Bin Ladens. They were his investors in texan/world wide oil up to the August before 911.

who benefitted? goodness, do you want me to spell it out?

OH!
i nearly forget. Do you remember that guy who went before that commity, and apologised to the famililes for the Administration failings in 911 and incompetancy (despite the fact that it was an Inside Job)????????????????

Richard Clarke? the guy with the white hair?


He was the guy that personally organised the Lear Jets that flew the remaining Bin Laden Family out of America while the twin towers smoldered.

Incompetency Richard? BULL****! Patsy! Patsy!" I'm just a ......................?!