|
Its official... The world hates us...
It's all around... take a look...
France... We freed them from the Nazis.... They hate us Germany... We kept West Germany away from the Communists... they hate us Kuwait... Iraq come into their small country. Burns their oil wells, destroys their homes, rapes their women. We rescue them... They hate us... Saudi Arabia... Iraq threatens to take over with massive amounts of Russian armor. We stop them... Saudi Arabia hates us... South Korea... We are the plug in the dyke holding back the flood of one million starved, brainwashed North Korean regulars... they hate us... Russia doesn't trust us as far as they could throw us, and Great Britain is only on board because we're their meal ticket. If it weren't for oil and nukes, which tend to throw radioactive fallout for thousands of miles away from the target, I would say let them all destroy each other. South Koreans have a problem with us? Fine... pull our troops out, remove the minefield in between North and South Korea, and fly home.... Let them see how TERRIBLE we are then. Same thing with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia... Don't like us on your Holy soil? Fine... Don't call us when good ol' Saddam makes a house call... Oh yea, France and Germany... Kiss my Red, White and Blue A$&. Don't ever ask us for ANYTHING anymore... since we're so evil, I guess you don't want our dirty, imperialist American dollars. You guys better pray that no one ever eyes your lands again.... as it won't be us that comes and saves your sorry butts. I am tired of hearing how evil we are... Sorry, I just don't see it. Anyone think we have the technology to just blast off from this garbage can called Earth and start over. Hell, I'll even invite the Canadians... we need to take hockey too.... |
I agree... what a waste of lives and money to fight everyones wars. I say let them all kill each other and come running to us only for us to say F U to their faces. Even Somalia wants us back after what happened and we pulled out. I hope we do NOT go back. :mad:
Anyways, I say Screw 'em all. Why do we keep helping those who hate us? |
u watch too much cnn.lol nah just j/k. I like Bush and all but he's all gunho about war. He needs to keep his mouth shut and quit getting into other people's affairs.
|
Quote:
Secondly, after 9/11... It's time to take out the trash. If that makes some folks mad, so be it... The world is too small to just sit back and watch things happen. You have people that would kill Americans as much as look at them. If Saddam Hussein didn't want people in his business, he shouldn't have tried to take over an entire region. When folks say it is about oil, they're right. SADDAM HUSSEIN wanted it! Just by the number of cease-fire commitments he has broken, we technically have the authority to go in there and clean house. We're not even getting into the WMD aspect. And if you don't think that any nuclear\biological weapon made by Iraq\North Korea might somehow find a way inside the continental US, you're living in a dream world. As I said, the world's just too small to hide behind 2 oceans. I say its time to protect our own, and that's what I think President Bush is doing. |
Personally I think you guys are about right. But then I also try hard to realize the media is feeding us this BS commentary from other nations so I'm like :rolleyes: if any country wants to get real statements across they can talk to our elected leaders instead of Connie Chungs.
|
As I have been to all those places, the worst I one I'd say was france. Froggys just plain suc. One asked me why Americans were so violent? I looked him in the eye and said, "Because we can."
Most of the europe countries are made up of Nancy Boys anyway. Never wanting to fight, but welcome us to do it. As far as the sand box countries go, they too can kiss my hairy butt! O-Yeah, sorry for the pain and suffering I did years ago, my bad:D jihad that. |
Well after WW1 we tried to go back to neutrality. We couldn't do that because of how much we had interacted with the world. If we try to do that again were going to screw ourselves over. These other countries want our help so bad or want us to be there to protect their butts from the bullies. If we stay, these other guys still get protected and we still get called bad names and everybody still hates us.
I guess in the end we're still the bad guys. Daniel. |
Quote:
Daniel. |
Re: Its official... The world hates us...
Quote:
|
I say the reason war is starting again is because people are now beginning to forget the last one. WWII is so far in the past that the newer generations never experienced it. So it's "no big deal" and something for the books. All of this is almost always over religion. Gotta love organized religion.
|
If we turned our backs for too long before you know it we would be fighting off some foreign country on our own soil.
Its all about Nukes if you let Saddam get a nuke or any other Arab Country they will bomb our *** and wont care if we bomb them back. Thank God George Bush won the election. I can only imagine how bad Al Gore would of screwed things up already. Bush doesnt take any shlt and I like that. If you knew your neighbor was building a cannon in his back yard and was going to blow up your house would you try and whoop his @ss before he blew up your house or let him build it and try to talk him out of using it. No brainer to me, |
Survival of the fittest..Natural Selection..
Hmmmmm Survival of the Fittest, Natural Selection, Lack of knowledge of Historical Events, Manifest Destiny...No matter what you call it.. Enjoy what time you have left...Eh?
Maybe unforseen circumstance takes you tonight, or you lay waste due to small pox exposure, bombs, bullet to the head........History shows a long history of war and Manifest Destiny as the basis and foundation of our society. Unfortunately, this will be a multi-faceted war we are not prepared for. God Bless all my friends who serve in the military and are serving your country. I myself could not do it, so thank you for your service, it is absolutley respected and appreciated. Enjoy the New Year! ~Jenn~ |
My prediction...
January or February, Hussein gets his teeth kicked in... It will be a quick, deadly campaign for both sides as it goes into an urban warfare scenario in Baghdad. Saddam will either: Be killed by one of his own generals (Most likely scenario) Be killed by a smart weapon or SEAL's bullet... Escape to Syria never to be heard from again... The US will be called an evil empire until the North Koreans, pissed off that we haven't "given in" to their demands and imploding in on themselves due to starvation, floods, and political turmoil lash out with a devastating, high casualty invasion of the south. (Possibly including Japan) They will use nuclear or biological weapons and take the rest of the Korean peninsula. The US will then reconstitute its forces after the first attack and drive them back to the 38th parallel. Due to North Korea's instability, China will not assist its neighbor this time and helps make a lasting agreement between North and South Korea... The US will then be hailed as a savior and Iraq will be forgotten. (at least temporarily) After affects will be the creation of un-inhabitable land in South Korea, a less agressive China, and a re-building period for the US military.... Just my opinion... |
Quote:
What we need to do is what every world leader in history has done. Do whatever is in OUR best interest, period. Not what will cause the least amount of whining among all those who only agree with us when they need us to spill some more blood for them !!!! :mad: Anybody who thinks all we have to do is sit around in a circle holding hands, and sing "give peace a chance", and the Sadams and Hitlers of the world will lay down their arms and join hands with us is a total fool !! Jenn you hit the nail right on the head ... survival of the fittest ... simplistic, yeah, but its the law that drives and governs every living creature on this planet. We can learn to live by it or we'll surely die by it. |
Hammer...
Man you scare me and you are absolutley correct....Scarey...Get out of my head....LOL..... Sad truth, so knowing the devastaing effects of either or those sceanerios, climatic changes could be catastrophic...Not good... ~Jenn~ Hey Rod, Sad, but true Friend....It is a natural law that we all live or die by... ~j~ |
Hey look at it this way. At least we aren't going to war in the name of God (or Allah).
Dumbasses. Daniel. |
I know the thread went in a different direction but getting back to France, I have some food for thought. They owe us a boat load of money and if we were to collect it would cripple their econmy and they still hate us.
I think sadam is playing games he will most likley back out at the last minute forcing us to spend all of this money. Chuck 88GT |
Little George is just finishing what big George started, and Clinton didn't have the balls to finish. His daddy is still the president and you can bet whenever little George gets in a bind daddy is there to tell him what to do. I like Bush, but I don't think they are taking this hunt for Bin Laden seriously enough for me. With all of the Satellite technology they have I don't see why they haven't found this guy yet. I live about 10 miles from our Nation's stockpile of VX gas. I often wonder what would happen if terrorists decide to hit it with a bomb or something. I say we let those mother $#@#$@% go back down into their caves then we fill the caves with VX and close them off. That would solve 2 problems. We would have a place to dump our VX, and eliminate a terrorist threat. :D
|
G.W. Bush - his own man and my President
Originally posted by 2FastLX
Quote:
George W. Bush has confounded his political enemies at every turn and now has a Republican-dominated House and Senate. His father didn't do that. G.W. Bush did by using his vast popularity to campaign and endorse the Republican candidates - and they won. He's led a successful invasion of Afghanistan, routed the Talban and restored some stability to that county, if not real democracy. Afghans are a lot freer than they were a year ago. His father didn't do that, George W. Bush did. G.W. Bush has had more successes in the last two years than his father ever did in four, including the Gulf War. Former President G.H.W. Bush is 78, a friend to his son, of course, but he is in no way is telling the 56-year-old President of the United States 'what to do'. That's rubbish and unless you can show some concrete evidence I'm wrong, please don't keep regurgitating that liberal-generated lie here. We're fortunate to have the man as president and he's done a masterful job, even getting the pacifists at the U.N. to finally see the real and present danger that Iraq poses to peace and stability in the mid-east. That wasn't done by checking with his dad, it was done by Bush and Colin Powell forcing the U.N. peaceniks to face reality and see that the U.N. could actually be a force for peace, if they were willing to fight for it, or at least, let us do it. I like Bush, too and I hate to see otherwise sensible people parrot the liberal lie that his father and others are pulling his strings in some way. It's manifestly untrue and if the President's assertive and successful actions haven't shown that by now, you're just not paying attention. |
Good to see you again, Jim. To quote you "they always find thier way back". :D I was waiting to see you post again, heeh.
As far as Sr telling Jr what to do, I don't believe it but I think he does give his son alot guidance. Hell, I look for guidance from my old man when I'm not sure what to do. From what I saw of Jr's interview before the election, he needed alot of guidance. How is it he did not know the different leaders of the world and he was running for leadership of this one. I personally think he has done a good job, anything any of us would do in the situation. I still don't think he's the brightest out there, he's just a good ol' boy doing what has to be done. I don't read politicial propaganda, I'm just going on what I've observed. Good to see you again, Rick |
G.W. Bush has had more successes in the last two years than his father ever did in four, including the Gulf War. Former President G.H.W. Bush is 78, a friend to his son, of course, but he is in no way is telling the 56-year-old President of the United States 'what to do'. That's rubbish and unless you can show some concrete evidence I'm wrong, please don't keep regurgitating that liberal-generated lie here.
G.H.W.Bush( there thats better) can't even remember where the hell his own socks are kept, let alone how to coach his son about leading a country!! just a thought so Ill go away now.... lol |
A contrast-in-media-coverage rant
Originally posted by rbatson2
Quote:
The George W. Bush (he's not a 'junior) back in the campaign of 2000 is a different man from the President you see now and I believe his actions have shown it. Bush has been able to mobilize the diminished U.S. military into a fighting force again and even if smaller, a lot more technically advanced than during the 1991 Gulf War He single-handedly shamed the U.N. into getting behind our invasion of Iraq and under Bushs' leadership we've managed to put a real crimp into the Al-Queida terrorist network. He got a much-needed tax cut through a Democrat Congress and helped win back the Senate and increase the Republican lead in the House. It wasn't luck, it was leadership. Bush is approved of by a good margin of Americans and admired by many world leaders who now know how to pronounce HIS name. It's ironic how the media treat Republicans. Back when Ronald Reagan was President, he was very glib and gave great, inspiring speeches. The liberal media said he was just a good actor, reading other people's lines convincingly and that Reagan was 'a puppet' of James Baker and other behind-the-scenes advisors who 'really' ran the White House. Meanwhile, Reagan got the biggest tax-cut in 20 years through the Democrat-led Congress and the economy boomed. The Cold War ended, based primarily on the fact that the Soviet Union couldn't compete with the U.S. when Reagan got the funds approved from Congress to start a space-based missle defense system (SDI) and the Russians had to cut their slave-states loose to keep up. Reagan won re-election in 1984 with a 49-state plurality but because he spoke well, he was a 'puppet'. Right. Now, fast-forward 20 years: President Bush is slightly inarticulate and less than glib but acheives much in a short time, against all odds. What does the liberal media say now? "He can't be too smart because he doesn't speak well". Right. Sadly, too many otherwise intelligent citizens buy it. Yup, yup, yup. So, if a Republican President speaks well and is articulate, he's a phoney and just reading lines and if a Republican President doesn't speak as smoothly and isn't articulate, he's dumb. That sum it up? See anything slightly ironic here? I hope so. Meanwhile, every Democrat presidential-wannabe that comes along is praised by the media for being a genius or near-genius, like that weirdo, Al Gore. Almost too smart to be President but willing to stoop down and do us all a favor by using their infinite wisdom to 'help' us. God save us from these 'brilliant' Democrat presidents, like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, who screw up almost everything they touch, leaving people like the less-than-glib but very effective George W. Bush to clean up their mess. Not a personal flame, Rick. I'm just using yoir comments as a platform to rant here. Thanks for reading it. |
George Sr. throws like a girl.
|
Jim, I don't listen to the media and there are many others like me. You sound like a loyal listener of Rush Limbaugh(I hate that arrogant SOB, I can't even listen to him). Ok, lets not bring Carter into this arguement, ok?? LOL! Reagan was a great president, as I remember and if he needed some guidance.. hell, we all need guidance from time to time. He was an actor and a great president, as far as I can remember. He had backbone and I wish he could have lasted longer. Clinton was a womanizer and all round laid back mofo. Bush had some backbone but not enough. I don't think I know a person that thought we shouldn't have taken care of Suddam when all that crap was going down. Alot has happened since Bush Jr. came to office(around here its junior if he is named after his father). I think the tax cut was great and I really appreciated it! I think what George W. Bush did with the UN was something anyone of us could have done. Look, Iraq didn't live up the the agreement from 91 and if I was president I wouldn't be looking for the UN's approvement. The US is a machine and to think that the president makes it what it is.. makes no sense to me. Its a force to be reckoned with, no matter who is in command. I'm reminded of a statement from the movie Blackhawk Down, "Noone asks to be a hero, it just happens". I think that is what happened with Bush and also with Guliano(however you spell it). This country is a machine, we have it good and are the leaders. I don't think we should force our beliefs on others, but we do. I think we should let them sort it out and if we didn't keep backing Isreal, NY would have never been attacked to start with. Not only that but I believe Isreal would have already settled this problem long ago. As it stands, I'm with 2Fastlx, smoke them mothers out(Damn good idea).
|
Re: A contrast-in-media-coverage rant
Quote:
No flame on you either Jim, we just won't agree.. one of the reasons I always stepped aside from the political discussions on this board. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Politics
Rick:
Yeah, we disagree, to put it politely. Your contention that the United States government is a 'machine' and that 'anyone' can 'run it' is just not credible. Jimmy Carter 'ran it' into the ground. Reagan brought it back up again, militarily and economically. Clinton ran it back down again and made the Oval Office a bordello in the process, demeaning his office. The President matters and to find someone that believes he doesn't is just, well, incredible to behold. How do you get to that kind of thinking? 'Anyone' could have gotten the U.N. to act against Iraq? Really? Do you really believe that? The U.N. sat around for eleven long years and issued toothless resolution after resolution condemning Iraq for weapons violations (against the treaty he signed in 1991 after losing the Gulf war) and they did nothing. Neither did Clinton, for that matter. Finally, President Bush stood up in the United Nations and challenged them to act on their words, and they did, finally, supporting military action against Iraq for weapons violations. To attempt to diminish President Bush as if he did what 'anyone' could do is simply not valid. If 'anyone' could have done it, why didn't they? It's leadership, plain and simple, Rick. Something Clinton knew nothing about. The only reason the U.S. is going the U.N.-approval route is because the Democrats insisted on it before they would give the approval for the money Bush needs to mount this kind of military engagement. Bush did what he had to do, and I think it was unnecessary too, from a military standpoint but it was politically necessary and Bush is a good politician. To clarify: The U.S. military is smaller (diminished in manpower) than it was in 1991, at the time of the Gulf War but much more technically advanced, granted. We are not 'imposing our beliefs' on anyone, that's simply a carnard some folks fall back on when they misunderstand what's happening in geopolitics. Iraq will not be a democracy, neither will Afghanistan. They simply will cease to be a threat to U.S. interests in the region. Israel cannot initate a nuclear war and won't. Nuking them may sound like a simple solution but it's really just frustration talking. Radioactive particles travel and nuking anyone is not a realistic option for any sane leadership, which precludes Iraq and North Korea, our next big problem. Finally, you can forget the Rush Limbaugh comparisions. I was a conservative Republican long before Limbaugh ever came to popularity. Limbaugh simply echos what many, many people think about political issues. The mistaken idea that somehow he magically brainwashes millions is just liberal media nonsense on stilts. I like Rush but I sometimes disagree with him and certainly don't need a radio talker to give me my opinions. I am quite capable of forming political opinions on my own, thanks, just like you. Unfortunately, ours seem to differ but hey, that's America. |
Re: Politics
Quote:
|
See Ya'!
Rick:
Your contentions are over-simplistic, at best. We disagree. I'll leave it at that and let any interested readers of this thread decide where the truth lies. |
Jim, I won't argue that you are more intelligent than I am.. you're better with words than I am as well. Maybe just more politically educated than I. It is very simple though.. had NY been attacked while Clinton was in office he would have been forced to take action. I honestly don't see George W. Bush as the savior of all and I honestly don't think it would take much to show the UN the problem... yes, I think I could have done that. I really don't think George is all that smart but I do believe he has backbone, which is what we need right now. I don't understand what is so difficult about it.
|
Political gibberish and cold hard facts
Originally posted by ultraflo
Quote:
Oh, and don't call me 'Sir'- it makes me feel old. Quote:
The President is the head of the government and the head of his party. He is the front man and the leader. Does a General win the war by himself? No, his men do but he gets a lot of the glory. Same with a President. When the economy falters, Bush gets the blame for that, too. if we run into a snag in Iraq, who gets blamed? President Bush. It cuts both ways. Like it or not, as Bill Clinton was the leader of the U.S. from 1993-2001, George W. Bush is our leader now and he is doing a helluva job, which annoys and frustrates some people to no end. I love it. |
Unless another country does things to us, I say let's ignore them. We should put all that money into helping all of these children who are starving or abused. Being a father for the past 13 yrs I have a soft spot for kids. I do believe we should get Bin Laden and have a public stoning of course. Let the other countries handle their own problems and let us focus on the good ole USA.
|
Peace through strength
Originally posted by bri32zz
Quote:
America does feed tens of thousands of children around the world thru both government and private charities. We just don't brag about it. Our new enemy, North korea, gets most of it's foodstuffs from the U.S. Ironic, isn't it? We feed them and they want to nuke us. So much for the liberal theory that if the U.S. just acts nice other mean countries won't bother us. Only in liberal fantasies. Our power is our strength and while America is the most generous nation on earth in real terms, we are also the most powerful and must exercise that power wisely but effectively at times. Now is one of those times. |
Re: Peace through strength
Quote:
I did leave out some thoughts. If we are in any relative danger we need to act out. I am not too much up to speed on modern polotics but I am entitled to my opinion in what I think could work in my own head. But MR 5.0 you are probaly correct in evry aspect of the situation. I like to dream of a peace liberated World. Be good my friend. |
I have no idea what a liberal is, or a right wing for that matter. I've always assumed a guy is either gay or straight, which I am married and very much straight. I am also an American through and through. I didn't mean to start a political arguement. I was just merely stating that I feel the Jr. is being influenced by his father. If you were President you would to. Don't tell me you wouldn't. I personally feel both of them have done a good job as our President. I just think with the technology we have it's becoming more of a Political battle than a "Go out and KILL that mother" battle.
|
Re: Peace through strength
Quote:
|
Re: A contrast-in-media-coverage rant
Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I highly doubt 'W' accomplishes much, if any, of the Republican agena "single-handedly" Jim... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote:
Ultra-conservative: one that is too conservative. gibberish: Highly technical or esoteric language. Ultra-conservative gibberish: one that is too conservative while using highly technical or esoteric language. I have nothing else to contribute Jim, as I lack the capacity and the initiative to hold an intelligent, logical, coherent debate with you. I will however, throw my $.02 in whenever I see fit, just as you do. Fair enough? I hope so... |
Keep this crap up guys..We won't need to worry...
Keep this up fellas and we won't have to worry about enemies...Fellas..We live a country that allows a plentitude of opinions...You all are respected for yours; however, this kind of discussion will not have either side change fundamentally 100s of years of development into different philosophical political views.
With that said, we need to be a UNITED nation to get through our conflicts with the fewest amount of casualties... So, everyone is respected for your individual opinion, this is what our nation is founded on, you are entitled to think what you want and discuss it openly, but if I was the enemy reading some of this stuff I'd just sit back and have a beer. You fellas will do each other in, in no time... LOL TRUCE.... We have ladies and gentlemen being deployed to fullfil a duty not many of us would like to have. We sit here and enjoy our cars and houses and children, arguing goverment structure and opinion while people are going to die. For you, to say what you like.... Humble yourselves.... ~Jenn~ :D ;) |
Jenn, you make some very good assertions. For the record, I voted for and support The Honorable President Bush; and, I respect and admire Mr 5 0's contributions/comments.
That being said, I grow tired of each of the extreme sides of the political spectrum's continuous finger-pointing and shift-of-blame. Which is an over-simplistic explanation of how I feel, at best. |
Quote:
Sadam is a Hitler a Stalin a Pol Pot ... a man with out compassion or conscience. I see nothing historical or otherwise to support the idea that if we turn our backs and ignore him, he'll just fade away ? While i'm ranting, let me put my 2 cents worth in on another subject. Debate .... debate is not a bad thing ! Our founding fathers wrote the constitution after days and days of intense almost fist swinging debate. It forces you to confront other points of view. It forces compromise to extreme positions. It forces you to think about the issues. What if our founding fathers would have sat back in a chair sippin whiskey and said "Hell, write what ever you want in that thing, i don't want to get involved, and i don't want to get in an argument." Debate is a good thing ! Perhaps this forum isn't the place for it but we need to take the time to debate right now. The free flow of differing ideas is what has made this country what it is. ;) :D In plain talk, stirrin up a little sh** once in awhile is a good thing. IMHO ;) |
personally if the rest of the world bitches an moans about us gettin in their business, maybe we should let them deal witht their own problems for awhile..
wait, :rolleyes: we did that an they still came runnin back...:mad: jessess christ where would you pussy french or dutch be if we hadn't saved yer whiney asses in WW2!! honest to god... i get sick an tired of people bein hipocrites :mad:mad:.. maybe we should jus do it like the Roman empire an we take over a reigon, we rule you whiners like kings.. ya want to abstain when things are good, but as soon as the weather gets a lil rough.. its waaa!!! America Help US!!! *btw i'm don't actually advocate any of this, its just one of my crazy thoughts i have about foreign diplomacy |
Re: Keep this crap up guys..We won't need to worry...
Originally posted by Janeofalltrades
Quote:
This is what we do here. I know, I've used this messageboard for almost six years and I've had many, many similar debates and guess what? The nation didn't fall and no one died as a result of those sometimes contentious discusssions. I typed a lot, too. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Unless the moderator chooses to lock the thread, and why that should happen is beyond me, I will continue to both post and debate and counter whatever I feel is wrong when I see it. I think you mean well Jenn but this board doesn't need a nanny and as adults, we all know how to behave. Thanks anyway. |
I am shocked to see all of the Clinton Leg Humpers.
He was an embarrassment to the country when he was in office. He entire presidency was consumed by scandal. The whole thing was a big 8 year long joke. Bill Clinton is a man that ducked the draft because he is a coward in every since of the word. He publicly proclaims to hate the military and it showed. He cut military funding back year by year. The man was and still is a huge national security risk. He was in bed with China from day one. They financed his compaign for president, and then he put a Chinese intern to work in our Nuclear weapons department. The intern stole all of our nuclear missle designs and put China ten years ahead of where they would have been with there nuclear missle program. Any of you ever read Al Gores book. He believes that all countries should posess weapons of mass destruction because that would bring an end to all war. Funny how everything ties together. Even now Clinton is a security risk, just a week ago he was on TV fueling the Korean conflict fire saying that he had plans to bomb N. Korea while he was president. Gee I bet that tid bit of info really helped the neggotiations. _______________________________________ To me George Bush is like a breath of fresh air. He tells it like it is, admits to his mistakes and commands respect as the leader of the free world. JMO, |
Re: Re: A contrast-in-media-coverage rant
Originally posted by ultraflo
Quote:
I'm more than willing, as you should know, to discuss conservtive political philosophy with you or anyone else on a civil basis but name-calling and cheesy bumper-sticker slogans like 'regurgitating Ultra-Conservative gibberish' annoy me because they assume I have no real intellectual basis for my political positions and am simply spouting nonsense when in fact, I've spent many years and devoted much thought to forming my political philosophy. I certainly don't get it from radio shows, as is often charged by those who get their opinions from the liberal media or whatever some ultra-liberal college prof taught them. If you wish to debate, don't fall into the trap of using hot-button phrases (as you did) or buzz-words that mean nothing and consider that an argument. It isn't. We all use certain hot-button phrases in political discussions but to let a few cryptic phrases serve as an entire response is akin to simply throwing a rock at a tank. It may make you feel good but the tank driver doesn't even notice you. In short: that kind of 'style' is not effective. As for Bush 'single-handedly' getting things accomplishe;: It works like this: If the president doesn't propose and/or approve a major government policy, it doesn't happen. This applies to all presidents, whatever party or political bent, liberal or conservative. If George W. Bush hadn't initially decided to go after Saddam Hussein and didn't (for political reasons) stand up in the U.N. General Assembly podium and ask the assembled diplomats if they wanted the U.N. to live up to it's charter or become totally irrelevant (Bush's words) the U.S. would never have gotten U.N. cooperation, with 100% approval of the U.N. Security Council, including France, to go into Iraq. Because he's the President of the United States, Bush could do this and because Bush had the will to do it, we are soon to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam. Clinton had eight years and could have done the exact same thing, but he didn't. Bush did. That's leadership - and only a U.S. president has that kind of power but he has to also have the will to use it. Colin Powell can't do it (without Bush's approval). Only the president. George W. Bush had the will and used his power in the United Nations to gain that approval for inspections and military intervention if and when the inspections warrant it, which they will. That's the definition of 'single-handedly' in this instance. Bush did what only he could do, and it worked. Same with tax cuts, whatever. Congress can kill it but it never gets started without the president deciding to do whatever 'it' may be. Thus, President Bush 'single-handedly' got U.N. approval for our move on Iraq. Of course many other people were involved but President Bush had to demand the U.N. live up to it's own resolutions, and it finally did, 11 years later. Bush brought that about, sinfgle-handedly. Yes, Bush IS the Republican agenda - for the same reason. Republicans like me can 'want' many things from government (or less things in some cases, such as taxes) but unless President Bush is behind it and fights for it, it usually doesn't happen. Thanks for the compliments, by the way, but in the future, try to think about not using bumper-sticker slogans when addressing serious issues and don't let emotion overcome reason and logic. You'll do fine with me every time. |
Quote:
People would fight with sticks and stones if they want to fight.... Guns don't kill people, Nukes don't kill people... PEOPLE kill people. (Boy, How many times have I said that anyway...) According to his thinking, the best thing to do after 9/11 would be to give Osama a few ICBMs. Then he wouldn't feel "threatened" :rolleyes: And to think this talking side-show was one step away from the Presidency.... it scares the livin' bejeezus out of me. |
who gives a rat's ***?? as long as they don't take my car i don't give a **** what happens. Let's all have a beer and forget about this ****.
|
Re: Re: Re: A contrast-in-media-coverage rant
Quote:
FWIW, I feel that Bill, Hillary, and Al are the worst 'thing' to happen to this country. I would be nice if they'd just disappear, but that is a long shot. I laugh when I hear people talk about how much Bush, and the Republican party, has destroyed our economy with tax breaks, among other actions, when it should be obvious that the Democrats have 'raped and pillaged' the economy over the past eight years... which is stating the obvious to some of you. ;) It would be nice to "forget about this ****," but when it affects ones well-being and financial security, it is very difficult to disregard. -Ryan |
Alrightey then!
Mr 5.0 Wrote "Jenn but this board doesn't need a nanny and as adults, we all know how to behave. Thanks anyway."
ROFLMAO.....K.... Websters Definition of nanny n 1: a woman who is the custodian of children [syn: nursemaid, nurse] 2: female goat [syn: nanny-goat, she-goat] So am I the woman who is custodian of children or a female goat?.... Discussion and exposition are totally different. A discussion leads to an open exhange of ideas where a persons opinion may be changed. The act of expounding or of laying open the sense or meaning of an author, or a passage; explanation; interpretation; the sense put upon a passage; a law, or the like, by an interpreter; hence, a work containing explanations or interpretations; a commentary. And again, all this can be tied into the theory of Manifest Destiny. Whatever else you want to call it and "discuss" about it is up to you...... Have fun... :D ~J~ BTW... I guess I'll crack open that beer and enjoying you fellas "discuss" this until your all blue in the face. LOL |
Quote:
................................... Deep breaths Rod .................................. .................................................. .......deep breaths ................. I really hope your joking Eric ??? We're talking about things that could melt your mother into her shoes right in front of your eyes. Not a Sat afternoon movie on DVD Eric ... for real dude ... for reeeeeeal. A bag of radioactive waste dredged up from some old reactor somewhere duct taped to another bag of explosives. Then detonated couple thousand feet up in a nice breeze, somewhere close to Eric's home town, and poof your hands are swollen so badly your skin is splitting like an over ripe watermelon .... no way to open that beer ? Even if you managed to get that beer open Eric, you'd be way to busy trying to dig that huge swollen tongue out of the way enough to get another breath, to even think about taking a sip of that beer. One of the lessons i learned in a silly little war long ago and far away is, the ones paying no attention to things going on around them, are always the first to go ! I personally would not be the least bit surprised that there are several of those bags of radioactive waste, or anthrax spores, or viles of Small Pox virus, already here. Maybe only a mile or two up the road from you ! What i'm trying to say, albeit in a very graphic way is ... you better give a rat's A** !! |
I think I'll get drunk tonight.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:05 PM. |