REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Is Bin Laden a tool for the US election?

POSTED BY: SUCCATASH
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 09:27
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5881
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, September 10, 2004 4:51 AM

COWARD


Quote:

Yeah, I can see that distinction .. NOT.

How many "Heroes" attach bombs to themselves, take 1200 people hostage, many children and then start blowing shit up? Also how many of these "Heroes (to Signym anyways)" who use these tactics are rabid Islama-fascists and how many are not.

True Heroes don't specifically target civilians (or children). Cowards(terrorists) do.

Death to Islamafascism



If only it were that simple. I am sure that many would state (probably inclutding you) that the RAF and the USAF were heroes during WW2, but they specifically targeted innocent civilians in cities such as Dresden, Cologne, Berlin, etc... in order to reduce moral in Germany.

(Remember, not all German were actually Nazis, many German communists and democrats died in concentration camps, many more had to hide, and since jews weren't allowed into airraid-shelters they were particularly at risk)

Here is a link to a paper on this from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/area_bombing_01.shtm

One other thing: The Russian terrorists who took hostages in a school in Beslan and in a theatre in Moscow, are neither fascists (neither is Osama bin Laden for that matter), and while they do seem to have links to Al Quaida (according to the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3293441.stm) they fight for a VERY different cause, they are not defined by being Muslim but rather by being ethnic Chechans, and there conflict with Russia is not something that has come up over the last few years, they have been at each others throats for hundreds of years.
If you believe that all the worst terrorists are muslims, then maybe you should look up the attacks on the Tokyo with sarin(?) gas, the entire Yugoslavian(sp?) conflict, ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, and many more.
My Religion teacher had an interesting explanation as to why "muslim terrorists" are more visible to the outside world than other terrorists, namely because in many countries that have a predominantly muslim population, there is over-abundance of weaponry available to common people at a low price. Many terrorists may have the will to carry out horrific attacks, but not all of them have the means.

On another note I'd like to sincerely thank ConnorFlynn, for his keen observation about my political motivations. Yes, of course I would prefer dictators! if I could, I'd kill all Americans myself, preferably with a machete, just to make it more gruesomely enjoyable! Also I will stop buying food, because I think the pure concept of exchanging money for goods is pure evil and should be eradicated from this planet! (maybe with a machete?) Also for his correct assumption that I in fact dispise the concept of intelligence and only truly appreciate people who are dumbasses. Anyone with an IQ over 70 should be killed (now where is that machete?)

(Oh... before someone actually takes that last paragraph serious: I was being sarcastic)

Unsincerely,

Coward (<- oh yes, I am one, but I have not and I do not intend to kill civilians)

--------------------------

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 4:40 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


As a general note:
No, I do not support the "missile" theory of what hit the Pentagon.
But I'm moved that some people 'get it'.
It's not that Bush and his administration lied about the tax cuts, about pollution reduction, and joblessness and real wages, or even about WMD, 9/11 and Iraq.
It's that they're engaged in the 'big lie'.
Not only do they manipulate the news, they twist events for political gain.
Nothing that oozes out from the White House can be taken at face value.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 6:53 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

And so we have two nations-

Colombia, where they didn't have elections until recently, and most of the population is dirt-poor and illiterate, with no runnning water, no medical service, and where people are gunned down, disappeared, or tortured to death in jail...

...and Cuba, where they don't have free elections but most people have an decent standard of living despite a US embargo, a 90% literacy rate, running water, and medical service * ... and people are disappeared. (I haven't heard of much torture in Cuban jails, have you?) (*Please see your UN rankings on human development for the statistics)

Hmmm... which to choose? Tough choice, I'll admit that!



Still haven't decided, Geezer? Me neither! Let's see... a tyranny that impoverishes just about everyone while making a few people fabulously wealthy, versus a tyranny that provides the best standard of living possible for as many as possible. Yeah, I know, it's a difficult decision. Well, when you decide let me know... I can't seem to figure this one out!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 10, 2004 10:00 PM

SUCCATASH


I think it all has to do with a tiny word: Fear. Got some? Got a lot?



"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 11, 2004 5:10 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

And so we have two nations-

Colombia...

...and Cuba. Hmmm... which to choose? Tough choice, I'll admit that!



Still haven't decided, Geezer? Me neither! Let's see... a tyranny that impoverishes just about everyone while making a few people fabulously wealthy, versus a tyranny that provides the best standard of living possible for as many as possible. Yeah, I know, it's a difficult decision. Well, when you decide let me know... I can't seem to figure this one out!



Columbia is no prize, and, if these were the only two choices, I'd probably rather sit on the beach in Cuba with a mojito and keep my mouth shut.

Columbia is one of those places where the two (or maybe three, if you count the drug cartels) sides have been fighting so long that they have moved near or into the terrorist realm. The US got involved long ago during the cold war when any anti-communist regime was the best of a bad lot. We're probably still there trying to cut down the flow of drugs, as much as anything. Admittedly this is in support of domestic politics, and presidents for both parties have run on fighting the "War on drugs" overseas.

I'm not sure there is a good solution for Columbia. It would be political suicide for an administration to pull out and be seen as soft on drugs, not to mention that what little ethical control we exert over the Columbian military would be gone. In the world of modern sensibilities we can't just go in and take the whole thing over, even if it were done for their own good.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 11, 2004 1:22 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
As a general note:
No, I do not support the "missile" theory of what hit the Pentagon.
But I'm moved that some people 'get it'.
It's not that Bush and his administration lied about the tax cuts, about pollution reduction, and joblessness and real wages, or even about WMD, 9/11 and Iraq.
It's that they're engaged in the 'big lie'.
Not only do they manipulate the news, they twist events for political gain.
Nothing that oozes out from the White House can be taken at face value.



Maybe if it was a little less one-note. maybe if there was a little less hate for and objectification of those who don't agree with you on absolutely everything. Maybe if you, or any of the extreme Anti-Bushies, would talk about what Kerry could do for the country that Bush can't. I'd be interested in that.

But we don't get that from you. Even if we think Bush is misguided or downright wrong on some things, the fact that we don't consider him evil incarnate makes us right-wing neo-con liars. You end up being the one who spews hate. You make it impossible to actually discuss the issues. You actually do your views a dis-service by your strident retoric.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 11, 2004 1:31 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I've posted lots, and lots on all sorts of topics. Facts, history, quotes, urls etc etc. Grow up.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 11, 2004 3:00 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I've posted lots, and lots on all sorts of topics. Facts, history, quotes, urls etc etc. Grow up.



Maybe I'm thinking of stuff like this:

"Bush is taking lessons from Hitler ... and Bill Gates. Bill Gates of FUD - fear, uncertainty, and doubt. FUD works.
To get Bush's message, you'd have to take the u-soft FUD pitch and add greed and hate.

Bush's campaign panders to those unclean things. It's not fact-based."

Or maybe the way you managed to sabotage the 9/11 thread.

It could even be that I'm just tarring you with the same brush as some of your "Bush is evil" compatriots. Ghoulman comes to mind. I note SignyM has called me "right-wing" on a couple of occasions as well, although we often have good discussions. Let's just talk about something else for a while.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 11, 2004 4:20 PM

ARAGLAS


Something is strange you guys.... we're on a site titled "FIREFLYFANS.NET".... why are we talking about the US election.... I am sure that it is important to many of you, heck, I'm 14 and it's pretty important to me, but that's not what this site is about... you want to talk about politics go to a political chat room, where you can talk to people who agree with you or disagree with you accordingly.
I didn't start watching Firefly because they all are political junkies, becuase they support the same things I support. Nathon Fillion may like Kerry better than Bush, but does Mal?... The truth is, that we are united under one banner, and that banner waves neither the Elephant, nor the Donkey, that banner waves the colors of the true Sci-Fi fan, that banner is us. We are Democrats, Republicans, Americans, Canadiens, Palestinian, Asian..... We are Browncoats... and we are Firefly Fans..... Go talk about politics somewhere else... when we fight (or what you would call "discuss") something that makes people choose sides, we will be a broken group of fans.... lets not start something that may leave us with enemies....

Let's stay Browncoats together... nothing else...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 11, 2004 10:00 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Araglas, I understand where you are coming from on this. The Real World Event Discussions set of threads on this site has ballooned recently. If Haken decides that these threads are distracting from the main purpose of this site - to provide a place for fans of Firefly to virtually congregate - and decides to shut down these types of threads then I won't complain. I come to this site first and foremost to engage in this great community of fireflyfans.

For me, this is the only site where I regularly post. Many of my posts are in the General Discussions threads. Many of my posts are in the Real World Event Discussions threads. I appreciate having the Real World section of the web site because there are a lot of topics that I have an opinion on, albeit maybe an uninformed one, that I feel safe discussing here. Safe in that I know the people who I am engaged in discussion with, although we might disagree on the particular topic, do have one thing in common - a love of Firefly. We share that in common and so it is easier for me to be less judgemental in regards to their opinions on other topics. I have learned a lot from many different people in these threads. Because of our differing philosophical beliefs we access different sources of information and that is fascinating to me.

I try very hard not to attack people personally but rather to state my position and attempt to provide supplemental information to back that position up. Many of these topics in this section evoke strong emotions and so it is harder at times to refrain from engaging in flaming.

I would be saddened if this section were removed. But I would understand. It is only a peripheral part of this site. The main reason that I come here would still remain. To look at it from another direction, I would be very disappointed if a new Firefly fan got turned off from this community because of anything said in the Real World Event Discussion section.





I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 11, 2004 11:50 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer- Whyizzit that Cheney can say something as egregious as 'Vote for us or die' (paraphrased) and ConnerFlynn can say something as extreme as "Well World War three is here" with nary a lifted eyebrow, but all replies have to be somehow moderate, neutral, dispassionate? Seems there is a pervasie double standard at work here and possibly some unconscious bias, no?

Araglas- Probably one of the most interesting aspects of the show (at least for me) is that it is deeply political. Politics drives the plot- from the destruction of Earth-that-was to the centralization of the Alliance and the resistance of the outlying worlds. I think because of that, the show attracted a number of politically impassioned viewers, especially libertarians and liberals (or farther left). I personally think Joss wanted it that way- that's why the focus is not on whiz-bang technology or aliens, but on the very human problems of justice, freedom, security, individualism, and conformity. That being said, my guess would be that Joss believes that the BEST way to engage people is through a good story, not through polemics, and if this thread were to turn people off to the story then he'd vote to shut it down.

It's a great disappointment when I find a science fiction writer who dreams up an extreme physical milieu (Helliconia, the surface of a neutron star) and then creates a society that is a stupid white man's view of African tribalism... no real imgination, and certainly no insight! I'm not sure what you like about FF, but CJ Cherryh wrote an along similar lines in her Downbelow Station series- oddly, she even used the term Alliance, but in her stories that term describes the breakaway worlds, not the central core.

Anyway, if you will be patient I think the threads will die down a bit. This is the anniversary of 9-11, and also a very anxious time for a lot of people- those who believe that WW3 is here and only GWB can save us, and those who think that WW3 is coming BECAUSE of GWB. Pretty heavy-duty stuff. Hopefully, we will all remember to behave like grownups and keep the conversation civil.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 12, 2004 5:27 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- Whyizzit that Cheney can say something as egregious as 'Vote for us or die' (paraphrased) and ConnerFlynn can say something as extreme as "Well World War three is here" with nary a lifted eyebrow, but all replies have to be somehow moderate, neutral, dispassionate? Seems there is a pervasive double standard at work here and possibly some unconscious bias, no?




Cheney's statement is hardly new news, or a new tactic. Compare to Lyndon Johnson's 1964 "Daisy" commercial. (requires Realplayer) http://www.tvparty.com/trailers/johnsonpres.ram

Found here: http://www.tvparty.com/comjing.html

Based on the context, I thought that ConnerFlynn had tongue firmly in cheek with the WWIII statement.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 12, 2004 7:21 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yes, and Lyndon Johnson got the response that he deserved... massive and sometimes violent antiwar protests and eventually getting booted out of office! Johnson was called all sort of nasty but perfectly applicable names.

As far as ConnorFlynn is concerned- no, I don't think his tongue is firmly in cheek. Based on the tenor and content of his other posts I think he's dead serious.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 12, 2004 11:46 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, and Lyndon Johnson got the response that he deserved... massive and sometimes violent antiwar protests and eventually getting booted out of office! Johnson was called all sort of nasty but perfectly applicable names.




Remember that the reason for Johnson's commercial was that his opponent, Barry Goldwater, was actually talking about using nukes in SE Asia. And Johnson did win that election. Johnson was also the president who pushed through some of the most far reaching civil rights legislation and court rulings of the 20th century. If he hadn't inherited Vietnam from JFK, he might be considered one of the greatest presidents.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 12, 2004 4:32 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yes, I know. The difference between Johnson and Bush is that Johnson has SOME redeeming qualities, and Bush has none, as far as I can tell.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 13, 2004 1:06 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


To make this more explicit, if Johnson was dumped out of ofiice because of Vietnam despite all of the positive things he'd done, what about Bush?

On the negative side, he lied us into Iraq (which despite Cheney's pesistance had nothing to do with terrorism in the USA) and was responsible for 1000 American deaths and created a record deficit out of a surplus, and lost us millions of jobs.

On the positive side he...uh...gave lots of money to the ultra wealthy and uh... uh... created an giveaway to the pharmas with his drug plan and.... uh... promised to take away money from failing schools.

I mean, I really can't think of a single thing that he's done that has had a positive impact on the average person- can you???

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 13, 2004 1:47 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
To make this more explicit, if Johnson was dumped out of ofiice because of Vietnam despite all of the positive things he'd done, what about Bush?



Johnson chose not to run in '68. He was never voted out. And you actually preferred Nixon?

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

On the negative side, he lied us into Iraq (which despite Cheney's pesistance had nothing to do with terrorism in the USA) and was responsible for 1000 American deaths and created a record deficit out of a surplus, and lost us millions of jobs.

On the positive side he...uh...gave lots of money to the ultra wealthy and uh... uh... created an giveaway to the pharmas with his drug plan and.... uh... promised to take away money from failing schools.

I mean, I really can't think of a single thing that he's done that has had a positive impact on the average person- can you???



I'm certainly not happy with his pandering to the Religious Right, for example, but I have no problem with going after the Taliban in Afghanistan. I'm holding off on the Iraq situation until I see how (or if) the elections go in January.

Here are a couple of seemingly positive things I've found :

"Bush Tax Cuts Erased Income Tax Burden for 7.8 Million Families"

http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/7million.html

"New CBO Study Confirms Wealthiest Americans Bear Income Tax Burden"

http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/cbostudy2.html




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 13, 2004 3:48 PM

HKCAVALIER


I may be a big idiot here, but that whole "wealthiest Americans bare highest tax burden thing" sure sounds like a lovely euphemistic spin on the reality that the poorest Americans are getting a lot poorer. Perhaps the statistic merely reflects that there are many more single parent homes with multiple dependants who make less than $20,000 a year--hence, a "dramatic increase" in "zero-filers." If an extra $500 per child is having such a dramatic affect on the stats, doesn't that suggest that there are an awful lot of poeple who are just really, really poor?

And most people who are concerned about the rich getting richer are not conserned with the "top 60%" of Americans getting rich (I bet most Americans would be pretty happy about that, right? 60%=most), they're conserned about the top 15, 10 or 1%. I'm not a big math genius, but I don't think that website had anything specific to say about the top 15%. Sounds an awful lot like the top 15% are still winning big, the extremely poor are getting so poor that a few hundred dollars changes their lives and the middle class are getting stuck with the bill again, so what's the big change?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 13, 2004 4:28 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh yeah, whoopee, the tax burden is reduced. Manwhile, more people are poorer than ever before, more people don't have health insurance and (if Bush had his way) fewer people would get paid overtime. He gives with one hand, he takes with two.

Without looking at the totality "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" (NO) and jsut looking at the so-called tax cut, as a stimulous measure it was a total flop. What it really did was transfer money from the moderatley well-off to the ultra wealthy. What "quintile" numbers DON'T show you is that the ultra-wealthy- those making a million or more- pay no taxes. It gets buried in the top quintile average.

As far as Johnson- no, I didn't prefer Nixon. But Nixon followed Johnson's path of lying to the public and he got what HE deserved.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 13, 2004 5:49 PM

HKCAVALIER


Hey Signy,

For a guy that hates it when people assume that his lack of sympathy for the left means he's right-wing, Geezer sure likes to throw up these polarizing kinds of "questions."

Quote:

And you actually preferred Nixon?


Hasn't he been reading your posts long enough to know the answer to that already? Yeah, you're a regular Ben Stein! Y'all love you some Nixon! LOL! Guys like the Geez seem to think the rest of us are all so simple minded.

BTW: I don't know if you're up on Ben Stein but I just heard him on Hardball (damn, or was it Larry King?), anyway, he was asked about Watergate and he said that all of us would be a lot better off if the break-in had never been found out, that it would be better for the country if Nixon had gotten away with it. I think Chris Matthews just stared at him. LOL!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 13, 2004 7:24 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I know where Geezer's sympathies lie. Impartiality is NOT his forte!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 1:01 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I know where Geezer's sympathies lie. Impartiality is NOT his forte!




Unlike yourself, of course.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 6:06 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yes, but I never said I was impartial!!!

I follow the facts, but I DO take a side: the side of the average working person of the world, who only wants to be able to have control over his/her life, be remunerated justly for efforts, pass on a better world to their kids, and not be sh*t on by societal elephants. Preferably, from my POV, by not deifying elephants to begin with.

Now, if someone were to be able to PROVE to me that growing and maintaining elephants is a good thing for all cocerned, I would change my mind. But right now, all I'm hearing is that it's OK to lie to the nation on every conceiveable issue, force capitalism on the world with 800+ military installations, and transfer wealth to the wealthy and power to the powerful.

BTW, do you not find it strange that when Putin decides to take away liberties in Russia to fight terrorism it's called a "power grab", but when Bush does it it's called patriotism? Funny how we can be objective about everyone but ourselves!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 7:06 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, but I never said I was impartial!!!

I follow the facts, but I DO take a side: the side of the average working person of the world, who only wants to be able to have control over his/her life, be remunerated justly for efforts, pass on a better world to their kids, and not be sh*t on by societal elephants.



Oh, you're on my side then. I meet all those qualifications except for the kids. Have to substitute nieces and nephews.

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
But right now, all I'm hearing is that it's OK to lie to the nation on every conceiveable issue, force capitalism on the world with 800+ military installations, and transfer wealth to the wealthy and power to the powerful.



Not from me. What you hear from me is that I find it objectionable that you demonize the opposition as lying masterminds of evil rather than considering that they just might have different viewpoints, or might just not be extremely competent. I don't agree with much of Bush's domestic policy, but I understand it's just disagreement, not good vs. evil.

Some of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan may support the formation of democracies, but not sure we're "forcing" capitalism on the world with our military bases (which were mostly there prior to the Bush Administration, I believe).

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW, do you not find it strange that when Putin decides to take away liberties in Russia to fight terrorism it's called a "power grab", but when Bush does it it's called patriotism? Funny how we can be objective about everyone but ourselves!



Not sure I've seen the "power grab" reference. cites?
Edit: Never mind. Found it. http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6
222980



Which of your liberties has Bush taken away? Please be specific.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 17, 2004 3:51 PM

SUCCATASH



I'm now seriously doubting that Bin Laden will be caught before the U.S. presidential election.

It looks like I was wrong.



"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:24 AM

TALLGRRL


Quote:

Originally posted by Succatash:

A few months ago, I started a poll on my website about when Osama Bin Laden will be captured in relation to the US election.


TAKE THE POLL:
http://www.strangefinger.com/index.html#bl

Bush is running out of time, but low and behold:

U.S. Capture of bin Laden Close
Sep 4,2004
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=3&u=/ap
/20040904/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_bin_laden_1


What's your opinion on this matter? I'm guessing Bin Laden will be caught in mid-October. Hmmm.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."




But then again, if Bush isn't concerned (his own words) about Bin Laden, why the hell should we be now?
If this is his "october surprise" it's not much of one and it ain't gonna work.
It will probably be seen as a pitiful and transparently political move. Well, amongst people with functioning brains, anyway.

"Take me, sir. Take me hard."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:27 AM

TALLGRRL


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, but I never said I was impartial!!!

I follow the facts, but I DO take a side: the side of the average working person of the world, who only wants to be able to have control over his/her life, be remunerated justly for efforts, pass on a better world to their kids, and not be sh*t on by societal elephants.



Oh, you're on my side then. I meet all those qualifications except for the kids. Have to substitute nieces and nephews.

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
But right now, all I'm hearing is that it's OK to lie to the nation on every conceiveable issue, force capitalism on the world with 800+ military installations, and transfer wealth to the wealthy and power to the powerful.



Not from me. What you hear from me is that I find it objectionable that you demonize the opposition as lying masterminds of evil rather than considering that they just might have different viewpoints, or might just not be extremely competent. I don't agree with much of Bush's domestic policy, but I understand it's just disagreement, not good vs. evil.

Some of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan may support the formation of democracies, but not sure we're "forcing" capitalism on the world with our military bases (which were mostly there prior to the Bush Administration, I believe).

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW, do you not find it strange that when Putin decides to take away liberties in Russia to fight terrorism it's called a "power grab", but when Bush does it it's called patriotism? Funny how we can be objective about everyone but ourselves!



Not sure I've seen the "power grab" reference. cites?
Edit: Never mind. Found it. http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6
222980



>B>Which of your liberties has Bush taken away?
Please be specific.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Don't be the frog in the pot of water:
go to aclu.org to find out about civil liberties.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
A thread for Democrats Only
Sun, April 18, 2021 19:19 - 5225 posts
The Nazification of the Republican Party
Sun, April 18, 2021 17:43 - 333 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Sun, April 18, 2021 16:57 - 48 posts
Mueller Investigation Is Over / Part two are the trials that begin in 2021 / tick tock
Sun, April 18, 2021 16:55 - 1324 posts
Mid-Term Elections 2021
Sun, April 18, 2021 16:42 - 16 posts
HR 1: Election Reform Bill
Sun, April 18, 2021 16:27 - 213 posts
Trouble Looming for Bitcoin, ethereum and monero? 'We are about to see massive disruptions': IMF chief . Is Digi Money a Scam or Here to Stay?
Sun, April 18, 2021 15:39 - 19 posts
Long hot summer ... of riots
Sun, April 18, 2021 10:54 - 335 posts
The Illegal Aliens Facts Thread
Sun, April 18, 2021 10:42 - 30 posts
List of States/Governments/Politicians Moving to Ban Vaccine Passports
Sun, April 18, 2021 10:26 - 19 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Sun, April 18, 2021 10:14 - 328 posts
Amnesty Bill for illegal immigrants defeated in Senate.
Sun, April 18, 2021 10:03 - 160 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL