Our President

POSTED BY: howdyrockerbaby1
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 16:36
VIEWED: 49464
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

HOWDYROCKERBABY1

Saturday, April 24, 2004 6:58 PM

Who thinks that our President needs to get his butt out of the White House?

I certainly do.

EDIT: CLARIFICATION: I don't think the war in Iraq was necessary at all, and so far Bush has given no reason for going, I think its great that those people are now free, but Bush shouldn't have been so cocky as to think that we could fix that entire country all on our own without the help of the UN. Besides, we have our own problems in our country to worry about before we try fixing everybody elses.

Besides his Anti-Kerry commercials are just rediculous, almost all of the information (especially on the GAS TOPIC) that he says is at least 10 years old, for instance the 50 cent gas tax information(11 years old!) Plus his speeches annoy the hell out of me

The reason why i have asked this question is because i just wanted to know the general consensus of all my wonder browncoat friends, i'm not trying to start any debate or anything.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"Here's to Jayne, the box dropping man-ape-gone-wrong-thing"
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

FIRESCAPE

Saturday, April 24, 2004 7:06 PM

I don't.

GHOLA

Saturday, April 24, 2004 7:28 PM

I try not to get into political debates and I won't now but could you two please explain your opinions in more depth than just 'I want him gone' 'well I don't'.

TALLGRRL

Saturday, April 24, 2004 7:34 PM

Out of the White House and directly to JAIL.

RKLENSETH

Saturday, April 24, 2004 7:35 PM

Exactly where Kerry should be for perjury when he lied about what was really happening in Vietnam.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

SOUNDHACK

Saturday, April 24, 2004 7:52 PM

nah, I don't think he committed any crimes (that we know of at least).

I think he should go to Iraq. Not sneak in like he did for Thanksgiving. He said "Bring 'em on" so the least he can do is go to Iraq himself and see what has been brought on.

RICHARDECHEANDIA

Saturday, April 24, 2004 7:57 PM

In general I think its a mistake to have the FFF.net become a political forum. There's LOTS of other boards where you can post those topics.

We're all trying to be good browncoats here and help build support for the movie.

But since you ask about 'shrub':

He proposed a piece of legislation called the "Clean Skies Act" that allows more mercury and more pollutants to be dumped into the air than before...

He enacts legislation to protect our forests that mandates MORE logging and MORE clear cutting...

Tries to eliminate overtime pay for hourly workers...

Worked in the Congress to defeat the Kyoto protocol...

Voted against the abolition of land mines....

Refuses to obey the Geneva convention in our completely lawless treatment of Afghan POWs (many American former POWs fear how nations will treat our soldiers in the future because we've invented something called enemy combatants (whatever the f*ck that is)

Over TWO MILLION jobs lost during his tenure...

On average the jobs that have been created during his reign have been for less than 60% of what the work used to be making... (don't just count jobs, count earning power)

Blatantly lied about WMD...

Started a war with Iraq that by any realistic account will make terrorism much, much worse...

AND on top of all that when asked if he's made any mistakes says that he can't think of anything and says that he's under a lot of pressure because its a new conference. Uhmmmm... you're the President - are you saying you can't handle the pressure from the questions of 7 reporters?

This is the leader of the free world?

Oh yeah... I know I've had enuf of the shrub to last me for the rest of my life.

Imagine what will happen if he does manage to get himself re-elected and DOESN'T have to worry about a 3rd term. The gloves will come off and his agenda will become even more right wing and more reactionary.

The members of our armed services (many of the readers of FFF.net fall into that category) are brave, honorable and honest men and woman doing what they've been ordered to do in a very, very dangerous situation. I want to support them by bringing them home ASAP.

Just my $.02

=======================
Mal: "Is there blubber?"

MELEAUX

Saturday, April 24, 2004 8:56 PM

i think being the leader of the best country in the world lends itself to excessive scrutiny and the old saying of "you can't please all the people all the time" holds truer in this instance than any other.
I must only say that he is sooo much better than what we had before. Clinton was Ewwww at best.
I love my country and I love my president for better or worse.
Now, before you all hang me out to dry I want to say that I love being a browncoat and this is my favorite place to be when I get on line so please don't ruin it for me by going all blue hands on me

She understands, she doesn't comprehend

HERO

Saturday, April 24, 2004 9:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by richardecheandia:
In general I think its a mistake to have the FFF.net become a political forum. There's LOTS of other boards where you can post those topics.

Agree.

Quote:

But since you ask about 'shrub':

He proposed a piece of legislation called the "Clean Skies Act" that allows more mercury and more pollutants to be dumped into the air than before...

Yeah, and they all started dumping it the next day. Never mind that the result is a net reduction in pollutants and the saving of tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs located in older factories that could not afford the millions in costs to retool to meet clean air standards and faced either shut down or movement to Mexico where little things like wages, air pollution, and clean water don't mean squat next to just plain having a job.

Quote:

He enacts legislation to protect our forests that mandates MORE logging and MORE clear cutting...

There is no more clear cutting since inudstry and govt standards mandated the replanting thing. So hello West Virginia, you get to have an economy no longer based soley on Federal Highway funds and the Robert Bird Memorial Incest Clinic and Pork Hatchery.

Quote:

Tries to eliminate overtime pay for hourly workers...

New standards never applied to blue collar workers, only white collar management. But it makes for a nice campaign issue. Still Cleveland School District has a $100 million deficit this year. A fair percentage is janitorial overtime, so maybe we need to take a look at blue collar workers too.

Don't get me wrong, I like overtime. But between overtime and health insurance, if I need to hire someone, I hope I'm close to a border.

Quote:

Worked in the Congress to defeat the Kyoto protocol...

Because the so called protocol only applied to the USA. Also, it makes no sense to priortize the enviroment in this enviroment. Not only are we cleaner then 10 years ago, but it makes no sense to place new burdens on domestic industry at a time when they are already under so much pressure to either fail completely or move to warmer climates.

Quote:

Voted against the abolition of land mines....

And for good reasons. Land mines have been an effective military weapon for decades. Our landmines are not the problem. Now if people die from stepping on them, then I say they are working properly.

I feel bad for unintentional victims, but I'd feel worse if our troops in Korea had to face a North Korean invasion without the landmines along our side of the DMZ. BTW, ever wonder why the mines in Korea are all on our side?

Quote:

Refuses to obey the Geneva convention in our completely lawless treatment of Afghan POWs (many American former POWs fear how nations will treat our soldiers in the future because we've invented something called enemy combatants (whatever the f*ck that is)

Actually this is a sticky issue. The POW's in question are not covered by the conventions because they are not soldiers, served no recognized govt, etc. They most closely resemble pirates, legally that is, not in appearence me hearty...agh, agh, agh.

The issue will soon be decided by the Supreme Court. I think those that served the Taliban should be treated as POWs and eventually returned to their homeland. Although 1 or 2 might need to be 'accidently' sucked through a large jet turbine.

Captured terrorists should be tried as such and given appropriate sentences.

Quote:

Over TWO MILLION jobs lost during his tenure...

On average the jobs that have been created during his reign have been for less than 60% of what the work used to be making... (don't just count jobs, count earning power)

ALGORE could have been in office and it still would have happened. I don't see the economic downturn that started in 1999 waking up to an ALGORE presidency and saying, gee lets not fire anybody today. It was the direct result of 8 years of no energy

HERO

Saturday, April 24, 2004 9:33 PM

I think he should vacation in Texas more often.

H

STEVE580

Saturday, April 24, 2004 9:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by howdyrockerbaby1:
Who thinks that our President needs to get his butt out of the White House?

I do!!

But, I'd rather him there than Kerry. I'm not voting for either (Libertarian for me), but since I know my party won't win, I hope Bush does.

Quote:
Bush shouldn't have been so cocky as to think that we could fix that entire country all on our own without the help of the UN. Besides, we have our own problems in our country to worry about before we try fixing everybody elses.

Problem is, the UN had no intention of fixing anything. So it was us, or no one at all.
-Steve

ECGORDON

Saturday, April 24, 2004 9:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I think he should vacation in Texas more often.

NO, NO, NO! That makes him too much of a target too close to where I live.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, April 24, 2004 9:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I think he should vacation in Texas more often.

H

I think he should vacation in Faluja. Maybe, Cheney and Rumsfeld could join him.

Seriously, I just think that its pretty sad that in a nation of nearly 300 million, the best we can come up with is Kerry or Bush. Another round of choosing the 'other' of two evils.

The only way this is ever going to change is when we change the way we vote. Plurality voting sucks and reinforces the two party dynasty. Check this out:

http://www.approvalvoting.org/

or this:

http://www.constitution.org/voting/voting.htm

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, April 24, 2004 9:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by richardecheandia:
In general I think its a mistake to have the FFF.net become a political forum. There's LOTS of other boards where you can post those topics.

Disagree, as long as it's in the appropriate area on the forums.

To the rest that you said,

HURRAY, BROTHER!!!

*gives virtual hug*
*virtually kisses both cheeks* (like the French do, eh, nothing sexual here)

I completely agree

And see I also reference a nice quote in my sig

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

APEMAN61

Saturday, April 24, 2004 10:23 PM

I agree with Hero. And by the way SigmaNunki that signature is bad ass.

"Rule of thumb? Maybe it should be rule of wrist."

DORAN

Sunday, April 25, 2004 6:19 PM

hmmm.

"He enacts legislation to protect our forests that mandates MORE logging and MORE clear cutting..."

It's about time. We wouldn't have lost my favorite camping spot in the world to fire if this had been done sooner.

"Tries to eliminate overtime pay for hourly workers.."

For folks who make more than 100,000 dollars a year. The overtime rules have been in severe need of revamping for a while.

"worked in the Congress to defeat the Kyoto protocol... "

Thank God! The kyoto accords were about one thing, making the USA pay the rest of the world for every problem they could think of.. not only was this unfair, it was based on junk science. Even if global warming is a fact there is no real compelling proof it's caused by man. The earth has cycled in and out of ice age and warm ages for as long as it has existed. The worst part about 'kyoto' was it tied the hands of the USA and the western world industry and at the same time exempted China and India, two of the worst 'offenders' from any of the regulation.

"Voted against the abolition of land mines...."

Passing this would be like telling our enemies, 'We are not going to use our superior weapons to fight you.. you do what ever you want to do.' Anti-personnel mines are not weapons of mass destruction but if you want to call them that than hey, we found Saddam's supply.

"Refuses to obey the Geneva convention in our completely lawless treatment of Afghan POWs"

This is made up. These captives are being treated fairly. Primarily the ACLU attorneys can't wait to try POW's in civil court so they make a stink. Personally, I'm glad most of these are still in captivity. They'd just be killing and fighting and dying outside. They are not US citizens and we are at war still they belong off shore and in prison until the conclusion of the conflict.

"Over TWO MILLION jobs lost during his tenure..."

and nearly the same number created.. jobs are created all the time. I don't blame Bush for this.. anymore than I blame Clinton for the prosperity of the 90's; they inherited both.

"On average the jobs that have been created during his reign have been for less than 60% of what the work used to be making.."

So what. Clinton jobs were equally reduced.. this is just the fact of new jobs.. they start low and elevate over time.. you don't expect to be making the same amount in 10 years doing one job I hope.

"Blatantly lied about WMD..."

This is a rhetorical dead give away. Sorry but not convinced they weren't any... not convinced they won't eventually show. If Bush lied about these so did Clinton and the UN who both said the same thing as Bush about 'WMD'. Not convinced by the 'he lied' rhetoric at all.

"Started a war with Iraq that by any realistic account will make terrorism much, much worse..."

Does terror get much worse than 9/11? How many times did Saddam have to shoot at our planes before we should have responded? Words and resolutions mean things. To not do what Bush did would be making light of the UN and her resolutions. If it weren't for the USA the UN would be nothing just like the pathetic league of nations that preceded her. Most people recognize that the gulf war never ended. There was a 'stay' set up in a UN resolution.

"This is the leader of the free world?"

Yes, and God help us if that smarmy Kerry takes over. Not only will we be over taxed up to our eyes again but I don't believe we'll see much difference in foreign policy.. this is because Kerry doesn't have any original thought on the subject.

I am behind the troops and heros of the US military that are in harms way fighting for our way of life. I refused to be involved in organized subversion. The left would like to demonize our president and the war effort they say while still 'supporting our troops'. Well Kerry has proven this is impossible. Just look at his inconsistent voting when it comes to our troops in time of war. He's lucky there haven't been more deat

RICHARDECHEANDIA

Sunday, April 25, 2004 8:07 PM

Doran and Hero:

See - this is exactly why I think its a bad idea to have these discussions here.

I'm not going to get into a point by point discussion with you fine folks (except for the bit about the overtime - how many hourly people make over $100K annual? What a specious argument).

Let's be honest and face the facts: Nothing I say will change your mind. I'm not to sure how you can spin shrub's record to change my mind so let's both save our breath ok?

I will save this about your comments though:

My mom used to call that 'rationalization'.

(ducks and hides)

Have a great day, support democracy, support the right of every American's vote to be truly counted and like you, I'm REALLY looking forward to voting in November.

=======================
Mal: "Is there blubber?"

NERVOUSPETE

Sunday, April 25, 2004 9:32 PM

I've been on a fair few boards that have held political conversation. I'm always struck by the same thing; there are usually only two opinions.

One is: Bush is evil, greedy and stupid! Down with the evil right-wing Republicans!

Another is: Democrats are bleeding heart whiners! We are doing the best to save America, and you should get behind us or you are either stupid, or dangerous. Down with liberals!

Curiously, there never seem to be any mixed views and calm reasoning. But should there be such posts on these boards? YES, there should. Under a section called 'Debate' or 'Politics'. Now more than ever people need to seriously scrutinise everything our leaders, the media, and the people say and do. I don't like the current Republican administration. I think that they believe that they are doing the right thing, but are actually being dangerously short sighted on the subject of foreign affairs, the enviroment and terrorism. I also believe that they should break up some of the big corporations and secure more pay and free health care for those under or near the poverty line. But that's all I'll say on the matter here. I'm an outsider, looking in.

Looking in from the best country in the world, England.

See how annoying that is? Please don't say that. Personally I think that the best country in the world is either New Zealand or... hmm... nope, New Zealand is the best. Despite its bizarre road network. God blesses no country. His mandate is the world. And in a few hundred years, America will be a very different place for good or for ill, see what he thinks then. No one can claim him for themselves.

If you want my views on the subject (other than the little blip that is my considered opinion that you should vote Democrat, and that Clinton's security guards are astonishingly nice people who posed for photos and pretended to arrest students for laughs when he visited Warwick University here in his last month of power) then *gasp* email me at dreaming_lad@yahoo.com or set up a section for threads on political debate.

By putting this under the main section, you are giving Firefly a political bias that it stears clear of. I think that Firefly's politics stem purely from conscience. They are about the little people after all and not governments, politics or ambassadors. I think that it takes the best of Republican history (Lincoln) and the best of Democrat (Roosevelt) in its heart. Flawed but great men. And then it has Lenny Bruce, Bill Hicks, Elmore Leonard and Rod Serling kick them about a bit.

Where was I? The ending with a short outburst of overbearing moral smugness I think. Yes.

Never follow the line that you have to support the incumbant president at a time of crisis. That breeds facism, honestly. Always question even your most beloved party and leader, never follow blindly. And keep a close eye on your troops abroad, pray for them, love them, and be ready to raise your voice if you think they act out of line. We are all human, and humans get scared and make mistakes, succumb to temptation or follow impossible ideals... our collective job is to catch them when they fall.

Thanks for listening, and I request again a new section and thread for this, out of the General Section, and the promotion of further discussion on the matter. Oh, and that we actually LISTEN to opposing views and play devil's advocate whenever we can.

Thanks,

Pete

SUCCATASH

Sunday, April 25, 2004 9:40 PM

War is hell. Bush has a lot of blood on his hands. All Americans do. I feel ashamed.

RUXTON

Sunday, April 25, 2004 9:42 PM

Bush lied and people died.

Rather than pick apart the vacuous comments by two windy posters here, anyone who thinks the current occupant of the White House and his minions are good guys (Kerry would not be any better), go immediately to "letsroll911.org" and look at the rocket being fired from the airplane just before it impacts the WTC tower.

The rocket fire is visible on ANY video from ANY and ALL news sources from that day. The other airplane also fired at least one rocket. All that is needed is to slow down any video and watch what happens.

This was while the so-called leader sat on his duff and read a story to school children, while four aircraft had been hijacked.

Bush lied and people died.

.......Ruxton

ps: Check out the heavy hitters who are monitoring that website; and look at the Alexa ratings. Most interesting!

HOWDYROCKERBABY1

Sunday, April 25, 2004 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Doran:

"Started a war with Iraq that by any realistic account will make terrorism much, much worse..."

Does terror get much worse than 9/11? How many times did Saddam have to shoot at our planes before we should have responded? Words and resolutions mean things. To not do what Bush did would be making light of the UN and her resolutions. If it weren't for the USA the UN would be nothing just like the pathetic league of nations that preceded her. Most people recognize that the gulf war never ended. There was a 'stay' set up in a UN resolution.

There has never been any proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, in fact i think there is already proof that he had NOTHING to do with it. and when asked about going to fight Saddam Bush said "well...we know he was dangerous" yeah what else is new! But lets try getting Osama before taking over Iraq for its oil

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"Here's to Jayne, the box dropping man-ape-gone-wrong-thing"
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

NERVOUSPETE

Sunday, April 25, 2004 9:51 PM

(Spoken in a plummy cockney accent...)

"Hello, Peter here! I've just made a post about how we should rationally consider each other's arguements on another section of the site before leaping to poorly argued, 'X' is good/evil/has good dress sense. I certainly hope that I'm heeded and that any following posts take into account both sides of the story and use proper factual evidence to back up their... (slipping into a raucous Scouse accent) ... AW NO! WHAT 'AVE I DONE? MA WIFE'S GONNA KILL ME!"

One for you 'Reeves and Mortimer' fans out there. All one of you, probably. *Sniff* Now back to our regular broadcasting.

P.S:
(Paraprhased)
Bob Mortimer: "Honestly, that Mel Gibson! He's terrible! He smashed my window the other week with his football, he owes me a fiver for that."
Vic Reeves: "And he owes me a trip to the swimming baths, bus fare and a fish supper."
Bob: "Honestly, Vic, that Mel Gibson, eh?"
(Etc.)

SOUNDHACK

Sunday, April 25, 2004 10:09 PM

I don't have time or will to go point by point, but it seems that the reason why people are angry over WMD has been either purposely or inadvertently misrepresented by the Bush supporters. It is irrelevant that "other people" thought Saddam had WMD too. If you will remember, there were UN inspectors in Iraq already, trying to confirm either way Saddam's posession of WMD, precisely because people thought he had them.

The reason why people (including myself) are angry is that Bush didnt even give the inspectors a chance. He was openly contemptuous of the UN and its inspectors (so I can't believe some of the claims of "we attacked Iraq to uphold the legitimacy of the UN"), mostly because they were being methodical and wouldnt bend their statements to make it politically expedient for the US. The inspectors said they needed another month or so, but that wasnt good enough for the administration, they wanted to start the war anyway. If the administration only waited to give the inspectors the time they wanted, I am sure a lot more people would be supportive, and we will really have a coalition in there now.

The reason why people say he lied was because he said Saddam was ABSOLUTELY AN IMMINENT THREAT. Remember the claims that Saddam can attack us within 45 minutes? or Colin Powell's waving of satellite photos saying we have proof of WHERE EXACTLY the WMD are? Those are pretty big lies I think. The administration is now saying that intelligence is never perfect, but if that is the case, why were they making so definite and absolute claims back then?

It is a stretch to say that it is still possible Saddam had WMD, but I think its pretty safe to say it wasnt an imminent threat.

ob Firefly remark: Which political party best reflects "Alliance-like" thinking?

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 25, 2004 10:21 PM

The reason why people say he lied was because he said Saddam was ABSOLUTELY AN IMMINENT THREAT
-------------------------------------------------

Actually, Bush never said that. Sadly, the left wing Press isn't doing much to clarify that, and in fact are perpetuating that urban legend.

Bush never lied about the IMMINENT THREAT, and Colin Powell only showed where WMD's WERE, months and years before Saddam moved them.

More than anything, I'm annoyed, no, REALLY PISSED that this topic has come to this thread. A million places on the net and everywhere else folks can make their views known on politics.

For the record, I voted Libertarain in 2000. I plan on voting for Bush in 2004. That's all I got to say about that.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SOUNDHACK

Sunday, April 25, 2004 11:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The reason why people say he lied was because he said Saddam was ABSOLUTELY AN IMMINENT THREAT
-------------------------------------------------

Actually, Bush never said that. Sadly, the left wing Press isn't doing much to clarify that, and in fact are perpetuating that urban legend.

Bush never lied about the IMMINENT THREAT, and Colin Powell only showed where WMD's WERE, months and years before Saddam moved them.

More than anything, I'm annoyed, no, REALLY PISSED that this topic has come to this thread. A million places on the net and everywhere else folks can make their views known on politics.

For the record, I voted Libertarain in 2000. I plan on voting for Bush in 2004. That's all I got to say about that.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Another thing the press (nor the administration) isnt clarifying is the lack of link between Al Qaeda and 9/11 with Iraq, so I dont agree that the press is predominantly left wing. Some people still believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and no one in the administration seems interested in clarifying that "urban legend"

Bush never specifically said the words "imminent threat" but now we are getting into parsing words, just like with "is" and Clinton. I think taking Bush's speeches and the comments of other officials (notably Cheney and Rumsfeld) it can't be helped if people get the impression that the administration thought that Saddam was an imminent/immediate/grave/whatever threat.

How do you explain not giving the UN inspectors enough time to complete their mission? Yes, Saddam was being evasive and uncooperative. But the UN inspectors didnt give up saying they can't make any progress, they said they were making (slow) progress) and they just wanted more time.

As for Colin Powell, his satellite images are
from Mar~Dec 2002 (definitely "months" but not "years" before the attack), and shows not only historical artifacts (where WMD were) but then current spikes in activity, from trucks (supposedly carrying wmd) moving in and out to repavings/etc.

Hmm if you are so pissed about this thread then no one is forcing you to respond, or even read it. I think it's still a free country, and unless the FFF webadmin objects then I think it's still fair game, as long as we don't resort to name-calling and disrespectful behavior.

INSIGHT SPINNER

Sunday, April 25, 2004 11:34 PM

As any true browncoat knows, both them parties are Alliance.

Okay, I should know better, but it's no different then Mal in an Alliance-friendly bar on U-Day.

insight spinner
__________

Just an object. It doesn't mean what you think....

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 26, 2004 12:01 AM

It's nothing remotely like Clinton's parsing of words at all. Bush said BEFORE the threat became imminant, something should be done. Once you see the smoke from the gun, it's already been fired. Sadly, many in the press ( which is indisputably left wing ) decided to run w/ what he DIDN'T say. Just like the 'warnings' that went unheeded for yrs about al qaida. AFTER 9-11, we could no longer afford to turn a deaf ear to what we already knew to be a threat.

The UN inspectors were given 12 yrs. More accuratly, Saddam was given 12 yrs to comply. He didn't. Resolution 1441 was passed. It's a moot point now.

WMD's are very mobile and easy to hide. Why are we still talking about this?

All I'm doing is voicing my opinion that this forum isn't the place for politics. So I'm done w/ this now. G'day.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 26, 2004 12:02 AM

It's nothing remotely like Clinton's parsing of words at all. Bush said BEFORE the threat became imminant, something should be done. Once you see the smoke from the gun, it's already been fired. Sadly, many in the press ( which is indisputably left wing ) decided to run w/ what he DIDN'T say. Just like the 'warnings' that went unheeded for yrs about al qaida. AFTER 9-11, we could no longer afford to turn a deaf ear to what we already knew to be a threat.

The UN inspectors were given 12 yrs. More accuratly, Saddam was given 12 yrs to comply. He didn't. Resolution 1441 was passed. It's a moot point now.

WMD's are very mobile and easy to hide. Why are we still talking about this?

All I'm doing is voicing my opinion that this forum isn't the place for politics. So I'm done w/ this now. G'day.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

DORAN

Monday, April 26, 2004 12:38 AM

Um, only the French could come up with that wacked a conspiracy theory. What kind of a loser thinks an airliner could be fitted with missles? I've heard some really wacked theories but this one takes the cake. It's also interesting to note that liberal thought could go that far to the extreme of their hatred. I would think it was in jest if it wasn't in such bad taste.

DORAN

Monday, April 26, 2004 12:52 AM

"Bush didnt even give the inspectors a chance"

They had 14 months from the utimatum given by the UN... and 12 years before that..

"he lied was because he said Saddam was ABSOLUTELY AN IMMINENT THREAT."

A threat I believe he was. If for no other reason that he was shooting at our planes daily. He thumbed his nose at the UN. The only time he ever cooperated with the UN was when the USA had troop camped on his borders and even that was grudging. What should we have done, camped there for years while Blix and his crew let Saddam and his goons run circles around them? He was under a stay of hostilities that stipulated full cooperation which he never gave. The action against him was overdue as shown by all the mass graves and torture room found so far. To say that he was a imminent threat may have been an slight exaggeration.. but then again it could have been spot on... we may never know.

DORAN

Monday, April 26, 2004 1:01 AM

"Another thing the press (nor the administration) isnt clarifying is the lack of link between Al Qaeda and 9/11 with Iraq, so I dont agree that the press is predominantly left wing."

I disagree.. I think the administration made a good case for Al Qaida having been there and Al Qaida is certainly there now. It's not important to tie Saddam directly to the 9/11 attack.. the world knows he very publically sponcered Hamas and others with money gained from illegal commerce from 'oil for food' with France and Russia.

Most liberals that I know don't think the press is predominantly left wing either... I have to concider the source.. because what I see watching them is very liberally biased in presentation and in content.

HERO

Monday, April 26, 2004 4:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by richardecheandia:

See - this is exactly why I think its a bad idea to have these discussions here.

Sure. You raise numerous concerns and can't face a point by point reply. I understand. You MUST turn away, because liberal ideals and the irrational hate certain people feel for Bush cannot hold up under reasonable scrutiny. Thats why Bush is leading in the polls.

Quote:
I'm not going to get into a point by point discussion with you fine folks (except for the bit about the overtime - how many hourly people make over $100K annual? What a specious argument).

You can't get into a point by point discussion. You can't even acknowledge the President's given name.

As for the overtime. You obviously don't work as a Cleveland School District Janitor. Ahh, Cleveland schools. Last year a massive tax increase, this year a $100 million dollar debt. Glad I live in the suburbs, with a Republican Mayor.

Quote:
Let's be honest and face the facts:

Boy are you in the wrong party.

Quote:
Nothing I say will change your mind. I'm not to sure how you can spin shrub's record to change my mind so let's both save our breath ok?

President Bush has done a fine job. I don't have to spin his record to change your mind. You already agree with me. That's why liberals are so angry. They hate Bush and the better the country does, the more anger they feel. Thats why so many have sought to dehumanize him by calling him 'shrub' and 'Dubyah'. Same kind of people used the 'N' word as an expression of hate fifty years ago and 'Slick Willy' in the last administration.

Quote:
My mom used to call that 'rationalization'.

She was a wise woman. You should have listened closer. I bet she told you name calling and hate mongering were bad things also.

Quote:
(ducks and hides)

Ah, so you are planning to vote for Kerry and his French approach to the war on terror.

H

HERO

Monday, April 26, 2004 4:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NervousPete:
I've been on a fair few boards that have held political conversation. I'm always struck by the same thing; there are usually only two opinions.

One is: Bush is evil, greedy and stupid! Down with the evil right-wing Republicans!

Another is: Democrats are bleeding heart whiners! We are doing the best to save America, and you should get behind us or you are either stupid, or dangerous. Down with liberals!

Curiously, there never seem to be any mixed views and calm reasoning. But should there be such posts on these boards?

No. Being middle of the road only gets a person run over.

Ok, here's a mixed view for you:

"Bush is evil, greedy and stupid! Democrats are bleeding heart whiners! We are doing the best to save America, and you should get behind us or you are either stupid, or dangerous."
---Now thats the America I know and love.

Oh, and down with liberals.

H

GHOULMAN

Monday, April 26, 2004 4:43 PM

Some things I know...

America declared a 'War on Terrorism' as if terrorism was another country. It isn't. A war against 'evil' is like a war against the sea. This is just Windmills and the entire world knows it.

America is the aggressor in the world.

America broke it's own laws to go to war.

America lied to it's own people to go to war.

America lied to the world to go to war.

America ignored the entire international community as well as the largest worldwide protests in HISTORY to go to war.

America killed tens of thousands of innocents in Iraq.

America is now, more than ever before (if that's possible for such a paranoid people), a nation of fear.

America (including Kerry) has changed it's policy towards Palistine and has declared it's OK to steal land and kill people in Gaza and the West Bank.

America is drafting again.

American aggression is the number one worry in recent European polls. Imagine what the Asian polls are like!

American soldiers in Iraq will pay the highest price for American pride. They always have.

Oh, and by America I mean the White House. But hey, you get the country you voted for... oh wait.

RICHARDECHEANDIA

Monday, April 26, 2004 5:30 PM

NERVOUSPETE:

Thanks for taking the tone of the conversation to a new (and in my opinion) better level.

I agree with what I believe is your sentiment. Very little intelligent, considered debate. Mostly two groups standing on either side of a ditch railing against each other.

Unfortunately, the reason I believe that is shown in my previous post. Very few people will change their minds about these things. Most people's minds are made up already. Either side can quote statistics, or the facts as we perceive them (for a great example of the bogusity of the assertion 'never claimed "Immediate Threat" check out http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/
), quote chapter and verse of law, proposed law or even quote directly from a person's documented speaches and still, very few folks will really reconsider their position.

One thing though NervousPete. RockerBaby's original post was something along the lines of 'who thinks our president needs to get out of the white house' (please excuse the paraphrase if I got it wrong.) That's an inherently 2 sided debate. You do, or your don't so its not surprising its turned into Kerry vs Bush (or more likely Franken vs Limbaugh).

If the question was more nuanced like:

What's the best way to extracate ourselves from Iraq?

How should American decide to go to war?

Does America need its allies any more?

What qualities are most imporant in a president?

How impeachable are bl*wjobs in the oval office?

THEN it might have been a more multi-faceted debate with a wider range of opinions. Maybe that's what's missing from political debate in American these days. Sigh....

BTW: Hero - you can stop now, I'm not going to take the bait.

Have a wonderful day every one.

And don't forget to vote.

=======================
Mal: "Is there blubber?"

LOKISINCE89

Monday, April 26, 2004 5:47 PM

OK, I am going to guess that you are relatively young, politically inexperienced and have not studied the US Constitution, US History or the European Age of Enlightenment in any serious venue.

1) President Bush clearly elucidated 5 reasons for ending the cease-fire (for that is all the past 11 years have been - Check UN documents, the war never ended. A) WMD in violation of UN resolutions and Saddam's own agreement to the cease fire. B) Connections w/ and funding of terrorista and there activities. See bounties paid to Homocide bombers in Isreal. C) Continued cease-fire violations as Saddam daily targeted US jets patrolling the no fly zone, and fired upon said jets. D) Failure to comply with UN resolution 1441 E) HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. Saddam's tyrannical regime was responsible for the deaths of over a million Iraqis - Kurds, Shi'ites Marsh Arabs and anybady who annoyed him.

Now, to put the two presidential candidates into terms you will understand - Bush is Mal - browncoat fighting for freedom from tyranny for himself and for all humans. Kerry is that Alliance Chode who captures Serenity after it is hit by Reavers. He knows how to run your life better than you do. The UN should form US foreign policy, not the US. He does what is politically expedient not what is morally correct.

Finally, your assertion that much of the information attributed to Kerry by the Bush/Cheney campaign is ten years old is half correct/ half misleading. Yes, when Kerry first supported a $.50 a gallon tax increase was 10 or so years ago. However, it is one of the few issues he has not flip-flopped on. I think if you would get your news from someplace other than "The Daily Show", comedians and network news casts, you may be surprised. I also recommend you read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Wealth of Nations and TownHall.com columnists regularly.

Or, you can simply remember - Allience = UN and liberals, Browncoats =America/ Conservatives!

ELBO

RICHARDECHEANDIA

Monday, April 26, 2004 6:22 PM

Uhmm... just a small reality check here...

Isn't Mal opposed to the government that's currently in power?

=======================
Mal: "Is there blubber?"

MILORADELL

Monday, April 26, 2004 6:25 PM

What never fails to amaze me, is how the same set of facts always wind up telling different stories, depending on who's using them. It's all in the spin - what you leave in, and what you leave out.

Speaking of facts, has anyone actually read the Kyoto Accords? Or have we read what others have said about it? I went looking, and I couldn't find the actual document anywhere. All I could find is what others have written about it. But then - maybe I didn't try hard enough (?).

Personally, I know the effect this administration has had on the lives and rights of women, and I won't be voting for Bush.

__________
Ok - I just re-read the above, about voting - ha!!! That's funny! We can't alll be PC allll the time .

****
Go run your little world.

SUCCATASH

Monday, April 26, 2004 6:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lokisince89:
Bush is Mal...

That's crazy talk. Mal is neither a foreign invader nor is he a country raper.

SPOOKYJESUS

Monday, April 26, 2004 6:49 PM

Our president? - YOUR president-

I love Bush right now - the American Dollar is worth nothing so I'm going on spending sprees on eBay and Amazon practicly every night - I'm getting expensive stuff for like half the price!

Four more years please - can you imagine what he'll do if he doesn't even have a re-election hanging over him (I mean Chaney can hardly run).
He's going to go nuts! - No health system - butcher the enviroment - big tax cuts for the rich - Big $$$ contracts for all his friends -

America will be in such a hole I'll buy a big ass house there for nothing and move in just as the American people stop acting like naieve children and start making they're country great again!

HERO

Monday, April 26, 2004 6:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by richardecheandia:
If the question was more nuanced like:

What's the best way to extracate ourselves from Iraq?

1. Leave
2. Kill all the terrorists and make Iraq the first stable Arab democracy.

I choose number 2.

Quote:

How should American decide to go to war?

We use a little something called the United States Constitution. It says Congress decides to go to war. The President can deploy troops and conduct reprisal raids and strikes, but cannot make an ultimate policy of war without Congressional approval.

For example, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the US Congress voted to declare war on Japan. Before the conflict in Iraq, in both 1991 and 2002, Congress voted to authorize the use of force to compel Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions.

Quote:
Does America need its allies any more?

Yes. England, Spain, Italy, Poland, Thailand, Spain, Australia, Bulgaria (glad their President wasn't hurt today), Albania, The Dominican Republic, etc, etc.

No. France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, Canada, the UN, and any other country that allows its foriegn policy to be dictated by those who were skimming billions from Iraq's Oil for Food Program or selling them weapons in violation of international sanctions, or who President was Saddam's best friend in the '70s and '80s. Really just France. To the liberals the whole world is French.

Quote:

What qualities are most imporant in a president?

Balls. Big American Balls. And this is not about having a man or a woman President. Its attitude.

Quote:

How impeachable are bl*wjobs in the oval office?

Its the perjury and obstruction of justice that he was impeached for. Clinton could have refused to answer or refused to obey the court's order to be deposed, but he didn't so he was liable for his answers.

Quote:

BTW: Hero - you can stop now, I'm not going to take the bait.

Then I have already won.

H

MILORADELL

Monday, April 26, 2004 7:06 PM

Quote:
Then I have already won.

H

Won what?? You guys playing foosball or something?

****
Go run your little world.

BIBSY

Monday, April 26, 2004 7:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lokisince89:
Now, to put the two presidential candidates into terms you will understand - Bush is Mal - browncoat fighting for freedom from tyranny for himself and for all humans. Kerry is that Alliance Chode who captures Serenity after it is hit by Reavers. He knows how to run your life better than you do.

Or, you can simply remember - Allience = UN and liberals, Browncoats =America/ Conservatives!

There's a slight problem with your analogy in that the show's creator doesn't see it that way. Here's what Joss Whedon had to say about Mal's politics in the New York Times Magazine in September 2002:

"Mal's politics are very reactionary and 'Big government is bad' and 'Don't interfere with my life.' And sometimes he's wrong -- because sometimes the Alliance is America, this beautiful shining light of democracy. But sometimes the Alliance is America in Vietnam: we have a lot of petty politics, we are way out of our league and we have no right to control these people. And yet sometimes the Alliance is America in Nazi Germany. And Mal can't see that, because he was a Vietnamese."

"Were there monkeys? Some terrifying space monkeys maybe got loose?"

NERVOUSPETE

Monday, April 26, 2004 7:09 PM

Thanks 'RICHARDECHEANDIA', you have restored some of my faith in this thread for your calm response. Don't agree with ALL your points in one of your posts but, *Phew*, good man!

Bibsy! Thank you! What a great quote, I didn't know that, but I suspected it to be the truth. You are a funky skillo person.

Of all the crew on Serenity, only two have voiced their political alleigance (by episode 8, haven't gotten further than that yet. Eep!). Zoe and Mal. Ianora was/is Alliance. We don't know how Kaylee, Book, Simon, River and Wash feel. Some of them may share the ideals of the Alliance, but of course hate their techniques. Jayne is Jayne, and he-larious.

Whatever you believe, don't apply Firefly's sides to the political divide. That's making obvious villains or incompetents out of a party or a people who share a belief. You do that, you have a one party system. It is getting disturbingly apparent that some people feel that only the Republican/Democrat view can prevail and holds any honour, sense or decency in it. What that translates as, is: Only Party and View 'X' can ever wield power. There can never be an alternative to Party and View 'X'. We must not stop until everyone is convinced of the wisdom of Party and View 'X'.

Instead of say, arguing by a system of ideas and solutions, rather than blind faith, paranoia and triumphalism.

NEVER assume that your party is the greater and must win at all costs. That breeds fascism. Seriously. A totally Democratic America is bad. A totally Republican America is bad. There has to be an equal balance, a chance for ALL views to be heard and considered, for both plans for peace and prosperity to be attempted. Without that choice and debate, the rebels spilled their blood without reason. When you shout down a man or woman who disagrees with you, when you insult them for their beliefs, when you slap down their arguement and dismiss it with a catchy phrase or glib comment - you do all those who died for freedom a disservice, here and throughout the rest of the world.

Atticus Finch (To Kill A Mockingbird - required reading) said that to get to know someone and their ideas, you first had to walk around in their shoes. Empathy and and understanding are powerful tools, use them.

And by the way, I am English, and I feel very strongly about America. You kicked our arses back in 1776, but we look to you to find your way to the first true ideal of a country. Even though we are cynics and disagree with you frequently, even though we laugh at you and mock you, we secretly are fascinated by you and want you to become something as noble as your heroes wanted it to be, badly. And cheers for putting yourselves on the line in World War II.

And never dismiss me as a liberal. God, that really annoys me.

The Alliance are not Republicans. The Alliance are not Democrats. They are any party that ever sought to bully dissenting opinions into keeping silent. They are any party who thought that the world should act just as they did. Joss Whedon doesn't project his political beliefs into them, only his natural dread of overwhelming systems that crush the individual - something that both Democrats and Republicans do with aplomb.

And I don't agree with Nader either, so don't try to get me that way either!

Pete

P.S: I voted for the third party, the Liberal Democrats over here. Liberalism used to mean something substantially different to the derogatory use it enjoys today in slanging matches. Orwell warned of the co-option of language as a political weapon. To use such terms as 'right-wing neo-con' and 'bleeding heart liberal' is to destroy democracy and make little Kaylee cry.

Look, little Kaylee is crying. You have poked her in the idealistic eye with your political stick of angry sharpness. Don't cry, Kaylee! Don't cry!

P.P.S:

Hero: "Sure. You raise numerous concerns and can't face a point by point reply. I understand. You MUST turn away, because liberal ideals and the irrational hate certain people feel for Bush cannot hold up under reasonable scrutiny. Thats why Bus

STEVE580

Monday, April 26, 2004 7:22 PM

Ghoulman - dude, over half of the "facts" you posted were just blatently wrong...you can't just write stuff and state it as truth.

Quote:
A war against 'evil' is like a war against the sea.

That's true...the sea *is* evil! Invading our shores, killing civilians...to WAR!

RICHARDECHEANDIA

Monday, April 26, 2004 7:27 PM

Pete,

Wow - you just made my day. What a worthy response. I'm at work and don't have time to post in detail but let me say "Thank You".

As a Brit I don't know how well you know US media. I do the next best thing to reading two politically different newspapers:

I listen to NPR (National Public Radio) in the morning and I listen to Rush Limbaugh in the afternoon.

(I probably should confess that I listen to Rush more for amusement than information).

Thx again for a calm considerate debate.

=======================
Mal: "Is there blubber?"

LOKISINCE89

Monday, April 26, 2004 7:34 PM

Mal opposed Allience - What do you think the UN is and what do you think it wants to do?

NERVOUSPETE

Monday, April 26, 2004 7:38 PM

"Aieee!" (Hurls self out of window)

HANS

Monday, April 26, 2004 7:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bibsy:
"Mal's politics are very reactionary and 'Big government is bad' and 'Don't interfere with my life.' And sometimes he's wrong -- because sometimes the Alliance is America, this beautiful shining light of democracy. But sometimes the Alliance is America in Vietnam: we have a lot of petty politics, we are way out of our league and we have no right to control these people. And yet sometimes the Alliance is America in Nazi Germany. And Mal can't see that, because he was a Vietnamese."

"Were there monkeys? Some terrifying space monkeys maybe got loose?"

What a great quote, and typical of Joss's insight. I'm glad (and not surprised) that he recognized the moral ambiguity of his characters. Imagine the kind of stories that could have emerged from this if only the show had continued. I always thought it would be great to have the characters come face-to-face with their actions, to force them realize that just because the Alliance is (mostly) bad doesn't mean what they are doing is always good.

It reminds me of one of my favorite movies, Unforgiven, where the whole myth of the noble outlaw and vigilantism is utterly destroyed. By the end, Clint Eastwood's character, set-up to seem like a typical good guy outside the law at the beginning, is without a doubt a villain. Of course, there are those who don't quite get the message, like some of the anti-government rednecks who seem to think Mal is some kind of poster child for the NRA...

(And not to be too anal, but Firefly is watched by many people outside the US. Heck, two of the actors (Nathan and Jewel) are Canadian, like me. Love for Joss and Firefly goes around the world. So maybe this thread should have been titled something other than "our president". Just being picky.

)

Hans

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 26, 2004 7:53 PM

Ghoulman, these things you SHOULD know. Those things you listed were mislabled in your post. In reality....
al Qaida declared war on the United States in 1998, some 3 yrs before Sept.11, 2001. The U.S. took 3 yrs and over 3,000 lives to declare war back.

No laws were broken what so ever to defend this country.

No lies were told to go to war. In fact, many truths have been likely kept secret so as to maintain order.

After 17 resolutions, and then a 15-0 vote by the Security Council, the U.S. ignored no one.

There is no draft in America. No selective service, none. Service in the armed forces is strictly volentary.

American soldiers have always paid the higest price to secure freedom for the rest of the world when the rest of the world didn't care to fight for its self. After this war, we just might not come save anyone ever again.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

KUGELBLITZ

Monday, April 26, 2004 7:55 PM

"Yeah, and they all started dumping it the next day. Never mind that the result is a net reduction in pollutants and the saving of tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs located in older factories that could not afford the millions in costs to retool to meet clean air standards and faced either shut down or movement to Mexico where little things like wages, air pollution, and clean water don't mean squat next to just plain having a job. "

The Clear Skies initiative sabotages thirty years of work started by the Nixon Administration. A recent NY Times article pointed out that a small percentage (like 2%) of the billions of dollars in net profit generated by one power company in New Jersey was enough to upgrade all of their physical plants. The lobbyists are running the show, and this is not only ok with this president, it is encouraged. The EPA is losing professionals left and right because their lifes work is being destroyed to fill the coffers of the very induistries they are trying to regulate.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the foxes are running the henhouse, and I'll take my chances with Kerry, if it means that Bush and Rove and Cheney are forced to go back to being the corporate greedheads they are pandering to.

"We are exporting democracy because we have all of this unused democracy lying around at home. Why not make some money doing it?"

SUCCATASH

Monday, April 26, 2004 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Some things I know...

America declared a 'War on Terrorism' as if terrorism was another country. It isn't. A war against 'evil' is like a war against the sea. This is just Windmills and the entire world knows it.

America is the aggressor in the world.

America broke it's own laws to go to war.

America lied to it's own people to go to war.

America lied to the world to go to war.

America ignored the entire international community as well as the largest worldwide protests in HISTORY to go to war.

America killed tens of thousands of innocents in Iraq.

America is now, more than ever before (if that's possible for such a paranoid people), a nation of fear.

America (including Kerry) has changed it's policy towards Palistine and has declared it's OK to steal land and kill people in Gaza and the West Bank.

America is drafting again.

American aggression is the number one worry in recent European polls. Imagine what the Asian polls are like!

American soldiers in Iraq will pay the highest price for American pride. They always have.

Oh, and by America I mean the White House. But hey, you get the country you voted for... oh wait.

Ghoulman, I agree with everything you say, except there's no draft...yet.

GHOULMAN

Monday, April 26, 2004 8:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
Ghoulman - dude, over half of the "facts" you posted were just blatently wrong...you can't just write stuff and state it as truth.

Quote:
A war against 'evil' is like a war against the sea.

That's true...the sea *is* evil! Invading our shores, killing civilians...to WAR!

Fuck off moron.

RUXTON

Monday, April 26, 2004 8:03 PM

Doran and Hero, if it were not for the French, the U.S. would not exist.

I am so far from being a liberal that it would scare the piss out of you if you knew the truth. Instead, I am fed up with shitheads who run off at the mouth and make wild accusations without taking the time to look into things, just as I am fed up with worthless, corrupt government. I have, for instance, concrete proof that one of my senators lied repeatedly to me concering another major national topic. Mr. Kerry is no solution to anything. Both of you assume that anyone who does not like the Liar in Chief must therefore like Kerry. You are wrong.

Doran, you asked, "What kind of a loser thinks an airliner could be fitted with missles?" How about every U.S. Government department of any significance, including NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.? How aobut Naval Undesea Warfare Center. How about US Dept of Justice? The GSA? The Carlisle Group? Rockefeller? NY Port Authority? Microsoft, the FAA, Intel, the Pentagon, Boeing, numerous U.S. Military bases, the Chicage Tribune, Eglin AFB, JPL, Los Alamos, the DOD, NASA, major insurance companies, and on and on. Are these all LOSERS, Doran? They have all flocked to that website.

Have you looked at the Alexa rating for "letsroll911.org"? It's a vertical line, indicating immense sudden interest.

No missile pod, eh?
http://www.rense.com/misslepod.JPG

Doran or Hero, tell me why Bush LIED about not having been warned about planes being used as missiles, and why he sat on his ass with four highjacked planes in the air. Why was NORAD told to stand down, and not intercept the hijacked planes? Is that your idea of good, wholesome leadership? What is the Bush administration hiding from the 9-11 commision? Why does Cheney not provide what has been subpoened from him? National security has, at this time, nothing to do with the administration's refusal to cooperate. This administration is the most corrupt in history, and NO, Kerry is no better.

And yet Hero has the inability to recognize that the terrorists in Iraq are the US forces, just as Iraquis would be in this country if the tables were turned. Boy, is Hero smart, or what?! I can't hardly believe such brilliance. He/she doesn't even know that congress gave up its right to declare war, contrary to the Constitution, BTW, and that the Bush administration went to war, not by vote of congress. That was treasonous, BTW. Yep, Hero really has the facts.

Read Ghoulman's comments for a breath of fresh air, instead of the uninformed pap of either Doran or Hero. I would hope that the purpose of this thread is to shed light on ignorance, and thereby get a better country from informed voters. Right now, we're in a mess. Don't believe me? Wait until oil runs out in a few years, or until the US debt starts taking its toll on you and your children...unless they already have died for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice in Iraq.

There are but two classes of people in the world, those who are informed and those who are not. I am glad to see that most respondents in this forum ARE informed.

......Ruxton

ps: Steve580, YOU are wrong, not Ghoulman. Ghoulman stated the draft was reinstated, which it's not...not yet, but strong moves are afoot to do so. EVERYTHING else Ghoulman wrote is entirely correct. YOU cannot claim he's wrong without giving facts. Don't give us meaningless b/s.

NERVOUSPETE

Monday, April 26, 2004 8:07 PM

Iraq:

56 British dead.

19 Italian dead.

26 Spanish dead.

(Estimated)

And more from other countries. It adds up to about a 100 altogether from other contributing states. Please don't say that you Americans are the only ones fighting for peace over there.

And America has indeed paid a high price. But the Iraqi civilians have paid a terribly high price as well, an awful price. From terrorist militant attacks and misdirected or jumpy trigger-finger fire from understandably stressed American troops.

America has had the draft in the past. If a war has too high an attrition rate, it will impose it again. Volantary service are for states that can afford the losses in an existing inherited from peacetime army. Tours have already been extended.

You are entirely correct in the Al Qaida opening statement. They declared war. I was for the invasion of Afghanistan and against the invasion of Iraq, simply because I felt that more civilians would die than would under Saddam in the future (which is true) and that we should have aided the revolution after the first Gulf War, and finished it then. We lost the right to go back in when we told them to rise up and then did nothing but watch them be massacred.

War is illegal under the UN, so that law was broken. However it was a stupid law defying the nature of man and the need to fight, so no tears there.

Russia paid the highest price in WWII. 26 million dead. And they didn't even get any real political freedom out of it, but they earned the freedom not to live under the Nazis and to be their own country. American blood is precious, as is everybody elses. We all die for freedom, but we all have different beliefs as to how to acheive that freedom.

(God, that bit sounded smug and trite. Sorry.)

GHOULMAN

Monday, April 26, 2004 8:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Ghoulman, I agree with everything you say, except there's no draft...yet.

Oh really? Well, I found out last month that the U.S. National Guard is indeed drafting "off-status" soldiers, quietly. That is, not a general draft but a growing number of reports show that yes in fact there is a limited and GROWING draft. Concidering the USA is aaaaaaaallll alone and in need of about 60000 more troups ... think about it. Then go read a history of the Veitnam draft. I'm sure you will be shocked and afraid.

NERVOUSPETE

Monday, April 26, 2004 8:16 PM

There was no missile pod on that flight, or any of the others. I think people would have noticed boarding it. "Can I have a seat next to the missile pod, mom? It looks so cool!" I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. No agency commits murder like that in a democratic country. No matter how much I mistrust the Republicans, they would never murder thousands of their own people. Nor would anyone fit commercial airlines with missile pods. Think of the costs!

Oi! No swearing here Ghoulman. Please. Even if you think he's an idiot, don't insult him. Destroy him with slightly barbed logic if you want. This board is for people of all ages and temperments. And if anyone swears, my computer blocks the post thread off at work, thus denying me slacking time on this board - thus meaning I can only get my Firefly kicks at home. And I'm not man enough to go THAT long without Firefly kicks.

And in summary for my last post here (because I have utterly failed in my attempts to impose my beliefs) I'm off to cry into my milk. At length.

*Sniff*

HJERMSTED

Monday, April 26, 2004 8:30 PM

Bush does not belong in the White House, he never has. He wasn't even voted to the presidency in the first place. He lost the vote but was appointed to the position by the US Supreme Court. Thus, it can be argued that his presidency is unconstitutional. Putting that aside for a second, Americans should be elevating the best and the brightest to such a high office. Bush is neither. Not even close!

Bush is an embarassment as president. Despite his alleged degrees and certificates, he has the actual intellectual level of (at best) a college dropout. He is dangerously dogmatic about his personal choice in spiritual beliefs.

His policies (The very flawed US Patriot Act being the most significant) have eroded the protections we as citizens are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Our constitutional rights, yo!!

Bush's education reforms are atrocious... just talk to a school teacher who's school is in danger of losing federal funding because his/her school's overall improvement is lower than that required by the so-called "no child left behind" program. Improving schools losing money?! What the?!!

Bush's environmental record is a joke. Hard won environmental victories re: clean air and water, and de-forestation were quickly (and cynically) overturned by this administration so that big corporations no longer give a crap about EPA guidelines.

Unless you are exactly like Bush (wealthy, white, male, christian, conservative) the likelyhood of him giving two shits about you or your concerns is very low.

If you are not outraged by the Bush presidency then you are not paying attention.

Mattro

PS: To put it in Firefly terms... Bush is Alliance all the way, baby. He'd make a cowardly Browncoat.

RUXTON

Monday, April 26, 2004 8:39 PM

NervousPete, the thought was that the planes were switched. The sole video of the plane striking the other tower apparently also shows the flash of a missile or several missiles just before impact.

The idea, I guess, was to ensure penetration of the firebomb/aircraft.

......Ruxton

RUXTON

Monday, April 26, 2004 8:55 PM

Auraptor,

Ghoulman was entirely correct and you are wrong.

The US planned its invasion of Afghanistan well over six months prior to 9-11.

There is vast evidence that Al Quida does not exist, but is instead only a useful boogeyman.

The motto of the Mossad is something like "By way of deception thou shalt make war." Unmarked Israeli planes attacked the USS Liberty, as has recently been acknowledged by FOIA documents. Yes, governments DO kill thousands of their own people, or their allies, to further their adventures. This too is well documented. If you or anyone believes governments, any of them, are squeaky clean, I have a bridge for sale.... Let us not forget the Northwoods papers.

Where, by the way, is Osama Bin Laden? He too was installed by the US.

Constitutional law was in fact broken to begin war in Iraq.

Here's just one Bush lie. Bush said, right after 9-11,:
"But I knew I needed to act. I knew that if the nation's under attack, the role of the commander-in-chief is to respond forcefully to prevent other attacks from happening. And so I talked to the secretary of Defense, and one of the first acts I did was put our military on alert."
-------------------
NORAD acts automatically to intercept errant aircraft. They were on Payne Stewart's plane within 10 minutes of its failure to respond. But it was over 40 minutes before planes got near the 9-11 hijackings. No lies, eh? Norad does not need Bush to ask for help. Did Bush expect us to believe this b/s? Here's one analysis:
--------------------
[From Joseph Ehrlich, Sender, Berl & Sons, 4-25-4]
Analysis 3: Our President, who has told us he would move heaven and earth to protect this country, did not even circumvent entering a classroom when he well knew that America was under attack. He didn't need Andrew Card to tell him that America was under attack after the second plane went into the south World Trade Center tower, but he and his administration acted that way thinking that the truth would be permanently hidden from the American people under the cover of "national security." Yes, by his own admission, under the known facts, now known to the American people, he needed to act. He needed to send up jets to intercept the plane, leave a known target area and stand ready to make presidential decisions regarding planes headed for major metropolitan areas. The only matter of national security for the Bush administration to protect is the sad inescapable reality that the barn door was left completely open to allow the events of 9-11 to take place as they did. President Bush did not put the military on alert. [Instead] he and administration did everything to assure that no one who could impede 9-11 knew anything to stop the events that unfolded. After they did unfold, the President brazenly took the position that he quickly and timely put the military on alert to protect the country.
----------------
Bush claimed TWICE to have seen the first plane hit the towers. Either he was privy to closed-circuit TV and was thus complicit, or he is a liar. The only video of that event surfaced many hours later, the Glaubert [sp?] film, which also shows a suspicious ball of flame just before impact. Alternatively, Bush is so out of touch with reality that he ought to be removed from office. Don't claim there were NO LIES. There were many more to start the preemptive and illegal war in Iraq.

........Ruxton

ps: Hjermsted, you're right on the money. Again, I'm pleased so many here are of the informed catagory. gfr

COWARD

Monday, April 26, 2004 9:25 PM

There seem to be many people here who hate the French, why? What's so terrible about the French? Is it about that "They died for France, but France has forgotten!" thing (they being American Soldiers in WWII)? Because that is just the silliest thing ever. Yes Europe is in the US's debt for stepping in in WWII, but that doesn't mean they should follow them blindly anywhere. Countries like France have a right to make their own decisions, isn't that the freedom you are all so keen on? The government of France made a decision that many people in the US (including apparently many on this board) disliked; learn to live with it!

I think a little more respect for other nationalities, their cultures, beliefs, rights and freedom is seriously needed on these boards.

BTW... Germany opposed the war on Iraq much more firmly than France (mostly because it says in the German constitution that Germany must not be in any way involved in any war, except if forced to defend herself)

As for the debate... Unless there is a very dramatic twist to this story: there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that much we know. The UN Inspectors had not found any weapons of mass destruction before the war started, that was the only factual evidence presented before the war. Everything else (e.g. Powell's speech before the UN etc.) was based on speculation. Now doesn't that make a good case for NOT going to war?

[sarcasm ]As for the smoking gun thing, I think the US should invade Mexico and Canada. Sure, they're no threat now, but they're in a strategically very dangerous position and, hey, why wait till it's to late?[/sarcasm ]

Coward

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 26, 2004 10:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Auraptor,

Ghoulman was entirely correct and you are wrong

*Nope, Ghoulman was entirely wrong, I was correct.*

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:

The US planned its invasion of Afghanistan well over six months prior to 9-11.

*Got any proof for that? I'd like to see it. But then, after al Qaida attacked the US no less than 5 times in the last 8 yrs, attacking them seemed like a good idea. Even Clinton lobbed a few cruise missles at al Qaida. *

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:

There is vast evidence that Al Quida does not exist, but is instead only a useful boogeyman.

* There is no such evidence. No need to prove a negative. You should stop listening to Art Bell so much, it's affecting your sleep.*

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:

The motto of the Mossad is something like "By way of deception thou shalt make war." Unmarked Israeli planes attacked the USS Liberty, as has recently been acknowledged by FOIA documents.

* Yeah, when....like 30 yrs ago ? So, you're trying to tell everyone that Israel intentionlly shot at the only ally it has, and that reason would be...... ? Sometimes mistakes happen. Friendly fire occurs even with the best precautions put in place... your point?*

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:

Where, by the way, is Osama Bin Laden? He too was installed by the US.

*Wrong, he wasn't 'INSTALLED' in any way. He is self financed religious zealot. One does not 'install' a monster like that. What the U.S. DID do was assist in the war against the Soviet Union, which was LITERALLY trying to colonize Afghanistan, much as it did the Eastern Block countrys. In short, the US tried to win an potential ally over by helping them, and they bit our hand. Fool me once... *

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:

Constitutional law was in fact broken to begin war in Iraq.

*Cite where it was broken. The Congress voted for it, and we were attacked. *

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:

Here's just one Bush lie. Bush said, right after 9-11,:
"But I knew I needed to act. I knew that if the nation's under attack, the role of the commander-in-chief is to respond forcefully to prevent other attacks from happening. And so I talked to the secretary of Defense, and one of the first acts I did was put our military on alert."

*There is no lie there, what so ever. It's just a matter of policy and of fact.*

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:

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

----------------
Bush claimed TWICE to have seen the first plane hit the towers. Either he was privy to closed-circuit TV and was thus complicit, or he is a liar. The only video of that event surfaced many hours later, the Glaubert [sp?] film, which also shows a suspicious ball of flame just before impact. Alternatively, Bush is so out of touch with reality that he ought to be removed from office. Don't claim there were NO LIES. There were many more to start the preemptive and illegal war in Iraq.

* There were no lies. I saw the 1st plane hit the towers too..eventually. Sorry, but your rambling,specious conclusions leave much to be desired. Much of what you AREN'T saying is when did Bush say it, was he talking about the 1st plane ? , or the 2nd ? , was it after the fact while he was being briefed..so forth and so on. You really do make WILD leaps with your assuptions. *

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NERVOUSPETE

Monday, April 26, 2004 11:51 PM

Coward! I don't actually hate the French at all!

Sorry, I was just being silly and ironic, which was a deeply stupid idea on this forum. After all, the French...

Fought alongside us in two world wars plus Korea. (And the war of Independence!)

Are responsible for one of the greatest and most influential explosions of novelists...
Emile Zola
Voltaire
Alexandre Dumas
Pierre Boulle
Victor Hugo
Gustav Flaubert
Jean Paul-Satre...

Are among the greatest cooks in the world. And rather tasty (though not as great as they were 10 years ago, sadly) wine. And such cheeses! *Argle Argle*

Make amazingly cool films - 400 Blows, Delicatessan, La Haine, Le Triplets Du Bellesville...

Have always possesed a greater sense of style and sophistication than the English (gagh, chargrin)

And are responsible for a surprising number of good bands. Air, Daft Punk, and a host of others they never play on the radio over here... gagh.

And have substantially advanced art, science and medicine as well.

France has the right to decide what it wants to do. It is not betraying anyone by taking the path its people chose. They have to do what they think is right. And I resent the implications that they are somehow morally de-evolved from the coalition for that decision. And they don't owe America anything other than the upkeep of the war graves, the rememberence of the dead and keeping the memory of her sacrifice close. The US went to war to defeat the evil of facism in Europe and free France. It wasn't a favour to be traded in on later.

I apologise to anyone offended by my stupid flip comment, and beg their forgiveness and understanding. I cannot abide racism or xenophobia.

Oh, and I wish those Israeli fighters hadn't attacked that US destroyer under orders... but they had. I did a lot of research, and the conclusions upset me. But I still don't think that an American government could commit such a slaughter of its own people unless the entire country was a facist dictatorship, and as hysterical as the land is looking, it is still mercifully far from that. And I still nix the missile pod plane idea under all interpretations.

RUXTON

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 12:12 AM

Auraptor:

The plans to invade Afgh. were posted on Jane's Defence Weekly about six months prior to 9-11. Look it up. I did, and I read the whole thing many months ago.

I never listen to Art Bell. That's just another stupid assumption by a stupid poster.
-------------
You said:
"So, you're trying to tell everyone that Israel intentionlly shot at the only ally it has...?"

I'm not trying to tell anyone anything, just reporting facts some are too lazy to look up:

From THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE:
"Israel insists that the deadly attack, which occured in
international waters off the Sinai coast while the Liberty
eavesdropped on combatants' communications during the
Arab-Israeli Six Day War, was a tragic case of mistaken
identity."

Clearly Israel DID attack the USS Liberty. Was it on purpose? Apparently:

[Same source]
"Oliver Kirby, a former operations director for the super-secret
National Security Agency (for which the Liberty was collecting
intelligence), was assigned by NSA in 1967 to review classified
information on the attack. In a recent telephone interview with
Jim Ennes, a retired naval officer and Liberty survivor, Kirby's
first words were, "I can tell you for an absolute certainty that
they (the Israelis) knew they were attacking an American ship."

Want more? Here:
[washington-report.org/backissues/0693/9306019.htm]
"Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested. Later, a dual-citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an Israeli war room where he heard that pilot's radio report. The attacking pilots and everyone in the Israeli war room knew that they were attacking an American ship, the major said. He recanted the statement only after he received threatening phone calls from Israel."

From AP:
"WASHINGTON (AP) Retired Adm. Thomas Moorer accused the U.S. and Israeli governments yesterday of covering up evidence surrounding the 1967 Israeli attack on the American intelligence ship USS Liberty.

"Thirty-four American crewmen were killed and 171 wounded in the combined air and sea attack June 8, 1967, against the reconnaissance ship, cruising in international waters 15 miles off the Sinai Peninsula during the SixDay War.

"Israel maintains its fighter pilots, who buzzed the ship for eight hours [EIGHT HOURS!!] before the attack, and torpedo boat crews, mistook the Liberty for an Egyptian ship.

"The Israelis maintain this was simply a case of mistaken identity, but this clearly does not hold water," said Moorer, who was chief of naval operations at the time of the attack. "In clear visibility, this unique ship was very easy to identify. The Israeli forces circled the ship and then proceeded to attack over an extended period of time. There is simply no way the fighter pilots and torpedo-boat crews could have come to such a conclusion," he said."
----------
Want more:
"Torpedo boats soon arrived and continued the attack, firing five torpedoes, with one hitting and killing 25 men. They then leisurely circled the defenseless ship for 40 minutes, pumping hundreds of 40mm, 20mm, and 50cal. rounds at wounded men on deck, stretcher bearers and fire fighters. Thinking the ship was about to sink, the crew threw life rafts over the side; the attackers machinegunned those too."

These pleasantries were the acts of our so-called ally, the Israeli Defense Forces, against a clearly identified and unique-profiled US vessel.

Yes, dolt, just as Sharon screws with the US gov't today, the IDF intentionally fired on its so-called ally. LBJ tried to cover it up, again clearly documented, but I've already taken too much space in slapping one silly poster on the face over his stupid

NERVOUSPETE

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 12:30 AM

Ruxton. You're playing a dangerous game here.

The Israelis most likely did illegally attack the Liberty in a fast attack run. This was to justify and highlight a real threat in the eyes of the neighbouring nations invading. Their government ordered a criminal attack to try to bring other nations on their side - the only way they thought they could survive the oncoming war.

However from the point onwards past your 'Want More?' comment it is complete guff. The casualties would have been far higher under such a sustained attack, and I cannot believe that the attacking forces would have had the stomach to do a prolonged and bloodthirsty attack aiming at survivors. There are dark chapters in every nation's history - and murky dealings are still afoot. Yet you seem intent on piling on shaky and hysterical additional condemnatory facts that cannot be taken seriously - thus belittling the true fact - did Israeli planes attack the Liberty? Yes. Were they aware of what they were doing? Yes. Did they do it to try and save their country? Yes. Was it a criminal and indecent act? Yes. Were the casualties horrific? Yes. Do the pilots and members involved feel guilt? Yes. Was it a clinical attack over in minutes? Yes. The deception could never work otherwise. It had to be fast and significant and confusing for there to be a good chance on blaming it on Egypt. Possibly Israel never intended there to be so many casualites and their fire was more deadly than expected. But it was a long time ago. Let us forget it and look to the Palastine problem. But not here. Please. Let's end this.

I'm not posting on this thread anymore. Even if I get really angry with the replies. I bruise to easily, and I know I can do nothing to change your minds. But you seriously need to reign in your paranoid theories and look to the true, bumbling, greedy little conspiracies of our governments - and stop focusing on these stupid big lies. They distract us from what we should be looking at.

Bye and see you all with mindless fripperies on other Firefly-related threads.

Pete

P.S: I'm really sleepy now.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 2:22 AM

Ruxton.. you're just f-ing delusional. Gather all the gorram clippings you want, you still have not made your claim. Reread my post, brainless, I never denied the Liberty was attacked. You're just ticked off that I'm not a nut case conspiracy freak like you are. Watch out for them black helicopters.... moron.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 12:59 PM

^^^ So you are in favour of George "Dubya" Bush remaining in the White House so much you are willing to lie to the people on this board by posting the above sillyness.

Pal, everything I've mentioned has appeared in at least a few news stories over the lines. That's how I know... I read the news. It's not so hard, really.

See, I actually went out and looked for answers. You're just doing a Condi Rice impression.

Liars like you seem to think 'maintaining order' is more important than human rights... like the right to live without bombs dropping on ya.

HERO

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 2:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kugelblitz:

The Clear Skies initiative sabotages thirty years of work started by the Nixon Administration. A recent NY Times article pointed out that a small percentage (like 2%) of the billions of dollars in net profit generated by one power company in New Jersey was enough to upgrade all of their physical plants. The lobbyists are running the show, and this is not only ok with this president, it is encouraged. The EPA is losing professionals left and right because their lifes work is being destroyed to fill the coffers of the very induistries they are trying to regulate.

What industries? I live in Northeast Ohio which last week was labled the dirtiest air in the State. This came as a great surprise to me as I looked out over the beautiful green trees of Summit County and saw the sky of of the deepest blue.

Oh, I know its the steel mills. Never mind that most have closed in the last 10 years since NAFTA. They can't afford to compete with foriegn steel, pay union wages, and retool to meet Clinton era clean air standards.

Maybe the rubber plants in Akron. Sure Goodyear and Firestone still have their offices in Akron, but the plants are twenty years gone.

The biggest domestic manufacturing problem for the last 30 years has been the Enviromentalists. Now I've got no problem with clean industry. But a reasonable approach that keeps in mind the needs for millions of workers is more important then drastic and immediate reduction in domestic pollution. Especially when countries like Mexico and China have little or no pollution or labor standards.

Maybe the enviromentalists are all just racists. Maybe they want to send all the dirty industry to Mexico and China because they simply don't care about the parts of the planet they can't see. I'm sure thats a part of it, but the worst are those who want it all gone, and humanity be damned.

H

KUGELBLITZ

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 3:55 PM

I dfon't see the same skies where I live in Maryland. The industry I specifically refer to is the power generation sector, wherein they have been systematically stalling for over a decade the LAWS that would bring their emissions down. The example I used was based in New Jersey, by the way. So my focus is on domestic industries that really cannot be shifted to third world countries, and which are being lobbied for extensively and successfully.

Of course we all know that the power generation sector is self regulating, right California?

The proposed cap and credit system would allow a great deal of pollutants to enter into the environment, specifically, mercury. This is a bad plan. As a father, I cannot see that as being acceptable. Heavy metal poisoning does not go away.

The electric generation industries have demonstrated the profit margins that could easily afford the stack scrubbers and other on the shelf technologies that would produce cleaner emissions. The costs are less than five percent of their net profits in some cases. Their obduracy in the face of demonstrated solutions boils down to simple greed, which this administration is allowing by not challenging them in the federal courts. Cases are being "reexamined" or put on hiatus. That is inexcusable. But hey, read the article in the NY Times Sunday magazine and tell me what you think then, that really got my interest, not Noam Chomsky ranting about something he knows nothing about.

Unfortunately the archive the NYT has charges for access after six days. I will try and get my copy out tonight and post the date it was printed, maybe your local library would have one. It is a very good report.

"We are exporting democracy because we have all of this unused democracy lying around at home. Why not make some money doing it?"

HERO

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 3:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Doran and Hero, if it were not for the French, the U.S. would not exist.

Yeah. But those were different French. The good French. They show up every now and then, especially when all the bad French have managed to screw things up. Think Revolution, Napoleon, Revolution, Napoleon III, War, Resitance, and the '80s. Thats not the whole list, but certainly covers the highlights of recent French history.

Quote:

Instead, I am fed up with shitheads who run off at the mouth and make wild accusations without taking the time to look into things,

I haven't really looked into it, but I say you are a transplanted Frenchman who currently stars in an off Broadway production of Oklahoma! and hated Firefly and only come here to engage in meaningless political hatemongering. And you have big feet. Like clown feet. But, like I said, I can't know for sure.

Quote:

Doran, you asked, "What kind of a loser thinks an airliner could be fitted with missles?" How about every U.S. Government department of any significance, including NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.? How aobut Naval Undesea Warfare Center. How about US Dept of Justice? The GSA? The Carlisle Group? Rockefeller? NY Port Authority? Microsoft, the FAA, Intel, the Pentagon, Boeing, numerous U.S. Military bases, the Chicage Tribune, Eglin AFB, JPL, Los Alamos, the DOD, NASA, major insurance companies, and on and on. Are these all LOSERS, Doran? They have all flocked to that website.

Wow. Sure got me there. Now tell me how the Govt is using aliens to develop a TESLA device to find Atlantis in our brains.

Quote:

No missile pod, eh?
http://www.rense.com/misslepod.JPG

Well guys, its on the internet...must be true.

Quote:

Doran or Hero, tell me why Bush...

Because he does not subscribe to conspiracy websites or confuse speculative fiction as national intelligence.

Quote:

This administration is the most corrupt in history

I doubt that. What about Rutherford B. Hayes?

Quote:

And yet Hero has the inability to recognize that the terrorists in Iraq are the US forces

My GOD. You are right. What could be more terrifying to a Muslim extremeist then an Army come to liberate women and establish Democracy while taking away the right to torture, rape, and murder in the name of Saddam and Allah. If this be terror, then lets make the most of it.

Quote:

Boy, is Hero smart, or what?! I can't hardly believe such brilliance.

I have a hard time myself. I find the trick is just to let the brilliance flow through you. Don't fight it. It'll be okay.

Quote:

He/she doesn't even know that congress gave up its right to declare war, contrary to the Constitution

Not sure if you mean the War Powers Act, which limits the President war making power. It has never been acknowleded or challenged by any President. Its just kind of there, waiting to be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Or, if you mean the Congressional votes to authorize the use of force, there is ample precident going back about 200 years for this type of action, meaning a military conflict outside the bounds of declared war.

Maybe you found some kind of conspiracy website where we have two Constitutions or the Council on Foriegn Relations is running everything. Be more specific and I'll give you a better answer.

Quote:

BTW, and that the Bush administration went to war, not by vote of congress.

Public Law 107-243. "Joint Resolution to To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." October 16, 2002.

Quote:

That was treasonous, BTW.

How? Maybe Bush levied war against the US. Or maybe he provided aid and comfort to our enemies. Read Article 3, treason is the only crime defined by the Contitution. The US Constitution, not the funny Conspiracy one you've been reading.

Quote:

Yep, Hero really has the facts.

Naw, no facts here. How bout:

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 4:18 PM

Aw man...

So richardecheandia posts a url directing the interested forum viewer to go to a webpage where there's this li'l movie showing Rumpsfelt (sp?) caught on T.V. in a lie. He never said "immediate threat," oh actually he did, more than once, etc. And then what happens? The heavy hitters on this thread who had only moments ago said that the liberal media had created a myth that the administration claimed that Saddam was an immediate threat, vanish (gotta love the internet). Seriously, does it really take one solid proof that one of their many assertions is simply wrong for them to run and hide?

Nervouspete, I'm sorry to read that you will be absenting yourself from this thread, but I certainly don't blame you. Your very eloquent first post didn't even make a dent in the vehement rhetoric being bandied about here. I agree with you that when your primary form of political action is to shout people down you pave the way for fascism. Being a student of history, It has always sickened me to hear lefties calling our republican presidents fascists, f'rinstance. History teaches that there is no fascist leader without a fascist people. From the evidence on this thread however, the democratic spirit in this country is in serious trouble.

Recent history has been teaching me that liberalism and fear just don't mix. Our country was able to build its excellent human rights record and impressive environmental standards because of our prosperity and our sense of safety in the world and mutual trust of our allies. Now our country is sunk in fear, fear and rage over the 9/11 attacks. People have begun to believe that there are things far more important than social justice and democratic values. Is democracy truly a luxury that we can no longer afford? More importantly, is our new found fear warranted? Are we fundamentally less safe than before 9/11?

I don't really think we're in any greater danger today than we were before 9/11. And I don't think we're any safer. True, nobody's gonna be taking over a plane with box cutters any time soon, but where there's a will, there's a way--as long as people hate, they will find ways to express it. One way to express hate is to post it on the internet. I guess it's better than a letter bomb, but when do we start to work on actually getting rid of the hate, once and for all? Do we even believe that it's possible or desireable to stop hating? Of course it is. Grief, healing, growth, compassion--these are the ways out of fear and rage. How 'bout we work on them?

P.S: Oh, while I was writing this post hero's come back with a diatribe about how environmentalists have destroyed the economy (I'll be sure to let my environmentalist friends know just how powerful they really are). But, as you see, nothing about that pretty important point concerning the current administration's lie that Saddam Hussein presented an immedediate threat to the United States. Hm. I guess he just forgot.

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.

MAUGWAI

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 4:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HERO:
Yeah. But those were different French. The good French. They show up every now and then, especially when all the bad French have managed to screw things up. Think Revolution, Napoleon, Revolution, Napoleon III, War, Resitance, and the '80s. Thats not the whole list, but certainly covers the highlights of recent French history.

So are we ignoring the Civil War, slavery, Jim Crowe laws, encampment of the Japanese, and slaughter of Native Americans? Every coountry has negative history and every country has positive history. Lay off the French. If you study the history, the language, and the culture and you understand the French, you can see their perspective. But the French are not responsible for everything wrong with America.

And please everybody lay off the press. Every reporter I know gets calls of bias from both sides, often on the same story. Sometimes a story feels biased because it is. But more often a story feels biased because you don't like the facts that make your argument look bad. And sometimes people are so biased against the press that they won't talk to them, so the article only gets one side of the story.

I have a friend who called to ask how many employees a store had for an economic story, and they wouldn't tell him. The manager wouldn't even give her last name, because she said it was "private" information. When people react like that to reporters, it's impossible for them to get at the truth. So lay off the press.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

CAPNHARBATKIN

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 4:57 PM

HKCavalier:

Thanks for the calm (not enough of that in this thread), reasoned posting. Yeah... that URL is one of my favorites to address Rummy's attempts at revisionist history.

Regarding environmental laws ruining the economy:

One of the things that concerns me is the formula for the financial impact on society. I've never been able to find one of the reports that includes its sources of information and the formulae used to calculate the costs. When calculating the costs of environmental regulations it seems as if the compliance costs are always included but not the impact of failing to control pollution. Its perfectly legitimate for businesses to estimate their costs to comply but why do we never seem to include the costs of:
a. Increased mortality due to pollution
b. Increased health care problems in people
c. Damage caused to human property (acid rain, lost agriculture production, etc.),
d. Lost worker productivity due to increased sickness
e. Lost value of natural resources
etc, etc.

I suspect some of this may be the difficulty in estimating these items. While I imagine its comparatively easy for an electric utility to estimate the cost of scrubbers and such, calculating/estimating the items listed above are much more complex and (I suspect) subjective.

Also - what about the fact that its just wrong morally? How do you calculate that financially? And as a society are we so devoid of morality that ALL our questions should be decided based on purely economic considerations? Hello? What's the moral at the end of the Train Job. Sometimes the right thing to do is personally inconvenient but you still need to do it.

Anyway, just 'cuz Hero types something doesn't mean its true. If he has any information to quote that bolsters his assertion (including the formula - not just a bottom line number) then I for one might find his increasing strident argument a little bit believeable.

I think we've got a handle on the "immediate threat" thing, now let's deal with the environment.

After that we can all tackle world hunger together

"Let's get on with this increasingly eerie-ass day"

HERO

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 4:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
P.S: Oh, while I was writing this post hero's come back with a diatribe about how environmentalists have destroyed the economy (I'll be sure to let my environmentalist friends know just how powerful they really are). But, as you see, nothing about that pretty important point concerning the current administration's lie that Saddam Hussein presented an immedediate threat to the United States. Hm. I guess he just forgot.

I take requests. Arguing the Saddam/threat issue wasn't my beef, but like any good lawyer, I can argue anything.

Here goes.

Saddam was a bad man. Did he play a role in 9/11? Probably a minor one. Like a movie extra, or that stairway on Serenity's bridge that doesn't really go anywhere.

Immediate threat. Well he violated the 1991 cease fire which pretty much meant that the original war was back on anytime he wanted. Thats why he used to shoot at our planes EVERY DAY. His weapons program was pretty much in the toilet, but not because he didn't want them, have them, or plan to make them as soon as possible. He was giving money to families of suicide bombers and was generally being a bad man every chance he got.

But, as I may have mentioned before, if mass graves, torture chambers, and rape as instruments of government don't justify war, nothing does. Some people believe nothing justifies war, those people should be killed and their stuff given to me.

I guess you are one of those people who are mad we fought Hitler, after all he never attacked us and clearly was no immediate threat to North America.

I think you are just mad because your share of the 'oil for food' money has stopped coming in.

H

HERO

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 5:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CapnHarbatkin:
HKCavalier:

Anyway, just 'cuz Hero types something doesn't mean its true. If he has any information to quote that bolsters his assertion (including the formula - not just a bottom line number) then I for one might find his increasing strident argument a little bit believeable.

I never claimed to be an economist. I hate numbers and formulas, thats why I studied criminal law, so the only numbers I worry about is how long will the guilty man be in jail. And yes, they are all guilty, otherwise I would not charge them.

Now, not being an economist I can't give you numbers or formulas. Yet Akron is filled with shut down rubber plants, Cleveland has shut down steel mills. Why? Because it is cheaper to make those goods in foreign countries. Labor costs are one issue, another is the cost of retooling to meet clean air standards. In Mexico, for example, you pay your best workers a fraction of what the worst American workers make and the enviroment is not even a concern.

Maybe we should blame NAFTA. Maybe we should blame the unions. But for thirty years the enviromentalists have been attacking big industry. So at least some of the blame belongs to them.

As for energy. Maybe they should retool their plants to be cleaner. Can they afford it? Maybe. But if not they will simply shut down. This is not good since new plants are not being built. All the while demand is increasing.

California is a great example, increased demand and static supply. Then price controls caused domestic production to be reduced below the demand level forcing the state to buy outside power at premium prices. All the while 7 new powerplants stood ready to go but waiting, some as long as 10 years, for the EPA to issue final approval, which was being actively opposed by enviromentalists. Then everthing caught on fire because they would not allow underbrush to be properly cleared...a field mouse was the issue. Then the porn industry shut down and American Idol is caught in a blackout induced scandal.

So riddle me this my French loving liberal friends:

Is your perfect world of clean air, French wine, no Jews, and no jobs really what you want?

If so, then you should be willing to fight for it.

BTW, my perfect world is freedom, deomcracy, and a new Firefly TV series. I'd fight for that, in fact I play my part every day.

H

CAPNHARBATKIN

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 5:36 PM

[EDITED TO CORRECT NUMEROUS CAFFEINE INDUCED TYPOS]

Hero,

In the spirit of Browncoatism let me agree with you on a couple of your points:

1. Saddam was a very bad man
2. He was in violation of one or more UN resolutions

I take both of those as a fact.

Where I would (respectfully) disagree with you is on how those translate into an immediate threat and our nation's selective conciousness regarding these issues.

Sure, bad guy, killed his own people with chemical weapons (which I believe we supplied him the seed stocks for BTW) had his jets try to circumvent the no fly zones in Iraq, etc. etc.

Do you think Saddam is THAT much worse than someone like Pinnochet in Chile that as a nation we supported for close to 20 years?

Is he really worse than Rios Mott in Guatemala who's accused of a scorched earth policy that's estimated to have killed 19,000 in his 18 month reign? (BTW, he ran for re-election (!) last year).

Was Saddam more dangerous with his alledged WMD than North Korea that has admitted to working with nuclear weapons programs. The north Korean regime must surely be counted as repressive to its people as well (not sure on the death count there... need to go look that up).

Why aren't we marching into PyonYang like we did in Bagdad? If we as a nation are going to use that as a justification for war, don't you think it needs to be applied uniformly? What do we really stand for as a people?

Finally - quoting his violation of UN resolutions. I agree he was a pest but are you really saying that he wasn't contained in Iraq? I seem to recall that everytime he tried to lock any surface to air weapons on any of our jets, we took out that installation pretty immediately. His jets were absolutely no match to the best that the US had in the region in the time as shown by the number of times they managed to shoot down one of our jets (If memory serves, 1 time in 12 years of enforcing the NFZone).

If he's a bad guy for giving money to terrorists, why aren't we in Saudi Arabia's face (remember? 15 out of 19 terrorists?)

Finally, as I sit here and type this I'm wondering how many UN resolutions the US is currently in violation of.... Hmmmm I'm going to spring for $10 and get an answer to that question on Google Answers. I'll be sure to post the final number here.

Anyway Hero, you're obviously very passionate about this. Its good to have convictions. Don't you think those convictions need to be applied consistently though?

CAPNHARBATKIN

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 5:44 PM

You're saying a field mouse was the issue in the energy crisis in California?

Wow - that's a stretch. Hope your arguments are better for your clients when you're in front of a jury.

Maybe you've missed the topic of the energy companies artifically manipulating the prices in CA. Reliant Energy has already been formally charged (you know what that means right?)

Unlike you though I won't just make the claim:

Check out http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=ca
lifornia+energy+price+manipulation for a lot of the links.

This one link has some good details:

http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20040409/topstories/23009.shtml

Quote:

"The vast majority of corporate executives are honest, hardworking people," Attorney General John Ashcroft said. "But when a company conducts itself in the manner Reliant Energy Services is alleged to have acted here, it will face severe consequences."

California's power crisis caused rolling blackouts, sent the state's utility companies heavily into debt and forced sharp increases in state electricity prices. Houston-based Reliant Resources is among several energy companies that have paid regulatory fines stemming from the crisis.

The six-count indictment was returned by a federal grand jury in San Francisco and released by the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. It accuses the company of withholding power from the market and purchasing electricity instead of producing it, then selling power at artificially high prices.
(snip)

Three former Enron Corp. traders have been charged with wire fraud related to price manipulation in California. Two of them pleaded guilty and a third awaits trial in October.

COWARD

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 6:28 PM

Quote:
But, as I may have mentioned before, if mass graves, torture chambers, and rape as instruments of government don't justify war, nothing does. Some people believe nothing justifies war, those people should be killed and their stuff given to me.

I guess you are one of those people who are mad we fought Hitler, after all he never attacked us and clearly was no immediate threat to North America.

Comparing the war on Iraq to WWII does not hold up. Hitler marched into the de-militarized zone in the Rhineland in 1935 (if memory serves). He annexed Austria in 1937, invaded "Sudetenland" (don't know the English name) in 1939. Up until this point no one in the international community lifted a finger to stop him, despite Hitler having expressively stated his intention to take over eastern Europe in "Mein Kampf" in the '20s. Even when Hitler invaded Czechia (also in '39) the international community did nothing. Only after Germany's invasion of Poland a few weeks later did the war start, the US refuse to join this war before being directly attacked at Pearl Harbor. This hesitation cost Millions of Britons, Frenchmen and Russians their lives (and even Germans, though mentioning them in this context isn't very sensible).

Germany had shown aggressive and expansionist tendencies for six years, Germany had a human rights record MUCH worse than the Iraqi regime under Saddam and Poland was an ally of France and England.

Oh and Hero and Auraptor... if you don't know how to behave and properly conduct a debate and refrain from calling people morons and being racist towards other nationalities, maybe you shouldn't be partaking in this discussion. (And Hero you certainly shouldn't be accusing people of being racist or antisemitic if you are so obviously racist (towards the French) yourself)

Thank you nervouspete for introducing a calm and sensible tone into this discussion.

Coward
(runs and hides (chuckles while everyone else kicks the crap out of each other))

P.S. I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the French ethniticity or nationality.

CAPNHARBATKIN

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 6:31 PM

Quote:

Coward wrote:
(runs and hides (chuckles while everyone else kicks the crap out of each other))

LOL!

MILORADELL

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 6:32 PM

CAPNHARBATKIN (sorry, had to fix since I got all confused as to who's who!) -

I don't know a whole lot about this, but here you go. A group known as Redefining Progress has an alternative way of measuring, well, progress - it's called the GPI, or Genuine Progress Indicator.

http://www.rprogress.org/

I guess it's a way of measuring the quality of our environment/lives, as opposed to putting a dollar sign on everything.

****
I know your name, Jackass.

CAPNHARBATKIN

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 7:01 PM

Thanks MiloraDell.

Ecological footprint... an interesting concept - I like it.

My wife and I have just recently purchased 58 acres of pretty uncultured property in far, far north Texas so I'll be looking to fit my feet into the smallest shoes possible .

Thanks for sending along the link. I'll be reading it this evening.

Peace

Now, how's about we get on with this increasingly eerie-ass day

MILORADELL

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 7:35 PM

CAPNHARBATKIN - no problem! Took me a while to locate it, because I couldn't remember what it was called.

Sigh...footprints. A question I'm struggling with now - do I get the car I really really like? Or do I get something with decent gas mileage/emissions? Sigh...I think I'll just drive what I have until it dies. Which hopefully won't be for a very long while. Doesn't answer the question, but puts it off for a spell.

****
I know your name, Jackass.

CAPNHARBATKIN

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 8:08 PM

Hero,

One last thing. You mentioned that:

Quote:

How? Maybe Bush levied war against the US. Or maybe he provided aid and comfort to our enemies. Read Article 3, treason is the only crime defined by the Contitution. The US Constitution, not the funny Conspiracy one you've been reading.

Actually Hero, I believe you need to review Article II, Section 4:

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

So I think its pretty hard to argue that treason is the only impeachable offense. If you're gonna try to flame fellow posters with the constitution, you really should get it right.

Here's a link to the relevant Article:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html

Here's a suggestion - Let's all take a really deep breath and relax a little bit. I know I sure could use a break from all this internet research

Now, how's about we get on with this increasingly eerie-ass day

MATWANG

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 8:39 PM

I agree, this isn't the place for political debate, but I just had to share this poem, which is circulating round the web lately:

This is a short poem made up entirely of actual quotations from George W. Bush. These have been arranged, only for aesthetic purposes, by Washington Post writer, Richard Thompson. A wonderful poem like this is too good not to share.

MAKE THE PIE HIGHER

I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
And potential mental losses.

Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet
Become more few?

How many hands have I shaked?
They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.

I know that the human being
And the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope,
Where our wings take dream.

Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher!
Make the pie higher!

HERO

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 8:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CapnHarbatkin:
Actually Hero, I believe you need to review Article II, Section 4:

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

So I think its pretty hard to argue that treason is the only impeachable offense. If you're gonna try to flame fellow posters with the constituion, you really should get it right.[\b]
Quote:

Ok. What is bribery? According to the Constitution the crime of bribery is...sorry its not there. Same with high crimes and misdemeanors. But treason is specifically defined in Article 3. Hence treason is the ONLY crime specifically defined by the Constitution.

Thats why when Clinton was impeached we could all argue about whether what he did was a "high crime". Because it was left open to interpritation. Treason was not.

And I wasn't trying to flame anyone. Merely using the Constitutional definition of treason to question the accurracy of an assertion by a fellow traveller as to the legal status of President Bush with regards to the issue of treason. The fellow was simply incorrect. Whatever he may or may not have done, his actions by definition cannot constitute treason by any standard acceptable in American courts.

France, as I understand it, has a different standard.

H

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

CAPNHARBATKIN

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 9:01 PM

Cool

I understand your point - only treason is defined in the Constitution. Point taken. My point was that there are other things that a president can be impeached for besides treason.

As an aside, the framers have left us with an interesting connundrum(sp?) - "high crimes and misdemeanors". Don't those two seem somewhat at odds with one another? I'm no lawyer but it seems as if misdemeanors can be pretty trivial nowadays. You can probably share some examples of misdemeanors that anyone that posts on this board has probably committed. (not from personal experience, just what kind of dumb laws are there that most people have committed at one time or another like driving barefoot, etc.)

It seems like such an obvious tripwire I can't believe it was incorporated. Perhaps the goals was to set the bar very, very, very high for the listed officials.

Thoughts?

BTW: Have you heard the stories (pretty well documented - don't make me load google yet again today ) about 2 plane loads of Saudi Arabians being flown out of the US a couple of days after 9/11? One of the supposedly was OBL's sister.

I've seen several threads on other more politically intense boards that were trying to equate that action as being treasonous. While I believe the flights themselves are well documented enough (passenger lists, flight plans etc) to believe they really happened, I have yet to see any serious facts regarding who it was exactly that allowed the planes be in US airspace when all civilian airline activity was deader than Dobson.

Assuming for a moment that it was Dubya is that Treason? Probably not in a legal sense. Interference with a criminal investigation? I don't know - you're the lawyer - you tell me.

Its an interesting question but I'm not sure we'll ever know for sure.

Certainly does make one wonder though.

Now, how's about we get on with this increasingly eerie-ass day

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 9:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NervousPete:
Oi! No swearing here Ghoulman. Please. Even if you think he's an idiot, don't insult him. Destroy him with slightly barbed logic if you want. This board is for people of all ages and temperments. And if anyone swears, my computer blocks the post thread off at work, thus denying me slacking time on this board - thus meaning I can only get my Firefly kicks at home. And I'm not man enough to go THAT long without Firefly kicks.
SNIP!...

Was wondering about language on this board. If it keeps you from my posts certainly I wouldn't want that!

To EVERYONE --> About my foul post...
Proper Net etiquette states that any one line post that just says 'you're wrong' is a TROLL. So I told the troll where to go. Worse, that jerk did it twice. <Bugs Bunny Voice>What a maroon!

Also, after spending the last year being called a 'liberal' as if it's an insult I just don't have any patience for liars.

HERO

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 9:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Coward:
Comparing the war on Iraq to WWII does not hold up. Hitler marched into the de-militarized zone in the Rhineland in 1935 (if memory serves). He annexed Austria in 1937, invaded "Sudetenland" (don't know the English name) in 1939. Up until this point no one in the international community lifted a finger to stop him, despite Hitler having expressively stated his intention to take over eastern Europe in "Mein Kampf" in the '20s. Even when Hitler invaded Czechia (also in '39) the international community did nothing. Only after Germany's invasion of Poland a few weeks later did the war start, the US refuse to join this war before being directly attacked at Pearl Harbor. This hesitation cost Millions of Britons, Frenchmen and Russians their lives (and even Germans, though mentioning them in this context isn't very sensible).[\b]
Quote:

Sounds pretty comparable to me. In WW2 our hesitation was merely a manifestation of our legacy of isolationism. Yet it cost countless lives. Now we go foreward to stop the madmen, and France holds back. France seeks compromise and peace with an enemy bent upon global domination, ideological extremism, and the destruction of the Jews.

Quote:

Oh and Hero and Auraptor... if you don't know how to behave and properly conduct a debate and refrain from calling people morons and being racist towards other nationalities, maybe you shouldn't be partaking in this discussion. (And Hero you certainly shouldn't be accusing people of being racist or antisemitic if you are so obviously racist (towards the French) yourself)[\b]
Quote:

I may hate the French, but there's nothing racist about it. I don't hate them for their race, I hate them for their politics. I hate them because they spit on 50 years of alliance. I hate them because they gave aid and support to our enemies by fostering inaction and backchannel deals. I hate them because the seek to exploit a changing world dynamic by creating a block of nations to challenge American supremacy. I hate them because they are arrogent and dismissive to former eastern Block nations who flock to our banner to stand side by side against those who threaten civilization.

But I love the good French. The ones who come foreward in times of great need. Who show courage and leadership and all the things that serve to make France great. They are there, waiting. They'll be there when France's policies come crashing down in fire and blood. It will happen. Why? Because terrorists can't be trusted.

I hate Canada too (mainly over the 1992 World Series). But not the French-Canadians. Isn't that odd?

Quote:

P.S. I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the French ethniticity or nationality.

I just assumed you were French. Guess it was your name.

I don't call people morons, although many ideas of a moronic nature have been expressed (not the legitimate disagreements such as this one). I apologize if anyone thought I had called them a moron simply by disagreeing with them.

I didn't call anyone a racist either. I did however claim that some enviromentalists may be motitvated by racist designs. It is one of several explanations about why its ok to pollute in Mexico or , but not in their own back yard.

Ok, I do take unfair shots at France. I call them cowards and make fun of their manhood. I apologize.

I just wish they'd stop trying to surrender to me.

H

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

KUGELBLITZ

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 1:21 AM

on malfeasance

Doubters of that judgment should read the report from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) that accompanies the statement, "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making" (available at www.ucsusa.org). Among the affronts that it details: The administration misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences and other experts on climate change. It meddled with the discussion of climate change in an Environmental Protection Agency report until the EPA eliminated that section. It suppressed another EPA study that showed that the administration's proposed Clear Skies Act would do less than current law to reduce air pollution and mercury contamination of fish. It even dropped independent scientists from advisory committees on lead poisoning and drug abuse in favor of ones with ties to industry.

taken from
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=0001E02A-A14A-
1084-983483414B7F0000

"We are exporting democracy because we have all of this unused democracy lying around at home. Why not make some money doing it?"

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:08 AM

There is an "ethnic" French now? There's language French, Nation French, Country French, (and thank God for the US of A) place French, Fries French, (of course) wine French, cheese French, and a couple of other things... What's this French ethnicity you speak of.... up until some years past the 100 year war - the French didn't even know they were French or such a thing as French... the Denmark, English, "French" were all too busy interbreeding each other to figure out these Ethnicity and too worry about the daily bread to figure out Nationality.

"You white people all look alike to me"

And what the heck is wrong with a little "French hating". What is this? Only the French can have a little smug attitude? You don't have to be a racist to "hate", tease, belittle, and "poke fun at their expense".

But sir, you are correct. There isn't any real honor in making fun of the French, what? they will just surrender immediately. What's the point?

HERO

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

There is an "ethnic" French now? There's language French, Nation French, Country French, (and thank God for the US of A) place French, Fries French, (of course) wine French, cheese French, and a couple of other things... What's this French ethnicity you speak of.... up until some years past the 100 year war - the French didn't even know they were French or such a thing as French... the Denmark, English, "French" were all too busy interbreeding each other to figure out these Ethnicity and too worry about the daily bread to figure out Nationality.

There's a new game called "Crusader Kings" by Paradox Entertainment out of Sweden. Try it, I think you'd like it.

H

DARKJESTER

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:50 AM

OK, now that everyone's making fun of the French, it's not cool enough anymore. I have to find a NEW country to be prejudiced against. Hey - I've got it! The BELGIANS!! Yeah! And my new catchphrase will be
Fat Ugly Belgian Húndàn (being a family board and all.....)

With much thanks to the eternal Pythons!

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

DORAN

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 4:31 AM

Oh boy.. Ruxton. I'm really doubting that you are someone with whom I should be talking. You seem a little.. paranoid isn't quite extreme enough a word. But I'm going to attempt to answer your.. odd reply as best I can.

In regard to letsroll911 website, it is absolutely fringe nutty. I saw these kinds of conspiracy theories coming out of France immediately after 911 before they had any supposed photographic proof. This tells me that there is a cause and effect relationship to these theories, that they thought up this scenario based on their prejudice and sought even the barest of corroboration and accepted such as proof. Any blurry pixel became a missile.. any fuzzy blob a plot to make poor unfortunate Muslims look bad.

As for the pictured "evidence", I'm afraid it's just not there. I don't see missiles they claim to show. They are making something out of nothing. The fact that people go to the site I believe can be explained by the fact that it is so outlandish as to be unbelievable to most people.. they pull the site up and gawk.. incredulously. They think like I did, "who in their right mind would believe this stuff much less make a web page about it?" The justice dept or any other agency going to the site could be interpreted the same way or could be a sign that they are hoping to find some way to shut the offensive and tasteless site down.

That you recite the web page's vacuous claims as if they are fact tells me that you are too easily sucked in to conspiracy bs.. and I'll probably not be able to help you. I have a friend who is almost as far gone as you are. He sees the city dump and calls it a 'compound' used secretly by the government. He sees contrails a jet is leaving in the sky and says it's some kind of a chemical the government is using to control us. There's a lot more that he's obsessed with.. but I believe he and you could possibly be helped by some medication and life long therapy.

I just don't believe Bush would sit by and let something like the 9/11 attack happen if he had really known it was going to happen. To say that he would is ludicrous hated showing. I dislike Bill Clinton as an unethical, lying, and philandering fool but I would have a hard time believing that even he could do something like you've described here.

I accept that you think you are not liberal.. but your attitudes and stance are so far from conservative that I have to think of you as being in the far far left.

I do not believe your claims that our administration is the most corrupt in history.. not even just the history of the US.. there were other amazing corruptions in the past if you take some time with history.. which it seems unlikely you've done given your statement about corruption. Do you know what separation of powers is? Do you understand why it's important? Or does it not matter now because a republican is in office?

"There are but two classes of people in the world, those who are informed and those who are not. I am glad to see that most respondents in this forum ARE informed."

I would add a third type of person as an extreme subtype of the 'informed people", those would be the type who believe everything they read on the internet.

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 3:14 PM

Good morning...

So yesterday morning I mentioned richardecheandia's sound bite of Rumsfeld lying, claiming that neither he nor the president had said that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to the U.S. and then being shown that at an earlier time he had said precisely that there was "no more immediate threat to the U.S. or the world than Saddam Hussein." I mentioned that the fellas who'd been making all that noise higher up in this thread paraphrasing Rumsfeld saying that the liberal media had made it all up--the administration had never said Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to the U.S.-- these fellas I said, had made themselves scarce.

Then hero posted about the terrible toll the environmentalists have taken on the economy and I quipped that he musta forgot the part about Rumsfeld being caught in a lie.

Okay, then hero responded (after a fashion) by reiterating that Saddam tortured a lot of people.

I wish I could remember my forensic league days more clearly because there's a name for that kind of misdirection. Someone makes a valid point and the opposition totally sidesteps the issue and brings up some horrible crime that supports their argument. The first guy says, "But that's irrelevant," and the opposition cries, "How can you say that this horrible crime is irrelevant?!?!"

Gawd, I hated forensic league, 'cause that's all it ever was. Hit and run artists perfecting their craft.

Anyway, here's what it's made me think about: after 9/11 America was filled with rage. We, as a people, wanted to lash out and hurt someone. So when the president says Afghanistan, we said, "Hayull yeah!" But after pummelling those poor devils even further into the dust than the Russians had before us, we were still angry. Afghanistan was too easy, it was like making your little sister cry. We felt no relief and we certainly didn't feel any safer. So when the president said Iraq, we said, "Now, that's what I'm talkin' 'bout!" And we laid the proverbial "smack down" on Bagdhad.

But what I'm seeing now, as Bush's approval ratings continue to fall, is that America isn't so pissed off anymore. After all, we're essentially good, kind people and we don't like to murder tens of thousands of innocent folk. "We hadda do something!" and we did, and now we're paying for it. I think that's why Bush is not going to be reelected. Not so much because people oppose his policies or were against the war, but because we Americans really don't like to think of ourselves as aggressive bullies ("We're the good guys!"). So we'll sacrifice Bush and scapegoat him for the mess in Iraq, so that we can go on thinking that we're good and kind.

Just a thought...

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.

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 4:19 PM

Blaming the French was an old comedy gag from the 80s. Since American culture eats itself like a blood caked zombie, this joke appeared over and over in various forms over the years. It became a standard joke common to most comedians.

Two decades later, when France decided rightly not to send thier troops into Iraq there was an upsurge in 'anti-French' sentiment in the USA. Freedom Fries and all that. Not sure if it was Limbaugh or whoever started that craze... anyho'...

... it just goes to show how hurtful, incestuous, and insane, American culture is. Reading certain posts above I gotta wonder if lobotomies are dirt cheap below the 49th.

BROWNCOAT1

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 5:07 PM

Ghoulman wrote:

Quote:
... it just goes to show how hurtful, incestuous, and insane, American culture is. Reading certain posts above I gotta wonder if lobotomies are dirt cheap below the 49th.

Isn't this statement the same type of stereotypical nonsense you are opposed to from some Americans about the French above?

Seems to me that maybe the U.S. has not cornered the market on stereotypes.

Just sayin'.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 5:50 PM

I don't hate the French, I don't hate the people, the country, or the land. I like French Fries, French wine, cheese, etc, etc. But that flippant "Idiot Americane" attitude I can do without. Seems like some (not just the French themselves) think that the French have the market cornered on having an attitude. So, with every ounce of strength and will that I have - I *hate* "The French" - but there's not much point in it - hating them more just makes them surrender even more.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

... it just goes to show how hurtful, incestuous, and insane, American culture is. Reading certain posts above I gotta wonder if lobotomies are dirt cheap below the 49th.

RUXTON

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 8:08 PM

Doran, thank you for your time. I appreciate your thoughtful response. Because of that, I'll briefly (fat chance!) attempt to respond to your response.

Maybe I can do so by examining just one point you mentioned, about a friend of yours:
"He sees contrails a jet is leaving in the sky and says it's some kind of a chemical the government is using to control us." This suggests you doubt anything like that can be going on, and also hints at a blind trust in government. I doubted anything like aerosol spraying could be happening myself, at first, because we are all conditioned from a very young age to trust our government, and all of its agencies. Such a thing seemed to be absurd.

While I don't know the INTENT, there is no doubt that aircraft are putting aerosols into the atmosphere on a regular basis. This may be confirmed by watching the sky, and may be verified by looking at satellite images that show the long=lasting trails as right-angle checkerboard patterns of thin clouds all over the country. The effect may also be seen in the jetstream pattern, which is distorted regularly into impossible configurations. It is one thing to jump to conclusions based on what someone tells you. That is the mark of the fool. It is quite another to look seriously into something, which often leads to conclusions that we may not want to accept, because they go against what we've been brought up to believe. It's easier to not want to know the truth, and most take that path.

I hope you will open your mind and look carefully at available facts instead of blindly clinging to rhetoric and establishment dicatates.

Contrary to your claim of believing everything I read on the Internet, I do quite the opposite. My education and experience has taught me to ask questions about EVERYTHING someone tries to tell me. To that end, I have spent countless hours over the past five years trying to find out what had, quite suddenly, caused my personal health to go into the cellar. This happened shortly after I moved to an area that was far from any city pollution, and is one of the most pristine-wilderness areas of the country. When I moved into my dream house, I naturally expected to breathe good air and experience good health in the latter part of my sixth decade. Instead, after a hike in fine, blue-sky weather that was marred by criss-crossed persistent contrails, I got deathly sick in my upper respiratory tract. I went looking for the cause.

More observations and more sickness over the succeeding months caused me to observe a close correlation between the trails in the sky and my breathing problems. It could surely not be that these clouds were causing my distress? I could not believe it. I went looking, photographing, observing, taking extensive notes, and even bought a microscope to look at the fallout from those aerosol trails. After nearly six years of intense observation, research, and after the deaths of three of my local friends from unexplained sudden lung problems, I came to the inescapable conclusion that these aerosols seemed to be a prime cause of my health problems. I have all the symptoms of barium poisoning, and it has been determined by other researchers (Note well: RESEARCHERS, not conspiracy theorists) that barium salts are part of the aerosols. There is no doubt these aerosols exist. There is huge doubt about their purpose.

If you have taken time to read this, thank you. I hope you realize that I'm not afraid of trying to find out things, no matter how unpopular they may be. By now, I hope you perceive that I don't take anything at face value, and surely don't believe everything I read on the Internet. While I normally take statements such as yours as gross insults, because they are indicative of a general lack of time spent looking into things and often of a grand lack of intelligence, I appreciated your taking time to respond, and sincerely hope this does not insult you. Instead, I hope it causes you, or perhaps other readers, to open your minds, to shut down your fears, to question your entrenched beliefs, and to as

CONNORFLYNN

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 8:21 PM

I have to agree with Browncoat1, it's best to avoid talking politics or religions with friends and family...

but..I'm also a patriotic American who hates to see America's defense and armed forces politicized and ridiculed, and to see those on the outside of the country acting like they have any better knowledge of what's going in the world. Unfortunately the majority of the dribble normally fed to those of us who sit in the majority (centrist minded folks), is exactly that..100% pure dribble.

I'm very well read. I make up my own mind, built upon information and personal research, from many reliable non-propagandist publications.
I'm familiar with the many UN resolutions against Israel, against Iraq (12 years worth..but hey..ya know , we didnt give Saddam a chance to comply). I've read the majority of them. I'm familiar with the fact that we shook the hand of Saddam and gave him WMD's (yet they don't and never existed according to some), because we used the rationale that he was the lesser of the 2 evils (Iraq Vs. Iran).

I hate seeing one group say that Bush is the root of all that is Evil and Wrong with the world, regardless of who commits the crimes. I hate seeing the Right blame everything that has occurred up to and including 9/11 on the Clinton Administration.

Regardless of all that has been said, the main thing that has been constantly placed on the wayside,all in the name of who won or lost the last election and the bad feelings that followed, is the fact that Militant Islamafascism, is evil. I didn't say Islam, I said Islamafascism and the horrific ilk that it spawns. Only they are to blame for what they have brought down upon themselves and their children.

I watched CNN the other day, and saw a Palestinian say " Our Children were born to be Martyrs". Here's to hoping he doesn't get his wish. Sadly however, I see that as inevitable.

Unfortunately, in the Middle East diplomacy is viewed as a weakness. Only brute force is accepted as Strength. Here's to hoping democracy gains a foothold.

God Bless America and her Sons and Daughters abroad, and may those who seek her destruction come to a painful demise.

If you don't like our President, Democratic, Republican or whatever is left(Shivers..no pun intended).."Tough dookey". They are still Our President, and I'm gonna support them 100% when it comes to defending our Homeland and supporting our Sons and daughters abroad.

If thats not good enough, well, In the proverbial words of Monty Python's Frenchman " I flaunt my genitals in your generale directionne!!"

As for France , well..we'll have to wait and see how this so-called "Oil for Food" probe pans out.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 8:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
There are but two classes of people: those who are afraid to seek the truth; and those who MUST know it, no matter how contrary to established ideas it may be, and no matter how fearsome.

I think I'll steer clear of the political discussion. I'd just like to add some categories of people to the above.

There are those that will passively acquire knowledge.

There are those that will seek knowledge from time to time, but, no constant thirst.

Just saying that there are areas of grey when it comes to pretty much everything. The world is very rarely black and white.

----
"Hello, my name is SigmaNunki and I'm addicted to

s"
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE