There was no personal attack; that is the province of Karl Rove. I said that he lied and that he is an untreated alcholic and suffered brain damage from long term use of drugs and alcohol. All true.
True?? Again, where is your evidence of brain damage? I would like you to refer me to some sort of proof, like a medical report. Or are you just basing this on you own medical expertise and experience?
[/QUOTE]Not everyone said that there were WMDs.[/QUOTE]
John Kerry did. So did Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and a whole list of democrats - in your reasoning, they must be liars too.
You know, you can be wrong without being a liar. There is a distinct difference.
[/QUOTE]The reason that the NeoCons wanted to invade Iraq was to build permanent US bases so that we could control the Middle East. That is exactly what we are doing there. Permanent bases. We're not leaving. Their constitution has been written to allow foreign troops to maintain permanent bases. What is so difficult about this to understand?[/QUOTE]
We still have bases in Germany, Japan and Italy - all enemies during WWII. I guess Roosevelt and Truman wanted control of Europe and Japan for their own political gain. Oh thats right, their democrats, so that couldn't be the case.
[/QUOTE]When our government lies to the people about why we need to go to war, that is treason at the top. We invaded a country that did nothing to us, has never done anything to us, and never was going to do anything to us. That is a war crime.[/QUOTE]
Lie?? WMD was not the only case for war. But liberals like to "overlook" that fact. Again, being wrong does not necissarily make one a liar. You still cannnot prove that Bush lied. Was he wrong - at this point in time the answer is yes. However, that may change with new documents being translated.
[/QUOTE]At the very best we've turned over Iraq to the Committee for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Well done.[/QUOTE]
Very good. I would rather fight the ragheads in Iraq then have to deal with them in America? In fact, if we didn't have a bunch of panty-wearing sissy boys crying everytime we "tortured" some terrorists, we would likely be doing much better in this war. We should torture more of them, and make it know that we will do so if captured. This would deter people from fighting us - who cares what the world thinks about us. They don't like us anyways.
15 years ago, I was stationed in Germany at one of the MANY bases there, since that time most of those bases closed, primarily due to a lack of a NATO threat since the cold war had been over for what... 10-15 years at that time. The Wall had just recently come down. Many of the slavic countries were petitioning for entry into NATO. There was no longer a "need" for those bases and so the troops were redeployed elsewhere.
There are US military bases in Turkey, South Korea, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Italy, and more countries. The fact that there are US bases being built in Iraq and Afghanistan, and others is NOT a surprise, nor is it a SCANDAL. It has been military SOP for decades... Of course flaming liberals will see it that way.
You know Nazi Germany didn't do anything to the US either, so by your reckoning we shouldn't have been involved in WWI (not Nazi) or WWII as they hadn't done anything to the US. The Japanese that attacked Pearl Harbor was an abberation that shouldn't have provoked us either, as there have been dozens of terrorist attacks against US military\bases\enclaves that have gone unresponded to.
Your personal attacks against GWB regarding alcoholism and brain damage just prove what a small minded and mean spirited person you are. Kennedy has long since been an alcoholic and as such uses that as an excuse for the death of a woman that he "barely knew". where is your denigration of him... have you such feeling for all people with substance abouse problems, or do you just reserve them for GWB?
BAH... facts mean nothing liberals spouting hate propoganda. Go on about your day, i'm sure in your rainbow world of fluffy puppies and lollipops and excoriating GWB is the be all and end all of your worlds evils. And in 2 years you'll find a new target for your unrelenting and unreasoning hate. Nancy Pelosi and Hillary will tell you who it is.
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Very good. I would rather fight the ragheads in Iraq then have to deal with them in America? In fact, if we didn't have a bunch of panty-wearing sissy boys crying everytime we "tortured" some terrorists, we would likely be doing much better in this war. We should torture more of them, and make it know that we will do so if captured. This would deter people from fighting us - who cares what the world thinks about us. They don't like us anyways.
but no matter how much we are fighting them over there, bush is leaving the door wide open for them to come into this country to harm us.
bush doesn't want the boarder to close, why because he is representing mexico. big businesses contribute big money to the republicrates.
This is very dangerous, it's like him cutting taxes but allowing spending to get out of hand.
he always seems to do one thing right but then later completely fails at the other end. and that failure at the other end is more destructive to america than the good he does is good for america.
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
My main objection to GWB is his insensitivity to political necessity. Sometimes you have to do things, or do things in a way, that don't match your ideal view of things, simply because there will enough resistance that you will be unable to make any real progress. He ignores the will of the people. He declared the 2004 election a "mandate" even though the margin was thin, and the largest number of voters in American history voted against the incumbent president. People show up to the polls in large numbers when they are unhappy or frightened. And he won on a last-minute campaign centered around scare tactics and homophobia. Not that I think Kerry would have been any better; we really need to start electing people with good qualifications and good, well-based ideas, but most such people are wise enough to stay out of the political mud-pit. I guess you can't win the top office without becoming deeply in debt to special interests or large corporations.
I guess we're a nation of yahoos. He who slings the most poop wins the election.
15 years ago, I was stationed in Germany at one of the MANY bases there, since that time most of those bases closed, primarily due to a lack of a NATO threat since the cold war had been over for what... 10-15 years at that time. The Wall had just recently come down. Many of the slavic countries were petitioning for entry into NATO. There was no longer a "need" for those bases and so the troops were redeployed elsewhere.
There are US military bases in Turkey, South Korea, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Italy, and more countries. The fact that there are US bases being built in Iraq and Afghanistan, and others is NOT a surprise, nor is it a SCANDAL. It has been military SOP for decades... Of course flaming liberals will see it that way.
You know Nazi Germany didn't do anything to the US either, so by your reckoning we shouldn't have been involved in WWI (not Nazi) or WWII as they hadn't done anything to the US. The Japanese that attacked Pearl Harbor was an abberation that shouldn't have provoked us either, as there have been dozens of terrorist attacks against US military\bases\enclaves that have gone unresponded to.
Your personal attacks against GWB regarding alcoholism and brain damage just prove what a small minded and mean spirited person you are. Kennedy has long since been an alcoholic and as such uses that as an excuse for the death of a woman that he "barely knew". where is your denigration of him... have you such feeling for all people with substance abouse problems, or do you just reserve them for GWB?
BAH... facts mean nothing liberals spouting hate propoganda. Go on about your day, i'm sure in your rainbow world of fluffy puppies and lollipops and excoriating GWB is the be all and end all of your worlds evils. And in 2 years you'll find a new target for your unrelenting and unreasoning hate. Nancy Pelosi and Hillary will tell you who it is.
Well, I don't have much time for this so I think I'll drop out. We were lied to by the President but you don't see it that way. Too bad.
The comments on Alcoholism have much to do with friends of mine in 12 step programs who are concerned that a man who is a dry drunk is dangerous. I believe them. Most of the world now thinks that the US is the biggest threat to peace. Under this administration, I agree with them.
For immigration issues, they really ought to increase the fines for employing illegals a hundred-fold.
Illegals come to the US to work (typically) and many industries will 'employ' them while not providing insurance, OSHA regs, holidays, benefits, legal salaries... basically screwing them because it is cheaper to do so than hiring legal workers. Fine the hell out of them and make it too expensive to do business with illegals. The fines can be sent to the state's medicaid program to help defray the cost of health services for these illegals (just a drop in the bucket, but it is better than nothing).
Before people start jumping up to support the poor, helpless, illegal immigrant; you first need to understand WHY there is an immigration policy. WHY it takes a long time to get papers.
Before people start sreaming for a wall to be built, you need to understand how ineffectual it would be. How much it will cost to build, patrol, and maintain. How would the coastline be protected from people going around it on rafts and boats. How many comparisons to the drug trade will need to be made to prove the futility of it. Sure it might discourage the average berry picker, but the ones that REALLY want to cross (like the criminals and potential terrorists) will just turn to the methods of the drug trade.
So if you want to discourage the illegal immigration, you need to eliminate the jobs and eliminate the social services for them.
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Well, I don't have much time for this so I think I'll drop out. We were lied to by the President but you don't see it that way. Too bad.
The comments on Alcoholism have much to do with friends of mine in 12 step programs who are concerned that a man who is a dry drunk is dangerous. I believe them. Most of the world now thinks that the US is the biggest threat to peace. Under this administration, I agree with them.
Yep, it is too much trouble to provide FACTS for your allegations. It is just so much easier to make enciteful and liablous statements and then leave when someone asks you to prove what you say...
run along propogandist...
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Some of these are great issues to debate, but I must agree with those that want proof to back up a claim, that is not well known. Hind sight doesn't count. People please use your best honest, objective, and educated insights when debating anything in politics. We are not a forum of mudslingers. As PDA owners we are actually probably more intelligent then some of the general population, however we should use this intelligence with respect of our fellow people surrounding us. Please do not name call, but battle with facts and evidence.
Yep, it is too much trouble to provide FACTS for your allegations. It is just so much easier to make enciteful and liablous statements and then leave when someone asks you to prove what you say...
run along propogandist...
I'm at work guys. I have a corrupt database on my hands and tonight I have to teach programming. I simply don't have time to do your research. We have a wonderful new tool called Goggle. Start with (for the third time) the Project for a New American Century. That will tell you that the attack on Iraq occurred because it is a first step toward America running the world. Looking at the Downing memos.
You can also read this and other stuff from TruthOut:
I'm at work guys. I have a corrupt database on my hands and tonight I have to teach programming. I simply don't have time to do your research. We have a wonderful new tool called Goggle. Start with (for the third time) the Project for a New American Century. That will tell you that the attack on Iraq occurred because it is a first step toward America running the world. Looking at the Downing memos.
You can also read this and other stuff from TruthOut:
It is your allegations, therefore it is up to you to prove.
Don't get your stories from left wing blogs and OpEds and try to pass it off as factual news...
As far as the Downing street memo goes, it is amazing that no one except for leftie democrats and leftie blogs take it seriously... and it still floats out there pointless, waiting for conspiracy nuts to pounce on it like it means something
If it meant anything, it would be news, CNN would have a 24hr crawler reading it the world. Iran would be reciting it to the UN. Saddam would be reciting it at his trial...
...
British officials have not disputed the authenticity of the document, first published last month by the Times of London.
Blair said Tuesday the memo was written "before we then went to the United Nations" to demand Iraq demonstrate that it had complied with U.N. resolutions mandating its disarmament.
"No one knows more intimately the discussions that we were conducting as two countries at the time than me," he said.
"And the fact is, we decided to go to the United Nations and went through that process, which resulted in the November 2002 United Nations resolution to give a final chance to Saddam Hussein to comply with international law. He didn't do so, and that was the reason why we had to take military action."
After the minutes of the British meeting became public, 89 Democratic members of Congress sent a letter to Bush asking for an explanation. Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has said the White House has not answered the letter.
U.N. weapons inspectors were allowed back into Iraq in November 2002 and stayed in the country until March 17, 2003, when Bush issued an ultimatum to Saddam to leave power within 48 hours or face war.
...
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm at work guys. I have a corrupt database on my hands and tonight I have to teach programming. I simply don't have time to do your research. We have a wonderful new tool called Goggle. Start with (for the third time) the Project for a New American Century. That will tell you that the attack on Iraq occurred because it is a first step toward America running the world. Looking at the Downing memos.
You can also read this and other stuff from TruthOut:
If this is the case, then it must be both a republican and democrat conspiracy to have America running the world. After all, Bush has 2 1/2 more years in office, then a democrat could be elected and I doubt that we are going to take over the world in the time Bush has left. In fact, most believe that the democrats will win the House this November, which will only give the republicans a majority (small majority) in the Senate.
Taking over the world - how ridiculous.
Funny - the great democrats Roosevelt and Truman weren't "taking over the world" when they were setting up bases all over the globe after world war II and "pushing democracy" in Germany, Japan and Italy among other Countries - but Bush is in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They weren't "violating human rights" when the Japanese were put in camps during WWII - but Bush is at Guantanamo Bay.
John F. Kennedy wasn't "domestically spying" when he was wiretapping Martin Luther King Jr's phone - but Bush is when the CIA is listening in on terrorists, one of whom is outside the USA.
The republican "culture of corruption"?? - sure some republicans have been cited for being corrupt, as well they should have been. I don't want any corrupt politicans, regardless of party. But more democrats than republicans have been investigated and found guilty of ethics violations over the past 40 years, but you don't hear about that (whisper).
When democrats do something, they get a pass. However, when republicans do the same thing outrage ensues in the main stream media.
I agree that congress controls the spending, the president can only ask for money, he usually can't demand it. He asked for strong cuts, most were denied.
I believe the largest problem with politics in American society is the media. They are not objective, they try to pull their weight, and I am about sick of any news program out there.
Another issue I have are people who don't support the troops. I didn't say they had to support the war, but these young people die so others can complain. They are the ones that make a difference in the world, yet people protest them at funerals, spit on them, and have no appreciation. I could rant on, but I am not allowed to.
I rest with saying, if you are trying to become a citizen legally, I welcome you, if not get out of our country!
We are all americans first forget this democrat vs repulican mumbo jumbo its counter productive. They both pretty much pull the same crap. The average joe doesnt get any benefits from either its the corporations that benefit depending on if they can get "their" guy in office. What we need is some real competition to run against the current politicians who have the government already sewed up. As long as there is just the dems and reps it wont be any different than it already is because they still work together in the whitehouse and are basically taking turns running the country to make it look like there is no monopoly in government. My basic living situation hasnt really been greater or lesser no matter who was in office. Americans need to quit infighting and try to work together for a change to make things better for us all.
I agree that congress controls the spending, the president can only ask for money, he usually can't demand it. He asked for strong cuts, most were denied.
I believe the largest problem with politics in American society is the media. They are not objective, they try to pull their weight, and I am about sick of any news program out there.
Another issue I have are people who don't support the troops. I didn't say they had to support the war, but these young people die so others can complain. They are the ones that make a difference in the world, yet people protest them at funerals, spit on them, and have no appreciation. I could rant on, but I am not allowed to.
I rest with saying, if you are trying to become a citizen legally, I welcome you, if not get out of our country!
The only people protesting at funerals are from that group that pickets because gays aren't strung up in this country. I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't support our troops. Often that comment is meant to impune the patriotism of those of us protesting the corporate agenda of our government. I have no problem with our soldiers and didn't during or after Vietnam.
illegals. what are you talking about its a tough issue. Who is the president of the USA suppose to represent? American's or mexicans? the president is representing illegal aliens who break the law. They cross the boarder illegally, the break the law by staying here,
So that is exactly, what the US Army is doing in Iraq: They are illegal there. They broke international law. They crossed the boarder illegally.
Don't you see why no one in the world has any respect for a nation, that breaks every international law made since the middle ages?
You cant point on others breaking the law while doing it by yourself.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
