- #1
Zantra
- 793
- 3
Anyone care to argue against the obviousness of this? Aside from hunting down Al Queda after 9-11, what has he done for the country?
Originally posted by RageSk8
He believes that God placed him in power to fight evil... Who is going to argue with God?
With a pretzel?Originally posted by renedox
I see, so, how is going to fight himself? :P
Originally posted by RageSk8
He believes that God placed him in power to fight evil... Who is going to argue with God?
He hasn't had oral sex with an intern,
Who is going to argue with God?
Originally posted by megashawn
The only thing Clinton did wrong was get caught.
But we can't blame it all on bush. How about the people who voted for him. Of course, you can't help but wonder what kind of disaster Gore would have left us with after 911.
.
Poor guy.Originally posted by Zero
He hasn't had oral sex with an intern
Could you clarify please? Do you think there would have been a reasonable chance of Gore preventing 9/11? Like what kind of odds are we talking about?Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Assuming 911 would have happened if Gore was president. A lot of people had to screw up to allow 9-11 to happen.
Anyway, 2 positives I see from Bush: fighting terrorism, helping the economy recover. These two are of course the major issues.
erm, japan, germany and nazi were all nouns, for that matter even Hitler was a noun...Are you sure that's what you meant to say?Originally posted by Zero
when you declare 'war' on nouns, you are doomed to failure.
I think you know exactly what I mean. Declaring war on a country is one thing. Declaring war on a concept, and then treating it like it is a war against a country, is f***ing lunacy! Honestly, this whole 'war on terror' is 1)overblown, 2) doomed to fail, 3)bound to cause more harm than good, 4)trade liberty for 'safety', and we won't even get safety. Terrorism isn't as much of a threat to America as the 'war on terror' is. What a joke, the idea disgusts me on an intellectual as well as emotional level.Originally posted by kat
erm, japan, germany and nazi were all nouns, for that matter even Hitler was a noun...Are you sure that's what you meant to say?
By this I simply meant that if you ask people after an election to give the main reason they voted for/against a candidate, the vast, vast majority will cite one of these two. I didn't mean to imply that there aren't other problems in this country.Originally posted by RageSk8
I agree that fighting terrorism and helping the economy recover are major issues, they just are not the only major issues (health care, the environment, and civil liberties are all also major issues).
I don't disagree with him often, but on this one I do (its a popular article and I've read it and seen it cited before). The super-rich are an entity all to themselves for whom the normal rules of economics no longer apply and they are a small entity. So using himself as an example doesn't mean much of anything to the rest of us.To quote the billionaire Warren Buffet:
Such as "the war to make the world safe for democracy"? 10 points to the first who knows which war that was.Declaring war on a concept, and then treating it like it is a war against a country, is f***ing lunacy!
Anyway, 2 positives I see from Bush: fighting terrorism, helping the economy recover. These two are of course the major issues.
Gotta love a country where someone who owns a computer can still consider him/herself to be in the lower class. In many countries, the definition of "middle class" is "not starving to death."Originally posted by megashawn
Well, I'm probably considered middle or low class.
Gotta love a country where someone who owns a computer can still consider him/herself to be in the lower class. In many countries, the definition of "middle class" is "not starving to death."
The super-rich are an entity all to themselves for whom the normal rules of economics no longer apply and they are a small entity. So using himself as an example doesn't mean much of anything to the rest of us.
WWI...Woodrow Wilson said it in 1917 or 1919. You know, back when wars were actually wars, and not the new type of insanity we have now.Originally posted by russ_watters
Such as "the war to make the world safe for democracy"? 10 points to the first who knows which war that was.
Gotta love a country where someone who owns a computer can still consider him/herself to be in the lower class. In many countries, the definition of "middle class" is "not starving to death."
Well, I'm sorry to inform you Rage that apparentlyOriginally posted by RageSk8
The Bush administration puts far too much emphasis on states - this became all too apparent with his war on Iraq. From the article I posted in the thread “Great Article Detailing the Bush Administration's Failures in Intelligence”: By early March, 2002, a former White House official told me, it was understood by many in the White House that the President had decided, in his own mind, to go to war. The undeclared decision had a devastating impact on the continuing struggle against terrorism. The Bush Administration took many intelligence operations that had been aimed at Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups around the world and redirected them to the Persian Gulf. Linguists and special operatives were abruptly reassigned, and several ongoing anti-terrorism intelligence programs were curtailed. The war on Iraq has taken valuable resources away from the war on terrorism.
Well, I'm sorry to inform you Rage that apparently your knowledge about terrorism is quite insufficient. The Persian Gulf and the middle east ARE the sources of terrorism. There you find the source, means and motives of almost all terrorist activity on the planet. It is foolish and pointless to try and chase every suspect in every country when these middle eastern sources will just send many more instead and give them even more money and weapons. The only way to get rid of terrorism is to destroy the systems that promote it - not just terrorist organizations but the regimes and their rethoric in the countries where these organizations are really located and where they are formed and receive support in all possible ways.
Terrorists do not need a sympathetic government to opperate, so overthrouging even the most sympathetic to terrorists does little good.
I also built my computer. That doesn't change the point: we both have computers. I frankly don't believe that you went hungry to buy your computer. Eating is more important than owning a computer and you can get used/refirbished parts to build a functional computer for much much less.Originally posted by megashawn
And I really wish something could be done about it. However, I can't help the fact that I was born to an american family, and I therefore am subject to the classes of an american society. Gotta love a forum where a person can say something that is totally off base.
And FYI, I built my computer myself for about $600. I can't afford to buy a Dell, nor would I want to. I had to go hungry for a week after that and skip a car payment.
I'd say that probably qualifies as middle class. Can I ask when the last time you had to go hungry was to get something you wanted?
RageSk8, you mean BESIDES the terrorist camps, terrorist weapons caches, and terrorist's money, right? I'm wondering if terrorism against Israel is down right now even without a truce because it has become less profitable due to the overthrow of Saddam., no links to any terrorist organization has been found
RageSk8, you mean BESIDES the terrorist camps, terrorist weapons caches, and terrorist's money, right? I'm wondering if terrorism against Israel is down right now even without a truce because it has become less profitable due to the overthrow of Saddam.
Ummm...nope, you can't do that, mostly because unless you plan on committing genocide, violence will only beget violence. Plus, you don't see the government rounding up evangelical Christians, since they are the source of almost all domestic terrorism...by your logic, we should open death camps...I mean re-education camps... for the 700 Club viewers.Originally posted by drag
Greetings !
Well, I'm sorry to inform you Rage that apparently
your knowledge about terrorism is quite insufficient.
The Persian Gulf and the middle east ARE the sources
of terrorism. There you find the source, means and motives
of almost all terrorist activity on the planet. It is foolish
and pointless to try and chase every suspect in every country
when these middle eastern sources will just send many more
instead and give them even more money and weapons. The
only way to get rid of terrorism is to destroy the systems
that promote it - not just terrorist organizations but the
regimes and their rethoric in the countries where these
organizations are really located and where they are formed
and receive support in all possible ways.
BTW, Iraq was without a doubt such a country.
There are many more.
Peace and long life.
The 'war on terror' is a front for invading the Middle East, and the Iraq/9-11 link is a game of 'Six Degrees of Saddam'...taking this idea one step further, G.H.W. Bush is responsible for 9-11.Originally posted by RageSk8
I need links. From my knowledge no links between Saddam's government and terrorists has been found (at least al queda).
Uh huh...one more time where he does something stupid, and pretends he actually thought about it first. Oh, he thought long and hard about something...how many votes he would lose if he didn't pander to his "moron" constituency.Originally posted by Njorl
And of course, there's this...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2090244/