Havoc Stryphe Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 You know what the cruel irony is here? If Bush had only continued to hunt terrorist pockets within Afghanistan and Pakistan, and ignored Suddam Hussein and Iraq, and in five years, God forbid, a nuclear bomb within a truck goes of in downtown New York City, killing 3/4 of the city's population, and it came out later, in the press, that President Bush and his advisors were aware of Iraq researching nuclear capabilities and having ties to Al-queda, but did nothing. These same people would be calling Bush a moron, because he knew about the possibility but did nothing to stop Millions from being killed! The fact remains that you are complaining just to complain. And by the way, great speeches do not make a man great. Hitler was a great orator and gave very compelling and stirring speeches. Likewise, just because a man does not verbalize well, in no way makes that man any less intelligent. Stephan Hawkings does not speak well at all, but he is a genius without compare. Does Bush make stirring speeches that move the soul and demand there place within history.... no. But then again, that is Bush's appeal. He's not a "smooth talker". He is a just a man, trying to do a job. And as I stated earlier, since he is a mere mortal, he is subject to failure and mistakes. Unfortunately, he is not perfect like some of you apparently are. He is foremost a man, a husband, and a father doing a job, just like some of you have jobs. He does it the best he can. "How do I know that?", because the whole world is watching him, and he still has another term to run for. Believe me, he's doing the very best he can! To call him a moron, is immature at best. Has he made mistakes, yes, but which of you are without blame? Let him throw the first stone! You decide what to wear today, which class to blow off, and maybe on a tough day, where to go to college, or if you should propose to your girlfriend. Whereas Bush has to decide where the nations 3 trillion dollars should go, what nation poses more of a threat, how to console 5,000 families have lost love ones, and if he should endanger the lives of thousands of soldiers in war. All of those with the hot limelight of the media bearing down on you, and the whole world waiting on your every word. You come to me and tell me when you have room to speak that way to any man in that office, and I'll call you a liar. No man deserves being called a moron. Much less one who is bearing the burdens that man does. You are selfish, thoughtless, and heartless individuals to pick on a man at such a time in his career as this. It makes me sick to think you are our next generation of congressmen, lawyers, businessmen and, yes, even president. You don't agree with Bush, fine, but state your reasons without calling the man a moron, stupid, or an ass. That would denote some human decency and some intelligence. *Note this is aimed at those who refuse to state their differing opinions without making reference to Bush being an idiot, a moron, stupid, and ass etc... If you have stated you reasons without resorting to using those terms. I applaud you and respect you... Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surfnshannon Posted February 5, 2003 Author Share Posted February 5, 2003 sorry I just wanted to put this in here.... State of the Union Address....what Bush really meant to say (PS Its just a JOKE people..some of the stuff I agree with but take it as a joke and don't take it to heart!!!!) Here it is: Mr. President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Banana Republican Senators, Banana Republican Congressmen, Colluders in the Supreme Court, and all others involved in this grand betrayal of the nation, the state of the union is strong! When I say union, I don't mean the country, I mean the unholy union of the ultra-rich, religious conservative extremists, gun nuts, racists and of course war mongers! An' what I mean by the union bein' strong is that we now have control of everything! Tonight, I am goin' to address the 'conomy, some health care stuff, and of course my favorite, a brand new war! But first, I feel we should look back at some of our accomplishments of the past year. We drove the economy into a tailspin, an' since I took office, we have eliminated over two million jobs! We were able to steal another election, an' this time, we didn't even have to go to the Supreme Court. We kept up the pretense of searchin' for Usama bin Laden, so we were able to keep that war goin' an' any time someone questioned it, we called 'em a terra'ist. We have almost completely eliminated The Constitution, doin' away with due process, equal protection, and the presumption of innocence. Now, if ASSCROFT says you're guilty, you are goin' to rot in jail for a good long time! We have been able to completely hamstring the EPA so that corporate pollution is now a right, rather than a privilege. We got that Fatherland Security thing goin' an' now when terra'ists strike, we will have an entirely new bureaucracy to blame! We got away with a deficit budget proposal, because "the era of responsible government is over." And of course, we had that Trent Lott thing where he exposed our racist agenda by talkin' without usin' the code words. But all of this is in the past and now I have some important new proposals for you. While the economy is sinkin' further every day it has become obvious that some millionaires are not gettin' their fair share of American tax dollars. Some of these folks paid a whole lot of money to git me into office so I have to help 'em. And that is why I am proposin' a bold new program to make sure that we leave no millionaire behind. It will be called the Standard Compulsory Reimbursement of the Extremely Wealthy (SCREW). From now on, whenever a tax dollar is paid by an individual, we will skim off the defense portion, and then before any money goes into the Treasury for any program which might benefit middle class or poor people, we will invite the wealthy to jes' take what they want. Whatever is left over will be more than taxpayers deserve anyway. The economics of this plan are very simple. For example, If we gave a tax break to the middle class, they would all jes' spend it on frivolities like food, clothing, shelter or durable goods. Now, that would help some of the wealthy, but the indirect nature of that type of spendin' might leave some of 'em behind. So, instead, they will be able to ignore the state of the 'conomy and jes' enjoy a generous handout from the gov'ment without all that stress over growth or stock prices or fairness. On the health care issue, all I can say is Americans shouldn't be gettin' sick in the first place. Sick people have caused a huge rift between two groups of very wealthy people, an' they ought to be ashamed of themselves! Doctors should not have to be held accountable for their wrongdoin' any more than oil company executives, defense contractors or drug manufacturers. An' that's not even the half of it! The poor insurance companies are havin' to pay out more an' more money jes' to cover medical expenses! Then, when someone sues for malpractice, they see a direct impact on their bottom line. So, I am proposin' another bold new plan to solve this dilemma right away. This new plan is called the Stonewall Coalition Against Malpractice Suits (SCAMS) and it will completely eliminate the tension between my contributors. Americans will continue to pay their insurance premiums, no matter how much they are. Then, if they git sick, they will pay an extra fee to make sure that the insurors are not required to pay out anythin'. If a patient dies as a result of some medical accident, he will not be able to sue unless he is able to appear in court. This is only fair because otherwise, there might be some accountability, which as everyone must know, costs money! I'll huff an' I'll puff an' I'll blow your house away! And finally, the one and only thing I really care about, that Iraq thing. Now we all know Hussein is a bad guy, an' even though he doesn't have any weapons of mass combustion, we never have to let up because you can't prove a negative. Every single day that the inspectors find nothin' is another day we can say the inspections are not workin'. However, time is runnin' out. We can't really be expected to keep a force of two hundred thousand troops over there forever without doin' somethin'. So you know we're goin' in. But we have heard that there might be some plan to retaliate against our unilateral invasion. The rumor is that they may be plannin' to destroy their own oil fields when we attack. Well, my fellow wealthy Americans, we will not let that happen! We believe in the Sanctity of Oil, and if we have to, we will not hesitate to kill every last man, woman and child in Iraq to protect it. So you can rest assured that oil proifts will go on. You can tell that I have spent the year workin' really hard and now that we have a rubber stamp Congress and a corrupt Supreme Court, we can tie up all the loose ends! So, whatever it is you want, jes' send your requests along with a healthy campaign contribution, an' you can count on me to git it done! God bless the Fatherland, and remember, we will leave no millionaire behind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SE_Vader_536 Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 you so sure about that? go check out the war projection that is 99.999999999% correct about "gulf war 2" (AKA World War 2.5)! Its at http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml if you see this you will never want war with Iraq again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by Havoc Stryphe ... that President Bush and his advisors were aware of Iraq researching nuclear capabilities... Right now there is no public evidence that this is the case. Last year the President brought up a report about this as evidence that Iraq was in the process of putting a nuke program together. Problem is, there was no such report. The IAEA responded that not only was there no new report, "there's never been a report" asserting that Iraq was six months away from constructing a nuclear weapon -- not in 1998, not in 1991. White House deputy press secretary Scott McClellan evidently didn't persue his Nexis search far enough to find Andrew Rosenthal's front-page analysis in the Sept. 26, 1991, New York Times stating that "American officials, including Gen. Colin L. Powell . . . acknowledged . . . that [iraq's nuclear threat] is not any real threat -- in the short term or even medium term." Quote taken from http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1028-09.htm Same goes for the high-strength aluminum tubes that Iraq has supposedly imported... they don't have evidence that they exist, or ever existed. Even the UN nuke experts came to the conculsion that they couldn't pin down this type of program on Saddam. This is not to say he ISN"T doing it, and that there isn't some classified non-public evidence about it, but right now all the evidence that has been presented to the public about Iraq trying to put together a nuclear program have been less than totally factual. There's enough other evidence to pin on him, but I guess as far as threats go, nukes are just more scary to most people. The biggest problem I have with this issue is with the way the administration has made the case for going to war. I have no love for Saddam and I do believe he should be removed from power, but in my mind (and in the minds of many others I know) the administration just seems WAY too eager to do this. Like they're ITCHIN' for war. Colin Powell is about the only one in the administration I currently respect on this issue since it seems he has taken the stance of "We probably will have to do this,.. but if there's any other way than putting our kids on the line..." If Bush and Rumsfeld had taken this attitude from the start I most likely wouldn't be questioning the motivations behind this invasion. Instead it seems (to me) like it's a personal vendetta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surfnshannon Posted February 5, 2003 Author Share Posted February 5, 2003 Actually on cnn it was stating that they were not going to go in there to remove saddam...merely to disarm him. I am very anctious (sp) to watch collin powells presentation (I think it started now). I want to see his evidence presented. I think that this is very important for our nation to see. I want to see with my own eyes that this war is justifiable. I don't just like taking somebody's word for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 I think we all know that if our armed forces set one foot on Iraq territory this time that they won't stop until Saddam is out of power at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Opinions on NK: 1) U know they got nukes 2) Nukes can't reach America anyhow unless N. Korea conquered the Pacific. 3) U devided Korea in the first place, so I don't know if u'de be suprised if it happens 4) Every nation know if they use nukes they will be destroyed in some way or another. Korea has a long history of civilisation. They aren't that stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SE_Vader_536 Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 and neither are the Iraqies going to be stupid. They go back to Babylonia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSteve-O Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 hey im a die hard republican and i support bush 100%. now honestly, does anyone actually think saddam doesn't have nukes? i mean for cryin out load, the guys a maniac! hes gotta be stopped, it doesn't matter how, but that dude's gotta be killed, or something. at least disarmed, with the un is NOT DOING A VERY GOOD JOB OF i might add. so war may be necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SE_Vader_536 Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 stupid republicans... well anyway people go see the war simulation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havoc Stryphe Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by SE_Vader_536 stupid republicans... well anyway people go see the war simulation... Did you even read my ealier posts? It's posts like the above that are why debates seemingly always break down into flame wars. Wide generalizations referring to people on a substandard level, i.e. "stupid" without even an arguement or list of reasons or facts to support your insults. Bear in mind, I'm not saying your opinion can't differ from others, just that you should state that difference without resorting to name calling and comments about the other camp's intelligence or lack thereof. Please use consideration for others that may be grouped into your stereotype that aren't even taking part in this debate and in no way deserve such an abrasive comment. Again, I reiterate, some of you are seemingly thoughtless and out right insensitive to the nature of this debate and all it entails. This argument runs deeper than many of you seem to realize and you are only serving to display your lack of human decency and compassion with your thoughtless and debasing comments. In other words, think before you type... please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Rhett Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Careful what ya say, SE_Vader_536. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mex Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Its times when I see some threads are funny, and god damn is this thread funny. It's really funny what BigSteve-O said "the guys a maniac! hes gotta be stopped, it doesn't matter how, but that dude's gotta be killed" Sorry if this offends you Steve, I just find it funny. Since I have nothing really important say, i'll buggar off back to the Grim Forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Yes, yes, listen to Havoc, you must. He is precisely right about why debates break down. At the core of any debate is knowledge and understanding. When that goes wayside because either people simply never understood, their arguments get run over, or whatever it is, that signals the end of intelligent and interesting coversation and the beginning of mindless bashing. So please, if you don't have anything else intelligent or pertinent to say, don't say anything at all. and hopefully we can keep this debate from having the exact same thing that happens to nearly all debates happen to it. Oh, and Vader, making your decision and asking us to do the same based on some cartoon some flaming liberal made in his copious free time is completely ludicrous. Why don't you actually think for yourself and this for once and realize what's actually going on? Oh, and to those who say Bush is itching for war, and its a personal vendetta are just plain wrong. The reason Bush is pushing so hard is because he knows that the longer people stall this operation the more time people have to think about whether they care about Saddam. Its sad, but public interest is lost on about absolutely anything, however important, over time. And if that happens and we no longer have any support to go to war, that gives Saddam even more time to prepare his WMDs and prepare for any invasion we might attempt, which ultimately translates into more American casualties on the battlefront as well as in our cities. The reason Bush wants to act now is because we have a window of opportunity, and it is quickly closing. If we do not strike now, Saddam and his terrorist henchmen may attack first, and then we wouldn't even be arguing this at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 may attack first, and then we wouldn't even be arguing this at all. Precisely. And the mere possibility of it calls for some sort of action. Need not be full scale war, but if all the anti-wars have a different course of action that they think is better, i'm sure people would be glad to read their suggestions. I personally, don't have any better suggestsions, and so I don't undermine Bush and what he is doing. All the rallies repudiate war, but suggest no alternative. What's a man to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishflesh Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 stupid USA thay alwas show it from 1 side you never get to see the side of iraq on tv there if bush wants to clean the world of bad pepole he must start with wasintion DC and himself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havoc Stryphe Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by NL_Ackbar stupid USA OMG I don't know if I can even dignify this with a response, just 3 posts below the whole "stupid" discussion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Yes, "stupid USA" is a little, how should I say, flammable (?) But he does have a point about TV bieng baised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Well, it's not like the US is trying to demolish Iraq. They only want Saddam and his henchman. And I think it's pretty common knowledge that the Iraqis are living in fear and not in patriotism. Maybe that's also a biased view. Saddam isn't really the best of people/leaders. The best response, i can think of, to Ackbar's post is "stupid ackbar":o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havoc Stryphe Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3 But he does have a point about TV bieng baised. Yeah, but don't people realize that their credibility is severely damgaed after making such an abrasive generalization. They might have a valid argument, but no one see's it, all they see is the glaring insult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Rhett Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Come on people, this was going relatively fine. Don't, "spit in the soup" by making those little comments that neither further your cause or add anything to the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SE_Vader_536 Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 sorta like what you just said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Rhett Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 You don't want to be a member of these forums for very long, do you? Your less than elegant "posts" made it necessary for me to post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by BigSteve-O now honestly, does anyone actually think saddam doesn't have nukes? i mean for cryin out load, the guys a maniac! I have heard a lot of people yelling on about Saddam being a madman and maniac. But why? What has he done that classifies him as a madman? Just wondering. All the rallies repudiate war, but suggest no alternative. What's a man to do? Well, there are many alternatives: 1. Encourage the people to (peacefully) overthrow Saddam. 2. Put pressure on Iraq by strongly increasing inspections and such. 3. Leave him alone, let him die of old age and then try to help Iraq getting a democracy. And a lot more. Quite frankly, Eagle, i consider most, if not all, media sources to be completely biased and i can see it in nearly everything they do. TIME, though i don't read it often, has the same left-wing biased, and it blatently obvious simply in some of the titles and sub titles they put on. Propaganda at its finest, if you ask me. Everything has a twist, and polls aren't of everyone in the nation, only a small portion of people. Quite Frankly, i could call a thousand people 4 times and get 4 different results. Polls are what you make them, espescially if you're the only making the poll. In nearly all polls i've seen, even those by liberal media sources (though they normally don't show them if they are for war), there is a majority for the war, by varying degrees of course. Oh, so all that does not agree with your opinions is nothing but propaganda? Jeez... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn Oh, so all that does not agree with your opinions is nothing but propaganda? Jeez... No, i'll admit that some conservative shows border on propaganda, but its not nearly as blatent as the liberal media, which is by far the more dominant media group. For instance, i can see that say...Rush Limbaugh has a definate conservative focus, but at least he always presents only the facts and his views on them. The liberal media manipulates practically every political issue it airs, and the ones it can't it simply ignores. I've watched world news tonight, CNN, and other similar shows enough to see that. If you can't, then it's only because you want to here the propaganda. The liberal media is trying to present the news in a liberal way, therefore it is propaganda by its very definition. Propaganda: The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. I rest my case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.